Fortress of Perpetual Midnight

As you may have noticed, I made a tag and a database for my shorts.

Expanding on my comments on the first one, I'm not sure why I claimed that I would learn better, as that doesn't seem plausible. Also, I likely misremembered the character limit. In yuri shimai (which I've been rereading for other stuff), at least, it was far dinkier than 400. I may just end up posting all my comments on the Web and just say 「こちらではスペースが足りませんので、下のURLへどうぞ」 or some such.

Meanwhile, the fact that I've been using plurals should tell you that I've thought of another one, even if you can't access the database. I just thought I might make a spaghetti Western for the hell of it, and it happened to be in relation to the YuriHime Bumon that I thought up an actual story for that genre. (At this rate, I oughta call it "Project Ichijinsha Taishō" or something.) Of course, I've barely even seen any Westerns (probably less than the number of space Westerns), and I'd require a hell of a lot of research to make it historically accurate. This is also my only chance to use 19th-century firearms, so the ideas I can only use there bring more clutter to the plot.

Incidentally, it's interesting that Clint's famous line is not actually from a Western, just from a character who acts like he's in one. It doesn't seem to be listed on Wikiquote, but as you can see here, the line is completely changed in Japanese. Fortunately, I was planning on wording the official translations to convey my messages and to sound good, not to be exact translations of the English (or vice versa).

Also, it occurred to me that even Project AnthraXX has much more focus on male characters than anything published in YuriHime Comics (unless you count the one with the transsexual), so maybe that wouldn't be such a good place for it either. Maddie's Maids might work, but considering it takes place after the events of AnthraXX, there's no need to be thinking much on that anytime soon.

"Your lawyer?"

"His pastor."

( Frank discussion of sexuality )

Also, when I was looking up details for the post subject (as you can see, I couldn't find one of the names, so I kept it from the misquoted source), I happened to read a bunch of complaints about that episode on the site. People were outraged that NBC was willing to depict a fictional Christian sect as extremist fanatics. At least one registered user said that he was going to boycott the show because of it. In the 18th season, you're boycotting a show because of portrayal of guest charas in one episode? Is it so offensive to suggest that it's possible for self-proclaimed Christians to be zealots? (I guess that means that—just like the Holocaust—the Spanish Inquisition, the KKK, and so on are only myths.) But it's all right to have an episode where a Muslim guy beats an ADA within an inch of her life to prevent her from prosecuting the man who raped his sister?

I wouldn't be surprised if it's true that the Bible doesn't specifically state that you must kill those who sleep with Muslims. (Apparently the prophets didn't predict that part. I think Sean was actually talking about how adultery is against one of the Ten Commandments.) As far as I've heard, nor does it specifically say that you have to lynch black guys, or prevent gays from practicing their beliefs, or persecute any other innocents.

On that subject, I was surprised by this (coincidentally, also at NBC, since that was the first hit that seemed to have the more common wording). However, it sounds as if the people who are willing to admit that they're not on the only path are the more casual practitioners, not choir boys and ordained clergy.

When I first saw this, I assumed from the single star and the color scheme that he was drawing a comparison to other red republics, such as Union of Soviet Socialist and People's of China (in which case I'd point out that communism sounds good to me if it's what it takes to have freedom of religion), but it turns out that it's actually the California state flag. Now I don't see if he's actually saying anything, other than fact. Still, this did lead me to read a couple of other things that I had missed before on the same page (locally):

1. The First Amendment was quoted directly. Other than the fact that it's a crudely written run-on sentence, it brought to my attention the fact that I'm not clear on how the wording works. It says that "Congress shall" not do these things, but does that protect us from laws on regional levels, or regulations for individual institutions (like public schools) as well? Obviously, it should, but there are plenty of people who claim that we should always follow what the Constitution says, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

2. Good point. It's important to be able to see who the bigots are.

On the original topic again, I noticed something not quite accurate about Ms. Morishima's comments in her first Yuri-Yuri Kembunroku about YURICON, where she was excited thinking "if ○○ and ×× went to America, they could get married!?" or some such. The problem is that such a marriage would only be valid in the place where it's legalized. According to my research, the only place where they say it's valid globally is Canada, and I don't see what difference it makes, since it would be odd if a place where it was illegal would recognize marriages granted by some other country. Of course, the point is rather moot, since Ms. Morishima is (as usual) talking about yuri; fictional characters don't need real-life legal status. I can only assume that no First-World country will stop you from having ceremonies and vows, although some people there will grumble about them.

