self conflicting

6

Casting Runes

Fehu: domestic cattle, wealth | possessions won or earned, earned income, luck / abundance, financial strength in the present or near future / sign of hope and plenty, success and happiness / social success / energy, foresight, fertility, creation/destruction | reversed or merkstave: loss of personal property, esteem, or something that you put in effort to keep / indicates some sort of failure / greed, burnout, atrophy, discord / cowardice, stupidity, dullness, poverty, slavery, bondage

Uruz: auroch, a wild ox | physical strength and speed, untamed potential / time of great energy and health / freedom, energy, action, courage, strength, tenacity, understanding, wisdom / sudden or unexpected changes (usually for the better) / sexual desire, masculine potency / the shaping of power and pattern, formulation of the self | reversed or merkstave: weakness, obsession, misdirected force, domination by others / sickness, inconsistency, ignorance / lust, brutality, rashness, callousness, violence

Thurisaz: thorn or a Giant | reactive force, directed force of destruction and defense, conflict. Instinctual will, vital eroticism, regenerative catalyst / tendency toward change / catharsis, purging, cleansing fire / male sexuality, fertilization | reversed or merkstave: danger, defenselessness, compulsion, betrayal, dullness / evil, malice, hatred, torment, spite, lies / a bad man or woman

Ansuz: the As, ancestral god, i.e. Odin | a revealing message or insight, communication / signals, inspiration, enthusiasm, speech, true vision, power of words and naming / blessings, the taking of advice / good health, harmony, truth, wisdom | reversed or merkstave: misunderstanding, delusion, manipulation by others, boredom / vanity and grandiloquence

Raidho: wagon or chariot | travel, both in physical terms and those of lifestyle direction | a journey, vacation, relocation, evolution, change of place or setting / seeing a larger perspective / seeing the right move for you to make and deciding upon it / personal rhythm, world rhythm, dance of life | reversed or merkstave: crisis, rigidity, stasis, injustice, irrationality / disruption, dislocation, demotion, delusion, possibly a death

Kenaz: beacon or torch | vision, revelation, knowledge, creativity, inspiration, technical ability / vital fire of life, harnessed power, fire of transformation and regeneration / power to create your own reality, the power of light / open to new strength, energy, and power now / passion, sexual love | reversed or merkstave: disease, breakup, instability, lack of creativity / nakedness, exposure, loss of illusion and false hope

Gebo: gift | gifts, both in the sense of sacrifice and of generosity, indicating balance / all matters in relation to exchanges, including contracts, personal relationships and partnerships |  merkstave: greed, loneliness, dependence, over-sacrifice / obligation, toll, privation, bribery

Wunjo: joy | joy, comfort, pleasure / fellowship, harmony, prosperity / ecstasy, glory, spiritual reward, but also the possibility of going “over the top” / if restrained, the meaning is general success and recognition of worth | reversed or merkstave: stultification, sorrow, strife, alienation / delirium, intoxication, possession by higher forces, impractical enthusiasm / raging frenzy, berzerker

Hagalaz: hail | wrath of nature, destructive, uncontrolled forces, especially the weather, or within the unconscious / tempering, testing, trial / controlled crisis, leading to completion, inner harmony | merkstave: natural disaster, catastrophe / stagnation, loss of power / pain, loss, suffering, hardship, sickness, crisis

Nauthiz: need | delays, restriction / resistance leading to strength, innovation, need-fire (self-reliance) / distress, confusion, conflict, and the power of will to overcome them / endurance, survival, determination /  time to exercise patience / recognition of one’s fate / major self-initiated change / face your fears | reversed or merkstave: constraint of freedom, distress, toil, drudgery, laxity / necessity, extremity, want, deprivation, starvation, need, poverty, emotional hunger

Isa: ice | a challenge or frustration / psychological blocks to thought or activity, including grievances / standstill, or a time to turn inward and wait for what is to come, or to seek clarity / reinforces runes around it | merkstave: ego-mania, dullness, blindness, dissipation / treachery, illusion, deceit, betrayal, guile, stealth, ambush, plots

Jera: a year, a good harvest / the results of earlier efforts are realized /  time of peace and happiness, fruitful season / can break through stagnancy / hopes and expectations of peace and prosperity / the promise of success earned / life cycle, cyclical pattern of the universe / everything changes, in its own time | merkstave: sudden setback, reversals / a major change, repetition, bad timing, poverty, conflict

Eihwaz: yew tree | strength, reliability, dependability, trustworthiness / enlightenment, endurance / defense, protection / the driving force to acquire, providing motivation and a sense of purpose / indicates that you have set your sights on a reasonable target and can achieve your goals / an honest man who can be relied upon | reversed or merkstave: confusion, destruction, dissatisfaction, weakness

