The Innocent Ninja's Writing Blog

A blacksmith is a generalist, a person who uses tools and fire to work iron.  Some blacksmiths work more specifically, so you get, say, an architectural blacksmith, who focuses more or less exclusively on things like gates, rails, fences, or an artist blacksmith, who makes wacky sculptures or what have you.  These days, though, that’s a pretty blurry line.  ‘Blacksmith’ is a pretty damn broad term, but it’s nowhere near broad enough to cover everything encompassed in ‘metalworker’, which is how I often see it used.  There are a LOT of different skills for working metal, and no one knows them all.  Some other terms:

A farrier shoes horses.  They may make the shoes, or they may buy them and then size them, but they actually do the shoeing.  Unless the blacksmith is also a farrier, they don’t know shit about horses’ hooves and are not qualified to deal with them and probably don’t want to.

A blacksmith works IRON, usually almost exclusively.  They might work with bronze or do a bit of brazing, but those are really separate skillsets.  If you work, say, tin and/or pewter, you are in fact a whitesmith.  You could also be a silversmith or a coppersmith, and so on.

Knifemakers and swordsmiths have their own highly specialized and fairly complex specialties, and usually a blacksmith wouldn’t mess with that unless they want to pick up a new skillset or if they’re really the only game going for a long way around.  By the same token, a swordsmith might never have learned the more general blacksmithing skills.  They’re not the same thing is what I’m trying to say here.  Likewise armorers.  There’s overlap but it’s not the same thing.

If you make metal items via molds and casting, you work at a foundry and are a foundryman.

In fantasy, though, it’s all different.  Tolkien’s dwarves have an average lifespan of 250, so they have much longer to pick up skills (and live in an environment where probably it’s much easier and encouraged for them to do so: they live in cities that are concentrated on providing made items and skills to other species: they aren’t a generalist society, very unlike any human institution I can think of.)  They also ‘make mighty spells’ so very unlike real medieval blacksmiths, they are probably working metal with enchantment as well as tongs. 

We don’t know about their gender role situation, but I don’t think there’s anything in canon to say that the women aren’t making things (and even if there was, there are loads of dwarf cities that last for thousands of years, so no doubt there’s variation between them). 

Let’s talk first about the name!  Historically Smith would mean metal worker and the color would tell you what type of metal. Black is the designation for iron (because of the color it takes after being heated and cooled several times.)  Today Smith more generally means maker, but is still most commonly applied to metal workers.

And, as the OP said, if you need a tinker (tinsmith, also works pewter), silversmith (whitesmith), goldsmith (white- or yellow- smith), or coppersmith (red-, brown-, or green- smith), that’s a different discipline.  Not that a blacksmith has no idea how to work those metals, but his knowledge will likely be limited to how it applies to his general discipline.  For example, weapons and armor made for nobility might have precious metals used to decorate them.  (Aside: The techniques for iron vs copper are complete opposites and one of my favorite modern blacksmithing proverbs is about brass, an alloy made with copper and zinc.  It runs, “Brass, brass, what a pain in the… brain.” )

One of my choice historical bits is talking about medieval blacksmithing in England. This is something we actually have records of because of the guild structure. There were so many blacksmiths in urbanized areas that your permit to open a shop would permit you to make only a specific set of items. Pin drawers, chain makers, armorers, swordsmiths, farm tools, nails, wainwright (hoops for wagon wheels or barrels), farriers (horse shoeing)… all of those might be different shops.  And that isn’t even a complete list!  (Naturally there was a lot of overlap on high-demand items.) 

But even better, Yorkshire records that show us that women were regularly involved in the trade!  It was still male-dominated BUT several of the disciplines (nails, pins, chains) were almost exclusively women!  Women owned blacksmith shops, took apprentices, worked the forge - all of the things that mark them as “real” blacksmiths.  One of my favorite anecdotes is from William Hutton’s History of Birmingham; he encountered a nailer’s shop in which he noted “one or more females, stripped of their upper garments, and not overcharged with the lower, wielding the hammer with all the grace of the sex.”

Come yell at me about blacksmithing!  I want to learn what you know and I’d love to answer any of your questions!  I have a lot of prepared lecture snippets on a variety of smithing details:

Technological setbacks due to loss of historic metallurgical discoveries.

Why “damascus” swords are supposed to be the best.

Cultural and historical reasons for large, slow, strokes with a heavy hammer (like you see in video games) vs. small, quick strokes with a smaller hammer (like you see on YouTube).

Blacksmithing terms in modern English.  (”Keep your temper” being the most common.)

How settling America changed the Western picture to males-only generalized blacksmithing

Economic comparisons of the cost to hire a blacksmith

Apprentice vs. Journeyman vs. Master

More about female blacksmiths

What to wear in the forge (modern or historical reenactment)

How-to on a variety of subjects

Blacksmithing in movies

Why Forged in Fire doesn’t give you an accurate picture of blacksmithing or the skills of the contestants

Metallurgy (the science of metals)

Eastern vs. Western blacksmithing (Surprise!  Japan and Europe are wildly different!)

What kitchen knives do you need?  And how do you keep them sharp?

Tasty Fried Food

Apparently this is roughly what we’d look like, if our eyes could see in a different spectrum:

Dunno about you, but I want to use this in a story someday.  Aliens can see our stripes and we can’t!  Magical transformations follow Blaschko’s Lines!  A subtle sign of lycanthropy is darker hair there!  Wizards are bald with that cool spiral on their heads!

