Only last year did I realize that I actually love "fantasy", I just never called it that. I love books that deal with the fantastic - especially things that make me feel challenged, on-edge, and/or unsettled. For me, fantasy is not escapism but an exploration of conceits that can't be approached in other forms of fiction. The example I'll give to anyone willing to listen is Jorge Luis Borges, whose short-form fiction collected within Labyrinths and Ficciones frequently considers philosophical concepts taken to their logical extremes. For example: what if two people wrote the exact same book? Does the fact it's two different people with two different lives, backgrounds, and belief systems change what individual lines mean, or do we take Death of the Author to its extreme and treat them as the exact same book?
For 2023, my bingo card was the sardonic "Weird shit I read in the woods". Depending on your point of view, my obsession of mountaineering is either mania or hyperfocus; I like to read books in my tent after long days. Spring here has been an absolute clusterfuck of work and weather (and on top of that I'm dealing with a twisted ankle) so these eight books might be better described as "Weird shit I read while plaintively sighing westward". My goal this year is to do full-on hard mode; an erect bingo card.
So far, it's been an awesome year. Five books I strongly enjoyed (with one potentially being a top 20 book I've ever read), two I felt "eh" on but have things to recommend, and only one I just didn't enjoy at all (though even that had some good stuff).
Spoilers on content warnings that would spoil notable plot points or interpretations. All scores are out of 5, with a higher score being a stronger rating. Non-fantasy and speculative fiction at the very end.
Thanks, and hope some of these seem interesting to you!
Other write-ups:

• 2023 bingo: Weird shit I read in the woods
• Five books of nature writing with the vibe of fantasy
• Three novellas
• Five short story collections

Criminals (HM): Roadside Picnic by Arkady & Boris Strugatsky

• Appeal: 2.75
• Thinkability: 3
• Weird shit? Inspired a lot of weird shit!
• Reading location: Windowside comfy chair
• Date published: 1972
• Page count: 209, including foreword and afterword
• Tags: USSR literature, aliens, science fiction, influential, eldritch
• Content warnings: Body horror, alcoholism, injury detail, pregnancy, infidelity
• Other bingo squares: Multi-POV, Character with a Disability, Survival (HM), Set in a Small Town (HM), Reference Materials

After reading The Master and Margarita in February and it being one of the best books I've ever read in speculative fiction/fantasy, I decided to consciously pursue more Eastern European and Russian/USSR books. (One of these includes László Krasznahorkai's Sátántangó in April, which is now my fifth favorite book I've ever read.) Both Roadside Picnic and Stanislaw Lem's Solaris rocketed up to the top of the to-read list.
Roadside Picnic is one of the most influential books of contemporary science fiction through the Andrei Tarkovsky movie Stalker and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series of video games. (Fun fact, the Strugatsky brothers just liked the word.) It takes place in a small town in four distinct time periods over around a decade. This small town (along with several others) were visited by utterly unknowable aliens recently in earth's past whose visit sites are full of strange, dangerous, and immensely valuable artifacts. You (mostly) follow a single stalker named Red and his illegal trips into the Zone, as well as how the Visit impacts his family and those around him.
This'll be one of those books that I like more for the ideas than the content itself. The Zone is fascinating, and I find myself dining on and thinking about the various horrific conceits in the novel. Many of the more insidious aspects are mentioned off-hand, as if the "traps" (how else to think of them from a human perspective?) have become mundane.
However, the book itself is... kind of boring. Perhaps this is because it's so short, which isn't a problem I usually have with speculative fiction (if anything, I overwhelmingly prefer shorter books to longer ones). Forays into the zone are bookended by lots of talking and drinking with what felt like cursory examination of the danger. And I'm not convinced that banality is its own point; Roadside Picnic isn't a character study, as stated in Boris Strugatsky's afterword. Dialogue feels mismatched, chapters start in the middle or at the end of action, and chapters stop right as other events start to move. For a book about the Zone and people's relationship to it, there's an awful lot of puttering about.
The high point is the conversation between two scientist characters. One has a theory about aliens having the eponymous "roadside picnic" and leaving their trash for smaller creatures to obsess over - an absolutely fascinating postmodern outlook on man's purpose in the universe.
I'm glad I read this for the influence on some media that I adore, but it would be a hard sell to someone who isn't deeply invested in the history of Russian science fiction or just wants to get more out of the "Stalker" media.
Multi-POV (HM): Lanny by Max Porter

• Appeal: 4.5
• Thinkability: 4
• Weird shit? The typeset is a character.
• Reading location: Windowside comfy chair
• Date published: 2019
• Page count: 224
• Tags: English literature, "Green Man" mythos, paganism, eald gods, family drama, character study
• Content warnings: Grief, animal death, classism, homophobia, sexual content, bullying, confinement, hate crimes
• Other bingo squares: Dreams, Set in a Small Town (HM)

Just like Borges, I'll exalt the literary merits of Max Porter and Ling Ma (who's also featured here). Both of these are fairly young authors with a small list of works, but I'll easily buy everything they put out if it's anywhere near the quality of what I've read so far.
Porter a British bookstore-owner who writes short novels and novellas (Lanny is his longest) with highly idiosyncratic writing. Have you heard the term "prose-poetry"? Porter writes "prose-poetry-stage directions". Passages are announced with the name of characters in bold, and you read their thoughts or conversations with others rather than "normal" dialogue or descriptions. No surprises his debut Grief Is the Thing with Feathers was indeed adapted for stage, starring Cillian Murphy.
Lanny follows a family who recently moved to a small town outside of London. Their capricious son has a gift for art, cavorts around the town, and has the fine-edged chaos that so many single-digit ages have before they "grow up" or something. The town also embodies the presence of Old Papa Toothwort, a Green Man-esque figure who... inhabits? haunts? is? the town as a sort of genius loci. Toothwort is waking up after a long rest, and the town has changed since last time.
It’s not a spoiler to say that Lanny goes missing. Porter is incredible at describing the creeping fear of searching for a missing child and the irreparable harm it does to a family and community. At one point, POVs switch with every little break as the slow dread sinks in, with characters no longer being introduced but nonetheless distinct, just providing occasional snippets of thoughts or conversation as it turns from "Lanny isn’t home yet in the afternoon" to "have you seen Lanny?" to "I always knew that woman was a bad mum". It is tense.
Spoiler for parents interested in the book but don't want to go in wondering about the missing child plotline: Lanny survives, and the ending is actually kind of sweet in the implied relationship between Lanny, nature, and creativity even after the trauma of his disappearance.
Published in 2024 (HM): This Wretched Valley by Jenny Kiefer

• Appeal: 1.75
• Thinkability: 2
• Weird shit? Kinda?
• Reading location: In bed with a single light on
• Date published: 2024
• Page count: 301
• Tags: Slasher, horror, violent, climbing, Kentucky
• Content warnings: Blood, cannibalism, vomit, child death, animal death
• Other bingo squares: Dreams, Self-Published/Indie, Multi-POV, Survival (HM)

This Wretched Valley was recommended to me as a horror novel that involves climbing. Not only that - it takes place around the Red River Gorge, where I cut my teeth on hard sport climbing. Hell yeah - how could I not?
Four acquaintances uncover a mysterious, brand-new climbing crag in the southeast Kentucky wilderness, and they go to climb the new routes while also study its strange geology. The area turns out to be an eldritch, evil land that shifts and contorts itself to keep people trapped there while luring them with visions of past victims and deep desires. The concept is a little similar to Junji Ito's Uzumaki in that sense, albeit without a singular obsession like that graphic novel's spirals.
The book definitely reflects her understanding/experience within climbing culture at the Red River Gorge, down to referencing specific climbs I've sent. Unfortunately, I felt that the book was a good example of something written by an enthusiast but not so much a writer. The beginning is strong in uncovering the mysterious crag, but the characters just kind of... ruminate. There are flashbacks to other deaths and persons lured there, but there's little to be shown except "land evil!" with inconsistent descriptions of how that evil occurs. People who die there also become evil ghosts (not a spoiler; it happens pretty early on), and it just doesn't really make sense how or why, as if Jenny Kiefer's thoughts on how the land's evil came about changed throughout the novel.
Not that I need everything explained for me, it just felt like "hey what if this land wanted to literally eat people" and only developed about sixty percent of the way. I ended up just being kind of bored, as if each new horror were just "ooo spooky ghost!" rather than something that sank into me. And weirdly enough, there are a lot of descriptions of vomit and its various consistencies. Like, enough that I'm even mentioning it.
This would make a great stylized indie horror B-movie, despite me not liking the book. And even then, I was thinking about why it didn't work for me, which is better than no thoughts at all.
Survival (HM): Beloved by Toni Morrison

• Appeal: 5
• Thinkability: 4
• Weird shit? The fact it isn't "weird" is the most horrific part of it all.
• Reading location: Camping in the Front Range
• Date published: 1987
• Page count: 324
• Tags: Slavery, discursive, ghost story, horror, Civil War literature, Black American literature
• Content warnings: Slavery, infanticide, sexual assault, torture, racism, murder
• Other bingo squares: Criminals, Multi-POV (HM), Set in a Small Town (HM), Author of Color

Beloved was directly cited by the Nobel Committee upon awarding Toni Morrison with the 1993 Nobel Prize in Literature. I see why. Beloved is the kind of book where I want to doubt the humanity of any US citizen even tangentially familiar with slavery who isn't changed upon reading it. I finished it yesterday and stared into space for a few minutes, unhearing my fiancee ask me what kind of burgers I wanted for Memorial Day.
Beloved was inspired by the true story of Margaret Garner - an enslaved woman who escaped to Ohio and killed her daughter before being found so her daughter wouldn't return to the horror of slavery. Horror? That word isn't powerful enough to describe American slavery. Likewise, it would be reductive to call Beloved a horror novel. Though the titular Beloved refers to the ghost of one-year old killed by Sethe (one of the book's protagonists) for the same reason Garner killed her daughter, this is so much more than that. Beloved is both her own story and a eulogy for the "sixty million and more" lost through the Atlantic slave trade - per Morrison's own dedication.
I can't describe more. Nothing I can summarize would be appropriate. It's rare to experience any piece of media so profoundly changing, loving, and heartrending. I can't call it hopeful, but I also can't call it hopeless. The trauma (generational and personal) of slavery is expressed in so many ways - from the "tree" on Sethe's back to the two words "it rained".
This was my first Morrison novel, and two things surprised me. First, I did not anticipate the book to be so discursive. This is not a bad thing. Characters flit back and forth between different time periods in their heads as PTSD, and several times it's an errant action or phrase that sets them off. (After writing that, a friend told me that Morrison coined the word "rememory" to describe this phenomenon; it's also used in the book.) Second, Morrison has such an incredible economy of phrase where one-off references end up having extreme impact, like when I realized Stamp Paid was castrated or what Baby Suggs truly meant when she said "lay down your sword and shield", which was otherwise implied to mean "open your heart to love".
"We got more yesterday than anybody. We need some kind of tomorrow."
Judge a Book By Its Cover (HM): Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino

• Appeal: 4.25
• Thinkability: 4
• Weird shit?
• Reading location: Various coffee shops
• Date published: 1972
• Page count: 165
• Tags: Magical realism, semiotics, Italian literature, combinatorics, parables
• Content warnings: Grief, suicide, ableism
• Other bingo squares: Set in a Small Town (HM), but only if you're a little scamp.

I knew nothing about Invisible Cities other than Italo Calvino was strongly recommended to me. This is a fantastic exploration(!) of semiotics, meaning, and combinatorics through literature. Over 55 short prose vignettes, Marco Polo speaks with Kublai Khan about fantastic cities with a focus on a particular quirk or interpretation of that city. Each city is categorized in one of several themes (Thin Cities, Cities & Desire, Cities & The Sky, etc.), some of which are more steeped in the semiotic discussion, others are allegorical, and still others are simply surreal.
My copy is less than 170 pages, but I easily read 300+ over two weeks given I was so enchanted by each of Calvino's parables. I would read one of the nine sections, pause, and then go back two sections to reread and rethink. This little book is inspiring not only for fantastic places but as a way to simply view your city (whatever that might mean) in new contexts.
My only caveat is that Calvino uses a similar theme of "two cities existing at once" for probably ten of the passages. The book is so strongly organized by patterns and combinations that I found this to be almost a frustrating red-herring in it not really amounting to anything other than a conceipt that Calvino must have liked. Kinda wish he just had a category called "Twin Cities".
As I read, I kept thinking about my time in the Sierra Nevada and similar interpretations with mountains. Like, one of Calvino's stories is about how the archetype you have of a profession in a city makes you collapse any memories of people doing that skill into the single person (i.e. I saw ten stonemasons but I only remember one), kind of like a twisted platonic ideal. It made me think of seeing quaking aspen in the northern Sierra; I can't tell you about one particular aspen, but instead all the ones I've walked past coalesce in my mind as the memory of aspen.
Set in a Small Town (HM): Subdivision by J. Robert Lennon

• Appeal: 3
• Thinkability: 1
• Weird shit? Not as weird as it initially came off.
• Reading location: Climbing trip to Devils Tower (WY)
• Date published: 2021
• Page count: 230
• Tags: Magical realism, dreams, surreal, mundane horror, beige prose
• Content warnings: Domestic abuse, pregnancy, car accident, death, toxic relationship, emotional abuse, medical trauma
• Other bingo squares: Self-Published/Indie

"Set in a Small Town" really gets around on this bingo card. Most of my books so far are set in small towns!
Spoiler free summary: An unnamed woman arrives at a subdivision simply called the Subdivision. She has some memory loss, and she is asked by the owners of her guesthouse to help put together a large puzzle. Along the way she encounters fantastic persons and situations, including a shapeshifting creature called the bakemono that attempts to seduce her with undercurrents of emotional abuse, a child who attends a birthday party where the kids are described as "belonging to the neighborhood", and a courthouse that "analyzes phenomena" under constant threat of a windstorm. She has a personal assistant/AI named Cylvia that seems to be near-omniscient while transforming into different shapes. The story follows her interactions with this Kafka-esque town and cast of characters before culminating in the central mystery: why did she arrive at the Subdivision at all?
Spoilerrific discussion: Put simply, Subdivision would have struck me harder if I hadn't seen this trick pulled in lots of other media. I got that this was a dying dream before the halfway point. Not a flex on my behalf, simply that the puzzle pieces (hehehe) were all there early on. It's one of those books that simultaneously is a little obvious and a little cryptic, and the cryptic parts (such as the birthday party) become more annoying than poignant as they seem to be there to confuse our narrator and just be weird. I love surreality, but if you go to great strides to make things have a symbol, they could be more consistently symbolic. It felt disjointed in how "challenging" it wanted to be - and overly precious when it tried to be heartfelt.
Yet I wanted to keep reading because I wanted to see if Lennon stuck the landing - and he did. Parts like the unnamed narrator being pregnant, the probability well at the house being what the family could have had in a happier life, her forgetting her own name due to the head trauma of the accident, and Cylvia being her unborn child who does survive the accident were nice little "aha!" moments.
Five Short Stories (HM): Bliss Montage by Ling Ma

• Appeal: 3.75
• Thinkability: 2
• Weird shit? Subtly so.
• Reading location: Treadmill
• Date published: 2022
• Page count: 228
• Tags: Magical realism, surreal, Millennial, immigrant experience in the USA
• Content warnings: Emotional abuse, child abuse, drug abuse, parent death
• Other bingo squares: Author of Color, Multi-POV (different perspectives in a single short story)

