I know I am a biased person so with my characterisations on characters that are not my favourite are not as good.
Benedict and Eloise are my favourite but I know they are different from the books and I can admit in some way that Colin’s funny qualities was most likely actually given to Benedict, which is probably why he has never been my favourite- since I always go for funny characters.
I can understand Pen’s character so well that I could do a dissertation on her, but I’m still so confused about Colin. Just to note this post is not a criticism on his character, I think I would just like some Colin fans to explain some things to me and their opinions on how Colin is depicted because I acknowledge my limits and I’ve never actually spoken to a Colin fan before.
That being said. I LOVE Polin this season and happy they got together. I think their screentime is good but there was a point where i was rooting for Lord Debling over Colin, and it is mostly because of the brothel scenes. I’m not a diehard book fan so I dont mind the show steering away from the books but I must say he is not like this in the books and I do not think it needed to be added.
It confused me more since in one of the episodes he explains to Pen how when he was travelling he wasn’t seen as a “Bridgerton” which made him able to not follow any expectations and find himself. But as soon as he gets back to London he conforms to society, becomes a huge flirt and goes to brothels???? Now I can probably see this as the ton being intoxicating so no matter how he finds himself outside, when he comes back to London he’s pressured back to a certain way.
But this doesn’t make sense to me, as in season one Antony implies that he’s never been to brothels before and Colin never viewed women in that way, and this was even before his travels. And he didn’t go in season two, so why is it suddenly now he’s feeling the pressure of society? Granted when he chases after Pen in ep 4 it shows him breaking out of it, but I am still confused why he acted that way in the first place when he was never like that, and he explains that travelling made him more sure of himself.
Could someone please explain???

This analysis comes from Cults and Nonconventional Religious Groups: A Collection of Outstanding Dissertations and Monographs, "Shakubuku: A Study of the Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist Movement in America, 1960-1975", David A. Snow, 1993, pp. 171-179.
I'll try to shave it down, because it's a long section, but he masterfully dissects the manipulation and artifice involved in the "discussion meetings" of then-NSA (now SGI-USA). You'll recognize the fakery he identifies - this is the nature of the Dead-Ikeda-cult SGI, a completely dishonest and exploitative cult.

It is at these discussion meetings, then, that NSA gets on with the real work of promoting and securing nominal conversion, of attempting to get recruits to take the first major step toward conversion by agreeing to receive a Gohonzon and to give chanting a try.

In those days, the nohonzon was issued up front (for a fee, of course - cash on the barrelhead).

And since gaining converts is, in large part, what this movement is all about, "nothing is more basic to the activities of NSA," as noted in the Winter edition of the 1975 NSA Quarterly, "than the discussion meeting." Or, as one district leader emphasized when discussing the importance of these meetings: "Discussion meetings are indispensable to the spread of the practice and the attainment of Kosen-rufu."

If you've ever felt confused at how sitting around someone's living room with the same bunch of losers month after month is doing anything toward the SGI's supposed goals of "world peace" or anything at all, actually, besides wasting the participants' time, I think what's described here will make it clearer what the original intent and purpose of these "discussion meetings" was, AND how far from that the current SGI "activities" have fallen.

The Character and Organization of These Meetings from a Sociological Standpoint
Given the purpose and importance of these discussion meetings, the question arises as to how they are organized and brought off in a strategic manner. In other words, what is the underlying strategy guiding this work of securing nominal conversion, and what are the kinds of tactical adjustments made at the line of scrimmage when the plan of attack does not appear to be advancing the group toward its goal of getting guests to agree to give chanting a try.

It's not enough that the "guests" say they'll try it; by the end of this ordeal, they'll say absolutely anything to get themselves to the other side of that door! What they really want is enough interest and desire on the part of those "guests" that they'll come back - and ideally become regularly attending members (as described in this indoctrinational creative writing fiction where a career Catholic priest is so entranced with the fictional (non)discussion meetings that he JOINS the SGI!! You'll notice that there is never any room within SGI to even mention one of THEIR SGI leaders who joins a Baptist church, for example, much less to celebrate such a stepping-out-of-line. But it's always FINE for other religions' leaders to see the obvious superiority of the SGI, knowmsayin?

In order to answer these question [sic] in a sociological manner, let us step out of the shoes of a guest and into those of a sociological [sic] with insiders' knowledge.
The Strategy of Theatrical Persuasion. Although members and the movement's literature like to characterize these meetings as being forums for free and open discussion and the spontaneous expression and flow of happiness and excitement, they are a far cry from gatherings characterized by spontaneity and unstructured discussion and interaction. Rather, they are meticulously planned and highly orchestrated meetings that can be best conceptualized, from a dramaturgical perspective, as theatrical-like presentations staged and conducted by a set of individuals (NSA members) who not only work together as a team but whose intimate cooperation is expected and required in order to foster and sustain a convincing impression or definition of the situation in the eyes of the audience (the recruits or guests).
Although the staged character of these meetings is seldom readily discernible to the unsuspecting guest, the appropriateness of conceptualizing these meetings in this way is suggested by the following considerations. First, the purpose of the meeting, as already indicated, is to sell guests on the idea of chanting, to so impress them that they feel compelled to give this practice call [sic] chanting a try.
Secondly, there is a division of labor such that all members have one or more roles to play. These various roles include the leadership role, the role of emcee, a general, overarching supportive role, and several more specific supportive roles, such as the role of giving an explanation of what NSA is all about, the role of a song leader, and the role of giving testimony. And even more significantly, members are provided with fairly detailed instructions, or, in the language of the theater, with scripts indicating what each role involves and how best to perform or play it.

There's a list of these roles. At the discussion meeting planning meeting, the attendees go down the list and simply plug different members' names into the worksheet.

The main leadership role, assumed by the district chief or, in his absence, the assistant district chief, includes, for example, the tasks of leading the chanting in a vigorous manner, conducting the question-and-answer session, meeting with each of the guests, and providing an inspirational role model for the other members. In performing these tasks, the leader is reminded that rather than putting on the air of a great sage, he should make a point of displaying great vitality, warmth, and compassion. Furthermore, he is expected "to be able to give clear explanations of the philosophy and practice," and is instructed to "always tailor his answers and encouragement to the audience."

Answers should always be tailored to the audience. If the guests are young, then the answers should include examples they can relate to. If the questions are too mystical or one-sided, the leader must have the wisdom to change the subject or break off the question-and-answer period diplomatically.

Blanche described how in her first district, the WD District leader instructed everyone that, if someone in the meeting was going on too long or rambling or whatever, that they should just start clapping wildly and shouting, "Congratulations!!" and then the MC would just move on to the next topic on the agenda. Reeeeal "spontaneous" there...

The emcee role is also regarded as particularly important, so much so that "the success of the meeting" is said to be contingent on how well it is performed. In fact, "so much depends on the emcee" that the discussion meeting is described for him as "a battleground in which he must struggle to bring victory to the members."

Barf. How far SGI has fallen! Now the goal is to see if there's some young teen in an SGI member's family who can be press-ganged to show up and read the agenda - their youth in and of itself is supposed to "encourage" everyone! Forget about all that "struggle" nonsense - they aren't gonna. This illustrates the SGI's current "form over function" approach, in which they just identify someone and pressure that person to do it, rather than the ideal candidate volunteering from a spirit of...oh, whatever - see above paragraph 🙄 Ideally, there would be SEVERAL young people positively brimming with passion and youthful energy who would be vying to be chosen: "Me! Let ME do it this time!" "No! ME!" "Choose ME!!" Instead, now it's just some tired old fart who agrees to do it, just to get this over with and there's no one else.

Specific responsibilities include setting "the gears fo the meeting in motion" and keeping the meeting going in a rhythmical and orderly manner.

You have to wonder just how crazy they envision these (non)discussion meetings might go - will a spontaneous rave break out if it isn't carefully controlled? An unpermitted parade? A frenzy of liturgical dance?? WHAT might happen??? Enquiring minds want to know!!

The emcee must develop the ability to keep the rhythm of the meeting going by making sure that there are no pauses or interruptions. If someone is causing a disorder, he should quiet the person in a polite manner. If a baby starts crying, he should see to it that either the mother or one of the young women at the meeting takes the child to another room to calm it down.

Gendered. Misogynist.

The emcee is also charged with being "the eyes and ears of the person leading the meeting."

Before and during the meeting, he should watch guests, be on the lookout for disruptions, and in general, be aware of everything that's happening. He should inform the person leading the meeting how many guests are present and whether they are young or old, so the leader can set the rhythm of the meeting accordingly.

Yeah. NO 😄 WOW but it's been a LONG TIME since any SGI sales pitch-based recruiting session - I mean discussion meeting - had any characteristics that would fit the above instructions. Just no way. Not now. Now, it's the same old handful of longhaulers dragging themselves in to go through the motions - as usual. By rote.

In addition, the emcee is expected to talk, act, and appear in a manner that displays or exudes strength, confidence, vitality and neatness.

The emcee must speak in a vigorous, strong and clear voice, but not screaming. The way he sits, stands up and moves the table must display confidence.

This was when a small table would be moved in in front of the person who led gongyo, who would turn around to face the group. This is of course a Japanese norm, completely foreign to Westerners. How many people outside of Japan even have a low table like that, designed for someone who's sitting on the floor??

In fact, he should stand up smartly whenever he is talking. As for appearance, he should reflect the image of NSA - clean and neat clothes and personal grooming.

It has been a LOOOOOOOONG time since ANY SGI district could insist on these requirements! Now they're just lucky if they can get anyone younger than retirement age to read the agenda off, and the agenda is often handed to them right there at the meeting itself - fuhgeddabout all this "advance preparation" nonsense. Nothing happens at the SGI discussion meetings, so nobody's going to go to this much trouble just because.

And finally, the emcee is instructed to have the details of the meeting worked out and the setting in order before the meeting begins.

...as opposed to showing up and being handed a printed agenda to read off as SGI does it now.

The emcee must have a plan for the meeting. He should write up a schedule showing who will give the explanation, what songs will be sung, who will give experiences and so on, and present it to the leader at least two days prior to the meeting. The emcee must prepare for the meeting. He should check to see if the meeting place is clean and neat, that all lights work and there is an appropriate meeting table. Most of all, he should do Shakubuku for the success of the meeting.

Oh, like any of that's gonna happen! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yes, things were VERY different back in the late 1960s-early 1970s, when the SGI organization in the US was still growing. As you can see, all this has been tossed right out the window.
A couple of items:

• "the leader" - this was when the leader of the local district organizational unit (typically the MEN's leader) would assume the leadership role for the "discussion meeting". This was replaced with a "central figure", an invited "SENIOR leader" who would agree to attend and serve this "leader" function. The invited SENIOR leader would typically lead gongyo and preside over the proceedings - that's more how these meetings are arranged now.
  
• that "Shakubuku" in the last sentence? It strikes me wrong somehow. Sure, that'd be great and all for EVERYONE to bring a "guest" (#SGIGOALZ of course) but I think that having the person CHANT for the success of the meeting would be a more reasonable assignment. Also, how could the MC properly shepherd their "guest" and STILL do all that MC stuff single-mindedly??
  