Perthro: lot cup, vagina | uncertain meaning, a secret matter, a mystery, hidden things and occult abilities. Initiation, knowledge of one’s destiny, knowledge of future matters, determining the future or your path / pertaining to things feminine, feminine mysteries including female fertility etc. / good lot, fellowship and joy / evolutionary change | reversed or merkstave: addiction, stagnation, loneliness, malaise

Algiz: elk, protection | protection, a shield / the protective urge to shelter oneself or others / defense, warding off of evil, shield, guardian / connection with the gods, awakening, higher life. It can be used to channel energies appropriately / follow your instincts / keep hold of success or maintain a position won or earned | reversed: or merkstave: hidden danger, consumption by divine forces, loss of divine link / taboo, warning, turning away, that which repels

Sowilo: the sun | success, goals achieved, honor / the life-force, health / a time when power will be available to you for positive changes in your life, victory, health, and success / contact between the higher self and the unconscious / holeness, power, elemental force, sword of flame, cleansing fire | merkstave: false goals, bad counsel, false success, gullibility, loss of goals / destruction, retribution, justice, casting down of vanity / wrath of god

Tiwaz: Tyr, the sky god | honour, justice, leadership and authority / analysis, rationality / knowing where one’s true strengths lie / willingness to self-sacrifice / victory and success in any competition or in legal matters | reversed or merkstave: one’s energy and creative flow are blocked/ mental paralysis, over-analysis, over-sacrifice, injustice, imbalance / strife, war, conflict, failure in competition / dwindling passion, difficulties in communication, and possibly separation

Berkano: Berchta, the birch-goddess | birth, general fertility, both mental and physical and personal growth, liberation / regenerative power and light of spring, renewal, promise of new beginnings, new growth / arousal of desire / a love affair or new birth / the prospering of an enterprise or venture | reversed or merkstave: family problems and or domestic troubles / anxiety about someone close to you / carelessness, abandon, loss of control / blurring of consciousness, deceit, sterility, stagnation

Ehwaz: horse, two horses | transportation / may represent a horse, car, plane, boat or other vehicle / movement and change for the better / gradual development and steady progress are indicated / harmony, teamwork, trust, loyalty / an ideal marriage or partnership / confirmation beyond doubt the meanings of the runes around it | reversed or merkstave: not really a negative rune / a change is perhaps craved / feeling restless or confined in a situation / reckless haste, disharmony, mistrust, betrayal

Mannaz: man, mankind | the Self; the individual or the human race / your attitude toward others and their attitudes towards you / friends and enemies, social order. Intelligence, forethought, create, skill, ability / divine structure, intelligence, awareness / expect to receive some sort of aid or cooperation now | reversed or merkstave: depression, mortality, blindness, self-delusion / cunning, slyness, manipulation, craftiness, calculation / expect no help now

Laguz: water, or a leek | flow, water, sea, a fertility source, the healing power of renewal / life energy and organic growth / imagination and psychic matters / dreams, fantasies, mysteries, the unknown, the hidden, the deep, the underworld / success in travel or acquisition, but with the possibility of loss | reversed or merkstave: an indication of a period of confusion in your life / you may be making wrong decisions and poor judgements / lack of creativity and feelings of being in a rut / fear, circular motion, avoidance, withering / madness, obsession, despair, perversity, sickness, suicide

Ingwaz: Ing, the earth god | male fertility, gestation, internal growth / common virtues, common sense, simple strengths, family love, caring, human warmth, the home / rest stage, a time of relief, of no anxiety / a time when all loose strings are tied and you are free to move in a new direction / listen to yourself | merkstave: impotence, movement without change / poduction, toil, labour, work

Dagaz: day or dawn. | breakthrough, awakening, awareness / daylight clarity as opposed to nighttime uncertainty / time to plan or embark upon an enterprise / the power of change directed by your own will, transformation / hope and happiness, the ideal / security and certainty / growth and release / balance point, the place where opposites meet | merkstave: a completion, ending, limit, coming full circle / blindness, hopelessness

Othala: ancestral property | inherited property or possessions, a house, a home / what is truly important to one / group order, group prosperity / lLand of birth, spiritual heritage, experience and fundamental values / aid in spiritual and physical journeys / source of safety, increase and abundance | reversed or merkstave: lack of customary order, totalitarianism, slavery, poverty, homelessness / bad karma, prejudice, clannishness, provincialism / what a man is bound to

Why am I single?
Am I stopping myself from falling in love? Or am I truly just not falling for anyone? I don’t know which option I fear more. If the first is true, then I may be dooming myself to a life alone. If it’s the second, well, that wouldn’t be my fault, would it? But it’s no less discouraging to think that no one in my world could ever interest me.

I get crushes sometimes, yes, but (and this sounds weird) I can’t even tell how serious they are. I second-guess my own feelings constantly. Do I really like this person, or am I just fooling myself? All too often, it feels like I’m imagining I like them just because I like the idea of being madly in love. It’s more about the idea than the actual person.

