crazy-pages:

The Friendly Necromancer - Chapter 1 - Sengachi - Pocket Monsters | Pokemon - All Media Types [Archive of Our Own]

An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works

archiveofourown.org

The Friendly Necromancer

-A Pokemon Fanfiction

Banette is a pokemon that exists to give meaning to abandoned and discarded things. Typically they do this by possessing abandoned dolls when they evolve from their first form Shuppet. But when an ill-treated boy dies alone a friendly Shuppet he named Diya takes it upon itself to give his life meaning. Diya possesses and revives his body, becoming a Banette, and sets out to make the boy’s dream of becoming a pokemon trainer come true.

Along the way Diya makes friends, fights some pokemon, finds a deep and abiding love of scarves, blurs the line between living and dead, accidentally becomes a necromancer, and to everyone’s surprise even finds the time to accomplish its original goal and catch a pokemon or three.

[This lovely fanart is by Large_Egg, posted on their account here. Go give them a comment if you like it.]

Keep reading

Also, here’s some inside-book-cover reviews comments, if you want something other than just the author’s word to recommend this.

Sengachi writes death and life’s little everyday events with equal reverence. -Guile

I really hope this story takes off cause I’ve never read anything like it and by God do I want to keep reading it. -Tech Priest Gemm

This story is magical. The first chapter made me cry like a waterfall but Diya is so optimistic and happy about the world I cant help but feel the same. -Bloodalchemy

I love this chapter, not only because of the joy and wonder as Diya explores this world through a new perspective, but also, on a sort of meta level, how it mirrors starting up a new game and immersing yourself in that world feels. There’s the same kind of curiosity and wonder … I probably felt something a lot like that when I first played pokemon Diamond! -polaris_writes

blackwoolncrown:

theconcealedweapon:

fem-fatalist:

ralfmaximus:

huffylemon:

Years ago I overheard (eavesdropped upon) a telephone conversation between a public parks official and a golf course owner.

Parks Official: No sir, you cannot

Parks Official: No. They are a protected species

Parks Official: You CANNOT shoot them

Parks Official: Or poison them, no. Or trap them

Parks Official: If you like, we can– no, I’m it. I’m the ranking official here. There’s nobody above me. My boss? You mean… the governor’s office? Sure, I guess. Okay bye

After he hung up, he gave me this thousand-yard stare before answering my unvoiced question.

“There’s a flock of flamingos at the 9th green disrupting golfers. He wanted permission to go out there with a shotgun and take care of matters, but sensed there might be… legal ramifications. So he called us.”

I laughed. “Does that happen often?”

“Oh, we get calls like that a couple times a month.”

Country clubs should be burned to the ground and their golf courses turned into community gardens i am 10000% serious

Was golf created for the sole purpose of hoarding ridiculously large amounts of land just to brag about how little they use it?

Yes, literally.

theconcealedweapon:

animatedamerican:

supervillainny:

animatedamerican:

irresponsibleeyouth:

The trick is to not let people know how really weird you are until it’s too late for them to back out.

Absolutely the frak not, the trick is to immediately let people know how weird you are so you scare off the weak ones. The ones who stay because they like how weird you are? Those are the ones you want.

Post 1: workplace

Post 2: everywhere else

… you know what, codicil accepted

unpretty:

the fact that i can’t listen to audiobooks in my sleep is a design flaw and the cause of many problems

not-mariahcarey:

hyperbali:

hyperbali:

hyperbali:

I kept the error message for posterity lol

So far this seems to mean “every tweet you scroll past counts as reading it” so it means that the entire thing is breaking down for you within minutes

Phony Stark literally strangling it to death

Oh this’d do it

cwicseolfor:

aleshakills:

Like, I believe that we do need to fundamentally dismantle our understanding of ‘laziness’ on a cultural, structural, systemic level. I think the very concept of 'lazy’ as we know it is inherently damaging and causes so much needless grief and suffering.

