(In previous years Sophia, while giving birth to Tolstoy’s 13 children and raising them and managing his estate (he was a count) pretty much on her own, also wrote the clean copies of all of his manuscripts out of his nearly illegible drafts—the final draft of War and Peace was 3,000 pages and she copied it seven times, correcting spelling and grammar and offering key suggestions and critiques of the plot; for example explaining to him that people would be more interested in the social or romantic plots, the human aspects, than in the minutiae of the battles and war strategy plots. A few months before his death, Tolstoy named a male friend the executor of his literary estate rather than his wife, who had been doing this thankless job since she was 19, and gave to the public domain all the copyrights to his works that Sophia had previously owned (for her publishing company). She wrote in her diary “Now I am cast aside as of no further use, although I am, nevertheless, expected to do impossible things.”)

Also I shouldn’t be surprised (but I am) at just how many “great male writers” read their wife’s (or female relatives’) diaries and drew a lot of inspiration from them, stealing ideas or even sometimes entire sentences / paragraphs / poems out of them. This is such a recurrent pattern. There’s Tolstoy (who read Sophia’s diaries and also asked her, when she was 17, to show him a short story she’d written, gave it back to her the next day saying he’d barely glanced at it, when he actually wrote in his diary “What force of truth and simplicity!” and used the story as the embryo for the Rostov family in War and Peace), but also William Wordsworth who read his sister Dorothy’s journal and drew a lot from it, and F. Scott Fitzgerald of course. When Zelda was still young a magazine editor offered to publish parts of her journals, and her husband (of 5 months!) said he couldn’t allow it because he drew a lot of inspiration from them and planned on using parts of them in his future novels and short stories. There’s also French novelist Raymond Radiguet who stole his female lover’s diary to write his novel The Devil in the Flesh, and was lauded by fellow male writers & critics for his brilliant insights into a woman’s mind. Which had been copy/pasted from this woman’s diary. [Also, while he didn’t read it until after her death, Henry James’s sister Alice mentions in her diary that he “embedded in his pages many pearls fallen from my lips, which he steals in the most unblushing way, saying, simply, that he knew they had been said by the family, so it did not matter.”] I really love reading women’s journals, and when they were married to a famous writer, you wouldn’t believe how often the person who edited them mentions in the introduction “if some passages sound familiar it’s because her husband was reading her diary and ~getting inspired” ie plagiarising although the term technically doesn’t apply because every word his wife wrote and idea she had was legally his property (just like she was).

1. It’s an excellent example of transitional evolution.

2. It’s a mess who would intentionally do this and why

3. It makes them piss themselves a little.

“Evolution is just a theory-”

I’ve been meaning to write a post about what the meaning of a scientific theory is, and this seems like a good opportunity.

In science we have theories, and we have laws. It’s a very common misconception that a scientific theory is a an unproven hypothesis. This is understandable, but leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. A scientific theory isn’t the same as what we commonly refer to as a ‘theory’. Here’s a definition:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. x 

Compare this to the definition of a scientific law:

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. x

This means, basically, that a law summarizes observations about some sort of natural phenomena (usually mathematically). A good example is Newton’s law of gravity! 

Newton’s Law of Gravity explains through mathematics how different bodies react to each other because of this force we call gravity, both on earth and in space, but it doesn’t explain why it happens or even what gravity actually is. No explanation, therefor a law!

Then we have theories, which not only document phenomena, but give explainations as to why these phenomena happen and what they are. A scientific theory requires more testable evidence than a law, and usually encompasses multiple laws and explains them more thoroughly. For example, Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Newton’s law of gravity was testable, but it was only after Einstein proposed the theory of relativity that we started to understand what gravity actually is and how it functions. Einstein was able to give us explainations mathematically for why the laws of physics work as they do. Explanations for how it worked, therefor a theory!

(It’s also important to remember that a scientific theory and a scientific law are two very different things, and one can never become the other. A theory will always be a theory, and a law will always be a law.)

One of my favorite examples of this is the laws of Mendelian inheritance. 

Long before we knew what genetics were, farmers were breeding for favorable traits. They didn’t know where they came from or how they were passed from one organism to the next, but they knew that if they bred a large dog with another large dog, they’d get large puppies, and they knew that if they bred only their best produce that their plants would produce better produce in the future.