Short stories are an art, and those who wield them well are masters. Bliss Montage is Ling Ma's second published work and first set of short stories, though some of them were published elsewhere beforehand. I like to describe Ling Ma as a prototypical "Millennial" author, in that I do not believe these stories could be written by someone who wasn't an adolescent during the 1990s boom-era and then experienced her formative years during 9/11 and the 2008 Great Recession. There's a wry exhaustion to the way she writes that just speaks to my experience as well (though I'm over a decade younger than her).
Bliss Montage is on the cusp of speculative fiction in that the fantastic aspects are window dressing for Ling Ma's exploration of relationships and the American immigrant experience. The first (and best) story features a woman who lives in a large mansion with her husband, kids, and every single ex-boyfriend - including flings and one-night stands. It's a fascinating portrayal of how the tendrils of emotional abuse sink into one's psyche, with the follow-up story basically being the "real life" version.
Other stories are less successful... but like I said with Porter, I'll buy everything she releases.
Reference Materials (HM): The Book of Imaginary Beings by Jorge Luis Borges

• Appeal: 3.5
• Thinkability: 4
• Weird shit? Subtly so.
• Reading location: Treadmill
• Date published: 1957
• Page count: 236
• Tags: Magical realism, bestiary,
• Content warnings: Violence
• Other bingo squares: Entitled Animals

Hey look, a book that's only reference materials! And even then, there are plenty of translator's notes and introductory text to make this HM even without the content. And it's Borges??
The Book of Imaginary Beings is a bestiary of mythical beings by Argentinian philosophemagical realism author Jorge Luis Borges in collaboration with Margarita Guerrero. Over 110 entries on various creatures that have haunted and thrilled imaginations, with a focus on western mythologies.
This is a book about the mind's creation of imaginary beings, not the beings themselves. You're not reading this to learn about the lifecycle of the Chinese Dragon, but instead the history of their references and subtle differences between depictions. Borges isn't as interested in directly stating what the creatures are as much as exploring the epistemology about what makes imaginary creatures interesting to us. It's classic Borgesian metafiction in that way!
The bestiary describes beasts as much as it describes their philosophical and moral progeny with the economy of phrase that typifies Borges' short fiction. Most entries are just a couple paragraphs long, and any entry longer than 2 pages is a surprise. Some might find it confusing that he has a single paragraph on elves or his dismissal of the chimera, but it's about the "why" more than the "what" for Borges' take on the fantastic. If there's a downside, it's that Borges is probably too coy for his own good for about one-third of the entries.
Nonfiction and Non-Spec Fic:

• Scott Lankford - Tahoe Beneath the Surface (2010). Historical essays on places and events tied to Lake Tahoe, from Mark Twain to JFK's presidency. Decent local book overall. (Appeal: 3.25, Thinkability: 1)
• László Krasznahorkai - Sátántangó (1985). Hungarian historical fiction in twelve chapters, with each chapter a single unbroken paragraph. Top five book I've ever read. Absolutely loved it; the pub scene felt like I could see every single raindrop. (Appeal: 5, Thinkability: 4)
• Mark Z. Danielewski - House of Leaves (2000). Semi-revisit for me since I got through most of it in 2015. I still think Johnny is annoying, though I "get it" more now. Part of my "sub zeitgeist" bingo card, if I get to it. (Appeal: 4, Thinkability: 3)
• Bruce Tremper - Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain (2001, 4th edition). The field classic for a reason. (Appeal: 4.5, Thinkability: 5)
• Lynda V. Mapes - Witness Tree (2017). A woman lives in Harvard Forest for a year, centering her life around a single red oak. Unfortunately, it doesn't really feature the tree; it's more about the natural history of New England. (Appeal: 2.5; Thinkability: 1)

I just finished my 50th Lingoda class in 63 days with their flex program for Spanish. I struggled to find recent in-depth reviews of the platform, how people use Lingoda in their routine without doing the sprint, and how people structure their routine when they have too much time on their hands so I figured I would write one. If you don’t feel like reading a wall of text the TLDR is that I liked the platform, feel like I learned a lot, and will continue using it. This review is not sponsored but it is long, and I’m sorry for that. I tried to divide things up by section so you can skip to whatever information you came for.
About:
I'm making the assumption that most people here have heard of Lingoda and know about the sprints, so I will refrain from elaborating on the essentials.
The flex program allows you to pay for a certain number of classes on a month-to-month basis vs doing the sprint/super sprint, which is how most people become familiar with Lingoda. You can buy anywhere from 5-40 class credits a month and they roll-over month-to-month. Credits expire a year from purchase, which feels pretty reasonable. I pay $230/mo for 20 classes and just bought extra credits when I would run out. If anyone is interested in a full price breakdown I’m happy to run the numbers.
I originally wanted to do the sprint but wasn’t sure I could commit, so I opted for the flex. I think I would still consider trying the sprint in the future, but I have some off-the-grid travel plans this summer that make that challenging.
I obviously did Spanish, but they also offer courses in German, French, English, and recently added Italian.
Curriculum:
The curriculum is structured by topic, with 13 chapters each in 10 levels A1.1 - B2.3. Each chapter has 4 sections: vocabulary, grammar, communication, and speaking. They cover a variety of content including finding your way around the city, finding a place to live, talking about your professional experience, talking about movies, etc. I loved the variety of topics and while the class structure can get a little repetitive, the predictability is nice.
Background:
I took 2 years of Spanish in high school (10+ years ago) and picked up Duolingo in late 2023. In March of 2024 I got more serious about learning Spanish for my job (nurse with a fair amount of Spanish-speaking patients) and dove headfirst into trying to become more fluent. My ultimate goal is to reach A2-B1 fluency and take some exam that will allow me to interpret with my patients. I expect this to take years.
When I started Lingoda I felt like I could read and write *okay* in Spanish for what my routine was, which consisted of about 6 months of daily Duolingo. I'd say I was a very beginner A1. I had a decent grasp on present, past, and perfect basics. I chose Lingoda because I wanted more accountability and to improve my comprehension and fluency. I placed at an A2.1 with Lingoda’s exam and decided to complete all of A2.1.
Results:
I don’t have any satisfying exam results to show you, and I’ve never been formally tested so please take my self-reporting with a grain of salt. Honestly, I probably feel dumber now compared when when I started because I’m starting to realize JUST how much I don’t know. If I had to guess, I started a super beginner A1 and am currently at a confident A1 to beginner A2. Nonetheless, I feel like my speaking and comprehension have improved significantly. Some non-quantitative changes I’ve noticed are that:

• I can now hold basic conversations with my Spanish-speaking patients (i.e. ask where they are from, when they last ate, if they have high blood pressure) and most importantly I can understand when they answer. I still struggle with new accents (had a patient from El Salvador last week that really threw me off), but I feel like I’m generally making progress in my ability to connect with Spanish speakers, which is a huge goal of mine.
• I can understand some podcasts better. At the beginning, I was listening to a lot of Simple Stories in Spanish which felt challenging and now feels too easy for me. Nowadays I listen to more Cuentame and Chill Spanish Listening Practice. No Hay Tos is still beyond me, probably because I’m only just starting to learn the subjunctive.
• I feel comfortable ordering food in Spanish, asking for things at the Spanish market, and speaking in general. Lingoda classes got me really comfortable with making mistakes and not letting them hold me back from speaking.
• My accent is nowhere near flawless but I feel like I have a better understanding of vowel pronunciation and the rhythm of the language.
• When interpreters interpret for my patients, I can usually understand about 75% of what is being said (before it was probably 5-10%).

Getting the most from your Lingoda experience:

• Go over material before and after class. Class content is available once you register. They say to spend 5-10 minutes reviewing content prior to class, but I spent closer to 15-30 minutes reviewing beforehand. I wrote down all the new vocabulary and looked up any words or phrases in the slides that I didn’t know. Class is heavily participation-based. You will be called on to read, answer, and discuss. For me, this was a huge pro and one of the things that Lingoda does really well. I got lots of experience talking about my personal life which was essential for improving my fluency. I’ve seen other users comment that Lingoda is “just teachers reading off slides” and that you could just download the slides and complete those instead of actually taking the classes. I feel like this isn’t really true for me personally and I do feel like I got a good value out of class participation. YMMV.
• I tried to complete chapters in groups - i.e. Ch. 1-4, 5-8, 9-12. You don’t technically have to do this, but unless you’re really strong in a particular content area I personally felt it was helpful as the content does build on previous concepts. If you’re taking several classes a week or doing a sprint this does make it slightly harder to find ideal class times that work for you.
• Within each chapter, the sections do not necessarily need to be completed in order, but it does help to complete them somewhat consecutively. I found it most helpful to try and complete the vocabulary and grammar before the second two classes (communication and speaking) in the unit. This was helpful content-wise and I didn’t feel like I was trying to complete the communication module on a topic for which I hadn’t yet learned the vocab. I didn’t do this perfectly but I did notice an improvement in my in-class performance when I did.
• Not absolutely necessary but did help me retain content: keep an Anki deck of essential vocabulary, phrases, etc. from class. I take a few minutes every other week or so to add to my deck in bulk.

The good:

1. The instructors, by and large, are great and most of them have professional teaching experience. I would say its a bell curve - most of the instructors are good to average with a few exceptional ones and a few less-than-awesome ones. I can’t say I’ve had any downright awful teachers, just ones who were maybe less enthusiastic or having an off day. Overall, I really enjoyed the instruction and most instructors would remember me from class to class.
2. The participatory nature of the classes really pushed me to review content and have some familiarity with the content. Maybe you’re more disciplined than me, but personally I need the threat of embarrassment in class to push me to study.
3. Classes at and above the A2 level are taught entirely in Spanish, which really improved my comprehension. I rarely feel like I understand 100% of what the teacher was saying, but I understood enough to get what they were asking.
4. The content that is taught is genuinely useful. I feel like I gained the ability to discuss a variety of topics (work, culture, relationships). I think this helped me go outside of my comfort zone and helped develop my vocab and ability to talk about different things. I’m looking forward to the topics in A2.2, which I recently started.
5. One time I was marked as absent in a class I attended. Their customer service was responsive and addressed the issue within 48 hours. I’ve heard of people having issues with this during the sprint and do wonder if I would have had a harder time getting the absence fixed if I were on a sprint.

Opportunities for improvement:

1. It’s unfortunate that you can’t connect with other students and instructors outside of class. I feel like there is a huge missed opportunity for a social function on the platform. It’s kind of a bonding experience to fumble with a language and you do get to know other students in class. There were several people who I ended up having multiple classes with. One person did reach out via zoom chat and give me their email and we became friends.
2. If you are looking to improve your experience with verb tenses, I think Lingoda serves better as a review and practice with application than true introductory material. Before doing a class that focused on a grammatical concept, I made sure to have a heavy familiarity with that particular tense with another application like Ella Verbs. IMO, your Lingoda class should not be your first exposure to a verb tense.
3. The pace of your class can be affected by your classmates’ preparation and level. To me, this is a natural consequence of doing group classes and not a huge downside, but definitely something to be aware of.
4. Their vocabulary trainer feels like a work in progress. I love the Anki-style keyboard controls but do wish the answers came with English translation so I could double-check my comprehension. I could see this getting better down the line. I personally preferred Anki for flashcard review simply because it was easier to work through a high volume of cards in Anki, but I did use Lingoda’s review a few times a week.
5. Their cancellation policy with flex is 72h in advance if you want to keep the credit. This is annoying if you have the kind of life where things come up a lot.
6. The feedback you receive from instructors is kind of generic and often just “keep practicing!” - this is fine with me because I feel like I have a good grasp on what I need to improve on, but might be important to you. Rarely did I gain any incredible insight into my strengths or deficits from instructor feedback.

Routine:
I did anywhere from 2-8 classes a week. I didn't take classes every day, but I typically would take multiple classes a day during my off days. I think the most I took in a single day was 4 or 5.
I’m going to make a major digression here because I feel like it’s not fair to attribute all of my progress to Lingoda. I had a pretty intense study schedule for a month and a half. IMO this was not a sustainable routine and has slowed down pretty significantly in the last couple of weeks due to some major life events, but I would go back to it during times when there is a little less going on in my personal life.
When I started, I had just transitioned to a new job in a clinic with good hours (4 10-hour shifts) and most days some downtime during my shift. This allowed me to study a lot, 1-3h/day on workdays and 5-10h/day for the remaining 3 days. I routinely averaged a minimum of 20h/week of Spanish studying over 6ish weeks. My routine and quick reviews of the apps are as follows:

1. Anki (30—60min/day) - I used the 100 most common verbs, Deck of Common Words, and Visual Spanish Plus Fluent Forever decks at least every other day, if not daily. I made a top 300 verbs deck once I finished top 100. These decks are all free and shared on the Anki website. I also used a personally created deck of vocabulary and phrases from my classes (see #4 below). I can only speak for the A1-2 levels, but I do feel like the decks you choose matter less than your consistency. I wanted to improve my vocab and verb knowledge so I chose decks that focused on those areas.
2. Kwiziq (30-60min/day) - I did at least one quiz per day, usually more (5+). I took notes on weak concepts. I don’t have much to say about Kwiziq other than that it is an excellent platform and the pro version is very much worth it for grammar.
3. Ella Verbs (30-60min/day)- I use this almost daily and reviewed verb tenses to mastery. I took notes when learning a new tense and hammered irregular forms hard. The platform is glitchy (bad at saving progress and I was constantly resetting the function that turned off vosotros), but IMO the explanations are top notch and the mobile app is good. I paid for the pro version.
4. iTalki (2-3h/week) - I see a lot of people posting asking about the difference between Lingoda and iTalki. IMO they both have their strengths. I did some classes with a tutor that helped with medical Spanish, another who helped with grammar, and occasionally did group classes when the topic interested me. I wish iTalki had more expansive group class offerings, I think I personally prefer group classes to individual ones because I like talking with other students. Instructor Daniel Lopez does a group class a few times a week called “Hablemos de todo un poco” that I really like. He’s a great instructor for all levels and really fun to talk to. Side note: I also think group classes are super helpful for people in the A1-A2 range because it’s REALLY hard to talk for 45mins to an hour in your target language at that level. I would consider 1-on-1 lessons again when I’m more fluent.
5. Clozemaster (20—30min/day) - not essential by any means, but did help reinforce vocabulary that I was learning in my Anki decks and was overall just a nice app to use when I had a couple of minutes on the train or at work. I like the spaced repetition aspect and feel like it did help reinforce some concepts (i.e. por vs. para). I averaged probably 40 reviews a day. Fun lil app overall.
6. Speaking exercises (20-120mins/once or twice a week) - I really tried to commit to these on my days off. I basically use Language Lord’s method and filmed myself talking about my life or the news and then would re-watch and look up words I didn’t know. Those words got added to my Anki deck. This shit is time-consuming but works. It got me talking about things really specific to my life and encouraged me to tailor my vocab study to my personal experience.
7. Duolingo - Stopped using this pretty shortly after starting Lingoda because I didn’t feel like I was progressing quickly enough and got bored. It was a good introductory platform and got me familiar with some essential concepts that were useful when I started taking classes. I see why people like it and would probably use it again if I were going to learn another language.
8. Comprehensible input - I really attempted to immerse myself in the Spanish language. I made a playlist of Spanish songs, watched Spanish movies with English subtitles. If I was watching something in English, I had Spanish subtitles on. For podcasts I listened to Simple Stories in Spanish, Chill Spanish Listening Practice, Cuentame, and different news podcasts in Spanish. Pretty much any time I wasn’t working or in front of the computer using one of the aforementioned apps, I was consuming Spanish audio in some form. Occasionally I watched Dreaming Spanish, but watching movies/TV is something my spouse and I do together at the end of the day and I did have to consider his desires when choosing content.
9. Lifestyle - I get 7-9 hours of sleep a night and rarely consume alcohol. I don't see a ton of discussion on lifestyle in this sub but IMO sleep is king when it comes to memory building.

