"what Do I Do Now That I Finished The Hunger Games Books?"

I am begging the FDA to require that companies CANNOT just put "spices" as an ingredient but have to label the spices.

"Spices" can mean "this has some oregano and black pepper in it" or it can mean "this has cumin cayenne and paprika and if you eat this you will be sick in bed in pain for a week" for me.

Seriously, this is an allergy issue and a huge oversight on the part of corporations.

Require detailed labeling of spices used in packaged foods NOW.

Don’t try defending this

I sat down to write my reaction post to the second ep of HOTD and…realized Idk how to approach it, where to start. And not because I hated every single thing about it – like with ep1 there were lots of good or at least interesting moments. There were other choices I wouldn’t have personally liked in any circumstance but that weren’t necessarily bad in and of themselves if they’d been in another show, surrounded with other context or other scenes. The problem is how ridiculously biased this writing is and how that bias and the ridiculousness of it permeates everything, even the parts that were good or fine or reasonably in character. We knew, of course, even from S1, that the writing was biased. But this season it feels especially blatant.

How am I supposed to feel about say…Jae’s funeral? On one hand, a gut-wrenching scene, carried so well by Olivia and Phia’s superb understated acting. It’s a scene that has every reason to be there – royal funeral processions/spectacles were (and still are) normal. And even if it’s not a regular occurrence in this universe (questionable), it’s a very good and smart play by Otto. On the other hand, is it not suspect that the funeral of this child was less of a melancholy moment of mourning like Luke’s funeral (despite the obviously grieving family) but focused on Helaena’s panic attack at being too close to too many people, and with the distraction of Jae’s cart getting stuck in the mud (was that supposed to be symbolic of something???). Do we not remember TB shrieking long before the episode aired that the Greens have a public funeral for Jae “just to make the Greens look bad”? These people are known for the worst faith takes, so what does it say that the writers apparently agree with them?

How am I supposed to feel about Alicent’s inability to successfully, if at all, to comfort her children? Is this a potentially interesting exploration of how her own grief, guilt, self-blame/low self-esteem, and complicated relationship with her kids due to their common and individual family traumas (and, in Helaena’s case…neurodivergence, I guess?) have and are affecting her? Or is it just a low-key attempt at character assassination, given that last season she was shown as perfectly capable of showing affection to her children (more than one with Aemond, hugging Helaena and making other attempts when she was less receptive, even kissing Aegon at the coronation despite their turbulent relationship)?

Is Alicent’s self-blame and guilt a potentially interesting exploration of how grief can affect people, of what happens when a person feels they are breaking some moral or ethical or religious code of conduct that they sincerely believe in/believe they can be punished for breaking? Or does the narrative blame her too/knows that a large chunk of the audience will too or at least will find the self-blame and guilt pathetic or unsympathetic (because goodness knows that’s all Twitter/X has to say on the matter, it seems).

How am I supposed to feel about Aegon hanging the ratcatchers? Of course, Otto is right – this was a terrible thing to do, not just because it was politically a misstep, but first of all because there were many innocent people executed without trial. It’s a canonical event, and in context of Aegon’s grief and fury, it’s interesting in and of itself, it’s part of the commentary on the wreckage that war and nobles’ games cause. I’d have no issue with it, except…. Why was this made into a literal cartoon-villain-esque kick the dog moment? By making me feel sorry for the sad, cute puppy am I supposed to think that hanging Cheese was somehow wrong? After he sawed off a child’s head? And why is it that the smallfolk get angry when Aegon hands the ratcatchers but not when Rhaenys trembles dozens of smallfolk in the dragon pit? How come Aegon is held accountable for all his mistakes, at least by the people closest to him, and Criston very specifically sends a kingsguard member to impersonate his twin and kill Rhaenyra, but the show removed maximum responsibility from Daemon and of course made sure that Rhaenya was just appalled by the whole thing. (And suddenly cares about Helaena? I actually rolled my eyes at that line so hard it hurt.)