I can create an image around a person that obscures who they really are, and pretty soon I’m in love with the image, but all the while in my gut I know that the image is not accurate and what I’m actually in love with is an illusion. That’s not true love. I know that. So I don’t allow myself to actually engage with the person, because I know it’s not what I think it is. In that sense, I guess you could say I do keep myself from falling in love… but not without reason.

You see, in every case, I see red flags. Even beyond the smokescreen of the fantasy image I create around a person, these red flags are always visible to my deeper instinct. And when I say “red flags,” I mean intrinsic qualities or ingrained habits that I do not want in a romantic partner. Things that the person obviously either could not or would not change. Things that I am ultimately just not okay with. They stand out to my subconscious mind, flashing cold warning lights, spelling doom for any hope of a relationship with that person.

If I didn’t see these kinds of red flags, I like to think that I would do it. I would move forward. I would give the person a chance. But when I see these kinds of things beforehand, plain as day… I mean, am I supposed to ignore them? So far, I have not been able to do that. I know what I want, and I know what I do not want. Why should I walk straight into a situation that I know is not what I want? Won’t I be kicking myself later for making such a stupid move, eyes wide open?

At the end of the day, I wonder:

Will there ever be someone who doesn’t strike me as full of warning signs, someone I won’t have to invent a mostly false image around so that I can pretend to have a crush on them?

Will I just end up caving in and dating someone who is below my standards?

Am I keeping myself from happiness, or sparing myself genuine heartache and wasted time?

As always, the standard answer to all my life’s questions resurfaces: I don’t know.

—  Submitted by @angelwithashatteredheart

my mad fat dairy is important because where else is there a show, and I mean a show that appeals to a major audience, that the big girl gets the guy just for being herself and making plenty of mistakes along the way and their entire road of strangers to friends to lovers is never because of a makeover or because she lost weight or because she changed herself in anyway. he ends up falling in love with her because of her and even when she brings up the fact of how other people might look at them BECAUSE they look like such an “unconventional couple” he tells her he will love who he loves and no one, not even her, can take that away from him and I just have so many feelings about this show I never want it to end

Aries Mars always fights in the now and can be “easily triggered”.

Taurus Mars is really hard to provoke but can hold a grudge. Their conflicts tend to exist over territory, possession, a physical need/urge, or jealousy.

Gemini Mars lives in the vocal and mental realm. Conflicts tend to be caused by differences in opinions or insults. They can win an argument!

Cancer Mars conflicts tend to come from the past. There is a theme with past pain in their lives. Paranoia can be associated with them too.

Leo Mars is centered on pride and ego. This is the root to any anger and conflict. Bruised ego causes rage for Leo Mars but a strong and secure ego + learning humility makes them more patient and understanding.

Virgo Mars has many themes revolving around nervous energy and tension. Their own restlessness causes a lot of frustration and turmoil.

Libra Mars has conflict with conflict itself. Avoiding heated issues comes naturally for them. They have diplomacy but also a great disadvantage in fearing conflict. They can fall apart when conflicts are not solved.

Scorpio Mars conflicts live in the emotional realm with betrayal, revenge, hurt, grudges, pity, and vulnerability. They can have an active imagination in conflict and subconsciously depends on manipulation.

Sagittarius Mars can have a temper but see’s conflicts as a waste of energy and time. They avoid it or run from it in many ways. They want to shed and be “free” of undesirable emotions, this carries over into the Mars position.

Capricorn Mars conflict is very self-centered with criticism, self-doubt, restriction, and control.

Aquarius Mars conflicts tend to live in the realm of the mind. They are defensive over their opinions and ideas. They can be unyielding yet unpredictable in their “triggers”. But know it will usually be about lifestyle, identity, and beliefs.

Pisces Mars is famous for playing the victim and giving into self-pity. Conflicts exist in the emotional realm but is also lost on “why me?” They can lose themselves or get others lost with their association in illusions. They can unintentionally mislead and manipulate.

Fact is, love and relationships are complicated. Your feelings and the choices you ought to make won’t always be clear and often will even conflict.
It’s okay to feel confused and uncertain. Take all the time you need to come to the right decision. Believe me, the wrong one can ruin you.
—  Beau Taplin, Believe Me
sister signs

Aries/Libra: the Self vs Others, conflict vs peace, independence vs cooperation

Taurus/Scorpio: life/beginnings vs death/endings, beautiful vs ugly, material vs intangible

Gemini/Sagittarius: knowing vs understanding, student vs teacher, messenger(logic/reason) vs traveler(intuition/experience)

Cancer/Capricorn: cosmic mother vs cosmic father, privacy vs recognition, inner child vs inner adult, emotions vs sense 

Leo/Aquarius: receiving love vs giving love, the identity vs humanity, king(attention) vs rebel(detachment)