Closing Thoughts:
Overall, I chose apps and activities that I enjoyed. I highly suspect this matters more than choosing the most technically efficient learning route. Studying never felt like a chore and I don’t think I would have stuck with it if there weren’t aspects I enjoyed.
I'm really happy with the progress I was able to make in just 9 weeks. While I still feel like I'm firmly in my beginner stage, I feel like a more confident speaker and learner. I think Lingoda helped me build a lot of confidence with speaking and holding conversations. It was a great way to synthesize and put into practice concepts that I was learning with other applications.
For now, I plan to stick with Lingoda 2-3 classes/week, keep up with Anki, and focus on doing some form of comprehensible input every day. I'm probably still well over a year out from feeling like I could take any kind of exam. I love being able to connect with my Spanish-speaking patients and hope to stick with the language for a long time.
Happy to answer any questions y'all might have. Sorry again for the long post, I hope the formatting helps!

I'm having a little pedantic debate with the following sentence:
All medical school students must enroll in: basic human physiology, histology, anatomy, and biochemistry, but can elect to take courses such as healthcare policy and biomedical research as well.
Two main issues:

1. I'm saying there shouldn't be a comma before "but," but a colleague is saying there should to help make the sentence structure clearer. But from what I know with grammar, you don't put a comma before a conjunction when there aren't two independent clauses. I can't find any exception where it says a comma is allowed after a series.
2. I'm saying the colon is an interrupting colon because neither "All medical school students must enroll in" is an independent clause nor followed by "the following" or some other similar word/phrase. My colleague is saying it is an independent clause cause there's a subject and a verb. Okay, but it's an incomplete thought; it cannot standalone.

Thoughts?

Hi App Founders. I wrote this article on my blog and sharing it here for all to read and learn how to rank higher in the app stores. No links, enjoy the article in full.

What are keywords and why are they important?

Simple answer: Keywords are the specific words or phrases that people type into search bars when looking for apps.
When you upload your iOS app’s metadata to App Store Connect, you're given the opportunity to add “keywords.” These keywords are crucial as they help Apple determine the context and content of your app, guiding the indexing process. The keyword field, though hidden from users, is a valuable asset that can be up to 100 characters long, allowing you to strategically choose terms that enhance your app's visibility.
It's important to utilize this keyword field effectively. Think of it as a way to communicate with the App Store’s algorithm, ensuring it understands what your app is about. Choose keywords that are highly relevant to your app's functionality and audience. This strategic use of keywords can significantly impact how your app is indexed and discovered by potential users, making it a critical aspect of your App Store Optimization (ASO) strategy. Regularly updating and refining these keywords based on performance analytics and market trends can further improve your app’s searchability and ranking.
Lastly, they are crucial in ASO (App Store Optimization) because they help the app store understand what your app is about and match it with users' search queries. Using the right keywords increases your app's visibility, improves its ranking in search results, and ensures it reaches the right audience.

Where can you find keywords on App Store Connect?

These three areas are included in the keyword algorithm for your app:

• Title / Name
• Subtitle
• Metadata Keywords (private)

ASO Tip: Keyword weight plays a part in ranking, and varies significantly from left to right, starting with the heaviest in the Title, then the Subtitle, and finally the lowest weights in the keyword field.

Why Targeting Long-Tail Keywords is Essential for New Apps

When starting with app store optimization (ASO), it's more effective to target long-tail keyword phrases rather than big, highly competitive keywords that your app might not rank for initially. Long-tail keywords are more specific and less competitive, making it easier for your app to rank higher in search results. For example, instead of trying to rank for "fitness," which is highly competitive, you could target "home workout routines" or "beginner fitness programs." This approach not only improves your chances of ranking but also attracts a more targeted audience, leading to higher conversion rates and better user engagement. Some other examples:

• “educational games for toddlers”
• “note-taking app with sync”
• “workout tracker for beginners”

1. Do not repeat keywords

Avoid repeating keywords that are already in your app’s title or subtitle, as Apple doesn't prioritize keyword density. Repetition doesn’t enhance keyword weight and won't improve your app’s ranking. Instead, focus on using unique and relevant keywords throughout your metadata to maximize visibility and effectiveness.
Additionally, it’s important to diversify your keyword usage to cover more search queries and potential user interests. This approach ensures that your app appears in a wider range of searches, enhancing its discoverability and attracting a broader audience. Regularly updating your keywords based on performance analytics can also help maintain and improve your app’s ranking over time.

2. Avoid using special characters in your app’s keyword fields

Avoid using special characters such as “-,” “@,” or “*” in your keyword field because Apple does not recognize these characters when indexing your app. They are replaced with blank spaces, rendering them ineffective and wasting valuable character space. Instead, focus on relevant words that Apple can index to enhance your app’s visibility.
By optimizing your keyword field with effective, meaningful words, you can maximize the potential of each character. This strategy ensures that every part of your keyword field contributes to your app’s searchability. Regularly reviewing and updating your keywords based on performance can also help maintain and improve your app's ranking over time.

3. Don’t use branded or trademark words

Many app developers strive to rank high for their competitors' brand names to capture some of their downloads by adding these brand names to their app’s metadata. However, Apple disapproves of this practice and may take action if they detect trademarked names being used. This can result in your app being blocked from ranking for those keywords or, in severe cases, being removed from the App Store entirely.
Some brands include generic terms in their names, which apps can leverage in the keyword field to improve ranking. For instance, if your competitors are “Candy Shop,” “Fitness Tracker,” or “Photo Editor,” you could use combinations like “candy,shop,” “fitness,tracker,” or “photo,editor” in your keywords. Individually, these words are not trademarked, and Apple may automatically combine them, potentially ranking your app for these combinations.

4. Use single keywords separated by a comma, and without a space

Especially for new apps, it's wise to target long-tail keywords as they often face less competition than broader, more popular keywords. For example, if you're launching a fitness app, you might find it easier to rank for "home workout routines" instead of "fitness."
ASO Tip: When adding these keywords to your keyword field, be sure to separate them with commas and without spaces. Instead of entering "home workout routines" as one phrase, break it down to "home,workout,routines."
Apple's algorithm will combine these individual keywords, enabling your app to rank for variations like "home workout," "workout routines," and "home routines." This approach increases your chances of appearing in relevant searches. Make sure to avoid spaces after each comma to maximize your character limit.

5. Do not add English words to Localization fields

If your app is available in multiple countries, it's essential to localize it by offering versions in different local languages. This localization effort should include understanding how your keyword field is indexed in various regions.
For example, if you release a German version of your app for Germany, it will be indexed for all the German keywords in the app's name, subtitle, and keyword field. However, what's less apparent is that your app in Germany will also be indexed for the English keywords from the default keyword field (the UK, unless you change it). This is particularly relevant in countries where English is commonly used alongside the local language, such as in the Netherlands, Sweden, or even India. Therefore, it is usually unnecessary to add English keywords to your localized keyword fields in these regions.

6. Stay clear of the ‘free keywords’

Every app is automatically indexed with certain keywords, known as ‘free keywords,’ without needing them in the metadata. These include common terms like "app," "free," "iPhone," "iPad," "new," "best," and plural forms of words.
Additionally, your app's category name is also treated as a free keyword. Therefore, you should focus on more unique and relevant keywords in your metadata to enhance your app's visibility and effectiveness, rather than wasting space on these automatically indexed terms.

7. Target singular words, Apple will credit you with the plurals

Apple suggests that you only use the singular form of keywords. This approach typically helps your app to rank for the plural versions automatically, making it easier to cover multiple variations without extra effort, or loss of valuable keyword space.
By focusing on singular keywords, you free up valuable space to include other relevant keywords, enhancing your app's visibility and reach.

Conclusion

If you apply and look out for these seven ASO tips, you'll start to see your app climb in the rankings. Focusing on long-tail keywords, optimizing your metadata, and keeping an eye on competitor strategies can make a significant difference in your app's visibility and download rates.
Remember, ASO is an ongoing process. Regularly updating your keywords, monitoring your app's performance, and making necessary adjustments will help maintain and improve your app's ranking over time. Stay proactive and keep refining your strategies to ensure your app stays competitive and continues to grow.

Thank you all for gathering here today. I am here to talk to you about our de facto song of the summer juggernaut, “Espresso” by Sabrina Carpenter and its Shakespearean renaissance of our language leaving pop lyricism in its wake forever.
I have been bewitched by this song for the past month and it has not left my head for nigh on one minute at a time. I kid you not when I say that I think about this song literally all of the time. And so it was only a matter of time before I overnanalyzed the h*ck out of the lyrics, which some have gone on to say that it is malaprop pop dribble. On the contrary! I would argue that this song’s turn-of-phrase cheekiness is precisely what has made it enduring and likely will help it linger throughout the summer in our country-soaked pop culture climate. Exhibit A: Our queen’s mastery of the English language births new verbs to describe her spell over her insomniatic lover. Behold!
“Walked in and dream-came-trued it for ya”
“I know I Mountain Dew it for ya”
“One touch and I brand-newed it for ya”
The first and third line’s verbs listed above are actually written without the hyphens in the official lyric video but are provided for you here today for clarity. And yet! Our brains understand these verbs in this context without a second thought! Now “Mountain Dew”-ing “it” for a person is less transparent, but I think we all know the waking effects a certain yellow (or pink! Shout out Major Melon!!) drank has on our psyches!
Hark! Is that a noun phrase conversion Ms. Carpenter uses in line DOT of verse 1?? Her give-an-effs are where now?? The creativity! Talented, brilliant, incredible, amazing, show stopping, spectacular, never the same, totally unique, completely not ever been done before, unafraid to reference or not reference!
And now for the reason we have all come together. The pièce de résistance if you will! The lyric that appears to be dividing the internet!
“That’s that me espresso”
Think about it. What does this mean? Intuitively you could easily overlook this as the main hook of the song and you don’t feel like you HAVE to think about it. But THINK ABOUT IT! After the should-be-awkward-but-it’s-weirdly-not reduplication of the word “that,” Sabrina Carpenter references some sort of “me espresso.” No doubt this line is referring to her charm in keeping this poor man awake for a very long time and not an actual drink. BUT! Is Sabrina Carpenter metaphorically equating herself to espresso? OR! Is she simply using herself as adjective of said espresso?? HMM??? In other words, is “me” adjectivally qualifying the espresso? Or is she essentially saying she is espresso, as in “this is my friend Sue” (friend=Sue ∴ me=espresso) or, more appropriately given some of the allusions in the chorus, as in “itsa me, Mario”?
One could argue that the lack of a comma means that me is the adjective! And many have waxed on about this very controversial punctuation decision (see Allen, Samantha, et al., Condé Nast, 2024), but I’m not so sure that this makes Sabrina definitively not the espresso, proverbially of course. I don’t know if we will ever know for sure at this point until the mouth of Sabrina confirms her semantic intent.
And so we stand at a crossroads, never to be retread and forever dividing sheep and goats. Are we ordering a “Me espresso” or are you meeting “me, espresso” for coffee? I think we all sing at this point because of how late we are working on this (if you understand this entendre I’m empathize with your online chronicity and prescribe you to touch grass this Memorial Day weekend). Of course, an over abundance of quality pop music that is equal parts linguistically big- AND smooth-brain is never a problem and so you may just scroll by and shake your head at the frivolousness of it all. But I can’t. I am drowning. What a way to go. She really mountain did it to us this time.