What am I to think of the messy/awkward/complicated TG family dynamics? They’re interesting! They’re fun! They could make for some great television (and fic lol). I could/should/would enjoy this. But on the other hand, when TB get all these bonding moments, or the potential messiness (e.g. Rhaena feeling ignored by her father) is ignored in like 85% of situations? And when this imbalance is not at all in the book? (When it feels like they wanted to cut/held off on Daeron specifically because he was so sweet and mild tempered and beloved by everyone?) It becomes frustrating, not fun.

At what point do I need to decide that this show isn’t worth it? After all, I think the sentiment that “maybe this is just not telling the kind of story you want to hear/watch” is generally a wise approach. Except…that would hold if this was an original show or if it was one of those “loosely based on/inspired by” things that were not pretending to be adaptations. But when you’re advertised an adaptation, you’re not coming in blind. Ideally, you’re coming in knowing what sort of story you’re coming for, at the very least. Unlike  ASOIAF, the Dance is a fully finished story. There shouldn’t have been any “nasty surprises” like some people got in the last seasons in GoT…

But they mentioned Daeron by name. Tom’s acting is incredible. We know I’m not going anywhere for now lmao.

Maybe I won’t do my usual type of notes/reaction post this time, after all I’ve said so much of what I most feel right now anyway.

Sorry for the depression/pessimism guys. I’m just so tired.

Alicent’s relationships with her children can never be perfect and healthy because they’re objectively broken from their onset. And I’m so tired of seeing brain dead takes comparing the “superior” relationship Rhaenyra has with her kids to Alicent and her kids as some sort of gotcha.

Alicent’s exposure to motherhood isn’t on her terms in any conceivable way. Her children are the products of marital rape and coercion. They are conceived and born when she is a young teenage girl 15-18, well before she is ready to have them. They are born in quick succession with no opportunity for her to recover. And, they are from a man that not only does she not love but who neglects and belittles her.

All these factors severely damage Alicent’s ability to connect with her children in their infancy. And can you blame her given the circumstances?

She’s not ready to have them at all, so she doesn’t know how to properly mother them. And she likely resents them at least a bit in the early stages because they are the physical manifestation of not only her rape but the life she is trapped in. And that likely compounds with severe guilt because these are her babies, why doesn’t she feel the love and joy she’s supposed to?

And yet. She still loves and cares for them. She holds them as babies (despite being a baby herself) and dutifully cares for them even though she could simply dump them off with a nursemaid. She charges with a knife at Rhaenyra for them. She stands between them and a dragon from them. She betrays her closest companion of her childhood for them. She defies the king and their father for them.

I know that Alicent makes some crucial mistakes that ends up hurting her children. And I know that the scenes we see with Alicent and her kids often show her lack of connection to them. But despite the fact that her relationship to them can be nothing but fractured at the onset. There is so much passion and love and devotion she has for them.

These are not scenes of a woman who is a bad mother. These are scenes of a mother who adores her children and would do anything for them. But who can only love them roughly because she never had an opportunity to love them gently. Their very existence was never gentle for her and never fostered through love.

Alicent’s relationship with her kids may be broken. But it’s not her fault that it is. And no matter what there is love and it is her motivation. So stop acting like she is a bad mother when she’s fighting like hell to breed a relationship with them that is fostered in connection.

NEW PHOTO OF TEAM GREEN.

I would be very interested in hearing the museum design rant

by popular demand: Guy That Took One (1) Museum Studies Class Focused On Science Museums Rants About Art Museums. thank u for coming please have a seat

so. background. the concept of the "science museum" grew out of 1) the wunderkammer (cabinet of curiosities), also known as "hey check out all this weird cool shit i have", and 2) academic collections of natural history specimens (usually taxidermied) -- pre-photography these were super important for biological research (see also). early science museums usually grew out of university collections or bequests of some guy's Weird Shit Collection or both, and were focused on utility to researchers rather than educational value to the layperson (picture a room just, full of taxidermy birds with little labels on them and not a lot of curation outside that). eventually i guess they figured they could make more on admission by aiming for a mass audience? or maybe it was the cultural influence of all the world's fairs and shit (many of which also caused science museums to exist), which were aimed at a mass audience. or maybe it was because the research function became much more divorced from the museum function over time. i dunno. ANYWAY, science and technology museums nowadays have basically zero research function; the exhibits are designed more or less solely for educating the layperson (and very frequently the layperson is assumed to be a child, which does honestly irritate me, as an adult who likes to go to science museums). the collections are still there in case someone does need some DNA from one of the preserved bird skins, but items from the collections that are exhibited typically exist in service of the exhibit's conceptual message, rather than the other way around.