In fact, you can see a newly promoted leader doing exactly that, "chanting for the success of the meeting", here, from this same time period (early 1970s).
It's been a LONG time since any of this was happening, and you can clearly see in today's (non)discussion meetings how far things have deteriorated - and that's JUST the MC part! There's a bit about the demands on the members of the group - I'll skip to just this part:

As one district chief explained during a planning meeting for senior and junior leaders within the district and which I was invited to by one of my key informants:

Make sure to tell your members to chant in rhythm with the leaders. There shouldn't be any more than one rhythm. Everyone should be together so that there is unity. And remember to have them support the leader in whatever he says; the guests won't know whether he is right or wrong. So even if you don't agree with what is being said, act as if you do. this [sic] way there is unity at the meeting and the guests will be more impressed.

Wow, huh? It's completely dishonest and oriented entirely at flimflamming and bamboozling the "guests"!
Next there's a big section on "experiences", but I'm going to give that its own post because it's a WHOLE topic on its own. Hopefully today! But Ima skip ahead a bit, to p. 177:

A fourth indication of the staged character of discussion meetings is provided by the fact that planning meetings are held at both the district and chapter level for the purpose of discussing how to improve discussion meetings and make them more successful. Although rank-and-file members (those who have not attained that status of a junior or senior leader) are not normally invited to these planning meetings, I was able to attend several of them at the invitation of both my district chief and a junior leader who was one of my key informants.

SKULLDUGGERY!! 💀

It was during these planning meetings that I became deeply sensitized to the highly orchestrated and dramaturgical character of not only the discussion meetings but of NSA's overall operation.

At this point it's important to remember that "dramaturgical" means "relating to the art or the theory of writing and putting on plays, especially for the theater" - it's all putting on a show to manipulate the unwitting guests in order to trick them into transforming into new recruits. It's ALL fake - just a façade to fool the uninformed.

A fifth consideration suggesting that staged character of discussion meetings is the fact that much of what members do and say, both verbally and nonverbally, during the course of a meeting is to appear natural and spontaneous rather than artificial and contrived.

They try. Unconvincingly.

In other words, these meetings are not to appear as staged performances or as the product of dramaturgical cooperation. This concern is evidenced by the emphasis placed on exuding sincerity and responding to calls from the emcee and to what the leader says and does with alacrity and enthusiasm. It is also suggested by some of the rituals engaged in by the emcee, as when he scans the gathering after he has called for an experience so as to foster the impression that whom he calls is a spontaneous decision rather than one that has been pre-arranged, as indicated by the fact that those called on are already listed on his meeting agenda and by the fact that members frequently know beforehand whether they will be giving an experience.

This fakery apparently was dropped decades ago; in current SGI (non)discussion meetings, not only is the person acknowledged by name as delivering/"sharing" an "experience", but the person often has it written out on a piece of paper they semi-read off.

But none of this is evident to the guest.

Rather, what transpires - who gives the explanation, who gives testimonies, and so on - is staged in such a way that it all appears as if it is spontaneous and independent of prior planning, negotiation, and decision-making among the members. As a consequence, it seems reasonable to suggest that NSA in general and the district members in particular have something of the character of a secret society.

Only without any special perks or sexiness.

This is not particularly surprising, however, when considering the nature of theatrical-like teamwork. As Erving Goffman noted in his seminal discussion of this kind of work:

... if a performance is to be effective it will be likely that the extent of cooperation that makes this possible will be concealed and kept secret... The audience may appreciate, of course, that all members of the team are held together by a bond that no member of the audience shares ... But (the members of the team) form a secret society ... insofar as a secret is kept as to how they are cooperating together to maintain a particular definition of the situation.

This will all be very familiar to the people trying to recruit new suckers into MLM schemes/scams, too.

The sixth and final consideration suggesting the appropriateness of viewing these meetings from a dramaturgical perspective is the fact that they do not "go on" unless there is an audience, that is unless guests are in attendance.

Before Ikeda was excommunicated by Nichiren Shoshu and transformed the SGI into his own personal worship society, there was a certain "rhythm" to the year. February and August were "Shakubuku Months", and there was an "introductory meeting" scheduled every week. If it came to meeting start time and there was no "guest", the meeting was halted and everybody was sent out to try and find something with a pulse to drag in, at which point the meeting would proceed:

When I first discovered this I was somewhat startled, for I had assumed that these meetings were conducted in their entirety regardless of the presence or absence of a new face. But as I learned one evening, this is not the case. Following the chanting session on this particular evening, the leader emphasized that since these meetings were for guests and none were present, we would have to go out and round up one or two. So the members in attendance were divided into Shakubuku teams and sent out in search of prospects. Although three of the four teams returned empty-handed, one had managed to corral a single guest. But one is all that is needed; and so the formal meeting began as usual.

For "formal meeting" read "sales pitch". By the late-1980s, perhaps earlier, instead of being every discussion meeting, this format was restricted to the "introductory meetings" during the Shakubuku Months. However, he's describing something that happened every single time. No meeting unless a "guest" was present.

During my tenure as a member I saw this particular scenario re-enacted on four different occasions, and on one occasion we were sent back into the streets three times in succession. Around 8:30 p.m., after the third try and with one guest in hand, the show finally got on the road.

The author describes himself as "an active participant observer for nearly a year and a half".

Perhaps even more illustrative of the theatrical character of these meetings and the fact that they are staged for guests is the following course of events that transpired one evening during a meeting I attended:

Although no guests were present when the chanting began, a young couple came in toward the end of the chanting session and situated themselves on the floor at the back of the room. But apparently the emcee didn't notice them; for upon completion of the chanting session he didn't jump up and yell out: 'Welcome to a vigorous and happy meeting of the [name here] District of NSA!' But the district leader, who had apparently seen this couple come in, punched the emcee in the ribs and whispered that some guests were present. And so this member immediately assumed his role of the emcee and proceeded as usual by springing to his feet, putting on a big smile, and blurting out, 'Welcome to a vigorous and happy meeting of the [name here] District of NSA!'

"Vigorous and happy" 🤣

In light of the foregoing considerations and observations, there seems to be little question about the appropriateness of conceptualizing NSA discussion meetings as "shows" or presentations staged by the members, who constitute a performance team, before an audience composed of recruits or "guests".

This was what was going on BEFORE Dickeda swanned into the US in 1990 and "changed our direction" - because of what Sensei did, the bottom fell out of the discussion meetings. Instead of weekly meetings, Dickeata dictated that these meetings would only happen monthly from now on - and of COURSE Die-Sucky Scamsei's word is LAW in his own cult of personality, where the membership follows a PERSON instead of any "law". Post-excommunication, at the (non)discussion meetings I attended, there was at least one guest every single time, but they never came back. The ONLY person I saw join post-excommunication was a formerly homeless woman with two small children who had moved in with an SGI member (who had unethically selected her at the abused-women's shelter she was living at, where he volunteered computer classes for the residents). She was able to see it didn't work; she ended up quitting.
Now what SGI-USA is left with is an ever-shrinking membership of mostly Baby-Boom generation and older individuals who mostly joined during the time period described in this study. SGI has completely lost what vitality it once had; now it's simply waiting around for the grave - and oblivion.

"The nature of the soul is not knowable." ---Souls, Black and White

I initially wrote much of this as a response to a post yesterday by the inimitable, inestimable, incomparable, and approx. 45 degree tilted u/Crooked_Cock, but it became ridiculously long for a mere comment. "Long", as in, covering basically as much ground as the lore permits.
The purpose of this post is to interrogate (NOT answer) the following question: how the fuck do souls and soul gems work? Forgive my vulgarity, but I cannot think of another aspect of the setting's lore that is as muddled and confused as souls (also known as "anima", singular "animus"). For the purposes of this post, I am trying not to rely on unofficial lore when it comes to various anachronisms, though I will reference official material developed as a direct consequence of (and in the context of) pre-existing UOL.
TL;DR of the TL:DR - The lore around souls/soul gems is almost completely incoherent, and is saturated with fundamentally unresolvable contradictions.
TL;DR - There are two main theories the lore community often uses to explain the distinction between white and black souls, and neither really works. This is mostly due to conflicting information from the lore itself rather than a lack of skill on part of the community. While we can try and suspend disbelief for many of the things that are portrayed in-game despite what the lore says (e.g., Whiterun's population of ~70 people), there comes a point where you just have to acknowledge the lore itself inherits and is inherited by the games' contradictions.

What the games show us

As regards the division between white and black souls, we should assemble a glossary of facts that the games present us (some of which you may wish to discard later as poorly conceived or simply errors on part of the devs). Firstly, the soul-trap effect used by certain spells and items.
In Daggerfall, soul-trap is a % success spell that traps the soul of an enemy when they die. There is no distinction (that I can recall) between Petty-Lesser-Common-Greater-Grand white souls, nor Black souls. However, there was the absolutely fucking rad mechanic that I can't believe they abandoned where, depending on the being the soul was harvested from, your weapon/armoitem would gain a creature-specific effect. For example, binding an item with an Earth Atronach's soul gives you extra defense, but makes the item weigh more. Additionally, when the item breaks, the creature is released and then attacks you. (ES fans really sleep on how cool Daggerfall was.)
In Morrowind, things change to resemble what most of us are familiar with: the (white) Soul Gems you get in-game are capable of only capturing the souls of (most) creatures. NPC souls (excluding most NPCs designated by the game as creatures) cannot be captured, with the batshit insane exceptions of Vivec and Almalexia, who can be trapped in Azura's Star. (Keep in mind that the Black Star, the version of Azura's Star that can hold Black Souls, was theorized by Malyn Varen in the 4th era. This implies the False Gods of the Tribunal have white souls, which is... bonkers.)
In Oblivion, we get Black Soul Gems that can trap NPCs, which (unlike Morrowind) includes Dremora for some reason. (Skyrim would not repeat this mistake.) Skyrim's implementation is mostly identical to Oblivion's, and introduces the existence of the Black Star, conclusively proving that Azura's Star is not capable of holding Black Souls (for whatever reason).
ESO has expanded on animancy (soul magic) a bit by giving us more information on Daedric vestiges and anima, but nothing that fundamentally answers this question definitively. Of specific note is the fact that there are not divisions of soul gems in ESO, there is only Soul Gem (and the ever-elusive and never-again-seen Crown Soul Gem, whose alleged existence puzzles Tamrielic historians).
With these basic facts laid out, I now want to point out that there are a bunch of particular theories I've often seen presented in this sub (and in the lore community as a whole) as an answer to this post's central question that is very, VERY commonly asked. The answers I have seen can basically be collapsed into two main central ideas.

Theory #1 - The division between "white" and "black" souls is artificial, almost certainly invented by the Mages Guild.

"Furthermore, I propose that for the purposes of soul-trapping we categorize all souls into two classes: the legal, or 'White' souls, those smaller essences that are captured from beasts and animals, and illegal, or 'Black' souls, which are derived from sentient mortals. And we will teach only those spells that can capture White souls, forbidding our students to use the larger soul gems on sentients." ---Vanus Galerion, Guild Memo on Soul-Trapping

This is the theory that at first seems to make the most sense, but then the breadth of the available lore pretty quickly makes it an overly simplistic (and in my personal opinion, extremely poor) explanation.
There are two big pieces of evidence commonly brought to support this theory: Guildmaster Emeritus Vanus Galerion's Guild Memo on Soul-Trapping (read here) and the indistinct soul gems of ESO.
In ESO (c. 2E 582), there are no gradients of soul gems nor black soul gems; there are only soul gems. This seems to make sense, but we know that soul-trapping spells date far earlier, and the Mages Guild had been using their version of the spell in the early 2nd era at least (shortly after its founding), centuries before ESO's time. Their version(s) evidently refused to allow for sentient souls to be captured, at least according to Vanus Galerion. We also know that black soul gems exist by this time, and that soul gems aren't in fact uniform as they are in the game, but we can suspend our disbelief for this minor sin.
(Edit: u/Misticsan has reminded me of the long-lost lore of the year of our lord 2016 (the One Tamriel update), in which there were different variations of (white?) soul gems corresponding to level ranges within levels 1-50. Mortal souls were trappable in these soul gems as well, as I recall.)