Here’s what you’ll need to know! Learn all about the wonders of the human body and add scientifically-accurate drama to your stories.

MALNOURISHMENT

DEATH: average - 21 days (3 weeks), max ever recorded - 70 days (2.3 months)

6 HOURS: grouchiness and hunger due to lack of glucose.

24 HOURS - 48 HOURS: hunger very apparent; pains in stomach; body has entered ketosis and is using fatty acids as energy.

72 HOURS+: muscles begin to get broken down for energy.

You will become: increasingly depressed, irritable, hysteric apathetic; decline in concentration, comprehension and judgement; social isolation and withdrawal; possible self-harm.

If your character doesn’t eat for 5 consecutive days, they are at risk of Refeeding Syndrome. This is extremely dangerous and can be fatal.

recommended reading:

The Minnesota Starvation Experiment

Psychology of starvation based on the above experiment.

DEHYDRATION

DEATH: average 3 days; some live 8 - 10 days

for the calculations: TWV = total water volume in body; average adult loses 2.5 litres of water per day.

Assuming that your character does not eat, drink or absorb any moisture.

9 HOURS/2% TWV: thirst, discomfort, dry skin, loss of appetite; 50% loss of performance for athletes; elevated body temperature, rapid heartbeat, fatigue, dizziness when standing, decreased fluid secretion (sweat, urination, tears, etc).

24 HOURS/6% TWV: sleepiness, severe headaches, nausea, tingling in limbs.

36 - 72 HOURS/ 6 - 15% TWV: no urination, seizures, muscle spasms, shriveled skin, fainting, vision dimming, delirium.

72 HOURS+/15% TWV+: Organ failure.

recommended reading:

dehydration on the psychology wiki.

SLEEP DEPRIVATION

DEATH: not known, but can stay awake for 11 days; max chronic sleep deprivation ever recorded (until death) - 6 months.

NOTE: This does not mean you can stay awake for 6 months. It means you can survive that long with chronic sleep deprivation - going days without sleep and then sleeping once or twice.

24 HOURS: mental ability impairment of someone who has blood-alcohol content of 0.10%; everything is worse - emotional control, memory, attention, decision-making, hand-eye coordination.

36 HOURS: hormonal spikes everywhere; losing time; lack of motivation; head buzzing like you’re dehydrated.

48 HOURS: microsleep, regardless of what you’re doing (you fall asleep for 1-30 seconds and then become disorientated);

72 HOURS+: say goodbye to higher mental processes like decision-making and planning. Also, say good bye to saying goodbye because even simple conversations are hard.

80 HOURS+: … and hello, hallucinations!

recommended reading:

this article of a soldier’s experience with sleep deprivation.

Cheek: a round dull pain that clocks your entire head in a different direction. It’s painful and throbs but the main effect of a punch to the cheek is how jarring it is. You feel it in your mouth, your teeth. And no matter how you position that punch the knuckles will always hit the jaw and cheek bones adding a frame of sharp pain in which the redness will be painted.

Temple: getting hit on the temple pushes your head to the side rather than turning it. It’s disorienting because it leaves you very off balance. It essentially feels like a bad pressure headache, like when you have a sinus infection on a plane, but in one spot and on the outside. It’s sharp in the middle and radiates outward and even after the initial impact it pulses like an earthquake epicenter. It easily causes long lasting headaches and is the most likely of these examples to cause a concussion.

Eye: this is a weird one. The fist doesn’t fit within the eye socket so either the knuckles on the brow and cheeks bones protect the actual eye or they don’t. The former option gives a full spreading pain below the eye which results in the classic black eye look and a sharp pain on your brow similar to hitting your shin on the couch. The latter option, well bad things can happen when a hard fast object makes direct contact with your eye but for the sake of this it feels like a vacuum bc the concave shape is being covered and pressurized. The eye feels pushed back and pulled forward all at once. It doesn’t necessarily hurt that bad for that long unless the punch was meant to do damage. I’m fortunate to say I don’t know what it would feel like then.

Nose: remember that prank kids used to pull where they’d line up their hands with their nose, push them in one direction and crack a knuckle at the same time to pretend to break their nose? Yeah that’s what it looks like when someone punches you from the side in the nose, except it’s someone else’s hand and your nose makes the sound instead of their knuckle. It’s just like breaking any bone where you hear it and feel the action if it being done but that moment of shock blankets you for a split second until all the pain comes rushing back. It’s sharp and needlelike and can give you black eyes just to add insult to injury. If you get hit in the nose from the front it’s like the uncomfortableness of when you have to sneeze but can’t. Except that feeling took all the steroids and is now using your face as a punching bag to express its roid rage. It crackles outward like static electricity under your skin, your eyesight gets fuzzy and you can’t tell if it’s because you’re tearing up, it’s hard to open your eyes, or you’re momentarily stunned and blinded. Just know it’s all three. I find that this one knocks the wind out of you the most. Gotta remind yourself to breathe just don’t try to do it through your nose.

If you really want to know what this feels like I’d suggest joining a mixed martial arts because they’ll teach you correct form and power distribution and you can spar with pads and actually hit each other.