Gregor Johann Mendel started conducting experiments by hybridizing pea plants, and was able to prove that this consistently happened. By doing this he created three separate laws that all fall under the Laws of Inheritance; The Law of Segregation, the Law of Independent Assortment, and the Law of Dominance. It gets a little complicated here and I’m not an expert on DNA, but I’ll try to summarize.

The Law of Segregation states that all organisms contain two alleles for each trait, and that those separate during meiosis so each gamete only contains one of them. That means that offspring receives a pair of alleles from its parents for each trait, resulting in one allele for each trait from each parent. For example, a calico cat and a tabby may breed and produce 4 tabby kittens, but all of those kittens will also carry the genetic information of a calico.

The Law of Independent Assortment states that alleles for these traits are passed independently of one another during gamete formation. For example, if the calico is a manx and the tabby is a scottish fold, the kittens can inherit a short tail without inheriting their calico parents coloring. They can also look entirely like one parent despite carrying the genetic information of both. Each trait is passed independently of all other traits.

The Law of Dominance states that recessive alleles will be masked by dominant alleles. For example, blue eyes in cats is a recessive trait. Therefor even if the scottish fold has blue eyes (is a carrier and affected), the dominant trait eyes of the manx will determine the color of the kittens eyes, and we’ll only have a slim chance of producing affected, blue eyed kittens if the manx also carries the recessive blue eyed gene, and those genes line up. (If I’ve made any mistakes here, I’d appreciate someone with more knowledge on genetics letting me know)

But you’ll notice he didn’t show how or why this happened, he was just able to observe it and prove that it did. It wasn’t until the Chromosome Theory of Inheritance was discovered that we could explain why. This was the theory that explained that chromosomes are what carry genetic material and pass these traits from one generation to the next. 

It’s a fundamental, unifying theory of genetics that shapes how we conduct our science today. This theory is the basis of genetic engineering, which has had a huge impact on modern science. Just for example, the manufacturing of drugs (insulin and vaccines!), gene therapy, the genetic engineering of lab animals, and, most famously, agriculture. AKA, GMOs.

This leads into another requirement of a theory; Being supported by numerous other fields of science. Genetics is one of the sciences that hugely supports the Theory of Evolution. This is how we’ve been able to sequence DNA and discover how closely all life on earth is related, and how the DNA of humans and chimps is nearly identical.

x And this isn’t the only field of science that supports the validity of the Theory of Evolution. 

We have radioisotope dating! Isotopes make up all matter on earth, and by measuring the decay of radioactive isotopes, we can date rock layers. We can do this because we know the rate of radioactive decay. This is how we know that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. We’ve used this to date fossils and prove that transitional forms came between connected species, and that humans and modern animals didn’t live alongside dinosaurs.

We have paleontology! The fossil record shows extremely detailed evidence of evolution occurring. Evolution is so accurate in its predictions that there’s never been a single fossil found in a place that it shouldn’t be. For example, the transitional fossils between dinosaurs and modern birds is found right in the middle, exactly where we’d expect it to be. So is the ancestor of platybelodon, and its relatives as they became our modern elephants! We’re able to predict so accurately where fossils should be located that we’ve been able to pick sites to excavate based entirely on that, then find the fossils we expected! Predictive power is a huge part of a proven scientific theory.

We have molecular biology! Which proves that gene sequences among extremely different organisms are still related. The basic structure of all DNA on the planet is in the form of the double helix, and while we predictably have nearly all the same DNA as our primate cousins, over half of our DNA is also identical to banana plants!

Then we have embryology! When we compare embryos, not only are most animals nearly indistinguishable from each other, but we see holdover traits from our previous ancestors. The most compelling examples are the fact that human fetuses, and all other mammals, have gill slits as embryos. In mammals these develop into the eustachian tubes and the ear canal, while they continue to develop into gills in fish. Humans also have tails and yolk sacs as embryos! (Also look up lanugo in fetuses, very interesting and shared among other mammals)

Then there’s biochemistry! The basic chemistry that occurs in the cells of all life on earth is extremely similar, and shows that all modern organisms had a common ancestor. For example, all animals have enzymes and hormones. Trypsin is just one that’s found in everything from humans to sea sponges.