"Centuries of experimentation has demonstrated that there are black souls and white souls. Only the rare black soul gem can hold the soul of a higher creature, such as a man or an elf." ---Souls, Black and White

At issue with this theory fundamentally is that it isn't clear in the lore whether black and white souls are truly qualitatively distinct (meaning the difference isn't actually artificial), if soul gems are qualitatively distinct (meaning it's the soul gem itself that can only capture a white/black soul), if soul-trap spells vary so widely as to trap what other spells cannot, or all three together somehow. Each of these ideas has limited support in the lore, which makes the prognosis for this theory grim, in my opinion.
It's rumored that Sotha Sil was the first to actually create Black Soul Gems through reverse engineering regular soul gems, which would seem to imply the distinction isn't truly artificial since the average anima geode fragment is unable to reliably contain the qualitatively distinct mortal soul. Yet, why does, for example, the Mace of Molag Bal obey the Guild's soul-trapping rules and trap black souls only if you have black soul gems? This would seem to imply that it's the soul gems themselves that are distinct rather than the souls, for I doubt that the Lord of Domination would deliberately enchant his own mace with the Guild's version of soultrap. (Morrowind's version does not cast soultrap on hit, interestingly enough.)
To complicate things further, black soul gems are stated to be the only gems capable of trapping "the most willful souls" thereby bypassing the restrictions of the standard Mages Guild's version(s) of soultrap. This implies both souls and soul gems are not artificially distinct. Add to this Mannimarco's first retrieval and use of this unique kind of soul gem (capable of the then-impossible/difficult task of trapping willful souls) predates Galerion's Guild Memo on Soul Trapping, since the memo mentions Mannimarco and his Worm Cult explicitly. The Memo states this despite black soul gems from Coldharbour being retrieved prior to Mannimarco's expulsion from the Psijics.
In other words, Mannimarco (through his then-ally Vastarie) retrieved Black Soul Gems, which were notable only because they were much betteexclusively capable (it's not really clear) of capturing mortal souls. This happened prior to Galerion's Guild Memo, which proposed the division between White and Black souls in the first place. Viz., mortal souls are more "willful" than white souls, which necessitates a Black Soul Gem in order to capture mortal (black) souls. Yet, the Guild Memo wants to change the soul-trap spell so that one cannot trap a mortal soul, despite the fact that Black Soul Gems bypass the restriction anyway. Why would Galerion propose a division between white and black souls (to design a new soultrap spell) if black soul gems (1) bypass the spell's restrictions anyway and (2) are the only gems capable of holding black souls?
And if black soul gems aren't the only gems that can hold mortal souls, then the existence of black soul gems prior to the Guild Memo implies that there actually is a difference between white and black souls, and the difference isn't artificial at all. Under no possible combination can it be said without serious contradiction that the difference between white and black souls was invented by Vanus Galerion.
Returning to direct game evidence, Soultrap in Morrowind is incapable of capturing mortal souls (in support of the theory) yet the inverse is true in Skyrim, and Oblivion (against the theory). In ESO, you don't even require a black soul gem. For Skyrim, maybe the dissolution of the Guild swiftly brought necromancy-friendly soultrap spells back? But, again, why can they only be trapped in black soul gems? Why does Azura's Star restrict itself to white souls if the difference is completely artificial? Maybe a Daedric Prince genuinely cares strongly about preventing the trapping of mortal play-things' souls, but this still implies a difference in both white/black souls and white/black soul gems.
I am loathe to completely ignore the differences in every games' mechanics to make this theory begin to work, because that requires editing/ignoring an awful lot of content/lore. There are some differences we have to suspend disbelief to make sense of, but we can't very well suspend all of the disbelief possible. Making this theory work also requires flatly ignoring large portions of the available lore-text, or placing them anachronistically after the publication of the Guild Memo.

^{TL;DR - Galerion's Guild Memo implies that the very categorization of souls into white and black originates with the Guild's creation of the soul-trap spell, yet there is very mixed evidence as to whether sentient souls and soul gems are qualitatively distinct from non-sentient souls and black soul gems respectively. Black Soul Gems, uniquely capable of reliably trapping mortal souls, predate the Guild Memo. After all, in Skyrim, the degenerated Falmer give white souls while the surviving Falmer Gelebor and Vyrthur give black souls, and in Morrowind, you can't trap NPCs' souls at all. Did Galerion anticipate surviving Snow Elves that hadn't degenerated into the Betrayed?}

Theory #2 - Arkay, the Lord of the Wheel of Life, makes some mortal souls impossible to soultrap without Black Soul Gems.

"...Arkay has given us his Three Consecrations:
• Arkay's Grace, which we bestow upon birth, to protect the souls of the innocent until they are old enough to exercise their own volition.
• Arkay's Blessing, which we bestow upon the dying, to prevent their souls from being used without consent.
• Arkay's Law, which we bestow upon the deceased, that their corporeal forms may not be raised to unlawful servitude." ---Punctilius Tyrus, The Consecrations of Arkay

This theory is perhaps less convoluted, if for no other reason than because we lack a huge amount of contradicting details. It might also be able to coexist with the idea that both souls and soul gems are qualitatively distinct, though it does make the Guild Memo even more out of place if we assume so. After all, what need would Galerion have to distinguish white from black souls if the only way to bypass Arkay's protection was through Black Soul Gems? And if a big enough normal soul gem can capture a mortal soul with Arkay's protection... of what value is that protection really? But I digress.
Firstly, (and please point out if I am missing exceptions), a living, not-undead mortal will have Arkay's protection, which can only be bypassed by Black Soul Gems. For this purpose, vampires are not real true and honest 100% undead. This has its problems (as we'll see in a moment), but the logic of this theory demands we stick with it for now. (Also, don't forget we can soultrap Vivec and Almalexia. Arkay must be fucking pissed.)
The Corpse Preparation volumes tie widespread worship of Arkay (as is the case in Hammerfell) to the strength of "Arkay's Law"; the sanctification of dead bodies by Priests of Arkay prevents their resurrection as undead. Or, at least, that's what some people believe... despite a dearth of in-game evidence to the contrary.
Maybe the sanctification rites need to be repeated, and the Halls of the Dead we see in Skyrim are just constantly understaffed, and even so are staffed by incompetents who leave their damn amulet behind. Or maybe by quantity of worship, it is meant as the amount of priests (and thereby the sanctification rituals). Or maybe, as concerns Hammerful, it's just because the Ansei are (and this is true) super fucking cool.
Even so, there yet remains a very obnoxious thorn in this theory's side: draugr.
Draugr (maybe?) do not have Arkay's protection, because for most of them their burial was prior to the worship of Arkay and the Eight Divines generally. I say "maybe" because under the Nords' totemic religion, Orkey was a Testing God to guard against, and only seems to have become associated with sanctification against undeath as imperial religion was slowly imported into Skyrim (or perhaps ancient Nords wanted to guard against his protection??). I say "for most of them" because there are draugr in Solitude's Catacombs (who can speak dovahzul, no less) who were possibly buried when Potema was. And, if not, they would have been buried contemporaneous to (allegedly) a pre-Harald Temple of the Divines in Solitude, if you take Ysogar's journal very literally. Though perhaps more likely is that Potema was sealed in the Catacombs which had not been sanctified ever, if it indeed does date back to the early centuries of the First Era. This, in my opinion, makes no goddamn sense. "Hey guys, you know this necromancer Wolf Queen that nearly brought the Septim Empire to its knees in a brutal civil war? Let's throw her in the Catacombs which we specifically don't sanctify with Arkay's Consecrations. That won't come up later, I'm sure."
None of the aforementioned religious distinctions between the totemic religion, the late-1st and early-2nd era Nord-imperial hybrid, and the Imperial Pantheon existed in the official lore at the time of Skyrim's release, but it mostly conforms to what we see in later developments regardless: the draugr evidently did not have Arkay's protection, and decayed into the rotting knock-knee'd dragon-talking ambulators that we see in old Nordic ruins because of that.
The beings which we can safely presume don't have Arkay's protection either didn't worship him and use his sanctification practices (e.g., Nords of the Dragon Cult, Ayleids) or are so degenerated from the average mortal as to be little more than a beast in Arkay's eyes (e.g., giants and Falmer (not Snow Elves)). It's still odd that vampires have his protection (perhaps because it can be cured) but extremely more odd that Vivec and Almalexia can get soul trapped. Ignore that for now hopefully forever.
With even all of that aside, the single biggest issue (aside from all the evidence for the previous theory) in my opinion is that, as one example, Olaf One-Eye is present in Sovngarde, as well as on Mundus. The soul that animates his corpse is a white soul, despite Olaf very clearly being present in Aetherius. With what we've gone over in the previous paragraphs, draugr have white souls likely because they are simply the unsanctified mortal souls of the very bodies we are looking at (that's what this whole Arkay's Law is about, after all). Perhaps, in this one instance, Olaf's unsanctified white soul went to Sovngarde (Orkey plays favorites, I guess) and his body became a receptacle for some other, powerful white soul? After all, we can capture the soul animating his undead body and he's still hanging out in the Hall of Valor. Or maybe, when the remnant of his mortal body is roused from its slumber, his soul temporarily returns to his body? Probably not, since trapping it doesn't stop him from scarfing down endless food and mead in Aetherius' local beer hall.
Or maybe his presence in Sovngarde is completely unrelated to his soul somehow, in contrast to basically everything we know about how Aetherius and the afterlife seem to work? You can trap Ulfric, Galmar, and Rikke's souls and they'll still be in Sovngarde#:~:text=Depends%20on%20how%20far%20you%20have%20advanced%20through%20the%20Skyrim%20civil%20war%2C%20and%20the%20side%20that%20you%20have%20chosen) when you go there during Alduin's Bane. I can't even begin to reconcile that fact with most of what I've put to text already. Perhaps there are specific aspects of the soul (neither white nor black) that go to Aetherius, and some degenerated animus remains behind? How would we square that possibility with the souls in the Soul Cairn? And if what Valerica theorized is true (that trapping black souls in black soul gems sends them to the Soul Cairn), why does trapping Ulfric/GalmaRikke in a Black Soul Gem still allow them to go to Sovngarde? Maybe Shor prevents the Ideal Masters from snatching the soul (even if you used it to power an enchantment)? Or maybe they only go to the Soul Cairn specifically in deals with the Ideal Masters? (If so, poor, poor Jiub.)