English Surnames

Dutch Surnames

Spanish Surnames

Scottish Surnames

German Surnames

Italian Surnames

Irish Surnames

French Surnames

Scandinavian Surnames

Welsh Surnames

Jewish Surnames

Surnames By Ethnicity

Most Common Surnames in the USA

Most Common Surnames in Great Britan

Indian surnames

Indonesian surnames

Pakistani surnames

Bengali surnames

Japanese surnames

Filipino surnames

Korean surnames

Syrian surnames

Mongolian naming and clan names

Thai surnames

Source: [x]

I’ve put a lot of research into this, and I’ve seen a lot of great rogue-like characters, where the author was clearly unsure as to how they perform their criminal activities. If you feel the need to ask why I know this stuff, my main writings are for a book series called “A Thief’s War,” which should be more than enough explanation. I swear I’m not personally a thief.

Anyway, here we go:

Lockpicking:

I’ve seen some stories where characters grab a paperclip, and boom, no lock can stop them. I’ve also seen some where master thieves take a hammer and smash the lock.

A lock has a series of tumblers in it, each of which need to click into place for it to unlock. A key’s design is usual exactly what it must be to get these tumblers into the proper position.

There are a wide array of shapes and sizes for lockpicks, and if you’re going to go around picking locks, you’re going to need more than one. There is no universal lockpick. Furthermore, for some reason a lot of people don’t include the secondary locking tool: a lock wrench. This is used to turn the the lock, and to keep the tumblers in place once you’ve appropriately placed them with the lockpick.

A lockpicker will know that a tumbler is in place when they hear it click, but the noise is usually quiet, so they’ll often have their ear close to the door.

Can you pick a lock with a paperclip? Yes, but it’s hard as hell, and a paperclip won’t fit into all locks. Not to mention it’s a pain turning the lock once the tumblers are in place.

 With code locks, a lot of movies or books show someone pressing their ear closely to the lock, whilst turning it, and listening for a click when it hits the right number. This actually works. These are the most useless goddamn locks in history.

Now, if you’re writing modern day, with smart locks and various other such tech, I’m afraid I can’t help. I haven’t studied that as much. Though, the previous advice will help for most locks, and that information still applies to basically all types of lock that aren’t incredibly expensive.

Sneaking:

The dashing rogue slips through the shadows, his cloak billowing behind him, and somehow none of the dozen patrolling guards walking right by happen to notice him.

Yeah, that’s not how it works.

Sneaking involves a lot of remaining very still, knowing your surroundings, and holding your breath.

A thief infiltrating a house will scout it out, usually for weeks in advance. Sometimes they’ll pose as various businessmen, and try to get the owners of the house let them in for a while so they can study the ins and outs of it. Cracking open a window isn’t quiet, and you need to know what doors will creak and what doors won’t.

If you’re trying to sneak, you need to try and stick near furniture and heavy objects. The floor isn’t nearly as likely to creak when you’re near these. Furthermore, you need to step lightly, and wear the appropriate footwear. Usually some cloth wrapping’s around one’s feet will help to be quiet, but avoid any shoes that might make clacking noises, or sound like they’re peeling off the floor when they move. A thief will also never scuff their feet, if they’re any good at sneaking.

Black clothing only helps you sneak if it’s dark, and your surroundings aren’t bright coloured. If you’re in a city of white buildings and marble, you’ll want matching attire. This is just for if you’re skulking about a city, though. Just make sure you don’t stand out. However, dark clothing will greatly help you not be seen from a distance when it’s night.

If a thief suspects someone is nearby, they should always try to locate a nearby hiding spot, and remain perfectly still. Do not move, and hold a thief will hold their breath if they start getting anxious, as heavy breathing could easily give someone away.

Many stories also don’t seem to account for the fact that various rogues and criminals have shadows, too. Even a quick and subtle movement of a shadow might be enough to give away one’s presence. It’s really, really hard to actually sneak up on someone due to this, and several other factors. Most people will actually feel tense, and usually catch wind of it if someone is sneaking up behind them, as even very quiet sounds and movements like breathing will subconsciously register to people if you get too close.

I’m a master assassin, and I carry a goddamn greatsword:

There is a reason they would use daggers. Assassins didn’t usually sneak into the king’s bedchamber in the dead of night, without being seen once. There are guards. A long hallway with two guards standing in front of the door at the end, there is absolutely no way to slip past that.

They would usually have to get into the building during the day, disguised as a servant, or even another guard. They’d have to wait for the perfect opportunity to sneak into that nobleman’s bedchamber, midday when he was absent, and then wait in there for hours.

If the assassin is sneaking in at night, they rarely go through the interior of the building. Just like a thief, they’ll get the layout of the building, and then they’ll usually enter through a window, or wherever is closest to the target. If they don’t have those guard patrols memorised, they’re screwed.

But you know what’s not subtle? An assassin carrying around a scimitar, or some flashy crossbow. If you’re going to sneak past people, you need a weapon no one will see, and that you can probably hide if someone decides to search you.

Fingerprints:

This is mainly relevant for modern era stories, and I just wanted to say that I’ve seen a few shows where a criminal isn’t wearing gloves throughout the whole thing. You always wear gloves, you never leave the murder weapon. If you touched something without gloves, you may as well take it with you to avoid risk.

Slipping out of Handcuffs:

This usually requires dislocating your fingers. Ouch. But, if the one cuffing or tying up the thief isn’t paying too much attention, you can keep your hands at an appropriate angle that the cuffs will not go on correctly, or the ropes not pulled tight enough, and you can probably slip out of them.