meanwhile at art museums they kind of haven't moved on from the "here is my pile of weird shit" paradigm, except it's "here is my pile of Fine Art". as far as i can tell, the thing that curators (and donors!) care about above all is The Collection. what artists are represented in The Collection? rich fucks derive personal prestige from donating their shit to The Collection. in big art museums usually something like 3-5% of the collection is ever on exhibit -- and sometimes they rotate stuff from the vault in and out, but let's be real, only a fraction of an art museum's square footage is temporary exhibits. they're not going to take the scream off display when it's like the only reason anyone who's not a giant nerd ever visits the norwegian national museum of art. most of the stuff in the vault just sits in the vault forever. like -- art museum curators, my dudes, do you think the general public gives a SINGLE FUCK what's in The Collection that isn't on display? no!! but i guarantee you it will never occur, ever, to an art museum curator that they could print-to-scale high-res images of artworks that are NOT in The Collection in order to contextualize the art in an exhibit, because items that are not in The Collection functionally do not exist to them. (and of course there's the deaccessioning discourse -- tumblr collectively has some level of awareness that repatriation is A Whole Kettle of Worms but even just garden-variety selling off parts of The Collection is a huge hairy fucking deal. check out deaccessioning and its discontents; it's a banger read if you're into This Kind Of Thing.)

with the contents of The Collection foregrounded like this, what you wind up with is art museum exhibits where the exhibit's message is kind of downstream of what shit you've got in the collection. often the message is just "here is some art from [century] [location]", or, if someone felt like doing a little exhibit design one fine morning, "here is some art from [century] [location] which is interesting for [reason]". the displays are SOOOOO bad by science museum standards -- if you're lucky you get a little explanatory placard in tiny font relating the art to an art movement or to its historical context or to the artist's career. if you're unlucky you get artist name, date, and medium. fucker most of the people who visit your museum know Jack Shit about art history why are you doing them dirty like this

(if you don't get it you're just not Cultured enough. fuck you, we're the art museum!)

i think i've talked about this before on this blog but the best-exhibited art exhibit i've ever been to was actually at the boston museum of science, in this traveling leonardo da vinci exhibit where they'd done a bunch of historical reconstructions of inventions out of his notebooks, and that was the main Thing, but also they had a whole little exhibit devoted to the mona lisa. obviously they didn't even have the real fucking mona lisa, but they went into a lot of detail on like -- here's some X-ray and UV photos of it, and here's how art experts interpret them. here's a (photo of a) contemporary study of the finished painting, which we've cleaned the yellowed varnish off of, so you can see what the colors looked like before the varnish yellowed. here's why we can't clean the varnish off the actual painting (da vinci used multiple varnish layers and thinned paints to translucency with varnish to create the illusion of depth, which means we now can't remove the yellowed varnish without stripping paint).

even if you don't go into that level of depth about every painting (and how could you? there absolutely wouldn't be space), you could at least talk a little about, like, pigment availability -- pigment availability is an INCREDIBLY useful lens for looking at historical paintings and, unbelievably, never once have i seen an art museum exhibit discuss it (and i've been to a lot of art museums). you know how medieval european religious paintings often have funky skin tones? THEY HADN'T INVENTED CADMIUM PIGMENTS YET. for red pigments you had like... red ochre (a muted earth-based pigment, like all ochres and umbers), vermilion (ESPENSIVE), alizarin crimson (aka madder -- this is one of my favorite reds, but it's cool-toned and NOT good for mixing most skintones), carmine/cochineal (ALSO ESPENSIVE, and purple-ish so you wouldn't want to use it for skintones anyway), red lead/minium (cheaper than vermilion), indian red/various other iron oxide reds, and apparently fucking realgar? sure. whatever. what the hell was i talking about.