^{TL;DR - If it is indeed Arkay's Consecrations which protects only some mortal souls from being trapped, then there is no difference absent those protections that distinguish white from black souls. If it is mortality itself that Arkay protects, then he seemingly arbitrarily and without good reason defines mortality in such a way as to exclude great portions of Tamriel's mortal population, alive, dead, or undead. The Falmer are an even greater mystery: why would Arkay change their souls to that of beasts? And are the draugr animated by the souls of the mortals who once lived within, or have those souls passed to Aetherius? Is some ambient aetherial creatia possessing the draugr?}

Final notes

We could independently conceive of a theoretical framework (with basically no real evidence) capable of distinguishing between certain aspects of a soul, since we know that souls are a little bit more complicated than just a person's spirit. Perhaps the capability of soul-trapping a daedroth (thereby preventing their reformation in Oblivion) indicates that some anuic aspect (which Daedra lack) transcends the capabilities of soul-trapping? This might help explain the Olaf/Ulfric/GalmeRikke issue, but still makes it difficult to explain the souls trapped in the Soul Cairn. Perhaps they are mere vestiges, and their "true" AE is somewhere else? Is it this anuic aspect that transcends even Arkay's Law, perhaps more simply being a function of the setting's underlying metaphysics?
And how would we square this with the Vestige's soul, which is probably (after the events of the MQ) now housed within a Daedric vestige?
Perhaps as a dissertation for a PhD in Tamrielic Studies, I'll reconcile all of this with an unprecedented level of textual and historical analysis. I'd... rather not, though, for reasons that have now hopefully become clear.

(P.S. - The Falmer)

I couldn't fit this organically elsewhere, but I wanted to make note of an idea I see somewhat commonly throughout threads regarding this question.
Supporters of theory #1 often suggest that the Betrayed (degenerated Falmer) have white souls because Galerion's soultrap spell did not consider them sentient (basically like that of animals). Yet, Arch-Curate Vyrthur yields a black soul when you kill him. Did Galerion anticipate potential survivors of the Snow-Elf genocide? Is this an oversight we're intended to just ignore?
Others suggest a theory I am more partial to, if only because it fits the Dwemer's history of manipulating souls, strings tones, and divinity. Perhaps the Falmer (not the Snow Elves) have white souls because the Dwemer degenerated the Falmer metaphysically to better serve as a slave race. I doubt the Glowing Mushrooms were the only thing the Dwemer used to subjugate the Falmer, and I also doubt a fungus's ability to downgrade one's own soul. This theory resolves the aforementioned problems under theory #1, and (if one believes theory #2) shows the Dwemer's capability of defying Arkay. It also serves as the thematic precursor to their (possible) ambitions of achieving a higher gradient of existence (divinity through the Brass God). Not that this resolves any of the problems with theory #2, but I wanted to put it here to mention how much I like the idea.

Hi all,
I handed in my dissertation a couple of weeks ago and I didn’t include an acknowledgements section. I spent so long on the main parts of my dissertation that I didn’t leave myself enough time to do the acknowledgements.
It wasn’t compulsory for my uni but now I’m seeing all these Tik Toks of people posting their heartfelt acknowledgments and it makes me feel like I probably should have done one haha
Is that just me? Does anyone else feel like this?

PART 1 HERE ***The paragraph numbers in this post continue from Part 1, as in, that post ended with paragraph 11, so this one starts at paragraph 12 instead of restarting at 1.***
12: All good so far, but, BUT, then Jesse appears in 5x12. Rick had made considerable progress up until then, such as symbolically shaving his beard (a practical choice, but also a manifestation of his desire to let go of "the fight" that Michonne wished for him), but then he meets Jesse. Many people say Jesse was a pointless blip in Rick's life, or that he had more chemistry/was better suited with her than with Michonne, and I myself originally hated this arc because I thought it was unnecessary since he seems to have forgotten her the episode after she dies, but now, I've come to a different conclusion. Realitychker20 and others explain it very well, IMO. When Jesse gives him a haircut, she makes an allusion to Lori, which causes Rick to shed a couple tears. This confrontation with the past, combined with Jesse's resemblance to Lori (in what she represents, not appearance or personality) and Rick's clean-shaven face harkening back to pre-apocalypse days, takes him right back, unconsciously, to the root of his trauma: Lori's death and his guilt about it. His mind has reverted back to that time, as shown when he says to Daryl that "Lori and [him]... used to drive through neighborhoods like this." This wound is now at the forefront of his subconscious, winning out over his desire to be with Michonne.
13: It is further shown that his trauma has overtaken him when later that first night in Alexandria, he and Michonne share a last moment together before she knocks him out in 5x15 (it's very telling that they don't interact much in the next 3 episodes after 5x12. They do have another moment after the one I'm about to talk about, albeit a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment right after Deanna offers them the job of being constables and Rick says yes to Deanna then quickly gives Michonne a look asking for her approval, to which she nods and smiles. It's very brief, but further proof that they're so in sync on many things (not all, as we can see at the moment)). They're talking about Deanna giving them jobs, whether they want one or not, and what it signifies to accept one. Michonne is ready to commit to a job and to Alexandria exploring a relationship with Rick, but Rick, who seemed to be leaning in that direction at the end of 5x11, is regressing, giving in to his fear. In his mind, it's absolutely necessary to fix everything that went wrong with him and Lori, and Jesse can provide that absolution for him. Yes, he's attracted to her, but his true motivation for seeking her out is to heal his Lori trauma, not because he feels this great bond with her (he already has that with Michonne). In addition to this, he, in a sense, turns down Michonne in favor of Jesse because it is far easier and less risky for him to be with someone who doesn't truly have his heart. If things don't work out with Jesse, he has far less to lose than if things don't work out with Michonne, namely, the pain he'd feel with Michonne's death would tear out his heart as viscerally as Lori's death did, perhaps even more so. So, being reminded of Lori through Jesse also reminds Rick of what he stands to lose should he truly allow Michonne into his heart.
14: Next, in episode 5x14, I think Rick kind of realizes the cause of his unhealthy fixation on Jesse, possibly after being shocked at his own cave-man-like instinct at the end of 5x13 when he reflexively reaches for his gun (that he got a hold of without informing Michonne, dun dun dun) and snarls (would you call that a snarl? or more like a look of contempt? I'm not sure. Also, that's the best clip I could find of the scene, with the least amount of annoying edits) upon seeing Pete place his hand on Jesse's back (he's obviously not shocked at himself in the moment, but perhaps later, off screen). He wants his group to legitimately try to integrate themselves into the community and for them to be accepted by the Alexandrians in return, so he unconsciously acknowledges that if he follows his base instincts in order to heal his trauma, he'll likely ruin his group's chances. We do see him at the beginning of 5x14 go to Jesse's house and kinda flirtily ask her about the broken owl sculpture, but I think that interaction really put the lid (temporarily) on his attachment to her. Pete then visits him and it further seals the deal for Rick to stay away. His visit seemed a little like a warning and Rick picks up on that, so he decides to forget his strange Jesse predicament. This is before Rick knows Pete is abusive to Jesse, so while he clearly does not like Pete and senses him to be off in some way, that's not enough to warrant the break-up of their marriage, and therefore decides to stop meddling. He even notices his wedding ring right after Pete's visit and takes it off. He's really putting 2 and 2 together between his need to rectify his role in Lori's death and Jesse. He senses the danger for his group, for Jesse, and for himself.
15: But unfortunately, Carol's got some bad news for him. She informs him of Pete's true nature immediately after deciding to let go of his irrational attachment, thus flinging him right back into Jesse's path. There's no way he can let things be now, obviously, though he is reluctant to jeopardize the group's haven. At the top of episode 5x15, Rick asks Carol why she cares about Jesse, which shows this reluctance. Carol reminds him of Ed, then says she knows why Rick cares, as she's "seen [him] talk to her," implying that Rick has a crush on Jesse. Rick's face during the anticipation of Carol's answer and in the aftermath of it, however, tells a different story. He does care about a woman being abused and genuinely wants to help her, but he knows that he feels particularly strongly about it not because of a crush, but because this is his chance to save Lori. He's scared of what that means for his group because since his feelings are so strong, he knows he'll have trouble restraining himself in subduing Pete. He could easily take it too far and ruin things for his group (which he almost kinda does, lol). But he's also subconsciously scared of what it means for himself, for his mental and emotional health. He wants to help someone in need, but this specific case hits too close to home. He senses he could get messily tangled up in his ulterior wishes and fears, all under the guise of honor and love?? (I don't think even he would use this strong of a word, but I can't think of a better one).
16: Later on in this same episode, Rick reveals to Jesse he knows the truth about Pete. He offers his help, but Jesse is alarmed at his heavily invested interest (they do barely know each other). She asks him, "Why do you care? Why is this so important to you?" Of course, we know why. It's because he doesn't "want [Jesse] Lori to die." He claims he "can help [Jesse] Lori... [and] can keep [Jesse] Lori... safe." He places a good amount of emphasis on the fact that he himself can, in fact, help her, save her. He feels so guilty about Lori's death, about the awful state of their marriage during the last months of her life, and about the fact that he didn't make an effort to mend it at all after months of silent contempt, despite Lori reaching out to him near the end (yes, I know Lori was the cause of their relationship's downfall at the end of season 2, and I'm not a Lori fan, but I mean come on, Rick really found the energy to hold on to that grudge for 7-8-ish months?? I mean, I suppose she did reject him pretty harshly without hearing a proper explanation of what went down with him, Shane, and Carl, so I guess Rick is justified... but still, that's pretty excessive considering Rick's character and his whole family loyalty thing. Anyway, I digress). He feels so guilty, and he now sees his opportunity to redeem himself through Jesse. He tells her he wouldn't help anyone else like he's helping her, and he's right, not because he wouldn't actually help other people in a similar situation as her, but because he's primarily helping Jesse because of her connection to Lori, in his mind, and no one else could be Lori for Rick but Jesse (I'm sure there's other women out there in the apocalypse who could also fit the bill, but you get the gist).
17: This next moment I'm going to talk about, Rick’s speech at the end of 5x15 that lent part of itself to the name of the Richonne spinoff, is ummm... probably a bit of a stretch, more so than my previous points. I'm not entirely sure if I should include it because it's a pretty iconic speech and to attribute some underlying Richonne/Rick trauma tones to it is... wild? blasphemous? 😐😬😐 IDK... but here goes (take it with a grain of salt). Yes, he’s talking about the Alexandrians having to open their eyes to the reality in front of them, but in an obscure way, he’s also subconsciously talking about himself having to open his eyes about Jesse and Michonne. He “wish[es] things weren't what they are,” meaning he wishes he didn’t have a reliance on Jesse to fix himself and wishes he could be brave enough to pursue his feelings for Michonne. He claims that in order “to live… to stay standing,” (i.e., be true to himself and be more fulfilled), he has to stop pushing away what he wants, he has to stop his irrational mission to change the past, and he has to fight for what’s truly important to him. He recognizes that his "way of doing things is done" and that it's "gonna destroy this place." If you go back to paragraph 9, where I explain the significance of Rick's line about the relative safety of his way of doing things compared to Michonne's dangerous way, it is evident he's unconsciously come to realize that he was wrong when he said those words to Michonne. He doesn't want to destroy himself, his potential happiness, by living in the "safety" of choosing Jesse, of choosing the easy, familiar pain instead of venturing out to find a better life for himself. Unfortunately, of course, he comes across as a raving lunatic when he says these (true and valuable) things, so Michonne is forced to save him from himself. Yet another perfect example of how they truly understand each other and how willing they are to help each other.
18: In episode 5x16, when Rick admits to Michonne in the holding cell that "it's like the train car [and] after the whole thing, [he's] still there," he's, perhaps now more consciously, admitting his problem of his tendency to get stuck in the weeds of the past. He says he couldn't tell her about the contraband gun because she "wanted this place," (i.e., she was subconsciously brave enough to want to pursue their connection), implying that he was too scared to do the same, and so he's been hiding stuff from her and distancing himself. When she asks him where he got the gun from (the gun being a symbol of Rick's trauma and the reason for his fixation on Jesse. Oh my god, someone help me, I'm looking wayyyyy too into this!!) just as Carol, Glenn, and Abraham join them in the holding cell, Rick's face looks like he wants to tell her the truth (Carol, Daryl and I made a pact to steal it and a couple others from the armory I feel super guilty about Lori and I'm transferring that guilt onto Jesse and I know it's a huge mess now), but Carol deftly gives a false answer before he can say anything (plus the vulnerable moment between them is broken by the arrival of these 3 characters).
19: Later on in this same episode, when Carol goes to wake up Rick, there is further evidence of him realizing he was wrong to push Michonne as well as his own inclinations away. He owns that he deserved getting knocked out by Michonne and he explicitly states that he doesn't "want to lie anymore." He knows what he has to do for himself, for Michonne, for Jesse, for the Alexandrians, and for his own group, so he starts putting this into practice soon after when he finally tells Michonne the truth about the gun (if you've read this far, I'm sure you can guess by now what I believe the deeper meaning to be, lol. Sorry, I've been at this for hours now. Plz send help). He tells her (and this is huge!!!) that she could've talked him out of it. Please recall the pattern that we see 4 times that I discussed at the way beginning of this analysis. Remember that he couldn't help but be swayed by her first 3 requests, and remember that he was on the verge, but hesitant, to accept being swayed by her 4th request, the request to better himself, emotionally-speaking. At the time she made that request, it was too much for him to accept, but he was heavily contemplating it because of the influence she has on him. His fear got the better of him upon meeting Jesse, and so, to run away from the scary thing Michonne asked of him, he became distant (colluded with Carol and Daryl about the guns and about a possible coup d'état). He didn't want to be talked out of his fear. Michonne, with her steadfast hope and optimism, tells him she'll stand by him whatever he decides to do. Later, after Michonne leaves, Rick calls to mind what Bob had told him several episodes before, in 5x02. Rick is turning over in his mind the idea that the nightmare, his own personal nightmare, will soon end, and also contemplates the new possibilities created by its end.
20: And so, this is the frame of mind we leave Rick and Michonne in at the end of season 5. A lot more hopeful (in Rick's case) than at the start of 5b. Sure, there's still 9 more episodes between this and when they finally do get together, and yes, he does still linger a bit on the Jesse illusion during these episodes, but if I'm not mistaken, those first 9 episodes of season 6 all take place within the span of like a day or two, at most. And the first episode of season 6 takes place, I think, the day after the events of 5x16. Not to mention the fact that from the time the group arrives at Alexandria to the end of 5x16, what?, like only 11-ish days have passed, right? I'm not 100% sure on the timeline, but if I'm in the ballpark, then it means Rick only knew Jesse for like two weeks before she died. Their relationship was a short-lived, intense emotional reaction on his part, grounded in fear and regret, the final remnant tethering him to the past, whose ultimate purpose was to make perfectly clear to Rick what he didn't want (and the dangers of clinging onto that despite not truly wanting it) and what he did want. There's also a 2 month time jump between episodes 6x09 and 6x10, as confirmed by Danai Gurira on the Talking Dead episode of "The Next World." It's not made very clear in the show, but it's a reliable piece of info from an insider. In those 2 months, I'm sure Rick mourned the loss of Jesse, but not for too long because A.) he barely knew her for two weeks, and B.) I'm like 99% certain he had, by that point, completely figured out the true cause of his being drawn to her. He became fully conscious that his regard for her was NOT because they were kindred spirits, and therefore, his heart wasn't too moved by her as to merit an extended grieving process. Like I've said before, Realitychker20 and many other fans have pointed out this, I think, very accurate interpretation of the Jesse storyline. Yvette Nicole Brown also explained it quite well in the Talking Dead episode for "Try."
21: What else did Rick become conscious of in those 2 months, I wonder? Maybe, possibly... yes, yes, I know. I know you know, too. Rick confirmed as much in The Ones Who Live, episode 5. That whole time they were living as a family unit, Rick was hyper-aware of his feelings for Michonne and was just waiting for the right moment to confess. Which he did. With the power of the mints.
22: Well, I think I've done it. Finally finished writing this dissertation, lol. I've gone insane!! Jk, jk, it was a labor of love. The beauty of this is that the story of Richonne has many more phases and layers that one could look into. Ultimately, I did this because I generally hate romance stories because many of them are just awful, unhealthy, toxic, or not nuanced enough to be realistic, but this is one glorious exception. I know there are other examples out there, but this one is very iconic and resonates so deeply with me because I know for a fact that these two characters, unquestionably, are soul mates. I mean, the fact that Rick admits to Abraham in episode 6x15 that he is, in fact, afraid to be so vulnerable as to allow him to be in a relationship with Michonne, but has the strength to do it anyway, just makes me love them even more (in this same episode, btw, we get the apple scene, in which he looks like an Adonis-type figure to me). I can only compare them with the other iconic rivals-to-lovers couple of over 200 years ago: Lizzie and Mr. Darcy.
To the people who stuck around for this whole thing, I'm greatly honored. I sincerely thank you for following me on this journey. Peace out, fellow Richonners!!
PART 1 HERE