Virgo/Pisces: service to humanity vs service to the universe(God), the mundane vs the celestial, mental growth vs spiritual growth

when people say Elsa was the hero of Frozen

Sometimes my heart aches so much it feels like it’ll just stop working because I have so much love to give and so few people to give it to. I just want someone to give all my romantic affection that I’ve been bottling up since forever to because I just want someone to cherish and adore with all my heart and soul, and I want them to give the love and devotion they deserve.
—  Submitted by anonymous

snugsbunnyfluff  asked:

Hello, I hope you're well. I'd like to ask you about conflict! I've read lots in writing books about conflict. I know conflict is needed in a story and for the characters. But, my problem is, even though I kind of understand conflict I don't know how best to use it. I was wondering if you could provide breakdowns, maybe from your stories or other published stories. Sometimes seeing things spelled out helps me. It's okay if this is not possible. Thank you for your time, and for this fab blog í ½

Aww, thank you so much, love!  This is a great question.  In the writing community, we talk a lot about conflict without really defining what it is – and further, what types of conflict there are.  So I’ll list and explain them, as well as give some examples.


Types of Conflict (and Their Strengths)

There are five main types of conflict in fiction:

  1. Man vs. Man – Situational or relationship conflict between two or more characters.  (Think The Dark Knight or Beauty and the Beast.)
  2. Man vs. Self – Otherwise known as “internal conflict”.  Conflict between a character’s opposing feelings.  (Think Revenge of the Sith or Silver Linings Playbook.)
  3. Man vs. Nature – Conflict between the main character/s and the elements – providing for the self or defending against animals, weather, or illness.  (Think Life of Pi or Robinson Crusoe.)
  4. Man vs. Society – Conflict between the main characters and the “system” – the government or ruling majority.  (Think The Hunger Games or Hidden Figures.)
  5. Man vs. Technology/Supernatural – Conflict between the main character and a non-human force.  (Think 2001: A Space Odyssey or Gremlins.)

Like the different tenses or POVs, none of these options are inherently better than the others – but they do work better for different stories, so it’s important to know what they are and how to make the most of them.

I’ll now outline each style briefly, save for #5, which is fairly self-explanatory.  If you have a question about this style for any reason, though, let me know and I can make a separate post.


1. Man vs. Man

Man vs. Man conflict is the most easily recognizable conflict in fiction, because your characters are always aware of it happening.  There are three types of this conflict:

  1. Situational M-vs-M – Two characters have opposing desires or responsibilities, but only one of them can get what they want.  Leslie wants to build her park, but Ben wants to cut funding.  Wreck-It Ralph wants a medal, but Vanellope wants to use it to qualify for racing.
  2. Moral M-vs-M – Characters have a moral disagreement that must be resolved in order to maintain a relationship or make an important decision.  Luke wants to change Vader for good, but Vader wants to change Luke for evil.  Tony feels the government should keep the Avengers in check, but Steve thinks they should maintain individual control.
  3. Personal M-vs-M – Characters in a relationship, romantic or platonic, disagree on some issue or hurt each other in a way that threatens their relationship.  Noah wants to be with Allie, but Allie feels a commitment to Lon.  Rayna wants to marry Deacon, but Deacon can’t overcome his alcoholism.

Man vs. Man conflict is most popular in romance stories, as well as Good vs. Evil stories involving heroes and villains.  It’s best for stories that are character-driven, or employ themes of battling ideals.  This conflict is shown through arguments, escalating to Big Decisions with long-term consequences.  Here is a post on how to resolve interpersonal conflict.


2. Man vs. Nature

This kind of conflict is relatively straightforward, although it covers a variety of plots:

  1. Survival – The main character/s are left to the elements and must keep themselves fed, sheltered, and defended against anything that would harm them.  This is one of multiple conflicts in The Hunger Games, most prominent when Katniss and the tributes are in the arena – and during this time, Man vs. Man and Man vs. Society are also present.
  2. Illness – The main character/s are ill and must battle their illness – if treatable, battling for survival, and if terminal, coping with the inevitable.  This is a primary conflict in The Fault in Our Stars.
  3. Beast – This is kinda like Man vs. Man in that it is very singular, based on a conflict between two forces: a human and some sort of “beast.”  Of course, this beast doesn’t have to be an animal – it could also be a natural disaster, like a storm, or a spreading disease.  Anything from a white whale to a pandemic qualifies as “the beast”.

Man vs. Nature conflict is often coupled with Man vs. Self to create the best survival stories, facing topics of vulnerability, isolation, and fatality.  This conflict is best shown in sequences of varying “wins” and “losses” to Mother Nature, each one increasingly strengthening the character, as well as teaching them something about themselves or life.


