For a little while

They might be more skilled at something, in a way you should respect to accomplish things. They may have power over you, such that you need to listen to them to avoid pain. They may be someone you look up to, because they're accomplished in some way.

But fundamentally everyone you could ever meet, from presidents to scientists to writers to elders, should be treated no better than, say, your buddy Kev. They don't need deference Just Because, they aren't inherently smarter on axes you haven't seen evidence for, and they do not deserve or require Respect in some amorphous fashion.

When I'm lucid dreaming, I'm aware that it's a dream. If nothing is going wrong, I can take a backseat and go through the dream like normal. I can make changes to some degree, but this isn't Inception or anything, I don't get to pick the movie I'm watching, and the control over what is going on is limited. But the important factor is that since I know it's a dream, if something is going on I don't like, I can just go hey I don't like this time to wake up, and wake up.

There are two annoying things about lucid dreaming.

The first is that I am KEENLY aware that there are parts of my brain function that aren't Me. They're not actively controlled by me. Everyone, I think, kinda knows this? Like, your brain does autonomous functions like beating your heart and interpreting light signals to allow you to see and basically keeping you functioning. It also just does some shit when it comes to dreaming. 99.99999999% of people out there cannot go "hm I think I'll dream of X tonight" and then have that flawlessly and in perfect clarity happen with no additions or alterations or anything. Most people that even remember their dreams at all in the first place are sitting down in Sleep Theater with no idea what movie is about to play on the big screen for them tonight. The problem with lucid dreaming is that you are (or at least I am) acutely aware that this is happening as it is happening.

And that part of my brain that does functions on its own is really fucking determined to both communicate to me AND obfuscate my awareness of the dream state. Although it does this in other ways (like slapping weird sounds from real life into my dreams so I don't wake up), it does this MOSTLY when I have to use the bathroom toward morning. I'll just start looking for a bathroom in my dream, until I stop and go WAIT I AM DREAMING and wake up. But it tries REALLY REALLY HARD to convince me that's not the case, because I should be sleeping. So sometimes it gets REALLY realistic in there, and it does that by fucking up my dream senses into feeling very real.

I have a friend I know from when we were both 6. She is the only person living nearby and so she saw me go from walking through limping to wheelchair on a daily basis. I keep her updated on my health even tho we rarely hang out anymore. She was gonna come over yesterday and I had to cancel. She asked if I can’t hang out later that day. When I said i won’t feel better later, that if I feel that bad in the morning later will only get worse she got annoyed and “joked” that I’m just finding excuses. And I was surprised, she knows all about me being disabled after all? So, a bit taken aback, I told her it’s a normal thing for me.

“But you got the diagnosis now, aren’t you better?? I thought you’ll get better now”

HELLO you are asking questions that literature and poetry THROUGHOUT the middle ages has asked, and it is from this questioning that we derive things like the Codes of Chivalry (which is not "how to treat a noble lady really nice" but is actually "how to be an ethical person when you're rich and you own a horse" and includes such things as "don't run people over with your horse")

In fact I daresay you already know instinctively just from cultural osmosis what a good boss -- a good liege lord -- is and does based on the tropes that have survived to the current day and the kinds of things that get Hugely Praised in things like legends of King Arthur.

A good boss (liege lord) is:

Merciful. He is not having his peasants killed for things like poaching rabbits during a famine. In fact, he is working to mitigate famine. During times of individual hardship, he might negotiate with a peasant for a payment plan on their annual rent.

Patient. He is not impulsive, he does not lose his temper.

Prudent. He makes choices that are thoughtful, considered, conservative (in the sense of not needlessly risky--he's not investing his entire fortune in having everyone plant an unproven crop). He is making sure local infrastructure like roads and public buildings are maintained and kept in good nick.

Gentle. He doesn't haul off and slap a servant or a tenant for breaking a dish or making a mistake. He doesn't abuse animals, his wife or children, or his employees. He doesn't rape the servants.

Generous (both in money and in spirit). He is not extorting the peasants for an amount of rent that is beyond their means, he is not raising taxes every year to cover his own lavish lifestyle. He is paying his servants a living wage (or, if wages are low, he's giving them room/board/clothing to make up the difference). If someone in a tenant's family dies, the lord is sending a gift of condolence, or helping to pay for the funeral, or possibly even ATTENDING the funeral and speaking a few kind words about the deceased, ESPECIALLY if they were a really upstanding and important member of the community. If one of his tenants is gravely sick, the lord is sending a basket of food or paying for a doctor. He is giving charitably (generally this will be, like, a bequest to the church so that they can run a hospital or an orphanage or a school for the local village children).