I know I’m late but I just can’t get over this song. This is my deep dive dissertation 😂🫡 I’m going to ramble so be warned and also feel free to join in please!
I also wanted to hear the different takes/interpretations especially of the title line: “If these heights should bring my fall, let me be your own Icarian carrion” - because hearing this again recently added another heartbreakingly deeper layer than I initially comprehended.
For context I always got an overall ominous tone because, of course, the reference to the Icarus myth being a cautionary tale. And Hozier himself has explained the song being about lust in Dante’s Inferno. It’s about being blinded by love in a euphoric way but also highlighting the negative aspects like ignoring the red flags and having a consequences-be-damned mindset. With that in mind and certain lines point to it that I interpreted the lover(whoever he’s singing to) as someone who had been somewhat elusive or hesitant or not being ready to embrace love and/or life the way the narrator does/tries to. There’s a distance between them that can’t be gapped(“I do not have wings, love, I never will, soaring over a world you are carrying”). He’s high in the sky and he wants her to join him (“Leave it now” and “We’ll float away”) It’s difficult because he understands that while it can be quite exhilarating it can be as equally scary. The parallel experiences of having a complete and total lack of control while in love and in the uncertainty of the world. Loving despite the world ending and how contradictory it is that love makes you feel hopeful in and for the uncertain future. That how you love and who you love determines how you see the world (Themes that he has consistently written about in all his works and which is why I love Hozier’s music because I too am nihilistic and somehow romantic lol)
Anyway, lines like: “You had me floating like a feather on the sea while you’re as heavy as the world that you hold your hands beneath“ - implying that she is weighed down by her own burdens and demons but she made him feel happy and he wished to give her the same levity (“if you need to darlin lean your weight to me”) and also acknowledging that he’s grateful for her caring for him when she already holds a lot. It all adds to how being in love gives you a feeling of being special and rare as well as feeling undeserving of the same attention but still want it anyway. We’re only human.
“Once I wondered what was holding up the ground but I can see that all along, love, it was you all the way down” - She is his world and she represents what he wants to believe in (hope, strength, resilience, etc) in this physical world and it makes him hopeful despite his nihilistic views. Everything is tolerable with you by my side’ and if he falls it will be okay as long as they fall together. Makes it all the more devastating hearing him imply in interviews about how he had gone through his own struggles and relating it to how we all go through our own living hell and especially in the context of the pandemic and how everyone had to kind of reevaluate their priorities in every aspect of life.
But going back to the title line “…Icarian carrion.” He’s embracing his/their love with every fiber of his being that it will swallow him whole and be the death of him (hence the carrion - like the Carrion crow being named after and eventually becoming like the carcass that it consumes) and the Icarian adjective - meaning that he’s described as a being consisting of Icarus-like qualities and tendencies to be bold, daring, and have reckless abandon. The song title being “I, Carrion” meaning “I am become the decaying flesh of a dead animal.” (All the dead or dying animal imagery in the album and EP kills me🥲)
But the part I wanted to highlight is where he says “let me be YOUR own Icarian carrion” - I thought of it as in the narrator is offering himself up in a final desperate sacrifice to and for love. And that what he’d been in denial about did happen. (“If I fall, I only pray, don’t fall away from me.”) —He’d been repeatedly hoping despite the signs and knowing deep down it wouldn’t make any difference. He did fall hard (in love) and she fell away from him (out of love). He’s speaking from the dead saying “Let my fallen corpse be YOUR own reminder of my love for you and the consequence of it too.” He’s the very picture of devotion even in death. ‘Icarian’ and ‘I, Carrion’ also phonetically sounds like “I carry on” as in “I carry onto the next realm, or whatever comes after life, still holding love for you.” It also still feels like there’s lingering hurt and desperation and yearning for something that can never be and yet still he would do it all over again knowing how it ends (in reference to the previous song in the tracklist - Francesca 😭😭 don’t get me started) and then finally the ‘carrying on’/moving on despite their love ending.
Ughhhh I’m completely normal about this. My idea of a fun time is dissecting every line of each and every one of Hozier’s songs😂🫶🏼 If you made it this far thank you for reading! I just had to get my thoughts out there into the void