3. Man vs. Self

This is one of my favorite styles of conflict, because it requires the deepest character development and provokes more philosophical questions.  The most common internal conflicts:

  1. Head vs. Heart – A tale as old as time: your MC’s heart is telling them what they want, but their mind is telling them the opposite.  This is sparked by an inciting incident (e.g. a new opportunity or love interest), which is battled back and forth internally until a decision is reached.  Typically the heart is painted as the right decision, but it can really go either way.
  2. Self vs. Self-Image – In this style, your character battles with themselves over their very idea of self – who they believe they should be versus who they instinctively are.  This is also perpetuated by outside forces, such as family members or love interests, who offer their input and confuse the MC.
  3. Faith vs. Science – This title is figurative, not literal.  Basically, this is a conflict in which your MC struggles with their beliefs (political, religious, etc.) when new information is introduced.  Life-changing events spark a question, which the character at first avoids, then assesses, until they arrive at a new conclusion or identity.

Man vs. Self is best for stories that tackle social, political, or moral issues.  It is often couples with Man vs. Nature or Man vs. Man, as a character’s other conflicts cause them to reassess their own beliefs, desires, or identity.  I believe, personally, that all stories should include some kind of Man vs. Self conflict, since the MC should be changed by the end of any novel.


4. Man vs. Society

This is a popular conflict in modern literature, especially with the rise of dystopia (and the state of unrest in social politics today).  There are two different portrayals of this conflict:

  1. Individual Conflict – In this conflict, one character, by some new circumstances, is put into a new role that “separates” them from society (e.g. they become disabled or discover a disability, they experience their first instance of victimhood or discrimination, etc.) and find a new moral position alternative to society.  This conflict is used in Mean Girls, as Cady Heron finds herself on multiple tiers of the social hierarchy at school and must decide where she aligns herself.
  2. Organized Conflict – This is the Man vs. Society we recognize from Star Wars, The Hunger Games, Divergent, and other “Us vs. Them” stories.  This can be led by Man vs. Man conflict between the leaders, such as with Harry and Voldemort, or Gandalf and Saruman.

Man vs. Society is great for high fantasy, dystopia, or any story central on social conflict.  This conflict drives most antiheroes or spy/assassin characters with no fitted role in the system.


So your first step is to decide on one or a few types of conflict to include in your story – not so few that the story idles, but not so many that there are no “resting points” in the novel.  Once you’ve picked them out, take some time to outline how they’ll develop.  Write it down and keep it as a reference for later, as you’re working through the story.

That’s all I have for now!  If you have any further questions, hit me up and I’ll respond shortly ♥️️  Happy writing!


If you need advice on general writing or fanfiction, you should maybe ask me!

bela-lugosis-corpse  asked:

I've been thinking about this for a while, but how effective is full plate armour? Was it actually a good way to defend yourself?

Short Answer: Yes. 

Here’s a general rule: People in the past were ignorant about a lot of things, but they weren’t stupid. If they used something, chances are they had a good reason. There are exceptions, but plate armor is not one of them. 

Long Answer: 

For a type of armor, no matter what it is, to be considered effective, it has to meet three criteria. 

The three criteria are: Economic Efficiency, Protectiveness, and Mobility.

1. Is it Economically Efficient? 

Because of the nature of society in the Middle Ages, what with equipment being largely bring-it-yourself when it came to anybody besides arrowfodder infantry who’d been given one week of training, economic efficiency was a problem for the first couple of decades after plate armor was introduced in France in the 1360s. It wasn’t easy to make, and there wasn’t really a ‘science’ to it yet, so only the wealthiest of French soldiers, meaning knights and above, had it; unless of course somebody stole it off a dead French noble. The Hundred Years War was in full swing at the time, and the French were losing badly to the English and their powerful longbows, so there were plenty of dead French nobles and knights to go around. That plate armor was not very economically efficient for you unless you were a rich man, though, it also was not exactly what we would call “full” plate armor. 

Above: Early plate armor, like that used by knights and above during the later 1300s and early 1400s. 

Above: Two examples of what most people mean when they say “full” plate armor, which would have been seen in the mid to late 1400s and early 1500s.

Disclaimer: These are just examples. No two suits of armor were the same because they weren’t mass-produced, and there was not really a year when everybody decided to all switch to the next evolution of plate armor. In fact it would not be improbably to see all three of these suits on the same battlefield, as expensive armor was often passed down from father to son and used for many decades. 

Just like any new technology, however, as production methods improved, the product got cheaper. 

Above: The Battle of Barnet, 1471, in which everybody had plate armor because it’s affordable by then. 

So if we’re talking about the mid to late 1400s, which is when our modern image of the “knight in shining armor” sort of comes from, then yes, “full” plate armor is economically efficient. It still wasn’t cheap, but neither are modern day cars, and yet they’re everywhere. Also similar to cars, plate armor is durable enough to be passed down in families for generations, and after the Hundred Years War ended in 1453, there was a lot of used military equipment on sale for cheap. 

2. Is it Protective? 

This is a hard question to answer, particularly because no armor is perfect, and as soon as a new, seemingly ‘perfect’ type of armor appears, weapons and techniques adapt to kill the wearer anyway, and the other way around. Early plate armor was invented as a response to the extreme armor-piercing ability of the English longbow, the armor-piercing ability of a new kind of crossbow, and advancements in arrowhead technology. 