Pious. This classically means "goes to church, submits with humility to God" but to me this quality is subtextually standing in for "maintaining an ongoing sense of Perspective that HE'S not god, that there are higher powers he is Accountable to, that he too can be Judged, etc, so that he doesn't end up going on a weird fucked up power trip"

Humble. One of the most admiring things you hear about a lord doing in literature and epic poetry is, "He ate off of wooden plates while his followers ate off of gold and silver." Humility isn't about being meek, it's just about not thinking so much of yourself that you turn your nose up and sneer at what "lesser" people do. In other words: Don't be a fucking diva. If your carriage gets stuck in the mud, climb out and help everybody else push, you're not gonna die from getting mud on your shoes.

Condescending. This word has changed wildly in meaning/tone over the last couple centuries -- it's now a rude thing to do (because we've done away with legal social hierarchies, so someone acting like they're lowering themselves to your level IS insulting), but in older times, a high-ranking person "condescending" to a servant was worthy of praise and admiration: it means they were setting aside rank and privilege to speak to them with the easygoing, friendly respect and compassion they'd give a peer. This is things like... Treats those beneath him with courtesy and respect (ie: listens soberly and attentively when one of his servants or tenants comes to complain about a problem). Having a sense of humor and kindness about it when the lord and a servant both come around a corner at the same time and run into each other and the servant gets knocked to the ground and starts babbling apologies--the condescending (positive) lord helps them to their feet with his own hands and cracks a joke to show them that it's ok (as opposed to just walking off without a word or insulting/scolding them). This is also things like trusting a farmer, woodcutter, or artisan to speak with expertise about their own livelihood and taking their advice into consideration if they tell the lord that one of his ideas won't work.

Good boundaries. The ethical liege lord knows that it's normal for the staff to probably be softly bitching about him in private (even with a really good boss, we all grumble from time to time). He's not eavesdropping on them, he's not going into the staff areas where they should reasonably expect to have a degree of privacy, etc.

Righteous and protective of "the weak". The "weak" here doesn't necessarily mean physically weak, this is often used in the sense of someone politically or socially weak, aka The Marginalized -- the poor, the disabled, women, children, the elderly, etc. If a lord sees someone like this being mistreated or abused, he's supposed to step in and put a stop to that.

Committed to reciprocity. In a highly hierarchical system like feudalism, every person (from the lowest peasant all the way up to the crown prince) legally OWES their liege lord certain things (taxes, labor, service, loyalty, etc). A good liege remembers and takes very seriously the idea that this should be a balanced and reciprocal relationship -- in other words, he owes something BACK. Feudalism is modeled very strongly on the family system: If children owe their parents obedience and service, then parents owe their children care and protection. This still applies when the "child" is a farmer and the "parent" is a local baron. Or when the "child" is a duke and the "parent" is the king.

Basically, we get so caught up in the aesthetics of nobility that we forget that it literally is a managerial position that comes with responsibilities that were... very similar back in the day to the same ones we have now. Humans have not changed all that much. At the end of the day, a really good boss in the 1400s versus in one from the 2020s displays most of the same qualities of personality, even if the details of execution are different.

The next question is, of course, "well, but this theoretical liege lord is HIGHLY idealized -- how often did that actually HAPPEN? Wasn't it more likely that everyone was exploited all the time?" and to that I say: Well, maybe. But again, I don't think humans have changed all that much. Just like the bosses of today, there's a SPECTRUM: A really really good boss is rare and precious and one that you tell stories about for years after you've left that job, but a truly, genuinely, homicidally nightmarish boss is also pretty rare. Most bosses are sort of meh -- they have their good moments, they have their shitty moments, but they're tolerable and you can get along with them well enough to do your job, and then you roll your eyes at them behind their back. Generally, humans don't take outright exploitation lying down. Being a bad boss in the historical period is how you get peasant uprisings and revolts, and you know that to be true because your parents raised you with that knowledge, so unless you are very stupid or inbred or an egomaniac, there is literal personal incentive to at minimum be a Tolerable liege lord. And that means hitting at least SOME of the above bullet points.

