The famous abracadabra typographic triangle makes an appearance in Pierre Guarin’s Grammaticae Hebraicae et Chaldaicae, ex optimis quae hactenus prodierunt, nova facilique methodo concinnatae, tomus II (Paris: Typis Jacobi Collombat, 1726-1728).
i have too many things to say about The Answer so i’ll just make a list:
- The first Garnet had a totally different palette than the one we know. Instead of having a main colour situated between the main colours of her components on the colour wheel, she had patches of both Ruby and Sapphire colour.
- Her clothes were also just bits and pieces of Ruby and Sapphire’s clothes.
It looks more like an amalgam than a fusion.
- Which makes me think that like a gem reforming, gems who fuse have power over the appearance of the fusion. This would explain why Garnet has a star on her chest while theres no star on either Ruby or Sapphire. Obviously, having never fused before, they didn’t know how to control this yet.
- Which explains Stevonnie’s design! They were formed only twice, both times spontaneously, and were wearing a mix of their component’s clothing. Stevonnie didnt look quite as messy as the first Garnet probably because Steven and Connie are less different than Ruby and Sapphire, and also maybe because Steven already knows about fusion.
- WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT EVENTUALLY STEVONNIE COULD HAVE A MUCH MORE PERSONAL DESIGN INSTEAD OF STEVEN AND CONNIE’S CLOTHES LAYERED OVER EACH OTHER
- The first Garnet had one bare foot and one foot wearing a boot similar to Ruby’s, which probably means that Sapphire is barefoot under her dress (if she does have legs at all??)
- NO GEM EVER SUMMONED A WEAPON DURING THE ENTIRE FIGHT!
Pearl was using swords, Rose never showed her shield and none of the Rubies summoned a glove. Did the Crystal Gems come up with the concept? That would explain why Peridot and Lapis don’t have a summoned weapon, but then why would Jasper have her helmet?
- This makes me think about Ruby’s glove. She didnt summon it on her gem hand the only time we saw it, but now, it makes sense because we’ve seen other Rubies with different gem placement. You cant summon a glove around your shoulder!
- BLUE DIAMOND EXISTS. AND SHE LOOKS RAD AF
-BLUE DIAMOND IS HUGE! She has to be at least TWICE as tall as Rose. I feel like that makes it less likely that Rose be Pink Diamond.
- There was a Pearl next to Blue Diamond, and nobody else. She probably isn’t a warrior like our Pearl, since she was referred to as “defective” multiple times. Then why is she there? I think she could be BD’s confident.
- Do Pearls only serve Diamonds?
- Her eyes were covered by her hair. I wonder if this is because she is not allowed to show emotion? Is it just a coincidence that Sapphire, also a “member of Blue Diamond’s court”, also hides her eye?
- The Cloud Hub (I think that’s what they called it) has some sort of filter on it that changes the colours of Gems to make their palette limited - they are restricted to their gemstone’s colour. Why? Is it just a stylistic choice, or is it there to remind Gems in which category they fall?
- Speaking of stylistic choices, WHAT WAS UP WITH THE BACKGROUND GEMS? You could say the team just didn’t want to design a crowd but IHIGHLY doubt that. They’ve designed crowds before. The only possible answer for me is that THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING!
- Speaking of hiding things, WHY DIDN’T WE HEAR BLUE DIAMOND’S VOICE?
- Is “a small group of rebels” only referring to Rose and Pearl or were there more Crystal Gems out there? We know Rose had an army - did she gather it later?
- Pearl is known as Rose’s “terrifying renegade Pearl” omg
- But… Jasper referred to her as A Pearl, not THE Pearl. Were there other Pearl’s in Rose’s army?
- Lapis was there I know everybody knows this but LAPIS WAS THERE
- One of the backgroud Gems had her gemstone on her elbow wtf
Masculinity existing for men isn’t something we talk about or discuss much and frankly I think we should. But the idea that we should condemn femininity as being designed by men to keep women in check (let alone the fact that this problem could presumably be solved by the overthrow of corporations responsible for selling the “proper woman” package) is that men perform masculinity as a way of keeping themselves and other men in check as well. We just don’t discuss it that way because we see masculinity as natural.
But the father who tells his son not to cry, the boss who tells a male underling not to take paternity leave, the drunk man making a joke at the bar about gay men, are all effectively social police regulating how much social capital other men are allowed to have. There is nothing I can think of in this world which isn’t -for- men because we live in a misogynist world. If dresses are -for- men to see and get off on then ties are just as much -for- men to see and to look for to determine who is worth his time and thought as a human being. And men who refuse to play the game or are to GNC to be allowed in the club pay the price with their salaries and their connections. But men policing other men in fact forms the entirety of masculinity the way it is done by men.
I don’t think any particular presentation is radical in and of itself but the particular potential for radicalness (???) in feminine and masculine gender presentations is that they divorce these social scripts (which YES OF COURSE exist before us) from their heterosexual contexts and make them not the natural realm of heterosexuals but a construction which can be fallen into, hopped out of, adapted for social use. Idk about anyone else but I am extremely uncomfortable with any conversation about how femininity affects women that doesn’t include listening to currently femme identified lesbians because tbh almost everyone is on board with “Butch lesbians are not monsters and disgusting and men” so I think we should question why we are unwilling en masse to acknowledge that femme women are not babies, are not uninformed, are not stupid - that they too are trying to live in a world that doesn’t want them to be lesbians and there are millions of ways to deal with that.
I love the remnants of lettering that hint at its past life as a text.
Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica,
physica atqve technica historia, in duo volumina secundum cosmi differentiam
diuisa. Avthore Roberto Flud aliàs de Fluctibus … Oppenhemii, ære
Johan-Theodori de Bry, typis Hieronymi Galleri, 1617-21.