Above: The old kind of arrowhead, ineffective against most armor. 

Above: The new kind of arrowhead, very effective at piercing chainmaille and able to pierce plate armor if launched with enough power. 

Above: An arrow shot from a “short” bow with the armor-piercing tip(I think it’s called a bodkin tip) piercing a shirt of chainmaille. However, the target likely would have survived since soldiers wore protective layers of padding underneath their armor, so if the arrow penetrated skin at all, it wasn’t deep. That’s Terry Jones in the background. 

Above: A crossbow bolt with the armor piercing tip penetrating deep through the same shirt of chainmaille. The target would likely not survive. 

Above: A crossbow bolt from the same crossbow glancing off a breastplate, demonstrating that it was in fact an improvement over wearing just chainmaille. 

Unfortunately it didn’t help at all against the powerful English longbows at close range, but credit to the French for trying. It did at least help against weaker bows. 

Now for melee weapons. 

It didn’t take long for weapons to evolve to fight this new armor, but rarely was it by way of piercing through it. It was really more so that the same weapons were now being used in new ways to get around the armor. 

Above: It’s a popular myth that Medieval swords were dull, but they still couldn’t cut through plate armor, nor could they thrust through it. Your weapon would break before the armor would. Most straight swords could, however, thrust through chainmaille and anything weaker. 

There were three general answers to this problem: 

1. Be more precise, and thrust through the weak points. 

Above: The weak points of a suit of armor. Most of these points would have been covered by chainmaille, leather, thick cloth, or all three, but a sword can thrust through all three so it doesn’t matter. 

To achieve the kind of thrusting accuracy needed to penetrate these small gaps, knights would often grip the blade of their sword with one hand and keep the other hand on the grip. This technique was called “half-swording”, and you could lose a finger if you don’t do it right, so don’t try it at home unless you have a thick leather glove to protect you, as most knights did, but it can also be done bare-handed. 

Above: Examples of half-swording. 

2. Just hit the armor so fucking hard that the force carries through and potentially breaks bones underneath. 

Specialty weapons were made for this, but we’ll get to them in a minute. For now I’m still focusing on swords because I like how versatile the European longsword is. 

Above: A longsword. They’re made for two-handed use, but they’re light enough to be used effectively in one hand if you’d like to have a shield or your other arm has been injured. Longswords are typically about 75% of the height of their wielders.

Assuming you’re holding the sword pointing towards the sky, the part just above the grip is called the crossguard, and the part just below the grip is called the pommel. If you hold the sword upside-down by the blade, using the same careful gripping techniques as with half-swording, you can strike with either the crossguard or the pommel, effectively turning the sword into a warhammer. This technique was called the Murder Stroke, and direct hits could easily dent plate armor, and leave the man inside bruised, concussed, or with a broken bone. 

Above: The Murder Stroke as seen in a Medieval swordfighting manual.

Regular maces, hammers, and other blunt weapons were equally effective if you could get a hard enough hit in without leaving yourself open, but they all suffered from part of the plate armor’s intelligent design. Nearly every part of it was smooth and/or rounded, meaning that it’s very easy for blows to ‘slide’ off, which wastes a lot of their power. This makes it very hard to get a ‘direct’ hit. 

Here come the specialized weapons to save the day. 

Above: A lucerne, or claw hammer. It’s just one of the specialized weapons, but it encompasses all their shared traits so I’m going to only list it. 

These could be one-handed, two-handed, or long polearms, but the general idea was the same. Either crack bones beneath armor with the left part, or penetrate plate armor with the right part. The left part has four ‘prongs’ so that it can ‘grip’ smooth plate armor and keep its force when it hits without glancing off. On the right side it as a super sturdy ‘pick’, which is about the only thing that can penetrate the plate armor itself. On top it has a sharp tip that’s useful for fighting more lightly armored opponents. 

3. Force them to the ground and stab them through the visor with a dagger. 

This one is pretty self-explanatory. Many conflicts between two armored knights would turn into a wrestling match. Whoever could get the other on the ground had a huge advantage, and could finish his opponent, or force him to surrender, with a dagger. 

By now you might be thinking “Dang, full plate armor has a lot of weaknesses, so how can it be called good armor?” 

The answer is because, like all armor is supposed to do, it minimizes your target area. If armor is such that your enemy either needs to risk cutting their fingers to target extremely small weak points, bring a specialized weapons designed specifically for your armor, or wrestle you to the ground to defeat you, that’s some damn good armor. So yes, it will protect you pretty well.

Above: The red areas represent the weak points of a man not wearing armor.

Also, before I move on to Mobility, I’m going to talk briefly about a pet-peeve of mine: Boob-plates. 