Who needs masks when you have shadowy hoods?

Guess what the easiest facial feature to notice in the dark is? If you guessed eyes, then you’re right. But, if you’re blending in, and your eyes are veiled by the hood that’s somehow not obscuring your vision while you crane your neck downwards to ensure that it covers your face, then people are usually still going to be able to see your lips, which stand out the second most of any feature on a person.

Yes, a hood is good if you’re trying to blend in. But it’s not good for making sure people don’t see your face. Wear a damned mask.

a kiss scene doesn’t have to lead to sex. it can, ofc, but it doesn’t have to. your characters can kiss for the sake of kissing and nothing more. kissing is hella enjoyable in and of itself, so it doesn’t always have to be a means to an end

a story doesn’t have to be steeped, marinated, and executed with tragedy to be a Real Story. obviously you can and should put your characters through the wringer, but if you don’t tell a story with hope and happiness it’s not really a story worth telling. be brutal but don’t be 100% dismal and bleak

a fantasy doesn’t have to be centered on a war, especially if you don’t feel fully capable of writing about war. they’re tricky and unruly beasts, and if you aren’t willing to give them the proper treatment (read: not romanticizing them), you’re better off not writing about war in the first place

your royal character can be fine with arranged marriages. they don’t always have to run away to escape them only to fall in love with the betrothed they were running from in the first place

on the note of romances, your story A. doesn’t need a romance if it doesn’t fit and B. doesn’t necessitate every character getting into a relationship by the end. for some people, romance isn’t their idea of a happily ever after, so you don’t have to force that into your book

perhaps the most unpopular, but it needs to be said: your female character should not slap your male character. ofc there are times when a slap is warranted, but if he’s just being a dick he doesn’t need to be slapped. that’s physical assault and abuse, which should never be acceptable, even if it makes some people laugh (it shouldn’t and yet it always does 🙄)

your female character A. doesn’t have to be thin, B. doesn’t have to be a Strong Female Character, and C. doesn’t have to go through nauseating hardships (read: sexual assault or physical abuse) for her story to be worth telling

just like fantasy doesn’t need to be centered on war, it also doesn’t need to be centered on medieval england. fantasy can happen at any time in any region of the world with any level of technology.

traditionally feminine values/traits in characters of all genders doesn’t mean they’re an inferior or weak character.

a female character can want power or have a desire to rule and not be evil.

So often I see ppl criticize the romance in books and it comes off as them hating romance and I’m like no no no no no, a well done romance is an exquisite piece of writing. It’s not romance in general that sucks, it’s bad romance that sucks. Insta love with no chemistry. Relationships with no conflict. Badly written heroes. Those romances suck.

Here’s the thing… certain emotions are easy to evoke and others are very hard to master and write. 

Anger. Hate. Rage. Fear. <– negative emotions are the easiest to write because they rely on primal instinct programmed into the human brain by thousands of years of evolution. Within cultures there are certain things that will always evoke rage (and this is why not all books translate well to other cultures). Certain fears are universal. 

Every bestseller every written has a Universal Fear driving at least the opening act of the book if not the whole book itself. Most bestsellers use “I fear I am worthless.” or “I fear death.” as their driving focus. Everything from PRIDE AND PREJUDICE to HARRY POTTER has used this and it’s why it sells so well. 

It’s also why Romance isn’t taken seriously at times. 

Romance promises as a happy romantic ending. Which means the two most common universal fears are utterly erased by the genre requirements alone. No one is going to die. The characters are going to be loved and feel worthwhile by the end of the book. 

Since readers are programmed by society to instinctively fear those things some people have trouble relating to a romance story where they must latch onto something other than fear to get through a book.

Joy. Humor. Laughter. Happiness.  <— positive emotions are really hard to write because they are complex emotions. There is nothing that makes people universally happy. I know, it’s shocking. Not kittens. Not puppies. Not a mother’s love. That thing you love, adore, and can’t live without? Yeah, someone hates it.

This is why writing satire or humor is so difficult. It’s why happy books are dismissed as fluffy or silly. They have a much narrower audience. The author has to reach into the reader’s head and manipulate their emotions so that they can feel soaring triumph. There isn’t a shortcut to writing happiness.

LOVE. <– Such a complex thing. Little understood. Hard to define. Ever roving about. Love, especially sexual and romantic love, are so individual that there will never be a One Size Fits All.  

When an author sets out to write a romance they have to convince the reader not only to abandon fear but they have to write humans who are complex, convincing, and through storytelling explain the psychology of these individuals so the reader goes, “Yes, yes! I see it! I see why these two are perfect together and could never be with anyone else!” 

It’s at once something many people have an innate talent for (hello, shippers!) and that many people don’t understand. Understanding love requires a very unselfish, un-egocentric view of the world. You have to think like someone else. And then, as the author, you have to create a way for a reader to easily step into the mind of someone else and understand this attraction without using shortcuts like “I saw her and got a boner. It’s love!” Because that isn’t. 

It’s easy to write bad romance. It’s easy to use shortcuts and script the book like a film. But where films can rely on music and facial expressions to convey the complexity of emotion a writer only has words. There is no soundtrack for Chapter 7. There is no set of words in the English language that properly express the depth of feeling, the longing and desire, of seeing someone you treasure turn and smile at someone else and knowing from the depths of your soul that you would give up everything just to keep them smiling. 