Hey guys...it's 3:35 am as i type this up so...apologies in adv for the wording/formatting ...i just need to air my shit out and i'm sick of ruminating over stuff with my irl friends...it's embarrassing...and i want to finally LET GO...but i want some potential insight from more experienced relationship...havers. lol (I'm 24 and this is in regards to my first ever boyfriend ...well now ex...who's 32 btw lol)
I've been on and off with this guy since late 2022...it's been pretty toxic from the start but I wouldn't let go because I'm shallow and he was just my type lol...forget the fact that he was incompatible with me in almost every other way lol, in any case...it's gotten rather violent, messy and disturbing throughout our relationship, every time we've 'broken up' i was the one to initiate it...but also almost every time we got back together it was ME going back to him...so I definitely acknowledge the big part I played in my own mental anguish...but Idk what it was about him and/or our dynamic and/or most likely my own attachment issues/absentee daddy and horrid mommy issues lol....but I couldn't stop fixating on our relationship and obsessing over him when we'd part ways..
Fast fwd to 3 months ago i got diagnosed with ovarian cancer..he was really supportive initially even though my treatment could mean we could never have kids (he claimed he didn't care...:/ which i never believed -- bc he's always talking about wanting to have kids...which i never wanted..another reason i should have never continuing pursuing him but...whatever lol)..
but i deeply appreciated him being there for me and i almost started feeling like i owed him, like i was indebted because he wanted to stick with me no matter what...like I HAD to stay in the relationship now...but recently he's been so cold towards me lol...like when I'm in agonizing pain at night like I usually am nowadays, i'll be grunting loudly and sometimes even screaming crying...he'll be bothered/annoyed...even when I verbally ask him to not come over so I won't keep him up...he insists on coming over but won't even bother calming me down anymore...it's like i'm an inconvenience and he's sick of me being sick..or just because I still haven't gotten chemo or any news about a surgery and i'm fairly 'fuctional' he isn't taking it as seriously...I feel like some men need to literally SEE you in agony and complete dysfunction or they won't really believe that your ailment (in this case, fucking cancer) is really...real. Lol, even before I was diagnosed...this applies to my mental health issues...like he didn't really take me saying I have clinical depression seriously.
there's always a chance i'm projecting...or I'm misreading it but one thing is for certain...he's not being as gentle and loving as he used to be with me...Could be resentment could even be....he wants me to break up with him again (although i doubt it lol)
3 Days ago, we had a big argument and by argument i mean it's usually him just belittling me over setting really some reasonable boundaries lol (to be fair, he was drunk - i don't drink...and that's something I've already been turned off by for a long time but kept pushing it away..) so he just kind of threatened that he'd leave my apt after just having arrived...which he's done before...but i would usually almost beg him to stay but this time...it was very weird....I was very calm...mildly irritated at our argument, but i was no longer an emotional wreck, i was actually ready for him to leave my apt....but i didn't know i was ready to also break it off, until he left. I usually do the essay/dissertation long texts when I break it off with him in an attempt to come across as the good guy and protect his feelings...but this time it was a very concise text that literally consisted of "...let's break up." and "Block my number. I swear on my Mother's life and father's grave I'll never hit you up again".....yeah...I just impulsively texted that....no drafting, no proof reading, no calling up friends and reconsidering....(ofc all my friends are anti-him tho lol)
it's just so weird that I've finally sincerely accepted that I don't care if I'm going to be the villain in his story...which is what I think was holding me back in the past break ups...I didn't want to be seen or remembered as a villain by him...but I think I finally accepted it doesn't matter and I almost wish I played the part for real.
Important to note..I'm naturally a very emotional person + I've had major depressive disorder since I was 12 and I'm generally hyper sensitive...and when it comes to him...well, historically paired with my mental illnesses...came this really nasty obsessiveness over him despite all his red flags + MY OWN RED FLAGS that intensify around him. I don't want to act like this guy is all hellish either btw, he has great qualities, just not right for me...I don't like demonizing people entirely but he's just not...emotionally intelligent..maybe? which has proven to be really harmful to me, as corny as that sounds...
Why is it that this time? I sincerely do NOT care....each time I've broken up with him, I've held on to all our pictures/the things he's gotten me/even unblocked him on stuff eventually but this time....I CHANGED MY FUCKING NUMBER ON THE SAME NIGHT HE LEFT lol....I'm almost nearing the end of my lease at the current place I'm staying at and I'm looking forward to him not knowing where I live..I started mass deleting a bunch of pics/videos of us (and i don't delete ANYTHING lol)...It literally feels like I've shut down and I'm scared because I'm like does this mean this is just a phase and I'll be hit by the excruciating break up blues eventually?...I'm scared and anxious as fuck...Like why am I...fine? Please someone say this is IT..
LOL...I'm not thinking about him like I usually do after a break up, this instantaneous sense of relief..is cool I guess but it's quite jarring...I guess I've just been over him for a while so maybe that's why I'm not in shambles..and I'm so much more secure in my decision......because I'm like if you're willing to berate me, hurt me, not make any compromises even if you think my FeElinGs are dumb...do all that..even as I battle CANCER lol....then yeah I guess I finally regained my back bone..lol cuz wtf
Sorry for this nonsensical post, i hope someone can follow... thanks to whoever reads the whole thing. I'm spiraling about the lack of emotions as an emotional person but I'm simultaneously grateful and I just hope this lasts and I eventually forget everything with the quickness. I'm trying to "ride the wave" but I've never experienced a wave that started off so... nonchalantly... if that makes any sense...Each break up with him was so devastating...this would be our fourth and I guess my mind and body checked out...
I just want to focus on my health...and start anew...and be single with no intent to get in a relationship again....cuz this relationship almost made me forget how much I love being alone.
Let me know if you have any thoughts or similar experiences <3 :/

On 09/03/2020, I sent my Degree Plan to the associate dean. It was signed by all of my committee members, and it explicitly states that 36 credit hours were required. If more hours were required, this should never have been approved.
It was acknowledged that my degree plan was received. I then promptly sent my Committee Form as well. On the school website, it states: “The student’s supervisory committee determines the precise amount of course credit to be required, subject to the approval of the department chair and the associate dean.”
Additionally, I have already taken my qualifying exam and my dissertation preproposal.
However, now that I am nearly done with my PhD, they are saying that I need 54 course credit hours since I entered directly without a masters!
I began my PhD under the impression that I was required to take 36 course hours, which was later confirmed via approval of my degree plan. Had this not been the case, I would not have begun. If I am now being told that I need more course credit hours, I received misleading information which has harmed me; I was provided with false information that influenced my decision to enroll and continue in the PhD program.
​
What can I do now? Is there any legal matter that protects me in this case?

Patriarch Abraham travels north, west, south, and east: Ur to Harran to Egypt to Salem, seemingly related to the title of King of The Four Corners" that requires north, west, south, and east territories.

…the Lord said to Abram, “Look all around you—to the north and south and east and west.

That Abraham's descendants are promised to lead or are described as having led a Great Nation or be a Great King further supports that this is related to the King of The Four Corners, which is also called Great King, that is established in the 2nd millenium BCE.
We know that the Amorites and their Aramaean offshoot took on the theophorics of their new territory. And that Solomon with Jerusalem is an example of that too.
There are also acknowledged examples of triple theophorics, so this hypothesis is based on what would be a very rare quad theophoric as Great Kings, a step below Emperor basically.
These are what seem to be the Supreme God theophoric for each area named above, in the ballpark period that the Bible narrative ascribes to the Patriarchal Age, and how they could be combined into one name simpler than those five names in Egypt.
Archaeologists find Harran’s temple was dedicated to the lunar god. Ur had a Temple that deified the living emperor — this could have been limited to descendants as an ancestor cult. Salem has El Elyon in Genesis 14. And finally in Egypt, pastoralists associated with Yah had Iah) with the bull’s crescent horns being their symbol.
Thus there are no idols, statues, or figurines involved in any of this. A regnal name wouldn’t necessarily reflect worship, but birthright aegis to their Four Corners again, the Ur-originated tradition of the Great King that was practiced across the Ancient Near East, and is found in Revelation 7 and Psalm 48:2.
King Solomon’s name is the perfect example of a regnal name establishing birthright aegis — to Jerusalem, as it contains SLM in its first two syllables, matching Uru (city of) SLM, Salem. It’s academic consensus that it is theophoric to Shalem the god of dusk, likely as it’s the Western boundary of the Semetic-speaking area.
Jacob/Israel, Ishmael, and Jesus/Immanuel share a strong Egypt connection in the Biblical narrative: 1. Jacob/Israel is a ruler of a nation in Egypt. 2. Ishmael is half-Egyptian. 3. Jesus/Immanuel is safeguarded in Egypt.
So a name theophoric to these Four Corners could be constructed like this:
Israel Yšrʾil
Y — theophoric to Yah, Egyptized as Iah.
ŠR — Šaru (Sargon of Akkad) is the first deified King of Ur.
(Ibarum and Sarai are two lineage names in that family, but not deified.)
‘iL— El Elyon of Salem.
Ishmael I‘+ ŠM + ‘L
ŠM — Sumuel is a deified king of Ur.
It’s a callback to Sumu (Sumu-abum)the First Semetic conqueror of Babylon. There are many Sumus that follow as Amorites swap out the theophoric of the dynastic name to match the area that they rule.
Immanuel I‘ + Manu + ’L
MN — Manishtushu is a deified King of Ur.
MN forms the biconsonantal root required, and follows the Amorite/Aramaean convention of retaining the first two syllables and swapping out the rest. Usually that’s a theophoric, but as an emperor it is theophoric to itself. Manu itself becomes a regnal name without a theophoric circa the First Century in the original Sargon area.
Iah is the academically attested lunar god, an Egyptized name that’s also Yah, Jah and Aah. It’s archaeological existence predates the Tetragrammaton introduced by Moses in the Bible narrative. It can be reduced to one letter, in for example, Amose.
The lunar god is originally the Supreme God at Sargon the Great’s Temples of Harran and Ur, but then, the first emperor ancestor cult is created for him to embody the spirit of that god. It is created by his grandson who then is bestowed deification while living, and that tradition continues
• Yah/Iah/Jah/Aah is syncretized with all the lunar gods because pastoralists travel: Yahrik, Suen/Sin/Nanna/Thoth/Nabu.
•Sra — Sarai meaning “ruler” is popularized with Sarru, Anglicized as Sargon the Great.
It’s the competing Isin-Larsa dynasties that descend from Sargon that fit the time ascribed the Patriarchal Age. By their theophorics, they seem to debate this new tradition — I‘-Sin lunar worship continues on one side, while with Larsa/Ellasar, El-Sarru brings in the new era of anthropomorphic worship on the other.
The Semetic-speaking pastoralists use a consonantal abjad. The u- is a Babylonian accent (think Su-merian and Su-en that gives Akkadian its loanwords). While the a- accent is the classic Akkadian/Amorite/Aramean accent that you see in Hyksos Amose.
•-El is theophoric for the Canaanite Supreme God, the Father.
Therefore you have constructed a name for the intended king of a kingdom that establishes the Mesopotamian Larsa dynasty in the South, as there is no historical evidence for kingdoms operating independently for the ballpark time period that the Bible ascribes to the Patriarchal Age.
To sum it up, it is possible that the traditions of Abraham’s Ur that included syncretism are underdiscussed in constructing theocratic regnal names.

"[...] Star Trek was not exactly a staple of my childhood. The show didn't enter my life until later, and even then, it was mostly at college parties where my fellow physics majors always had random episodes playing in the background. It became an anchor for our friendships and was the center of many of our favorite memories. Eventually, I would finish up at my Colorado undergrad and leave my friends and family behind to pursue a PhD in Scotland. As I embarked on my new adventure, a certain Star Trek captain would emerge as a close companion, mentor, and inspiration.
Kate Mulgrew's portrayal of Captain Janeway on Star Trek: Voyager was everything I needed at that time of transition. Searching for 'adventure' often results a mixed bag of experiences, mixing moments of exciting accomplishments with long bouts of loneliness. In Scotland, I felt isolated having to make friends from scratch in a new culture. Instead of reaching through Star Trek and its fandom to connect with friends, I dove inside, seeking companionship within the fictional realm. I was drawn to Janeway — a strong, passionate woman, who found herself burdened with responsibility while facing new and unknown cultures. In her, I found a friend who, like me, immersed herself in the passions of gothic romance and fantastical Irish villages while trying to maintain an external veneer of confidence and professionalism.
I could share in her successes and failures, such as the persistence in solving a mathematical puzzle in "Counterpoint," or the feeling of fate working against you just as in "Eye of the Needle." The fact that Janeway came from a science officer background and had such evident passion for data and science only drew me closer to her. While doing research in a large collaboration, I had to balance data and the search for answers against personalities and politics, which sometimes left me ready to give up. My PhD became my Alpha Quadrant and I drew strength from Janeway's ability to continue fighting and standing by her decisions as she drove towards her end goal.
This strong and intelligent Federation captain was not only my companion, but also a mentor. Her roots in science drew me in, but watching her careful balance of femininity in a demanding environment, while managing respect from her subordinates but also maintaining trust and friendships, was awe-inspiring. At the time, women made up only around 10 to 20 percent of people within my field of expertise, and with few options, I struggled in finding women to connect with. I wanted role models who could help guide me in my career decisions, or provide me with an example of the type of professional scientist I wanted to be.
Yet, I saw myself in Captain Janeway's decisions, which gave me the strength to shape my own decisions. I learned a huge lesson in leadership when she made the decision to respect the Caretaker and destroy the array, along with any chance of getting her crew home. She did not waver in her order and was able to communicate her decision to the crew without being apologetic or requiring everyone to agree.
One of my favorite episodes is "Latent Image" where the Doctor finds that Janeway has been erasing a particular memory from him. The captain initially comes off as the villain of the story, until the viewer sees how that memory impacts the Doctor's ability to function and starts to side with Janeway's decision. She finds a compromise with him and, though it is difficult, she does what she can to help him through and stand by her actions every step of the way. I took note of her behavior — her way of standing by her decisions while still being open to suggestions — and incorporated it into my professional life which grew my own confidence and capabilities.
The final days of your PhD are not entirely unique; most people who've written a dissertation have similar stories of the burden of trying to distill years of research into a coherent demonstration of your capabilities. You feel overwhelmed, unworthy, and out of your depth. It can be isolating and frustrating. It's a dark time for many, and people start scrambling to find ways to cope. Janeway inspired me to the end; Voyager's writers were not afraid to show how she handled stress and pressure. They weren't afraid to let her experience emotion. From allowing yourself to escape into a literary fantasy to sometimes just needing a cup of coffee, Janeway gave me that grace to realize what I needed and allow myself it. She reminded me of who I was and why I was chasing this degree. Her presence was a constant reminder that if I wanted to become even a semblance of who she was I had to keep pushing.
[...]
Kathryn Janeway inspired me, mentored me, and held my hand through thick and thin. She drove me to be better, to be stronger, to not give up. So as I sat there reflecting on this moment the perfect words for my acknowledgements came to me. I wrote, "Finally, to Captain Kathryn Janeway. I cannot describe the level of inspiration she provided me right when I was on the verge of giving up."
This single sentence summed up everything I couldn't express or understand of what Captain Janeway had given me. I simply knew my relationship with her was significant and would stay with me forever."
Dr. Erin Macdonald is an astrophysicist, aerospace engineer, and science fiction consultant.
Link:
https://www.startrek.com/en-un/news/to-kathryn-janeway
Memory Alpha entry:
"She has served as the science adviser for the Star Trek franchise since 2019, and worked in this capacity on the third and fourth seasons of Star Trek: Discovery, the second and third seasons of Star Trek: Lower Decks, the second and third seasons of Star Trek: Picard, and the entire Star Trek: Prodigy and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds series.
She also wrote the children's book Star Trek: My First Book of Space released in 2022.
She had a cameo in the Star Trek: Prodigy first season episode "Supernova, Part 2", voicing a character named Doctor MacDonald.
Doctor Erin, a character mentioned in LD: "First First Contact", was named after her.
She appeared in TRR: "Memento Mori" in a segment "The Science of Star Trek with Dr. Erin Macdonald" to explain the science behind brown dwarf stars, gravity wells, escape velocity, gravitational redshift, and black holes as depicted in SNW: "Memento Mori"."