Then biogeography! The fact that groups of organisms that are related are all found near one another is more evidence for the validity of evolution. If life didn’t evolve, there’d be no reason for certain life to only exist on certain continents, or for species to be distributed in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships with one another.

Modern observations are extremely helpful as well! This is why we now see antibiotic resistant strains of viruses, elephants becoming less likely to have tusks because of poaching, and the peppered moth becoming darker to better camouflage itself during the industrial revolution.

There are others, but I’ll end with comparative anatomy, which is one of the coolest, imo. (I’m probably biased because I collect bones lol)

x

When you compare the skeletal structures of vertebrates, we have extremely similar structures regardless of how wildly different our environments and behaviors are. The skeletal structure of a fin is hardly the best way for a fin to be designed, but because whales evolved from terrestrial mammals, they adapted using what they had. (we can also show the full evolution of cetaceans through the fossil record, which is very cool if you want to look it up.) This is true in non-mammals as well. An excellent example is the laryngeal nerve! In fish, the nerve makes a direct line from the brain down to the larynx, which is practical and to be expected. In animals that developed longer necks, however, we see that the nerve is trapped under the aortic arch!

x

The nerve had to evolve with us as we evolved from our aquatic ancestors, so our laryngeal nerve is forced to not go from our brain to our larynx, but rather to take a detour into our chest and around the aortic arch before doubling back! 

This is amazing in giraffes, where the nerve is nearly 15 feet long because it was forced to grow as the giraffe’s neck did, and now takes a detour down the entirety of the giraffe’s neck and around the heart before returning the the larynx, which was its destination.

x There are mountains more evidence, but it’d take a lifetime to cover it all.

  So you’ve got the way a theory works a little backwards; A theory only remains a theory when it can’t be disproven, and therefor is proven accurate. For a theory to be a theory, it has to be proven true. This is why we teach other theories, for example:

Plate tectonics theory: Plate tectonics is the theory that the outer rigid layer of the earth (the lithosphere) is divided into a couple of dozen “plates” that move around across the earth’s surface relative to each other, like slabs of ice on a lake.

Cell theory: In biology, cell theory is a scientific theory which describes the properties of cells. These cells are the basic unit of structure in all organisms and also the basic unit of reproduction. and

Atomic theory: In chemistry and physics, atomic theory is a scientific theory of the nature of matter, which states that matter is composed of discrete units called atoms.

In your tags you state that evolution is a theory, and therefor can’t be taught as fact. I’m sure you don’t believe that we shouldn’t teach about the existence of atoms and the function of cells because they’re ‘only theory’, so I hope this makes clearer why that notion is flawed. We accept all of these as true because we know factually that they are. 

The reason that evolution is given such intense scrutiny is because it disproves the notion that humans are a separate, superior entity to all other life on earth. This is a blow to some egos and contradicts some people’s religious beliefs. The discovery that Earth wasn’t the center of our solar system, much less the universe, was met with the same sort of scrutiny for the same reasons. The ever building proof that we’re only a tiny flicker of what has been and will be in the universe inspires strong reactions in people, for good or bad. Personally, I find it endlessly interesting!

Also, to clarify, attempting continually to disprove a theory wouldn’t necessarily be good science. When you have a theory like plate tectonics, trying to disprove it at this point really isn’t a good use of your time. We know how it works, we’ve seen it working, we can predict how it’ll work, we can prove this is how mountains formed and earthquakes happen and continents drift. Being critical and making sure things line up properly is good science, but trying to continuously disprove something we know to be fact is a waste of energy and resources.

Evolutionary theory is the basis of everything from vaccines and Glofish to agriculture, modern medicine and decoding DNA. It’s so ingrained in everything that we do, that it’s vital for people to understand how it works. 

If it were proven false tomorrow, it’d take a lot of other fields of science down with it. But most of us are understandably doubtful that it’ll happen, because it’s been undergoing this same intense scrutiny since Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. That’s an awfully long time and a lot of scientific advances for there to have never been a single, solitary piece of evidence that disproved it.

To stay on theme, let’s end with a platybelodon family reunion.

I am aware of what a theory is, and it is not a fact, and saying so is incorrect. Genetic variation in species is observable, like cat breeds that originated without human involvement.

