#Since humans aren't dedicated carnivores | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bonefall · 7 months

Note

Thinking about that one post about the 5000 year old teenager girl found buried with her collection of 180 sheep ankle bones but specifically the addition of how ankle bones were used as dice back then and she was a gamer.. what I'm getting at is: would clan cats make bone dice and Are They Gaming

First let me teach you a little bit about Knucklebones: The Game.

You probably know one of its variants better as Jacks, that game you play with a rubber ball and little metal spikes. There's a version of Knucklebones in nearly every culture, where the basic idea is to throw an object up in the air, pick up as many of the smaller objects as possible, and then catch the larger object before it hits the ground.

In cultures with a lot of access to livestock, usually the hand and ankle bones of sheep would be used. Places that don't have them might use rocks, seeds, shells, whatever. It was Ancient Greece that had such an extreme take on the game that it eventually evolved into dice-throwing-- a totally chance-based game where you would just throw the biggest foot bone of a sheep (the astralagus; equivalent to the talus in a human) and see how they landed.

So the girl they uncovered in Kazakhstan with the 180 sheep bones wasn't really buried "with dice," make sense? It's more like being buried with jacks. Central Asia is actually jam-packed with knucklebones-types games. Mongolian Shagai is recognized by UNESCO.

And it makes a TON of sense, because those regions are grasslands absolutely ideal for raising sheep.

SO. CLAN CATS.

There's two major considerations here;

ONE: The access to, and size of, sheep bones.

Clan cats don't kill sheep. TRIBE cats actually have access to sheep and kill one or two a year! I would actually like to give them a bunch of special uses for various parts of the sheep. I think the eagle-killing thing in canon is actually pretty ridiculous for several reasons

BUT THAT SAID, an astralagus is the size of a cat's paw.

[ID: A human holding an astralagus in the tips of its fingers.]

You'd need to play a different sort of game with this. It's more like a square softball to a cat than a little rubber ball.

Boar also have bones like this, though. A muntjac probably produces bones that are sized properly for a cat. Hares and rabbits are probably the BEST bet here though, which, somehow feels right. I'm not sure why, but WindClan seems like the gamerclan Clan that would think up these sorts of cute games.

Something about it fits their whole savvy culture, tunneling, emphasis on trade and invention pre-Heatherstar. ShadowClan and WindClan share a cultural value of innovation, but ShadowClan seems more... chemical and competitive.

Hard to explain it. ShadowClan invents flax retting and WindClan invents the drop spindle. There's overlap but it has a bit of a different flavor between them.

TWO: Range of motion

I've made BB!Cats have the same range of motion as the cats in canon, which is higher than a real cat. They're able to WEAVE, you can't do that without a basic pincher grasp. They're also able to mix herbs, wrap things up in leaves, and apply bandages.

I haven't actually given my reworked cats much more ability than they already had, I just codified rules based on what we already see.

But that said, they DO have less range of motion in their hands than humans. They have little thumbs and a better ability to grab, but can't twist their paws completely upwards. There's no way they can toss an object straight up, then catch it again.

So any games they do play would need to accommodate that. So far I've got Scratchstone, Teeterstrike, and an unnamed rhyme game. The bone game would need to look more like a game of marbles than jacks. Or, maybe more modified to accommodate swipes and strikes, somehow? Or a two-person game of catch?

Gotta think about it.

#Partner and I had a super cool food idea for the tribe where they make a sort of like... flavored bone lolly out of sheep bones #Called a Sucker #And they'd soak it in juice before leaving on a hunt and gauge how long they had been out based on the fading flavor of their sucker #And have a cool phrase like ''where have you been?? My sucker's gone bland you spanner''#And if they go into something dangerous like a cave or down a river #they actually leave their sucker behind #so if they run into danger and someone comes looking for them #they'd see their sucker unattended #The sucker would also get holes carved in it to feed a brightly colored string or something through it #So it's very bright and conspicuous #And you can tell what sucker belongs to whom based on how they bedazzled it #But I couldn't find anything on flavoring bones or replenishing their flavor #Since humans aren't dedicated carnivores #The string has the added value of making it easy to pull out if they accidentally swallow the bone #But it's all still wip #clan culture #bone babble

89 notes · View notes

hostess-of-horror · 2 years

Note

Ok, since you're doing character opinion bingo, how's about our friendly neighborhood non-gender specific human flesh consuming plant, Audrey II?