Autistic burnout seems to be a common concept that's leaving us exhausted and drained, and yet there's little support for us, or acknowledgement of this in empirical research.
So for my MSc dissertation project at University of Stirling, I am hoping to interview some autistic adults (18+) about their experiences of autistic burnout in employment to find out what the risk factors are and what accommodations are most useful to reduce instances of burnout.
Interviews will be conducted online and you can either respond verbally or in writing, depending on your own personal preference. All participants will receive a £10 voucher for their time.
Please comment or click this link for more information and to take part. Thank you. https://www.testable.org/experiment/7178/211051/start

OVERVIEW
Kohler dedicated more pages to backbiting his colleagues and this week Herschel took the brunt. We learned that Herschel never rocked the boat, had little ambition, appeared nervous, and held an idealist belief that historians must be honest and maintain faith in fact. This contrasted the view of Mad Meg whose “belief was in the force of fiction” (418).
Under the subheading, Scandal in the Schoolroom, Planmantee called an official department meeting with Governali, Culp, Herschel and Kohler to discuss two agenda items concerning Kohler’s conduct. They first reviewed the accusation that Kohler fondled one of his students, as reported by her roommate to Planmantee, and whose name Planmantee protected. The second issue was Kohler’s grad student’s dissertation choice of D’Annunzio. Planmantee also read from Kohler’s Nuremburg Notes, where he specifically referred to Goering’s demeanour at the trial. Parallels to Kohler’s comportment in the department meeting could be drawn.
Colleagues wouldn’t back Kohler up when Planmantee expressed concern about upholding the reputations of the department, university, and teaching profession in general. Kohler went on a defensive tirade about hearsay and his colleagues’ indiscretions. He insisted he was framed by a “failee” who sought revenge for not receiving a passing grade. He refused to agree that his grad student should retitle his dissertation to something less offensive. Only Herschel heard all of Kohler’s arguments. The other three colleagues walked out after Planmantee said they must save the system and Kohler said fuck the system (429). Ultimately we saw Kohler acting as a jilted scholar: abandoned, betrayed, and deeply disappointed.
Kohler further acknowledged the reality of a work of art cannot be but partially grasped, per Hegel (424). He said history had its trophies, and from G&I he compiled a list of anti-Semites: Marx, Voltaire, Luther, Erasmus, Herder, Heine, Wagner, Fichte, Gutzkow, Lauve, Kant, Moses Hess, Constantine Franz, Fries, Millikan. He made the point that Plato and Spinoza said anti-semitism was not confined to semites, and commented, “give a Jew a hammer and he’ll break your head, the teeth of every tiger are alike, it’s in the species, it’s deep in our dirty genes” (436). Kohler implied that he was no better nor worse than his colleagues.
ANALYSIS
It occurred to me while reading this week’s selection that Guilt & Innocence is embedded within the pages of Kohler's Tunnel. Until now, I’d been picturing The Tunnel’s pages being sandwiched between G&I, but now, it is as though a reversal is taking place. Remember, Kohler started writing The Tunnel to get out of his writing funk. It was his way to get to the task of writing his Introduction of G&I. Kohler also questioned whether reality has the marks of a work of provocative art (424). I took this to mean a provocative work of history artistically written. In other words, The Tunnel is the Introduction to G&I and at the same time we could also say G&I is the Prologue to The Tunnel.
Last week, gutfounderedgal posed the question, what is Kohler’s desire? I speculated Kohler’s goal was to switch vocations from novelist to historian, and/or vice versa. I continue to think so. Kohler’s writing appeared as an inversion of his identity and ontology. His beingness reflected in a historio-literary form.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
Kohler argued the position “Relativism as a theory really reflects an intellectual failure of nerve which is the result of colonial guilt, commercial greed, the placation of the mob, and a loss of taste” (419). What is your take-away as a reader? How does this apply in a contemporary context?
Il trionfo della morte (Triumph of Death) was a book by Gabriele d’Annunzio (427) with its theme centered on the superman as an aesthete. Why would Gass set Kohler up to defend an Italian fascist’s conception rather than have him supervise a grad student whose dissertation centered on the Nietzchean ubermensch, aligning to Kohler's German expertise?

Rules:
* M4M
* Be +20
* Discord
* Send a sample
* Third or first person, past or present tense
Hello! I’m a big fan of enemies or rivals going through the slow, painful and torrid process of developing feelings for each other. We would kick off this story with letters of all sorts, from long winded reports with photographs and sketches (that we would describe, of course) to the equivalent of sending a middle finger emoji in the form of a short telegram memo.
I imagine the addresses they use are a secluded P.O. box in the middle of a forsaken village or the dusty office of a maze-like private university that rarely gets visitors, so as to not give out their real addresses at first.
We could then move on to them having conversations on the phone, and then, as the story progresses, no doubt one of them will be compelled to seek out the other in person, so that they finally, finally meet in person. Open to your ideas as well, of course!
*****************
Plot:
The world brims with the promise of technological progress. The telegraph, shortly followed by the telephone, heralds a transformative shift in how the world communicates and records information. Equally groundbreaking are innovations such as the light bulb, the steam engine, and the daguerreotype, each leaving an indelible mark on the landscape of human innovation.
However, despite our protagonists’ status as esteemed scientists of the highest order, these advances barely stir their souls. Instead, for several decades or more, they have devoted themselves to the exploration of mysticism and the occult, delving deep into realms of symbolism, sigil craft, ancient grimoires, alchemy, hermeticism, divination, spellcasting, incantations, spectral hauntings, sacred rituals, demonology… And the craft of witchery. While each may possess their own area of expertise and niche interests, and perhaps even adhere to conflicting schools of thought, it is hard to name another figure as prominent in the field of esoteric pursuits in this century, at least within the underground circles of likeminded individuals who navigate the intricate web of the occult.
Perhaps one of them is a reclusive hermit, while the other is quite the socialite, overseeing a sprawling apothecary or lecturing as a biology professor, making the most of what mainstream academia and secret societies have to offer. Either way, they have long been aware of each other’s existence through their writings and conversations among colleagues and confidants, never crossing paths until a pivotal moment arrives—a letter that breaks the silence.
But who is the sender, and what prompts it? Could it be sparked by the incendiary publication of a dissertation, the beginning of a feud born of scholarly rivalry? Or does one of them seek arcane knowledge or a rare herb only the other can provide? Perhaps it is a begrudging acknowledgment of a breakthrough, peppered with backhanded compliments to every bone they have meant to pick with this individual for a long time.

Rules:
* M4M
* Be +20
* Discord
* Send a sample
* Third or first person, past or present tense
Hello! I’m a big fan of enemies or rivals going through the slow, painful and torrid process of developing feelings for each other. We would kick off this story with letters of all sorts, from long winded reports with photographs and sketches (that we would describe, of course) to the equivalent of sending a middle finger emoji in the form of a short telegram memo.
I imagine the addresses they use are a secluded P.O. box in the middle of a forsaken village or the dusty office of a maze-like private university that rarely gets visitors, so as to not give out their real addresses at first.
We could then move on to them having conversations on the phone, and then, as the story progresses, no doubt one of them will be compelled to seek out the other in person, so that they finally, finally meet in person. Open to your ideas as well, of course!
*****************
Plot:
The world brims with the promise of technological progress. The telegraph, shortly followed by the telephone, heralds a transformative shift in how the world communicates and records information. Equally groundbreaking are innovations such as the light bulb, the steam engine, and the daguerreotype, each leaving an indelible mark on the landscape of human innovation.
However, despite our protagonists’ status as esteemed scientists of the highest order, these advances barely stir their souls. Instead, for several decades or more, they have devoted themselves to the exploration of mysticism and the occult, delving deep into realms of symbolism, sigil craft, ancient grimoires, alchemy, hermeticism, divination, spellcasting, incantations, spectral hauntings, sacred rituals, demonology… And the craft of witchery. While each may possess their own area of expertise and niche interests, and perhaps even adhere to conflicting schools of thought, it is hard to name another figure as prominent in the field of esoteric pursuits in this century, at least within the underground circles of likeminded individuals who navigate the intricate web of the occult.
Perhaps one of them is a reclusive hermit, while the other is quite the socialite, overseeing a sprawling apothecary or lecturing as a biology professor, making the most of what mainstream academia and secret societies have to offer. Either way, they have long been aware of each other’s existence through their writings and conversations among colleagues and confidants, never crossing paths until a pivotal moment arrives—a letter that breaks the silence.
But who is the sender, and what prompts it? Could it be sparked by the incendiary publication of a dissertation, the beginning of a feud born of scholarly rivalry? Or does one of them seek arcane knowledge or a rare herb only the other can provide? Perhaps it is a begrudging acknowledgment of a breakthrough, peppered with backhanded compliments to every bone they have meant to pick with this individual for a long time.

I defended my dissertation today (theorizing the deep causes of great power decline), and secretly at it's core it was inspired by thinking through alternate histories and events in Crusader Kings. I should thank Paradox in my acknowledgements. You guys are having real world impact!