Writing a good romance means balancing internal and external conflict, knowing a person’s weaknesses and strengths, and pairing them with someone(s) who fill in their gaps, boost their strengths, and make them happy at the same time. And then, after all of that, you have to find readers who will understand and appreciate the characters you’ve written. You have to make the reader fall in love too. 

Done well Romance is the most complex literary form. 

By all means! You can definitely write it xx just keep these comments and tips in mind.

“Black Knights” need to be distinguished by context. I’m on my phone right now so I can’t link you all the sources I’d like to use, so please pardon me for that.

So, the concept of “knight in shining armour” comes from the idea of the knight-errant in medieval fiction, the sort of person who is on a quest, is all shiny and new, ready to test themselves. It also is a nod to the maintenance of equipment, or the wealth of a Knight; in the late medieval and Renaissance periods, well-off knights might have a suit of armour for warfare, a suit for tournaments, and a suit for formal occasions. These being used for different things, they were meant to be maintained well and show status and wealth.

So, where does the concept of a black Knight actually come from?

Surprisingly, most cases come from the idea of the tournament. Knights were meant to display who they were, “show their colours” (ie, heraldry), and show off their skills in combat. But if course you had some knights who didn’t want to show who they were, who they were fighting for, or which lady they favoured, etc. This sounds like a chivalric fantasy, and honestly, that’s what tournaments really became as time went by and the events became more formal.

Now, early “black Knights” , were those who did not wear dark or black armour, but in fact those who did not use their own heraldry, disguising themselves. Again, they may do this for various reasons, but the concept is they hide their identity. Occasionally, they might actually paint their shields black.

We also have the examples from the hundred years war where French and English knights painted their armour different colours: black for the French, Red for the English.

Some knights actually WOULD favour black armour or heraldry to the point they got called “black Knights”, and not as a derogative. The Polish Knight, Zawisza Czarny (pronounced “Zah-vu-shah Shar-ny”, approximately) become known for his feats of arms, and by his dark armour.

Linking back to the original quote, a Knight in shining armour could well be a black knight, as such. But more commonly, it meant he was either wealthy, or highly skilled at arms.

I’ve also long thought that the whole business of “knights in shining armour” wasn’t a medieval concept at all, certainly not the default one, but was a Regency / early Victorian fictional conceit from Romance poets and Sir Walter Scott’s historical fiction. (About 10 years ago an actual expert said more or less the same thing, leaving actual amateur me feeling rather smug…) :->

This illumination features armour that’s black or dark blue in colour, but with the carefully-delineated highlights of a shiny surface. There are many other like it.

Armour was coloured for both decorative and practical purposes; chemical blueing with acid produces a very dark, lustrous and effectively rust-resistant finish like the one in the medieval illustration. I once had an Arms & Armor rapier with that finish on the hilt: it looked like this…

Heat-blueing, which was more blue than black, was a popular treatment for Greenwich armour of the Elizabethan period, as was browning and russetting (all of which were and are used on firearms), processes which used heat, chemicals or controlled “good rust” to create colour and also prevent uncontrolled “bad rust”.

Here’s the helmet of Sir James Scudamore’s Greenwich harness, which was once blued and gilt.

The image on the left is how it looks now, after being thoroughly scrubbed with wire wool, sand or other abrasives at some stage in the 19th century to make  it “shining armour”. The image on the right is a CGI restoration of its original appearance, based on still-visible traces of colour in the grooves beside the gold strapwork.

Here’s the browned and gilt “garniture” (armour with extra bits for different styles of combat, like a life-size action figure) of George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland. I don’t think grinding this beauty down to bright metal would be an improvement…

Henry VIII’s tonlet (skirted) armour for foot combat at the Field of the Cloth of Gold now looks like this:

Originally it would have been shiny black or dark blue with gilt details and the engraved panels picked out in coloured paint or enamelling - red Tudor Roses, green leaves etc., but that wasn’t “shining armour”, so…

This detail shot shows the fine score-marks left after it was sanded “clean”, with dark pigmentation in the grooves as a memorial of how it once looked.

This Renaissance painting, “Portrait of Warrior with Squire”, shows black armour on the warrior and bare-metal armour on his squire, so it’s clear that armour in art wasn’t painted black simply because artists couldn’t properly represent burnished steel.

In this article, Thom Richardson, Keeper of Armour at the Tower of London and Royal Armouries in Leeds (the actual expert I mentioned at the beginning) comes straight out and calls Scott responsible for “shining armour” vandalism:

The sets of armour are not in their original black and gold because of over-aggressive polishing in the 19th century when, said Richardson, “they were polished with brick dust and rangoon oil to within an inch of their life” to fit the aesthetic of what armour should look like, all shiny and silvery. “Walter Scott is to blame,” Richardson added ruefully.

Scott can also be blamed, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, for creating or at least popularising that clunky, inaccurate term “chain-mail”. It cites the first appearance in 1822 (recent when talking about mail) when a character in “The Fortunes of Nigel” says:

“…the deil a thing’s broken but my head. It’s not made of iron, I wot, nor my claithes of chenzie-mail; so a club smashed the tane, and a claucht damaged the tither.”