*deep inhale*

@snailstrailz, you have NO idea how happy I am now that I have an opportunity to blab about my favorite musical character!

More Down Below 👇

First off... Audrey II has a very special place in my heart. I am deeply in love with the Broadway musical and both movies (the original 60's film and the 80's iconic film).

Second, fun fact about me: I was the puppeteer for Audrey II in my high school's production of Little Shop of Horrors when I was a Senior! Absolutely loved being the role of a carnivorous monster! I still have one of the props given to me by the head counselor/director after the last performance.

And third... Allow me to obsessively ramble/rant about my precious blood-thirsty blorbo...

So many LSOH/musical fans on Tumblr are going to hate me for this, but I don't give a shit:

The original Broadway ending (everyone dies and Audrey II wins) is a much better ending than the theatrical one (Seymour destroys Audrey II, he and Audrey live happily ever after).

There's this sort of "moral superiority" amongst fans when it comes to the ending, where those who like the happy ending are "correct" and therefore "good people." Those who don't, like me, are nothing but terrible assholes. (Note: this does not apply to all LSOH fans, but it is a pretty popular opinion on Tumblr)

For me, seeing Audrey II successfully take over America and devour everyone in their path is satisfying, especially since I at one point was Audrey II. In a lot of ways, it reminds me of one of my favorite video games, Destroy All Humans. The entire premise of that game is to destroy all humans as an alien from outer space to achieve a higher goal. Sound familiar? I understand that people like happy endings, but sometimes happy endings don't give the overall story a great impact on the audience.

Yeah, yeah, I know there's a difference between the Broadway musical and the movie (the characters who died on stage are still living, while in the movie they don't come back), but my point still stands. Little Shop of Horrors is a horror-comedy, but it's also a tragedy about how desperation can lead to consumption, literally and figuratively, and how such acts of desperation can lead to even bigger problems - bigger than hula hoops!

Sometimes watching how humanity can be brought down to its knees and be completely destroyed brings a better message than just having the hero save the day in the end. Do all the characters deserve such an ending? No, of course not. But as much as we want to see Seymour and Audrey get the life they yearns for, I feel like Seymour's actions aren't exactly "fixable" or "forgivable." What I mean is: Seymour kinda brought all of this onto himself, and ultimately and eventually, Audrey. Even if he did have good intentions ("Hell is paved with good intentions" is a good quote to describe this). Remember, we are talking about an alien Venus flytrap that eats humans, not some run-of-the-mill romance-drama plot.

PLUS: on top of themes of desperation and hunger, it's a commentary on how a lot of Americans yearn for a better future and lifestyle but can't because of mental health/poverty/being trapped/lack of means to improve or provide themselves. Seymour agrees to feed Audrey II because he wants the girl and have a better life for both of them. This can easily be applied with situations like drug dealing, prostitution, con artistry, and other shady ways. Sure, Seymour does become famous and gets the girl, but at what cost? What he did to get to that point harmed everyone around him and eventually became his downfall. Giving Seymour the perfect happy ending kind of downplays that moral lesson.

And not to mention! The original ending where a bunch of Audrey IIs grow and attack all of America is beautifully crafted by the film developers! The artistry! The dedication! The editing! Everything about it is just so well made...

All of that... Just to be shat on and completely re-shot by critics and audience because they wanted a "happy ending."

Imagine having to go through hours, days, and months working on such a brilliant scene for a brilliant movie and then being told that everyone hates what you've worked so hard on.

That, on top of everything I've said here, is why Audrey II is my blorbo.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

#character bingo meme #character bingo #audrey ii #Audrey II #Little Shop of Horrors #lsoh #audrey II LSOH #musicals #horror musical

21 notes · View notes