If you’re writing a fantasy book, movie, or video game, and you want it to be realistically themed, don’t give the women boob-shaped armor. It wasn’t done historically even in the few cases when women wore plate armor, and that’s because it isn’t as protective as a smooth, rounded breastplate like you see men wearing. A hit with any weapon between the two ‘boobs’ will hit with its full force rather than glancing off, and that’ll hurt. If you’re not going for a realistic feel, then do whatever you want. Just my advice. 

Above: Joan of Arc, wearing properly protective armor. 

An exception to this is in ancient times. Female gladiators sometimes wore boob-shaped armor because that was for entertainment and nobody cared if they lived or died. Same with male gladiators. There was also armor shaped like male chests in ancient times, but because men are more flat-chested than women, this caused less of a problem. Smooth, rounded breastplates are still superior, though. 

3. Does it allow the wearer to keep his or her freedom of movement? 

Okay, I’ve been writing this for like four hours, so thankfully this is the simplest question to answer. There’s a modern myth that plate armor weighed like 700 lbs, and that knights could barely move in it at all, but that isn’t true. On a suit of plate armor from the mid to late 1400s or early 1500s, all the joints are hinged in such a way that they don’t impede your movement very much at all. 

The whole suit, including every individual plate, the chainmaille underneath the plates, the thick cloth or leather underneath the chainmaille, and your clothes and underwear all together usually weighed about 45-55 lbs, and because the weight was distributed evenly across your whole body, you’d hardly feel the weight at all. Much heavier suits of armor that did effectively ‘lock’ the wearer in place did exist, but they never saw battlefield use. Instead, they were for showing off at parades and for jousting. Jousting armor was always heavier, thicker, and more stiffly jointed than battlefield armor because the knight only needed to move certain parts of his body, plus being thrown off a horse by a lance–even a wooden one that’s not meant to kill–has a very, very high risk of injury.

Here’s a bunch of .gifs of a guy demonstrating that you can move pretty freely in plate armor. 

Above: Can you move in it? Yes.


Here are links to the videos that I made these .gifs from: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi757-7XD94

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhWFQtzM4r0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

anonymous asked:

Hello~ I was reading your ask about fic recs centering around powerful Magnus, and you mentioned how some fics don't have Magnus as "a character in his own right," so I was wondering if you have any tips/general advice on what writers like myself should keep in mind when writing Magnus? Like Dos/Don't and which stereotypes to be careful of/avoid? (I figured I'd ask you since you love Magnus very much and i'm always scared of accidentally writing magnus as lesser, if that makes sense?) Thanks!

This is a good question! I should clarify that I’m not suggesting people shouldn’t write Alec-centric stories because obviously if you have a shorter story there maybe just isn’t room to explore another character. That’s totally fine and everyone has a certain character they identify with more. So that isn’t really what I mean when I call Magnus a prop. It’s more like there are certain trends I see in not just writing, but also meta and headcanons, that strikes me as problematic. For example:

Magnus the Waiting Waifu

Wherein he’s waiting for Alec to come home or call him or generally just existing only to be available instantly Alec. Magnus is the High Warlock, guys. He’s got better things to do. Between being the High Warlock and the Head of the Institute, Magnus and Alec probably have to fight tooth and nail to get time to spend together. I’d like to see more of this. I’d like to see Magnus waking up early to squeeze in a goodbye kiss before Alec leaves. I’d like to see Alec duck out between a hunt to bring Magnus coffee as he’s on his way to meet a client.

Like, there’s a ton of fics about Alec falling asleep on Magnus after coming home late, but few about the opposite even though in CoLS, it’s stated that Alec has trouble pulling Magnus away from his work and that it’s Alec who actually winds up going to bed alone on some nights. Speaking of which:

Magnus the Always Ready for Sex Bisexual

Magnus has hedonistic tendencies, but let’s not make it like he’s just ready to go at all times or that he’s always the one initiating between them. Sometimes he’s got other shit on his mind. Seriously, in the same scene in CoLS, Alec practically had his hands down Magnus’s pants and Magnus was literally like “Yeah ok maybe in 5 min.” 

Alec leaned into him, pinning Magnus between the table and his own body. Not that Magnus seemed to mind.

“Come on,” Alec said against Magnus’s ear. “It’s late. Let’s go to bed.”

Magnus bit his lip and glanced over his shoulder at the papers on the table, his gaze fixed on ancient syllables in forgotten languages. “Why don’t you go on ahead?” he said. “I’ll join you—five minutes.”

“Sure.” Alec straightened up, knowing that when Magnus was deep in his studies, five minutes could easily become five hours. “I’ll see you there.”

It’s suggested this isn’t even a rare occurrence. Alec seems to know this trait of his after dating him only a few months.