But also.

Would it really be that bad if some people were just lazy?

Laziness Does Not Exist is a really good read.

Look I’m a firm believer in the principle that any system which cannot handle assholes and fools is a doomed system. If I hear someone telling me that in their utopian vision of humanity, no one will have reason to be a narcissistic abuser and no one trusted with managing something important will make stupid decisions, I see red flags and hear alarm bells. No one has ever figured out how to do humanity without assholes and fools and if your idea for a perfect future involves not having them rather than dealing with them, hoooooooo, I do not trust you with the future. And the same thing kind of applies to laziness, in that some people are always going to be assholes who are willing to socially pressure and coerce others into managing their lives for them. I think you can reduce it, mitigate the impact, recontextualize your understanding of why people are “lazy”, etc, but ultimately some people are going to be malevolently slothful.

But.

One way to “deal” with that is to just … let it happen. I’ve rarely seen a proposed method of social coercion to counter laziness that a) actually works, b) isn’t just combating “laziness”, i.e. a desire to not be exploited, c) isn’t just racism/classicism/etc., and d) doesn’t make things frankly worse for everyone than absorbing the dead weight would. Especially disabled people, caretakers, people in recovery periods, etc. Holy fucking shit do most anti-laziness ideas beat the fucking shit out of the people who need help the most.

We can just say “Yeah, some people are gonna be malevolently lazy, but I do not trust us to make that judgement and it’s not helpful to do so anyway.” That is a complete sentence.

mallsharks:

copepods:

coworker told me he “hates all mollusks” today. and to each their own obviously but like… theres 100k species of mollusk… you really hate all of them bro? nautiluses and oysters and snails and nudibranches and chitons and thousands of animals youve never even heard of???? what did ammonites even fucking do to you

he hates sea bunny?

AND leaf sheep??

headspace-hotel:

sirfrogsworth:

Is anyone else just… exhausted?

Everyone living in the USA needs to inform themselves about “crisis pregnancy centers.” They’re not legitimate medical facilities and typically only have a nurse on staff, if even that.

“Crisis pregnancy centers” are UNREGULATED organizations that present themselves like medical facilities and often offer medical advice and information, but they are staffed by volunteers many of whom are not medical professionals, typically funded by churches and pro-life orgs, and exist to convince people not to have abortions. They often give “patients” misinformation and lies about abortion, contraception, and pregnancy.

These organizations often take the place of legitimate medical facilities particularly in impoverished areas despite being essentially fake medical clinics that offer few services and that are not bound to ethical or sanitary guidelines of real clinics.

A “crisis pregnancy center” in Kentucky was recently in the news because a nurse who volunteered there found that trans-vaginal ultrasound probes were being sanitized using disinfectant that was both expired and totally ineffective against HPV, a common sexually transmitted infection, meaning the clinic could have given their clients STIs with their shitty unregulated sanitation practices.

My MOM visited one of these “centers” when she was pregnant with me (a planned and wanted pregnancy) because she didn’t know it was fake and unregulated!

People deserve real healthcare, not lies, randos dressed up in white coats, and disease-spreading, unsterilized equipment like it’s the 1700s.

yardsards:

drtanner-sfw:

solarcat:

ineptshieldmaid:

magickedteacup:

curlicuecal:

deathcomes4u:

greenjudy:

joebidenfanclub:

it seems so strange to me that the only people it is socially acceptable to live with (once you reach a certain stage in life) are sexual partners? like why can’t i live with my best friend? why can’t i raise a child with them? why do i need to have sex with someone in order to live with them? why do we put certain relationships on a pedestal? why don’t we value non-sexual relationships enough? why do life partners always have to be sexual partners?

My grandmother and grandfather more or less adopted my grandmother’s best friend back in the 50s. After my grandfather died (before I was born, back in 1968 or so) they continued to keep house together, platonic best friends, and they hung together until they died, a few months apart, in 2007.