TL;DR: In the words of Honore de Balzac, "Everything I have just told you can be summarized by an old word: noblesse oblige!"

me: sweet hit me with the good stuff

media: so there's this marginalized underclass of people, right?

me: okay

media: and they're like, stigmatized for something that's mostly an aspect of how they are born, or where they're from, or they're badly misunderstood, right?

me: yup, got it, I'm with ya

media: so these people are rebelling against the current social order, because it's the instrument of their suffering

me: oh good great sure

media: but also they're violent and deranged and need to be stopped

me: ...what

media: yeah they're going too far, they're trying to overthrow the system and assassinate the nice cop trying to help them and also they burned down an orphanage

me: ...why? would they burn down an orphanage??

media: extremism is bad

me: still not seeing what this has to do with their fight though???

media: also now they've shot a dog. oops they shot another dog

me: what?! why? I though their motive was to overthrow oppression??

media: yes but their suffering has also made them evil

me: ...???

media: don't worry though, the good guys will defeat them and restore the status quo

me: the status quo that's been killing people?

media: well it turns out it was only killing the kinds of awful people who burn down orphanages and shoot dogs :)

me: oh. this is actually a pro-authoritarian story, isn't it?

Yep!

Peafowl - all sexes and ages included

Peacocks - adult males

Peahens - adult females

Peachicks - all sexes under "yearling" age (this DOES NOT necessarly mean 1 year old)

Yearling - (Northern Hemisphere) A juvenile peafowl who has passed their first January 1st, but not their second January 1st. (Southern Hemisphere) A juvenile peafowl during their first breeding season year after their hatch year.

2yo - (Northern Hemisphere) A juvenile peafowl who has passed their second January 1st, but not their third January 1st. (Southern Hemisphere) A juvenile peafowl during their second breeding season year after their hatch year.

Mature peafowl - Any breeding-age peafowl past their third January 1st and/or experiencing their third full breeding season after their hatch year. Peacocks must have a full train, peahens must be laying.

There's also some other fun terms

Spalding - A hybrid peafowl with lineage from Pavo cristatus and Pavo muticus. Any percentage of mixed blood is considered a Spalding. There are actually VERY few known pure blooded individuals from either species in the USA anymore. Most "Indian blue" peafowl you see are actually low percentage hybrids.

A "Bevy" is a family group of peafowl, blood related.

A "Party" is a group of peafowl (some people now use other terms, such as ostentation or muster, but Party is actually the correct term), not necessarily blood related.

1. Lots of people have one but you don't really think about it until they start talking about making waffles and you're like "oh shit they have a waffle maker"

2. Messy as fuck and you know what as far as I see it why even bother when you have pancakes, you don't need to bother with all those fluids and crevices with pancakes

3. WHY DOES EVERYONE AT THE WEDDING THINK YOU NEED ONE

4. Theoretically implied fun with whipped cream until it melts and starts soaking into shit

5. If you don't prep ur surfaces ur gonna have a bad time

6. It's fun in the kitchen but only on like special occasions cause again it's a pain in the ass to clean

At the start of my employment, my boss showed me videos of people stealing, and we both had a chuckle about it. How silly they were! There was a camera overhead, and it’s not to watch the shoppers. See, we can’t actually stop shoplifters. They get away with it maybe nine out of ten times. But we, who are watched and tallied and witnessed? We are always caught.

At first it was hard to hold one hundred dollars bills. An amount I had never seen before. An amount that didn’t exist in my household. It’s normal now. Here is something that is not for me.

“What the hell, I’ll take another,” says the man, pondering our 200 dollar watches. What the hell. Total comes to 580 and not even a flinch in his face. I have been working for 11 hours today and made only 110 dollars. It will go to my rent. Today I work for free, it feels. When I get my check, I will have 35 dollars left for food and saving.

The six hundreds he hands me go into the cash register. For a moment, I imagine having money. Then I put it away, counting out his change.

I know for a fact we sell our products for double what they are worth. That I could be making commission. That they could hand me those 580 dollars and change my life and not even mark the difference in their checkbooks. He’s not the only sale they make today, but I am the reason they made it. He’s not the only one spending 600 dollars, but if I hadn’t spent two hours with him telling me about his life, he wouldn’t have spent any. I go home. I don’t own a watch.