Plate armour was also painted, either crudely…

…or with much more care (this style is actually called black-and-white armour); since the paint was oil-based, it also had a rust-proofing effect…

I have a notion that the more white there was on black-and-white armour, and thus the more work (by servants, of course!) needed to keep it looking good, may have been an indication of rank, status or success. Just a guess…

Armour left rough from the hammer - therefore cheaper than armour polished smooth, since every stage of the process had to be paid for - was also treated with hot oil in the same way cast-iron cookware is seasoned, again to prevent rust.

There were terms for bright-metal armour - “alwyte harness” and “white armour” - but the existence of such terms suggests to me that they arose from a need to describe an armour finish which needed a tiresome amount of maintenance to keep it that way. I’m betting that the last stage of a clean-and-polish was a good layer of grease, or even a beeswax sealant like the coatings used by museums today.

White armour may have been a demonstration of wealth or conspicuous consumption in the same way as black or white clothes: one needed servants constantly busy with polishing-cloths, the others needed really good colour-fast dye or lots of laundering, and all of those cost money.

WHOOO BOY

Fair Warning: This is going to be a long post.

Personally, I’m an Orthodox Ashkenazi, so most of my characters are Ashkenazis who are at least Modern Orthodox.HOWEVER, not all Jews are Ashkenazi so…. 

Religiosity:

 **CRASH COURSE IN JUDAISM TIME** 

I’m going to use Christianity as an example because I assume the majority of people who will read this are Christian. In Christianity there are different sects that believe different things (Catholic, Lutherans, Irish Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, etc). 

In Judaism there are also different sects only most of them don’t believe in something different than the others unless they’re an offshoot of Ashkenz (which I will get into in a moment). Each of these sects is mainly based on where you or your family are from geographically. If you’re from Spain you are most likely a Sephardi or Anusim Jew. If you are North African (Moroccan, Libyan, Tunisian) then its likely you are also Sephardi. (For anyone interested, Sephardi means in English “of Sephard” Sephard is Spain in Hebrew). If you are from Ethiopia, you are most likely an Ethiopian Jew. From Iran you are most likely a Persian Jew. Anywhere else in the Middle East you are most likely a Mizrachi Jew. If from Yemen then you are a Temani Jew. These are just usual rules to live by. 

If you are from anywhere in Europe (Mainly France, Germany, or Russia) besides Spain then you are most likely an Ashkenazi Jew. The reason that Ashkenazi Jews are a little different than other sects though is a simple reason. 

***CRASH COURSE IN JEWISH HISTORY TIME*** 

In the 1800s European Jews got Emancipated. This meant that Jews were allowed to leave their gated communities (shtettles, though there were plenty ghettos too) and join in with regular society. Since (and @ jumblr correct me if i’m wrong) this only happened in Europe during modern times (1400s) only the Ashkenazi Jews were really affected. So as Jews began to integrate into society many of them began to lose their religiosity. So the Ashkenazi community freaks out because they have Jews who are suddenly not being religious and they create two communities. Reform and Orthodox. The Reform believed that Emancipation was good and it slowly morphed into what everyone knows as Reform Judaism today. The Orthodox Movement thought that Emancipation was ruining Judaism and they later morphed into what is now called Ultra-Orthodox. Then you had two offshoots of those–Conservative and Neo-Orthodox. I know more about Neo-Orthodoxy so I’ll tell you about that, Neo-Orthodoxy believed that unlike Orthodoxy Emancipation was both good and that mitzvot were good. They ended up becoming the Modern Orthodox Movement (sorta like I am!!). 

The difference between the geographical sects and the Ashkenazi offshoot sects are that the geographical sects don’t necessarily have belief differences (differences in tradition and halacha, sure, but not belief) and the other sects do. Since then there have been other offshoots of Ashkenaz (mainly) that have a slightly different belief system as well (Reconstructionist, Renewal, Hassidic, etc). But each of these are different in tradition and halacha because of their belief not because of their teachers. 

Now, friendly reminder that geography doesn’t always work for identifying a Jew’s denomination. I have friends who are Sephardi and have no relation to Spain. There are Jews who do have Spanish decent and are Ashkenazi. It is a good base, but not a law. 

When creating a character figuring out what denomination of Judaism they are is important, as figuring this out is an added character trait and usually very important to the character themselves. 

After you figure out how religious you want them to be I suggest working on their character and seeing how the religion and the rules or miztvot that they follow merge. Remember, Jews are people too and if you are writing a Jew just write a person only with like… Kosher and Yom Kippur (or not if your character doesn’t keep that… whatever).

Traps Writers Fall Into:

There are two big ones:

Christian Influence

This one is a lot more prominent if the character is in a non-Jewish majority country–which I assume your characters will be, be it America or Britain. 

Why, you ask? Well because Secular countries are actually a lot less secular and a lot more Christian than most Christians think. It’s not necessarily a criticism but it is a thing. 

Do not, I repeat, do not write your Jewish character like a wannabe-Christian. We are not Wannabe-Christians. If we were then we wouldn’t be Jewish. Not every Jew grows up wanting a Christmas Tree or dressed up for Halloween. Not every kid secretly wants to eat a cheeseburger or go into a church.

Jews complain when they don’t get representation, they may love the twinkle lights during the Holidays but they are annoyed that there are no Hannukah decorations in the stores or that every chocolate in Spring is a bunny. We are not Wannabes.

Over using Yiddish

NOT!!! EVERY!!! JEW!!! SPEAKS!! YIDDISH!!