It’s quite recently, as far as I can tell, that living arrangements like that have stopped being regarded as normal.

It’s absolutely a new thing to find this stuff weird, and it has a lot to do with media pretending that the nuclear family and marriage are the only reasons to live with other people.

I’ve lived in a 3 adult household my whole life. My parents and their best friend. This was never weird to me, even though everyone my age thought it was because the media never portrayed these kinds of housing arrangements. As far as i was concerned, I just had an extra non-blood parent.

According to my parents, it was very common in the 70′s-80′s to buy houses with your friends, because it was financially smart to do so (so long as you were certain they were close friends who wouldn’t fall out with you and fuck everything up). Houses and house payments are much more manageable when you split the bills 3-4 ways instead of just two.

Millenials aren’t the first to think it’s a great idea to just shack up with friends. That’s housemating without the hastle of living with strangers. It’s still a good idea to shack up with people you’ve known a long time so you know how you’ll get on living together, but still. In the current economy, it’s pretty much now our only option for affording anything.

I think, and I’m not researched on this, but I think conservatives probably tried to suppress images of non-nuclear families because they likely thought it would encourage ideas of polygamy, polyamory, open sexual relationships with or without marriage, as well as other relationship types they thought of as un-christian or unsavoury. I could be wrong, but that shit wouldn’t surprise me.

(And i want to make a note that there’s also a disturbing amount of asexual denial around that makes people go ‘if they’re living together they HAVE to be banging because why wouldn’t they?’ and that shit both creeps me out and annoys me no end. People can be in relationships without sex. People can live together without sex. Sex is not the be-all and end-all and people being taught to think it is really need to stop).

Don’t let the media fool you into believing you can only live with a sexual partner or blood family. Someone somewhere has an agenda for making these seem abnormal, when really it’s just practical.

A lot of people acted like it was super weird when two of my brothers decided to move states with me when I started my postdoc. I got really used to giving a little canned speech about it because it seemed to bewilder people so much. (Their leases happened to be up! We could share rent! They wanted to try somewhere new!)

The notable exception was my grandma, who was just like, “oh, yes, when we were young my sister and I decided to move cross-country together and it was lovely.”

More of this kind of thing for everyone, pls.

The implication that close sibling relationships must also be a warning sign for incest also peeves me off; what kind of society are we living in anyway

#my mom’s a historian#does a lot of research#one of the main takeaways from the census data of literally every US census since the beginning#is that the nuclear family has never been the actual norm#nobody really ever lived like that#and a lot don’t now#and it’s clearly artificial and not ideal for most people#every household in the census had at least a grandma#usually a cousin#some rando#someone living in the house who wasn’t mom or dad or kid#always someone#usually several someones#some uncles etc.#unmarried aunties#that sort of person#but often unrelated friends#we’ve never really lived alone#that’s not how families work#that’s not how humans work  

tags by @bomberqueen17

Having a multi-adult household unit also just makes a shit-ton of sense, tbh. Much easier to split not only the bills, but also the housework and child-rearing responsibilities. Communal living ftw.

It’s also super a capitalism thing.

With only two working-age people in the house, it’s very difficult to make ends meet without one of them (or increasingly, these days, both of them) working away the vast majority of their waking hours to earn enough money to support the household. The other person, if they aren’t also working similar hours, is there to support that working person, full time, with unpaid labour.

The end result of this is that nobody has any time or energy to spend together properly, and they just end up tired and miserable and shackled to their work, throwing money at their problems because it’s all they can do. It’s very easy to convince tired, miserable people to spend their money in the ways you want them to, and it’s also very easy to manipulate and oppress people who don’t have the energy or the means to fight for their rights. Convince a whole nation that this is the way the world is supposed to work, and you’ll be well away.

Death to the cancerous myth of the nuclear family.

this is exactly the type of thing us aros and aces are referring to when we talk about amatonormativity