(Swifties, this is your first and final warning. You will not enjoy reading what I've written. Please remind yourselves that you've had since 2006 to crop-dust all creation with your unchecked Taylor-related dickriding. Meanwhile, it's taken me a year and a half to lose enough of my fucks in the crowd to venture the following opinions. Deal with it, or git)
TL;DR: the Taylor Swift social experiment, like all cults of personality, scares the living shit out of me. Relatability should not be an arbiter of artistic merit; everything can be criticized; no-one should have this much money/ in-your-face ubiquity/ power over the media; she needs to stop trying to be a musical one-stop shop and let other artists breathe.
I’m going to use my opening statement to assure the masses that I mean neither Taylor Swift nor her fandom any harm. I don’t know any of you; I only know the brand and the brand ideals, of which a character named Taylor Swift, represented by a person named Taylor Swift, is the central figure. This is a rant, these are my feelings; I merely ask that you extend me the same grace you would your favourite singer-songwriter. And though I can’t promise that all of my points will be made in good faith, because many of them were prompted by genuine psychological triggers, I will do my best to keep the character and the person separate, along with the platforms and the users within the fandom, even if they are guilty of the same misdeeds. No matter how butthurt and snarky I get while organizing these vagrant thoughts - because this exercise is intended to permanently close down my internal TS thoughtschool - all said and done, I just want everyone to be good people and live good lives.
Cool? Cool.
For the sake of full disclosure: her music is fine. I mean…it’s fine. I’ve yet to hear anything that made me want to manually arrest the earth’s orbit, but that comes down to my own personal taste.
And I’ve been obsessed with music for a good goddamn 43 years; I remember trampolining on the furniture to Queen, Prince, and Blondie when I was barely out of diapers, getting my first period at a New Kids on the Block concert (for real), and clawing the shredded fishnets of every early-90s riot grrrl while my 9th grade social capital continued its neverending nosedive. As someone stuck right slap-ass in the Bible Belt - where my love for the INXS song “Devil Inside” was publicly demonized due to the metaphorical conceit - music is the closest I’ve ever come to religious rapture.
But I just can’t seem to acquire a taste for the holy Taylor Swift host.
Once in a while, drifting through her sea of beige melodies and hand me down instrumentals, she will hork up a half-decent turn of phrase (the bridge of “Marjorie” really is a knockout). But I don’t think her specific command of the English language deserves this level of perpetual global veneration. And even when I’m impressed by the way she clicks words together, I don’t feel moved to take them apart and examine them for hidden depths or synesthetic value. To me, her writing is only marginally better than the Star Wars/ Mortal Kombat/ Jem & the Holograms fanfics I used to write while procrastinating between shifts at Starbucks. (Not me ending a letter to Stormer from Kimber with, “I miss you like January misses Christmas.”) To paraphrase the MechaStreisand episode of South Park: “Ya ain’t Fiona Apple. And if ya ain’t Fiona Apple, I don’t give a rat’s ass.”
But it goes beyond me staying stubbornly put as the approximate rest of the world is shaken to the core by her musical LiveJournal. I’m not here to yuck anybody’s yum. If Taylor Swift is to you what Stephen King (an inconsistent but effective storyteller who unknowingly taught me how to express my own macabre thoughts) is to me, that’s fabulous. Everyone deserves to feel that way about something; everyone deserves to experience a piece of art or media that makes them sit more comfortably amongst the serrated edges of the world.
The difference is, when someone tells me that Stephen King sucks all ass, my reaction tends to be, “Fair enough. Let’s talk about the writers you LIKE.” Not, “How absolute DARE?! You must be a Yankees fan if you don’t like Stephen King! I mean, it’s right there in the name! In this thesis I will…”
So let’s break it down, shall we?
*
*
*
*
*
FIG 1. ENSHRINING MEDIOCRITY
Taylor Swift has a way with words. Sometimes. More often than the average American dickhead who gave up on the Cliff’s Notes to Animal Farm. But a good 9 times out of 10, reading her lyrics - especially since Folkmore went to her head - feels less like a peerless, cathartic demonstration of wordplay and more like an Intro to Creative Writing student spraying and praying with one hand on a thesaurus. (“I’m only cryptic and Machiavellian cause I care…” Miss Ma’am. Put the fountain pen on the floor and kick it over to me.)
Sure, everybody loves a good literary reference. “In Liverpool”, where Suzanne Vega alludes to Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame while pondering unrequited (and possibly gay) love, is my Roman Empire. But Swift doesn’t explore or utilize literary devices. She drops them, like boldfaced names on TMZ. She feels so Gatsby tonight. Her good-for-nothing boyfriend = Peter Pan. Wordsworth was an English Romantic poet who liked to bum around the Lake District, so let’s shoehorn him into “The Lakes” as a ramshackle pun about HER writing prowess (thank fuck she left Beatrix Potter alone). She knows these works exist, but she’s TELLING us she does, rather than SHOWING us.
Her lyricism is inconsistent, her references are anti-dimensional, her instrumentals sound like AI versions of previous artists, her “genre-hops” are formulaic, her singing is meh, and she dances like a preschooler clomping around in mommy’s heels. But at least she plays piano and guitar at a low-intermediate level. This is the only person holding 4 Album of the Year Grammys? Out of every other band and artist living, dead, or undead? Fuck that for a laugh.
(Short break to remind myself that Can’t Slow Down beat Purple Rain, Born in the USA, She’s So Unusual, and Private Dancer in 1985. Same as it ever was, really.)
My intention is not to discredit who she is or “what she’s been through” [dismissive wanking gesture]. I just don’t consider “...you hang from my lips like the gardens of Babylon…” a simile that necessitates a whole-ass branded tunic on Christ the Redeemer. Hell, I wouldn’t even project a salute to the aforementioned Suzanne Vega on a national landmark, and I think her lyricism absolutely BODIES Ms. Swift’s.
To more modern, mainstream effect, there's something so sharp and satisfying about Olivia Rodrigo's music. While not compulsively polysyllabic, her lyrics captivate me with their seething wit and disheveled beauty. Her emotions are dysfunctional without giving you narcissistic whiplash; they create an almost kintsugi effect within the thru-line of the songs, fusing the tragedy, setbacks, and self-deprecation whole with golden veins. I love laughing my ass off to “get him back!’, sprinting through a sunsoaked Appalachian meadow in my head to ‘Can’t Catch Me Now’, and reliving the outset of my romance with my husband to “so American”. Her 90s pop-punk sonic homage is a breath of fresh air, too.
I've yet to hear a Taylor Swift song where she isn't WHINING about something, and I’ve choked down a LOT of her songs just to be informed. Her entire discography reminds me of the final scene from Interview With the Vampire 1994. “Still WHINING, Louis! Have you heard enough? I've had to listen to that for centuries.”
On and on the pity party drones until eventually, no matter how many ornate literary devices she springs on us, Swift outs herself as no deeper than a damp floor. If she learned to economize the bells and whistles and reach beyond her own experience, she might be onto something. There’s a reason Toni Morrison is a legend and VC Andrews is a hack.
This doesn’t mean TS shouldn’t have a successful music career. Or that glitter gel-pen media with a predominantly female audience deserves to be dragged through the cesspool where society once stood. (Ask me how many times I listen to Debbie Gibson’s first two albums inside a calendar year - hint, more than zero.) But I swear to fuck, if I see the word ‘relatable’ used as quality control ONE MORE TIME, I will vomit the entire Nicholas Sparks bibliography. Are we so collectively insecure and empathetically bankrupt nowadays that we can’t engage with an artist unless we want to wear their skin? Does every performer or character need to function as an all-purpose self-insert? Does the winning formula absolutely have to be ‘Literally Me”? This has to be why Black excellence keeps falling by the wayside so the human Barbie doll - complete with interchangeable identities she dons and sheds like fashion plates - can placate her ego with another trophy. Yeah, I’m still sore about SOS and TPAB losing AOTY. (If you don’t recognise those acronyms, ask Google.) The connective tissue between ‘I’d rather have a beer with Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton’ and ‘Taylor Swift is a better mirrorball than Janelle Monae’ is thicker than the volumes of literature TS skimmed while ditching Tom Hiddleston to snoop around Joe Alwyn’s flat.
Don’t get it twisted; I’m all for sisterhood in song, finding parallels of my own experience in a woman’s work. But MUST my inner voice belong to Taylor Swift? Can’t I prefer Tori Amos or TLC or even Olivia Rodrigo? Because I’m not a skinny Aryan poster girl whose rich parents Veruca Salted (the character, not the band) and Tonya Hardinged my way out of every first-world problem and into a stupidly successful career where my only setbacks are breakups and one-sided beefs.
Also, what’s with this theory that lyrics and the ability to write your own are the end-all-be-all of music? Are compositions a joke to you? When you get a moment, listen to my all-time favourite symphony, The Planets by Gustav Holst. Bitchin, huh? Don’t mention it.
Hot take, but as a public figure, Swift has a lot more in common with her archnemesis Kim Kardashian than her idol Lana Del Rey, and I suspect that’s chief among reasons she keeps disturbing the Kimye grave.
(Oh, hey, if you’re that dweeb I’ve seen on YouTube spamming every other comment with your essay on why Taylor Swift is the best singer, songwriter, and multi-instrumentalist due to the units she’s sold and the records she holds…I wish a motherfucker would.)
*
FIG 2. WE DON’T NEED NO GENTRIFIED FEMINISM
Okay. I have a complexion like a fresh stick of chalk, resulting from a family tree full of Scottish libertines and southern Appalachian hill trash. Therefore, I don’t want to get too deep in the weeds of a topic that concerns the experiences of marginalized people. So instead of running my mouth on the meaning of ‘white feminism’ and its insidious cause/ effect process, I’ll urge you to seek out books and essays by more qualified people.
“Hood Feminism” by Mikki Kendall is a great place to start. See also “White Tears/ Brown Scars” by Ruby Hamad, and “Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race” by Reni Eddo-Lodge.
One of the most frustrating things about the inescapable Taylor Swift phenomenon is how her brand and her disciples have perverted feminism. It's now a whitewashed, focus-grouped shadow of itself, used only to shield Swift, and Swift alone, from criticism and her own mediocrity.
Swift really is the perfect symbol of white supremacy, whether or not she wishes to be. Her virtues are blown way out of proportion, and her wrongdoings are swept under the rug with a litany of excuses. Coddled and deified by the same entities that condemn and demonize her Black peers for the same shit. I’m reminded of how, in my home country (USA), a white gunman is a product of a broken home or untreated mental illness, while a Black or brown one represents the corruption of a whole community. Concurrently, when a white woman plays by the patriarchy’s rules and wins, or donates pocket change from her net worth to a few non-partisan causes like staff bonuses or soup kitchens, she’s held up as a paragon of righteousness. But when her stan club harasses one of her presumed nemeses to the brink of a nervous breakdown, or when a concertgoer at one of her Latin American shows dies of dehydration (RIP Ana Clara Benevides), everyone runs to console and absolve HER. It wasn't her fault, she had no power, how could she have known?
“Profoundly unsympathetic underdog”, as I read somewhere, is probably the best way to put it. Has she suffered from the slings and arrows of misogyny? Well, duh. She’s a woman at the top of an industry right slap-ass in the middle of a capitalist hellscape that, to this day, is still dominated by men. Men with a lot more dough and behind-the-scenes influence than she could ever dream of. But she doesn’t want to dismantle the system. She wants to bend it to her will and win it - even if that means cheating. Which is all well and good for her, but at the end of the day, she’s another fuckass oligarch. She’s a dragon in woman form like a reject from Earthsea, gorging on numbers to fill the empty howling void in her soul, tossing crumbs and scraps down to the masses.
She’s not a feminist so much as a Swiftist.
Ironically, Swift’s “feminism” revolves around men, because it’s feminism as interpreted by men. Powerful women using the patriarchy against itself, rather than bulldozing it for the good of humanity.
*
FIG 3. PROFESSIONAL CHARACTER ASSASSIN
Do I consider Taylor Swift an actual Batman villain of a person? Nah. I'm sure she's perfectly nice if you don't look too closely or set off any tripwires. In general, she’s probably not half the psychological sadist her father is or her disciples can be. She's got a long way to go before catching up to the likes of Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, or Andrew Tate. But that's just it - everyone outside the fold recognises the minions of that dark triad as pathetic at best and actively dangerous at worst.
The systemic coddling and infantilization of white women refuses to acknowledge the harm they can cause by gathering a mob with a common assigned enemy. And, having stuffed her cult’s heads full of subliminal tabloid fodder, Taylor has ensured that every time she performs an Invasion of the Bodysnatchers point-and-screech in a rival’s direction, that person’s about to have a bad week. Doesn’t matter if the vitriol is one-sided.
When I consider the full front to back of Taylor’s “lore”, what forms in my mind is the story of a victim, or self-proclaimed victim, who considers a villain arc aspirational. You know, a surly ninth-grader’s idea of justice. Enabled by her fans, who’ve declared Swift’s lyrics gospel, her easter eggs a call to arms against anyone who’s earned so much as a side-eye from her.
And does she call them off? Does she fuck.
Joe Alwyn’s reputation went to hell on an inside track for (checks notes) possibly mismanaging his depression? (Also, everyone involved in the mass unfollowing stunt is tacky and I hate them. That includes you, Ryan Reynolds. You're closer to 50 than 25, with four kids at home, acting like a second string shortstop trying to impress the head cheerleader. Knock it off.)
Katy Perry found herself soaked with pig blood in a public square for either rehiring a couple of dancers after they quit Taylor's tour, or briefly dating John Mayer. Depending on who you ask.
Jake Gyllenhaal was the target of a harassment campaign perpetuated by Swifties, fellow celebrities, and even goddamn CONSUMER BRANDS for, I dunno, acting kinda like a fuckboy eleven years prior? Realizing, perhaps too late, that he and Taylor were incompatible as romantic partners? Either way, I'm more freaked out by the gratuitous shots fired at his sister, girlfriend, godmother, and teenage niece. Let's put a pin in that for now, though.
Antonia Gentry, a biracial actress known for her role in Netflix’s Ginny and Georgia, took a heaping helping of abuse, garnished with a generous dollop of racial slurs. All because Swift got bent out of shape over a throwaway line delivered by Gentry’s character because it painted Swift’s dating habits in a bad light. It must needs be said that Gentry did not write or improvise this line of dialogue, she merely read it. We'll put a pin in that, too.
Scooter Braun can kick rocks in glass socks, but he was right about one thing. Taylor should have faced him down her damn self, instead of siccing her stan club on him…and his family. Put a pin in it.
Kim Kardashian - well, shit. The last thing I ever thought I’d do is defend a Jennerdashian, and my stance on Snakegate has been ESH from jump street. But after all Taylor’s posturing about her nemeses defeating themselves before she can take a swing, she didn’t hesitate to directly name and shame Kim in a recent song. Or use Kim’s daughter as an insult to her lyrical injury. Put a pin in it.
Look, no-one enjoys a failed or toxic relationship. Or waking up with a target on their back. I spent nearly a decade with an authentic psychopath who at one point (I kid you not) accused me of cheating on him WITH A FICTIONAL CHARACTER. So fuck his dreams, but even with the worst of what he did to me in play - and rest assured, it was some Ari Aster shit - I wouldn't want to see him at the bottom of a John Mayer dogpile. Mostly because he has loved ones who shouldn't end up as collateral damage.
Back in 1988, the late Oscar-winning SFX titan Stan Winston (Terminator, Jurassic Park) made his directorial debut with a cult classic supernatural folk-horror called Pumpkinhead. The plot centres around a father named Ed Harley (B-movie legend Lance Henriksen) summoning a demon to avenge his son against a group of “cityfolk”.
Why bring up that old VHS throwback? Well. Revenge films have been a staple since the medium began, but Pumpkinhead is one of the few that shows the dark side of vigilante justice. People love a settled score. But most stories only show the boomerang effect from the offender to the avenger. Pumpkinhead broadens that viewfinder to show the pyrrhic nature of revenge, especially revenge served scalding hot, using familiar genre devices to demonstrate the victim’s torment, the cyclical trap of it all, and - most importantly - the innocent bystanders catching strays. You think you’re wishing on a star, when you’re really wishing on a monkey’s paw.
That’s why I said to put a pin in that list of Taylor’s Undesirables. It’s never just the person who (sometimes debatably) did her dirty. There’s plenty of ‘female rage’ for their associates, too - sometimes with those associates, ex. Antonia Gentry, taking the force of the blow. But unlike poor Ed Harley, Taylor has accumulated too much money and power to face any real consequences.
It’s much easier to contain a narrative in art than it is in real life.
(PS: That sidelong smirk she does gives me the willies. Just me? Possibly. BEC? Totally.)
*
FIG 4. FUNDAMENTALIST SWIFTISM (THIS ONE’S PERSONAL)
I was born in southern Appalachia, in one of North Carolina’s most objectively beautiful cities. Unfortunately, I grew up in a rural, redneck town of just over 1,000, where the locals shared two cinema screens and maybe seven surnames.
And though mine was a mostly secular (Methodist) household full of Jimmy Carter Democrats, I couldn’t go a day without someone on the outside telling me that something I loved was a sin. I was the unwilling congregation for cautionary sermons about everything from Stephen King to Dirty Dancing to a fucking side ponytail in my hair (apparently it evoked Madonna, and that was a Bad Thing). Politically, it was standing water trash. My social studies education consisted mostly of Confederate-apologist kitsch and Red Scare Sovietcore. One of my fifth grade teachers spewed anti-choice rhetoric in class, and two years later, another one literally said, ‘Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’.
For context, like I said: raised by liberals, if not full-tilt leftists. My maternal grandfather was a hometown civil rights activist who ran an integrated workplace and campaigned for JFK. My mother’s friend confided to her (and only her), at the peak of HIV stigma, that her son was dying of AIDS. I remember asking Mom when I was 5 why movies only showed ladies kissing men and not men kissing men or ladies kissing ladies. Her answer: “I don’t know, baby, because it happens all the time in real life.” One of my paternal uncles was a drag performer in his 20s (which would have been between 1966-1976), and once my cycle kicked in, I was lectured THOROUGHLY about birth control and reproductive rights. I was lucky - at home. Outside, it was an ideological wasteland, fire to the left of me, brimstone to the right of me, God, guns, and “guts” waiting to nudge anyone who strayed from the formula back in line. So traumatized for merely wanting to wear fun makeup and clothes, watch A Nightmare on Elm Street, listen to Prince, and walk among neon lights with an urban skyline looming overhead like an enchanted forest, I became rebellious as fuck in my adolescence. I had a witch phase, a zen phase, and a militant agnostic phase. I’d overhear myself saying controversial shit (controversial by local standards) in a neverending campaign to push the born-against as far away from me as possible. Please don’t pray for me, I’d silently plead. Please think I’m a lost cause.
But it’s cool. I moved back to my birthplace in 1999, and clear across the Atlantic in 2016. (Plus the 9 years I spent in New England, but we don’t talk about that.) And I’m seeing a therapist about my psychological dysfunction - PTSD, depression, severe social anxiety, the usual.
Thanks to nearly two decades in this Gilead-coded environment, though, I have a near-phobic aversion to groupthink. I especially despise blind hero worship (due, I suspect, to the evangelical code of honouring God with every choice), and when matters of opinion are presented as fact. It pisses me off when Trumpnecks uproot the goalposts and plant them right in their eye sockets at their messiah's every misstep, and it pissed me off when the BernieBros tried to wreck my shit for backing a different Democrat (no shade to Bernie - he's probably one of the best social navigators America could ask for).
Taylor’s press is sounding less like journalism, even popcorn tabloid “journalism” in inverted commas, and more like nationalist propaganda. She stimulates economies (all sold-out stadium events do)! She’s broken another record (by rigging a broken system)! She eats ranch dressing (bitch, my BFF wrote a SONNET about ranch dressing when we were in junior high - that ain’t special)! She’s single-handedly carrying the music industry on her back (by toying with her fans and weaponizing FOMO)! ALL HAIL! It’s giving Straight Out of North Korea.
But as soon as you dare mention that some of this doesn’t sit right in your soul…chaos. You’re just looking for shit to be mad about because you hate “fun music” and “successful women”. Prison. Solitary confinement. Electric chair.
I have experienced no-shit panic attacks thinking about all the cults of personality that have cropped up over the past decade, okay? Whether Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Elon Musk, or Taylor Swift…they are all symptoms of a terrifying social disorder. Once we were drowning in information while thirsting for knowledge; now combine that with a riptide of tinfoil milliners and hyperpartisan news outlets. Communities have deteriorated, so we create them online using public figures and their open-ended manifestos, our capacity for independent and nuanced thought shriveling into a MAGA-hat shaped echo chamber screaming into a billionaire-branded, corporate-sponsored void.
Is this what Beatlemania was like? I can’t say for sure; I wasn’t there. But much as I appreciate The Beatles (while acknowledging the shady shit still stinking up certain corners of their empire), I can absolutely sympathize with people who maybe didn’t want the music crammed down their throats and the lore shoved up their asses.
“Let people enjoy things.” Let them be skeptical about things, too, and you’ve got a deal.
What frustrates me isn't that I don't like her, or that others do, but that so many of them won't allow anyone to dislike her in peace.
That's how I ended up here, at this desktop, downloading backlogged grievances to a Google.doc file.
I have no mouth, and I must scream.
*
FIG 5. ELEVENTH HOUR TRAILBLAZER (WITH A SIZE 500 CARBON FOOTPRINT)
Let's get serious. Most of our faves are problematic. I love HP Lovecraft's literary universe; he's a racist wad of dick. I love the way Margaret Atwood dissects her characters and serves them up on a silver platter with a parsley garnish; she's a bleach-white feminist and probably a goddamn TERF. I'd probably loathe Frank Zappa if he were alive today, even though I know passages from his autobiography by heart.
You don't have to steamroll your TS merch on Main to accept the fact that as an activist, she has all the conviction of Boy George checking the resale value of a contradiction before the Karma Chameleon gets home.
And that's fine, or it would be, if her aforementioned propaganda team hadn't successfully executed a Jedi mind trick to make the media go, “Taylor Swift - Joan Baez literally wishes.”
Anyone can tweet “Black Lives Matter” a few times, and I'm pretty sure my Boomer mother posted “Why be mad, when you can be GLAAD?” on Facebook circa June 2013. The only appreciable difference between Taylor Swift’s low-effort, low-stakes activism and some rando in Eugene, Oregon tweeting (I refuse to call it X) a picture of their brand new rainbow Stanley cup is the whole world keeps waiting for Tay Tay and her money to talk over the stamping onstage power-walk of her bullshit. And if she's got nothing to say, then by god we'll put the words in her mouth. Because with her unthreatening good looks and Disney princess energy, she makes a perfect false idol for neoliberals and a perfect boogeyman for the unhinged right.
So it goes. Over and over again. Once you win capitalism, you can make people believe whatever you want them to. Championing LGBTQ+ rights in the glossiest, most favourable environment possible makes TS a hero right up there with Captain America, but her manic zigzags across the planet in her private jet(s) are NBD.
Dolly Parton gets away with being politically milquetoast because (I’m inclined to think) she genuinely wants to provide a seat at the table for everyone. Not so the whole world will spend a weekend in Pigeon Forge - though I'm sure that's a strong incentive - but because she was raised with that as a guiding principle. Taylor's only principle seems to be waving her distended bank account under our faces and barking, ‘Fill ‘er up!” Also if you talk shit about her, you're not a girl's girl. Girl's girls push their successors down the stairs while buying and selling the rights to female rage. Because as a wise YouTuber one said, “My problems, my problems, my problems, MY PAIN!”
Sometimes I get the impression that Taylor Swift doesn’t want to BE an activist so much as she wants us to THINK she’s an activist. The public perception of HER matters more than urging that public to help her leave the world a better place than when she found it.
Not everyone is, or wants to be, an activist. Not everyone has that fire in their belly. I can dig it. But activism should not be a cosplay you wear to WokeCon for a single album cycle; it's a bit to which you need to commit.
Especially if you have no problem bringing a ruckus to protect your sanctified public image.
*
FIG 6. SHE DRINKS YOUR MILKSHAKE
“Billboard gamer
Qu'est-ce que c'est?
Fu-fu-fu-fuck off, fu-fu-fuck off…”
But for real, some of y'all need to stop approaching music stats like the NBA playoffs. Because I'm telling you straight up and down, if Taylor Swift were on the NY Liberty, she'd be what's known as a ball hog.
“She is the music industry” is not a flex. It's an indictment and manifesto of our own cynical capitalist dystopia. It's the mission statement of an ‘artist’ who can't seem to create without the intent of destruction. It's a slap in the face to musicians who match Swift's work ethic and far exceed her talent, but lack her bloodthirsty cult and cutthroat PR machine. It’s the language of monopoly - doesn’t matter if Swift dominates 90% of the musical market, charts, and records, so long as that wayward 10 is still out there.
Every time Taylor Swift copies another artist’s homework and makes their reality impossible to disentangle from her image, I feel the same sense of weary dread as when Disney buys up another movie studio. Except worse, because a lot of those studios are multinational corporations in their own right, probably direct beneficiaries of Citizens United living off the crops planted by Reaganomics. It’s easy to be facetious and say they had it coming.
But given everything she’s come to symbolize in the public eye, it’s hard to unsee TS as a huge multinational corporation gobbling up rising artists and their chosen niches like a deranged Ms. Pac-Man who keeps doubling back in the maze when she should go forward.
It's almost as if she's trying to create an environment where there's no need to listen to any other artist, because she can do it all. Even be “The Man™”! (Though she mostly targets younger women.) And if you don’t like the current era, where are you going? Pay no attention to that small indie artist - just wait for her to jack their style! Sad Girl Synth/ Witch in the Woodscore/ Bell Jar Chic coming right up!