What is not observable is one species evolving into another, like single celled organisms to modern day animals and humans. Therefore, it is unproven,and will remain unproven, until we observe it.

Why shouldn’t we try to disprove evolution, or Plate tectonics theory? If they are correct, we obtain more knowledge. If they are false, we will have more ideas to explore.

There is no reason theories shouldn’t be taught, but they should not be taught as facts. They should be taught as likely ideas that have yet to be proved, and that you can strive to prove, or disprove, and gain more knowledge about. They can be used as gateways to science for young children.

My point is, evolution is a theory, and is currently unproven, since we have not observed all of it. It should be taught in schools, but not as a fact. We should strive to gain as much knowledge as possible, even if that means questioning it.

I know it was long, but even summarized it’s hard to keep explainations like these short. I’ll try to take a second pass at it:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

This is an excellent, quick explaination of how the scientific method works and where theories fall in it.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by teaching these fields of study, but not as fact. You’re advocating that we teach children that Cell Theory exists, but that cells might not? Or that the Germ Theory of Disease exists, but germs may not exist?

We used atomic theory to split the atom and create the atomic bomb. The Germ Theory of Disease is the basis for the entirety of modern medicine, including the revolutionary discovery of vaccines. 

Maybe I didn’t explain clearly, but if these theories weren’t accurate, these sciences absolutely wouldn’t work.

If germs didn’t exist how the Germ Theory of Disease explains them, vaccines would be based in entirely flawed science. Washing our hands wouldn’t reduce risk of infection, antibiotics wouldn’t work, there’d be no reason for doctors to wear sterile masks and gowns, there’d be no basis for covering your mouth when you cough, or using hand sanitizer.

There’s a reason that deaths in hospitals from sepsis dropped drastically after the Germ Theory of Disease was proposed. These aren’t best guesses or hypotheses, these are scientific theories, which means they were proven via years of testing with the scientific method until they were confirmed. 

Heliocentrism is also a scientific theory. We don’t teach that the planets may orbit the sun, we teach that they do, because in order to become a scientific theory it was required that it be proven to be accurate. And it was proven to be true long before we ever went to space to observe it directly, because the evidence for it was so astronomical (pun intended) even before we could see it first hand.

Children regularly build models of the solar system and are taught how the planets line up around the sun with no fuss from anyone. They’re taught to wash their hands, and cover their mouths when they sneeze. I don’t see how teaching them the anatomy of a cell, the existence of the atom, or the evolution of life on earth differs from that. In fact, it literally doesn’t differ from that. All of them are theories, all have the same amount of evidence, and all are equally important to understanding how our world works.

I also thought I explained pretty clearly why people don’t attempt to strictly disprove things like plate tectonics theory? We test them, of course, but attempting to strictly disprove something requires you go in with an immediate bias. We test what we can’t explain by forming new hypotheses, which results in a better understanding.

We don’t try to disprove plate tectonics for the same reason we no longer try to disprove that the Earth orbits the sun. We study why it does, what the circumstances are, we make predictions with it, but attempting to disprove it doesn’t make sense because we know at this point that it’s observably factual.

 There’s very little to be learned by attempting to disprove a known fact vs building upon that to discover why things are the way that they are.

I didn’t mean to imply that we shouldn’t be critical, I think I was clear about that. Using a theory to make predictions requires that we repeatedly test it, after all. But if I were to go out and attempt to disprove that the sun is a star, or that the earth is round, I wouldn’t be learning anything that wasn’t already known. I’d just be wasting my energy and resources with a debate that no longer exists.

To address observing evolution, we absolutely have observed one species becoming another! Via the fossil record, as I mentioned in my last post. This is called transitional evolution.

We’ll use cetaceans as an example, in this case! They’re one of my favorites.

We can trace whales through the fossil record to their terrestrial ancestor, Pakicetus. We have numerous fossils of every one of these forms, on rock layers that prove that one came before the next. We can also see hippos branch off from a similar ancestor, and have proven their close relation to whales through DNA sequencing.

We have hundreds of fossils showing the shifting of the nostrils of early whales higher until it formed a blowhole.

In some whales, like the blue whale, there are still two nostrils that create the blowhole! In others, the blowhole is a single opening, but in all of them there remain two nasal passages in the skull. 