And certainly not every Jew speaks the amount of Yiddish that non-Jewish writers use. Most Ashkenazi Jews speak a mixture of Hebrew and Yiddish slang with a base of English. We’ll say “shelp,” “spritz,” and “gavult.” We’ll also say “stam,” “davka,” and “baruch hashem.” But our base language is usually English. We don’t all have Yiddish accents, we aren’t all New Yorkers. 

Also, Yiddish is not the only Jewish language!

There is another one called Ladino which is a mix of Spanish and Hebrew, and while it is dying out there still are some speakers. If you have a Jew of Hispanic decent you might want to use that instead of Yiddish. 

Now Let’s Talk Pet Peeves:

I have many Pet Peeves about Jews in Media so let’s start with the most obvious.

1. Jewish Holidays are ignored when they don’t fall out on Christian Ones

It sucks and it’s true. Most of our holidays when not Hannukah and Rosh Hashana are almost never mentioned. Jews have many more holidays than just those two. Like…

Jews have like… six fast days. All of them are important but most Jews ignore some of the shorter ones because they fall out on regular work days and it isn’t good to fast while at work.

fasting also means fasting. We do not eat unless necessary for health, we do not drink unless necessary for health. And for two of those fast days we have four other restrictions as well. 

We have Purim. Purim is a pretty cool holiday with a backstory like most Jewish holidays, someone tried to kill us, we won, let’s eat. 

Which contrary to popular belief is not Halloween only Jews.

Sukkot

A great holiday in which we eat outside and shake a bunch of leaves and a nice smelling fruit (which the TSA must be informed about every year so they don’t hold Jews in Airport Jail for carrying a bunch of palm leaves. I shit you not, this happens every year and it gets funnier every time). There’s other stuff to but that would take longer to explain. 

etc…

2. Jews almost never marry Jews in Media

This actually happens a lot more than in real life. You have a Jewish character, doesn’t matter if they’re religious or not, they almost never marry Jews. I have only ever watched two shows where two Jewish characters married (or were close to it). These are Will & Grace (Grace and Leo), and a show called Saving Hope where the lesbian Jew gets with a lesbian Jew and moves to Tel Aviv (Doctor Katz). 

3. Women and Jewish Marriage

These two topics are treated very badly in media. People tend not to understand what a K’Tuba (Jewish Marriage licence) is, and what it means to Jewish Women. It means we more or less have all power in the relationship. Where Saving Hope is good on the non-intermarriage issue, it sucks on a heterosexual marriage issue. Women are allowed to say no to sex, they are allowed to incite sex, if they do not want sex with their partner their partner cannot have sex with them. 

Alternatively if either partner wants a get (a Jewish divorce) then the partner must give them one. Something usually ignored is that if the woman wants a get not only does her husband have to give her one the Jewish community is obligated to alienate him from them, personally and business-wise, and treat him as though he has a contagious disease. A Jew is allowed to do almost anything to the unwilling partner to get them to sign the get (the Torah even says that you can stone him. We don’t obviously because killing is wrong and etc. There is a lovely story that I heard about a man who wouldn’t give his wife a get and her angry brother and a matza factory but I won’t get into that). This is exemplified in an episode of a show called In Plain Sight (Episode Aguna Matatala), I really like this episode and the Rabbi character. Personally I believe this is one of the best ‘Jew Episodes’ out there. 

4. Not knowing a character is Jewish until it must come up because of a holiday or a death in the family

If your character is Jewish they are Jewish all the time. Only bringing it up when it’s suddenly Christmas and you want diversity is stupid and quite frankly annoying. You cannot erase our Judaism because it does not benefit your plot. 

FRIENDLY REMINDER: ALL JEWS ARE DIFFERENT. 

An Israeli Jew acts differently than a Diaspora Jew, and a Hollywood Jew acts differently than a New York Jew. We aren’t just stereotypes we are people, and if you are making a character be realistic you must keep that in mind. 

Pierce is cold. He is calculating. He knows how to manipulate people into doing what he wants. He’s not afraid to use pawns and sacrifice them accordingly. God, he is an awful person. A terrible one. He’s an abuser and unapologetic and willing to take out millions of people for his vision, however fucked up that vision is, of the greater good.

Recognizing that he is one of the most terrifying villains that marvel has rolled out with does not equal romanticizing him. He’s the kind of evil that creeps up without you noticing and by the time you do it’s too late. He’s smiling as he stabs you in the back. Pierce is important because he’s the bad guy who can actually exist in the world today. There aren’t people building giant robots, there aren’t Norse gods or nazis peeling their faces off. What there are in this world are politicians in positions of power who abuse that power and nothing is more dangerous than that.

Those tags are great because if you go against Pierce in a battle of wits you WILL NOT WIN. Plain and simple. Literally the only way to stop him was pure force.

I think everything you need to know about Pierce is in the line “the man turned down a Nobel Peace Prize.” He had literally everyone so fooled that not even NICK FURY suspected him until far too late. I’m not trying to put Pierce on a pedestal or anything like that, but he was winning at a game that no one else even knew they were playing.

THAT’s what makes a good villain. THAT’s what makes a villain terrifying. THAT’s what makes Pierce terrifying. Because Pierce is the best villain Marvel has given us because he is real. He’s in congress; he’s leading our troops; he’s in the Senate; he’s sitting in the UN; he’s at the head of a multi-billion dollar corporation and he’s drafting laws and hey, did we forget that we already have a project insight? Because what’s the difference between the helicarriers and drones?

