#drawingdeamon

HAHAHABHABHD ur so right he needs to be humbled

I keep making lads. Making lads who have a Situation going on is my ultimate power.

Jon/Jonsonist - lad but lives in the Town of Salem

Grant - lad but tiny

Banksy "Banks" J. Wimbleton - lad but he is Hank J. Wimbleton's secret twin brother

And now, Beeter - lad but they is a hybrid of a monster and human

AHAHAAAA YES OK

I will go at these through the idea of these as examples of troves rather than feelings they have for a particular other and discuss what each trove bracelet would consist of in their entirety, because each charm in a bracelet effects how the others are expressed. I also got your other ask and i will also cover the charms mentioned in TIDOMS.

Itchy and Pot o' Gold/Horseshoes/Balloons: I noted in my charm post initially that Gold/Balloons may be similar to "work-wives", the idea of having someone at work separate from your romantic partner at home whom you are emotionally close to and find mutual support and companionship in without the romantic angle. Adding Horseshoes to this may result in the type of bracelet that would form between coworkers who act as confidantes, commiserate on similar feelings, and may lack an angle of physical intimacy. I actually think this fits very well for Itchy, and this may be the kind of dynamic he has with Trace and Fin, although without the charm labels, where they bitch about Crowbar and having to do their jobs. A Horseshoes/Balloons combination de-fangs Balloons somewhat- It lessens the typical intensity of emotional connection and comfort by nature of its casualness, so it's good for that kind of mild emotional constipation I imagine most of the Felt have. Doze and Rainbows/Moons/Hearts: This is a fun one- Rainbows contributes to this relationship being very circumstantial and impermanent, but Moons is about distance and charm-mates coming back together and parting reliably. Hearts of course is conventional romance and mutual feelings. This creates what I would call a summer love trove- charm-mates in a bracelet like this would likely see each other very rarely, possibly only in a specific place: ex. where they vacation, or a certain annual event, or something along those lines, but when they do, its impassioned and deeply romantic, before parting with little to no communication until the next time that event happens- This is a very fun little crush-feelings setup, very "worlds apart" trysts energy. I don't know if this would come up for Doze personally, and if so, with whom- but its definitely fun.

I wouldn't necessarily go out there! I have no idea how the physics works, but it doesn't look like the Oort cloud would be hospitable.

There are two kinds of "celestial body in the observable universe," IMO. The one I'm thinking of is, like, the earth, moon, etc. All of the stuff we're familiar with. It's a "star" in the sense that it generates all kinds of light and heat, and it makes up what we call "the sky." It's the sort of thing we're "observing" from earth -- the sort of thing that has an associated "universe." In astronomy, such celestial bodies are often called stars.

"Nonstellar objects" are things that don't do anything like this. They don't really have an "associated universe" except for, perhaps, what their existence "generates." Nonstellar bodies can be stars, planets, asteroids, nebulae, moons, etc.; there are even planets in the "interstellar medium" which are not associated with any stars, and do not light the way. (One such planet, discovered in 1995, is called "EGN-zur." It was given the name in 1996, in order to honor the European Space Agency's space mission which first discovered it.)

"Nonstellar" bodies don't get to take "stars" for granted. One reason is that "stars" usually mean "things where light is produced, or where light is produced and a planet can be "seen through" that light." In an "assumed void" with no stars, what is there to see? If no one can observe it, no one can learn about it. The lack of stars is not trivial: here is an astronomer talking about what she has learned by trying to observe voids and nebulae, from the vantage point of having a "star."

The second reason nonstellar bodies aren't "associated with stars" is that they're the stuff of science fiction. "Star Wars" is a place where you can "see into a planet's gravity," but planets (as we imagine them, at least) can't "see you." To make this a little bit clearer, we have no way of knowing whether anything in the "assumed void" surrounding us was ever a planet, because planets no longer exist. If we don't know what the stuff in the assumed void was, we can't be sure if it's alien, like a world in a science fiction story, or something we'd never be able to "see."

In that sense, nonstellar objects are "more real" than stars: they may be "weird," but there's no reason to be certain we could observe their existence.

I mean, there's another sense, too, and that sense has to do with "what would I think" about a "star" (which is a special kind of celestial body, in this sense of the term).

I am sure I would think something very different from what you'd think of a "star" if I'd come across one. It would have no associated universe. It would be something I would never be able to see, or even imagine.

But there's another sense in which stars are special. A star is a celestial body that we know of, and are able to understand. We are able to say, "oh, that star is a star," because we're familiar with the type of thing we're talking about. In that sense, stars aren't a special kind of nonstellar thing, and nonstellar objects are a special kind of stellar thing.

We could imagine an alien that didn't "look like a planet" in the usual way, with a moon, or with an atmosphere, or a magnetosphere, etc. -- but it would still, in some way, "look like a star." It would still be "luminous," in the way that stars are, which means that at night I could still be aware of the fact that it is there, and what it is, and that the moon and the stars aren't the only things I could be aware of. This alien would be no different than all the other alien worlds we might see in the "assumed void": the only difference would be that I would have no idea what I was "seeing."

So to me, my preferred "celestial body in the observable universe," would be an alien world that, in some way, looked like a "star." It would have some kind of associated structure, but I wouldn't know what it was. It would have some kind of associated motion, but I wouldn't know what it was. In some sense, there would be nothing there (a void with no stars), but in some other sense it would have some sort of luminous thing there, and that thing would have something that might, in time, be understood as "luminous structure" (the moon), "structure of atmosphere" (the red part of Mars, and Venus), or "structure of magnetosphere" (certain kinds of solar flares).

There is a lot of variation here; for instance, I wouldn't even necessarily want this world to be on an axis and orbiting something, but it might have to be so, or it might not, or it might be orbiting something much like a moon but not an axis at all, etc. (Something like the "red spot" on Mars.) I don't know which options I like best, and it's not entirely clear to me that one way or another, it is better.

I think about this a lot. I think about it the way people think about "natural" vs. "artificial" selection, or what people have always thought of as "organic" vs. "inorganic" life.