We also see vestigial pelvises in modern day whales and and reduced back legs in their ancestors. These are shared amongst all cetaceans, because they all at one point had developed, functional hind legs. There’s no need for a pelvis at all in modern whales, but it remains as an ancestral holdover.

Then we have flippers! There are far better ways for flippers to be designed than to have finger bones and wrist joints, but they have them regardless because cetacean ancestors looked much more like modern dogs than modern whales.

X  Another example of how nonsensical giving an animal with flippers joints and fingers is the manatee, which is one of my favorites. Not only do they have weird little elbows, but fingernails which serve absolutely no purpose in their current form. They’re just left over from the process of evolving from a terrestrial mammal to an aquatic one.

 x 

 x

We can not only trace species between species, we can trace all of live on Earth back to single cells and bacteria! I don’t have anywhere near the time it’d take to delve fully into the fossil record, but I’ve done a post about this before explaining how we can follow the evolutionary tree to see this, so I’ll link you HERE.

He’s just an old man…he doesn’t have any of the Batman’s gadgets or training or fighting skills!

Alfred: Oh my you’re right

There’s something else of Master Bruce’s I don’t have as well

Alfred:

his break up with claire is not the tragedy; he can apologize, and she can forgive him. if they both want they can get back together. his fight with richie is not the tragedy; they’ve fought before and will fight again, and nothing they say to each other can be worse than mikey being dead. his failing syd and nat and the rest of the crew is not the tragedy; they pulled the night off without him, and the minute he’s out of the fridge he’ll see that.

none of the above examples are tragedies because the bear is preoccupied with how to navigate and maintain relationships that have conflict, which is every relationship. one way is to show up: when richie is arrested in s01 carm uses backup money for the beef to bail him out. another way is to apologize, like richie apologizes to nat, like carmen does to marcus. the other side of apologizing is forgiveness–nat (richie), marcus (carm), syd (carm, tina), pete (donna). another way is to be willing to change–tina and richie are prime examples. another way, the most difficult way imo, is through forbearance (patience, self restraint, tolerance), which nat exemplifies. despite the magnitude of how awful carm’s last few minutes in s02 are, he isn’t facing anything unfixable or insurmountable in his relationships with the people he cares about (at least not according to how the show’s so far built relationships). (that’s what this gifset is about.)

the tragedy is how much he hates himself. claire leaves a message saying she loves him, he reads it before he hears her saying it, he’s so repulsed by the idea of being loved that he immediately trashes the message, drops his phone, and covers his face the same way he did when he was having a panic attack. in the moment when he feels he’s failed people he cares about, he can’t accept comfort. he can’t stand to be loved by claire (or by richie, or by nat). the similarities with his mom are pretty straightforward. 

but i think what’s so interesting about this is how his self loathing manifests in smaller, more innocuous ways. for example, the way in s01 when marcus said he can really throw down, carm ignores him and asks for a parm brick. when pete tells him how proud nat is of him, he tells pete they don’t need to talk about that. he openly accepts the mockery everyone gives him at cicero’s kid’s birthday. he’s comfortable and like…enjoys…taking insults from the people he loves who love him, too. tina calling him puta and a bitch, marcus joking about him being a little bitch, the carmy’s an asshole sign, ebra calling him white and redundant. 

now, one of the first things syd says to him is a compliment. “you are the best cdc at the best restaurant in the entire untied states of america.” (not only is this a compliment, it also tells us the audience who carmen is; it’s a moment of exposition as well as introduction; it also *tells/reminds carmen* who he is.) he doesn’t reject it. not only does he not reject it, he holds onto it and recalls it when he needs something to ground him and calm him down. 

on one hand this is excellent shipping fodder and i am eating that shit up. but on the other hand, it’s an argument against what i (and some others) have been thinking re: carmen and his future with work. i’ve been thinking he has to get out of the kitchen so he can like, get out of the cycle of anger and resentment and dysfunction and abuse rooted in his and his siblings’ relationship with donna. this is the other tragedy of the bear–that this three star chef, this guy who is better than everyone else and *makes* everyone around him better because of it, hates his work and, even worse, is hurt by it. 