For some reason, the Waffen-SS of the Last Battalion were not a military group but an urban gang, and it was up to us Ninja Turtles to deal with them. The Hauptsturmführer's work was easy to identify, as there weren't many others running around with Broomhandle Mausers these days.† Oddly enough, Dok‡ wasn't actually doing anything evil, just researching at a local library.

†It had been replaced as a service pistol even by WWII, although some officers (such as him) still had personal ones. As the only confirmed Werwolfes are him and Ms. Rip-Van, we don't know anything about how they're spawned, so for all we know he may have been a soldier for decades before that. Interestingly enough, the powers they are seen to have seem to relate to firearms: Ms. Rip-Van's dancing musket ball and the Hauptsturmführer's ability to make two long-barreled Mausers look like one normal piece when holstered （笑）. (Speaking of extensible barrels, DM had to make a similar excuse so that typical slugthrower rifles (exemplified by the Czerka Adventurer) can double as BAW E-5 Droid Blaster Carbines due to the changes he's made to the plot.) Tangentially, I'm also amused by the fact that humans like Walter can chop up people with mono-wire, while vampires (there's one who shows up later on, not to spoil anything by saying where) can chop up skyscrapers. There's also the fact that Walter is a gunsmith, yet he fights exclusively with mono-wire. (I've thought of a logical reason for that, but that's ( a spoiler for Book 9. ))

Admittedly, there are Mauser variants chambered in modern calibers, so his work might not be identifiable by the ammo and brass left at the scene if he uses one of those. However, each firearm has a distinct pattern of marks that it leaves on each bullet from the rifling in the barrel. I think I may have heard that it's possible to determine the model as well, but I failed to find confirmation on that; still, they would be able to tell that all of the rounds came from the same two weapons, making it easier to link it to a specific person.

‡Since they're German, I assumed it was an abbreviation of the German word. I don't know whether they use such an affectionate term in German, but I don't imagine Hirano does either. (The dwarf is known as "Chef.") Using German words can lead to some odd things; this one is the same as an Ork word, and "Death Korps" is a bit of a false friend. . . .

As was the case with Spanish back when I thought I knew it, I'm planning also to publish official Japanese versions of my projects. (Of course, as I've noted here, my first one might be a bit heavy on the English even in the Japanese version.) I'm far from fluent, of course, but this way I can provide translations that are much truer to the author's intent than most. The expanded exposure this should provide would also give me a chance to come into contact with people who are fluent, which means I could have a chance to actually learn the language, and perhaps impose on someone to correct my work. (I think I'd have more trouble bothering to make the rest of the appropriate site bilingual to cater to these people.)

Another thing that I've pondered at times is that, since I'm going to have to learn to draw anyway, it would be really nifty if someday I could get one of my works published in my belovèd YuriHime S (not the main Comic YuriHime, as I don't imagine I'll ever manage to write works appropriately feminine or comedic for there—with Ms.? Natsuneko's work there, I might have hope, but it's nothing compared to Picard's, as I'll note later). If I did manage to achieve widespread popularity as noted above, they might let me do it cold turkey, but the more likely way is through the Ichijinsha Comic Taishō （「大正」ではなくて「大賞」） or other yomi-kiri (the comic equivalent of a pilot episode). The problem with that is that, as I've no doubt mentioned before, I don't think of many good one-shot ideas lately, as I'm so absorbed in crafting intricate webs of full-sized projects. (Even Project Cow Level, which was pre-planned to be a short, simple "practice" project, is expected to run to about one graphic novel's worth.)

And yet, oddly enough, I happened to think of an interesting one-shot idea yesterday. Although it relies on a lot of tropes, it has a major setting element that I haven't seen used for this before, and unlike some, the premise is distinctly yuri, not just a romance that happens to be between two ladies. (Oddly enough, the unusual setting for a yuri story may have caused me to have a dream last night about sleeping with a man (don't remember for sure). If so, at least I was the seme. . . .) Of course, as a short story, it doesn't have much to reveal without actually writing it, and I'd rather keep the good parts to myself just to avoid anyone else stealing them. (Yes, that's my delusions of grandeur talking again.)

If this somehow did come to pass, there's the problem that the format only allows 400 characters of commentary, much less than I'd normally use. I'd probably put most of it (and the official English translation) on the Web as a supplement to the published part, as Ms. Miyahara does. For the actual printed version, I'm thinking the essentials are along the lines of 「男で申し訳御座いません。いつか必ずレディーにもよろこんで頂けるまんがを描ける様になりますから、今は違った味でがまんして下さいませな。」 (although I haven't bothered to boot up Word to get a character count).