What makes CA: TWS such an amazing piece of storytelling is that it is absolutely a sociopolitical thriller disguised as a superhero movie. And if Pierce wasn’t the cold, smart, dispassionate, well-spoken, insidious bastard that he is, he wouldn’t be nowhere as effective. Even after Steve gives his passionate speech at the Triskelion, even when the World Security Council turns against him, Pierce still thinks he can win by spinning things his way. He absolutely believes he’s doing this for the greater good. No villain worth his screen time ever looks at the things they do and thinks ‘ah yes I am such a terrible person, doing these evil, awful and morally wrong things.’ Every single villain must absolutely think they are absolutely in the right, and the hero is their villain. Or they become stereotypes and caricatures. 

Active soaring wings: Think seabirds. Gulls, albatrosses.

Passive soaring wings: Large birds of prey. Eagles, vultures.

Elliptical wings: Generally small birds. Sparrows, crows, pheasants, but also forest-dwelling raptors.

High-speed wings: Mix of prey and predator birds. Ranges from falcons to swifts to ducks.

It’s probably one of the most common scenarios in a novel, comic, roleplay, script, or otherwise.  Character B gets injured, and Character A knows wound care and takes care of it for them.  But the old fashioned style of thinking runs rampant, especially with ‘classic wound treatment’ being educated generations down, leaving plenty of people unaware of more realistic and recent modern advances in traditional first aid.  

Things To Remember:

Wash your hands.

It’s all too common for this step to be missed in writing.  When wound care comes up, remember that the purpose of it is, underlying everything emotional, to get the wound clean.  Hands not very recently disinfected and sterilized are more likely to cause infection, undermining everything else that Character A hopes to do.  Even if it’s just a sentence or a footnote, remember to add in washing hands – with soap!

Clear the wound.

There are multiple options here, but they all come back to the same thing.  Character A should always clean out the wound with hydrotherapy, which is fancy speak for running water for a very long time.  Flushing a wound can be done with a non iodized salt solution, a dilution of very mild soap, or even plain but it must always come back to WATER.  Run the wound under water for a few minutes to clean out dirt, bacteria, and loosen any debris stuck inside.  Character A can and should use clean, sterile tweezers to remove this debris if the water is unable, then pat the wound dry with gauze.  

Keep the wound clean.

Antibiotics are a necessity with any and all wound care.  From petroleum jelly, a store bought antibiotic like neosporin or polysporin, or any other ointment.  However for a lesser known and just as realistic option, remember you can also use ( with or alone ) sugar.  On burns, deep gashes, cuts, or just about anything, packing the wound with sugar would let Character B’s body begin to heal without fear of bacteria, because the highly concentrated medium of sugar will not allow bacteria to survive.

If stitches are necessary.

Is the wound is deep enough to go to fat, muscle, bone, or other structures?  Does it go right over a joint?  Is it on the hands, fingers, or around the mouth or eyes?  Have minutes passed without the bleeding slowing?  These are prime locations that will medically require stitches – be it to assist the wound in closing, or stop natural motions from ripping left alone gouges wider.  Stitches, or sutures, traditionally use thread made of silk or nylon and a curved needle with suture scissors to assist in the special kind of stitch that specially holds wounds together.  

If Character A needs to stitch a wound together, their knowledge may vary, and they may not have the correct tools.  But here are some things you can make sure they know.  Make a knot on each stitch, to better hold it in place.  Hold the skin together while stitching, don’t trust the thread to pull both sides in by itself.  If the flesh is ragged on each side, they may need to cut clean edges, mostly to insure that the stitches don’t tear out and the wound is even.  Removal comes days later, with cutting each stitch besides the knot and pulling it out – it should tug, but be painless.

Wrap the wound.

That old belief that a wound should see fresh air is an absolute lie, as proven by many doctors over the years.  Wounds should be kept constantly covered, and damp.  Studies show that a covered, damp wound healed in 12-15 days while an air exposed, dry wound healed in over thirty.  Not only this, but covering and dampening the wound brings less chance of scarring.  Use wound dressings like wet to dry gauze ( which is just as common as traditional ), then wrap in a bandage, even two if necessary.  

For long term wound treatment.

Whether Character A keeps a constant eye on B, or if Character B is on their own, they should both keep up wound treatment for realism.  Each day change the bandage and gauze, or more, if found to be constantly wet.  Use daily hydrotherapy to clean out dead cells and drainage from the wound.  Pack with more sugar or antibiotic ointment.  Lack of doing this would cause Character B an infected wound, likely turning to an abscess, and undo all the previous work.

Things to Avoid:

Put the alcohol down.

Since we’re not in the wild west and Hollywood is a liar, NEVER use strong antiseptics, vinegars, or alcohol to clean a wound.  All things such as white vinegar, hydrogen peroxide, vodka, rubbing alcohol or iodine can burn and cause irreparable damage to the skin and flesh, increasing the healing time substantially.  

Never applying pressure.

Between each stage of wound treatment, Character B should be applying pressure with a sterilized hand and clean towel or gauze to the wound, preferably with it above their head.  This lessens the chance of bleeding out and allows the blood to slow, but not halt.  

Don’t be afraid of pink.

A wound a doctor would be satisfied with seeing is the kind that scares most people: pink, red, and just on the right side of bloody.  Any other colors, too little, or too much blood are all red flags for wound treatment.

Don’t be afraid of the doctor.