oh yeah -- anyway, i'd kill for an art exhibit that's just, like, one or two oil paintings from each century for six centuries, with sample palettes of the pigments they used. but no! if an art museum curator has to put in any level of effort beyond writing up a little placard and maybe a room-level text block, they'll literally keel over and die. dude, every piece of art was made in a material context for a social purpose! it's completely deranged to divorce it from its material context and only mention the social purpose insofar as it matters to art history the field. for god's sake half the time the placard doesn't even tell you if the thing was a commission or not. there's a lot to be said about edo period woodblock prints and mass culture driven by the growing merchant class! the met has a fuckton of edo period prints; they could get a hell of an exhibit out of that!

or, tying back to an earlier thread -- the detroit institute of arts has got a solid like eight picasso paintings. when i went, they were kind of just... hanging out in a room. fuck it, let's make this an exhibit! picasso's an artist who pretty famously had Periods, right? why don't you group the paintings by period, and if you've only got one or two (or even zero!) from a particular period, pad it out with some decent life-size prints so i can compare them and get a better sense for the overarching similarities? and then arrange them all in a timeline, with little summaries of what each Period was ~about~? that'd teach me a hell of a lot more about picasso -- but you'd have to admit you don't have Every Cool Painting Ever in The Collection, which is illegalé.

also thinking about the mit museum temporary exhibit i saw briefly (sorry, i was only there for like 10 minutes because i arrived early for a meeting and didn't get a chance to go through it super thoroughly) of a bunch of ship technical drawings from the Hart nautical collection. if you handed this shit to an art museum curator they'd just stick it on the wall and tell you to stand around and look at it until you Understood. so anyway the mit museum had this enormous room-sized diorama of various hull shapes and how they sat in the water and their benefits and drawbacks, placed below the relevant technical drawings.

tbh i think the main problem is that art museum people and science museum people are completely different sets of people, trained in completely different curatorial traditions. it would not occur to an art museum curator to do anything like this because they're probably from the ~art world~ -- maybe they have experience working at an art gallery, or working as an art buyer for a rich collector, neither of which is in any way pedagogical. nobody thinks an exhibit of historical clothing should work like a clothing store but it's fine when it's art, i guess?

also the experience of going to an art museum is pretty user-hostile, i have to say. there's never enough benches, and if you want a backrest, fuck you. fuck you if going up stairs is painful; use our shitty elevator in the corner that we begrudgingly have for wheelchair accessibility, if you can find it. fuck you if you can't see very well, and need to be closer to the art. fuck you if you need to hydrate or eat food regularly; go to our stupid little overpriced cafeteria, and fuck you if we don't actually sell any food you can eat. (obviously you don't want someone accidentally spilling a smoothie on the art, but there's no reason you couldn't provide little Safe For Eating Rooms where people could just duck in and monch a protein bar, except that then you couldn't sell them a $30 salad at the cafe.) fuck you if you're overwhelmed by noise in echoing rooms with hard surfaces and a lot of people in them. fuck you if you are TOO SHORT and so our overhead illumination generates BRIGHT REFLECTIONS ON THE SHINY VARNISH. we're the art museum! we don't give a shit!!!

As a disabled person, I feel this so much. Yes, we‘re not lesser than anyone else, not any less deserving of happiness and recognition but sometimes we have to work harder for things, because people around us won‘t see it that way otherwise.

Also as an aside most people are disadvantaged in one way but might have some privilege compared to others and most people have to compensate for something they shouldn‘t have to compensate for.

Aemond had to compensate for not having a dragon and being seen as lesser for it, Jace had to compensate for not looking remotely Valyrian. In both instances they shouldn‘t have been bullied in the first place, but both lads worked to overcome their problems. Rhaenyra just doesn‘t.

I finally formulated why I don't like Rhaenyra. And it's not about misogyny, or even that I find her boring (although I do). If we look at this story the way TB fans do it, then we get something like "a woman fights the system in a patriarchal world." It sounds great, it sounds like a story that I might like. But does she fight? Because the problem is that she doesn't. She doesn't fight. And the whole rhetoric of TB fans usually boils down to "you demand from Rhaenyra what you wouldn't demand from a man in her place." But isn't that how it works? If you live in a place where women aren't considered equal to men, you should try to become ten times better than any of them in order to earn respect, and that's normal. Characters who understand the realities of their world and accept them to fight injustice command respect. At the same time, Rhaenyra didn't do anything - she just wanted the world around her to change itself for her convenience, so that the rules by which it worked before she was born would simply be forgotten at the snap of her fingers. She wasn't trying to prove that she was worthy of being a queen, she wanted to be respected just because her father ordered it, but it doesn't work that way. That's why I don't like her - she wanted the world to change on its own, instead of trying to change it with her own efforts.