Magnus the Unconditionally Supportive Boyfriend

Magnus is very patient and understanding with Alec. He’s kind, and as a whole he wants to see the right thing done. This is canon. But Magnus can also be petty and bitter and cynical. Sometimes he stirs shit just because he can and it amuses him (1.12, taking digs about Jace and Clary being siblings). This does not make him a bad person. I think it’s important to remember because while white characters tend to be allowed their flaws, POC are required to go above and beyond. Their mistakes are often less forgivable, blotting out any hint of good they otherwise have. So people either dismiss the character altogether or, if they like them enough, then the MOC is often rendered as Very Pure and his flaws completely ignored even if they may be addressed in canon as if acknowledging said flaws automatically ruins the character and makes them Bad rather than human. (This is just the other side of the same coin regarding what fandom does to white characters where their terrible deeds are acknowledged but woobified and excused and made totally okay.)

For instance, as early as 1.02, when Magnus chose to rescue his warlocks and leave Dot behind/ignore Clary’s need for help, there was bit of an outcry from fandom about how “Magnus would never do that.“ As if the entire fandom forgot moments in book canon where Magnus basically slammed the door in Jocelyn’s face when she came to him for help (Tessa had to convince him) or where he manipulated Clary into finding and giving him the Book of the White.

Magnus is 400 years old. He’s complex, occasionally ruthless, and has an exceptionally sharp tongue. Sometimes he projects his feelings. Sometimes his desire for self-preservation overrules his compassion. Sometimes he has his own agenda that takes precedent over other people. And yes, this includes Alec. (See 1.09 where he helps steal the cup.) Magnus’s priorities and self-interests being in conflict with Alec is not him being a bad boyfriend. It makes him a person and part of a growing relationship is two people navigating and making compromises. I’d like to see more people explore this rather than just constantly making Magnus Alec’s cheerleader.

Anyway, that’s the general gist of it. I have read good meta and fanfic, but there’s definitely a trend that can be seen, though this is really something that applies to all fandoms.

Dylan's Handwriting

One of the first things that is evident when analyzing Dylan’s handwriting is that his letters were sometimes small and sometimes average. Small letters indicate withdrawal and shyness, and we all know that Dylan was shy. Average letters usually indicate that a person is well-adjusted and adaptable. Depending upon the situation, Dylan could be very adaptable, if you gave him some time.

In most of his journals and other writings that were left behind, there is a wide spacing between letters. That means that he enjoyed freedom and did not like to be crowded.

Now let’s get specific. Dylan’s ts are very interesting. His upper case ts usually had a very long crossing. This means that he was ambitious and determined or used to be. However, long crossings usually indicate that you have a difficult time letting things go. That makes quite a lot of sense, since he and Eric perpetrated a massacre. On the other hand, there is not much of a crossing in his lower case ts. That indicates that he had lack of determination. Only sometimes did he fully cross his ts.

Dylan’s is were also interesting. The dots were very much above the is. This means that he had a great imagination, but of course.

His es also indicated that he was kind of restricting himself and skeptical and maybe did not care about certain peoples’ emotions.

The pressure on his letters varies. Sometimes it is heavy, which means that reacted quickly to criticism, and sometimes it is light, which means that he was feeling very sensitive and was lacking vitality.

His letters were mostly point, which indicates intensity, intelligence, and curiosity. His slants were also sometimes to the left and sometimes they varied. This means that he was socially cautious, reserved, observant, a good listener, but also ambivalent, unpredictable, and self-conflicted.

Thanks to @ficktcolumbiner for submitting their handwriting analysis interpretation 💓
the 99 on tumblr

Jake Peralta:
basically introduces the squad to tumblr. reblogs die hard gifs and shitposts, but sometimes tags amy in cute love text posts and images of animals cuddled together

Amy Santiago:
Her blog is full of aesthetic images of study spaces, vintage (gina calls it ‘grandma’) fashion and home decor. also reblogs essays on self-improvement and conflict resolution. reblogs love poems and tags jake in them.

Raymond Holt:
At first, he rarely uses tumblr, but after he finds science blogs, his blog is filled with pictured of orchids and scientific phenomena. also writes posts about being a cop. Amy likes and reblogs all of his posts.

Rosa Diaz:
Her blog is 98% pictures of cool knives and other deadly weapons, but sometimes she reposts pictures of cute animals. which she deletes 3 seconds later.

Gina Linetti:
She doesn’t use tumblr. twitter is all she needs; her large fanbase keeps her occupied.

Charles Boyle:
posts constantly. the entire squad has had to resort to blocking him. he reblogs cooking recipes and pictures of dogs that remind him of his dead dog who humped everything. also reblogs any photo with 2 people/animals in it, tagging it with “me and jake”

Terry Jeffords: reblogs inspirational quotes about family and love. also rants about yogurt and yogurt related issues, which charles sometimes reblogs. he started following workout and exercise motivation blogs, but then porn blogs started following him. he’s blocked 127 of them so far.

Kevin Cozner: oddly, kevin uses tumblr… he reblogs images of classic lit art and quotes from classical texts, his blog actually looks really aesthetic. the whole squad fawned over kevin and holt being sappy and romantic when kevin tagged raymond in a love quote. they’ve never interacted on tumblr since.