Hello,
I am wondering do the acknowledgements and abstract have to be on separate pages or can they be on the same one.
I know this is something that I should ask my supervisor but they are on leave at the moment 🙄.

Hello Trailblazers! There has been a lot of feedback on the rule changes yesterday, which you can find here if you aren’t caught up, and we’ve spent a good portion of the day today looking into common post/comment types, general feedback, edge cases, and a variety of other metrics and have determined that some of the rules we have laid out yesterday could use some reworking. We mentioned a few times that the rules on the sub are generally always going to be rather fluid, and we are always looking to improve them or optimize their function, and so we urge any users who have issues with the rules to continue giving us feedback whenever possible.
For the record, this post will primarily address Rule 11. We got a lot of feedback on other rules as well as the state of the subreddit, but we don’t like to make major rule revisions to multiple rules at the same time, as it can be overwhelming on our end enforcing them, and it gives the community some time to adapt before needing to get used to another change. If you had feedback on other rules, however, please note that we will gladly listen to it here, and if you brought something up recently it has not been forgotten!
The updated Rule 11 was built with several purposes in mind (we describe it in the post yesterday), and while we still feel these are very important factors we also acknowledge that there is no perfect system. I’ll go into some details after we go into the updated Rule 11, which is as follows:
Rule 11: Shipping Rules
Art, Video, or other media which simply show characters “shipped” or in a relationship are allowed. Unchanged
Implications or direct statements that one particular ship or ship fanbase is more or less canon/correct/valid/good than another are prohibited. Unchanged
Do not make disparaging, passive aggressive, or negative remarks about any ships or pairings. Added
Declaration of the sexual orientation of a character as canon is prohibited, but headcanons, theories, and discussing implied sexuality are allowed. Reworked
While not against the rules please be mindful of the following: Added

• Please make a best effort to be open to the interpretations of others, and avoid engaging with content you personally do not partake in negatively
• Please try to avoid discussions comparing the relative validities of different ships

The moderation team reserves the right to remove any content that does not directly break the rules as stated, but are deemed to be leading to conflict, uploaded as rage-bait, or attempts to circumvent these rules on a case-by-case basis Reworked
We also removed a small section involving Otto Apocalypse that clarified one of the above reworked portions, as it isn’t needed anymore.
With these changes, we’ve addressed some of the most prominent issues with the previous iteration, as well as some we noticed from our end:

1. The way the rule was worded and implemented, there was a major confusion in what constituted a rule violation and what didn’t. This, compounded with the fact that we did not provide detailed examples, led to a major problem with users not being able to discern what statements were and were not against the rules. In addition, our moderation team also felt that while attempting to enforce the rules today, we still were running into the consistency issues we originally worked to address.
2. There was a severe amount of what I would call “Collateral damage” as a result of the rule. While the old iteration would guarantee a consistent implementation of the rules (without the aforementioned clarity issues), it would result in a large number of comments or posts that do not themselves feel problematic, and put the burden of responsibility on users attempting to facilitate discussion, post artwork, or provide insight rather than users who are explicitly causing trouble. This isn’t ideal, and after hearing community sentiment as well as evaluating amongst ourselves, we feel that the loss in meaningful discussion simply isn’t worth it.
3. In some places, the rules were too comprehensive while in others they felt not comprehensive enough. Many users let us know that we weren’t addressing a major issue, which is passive aggressive or mildly negative comments which, while not directly antagonistic, would make users feel unwelcome or hesitant to post content they enjoyed. We have amended this by adding to the rule to explicitly disallow this type of behavior.
4. Similarly to point two, these rules would disproportionately affect marginalized users in terms of restricting freedom of discussion. Certain groups would be affected by a tightening of discussion rules much more than others, and representation in fictional media, even non-canonically, is very important for all individuals. Restricting this discussion simply further supports the status quo, and disallows breaks from convention that are the hallmarks of a flourishing fandom.

You might think the way we worded this is very indirect because we don’t want to step on any toes. Homophobia/Transphobia/Racism/Hate Speech is not allowed on the subreddit. Historically, we have had a tight stance on obvious rule-breakers in this regard, with pretty much all first-time offenses resulting in permanent bans. While we can’t do anything about users downvoting or reporting content they dislike, we can do something about allowing those users to make their distaste public, and try to restrict their ability to harass others. In addition, the least we can do is not restrict users who are being spoken out against further. The new Rule 11 is deeply intertwined with Rule 1, the one where we tell you to not be rude to each other (to put it lightly). Therefore, we’ve also made the following change:
Rule 1 and Rule 11 Punishment Severity Changes:
Rule 1 and Rule 11 violations will carry much stricter punishments from this point on. We feel that we have been too relaxed in punishing rule-breakers who actively antagonize other users, especially those who like to spread shipping drama and engage in arguments with other users about it. We have had our fair share of rage-bait posting, hostile/passive aggressive comment threads, and limit breaking for the rules, and this is all because the punishment for many of these actions isn’t much of a threat.
Therefore, we’ve decided to increase the minimum punishment for a first-time offense breaking Rule 1 or Rule 11 to a 1 week ban. Second time offenses can expect at least a month, or even a permanent ban depending on severity. Ban appeals can be made through modmail.
I will now reiterate how the subreddit currently and has functioned forever: Do not engage with users you feel are insulting, being passive aggressive, or being antagonistic to you. The punishments are much more severe, and there is a possibility that in replying back you will also break Rule 1 and be punished. Report their comment and let us take them out behind the barn. (for a ban)
You may think that this is too strict or draconian, but I can tell you internally we have many metrics across the subreddit we track, and most Rule 1 breakers are NOT first-time offenders. We have historically only given out warnings and short bans to users who consistently break those rules, and they have historically not worked. This change, like all changes, is subject to change in the future, but as this is also a particularly volatile time, we feel this is necessary to keep drama, especially shipping drama, out of the subreddit. We also do see massive influxes of users who are not typically active on the subreddit during periods like this (Twitter Drama + Subreddit Drama), and in general new users who are only here to stir up trouble are unwelcome.
A good guideline to follow: If you don’t personally like the pairing in a particular post, simply skip engaging with it and let the users there who enjoy it “like what they like”.
Now, another major issue previously was clarity. The wording of the rules was very vague before, and while we have improved that, we want it to be very clear from here on out what constitutes a rule break and what doesn’t. I have prepared a non-exhaustive list below, which we will be posting in the Wiki and link to the sidebar rules. You may even recognize some of these situations from your own feedback to us:
"Acheron and her Girlfriend!" (Post Title) - Not Removed
"Acheron is straight" - Removed
"My headcanon is that March and Serval are together" - Not Removed
"Your headcanon doesn't make sense/sucks/isn’t that good!" - Removed
"Here is my detailed 100 page thesis on why Jing Yuan has a secret relationship with X" - Not Removed
"Here is my detailed 100 page thesis on why Jing Yuan is canonically Bisexual" - Removed
"Here is my detailed 100 page thesis and analysis on why I think Jing Yuan could be Bisexual" - Not Removed
"This post shouldn't exist..." - Removed
"I'm personally not a fan of that ship, but this art looks great!" - Not Removed (Depends on tone, if this is all you want to say you can guarantee you don't get removed you can just say the "This art looks great" part)
"I'm not personally a fan of that ship. It just doesn't have as much evidence as this other one." - Removed
"Why did you post this?" - Removed
"No" (in response to ship artwork) - Removed
"Say Gex" - Not Removed
"These two canonically Say Gex" - Removed
"They're so gay in this art (non-derogatorily)" - Not Removed
"They're so gay in this art (derogatorily)" - Removed
Note: The above two must be decided with context. Try not to make vague comments that could be read either way to avoid unwanted removals.
"omg such cute lesbians (in this art)" - Not Removed
"Ooh the X/Y Shippers aren't gonna like this! *grabs popcorn*" - Removed. This is trying to spread drama and helps to initiate conflict.
I hope it’s clear context and tone matters a lot when making decisions like this. Oftentimes people will be insulting each other as jokes, or clearly there is banter as opposed to malice. In addition, people may be interacting with each other civilly in a given situation, or discussing a disagreement in an engaging and respctful way. We are humans and we hope to interpret the rules as humans, and that involves making many gut calls, which is why our modmail is always open for things like criticism, callouts, and ban appeals.
If you really read into it, functionally the rules are actually pretty similar to before we made any changes. All we’ve done is set in stone what type of ship discussion constitutes what used to be a Rule 1 break, and make it clear to those who were riding the edge before that their behavior isn’t welcome. These rule updates were also made with full agreement from every active team member. Please note, as well, that if you are in the “uninterested in shipping camp”, these clarifications will ideally clear up any leakage into unrelated posts, as well as maintain a standard for our moderators to follow in terms of making sure these types of posts don’t overwhelm the front page.
Finally, if you are questioning whether your high-effort shitpost/analysis/detailed discussion/dissertation will break the rules, send us a modmail and we will happily confirm as a team for you before you post! If you alert us, we can also make sure we’re ready when you post it and are able to make sure anyone trying to stir drama or cause issues are dealt with as soon as possible before things spiral out of control.
One last thing before we move onto the next topic: We as a mod team would like to formally apologize to anybody who felt disenfranchised or disappointed because of the initial rule change. It’s not easy to make rules that are fair for everybody, while also ensuring accountability and feasibility, and while that isn’t an excuse for the state the original rules were in, it can at least partially explain the difficulty of the situation. As always, the rules in this post can always be changed, though this time we will keep these rules for at least a couple weeks to test them out before making further changes.
One more thing while we’re here: Non-OC Rule Clarifications
This is more of a footnote than anything, but we hope we can clarify these rules for people. We’ve noticed recently many users are posting Non-OC Art as a meme and not crediting the artist, as well as posting non-OC art as memes more often than the allowed frequency (5 days). It’s not always possible for us to check the exact source of every art, so please be aware and try to follow Non-OC rules even if your post is a meme but you use Non-OC Art. In addition, be aware if artists do not allow reposts of their work, and if you see users who are posting art without permission or are not sourcing their art correctly, please let us know by reporting them!
We are aware of many other issues people currently have, as well. We will monitor gif usage (please try not to spam them), NSFW post frequency and leniency, Keeping track of leaks/spoilers, and many other issues you have brought up to us, as well.
As usual, I will stick around and try to respond to people! I try to be very transparent and thorough with my responses usually, but it might be a bit more limited today as there was quite a lot of feedback I’ve gone through in the past 48 hours, and it has made me a bit weary. Either way, if you don’t get a direct response from me please note we do read all your feedback and messages and I pass that information along to the team so we can make informed decisions.
Thank you all for listening, and hope you all have a good night/morning/evening wherever you are!~

My 10000 word dissertation's due on the 17th, 2000 words left to write, the project has gone well and I've made some good findings, should be able to get it done with minimal issues and a few days to spare to trim words where needed, do an abstract, contents page, acknowledgements, get the references in alphabetical order etc.
However, after a really good, productive week at the end of April, the last couple of days I've been feeling like my old first year self, back when I didn't have a final classification to worry about. Cannot be dragged to do anything during the day, then I suddenly get the urge to write late at night when physically I'm feeling tired and sluggish.
Anyone got any tips to mentally get yourself through the back end of a dissertation?

I am formatting my dissertation and the first page of title, intro, acknowledgments etc, have to be numbered using roman numerals. Once I start adding my actual chapters and studies the pages need to be labeled with “normal” numbers (1,2,3, etc). How do I switch the format of the numbered pages in the middle of a document?