I'm gonna need these people to stop mixing the book with the show because frankly not everybody has read the book but we have watched the show which clearly shows Alicent as a victim who's just trying to keep her children and herself safe and also shows rhaenyra being the stupidest targaryen woman to ever live, but because y'all wanna keep trying to make rhaenyra the saint in the whole situation and act like she can't do any wrong, y'all bring up the book because y'all know that if y'all didn't you would have to be forced to face the fact that you're all wrong about rhaenyra and that she is literally the person that y'all want Alicent to be

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Hamas is publicly executing Gaza opponents ON VIDEO. Silence from the world.

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

Hamas is bragging that it murdered 11 Gaza citizens yesterday.

Outside of some Israeli media, no news site or "human rights" NGO  has said a word.

Palestinian human rights activist Howidy Hamza tweeted Thursday, "As expected, Hamas began executing Gazans the moment the ceasefire deal was reached, accusing them of 'working with the occupation.' Just today, they executed 10 Gazans, and they promised to do more in the coming days. This isn’t a novel tactic; it’s an age-old strategy employed by Hamas to silence critics and instill fear among citizens who oppose their rule. I would greatly welcome a position from the pro-Palestinian movement advocating for pressure on Hamas to end its ongoing oppression of the people in Gaza."

Do you think this wasn't also happening during the fighting? After seeing this video, can one doubt that Hamas would use the war as an excuse to kill its critics and then blame Israel? 

Beyond that, isn't it likely that Hamas would sometimes kill innocent women and children just for the PR value of blaming their deaths on Israel? 

The people who spent so much time and money pretending to defend Palestinian lives have been struck dumb in the face of incontrovertible evidence of Hamas murdering people in Gaza. Palestinian lives really don't matter to these hypocrites if Jews cannot be blamed. 

What really angers people about Criston and Alicent is that Criston perceives himself as a protector to Alicent FROM Rhaenyra. A lot of people take what he said about Rhaenyra being a spider as him still being angry and rejected, and given the lack of media literacy among this fandom, I get that.

But Criston said that in response to Aemond shaming Alicent, and implying that she is a liar and a hypocrite. Aemond accused Alicent of having love for the enemy, and indirectly he is calling her a traitor. Criston was not thinking of Rhaenyra nor did he care to mention her until he perceived Aemond's comments as threatening Alicent due to her feelings toward Rhaenyra. He does not mention in depth what happened to him, but he does mention Alicent and Rhaenyra's relationship and basically explains to Ameond how Alicent was manipulated by Rhaenyra and lied to.

And that is true. Rhaenyra did lie to Alicent years ago which resulted in her father being dismissed and her being utterly alone at court. Rhaenyra manipulated Viserys into not really giving a fuck about Aemodn losing an eye all those years ago, and that negatively impacted Alicent.

Criston doesn't really care nor think of Rhaenyra in regards to himself -- he thinks of her as a danger and threat to Rhaenyra.

And because so many people dont really care for Alicent outside of Rhaenyra, this idea that someone is protecting Alicent and her honor from Rhaenyra infuriates them because in their eyes, Alicent exists for Rhaenyra. She exists to take abuse, manipulation, and shame from Rhaenyra.

Keep in mind, both Criston and Alicent faced sexual violence at the hands of Targaryen royalty, and that is something no one else can understand. That unique experience to them dictates their connection and how they act with one another. Criston was never actually able to seek justice for what happened to him, but he doesn't want Alicent to be soiled.

Alicent and Criston, through victims of trauma and abuse, and just being subservient to Targaryens, are always going to have a deeper, more meaningful and trauma-related bond than Rhaenyra and Alicent and I think that pisses people off.