Plus, when she’s not coal-mining her peers for ‘aesthetics’ to add to her brand once it’s safe to do so, she’s barging in on their album releases with new variants, surprise releases, ANYTHING to prevent our attention from diverting from her for the length of ten or fifteen songs.
And it’s happened too often and with too much synchronicity to be a coincidence. Restoring her catalog to Spotify on the release date of Katy Perry’s Witness. Dropping new variants of Midnights to block SZA from the top spot. And now trying to open the same expired can of whoopass on Billie Eilish, an artist as renowned by her industry peers as Taylor is by the mouth-breathing masses.
Even her “supportive dancing” at awards shows…it’s cute at first, until you realize it’s blatant camera-pan bait to bring attention back to her.
This is not “good business”. It’s a hostile work environment.
Obviously, high-profile artists siphoning trends from more obscure ones has been how the music industry establishes hierarchy and ratfucks the vanguard for decades. You - rightfully - can’t bring up Elvis Presley nowadays without mentioning Big Mama Thornton (and you owe it to yourself to listen to her original version of “Hound Dog”, because whoa, nelly). But Taylor Swift is hiding her chicanery in plain sight, ripping her peers off and shutting them down brazen as anything, and it’s hard not to wonder how much time will transpire before we can call her on it without being branded heretics.
No-one really talks about it, but IMO, one of her most grimdark acts of sabotage was releasing “Cruel Summer”, a five-year old song that wasn’t even a re-record, on the same day Olivia Rodrigo dropped “Vampire”, the debut single for her sophomore album. “Cruel Summer”, in case you haven’t seen a Taylor Swift evidence board lately, is the reason Olivia is now stuck paying a substantial chunk of “deja vu”’s royalties to TS and her cronies. I’m not saying Taylor’s team chose that song on purpose, to intimidate a (former) fangirl literally 13 years her junior, but I put nothing past no-one.
Success is so much more rewarding when it's not a zero-sum game. Call me a musical Marxist, but I want to celebrate a motley crew of talented artists rising in and out of the top 10 like melodic fireworks, not one grifting normie shithead perched indefinitely at the summit, yanking up Jacob’s ladder rung by rung.
*
FIG 7. IN THIS ECONOMY?
One album, one deluxe edition. That's a god's plenty, especially vis a vis physical media. If you release more than that, you're an asshole, and if you buy more than that, you're a sucker. I will not be taking questions at this time.
No, it isn't just a Taylor Swift problem - far from it. But she is currently the head of a rabid and venomous kaiju run amok across a mortally wounded planet.
And the merch, my esteemed chaotic neutrals, is just too ass to mention.
While we're at it, eat the rich. Most of them. At least leave the bones of billionaires on the lawns of multimillionaires as a warning.
*
*
*
*
*
And where - apart from the hate campaigns - do her hapless paramours fit in all of this? Beats me. The truth is, I don’t give a single solitary fuck about celebrities in the wild, unless they do something incredibly wholesome (Pedro Pascal celebrating his trans sister) or remarkably stupid (Puff Daddy). And despite all the pictures I’ve seen against my will, I wouldn’t recognize Travis Kelce or Matty Healy if they walked right up to me. First of all, I despise the NFL; I’m a baseball/ basketball/ hockey fan. And The 1975’s music, to me, just sounds like yacht rock if the yacht were caked in cocaine and bodily fluids. I know that Matty Healy once mentioned shucking his corn to a certain racist sex-trafficking website. And whether or not he meant it as a joke, it was gross and WoC have every right to have a bone to pick with him - and with Taylor.
For real, though, I look at her body count and all I see is a succession of nondescript white dudes. The only one who stands out to me is Gyllenhaal, and that’s because I’ve been a fan of him and his sister as actors for 20+ years. So her dating history has never been a point of contention or even interest for me.
The long and the short of it is, I'd have no quarrel with Taylor Swift if she were just taking up space as a successful singer-songwriter processing her emotions through her music. We could peacefully co-exist if LITERALLY EVERYBODY were not expected to not only give a fuck about her, but forsake all others unto her and her sanctified narrative. Sorry, my sister in Christ, but I'm an atheist.
And yes, I'd say every syllable of this with my whole chest and my pussy facing the world if Blandie were A MAN. So don't even get on that tip.
Go forth and have the day you deserve, from the depths of my last nerve.

Was tempted to make a video to show more than tell and still might, but things are still very, very early and always subject to change.
My previous Japanese language study is obviously giving me a big head start. Knew this would be the case when I went to Taiwan a couple of times and could recognize more than a few words which really helped me get around. Obviously pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar would be radically different, but I was also aware of that. The unknown traditional Hanzi (focusing on that since it's easier given my Japanese study background) will not be the main problem, just the tones and pronunciation and thousands of words using those Hanzi.
Also, I have the benefit of going in with a set plan based on my own experience learning (and re-learning) Japanese using self-study tools: Anki, text analyzers, browser plug-ins, audio books, pop-up dictionaries, etc.
Current plan is as follows: Do the first 90 lessons of the older Pimsleur Mandarin course with serious supplementation:

• Anki - I'm using a transcript (complete for Mandarin I Lessons 1 - 30) and webpage with vocabulary and starting dialogue for all 90 lessons to generate the cards. They'll have English, PinYin, Simplified and Traditional for both the vocabulary and an example sentence. The cards will be two per word - PinYin word/sentence (audio recognition, but I'm not bothering with actual audio for Pimsleur), and English word/Clozed traditional hanzi sentence (production where preferably the English word would instead be an image/Chinese definition).
  
• Trimsleur - My term for taking Pimsleur lessons and removing the English prompts and long pauses with two second pauses. For a 30 minute lesson, I have a 10 minute pure Chinese audio that's also comprehensible. Meant for comprehensible audio immersion (and repeating/shadowing).
  
• ACHTT - stands for "All Chinese Half The Time" which is my term for Ken Cannon's suggestion to watch every episode of a show in Japanese twice: once w/ English subs for the comprehension, then once more w/ Chinese subs or no subs for the immersion. I take it one step further by ripping the audio with a program uses the subtitles to remove long non-spoken portions (CIA or compressed immersion audio).
  

So current plan just for the 90 Pimsleur lessons is:

1. Review due Anki. For these, I have strict fail and soft fail rules for each card type. "Audio" cards (PinYin word/sentence) I have to know which hanzi are used and the meaning of the word - this is a strict fail. The soft fail (I hit "hard" UNLESS the spacing will be over 6 months) is the stroke order of the hanzi and meaning of the example sentence. The Clozed Delete card I also have know the Mandarin word, it's hanzi, and it's tone for the strict fail. The stroke order and meaning/reading of the clozed deleted Mandarin sentence is a soft fail.
   
2. Do the Pimsleur lesson with the transcript (in part I at least). Pause to initially answer the English prompt then play and repeat the Chinese phrase. When the new word is introduced, go to it's Anki card to add pronunciation notes (the transcript has a few pages of charts for this) along with HanziHero as needed for Hanzi meanings and notes (super important for Hanzi that are new to me). Now, Pimsleur is normally a 30 minute lesson, but doing it this way makes it last about an hour or so.
   
3. Activate the new vocabulary in Anki (custom study option) and see how much is remembered. I set cards to long learning time (1m 10m 1440m 3600m) with graduation done at 1 week. This is also great because Pimsleur cannot tell if I remembered anything or not and balance accordingly. Anki can.
   
4. Watch one episode of Peppa Pig Mandarin at 75% speed with English sub, then rewatch with traditional Chinese subs. Peppa Pig is slowed down because the normal episodes are sped up on purpose in most languages. Any other show I would likely leave at original speed.
   
5. Update my comprehensible immersion audio playlist. It'd be 4 copies of today's Trimsleur lesson, 3 copies of yesterday, 2 copies of two days ago, and 1 copy of three days ago (so Lesson 8 x4, Lesson 7 x3, Lesson 6 x2, Lesson 5 x1). In addition, it'd be the last four days of Peppa Pig ripped audio. This is about two hours of audio in total. I then play these on random, and the most recent lessons are played more often.
   

The comprehensible audio is played a lot of the time passively in the background. I can be doing anything else and not notice, but it'll be there whenever I do take a aural snack (pay attention to what's being played). I DO NOT want to repeat the major mistake in my early Japanese study of playing incomprehensible Japanese audio (rips of TV shows I watched) near 24/7. Found out that comprehensible that frequently refreshed is key to training your brain to follow along without thinking as well as repeat without effort.
Again, I'm only on lesson 8 with a handful of vocabulary words under my belt. Still, I can read aloud all eight of the introductory dialogues in traditional Mandarin. I'm also noticing the words as they pop up in Peppa Pig.
Gonna hate moving on to Pimsleur Mandarin part II as there's no transcript. However, there are websites that'll transcribe the Trimsleur audio (and maybe even the Pimsleur if I wanted) which'll simplify doing the lessons like I'm doing now.
After Pimsleur, I plan to do deep dive study methods (read subtitles along with Chinese subs, pausing only to look up meaning of unknown words and phrases), then after 10 hours of reading (at beginning stages this might be only 1 hour of actual Chinese audio) use subs with MorphMan in Anki to get 100 most common words that are within my learned vocab range. All that means is if I know 1,500 words then MorphMan will only look for new words from 3,000 most common that's also the most common in the read material stopping at 100 new words if that before starting reading up again.
Hopefully this all makes sense. Like with Japanese, I'll freely share whatever resources I can and answer whatever questions people have (if I have time). Obviously I'm in the beginning stages so maybe don't expect much.

"Has the Kingdom of God Come?"

The Scriptures seem to imply that the kingdom of God isn't exactly synonymous with what is called "the Church." The Church was a temporary eschatological community of believers that existed on earth in preparation of a kingdom where God Himself would reign, and said community had Christ reign over them in the meantime. The head of the Church was Christ, with the Father serving as his head (1 Cor. 11:3). The Scriptures teach that, when all Christ's enemies were to be made his footstool, he was to give back all authority to the Father (Psa. 110:1, 1 Cor. 15:22-28), and it is this page's belief that this happened in 70 AD.
The following quotation is from the above hyperlink:

As for the "1000 years" mentioned in Revelation, they are apocalyptic metaphor for the 40 years Christ "reigned" (triumphed) over his enemies both human and spirit, with the final triumph being the judgement of apostate Jerusalem. The "1000 years" began with his ascension, and ended with this judgement.