I have watched and rewatched a video on how to make salmon four ways. My shopping list is always the same. Pasta. Rice. Tuna. If I can afford butter it was a good week. I dream of the world I will never walk in, where I can throw the best fish fillet in the cart with a shrug. I hold hundreds in my hand and look up at the camera. I put them under the cash drawer.

I go to work. I scrap together my savings. I eat my bowl of rice slowly. My manager takes a paid week off from work just for his birthday. He owns a yacht. 

i was part of their college program. i moved to the state for it. they legally owned the building i was living in and still charged me rent. i ostensibly was being charged to work for them. it was a 2 bedroom apartment and they placed 6 adult women in it in forced triples.

as many as one in ten disney employees have experienced homelessness while working for the company. despite huge efforts to unionize, strike, or otherwise demand fair treatment; disney has refused to increase employee quality of life.

disney admits publicly that a good portion of their success is because the employees (“cast members”) are dedicated, passionate, and selfless. this is never reflected in pay. even “face” characters (ie those that are princesses etc) make barely above a minimum wage.

at the time that i worked there, i made $8.50 an hour. at one point i was asked to create a human shield around a bag because a bomb dog had alerted to it. for eight fucking dollars an hour.

i now work a very cushy office job. i have bought the salmon and cooked it all four ways.

i go to the store. i am nice to the person behind the counter. she looks up at the camera while she counts out my change. there is nothing fundamentally different about her and i.

This post is a sequel to this one I made a few days back.

The Necro-Cav Dynamic as a stand-in for Marriage:

This one's pretty surface level. We have a union of two people, apparently bonded for life in a ceremony in which vows are exchanged. But we are talking "old-fashioned" marriage here. Not an equal partnership. The roles of a necro and a cav don't exactly map one-to-one onto those (traditionally) of a husband and wife. This is because they are heavily influenced by liege-and-knight dynamics. It is worth pointing out, though, that traditionally, both "husband and wife" and "liege and knight" can be seen as subsets of the broader category, "master and servant." This is why, as I've said before, trying to fully boil down necro-cav dynamics to "the necro is the man and the cav is the woman" will always fall short. That said, there still is plenty to be gained from reading the cavalier through the lens of wifehood, so long as we don't lose the thread of the cavalier's textual function: as their necromancer's bodyguard and champion, which is generally caught up in 'masculine' coding.

An interesting aside, when analyzing through the framework of marriage: In the Houses, it is acceptable (even expected) for a necro of a certain class to have more than one cav (having a primary and a secondary, etc.) - paralleling polygamy (the practice of having multiple wives). Meanwhile, it's a bit scandalous that the Tridentarii share a cav - from an outside perspective, Babs seems to be practicing the necro-cav equivalent of polyandry (having multiple husbands). Fun bit of subtext! I like it for Normal Reasons.

The Consent Problem:

Much like traditional marriages (esp. among the upper classes historically)--which may be a love-match, a social/political agreement benefiting one or both parties, or arranged entirely by a third party without either of the betrotheds' willing participation--the necro-cav pairings we see at Canaan House reflect varying levels of foundational consent. Some, such as Abigail & Magnus, as well as Palamedes & Camilla, we could call a love-match ("love" here not necessarily limited to the romantic variety). Others, like Judith & Marta, represent a professional arrangement (with an application process and all), but still were formed with the consent of both parties. The same cannot be said of Harrow & Gideon -- Harrow consented to the arrangement, but Gideon vocally did not.

Meanwhile, both Colum and Babs were literally made for the express purpose of being a cav to a necro who wasn't even born yet. Those arrangements were nonconsensual from the get-go. Yes, by the time the exchange of vows came along, all involved may have been convinced that this was indeed what they wanted, but crucially neither Colum nor Babs had the option to back out. Colum was Silas' only proper genetic match. Babs was the heir to a hereditary cavaliership, and an only child to boot. If either of them even considered declining the position, they would have known there would be Consequences. (The same was pretty much true for Ortus, too, though unlike the other two, he seems to have spent the last seventeen years acutely aware that he was being taken advantage of, and shirking his cavalier duties as a response to that.)