but if carm can accept syd’s compliment about his career, if it is a good memory for him, a place of peace he can return to when he can’t accept any other compliments about his work, then is there really no possible “healthy”/kind/peaceful place for him in the kitchen? and if there is, how would he (and we) get there?

for richie, it takes the end of the beef and right up till the opening of the bear to happen. he is full of contempt and grief when he meets her and all he knows is that when he looks at her face he is afraid. he doesn’t like that feeling. richie is not a man who finds himself fearful a lot, but she is everything he is not and nothing that he is and he hates himself for it. if she is what it means to be passionate, then what is he? is he nothing but an empty shell of mikey, stuck on earth to shake his fist at passing clouds, because how dare they move and continue on like mikey was nothing to them, as if he wasn’t the very point that the earth revolved around? everyone is leaving him behind, and she is proudly leading the pack. it’s not right. but then— he gets it. he talks to garrett and jess and chef terry and he sees sydney in every corner of that restaurant. the fear slowly is replaced with respect as the week goes on and he realizes that just because she’s good doesn’t mean she’s out to get him. that’s the berzatto upbringing in him doing the talking, but it doesn’t have to, because shes a berzatto now, maybe not officially (not yet, but mark his words, she will be) but she is, and that’s not how she does things. so, he lets her lead them into the future to something good and different and better.

for sugar, it’s instant. she was born to a mother who is triggered by her very existence, and it has hurt her all her life. she is full of love and the one person she wants to give it to the most doesn’t want any part of it. she was born to give but is surrounded by those who are afraid to even take it, to reach out their hand and meet her in the middle. and if they cant take then they themselves have nothing to give, so she gets used to being the one who has to force feed her love down their throats, because if no one does, if no one shows them that they are worthy of good things, then they will crumble (“if i just talked to him more—” “no, nat—” “if i had just—” “it’s not your fault, honey. it’s never been.”). but when she meets sydney, it’s like looking into a mirror. she sees her bright eyes and soft smiles and careful but strong hands and instantly recognizes her for what she is: a giver. and sugars heart swells with even more love than she thought possible, because finally, she’s not alone— there is someone else there to slowly, albeit subconsciously, take care of her crumbling family, to show them that despite what their mother may have taught them, its okay to not be okay (she tries her best not to cry when syd asks her if shes okay, but she does. and syd doesnt grab her face or yell at her or call her stupid. she makes her a meal. and sugar cries some more).

for cicero, the love isn’t instant, and it’s not even entirely love. she is strong and she is assertive, but that also makes her naive and a very expensive risk. she makes him curious for what’s to come, intrigued by the way she doesn’t back down from carmy whose voice so often mimics the berzattos that came before him (“you’re better than this, kid.” “i don’t know what i am.” “whatever it is, it’s not this.”). she's self assured and knows her place in the establishment and is unafraid to let people know it. it’s a refreshing change of pace from mikey, who often resorted to intimidation to get his way, or carmy, who’s anxiety envelopes him and distracts him from what’s right there in front of him. but she is not them. she is focused and on track and is willing to put in the work to get what she wants. he doesn’t visit the bear often, only drops by once in a while to deliver bad news or to fulfill a favour or to just enjoy some good food, but when he does, she is always there, dedicated to ensuring that carmy and michaels, and now, her dream stays alive. she is good for his family, and he trusts her to keep the berzatto spirit alive.

for michelle, it’s quite simple. she always looked out for carmy, their little bear, so when she meets her it’s a family thanksgiving party at the bear and syd stumbles out of the kitchen, obviously frazzled and a little sweaty (“carmy, im not ready, i didn’t even change yet and the turk—” “don’t worry, tina will take care of it, you look great, they’ll love you, they just really wanted to meet you—”), but she’s smiling. she’s a little awkward when she introduces herself, and michelle finds herself endeared by her nervous ramble (“it’s, uh, really nice to meet you guys. sorry, i didn’t know that i was going to be pulled out of the kitchen so soon. uh, im sydney. yeah, i guess carmy already told you guys, huh? um. im sorry, how are you related to the family again? i mean, i dont want to offend but it’s just. uh. well, you guys are just very... normal?”) and she’ll laugh and look at stanley and the two of them will think to themselves, good job carmy, she’s a good one, before telling syd something dumb and nonsensical about a genetic mutation and richie interrupts to tell michelle it’s not a genetic mutation it’s called being boring and syd will laugh and michelle will too, truly happy that their little bear found someone normal, a breath of fresh air within the smoke of their family.