Thus, the community to replace the Church on earth was to be the kingdom of God. But, what even is the kingdom of God, and why did God have to reclaim authority of His own creation in the first place?
To be as succinct as possible: Man sinned, and so both immortality (i.e., access to the tree of life) and the great level of authority God initially granted us ourselves over the creation were stripped. As a result, death and sin reigned and had to be defeated for God to allow us to reign with Him in the way that He originally intended for us. God has always been sovereign, of course, but He seeks the good of man to make us stewards over His world with Him, as that was His original plan and this was His original view of what a kingdom of His truly looks like: a kingdom characterized by man's love for Him and love for others.
When Adam sinned, humans fell under the tyranny of death, corruption, evil heavenly powers, and sin itself. When Jesus came, Jesus was the new and exalted human, the new Adam, through whom humanity could now realize their original destiny that was laid out for them in the Garden of Eden. Because Jesus, being a man, obeyed unto death, he has defeated the powers which held sinners so long under bondage; sinners are now offered liberation so long as they simply place their faith in Christ's sacrifice to wash them of their sins and participate with the Spirit of God that is promised to all who exercise this faith.
The Bible isn't just about individual salvation. The goal isn't just 'go to heaven when you die.' Humans were created to be part of God's creation project and can build for His kingdom now. God puts His people in the right (i.e., "justifies" them) as a means to that end.
Humans were made to be stewards of God's creation. Their enslavement to sin and death undermines that role. But rather than giving up on humans and restoring creation by some other means, God, via the death and resurrection of Jesus, rescues the humans from sin and death so that they can fulfill that stewardship role.
We often think of ‘the gospel’ as the part that brings the forgiveness of sins (and of course, that is part of the idea), but ‘gospel’ is the announcement that everything has changed in the coming of Jesus and it leads us to a new kind of living.
The gospel Jesus preached and the gospel the apostle Paul preached were different, in that Jesus preached of a kingdom where God reigns directly and with all His faithful subjects as participants in that reign. The gospel Paul preached was about the exaltation and reign of Christ, and because Christ reigned, the consummation of the kingdom of God with earth could now finally take place (Col. 1:12-13). This consummation was put on hold during Christ's "millennial" reign, which transpired between his ascension and his return. However, the consummation has come to full fruition since that return.
We will be arguing for some of these claims by pointing out how central the kingdom of God actually was to Jesus' earthly ministry and message, and demonstrate what Jesus taught about how it actually looks like.
The term 'kingdom' appears 53 times in 42 places in Matthew, 17 times in 13 places in Mark, and 41 times in 29 places in Luke. When the 'kingdom' is qualified, Luke always refers to the 'kingdom of God' (32 times) and Mark follows this pattern (14 times). Matthew, on the other hand, prefers the term "kingdom of heaven" (31 times), using the phrase to refer to the same idea "kingdom of God" only four times: 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 43.
The Gospel of Luke records an event where Jesus responds to the population that lived near Simon Peter's house who believed in him after he had done his miraculous work there, but saw that he was leaving them:

"And when it was day, he departed and went into a desert place: and the people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them. And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore [i.e., for this pupose] am I sent." (vss. 42-43)

The Greek word euangelion is often translated as the word 'gospel.' In the Bible, this word is always used whenever it concerns the announcement of the reign of a new king. And in the New Testament, the Gospels themselves use this word or the phrase "good news" to summarize all of Jesus’ teachings. They say he went about “preaching the gospel [good news] of the kingdom [of God]” (Matt. 4:23).
There’s this beautiful poem in the Old Testament, and it’s in chapter 52 of the Book of Isaiah. The city of Jerusalem had just been destroyed by Babylon, a great kingdom in the North. Many of the inhabitants of the city have been sent away into exile, but a few remained in the city, and they’re left wondering, "What happened? Has our God abandoned us?" This was because Jerusalem was supposed to be the city where God would reign over the world to bring peace and blessing to everyone.
Now, Isaiah had been saying that Jerusalem’s destruction was a mess of Israel’s own making. They had turned away from their God, become corrupt, and so their city and their temple were destroyed. Everything seemed lost. But the poem goes on. There is a watchman on the city walls, and far out on the hills we see a messenger. He’s running towards the city. He’s running and he’s shouting, “Good news!” And Isaiah says, “How beautiful are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings [news]” (vs. 7a). The feet are beautiful because they’re carrying a beautiful message. And what’s the message? That despite Jerusalem’s destruction, Israel’s God still reigns as king, and that God's presence is going to one day return with His city, take up His throne, and bring peace. And the watchmen sing for joy because of the good news that their God still reigns (vs. 10).
Jesus saw himself as the messenger bringing the news that God reigns. Jesus also claimed to be the Son of man. This was Jesus' favorite self-designation, being used some 80 times in the Gospels. Notice, not just a son of man, but the Son of Man. Jesus was directing our attention to a vision described by the prophet Daniel:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him:"-Daniel 7:13-14a

At Jesus' trial, the Jewish high priest accused Jesus: "Art thou the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed [God]?" His answer left no room for doubt. "I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:61-62). Because Jesus was rejected and killed for threatening the power the religious authorities had over the people, the consummation of God's kingdom with earth had been put on hold until all of Christ's enemies would be put under his feet after his ressurection and ascension.
But again, what is the kingdom of God? What does it look like exactly?
Well, the way that Jesus described God’s reign surprised everybody. I mean, think about it. A powerful, successful kingdom needs to be strong, able to impose its will, and able to defeat its enemies in physical combat. But Jesus said the greatest person in God’s kingdom was the weakest, the one who loves and who serves the poor (Matt. 23:11-12). He said you live under God’s reign when you respond to evil by loving your enemies, and forgiving them, and seeking peace (Matt. 5). To us, this is an upside-down kingdom. But to God, it's right-side up. This was what God had originally planned for us: a kingdom where God reigns in our hearts.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."-John 3:3

Jesus was being quite literal here. You can’t see the kingdom until you’re born again and have the life of that kingdom. When you’re born again, you start 'seeing' differently. You see what others don’t see, you hear what others don’t hear, you know what others don’t know. And yet you may be physically in the same earthly location as they.
The kingdom of God is the totality of God’s influence that covers the world and heaven. It’s everywhere, but its manifestation isn’t everywhere. It manifests on earth wherever there are those who are born again and live as if God reigns in their hearts.
Before Jesus, John the Baptist announced to all people, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:1-2), as he saw a soon coming kingdom of God that would be ushered in by the Messiah. Notice that John the Baptist didn’t say that something “like” the kingdom would come and he didn’t say that the real kingdom might be thousands of years away. He said over and over that THE kingdom was at hand! Do you believe him? Did God inspire him to give a clear and accurate message or a mistaken one? If we dare to believe him, things might become surprisingly clear, simple and exceedingly optimistic.

"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."-Matthew 6:10

Jesus taught his followers of his generation to pray that God's kingdom come and that His will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Why pray for something that will just inevitably come by force, unless it was actually through our willing participation? That is, unless God's will is carried out through us "in earth, as it is in heaven"?

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."-Mark 1:14-15

It's very telling that these are the very first words the Gospel of Mark chooses to record Jesus as saying.
The kingdom is NOT something to wait for. Jesus says the kingdom is NOT something visible, and it is NOT something in the sky. The Kingdom Jesus taught is a spiritual reality that comes into the world through us. Considering that Jesus even said the kingdom was in and among the Pharisees in Luke 17, which seems almost offensive to consider, perhaps it is like a spiritual seed that has been planted inside each of us, and that activating faith in God makes it grow.

"Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it."-Luke 13:18-19

Jesus talked about the kingdom as if it would be a present reality, yet one that was growing in the world like a seed grows into a tree.

"And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."-Luke 13:20-21

To Jesus, the kingdom was something growing in us like yeast through dough, increasing in effectiveness.

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."-Romans 14:17
"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."-1 Corinthians 4:20

Paul says the kingdom isn’t something you taste or touch like physical food. It’s not even saying the right words. But rather the kingdom comes in the realities of righteousness, peace, joy and power that flavor our lives when we live empowered by the Spirit of God and God's Spirit in us.
Since Jesus the Messiah returned only 40 years after his earthly ministry, putting all enemies under his feet, the complete consummation of earth with the kingdom of heaven has finally taken place.
The kingdom of God has come, and it continues to come through us as believers. It makes progress like light shining into the world and dispelling the darkness.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."-Matthew 5:14-16

Eternal Life Is Now

Most Preterists affirm that we are in the kingdom of God now. That is, we believe that through faith in Jesus Christ's atonement we enter into the kingdom of God, which is spiritual. We speak of the spiritual nature of the kingdom. We speak of God dwelling with men. We affirm God’s presence with us. We even affirm that we are in the new heavens and new earth. But the question remains: If we have all of this now, how does this translate into a proper view of “the afterlife”? (Hereafter this term will refer to consciousness and the new body after physical expiration of this body in this mortal realm.) In other words, how does this translate into a hopeful view of the afterlife?
We must dispel a dismal doctrine floating around that this is all there is. There are some Preterists who teach that we are in the kingdom in the here and now, but when we physically expire it is all over. We simply return to dust. What follows will prove this idea to be dreadfully wrong. This will be evident not so much by proving what we will not have after our body dies; rather, it will be evident by proving that what we have now is eternally enduring, because we have immortality.
“He who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” Jesus said this to Martha after her brother Lazarus had physically died. She was a real woman who had a real conscience and a real life experience. Lazarus was physically dead; therefore we must take this into consideration as we try to make sense of Jesus’ subsequent words:

"Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"-John 11:23-26

The Jews obviously believed in a resurrection of the dead. Martha did too. But Jesus tells her that he is the resurrection and the life. However, he doesn’t stop there. He begins to both qualify and quantify this life: “He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live” (vs. 25b). At this point we might still infer from his words that he is referring to physical life, but his next words contradict that idea: “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (vs. 26a). Let’s paraphrase his words to elucidate his view of resurrection: “I am the spiritual resurrection and life. Your brother has died physically, but he will rise with a ‘better resurrection’ (Heb. 11:35). He who believes in me, though he were physically dead like Lazarus, yet shall he spiritually live. And he who is presently physically living shall never die spiritually.” Some try to convolute this text by inferring that Christ was speaking of two resurrections. But his statement that he is the resurrection and the life prohibits that concept. Finally, he is obviously not stating that he who lives and believes in Christ will not physically die. If this were his meaning, then we would have to conclude that no one today ever truly believes in him, for all of us still physically die; or we would have to conclude that he was mistaken or was lying, neither of which is an option within the parameters of the Biblical faith.
Obviously those who question this idea will ask questions like, “So this is heaven?” By “this” their minds usually gravitate back to what they see, hear, and feel and not to what the Scripture says. They fail to make a distinction between the physical realm and the spiritual realm. We must remind them that even they will confess that God dwells in their hearts. They would never say that this is a physical dwelling place. In fact they will gladly tell us that our hearts are the spiritual dwelling place of God, a fact with which we would agree. So it should not seem a strange thing that all the blessings mentioned in Revelation chapters 21 and 22 are bound up in the affirmation that God dwells in our hearts, presently. God does not cease to dwell in our hearts in the afterlife. He merely continues to live out His presence with us both here and hereafter.

"If God Reigns, What Do I Do If I Sin Again?"

With all this established, if God is truly reigning in the heart of a believer, what does it mean for us if we sin again in this unglorified body? Further, what did Jesus mean by the following statement?:

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."-Matthew 5:48

This statement is the conclusion from his introductory statement in verse 20 of the same passage:

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is pointing out how outward actions and behaviors are not enough to be approved by or to fulfill what God requires of us. He argues that the condition of one's heart is primarily what God is concerned with, and the scribes and Pharisees with all their legalism and their exclusively deontic approach to interpreting and practicing the Law was not enough to merit entrance into the kingdom of God. They were not spiritually mature enough to consider the intents and motivations that drive one's actions in the first place.
The Greek for "perfect" in Jesus' statement could also mean "complete," "whole," or "mature." There's a high standard one should strive to attain; and striving, and actually practicing righteous conduct, is indeed attainable. We are to strive for spiritual maturity, and this is possible.
Said in a similar context, the Gospel of Luke clarifies Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:48:

"Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful."-Luke 6:36

God's absolute kindness, nothing lacking, is being stressed in the passages in reference. The whole Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5–7) was designed to bring God's covenant community to spiritual maturity. It is not enough for them to love people who love them, for even the unbelievers love those who love them. Spiritual maturity concerning kindness is they should love those who hate them! As the Creator, God deals gently with people who despise His words and refuse to believe them (going so far as to give these people material sustenance such as sunshine and rain; Matt. 5:45), so believing Israel was to deal tenderly with their persecutors.
The following is taken from a user named u/ArchaicChaos, who speaks here on the subject of justification. I've edited what they said wherever there are brackets to better fit the views of this page, for grammar, and to fix some of the formatting from the original comment for greater cohesiveness in general. If one wishes to view his original statements, they can click here.

[To put it simply:] You are saved by faith [from past sins (Rom. 3:25) but] then judged by [...] works (Jam. 2).

[...]

[W]e [who live today] aren't under the [L]aw of Moses, we are under the law of the Spirit, which is necessarily not a law written in ink. [(]See 2nd Corinthians 3.[)]
"Oh, if you don't follow the Law of Moses, does that mean you can go and kill, since you don't believe in the law that says not to kill?"
The law of the Spirit is centered around love. God's love, through His Spirit. We don't kill, but not because Moses said so. We don't kill because the Spirit we have and are under the law of says not to.

[...]

When Paul says that a man is saved by faith and not by works, he means specifically "works of the law." The [...] mitzvah. When [the apostle] James said that a man is not saved by faith alone but by works also, he is NOT talking about the Mosaic [L]aw. Paul and James agree, but not in the way Protestants have typically understood.
When Paul speaks of faith, he means your entire walk as a Christian. Your thoughts [and] your actions. So when he says ["faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28)], he's implying your actions under the Spirit [are also included in faith]. Most miss this.
When James speaks about faith, he means a mental proposition [(Jam. 2:24)]. So, just earlier in chapter 2, he talks about how the demons know that God is one. In other words, the demons have 'faith' (mental knowledge) that God is one and yet they have no works because they don't act like it. They serve another god, that is, Satan.
James is directly addressing the issue of Paul. When Paul wrote [his epistles], people of the time thought when he said "not by works," Paul meant all works. So, they didn't need to help the homeless, feed the poor, etc. Those works "won't buy your salvation." Sound familiar? James is addressing this issue. That's not what Paul meant. Paul meant that works of the [L]aw won't save you, because if you read Romans 7, [...] you'll see that the [L]aw died in Christ, and ["we are married to another" (vs. 4)]. A faith that is dead is what the audience of James' letter were doing. They saw a man hungry and said "I have faith you will be well." But they did nothing. No deeds. James is saying that your knowledge of God isn't going to clothe that man or feed that woman. You must do works. You are not saved by faith alone[, "faith" here] meaning your beliefs. But to Paul? Faith meant the man who sees someone hungry, and then acts according to the Spirit of the law. Not under obligation by a written law in tablets of stone, but by the Spirit law on the heart.

So, being a proper subject of the kingdom of God is not merely about affirming mental propositions, neither is it about actions by themselves, but rather a walk defined by faithful covenant obedience. This is what it's all been about, and willing participation with the Spirit of God is necessary for us to be conformed to His image as He originally intended.
I will now add to what's been said so far with a quotation from another post of mine that I feel is quite relevant here:

Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he had to subdue temptation in his body, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.

Finally, I will be concluding this teaching by quoting from another user named u/Pleronomicon, who also has some very relevant things to say concerning this subject. Again, like before, I've edited where appropriate and made obvious where I did. If one wishes to see their original statements, the reader may click here for the comment thread where I get most of this from. I also pulled a paragraph from another comment here that was in a separate comment thread that they were in.