The "chigatta aji" bit overlaps with the question of how predisposed these Japanese folks will be to publishing stuff by some American git. I can't do much about that, but I might consider working in a more Japanese style than my own. For some reason, it seems to be coming out with a larger-than-usual proportion of pseudo-comical elements despite the fact that I don't have a sense of humor (perhaps to make up for the fact that romance is an alien concept to me), so it'll be an outlier in my portfolio in more ways than one (hey, more dovetailing with the post subject).

By the way, in the excessively megalomaniacal mōsō situation that I actually got to do a serial, Project AnthraXX seems at this point as if it would actually be palatable. Of course, it would be helluva Webcomic time in a quarterly mook. . . .

I've thrown together a bit of information about Choriopolis at the time of Project AnthraXX. (Maddie's Maids is planned to take place after this, so I'm thinking that HomeMaid may not have been founded yet.) Other than the presence of this area somewhere in the Midwest and numerous fictional companies and brands, the most ostensible difference with the real world is the occurrence of several cataclysms that have been identified as terrorist attacks and kept under wraps by agreement of international law enforcement. The Second Gunpowder Plot of 1897 is said to be the first of modern times, but the largest-scaled was probably the nuclear blast from Redwood City in 1981, resulting in the San Mateo Crater quarantine zone remaining to this day. Many of these incidents are characterized by surprisingly low numbers of casualties considering the degree of devastation. I'm not too sure whether readers will follow this difference, as the incidents are not too strongly linked to the plot, but at least I have a reason to mention them early in the story.

As you may have heard, the biggest earthquake in 40 years hit Illinois and Indiana yesterday morning. It scared the hell out of me, as it woke me up when I was heavily tranquilized, and I couldn't figure out what was going on. It did cross my mind that it might be an earthquake, but even when sober I don't remember ever having heard of an earthquake in the Midwest before. (The '02 one must have been when I was away at school or something.) Fortunately, I was heavily tranquilized, so I just fell back asleep and forgot about it until Mother mentioned it that evening. She says she was too sleepy to look at the clock, so she thought I had just gotten home from work and was running into furniture repeatedly. Her comment at the time was also about two letters off mine.

The article

My Score: 71.666...%

Apparently I'm better than average at guessing.

It was somewhat ironic that the two letters to the editor that were printed in the hard copy of the J&C for the 1st (the two at the bottom here) were both in praise of bigotry because Jesus says so (?). I decided to hurry up and type this one once I found out that they actually don't allow you to view articles for free after a week has passed (thus showing that my job isn't quite as pointless as I thought). This factor means that I have no way of looking up exactly the context of the latter letter, but the former provides much material for me.

( For reference purposes )

Admittedly, the writer is not hateful in any way, and in a way, this makes it even more disturbing. She believes that she is right, and that her policies are for the good of the people involved. She doesn't say anything about religion, instead citing that it's "unnatural" and that the solution is to develop new artificial drugs to make the "patients" natural again, and that it is the right way of the world to be horrified and devastated when someone you know turns out to be gay. However, her assertion that something outside the norm is unnatural makes it difficult for me to think that she believes in evolution, which narrows the field somewhat. (I just heard on TV a few hours ago that 39% of Americans surveyed claimed to be Creationists, and that was somewhat disconcerting to me.)

These beliefs that you are right based on faith are a sticky subject. By definition, you believe that your beliefs are correct, and in the case of many Christian denominations, that means you believe that anyone who disagrees is going to hell unless you save her. This means that it is only morally right to make other beliefs illegal. The remark about usurping the Constitution above is related to the popular opinion that the Founding Fathers only intended freedom of religion to include Christianity (despite many of them being Deists), a claim that is obviously impossible to prove either way at this point. Personally, I believe that rights apply to everyone except those who harm others, not just those who are believed to be harming others by certain people, and that if the letter of the Declaration and Constitution doesn't mean that (which I think it does), it should be amended so.

Another difficult question is the problem of how people come to have faith in the first place. By definition, it cannot be based on any physical evidence, which is also the argument against attempts to disprove religion. Consequently, the primary way people develop their beliefs is through what they experience, mostly through following what they're told by the people they respect during their developmental years. I'm not a scientist, so if I had been born one generation earlier on my father's side, I would probably be a Christian. My staunch atheism is based perhaps entirely on the fact that I was raised among people who relied on physical logic rather than spiritual things. This has of course been a problem ever since the first two religions encountered each other, so unsurprisingly, I don't have a solution for it just yet.