for donna, it’s weird. it’s tense. they don’t meet for a long time. they don’t meet at the bear when it first opens and not at the bear even when it has found it’s footing, but by chance. they are somewhere mundane (a grocery store, a park, or maybe just the street) and there is no other family member around when syd meets the berzatto matriarch. she only knows what donna looks like from photos at sugars house because carmys apartment is devoid of any actual sentiment (although that has begun to change since she made him get an actual dresser and he dedicated one of the drawers to her stuff). she calls out to her by her name, and donna turns around startled. she doesn’t recognize syd, of course, who introduces herself and informs her of who she is to the family. when donna smiles it’s not a real one, and syd knows this, but it doesn’t deter her. she tells donna that her kids love her (“even after everything, nat?” “she’s our mother. its all that we can do.”) and that her kids are great (“carmy, you are not broken.” “im a little broken.” “no, listen to me, the fact that you are still here, means something. its something.”) and that there will always be a table for her at the bear (“chef, someones calling in for a reso for 1 but we’re all full up… except for—“ “yo, dont finish that sentence. table 7 for ms. berzatto is an indefinite booking. is that understood?” “yes, chef”). donnas smile fades and her chest fills with anger but just as she’s about to explode in typical berzatto fashion syd interrupts her. she has faced the bear many a time before and has handled herself with grace and dignity everytime, so this is no different. she smiles brightly and thanks donna for listening to her and hopes she considers coming in, because she’d really like to cook for her. she looks like she needs a good meal. she deserves one. she turns and walks away. donnas stomach growls. that night, table 7 is occupied for the first time since the bear opened its doors.

and carmy? well, there isn’t an exact moment. its a culmination of awkward partnership (“i don’t want to be shitty.” “okay, then dont be.”) and flawless teamwork (“the menu needs—” “already on it, chef.”) and nights unwinding at the bar down the street (“of course you drink an old fashioned.” “what’s that supposed to mean?” “nothing, it’s just very… tortured-chef-from-the-slums-of-chicago of you”) and spontaneous phone calls just to hear the others voice (“why are you whispering?” “i… don’t know. my dads home. its a habit.” “you’re 27.” “and you’re white, you wouldn’t get it.”) till they’re just inseparable (“cousin, wheres carmy?” “with syd, duh.” “why'd i even ask?”). and then, sydney and carmen become something else. something tender and sweet and terrifying and beautiful all mixed together into… something. there’s no word for what they have. but it feels so right; to the guests who taste their food and recognize that the hands who put it together are full of love and care; to the staff at the bear who see the unspoken communication, the lingering touches, and their soft eyes that seem to always be on the other; to the berzatto family who notice that carmy looks a little brighter, and shakes a little less. yes, its love, but its so much more. it’s syd and carmy. it always has been, and always will be.

(“can i ask you something? something corny and lame and gross?” “always.” “when did you, like, know?” “know what?” “like, when did you know that you loved me? like, not as a chef or a friend, but as... y'know.” “that’s very middle school of you to ask.” “shut up, i did warn you.” “…” “so?” “its, uh, i don’t, i don’t know.” “well, that’s rude.” “no, i mean, i can’t say its one moment because... it was all of them. together. like, one moment you’re staging and then everything happened and, and, keeps happening but the next thing i knew you were there and you always were there and i just knew that i never wanted you to not be there.” “that’s…. really, really, disgusting, and frankly, a little unprofessional.” “oh, fuck off.” “no, like, i knew you were obsessed with me, but wow, that is a whole new other level.” “fuck you, get off of me, don’t touch me.” “no no no, please—” “i let you into my family—” “let me?” “into my restaurant—” “i think you mean OUR restaurant—” “only for you to humiliate me in my own bed? how dare you.” “…are you sulking?” “…” “…carmy?” “syd?” “me too.” “…heard, chef. now come back here.”)

also carmy: orders an expensive custom monogrammed chefs coat for syd because of the one time she made an offhanded comment about how his was cool

make me choose: @tiffanymaxwels asked - gilbert blythe or cole mackenzie