Importantly: the blame for these nonconsenual arrangements does not lie with the Tridentarii or Silas (or Harrow, in Ortus' case), as, again, none of them were even born when the arrangements were made, and all of them were children (and younger than their respective cavs, for that matter) when the vows were taken. All of this happened absent their freely-given consent, too. That fact does not, however, absolve them of responsibility for the abuses of power they commit within the bounds of these relationships.

Violations of the Flesh and the Soul:

The schools of necromancy practiced by the Third and Eighth Houses require routine, painful sacrifices on the part of the cavalier to a degree that seemingly none of the other Houses demand. Both are couched in extreme intimacy, yet much like with sexual violence, the end goal is an expression of power, not genuine human connection. Same can be said of, y'know, swallowing the soul of your cavalier to become a lyctor.

This isn't to say that soul siphoning your cav or cannibalizing bits them (or even their whole soul) is inherently analogous to the rape of that cavalier. Despite the non-con start to their necro-cav situation, we see that Harrow gets somewhat better about respecting Gideon's bodily autonomy as the book goes on, to the point that Gideon not only fully consents to being siphoned the second time, but in fact suggests it, and volunteers herself so completely to Harrow eating her soul that she sorta kinda steps on Harrow's ability to freely consent to the act (oops).

But in the case of Colum, who explicitly asked Silas not to siphon him that one time, only for Silas to view it as backtalk and to siphon him anyway to exert control, wrapped in the language of patriarchal moral authority?

And in the case of Babs, who was literally stabbed from behind, apparently without warning, his soul pinned, extracted, and consumed, entirely against his will?

But Bible references in TLT are usually from the Catholic Douay Rheims version of the Bible. And in Genesis 2, the Douay Rheims has "a help like unto himself". It's the Protestant King James Version that has "a help meet for him". And "helpmeet" as a single word is a shibboleth in more conservative interpretations of complementarianism. There is very much an inherent sense of submission in the idea of "helpmeet".

The favourite Bible verses of people with concerning views about women tour continues in the Sermon on Cavaliers and Necromancers at the end of GTN, which gives us something of the in-world theology of cavaliership. The Sermon draws heavily on Ephesians 5, the Pauline letter which gives instructions for proper behaviour in Christian families, and which also mentions the concept of "one flesh", instructing wives to submit to their husbands in the same way that the church submits to God.

There are some almost direct quotes from Ephesians: "So the necromancer and the cavalier are no different. They are one flesh. And yet that is only one understanding of the mystery that characterises us as a society"/"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery." (Ephesians 5:31-32).

As you can imagine, the kinds of theologies of marriage being drawn on here can, particularly in their most extreme interpretations, lend themselves to apologias for abuse, or the idea that consent is simply irrelevant within a marriage.

It might look something like this: Goodwife A is great at getting stains out of clothes and enjoys laundry as a task, so everyone takes their laundry to her. Goodwife B pays her in milk and butter from their cow, and Goodwife C shows up to keep her company and take care of EVERYONE'S mending and darning, and Spinster D runs her father's bakery so she pays in bread and muffins, and Alewife E pays with the best beer in the county, and nobody's kitchen gardens are as productive as Granny F's and Widow G's so they've got veggies and herbs galore to exchange.

We DO criminally underestimate the value and prevalence of women's labor in history, but we also underestimate how much more fluidly communities functioned than they do now. Every woman absolutely did learn how to sew from the time she was a tiny child -- but once you're an adult and you've learned that you Hate sewing more than anything, maybe you make a friend who loves it (or at least who doesn't mind it). Then, as long as you buy your own cloth, she's happy to sew clothes for both your family and hers in exchange for you doing all the cooking, or watching the kids and teaching them to read and do basic sums, or churning the butter from the milk of both families' cows.

An awareness of historical women's labor is crucial -- but without an awareness of women's businesses, we can sometimes end up playing into the conservative propaganda that people don't need each other, that it's possible to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, that women are incapable and unenterprising, and that therefore their place is In The Home, being worked to the bone doing every task (and if they don't do every task, then they're lazy and a failure of a wife).

I've always thought this was interesting. Women used the cotton flour sacks to make clothes, dish cloths, diapers etc out of clothes during the great depression. Flour companies heard about it, and started putting colorful patterns on the sacks, and including clothing patterns with them.