I also take issue with the assertion that an individual's coming out will always destroy those close to her. I can't see why this would be the case except if the kith and kin in question believe there is something wrong with it, which many do not. This thus ends up being another claim that other beliefs are wrong. I know I can't say much from personal experience, but in my narrow-diametered circle of acquaintances, I have seen half a dozen homes wrecked, including my own. In all but one case, this was because the straight man of the house had a different idea of fidelity than anyone else. (People weren't too straightforward about the exception, but I gather that it was already a same-sex couple.) I think that denying and suppressing what one is only leads to things getting worse, as I imagine is much of the problem with all those Catholic priests and Ms. Winfrey's school in South Africa.

As I've had in my notes for many moons and never gotten around to fleshing out into a post, it would really be nice if I could find a secular state somewhere to live. I know that wouldn't solve anyone else's problems, but at least I wouldn't have to deal with them. That's my answer to most of life, after all.

On a somewhat darker (or at least neutral) note, Ms. mizuno_youko just posted an interesting link.

Apparently the part that I forgot was about his claim that mushrooms did not affect whether or not I could break blocks. He's a young whippersnapper with no respect for the old ways, after all. The night after that was about Lord Carnarvon (or perhaps Indiana Jones) suffering the Curse of King Tut, as well as something about TRANSFORMERS.

I never pictured the oft-married Tudor King as looking like the Hulk.

I'm too lazy to italicize them as is proper, so I'll use that for the ones I've seen to differentiate them from the title bar. I'm sure you can guess how this works as easily as I did.

Best Picture Winners:
1928—Wings/Sunrise
1929—The Broadway Melody
1930—All Quiet on the Western Front
1931—Cimarron
1932—Grand Hotel
1933—Cavalcade
1934—It Happened One Night
1935—Mutiny on the Bounty
1936—The Great Ziegfield
1937—The Life of Emile Zola
1938—You Can't Take It with You
1939—Gone with The Wind
1940—Rebecca
1941—How Green Was My Valley
1942—Mrs. Miniver
1943—Casablanca
1944—Going My Way
1945—The Lost Weekend
1946—The Best Years of Our Lives
1947—A Gentleman's Agreement
1948—Hamlet
1949—All the King's Men
1950—All about Eve
1951—An American in Paris
1952—The Greatest Show on Earth
1953—From Here to Eternity
1954—On the Waterfront
1955—Marty
1956—The King and I
1957—Bridge on the River Kwai
1958—Gigi
1959—Ben Hur
1960—The Apartment
1961—West Side Story
1962—Lawrence of Arabia
1963—Tom Jones
1964—My Fair Lady
1965—The Sound of Music
1966—A Man for All Seasons
1967—In the Heat of the Night
1968—Oliver
1969—Midnight Cowboy
1970—Patton
1971—The French Connection
1972—The Godfather
1973—The Sting
1974—The Godfather Part 2
1975—One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
1976—Rocky
1977—Annie Hall
1978—The Deer Hunter
1979—Kramer vs. Kramer
1980—Ordinary People
1981—Chariots of Fire
1982—Gandhi
1983—Terms of Endearment
1984—Amadeus (a good proportion, but audio only to avoid having to get another actor to play the freighter captain)
1985—Out of Africa
1986—Platoon (×2)
1987—The Last Emperor
1988—Rain Man
1989—Driving Miss Daisy
1990—Dances with Wolves
1991—Silence of the Lambs
1992—Unforgiven
1993—Schindler's List
1994—Forrest Gump
1995—Braveheart
1996—The English Patient
1997—Titanic
1998—Shakespeare in Love
1999—American Beauty
2000—Gladiator (×!)
2001—A Beautiful Mind (×2)
2002—Chicago
2003—Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (×3)
2004—Million Dollar Baby
2005—Crash
2006—The Departed
2007—No Country for Old Men

Total: 10/81 (altered from 79 because there are supposedly 80 of them, and one had two awards that were later rolled into one)

Incidentally, the two oldest movies that I've seen in full (as far as I know) were also nominees for '39. I'm sure you can guess which those were.

I decided not to post this one once I found that all the prospects were (unsurprisingly) men, but I changed my mind when I saw that I get to complain about his phallic adjective. For the rest, I just ignored the masculine pronouns.