I believe sinlessness is not only possible, but necessary for maintaining justification, sanctification, and ultimately salvation. First John 5:4 specifically says that Jesus' commandments are not burdensome.
Biblical perfection is synonymous with maturity.
Salvation is deliverance from the bondage of sin through Christ, and walking in obedience to God by the power of the Holy Spirit, [to inherit] the kingdom.
The Exodus generation was our example for this. The Israelites didn't have to fight their way out of Egypt, but were delivered with a strong hand by the Lord. Nevertheless, most of them walked in disobedience and fell in the wilderness. Only Caleb, Joshua, and the sons of the Exodus generation were allowed to inherit the Land.
If there is anything we can learn from the Exodus generation it's definitely that if one is delivered from bondage and later seeks to return to bondage, they should not expect an inheritance.
IF we sin, we may repent [(1 John 2:1)], but it must not become a pattern. Sin is like sudden death, and repentance is like CPR. How reasonable is it to expect to need CPR on a regular basis?
[[1Pe 4:1-3 KJV] 1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, *arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath CEASED FROM SIN; 2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. 3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles*, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:]
Adam introduced sin into the world through death. All who feared death over God inevitably sinned and thereby became slaves to sin.
[[Heb 2:14-15 KJV] 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.]
The flesh prompts within us the inclination to fear death, but that is not the same as a sin nature. Before the fall, the flesh was pacified by the tree of life, so there was no fear of death without an external temptation - the serpent.
Nevertheless, we all do possess the flesh, but sin does not come alive until the commandment is given.
[[Rom 7:9-10 KJV] 9 *For I was alive without the law once: but **when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.*]
So I would not say there is a sin nature apart from the [Mosaic Law]. After Abraham was called, he was able to live his life in obedience to God with an unwavering faith.
[[Gen 26:5 KJV] 5 Because that *Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.***]
[[Rom 4:13, 20 KJV] 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. [...] 20 *He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;***]
I think the confusion surrounding ideas like Original Sin, Total Depravity, and Sin Nature arise from departing from the BIble's own semantics.

[...]

I would say that the closest thing to a "sin nature" would be a synthesis of the Law of Moses superimposed upon the flesh. That does seem to be how Paul explained things in Romans 7:7-25 and Galatians 5.
As Paul explained, the Law of Moses is what provoked disobedience from the flesh, thus revealing sin.
Nevertheless, those who are in Christ and obeying his commandments are not under the Law, but have crucified the flesh with [its] passions and desires, so that Law-flesh paradigm is not supposed to be an issue in the Spirit.

[...]

Israel didn't struggle to leave Egypt. Likewise, ceasing from sin should not be a struggle either if we're keeping our minds set on the Spirit; [Again,] Jesus' commandments are not burdensome (1John 5:3). God provides a way of escape from all temptation.
[[1Co 10:13 KJV] 13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.]

I made a post about my score improvement and got quite a few PMs so I'd like to make my own post specifically for the strategies that worked for me! At some point above 1500 the SAT becomes less about knowledge and more about strategy, and I know this because I didn't study at all between my test dates; I just changed my strategy.
My first tip: your mentality. You need to be in a good state of mind during your test - this looks like getting a good night's sleep, eating something good in the morning, maybe drinking some caffeine (maybe not; you know yourself better than I do). And I know this is so much easier said than done, but don't stress too much. I already had a 1540 so I went in with the mindset that I would still be fine if I failed, and I think being relaxed helped me a lot. I think if you do your practice tests while simulating a real test this will help - I did my tests while playing "computer lab ambient noises" on YouTube, so you could try that. Do your best to feel your best on test day!
Now, for Reading (I got an 800), your strategy is really important (after you know your fundamental grammar, of course). The optimal solution is going to be different for everyone, but here are some miscellaneous strategies that I used:

1. Understand the main idea and the idea of each sentence. Often the main idea is stated in the first or last sentence, and to make the text more understandable to me, I used the annotate function to paraphrase each sentence. Once I analyzed the meaning of each individual sentence, I was able to understand the text better and I was able to understand the function of each sentence in relation to the others
2. Reading and Writing is, as they say, EVIDENCE-BASED. This means that the correct answer will always be supported directly by the text - if an answer is correct, you will be able to highlight a sentence or phrase that basically explicitly says the same thing as the answer key. Don't make inferences or jumps in logic!
3. PROCESS OF ELIMINATION! The strikethrough tool is a godsend on the DSAT, so make sure you know how to use it. There are sometimes answer choices that are partially true and partially incorrect - if an answer choice has even a single assertion that is not directly supported by the text, cross it out. This way you sometimes don't even have to find the right answer, you just have to know the others are wrong. And if you guess, you have a greater than 25% chance of getting it right
4. Read the question before the text so you know what to look for. Pretty self-explanatory
5. For the last 3 or 4 questions where you have to use bullet points to support a claim, you don't need to actually read the bullet points - the correct answer will be obvious from looking at the answer choices. By not reading the bullet points, I basically halved the time I was spending on these questions, allowing me to focus on the trickier questions more.
6. Speaking of timing, do NOT rush. This is what was my downfall in my 1540. The digital SAT is curved, so if you make a careless mistake on an easy question, you will lose more points than if you mess up on a hard question. You don't need to go through every question twice; just spend some extra time the first time and review the ones you flagged.
7. And then advice on a few question types that I personally struggled with:
   1. The answer to "main idea" questions will never be in a specific example from the text. I don't really know how to explain this, except that examples will usually support the main idea rather than expressing it.
   2. Transition word questions are easy - they are asking, "how does the function this sentence relate to the priofollowing sentence?". If you do the annotate and summarize thing that I do it's fr a walk in the park.
   3. This is super specific but a name/clause will only be surrounded by commas or em dashes if it is nonessential. For example, between these two sentences: "American author Dan implies..." and "American author, Dan, implies...", the first one would be correct because the identity of the author is important to this question.

For Math (I got a 790), I have fewer tips, because I think Math is really just about knowing the concepts. What helped me was taking math a grade up, doing Kumon, and participating in math olympiads (I really think these are valuable even if you don't place or anything; I'm not really a standout but they helped with my problem solving). However, you should know desmos in and out. Know every piece of its functionality, and know how to apply it to basically every single problem in the math section. Lastly, what I struggled with was getting tired and losing focus. Especially near the end of module 2, I found that I really had to slow down and be methodical with my work so that I was not making careless mistakes.
The only resource I used other than Bluebook was Erica Meltzer, and I definitely recommend her grammar textbook. That's all; props to you if you managed to read all this, and good luck on your SAT!

here are a few of mine:
graphs may not be f(x), but instead transformations of f(x)
write EVERYTHING down algebraically, logic-ing things out tends to lead to silly mistakes even in easy questions, also draw figures, this alone saves needing like 10 extra tips to keep in mind.
look at the domain for those "write an equation thats y = 34x + 3" guys where theres a difference between x starting at zero and at a certain number. usually youll have to add the rate on x times that number to the entire thing to get like "f(x) = 34x + 37"
use desmos, its honestly amazing.
now for reading:
for logical word questions, try to pick one that doesnt add information and has the most direct justification. to help with this you can guess before you look at the answers so your not biased (helps for like 25% of the questions), and if your still stuck, just pick the most general, non opinionated sounding word.
also looking at the roots of words helps a lot too.
for the last questions, you dont even need to look at the bullet points. instead look for relation words that match the relation in the question. e.g. "student wants to show how 2 things are similar" first look for questions with 2 things, then look for "similar" relationship words like "both" or "similarly".
for transition words its the same thing, you should group them into relationship like "contrasting" "adding" "sequence" (this one is REALLY easy if you see 'finally" or "then" or "next" before or after). and if you see 2 in the same category, likely neither of them are the correct answer.
also try and guess the catagory before looking at the answer, i personally have gotten completely thrown off track because i looked at the answers first.
same thing with periods and semicolons, if you see both, neither of them are the right answer.
for colons, its usually correct if it answers a question posed about the previous sentence.
for subject verb, remember, prepositions dont count, and usually they use "of" prepositional phrases. also know that things inside two commas can be deleted and the sentence should be logically the same. and a sentence can start with a dependant clause and end with an independant one, and transitions always need commas and or periods surrounding them ". However, " ", however, " ", however.". also know the fanboys rule about connecting independent clauses.
for standard english ones, plug in and *read until the end of the sentence* ive gotten burned a couple times because i was being lazy and didnt read the entire thing.
look for dependant and independant clauses, and when in doubt, pick the option with the least grammar.
for data questions, cross out the answers that (if the question asks for it) dont support the author first, then verify with the data second.
for "function of the underlined portion" i find it helps if i litterally replace the answer i think it is and see if it makes sense in "idea".
also be REALLY sure of added information by the answers, anything sounding kindof opinionated should immediately raise red flags, same thing for author 1 and author 2 ones, usually the answer is justifiable and not an opinion or reaction, and instead some kind of restatement of something in the text, honestly thats most of the questions.
for the best supports argument ones, make sure it hits every point of their argument
for main purpose, its usually just a template / restating of the text.
also make sure to hit *every* point the question asks for
lastly when you have no clue, its best to pick the most minimal answer, least grammar, most general answer ime.
if any of yall disagree with something, or want to add anything, please let me know!

Hello redditors of antiMLM,
Just this week, I received an email from a relation advertising FOREVER—not to be confused with Forever Living. Searching through this sub, I found a few short references over the last years with little detail. In one, a commentor described FOREVER stating "as mlms go, it seems ethical." Every red light went off while I looked into these “FOREVER Ambassadors.” I then began a search, with much of the ultimate work done by my spouse. It took longer than seemed acceptable to identify this MLM for people who glanced over the internet. FOREVER is not listed on any of the MLM databases I could find from this sub or elsewhere. Based on the mandatory “FOREVER Ambassador Community” on Facebook, now 8 years old, at least 2,500 people have gotten into their clutches at some point (I haven’t linked because I think it might be against the sub rules).
Thus, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people, here are references for the community to identify a yet-another-multi-level-marketing scheme. I am a sarcastic person, so be forewarned. All sources were publicly available and required no logins or access.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(1) Background of the FOREVER business model
(2) The FOREVER Ambassador program
(3) Costs of serving as an Ambassador
(4) Compensation advertised for Ambassadors
(4a) Income in cash from personal sales
(4b) The downline system used by FOREVER
(4c) Non-monetary-achievement compensation
(5) FOREVER Ambassador Business Training
(6) Conclusion down to brass tax on FOREVER
STUDY OF FOREVER
(1) Background of the FOREVER business model
FOREVER is an online service that advertises it can be a “permanent digital home that lasts for many generations.”[1] This is to be accomplished via a so-called “FOREVER Guarantee Fund” that invests to pay for digital storage for over 100 years.[1] Their website promises me that “permanent” is “not a buzzword”—I think that’s the Platonian ideal of a buzzword.[1] Regardless, this is not a quality review post.
(2) The FOREVER Ambassador program
The sellers used by FOREVER are called “FOREVER Ambassadors.”[2] As advertised, it looks like a classic MLM pitch. You can “earn up to 35%” commission” while having “the freedom to work from home, and the flexibility to make money on your own schedule.”[2] FOREVER lists various opportunities, such as “trainings” and the ability to “learn and grow with friends,” as well as “make life-long friends.”[2] As part of the “Meet our Team” webpage for corporate FOREVER, there are multiple “Executive Ambassadors” listed.[3] There is no barrier to entry on experience required to become an Ambassador.[4] I observed that, throughout the internet and on the FOREVER website, the vast majority of Ambassadors are women—as you know, many MLMs target women and moms.
(3) Costs of serving as an Ambassador
FOREVER has, at minimum, an “Annual Ambassador Fee” that is the primary cost to entry of the program.[2] For $179 a year, one would receive “back office tools,” various marketing materials, and “countless opportunities”—maybe money, but more on that soon.[2] There is a link to an Ambassador’s own selling website.[5, at 22] This Ambassador fee “is subject to change over time.”[5, at 25] There is also a FOREVER Merchandise store where Ambassadors can get their supplies.[6] These include a 40-pack set of catalogs for $44.99 and a $144.99 tablecloth for potential customers during in-person events.[6]
For Ambassadors, FOREVER advertises there are “free training events.”[5, at 25] Each year, for $399 in 2024, Ambassadors can attend the 3-day “FOREVER Live!” event.[7] It is in the destination getaway of… next to their headquarters in Pittsburgh, PA (I’m sorry Pittsburgh, you’re a beautiful city).[5, at 24] It is also possible to pay for a “p2P Virtual Party” and “p2P Live Events,” but is unclear what those mean.[5, at 5] Various “ranks” of Ambassadors receive a “monthly stipend” starting at $25 a month after $15,000 total in personal plus team sales a year.[5, at 9]
(4) Compensation advertised for Ambassadors
(4a) Income in cash from personal sales
FOREVER pays its Ambassadors based on a “cash sales” versus “full sales” system.[5, at 5] The too-long-didn’t-read summary is that some products are paid less commission than others because of “margin” of different products.[5, at 5–6] Critically, the Personal Commission Rate is where our story kicks into gear. At the bottom, an Ambassador who sells less than $2,000 a year in sales receives the windfall of a 15% commission.[5, at 7] The number rises to 34% once sales are $90,000 or greater in one year (I don’t know where the 35% from earlier went).[5, at 7] However, to earn the 20% commission or more once one passes the $2,000 sales amount requires completion of the “FOREVER Ambassador Business (FAB) Training.”[5, at 7] I read it, more on that later.
You might ask, “Is there a sales quota for FOREVER® Ambassadors?” FOREVER says “no.”[8] However, the less one does the less FOREVER pays Ambassadors for what they do (this chart is older than the Compensation Guide cited).[8]
(4b) The downline system used by FOREVER
Of course, while it took forever to reach here, we come to the “downline” process—FOREVER’s words, not mine.[9] FOREVER immediately identified that new Ambassadors “choose another Ambassador to mentor you as you grow your business” (I do not know if this means an upline).[2] Nevertheless, “Team Sales” are compensated by FOREVER down to the 5th Line.[5, at 9] If an Ambassador does not build a team, then they do not earn Team Commissionable Cash Sales Commissions.[5, at 9] FOREVER states that getting new Ambassadors “to sign up under your name” is how you help “further your business.”[9]
However, even if an Ambassador builds a team, they receive a very restricted downline compensation if they do not make a minimum of personal sales.[5, at 9] For future reference, an “Associate Ambassador,” the bottom, makes less than $2,000 and earns no downline sales.[5, at 9] An “Ambassador,” second to last, is the first rank with a downline commission (4% for 1st Line), requiring $2,000/personal a year.[5, at 9] To reach “Senior Ambassador,” third to last, and above, a FOREVER Ambassador must start earning exponentially greater amounts of personal plus team sales to rise in the “ranks.”[5, at 9] A Senior Ambassador requires $8,000/personal but $15,000/gross, and is the first to get 2nd Line commission (4% for 1st Line and 2% for 2nd Line).[5, at 9] It is unclear to me if “new members” must be recruited “each month” to rankup—the website says so, but I see it nowhere in the Compensation Guide.[8]
At the top of hierarchy, there become two “Executive Ambassadors.”[5, at 9–10] These ranks start at $28,000/personal and $250,000/gross a year.[5, at 9] As well, one must have at least three “Team Leaders” in their 1st Line.[5, at 10] Team Leaders refers to Ambassadors who have themselves reached the rank of “Associate Lead Ambassador” ($12,000/personal and $30,000/gross).[5, at 9] FOREVER advertises that the Executive ranks are for—and I am not making this up—those Ambassadors who are “grooming FOREVER Leaders on your team below you.”[5, at 10] Irony is dead folks.
(4c) Non-monetary-achievement compensation
Because being paid to work is overrated, FOREVER will also provide “Additional Benefits” to its various ranks. As an Associate Ambassador, you can join the aforementioned Facebook Group and hear the CEO talk on a monthly phone call.[5, at 11] Regular Ambassadors also get a certificate to put on their wall.[5, at 11] Senior Ambassadors get a standing ovation at FOREVER Live!—you can even be ovated on stage as an Associate Lead Ambassador (I would pay $179 a year to not).[5, at 13–14] My observation is that a lot of ranks mostly provide additional types of standing ovations at FOREVER Live! and reserved seats for dinners there.
But then you can reach the pinnacle of Everest (that much like the real one, other people just carry you up there): the Million Dollar Club.[5, at 20] For making $1 million in personal and team sales in a year, one will earn a single $10,000 dollar bonus.[5, at 20] If you are then a “top-performing Ambassador,” one can be taken on the “Achievement Gathering,” to Jamaica in 2024, to mill around with other top-performing Ambassadors—and the corporate staff.[5, at 24] There is no mention how many people earn it or how much must be earned.[5, at 24]
(5) FOREVER Ambassador Business Training
I mentioned earlier that Ambassadors must complete a “FAB” training to receive more than 15% in commissions.[5, at 7] To hit this post home, I wanted to identify some highlights. The FAB training has 5 Steps to reach regular Ambassador status.[10, at 4] These Steps include such activities as “Meet with your Upline” (Step 1), “Connect with your Upline” (Step 2), “Meet with your Upline” (Step 3), “Meet with your Upline” (Step 4), and “Meet with your Upline” (Step 5).[10, at 7, 10, 12, 14, 16] You also have to join the FOREVER Facebook group and any created by your Team (just “ask your Upline” to find it).[10, at 6–7] There’s a task in Step 2 to create an introductory “Share List,” with five lines each for “Friends,” “Teachers,” and your own “Parents/Grandparents.”[10, at 7–9] For an unclear number of hours, you must attend multiple weekly and monthly “training opportunities” and “calls.”[10, at 6–7, 10] And one last item, to rank up in FOREVER, you must register for an upcoming event.[10, at 12] As of writing, the only one listed on the linked webpage is the $399 FOREVER Live! conference.[11]
(6) Conclusion down to brass tax on FOREVER
I was unable to find an Income Disclosure Statement for FOREVER. However, basic math tells us that an Associate Ambassador, the bottom, can only earn up to $300 a year.[5, at 11] To reach regular Ambassador, which includes signing up and beginning all the time sinks listed above, the maximum personal commission is $1,200, in addition to whatever downline (however big those are on average).[5, at 11] Without a downline, even the top-bracket personal sellers are the only ones to earn more than $30,000 a year.[5, at 7] The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis estimates that the Real Median Personal Income in the United States for 2022 was $40,480.[12]
There is one way to make it with FOREVER: to build a downline. It’s a multi-level-marketing scheme, and no one should join it. Unless of course, you want to join my downline—I promise you'll be rich just like me.
LIST OF REFERENCES
[1] “Our Story,” FOREVER.com (accessed May 18, 2024), https://www.forever.com/our-story
[2] “Become a FOREVER Ambassador,” FOREVER.com (accessed May 18, 2024), https://www.forever.com/opportunity
[3] “Meet Our Team,” FOREVER.com (accessed May 18, 2024), https://www.forever.com/our-story/team
[4] “What is required of me as a FOREVER Ambassador?,” FOREVER.com Support (accessed May 18, 2024 [updated “2 years ago”]), https://support.forever.com/hc/en-us/articles/215823437-What-is-required-of-me-as-a-FOREVER-Ambassador
[5] Ambassador Compensation Guide, FOREVER (Jan. 31, 2024), https://www.forever.com/app/users/forevealbums/ambassador-kit/f3ii4wzeewd0nfwg4nb40kyw1/files/1043b0c6-de01-4aff-a1e3-83db7e6b1b17
[6] “FOREVER Merchandise,” FOREVER.com Ambassador Training (accessed May 18, 2024), https://www.training.forever.com/store
[7] “FOREVER Live! 2024,” FOREVER.com (accessed May 18, 2024), https://www.forever.com/events/forever-live-2024
[8] “Is there a sales quota for FOREVER® Ambassadors?,” FOREVER.com Support (accessed May 18, 2024 [updated “2 years ago”]), https://support.forever.com/hc/en-us/articles/215142548-Is-there-a-sales-quota-for-FOREVER-Ambassadors
[9] “Downline,” FOREVER.com Support (accessed May 18, 2024 [updated “2 years ago”]), https://support.forever.com/hc/en-us/articles/221072448-Downline
[10] FOREVER Ambassador Business Training, FOREVER (May 14, 2024), https://www.forever.com/app/users/ambassador-training/albums/02-forever-ambassador-business-training-booklet/qcg622q43zy6835w9ojq3wkw/files/f0bd2387-bb14-43a2-a46d-344a91470147
[11] “Events,” FOREVER.com (accessed May 18, 2024), https://www.forever.com/events
[12] “Real Median Personal Income in the United States,” Federal Reserve of St. Louis (accessed May 18, 2024), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
POST EDITS
A few formatting errors and a minor phrasing correction.

