[Insert clever title here]

Rulan, after JW Waterhouse’s Cleopatra.

I decided that this would be titled “Rulan” rather than “Jin Ling”, with the thought that the setting of the painting, somewhere in Koi Tower, is one where people are more likely to call him Jin Rulan. I also considered titling it “(New) Sect Leader Jin” but I thought that would be confusing, and “Rulan” better parallels the original painting title.

Initial sketch is here!

It makes sense that podficcers aren't allowed to post works without being given permission onto ao3, but DID YOU KNOW that this counts for Anonymous and orphaned works as well?

So here's my new plea to authors: if you anonymize or orphan your work, and you're okay with it being podficced:

Please put blanket permission for podfic in the author's notes before orphaning or anonymizing!

(thank you so much to people who have been reblogging this! I've seen a lot of folks in the tags say they didn't know this!)

Save the orphan!!!!

Just say "elemental construct" or something.

Magic caster created golem? That's a magical construct.

Naturally occurring golem? That's an elemental.

-

A setting without Jews by definition cannot have golems.

In the present the reader is introduced to Alice Cohen as she receives her inheritance from her recently deceased grandmother. This inheritance consists of a lone house in an area of Brooklyn where all the other buildings have been torn down. One of the first things that Alice discovers is a walled off section in the basement from which a voice calls to her to read stories. Alice's first choice for this is her grandmother's diary.

^ small excerpt

It just fucking fits. It’s so easy. I’m not remotely Jewish by any definition of the word, so I cannot speak for anybody, but instead I offer you this very practical taken on “golem.”

Let’s say you hear conflicting takes by Jewish folk on whether or not you can use “golem.” Some say you can, some say you can’t.

Rather than making it a moral matter — consider, some folks asked you not to and said it sucks, and you know they’ve got a fair argument even if you don’t agree with it. Since it’s so easy to not do, why not just, not be a dick?

If you want to look at it not as a moral matter, but look in purely practical terms, by refusing the request to call it anything else, it’s bein’ a bit of a dick.

However, as a pedant, I need to strongly object to the addition above for two reasons.

1) Lares aren't constructs. They don't have bodies. It's not a generic word for protective being - they're Roman spirits of the household (along with the penates, usually considered the spirits of the cupboards) and also protector spirits of crossroads. The word can refer more generally to ghosts and the lares are often associated with the respect given to dead ancestors. I could go on about our understanding of the lares and their role in Roman myth and/or religion, but it's all really just elaboration on this point: they're nothing like golems.

2) If you MUST use the term, the correct singular is 'lar' and the plural is 'lares'. By convention, we use the nominative form of Latin words in English for all forms (thank heavens - no one wants to be declining case-forms in English!) so 'larem', the accusative singular, would never be used. 'Larems' is not a form that exists at all, in Latin or English. The macron over the a is also not needed - while 'lar' does have a long a, 'lares' does not, and in any case, macrons are a convention used to help beginner students in Latin textbooks and would never appear in an actual Latin text.

Female birds with confusing names.

how measurements work in canada (ie/ badly)

Here's a UK version:

Technically, AD needs to be before the year, while BC should be after the year. This is silly and no one cares and yet, I prefer to be Technically Correct and not worry about all of it. Both BCE and CE are correctly placed after the year.

We don't even know when Christ was born. AD is therefore essentially incorrect. Also, I'm Jewish and don't particularly love using Christ as a marker for everything.

I am NOT going to be using an entirely different dating system. I am a historian and I'm already juggling a few different dating systems as it is. I am well aware of how easily errors are introduced in converting between dating sytems.

"Miss" means an unmarried woman. "Mrs." means a married woman. (both of these have origins in the word "mistress" as in "mistress of the house".)

I've had people (usually children) ask me at work if I'm a missus or a miss. I have replied that I am a miz, full stop. And when they pressed for which one I was REALLY, I have replied, "Why? Are you going to treat me differently depending on whether there's a ring somewhere?"

That's what Ms. is for. That is its linguistic function. It says, "This is an adult woman," and nothing else. Nothing else is necessary, and in my case, nothing else is desired.

I also use miz for other women unless and until they express a preference for something else because I don't magically know everyone else's marital status when I meet them. That's a courtesy—I'm declining to assume marital status and allowing them to decide whether they wish to declare it.