My wife and I (<30M, American) planned our first visit to Europe in spring 2020. 4 years deferred, the trip evolved from a barebudget experience to something closer to a second honeymoon. I don’t claim any special knowledge, I really just wanted to give back to this sub.
Total Budget: $8,000
Total Spend: $8,100
Day 1-3: Arrival and Beaune
We took the TGV to Dijon and arrived in Beaune via train at 14:00. It’s a fairytale fucking town. You are forced to downshift as you wander a warren of streets. The locals are justifiably proud of their wine and food and were generous in educating us on their culture. Burgundy’s distinctive roof tiles reinforced our sense of place.
-Highlights: Cycling Beaune-Pommard- Volnay-Mersault, Hotel Dieu/Hospices de Beaune, escargots and wine.
Best Food: A grand dinner at the cellar of Le Conty, a quiet table at Le Bistro des Cocottes.
-Additional Comment: We stayed at Hotel des Tonneliers and while the rooms were simple, the staff was so lovely and this was our favorite stay in France. The conti-brekky in the courtyard was pleasant and convenient.
Day 4: Travel, Fontenay Abbey, Guedelon Castle
Our second leg was the Loire Valley so we rented a car and stopped at some remote sites in transit. Fontenay was serene but Guedelon was a surprise highlight of the entire trip. The artisans work openly and the half-finished castle is surrounded by a village of tourist-friendly but not tacky canteens and gift shops. We enjoyed seeing ordinary French families at play.
-Highlights: Guedelon (castle and food on site), driving manual transmission in rural Burgundy.
-Best Food: Seasonal offerings and local hard cider at the Guedelon canteen
-Additional Comments: I’m American and had only driven stickshift for an extended period once before. If you have any previous experience, I recommend eschewing automatic transmission for the fun of it.
Day 5-6: Amboise and Chateaux of the Loire Valley
While Burgundy felt ancient and impressive, the Loire Valley was graceful and romantic. Willows crowd the river and flowers poured from window boxes. The renaissance chateaux are a powerful reminder of the wealth of the aristocracy and the government extends place the estates in their proper historical context. Sites actively engage children with scavenger hunts and augmented reality exhibits.
-Highlights: Hot air ballooning over Chenonceau, the grand chateau at Chambord, drinks on the Ile d’Or facing Amboise castle, crowd of rowdy regulars at Art is Ale Brewery.
-Best Food: Michelin starred lunch at L’Orangerie, intimate but thoughtful tasting menu at the patio of L’Alliance, Le Shaker bar.
-Additional Comments: We stayed at Chateau du Pray, which was grand but a 2km drive from Amboise. In hindsight, we preferred humbler digs closer to town because we were rarely in our room.
Day 7-8: Paris, Rue Cler
Emerging from the metro and onto the streets of Paris is a singular experience. The pedestrian zone on Rue Cler was perfect for an introductory stroll but we quickly branched out using the excellent and cheap public transport system.
-Highlights: L’Orangerie (we were most impressed by the Robert Ryman exposition), Napoleon’s Tomb, Saint-Chapelle in the rain, the metro.
-Best Food: Warm hospitality at Comice, sandwiches from any given boulangerie, apertifs (Lilet Blanc is my fav)
Day 9-10: Paris, Le Marais
This was our favorite neighborhood. Le Marais is near (practically) everything, feels like an authentic community and has excellent restaurants. We cancelled a planned trip to Versailles because we were greedy for more time here.
-Highlights: Picasso Museum, people watching, drinking on the banks of the Seine with college students at sunset
-Best Food: Stunningly generous hospitality at La Bourse et La Vie, oysters with cognac vinegar at Huiterie Régis, random falafel
-Additional Comments: I enjoyed running the neighborhood in the early morning and watching it all come to life.
Day 11: Travel Praise be to Xanax.
General Thoughts
-Stereotypes about the French are so outdated. Everyone, especially in the countryside, was gracious
-DO learn basic phrases in French. The French are gracious hosts and I felt that the respect demonstrated by attempting the language is reciprocated
-DO ask questions. I asked our waiter about “Eau de Vie” and after disappearing, he returned with three bottles, a generous free tasting and stories about his grandfather’s still in the countryside. I left the restaurant educated and happily drunk. In another situation, I asked a vintner if he had any older bottles off-menu following a tasting and he revealed a small but venerable stock that were for sale but too few to advertise
-DO make reservations, especially in small towns. I avoided it from fear of speaking French on the phone and executed a mad scramble to secure our tables at the start of the trip
-DO eat late. The tourists seem to clear out of restaurants by 21:00 and we enjoyed listening to the buzz of French voices when we dined on their schedule
-DO wake up early, at least sometimes. Provincial streets are so dreamy at dawn
-DON’T go to Montmartre. Obviously my opinion but it was aggressively touristy, full of hustlers and I’m no prude but fuck, there were a lot of cheap sex shops
-DO change your plans as you go. You can rebook train tickets for a modest fee or rebook hotels with reasonable notice. Be open to discovery
-DO use public transport whenever possible
-DON’T expect anything from speaking Spanish or Portuguese. This may be different in the Southwest but in the places I visited, neither of these were viable bridge languages when my French failed me
-DO check wine in your bag home

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.

If a sentence contains two clauses separated by a semicolon, but the first clause ends with a phrase that is demarcated by em dashes, then should both both be included, as in:
Tom needed to buy a new suitcase—as he had for some time—; however, he was otherwise ready for the trip.
Alternatively, does the dash supercede the semicolon as it would a comma, or does the semicolon close out the phrase effectively without the need for a second dash—as would be the case for a period?
Personally, I'm leaning towards the third option, but I'd love to hear what y'all think.
Edit: I figured it out. I just needed to go read works from earlier writers who were far more fond of the em dash. The third option was indeed the correct one—a semicolon will supercede a closing em dash, causing it to be dropped. Here are some examples I found:
Dickens, David Copperfield, Chapter 1 They went into the parlour my mother had come from, the fire in the best room on the other side of the passage not being lighted—not having been lighted, indeed, since my father’s funeral; and when they were both seated, and Miss Betsey said nothing, my mother, after vainly trying to restrain herself, began to cry.
Twain, Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Chapter 1 Neither boy spoke. If one moved, the other moved—but only sidewise, in a circle; they kept face to face and eye to eye all the time.
Fitzgerald, Great Gatsby, Chapter 1 Most of the confidences were unsought—frequently I have feigned sleep, preoccupation, or a hostile levity when I realized by some unmistakable sign that an intimate revelation was quivering on the horizon; for the intimate revelations of young men, or at least the terms in which they express them, are usually plagiaristic and marred by obvious suppressions.

Suspect 01 - Jack Walten

• Jack Walten has been shown with his face blurred, smiling. When "Bon" first appears in TWF4, he appears in a similar way - with his face blurred, smiling.
• Jack Walten wears a suit and tie - similar to "Bon".
• On the original FindJackWalten page (which can be found through (missing0611) shows Jack with his face distorted and upside-down. When "Bon" possesses his vessel before murdering Susan, his face is also distorted and upside-down.
• At the end of Company Introductory Tape, we see Jack with a white background and his head leaning to one side. This is similar to "Bon" when he first appears, in Wonderland (a white background) and his head leaning to one side.
• Jack Walten was the first disappearance at Bon's Burgers; on June 11th, followed by "The First" (Susan Woodings) on June 30th, then Charles Brook (July 14th) and, finally, Rose's (July 19th).
• In Little Bon's Neighbourhood, the tape glitches out to show Jack Walten's face. The background turns black, leaving only Jack and Little Bon in the corner.
• In CyberFun Tech, before Susan Woodings is murdered, she glances over a portrait of Jack Walten, which is hung next to a cartoon artwork of Bon.

Suspect 02 - Jason Pooltrick

• "Bon" has confirmed himself that he used to be a spirit. This means that whoever "Bon" is must have died before June 1974. This could be more evidence for Jack Walten - however may also lead to evidence for Jason Pooltrick. (Jason Pooltrick died during 1952.)
• On FindJackWalten, an image featuring a man in a white suit and black tie, with text reading: "The Future Is Now!" repeatedly continued to appear and corrupt the pages. This character closely resembles "Bon" who looks identical to this mystery figure. However, the phrase "The Future Is Now!" may relate to Jason Pooltrick - the founder of CyberFun Tech, who uses the phrase as their slogan.

Suspect 03 - Felix Kranken

• Felix Kranken would be trying to cover up the crash; and it so happens that each of Bon's targets knew about the crash in some way. Jack Walten and Rosemary both knew that he was drunk and therefore hated him, Susan Woodings and Charles Brook both knew that the story was fake, and Sophie was the sister to both Edward and Molly Walten.
• Felix Kranken also wears a tie and suit, similar to that of "Bon".

Suspect 04 - New Character

• When he appears in Wonderland, "Bon" has a broken nose and a bullet hole through his head. This tells us that he died after being shot through the head - and it just so happens that Martin Walls has stated that Jack Walten is a good shot - "He would shoot around him, because, um, Jack is a really good shooter, more on that in Episode 5."

Conclusion

• Disproving Jason Pooltrick: On a previous version of FindJackWalten.com/CyberFunTech82, it was stated that Jason Pooltrick had died in 1952 after having heart problems, to which he passed the company down to his son. Comparing the wounds of "Bon" to Jason Pooltrick's cause of death does not line up, possibly disproving the theory.
• Disproving Felix Kranken: Although their appearance is similar, "Bon" wears a suit and a white tie, however Felix Kranken is shown to wear a blue suit and a red, flower-printed tie. After listening to the song 'Slowly' it has been proven that Felix Kranken is the mysterious Shadow Man - and, during CyberFun Tech, we see "Bon" in Wonderland at the same time as we see the Shadow Man walking through the Backstage room, past Susan's corpse.
• Disproving Jack Walten: Although Jack Walten has been shown to be related to Bon, a popular theory states that Jack Walten may only partially controlling Bon. We have previously seen Jack's spirit haunting the several tapes and webpages, possibly confirming that Jack Walten is, in fact, deceased. However, we do not know where his body is being hidden - one of the most probable candidates being inside of Bon. This creates a possible ending to the series, having Jack Walten overpower Bon to finally end the tragedy. Another possible piece of evidence for Jack Walten is that, whilst "Bon" does have a bullet hole in his head, Jack Walten may have shot himself. Looking at the Faces Of Grief: Promo could disprove this, as Jack Walten does not seem to be thinking of committing su*cide, however this could also be disproven as it has been stated that Jack would hide his vulnerability and worries from others. To disprove the theory that Jack Walten is the identity of Bon, we can see that killing "Bon" was a struggle - shown by the broken nose and beaten and bruised face around his wounds.
• Proving A New Character: As previously stated, "Bon" has a gunshot wound through his head. This effectively narrows our characters down to either Jack Walten or a new character. However, as stated before, it is unlikely that Jack Walten shot himself to become Bon - leaving us with one final outcome: that "Bon" is a completely new character. It is possible that Felix Kranken and Bon made a deal even before Bon's death, creating a list of targets for their plan - Jack Walten; as he could stop their plan using his skills, and he hated Felix, Susan Woodings and Charles Brook; as they knew that Felix was lying, and Rosemary Walten; as she was Jack Walten's wife and also hated Felix. Following this, their plan failed as Jack Walten shot Bon through the head, which led to Bon's possessing. However, this is just a theory, and has technically not been proven or disproven.