#‘ppl who play the en version don’t even know that-‘ YES I DO!!! IT JUST DIDNT NEED TO BE SPELLED OUT FOR ME!!!

[poppyseed-cookie]

Does anyone know any better places to get translations of the original korean version than crk-kr-to-en like I really appreciate all the work they put in I’d just like to see translations without miles of complaints 😭

[fursasaida]

this is totes random sorry pls feel free to ignore but is there a 'STATE' that's completely independent from like elected government, heads of state, partisan politics etc.. like what's this state that some ppl talk abt that doesn't include the elected president? e.g."korea and france have greater deference to state." is there polisci literature/concept on this? what is this STATE that doesn't include the president or CDC head nominated by said president? im sorry im just so ignorant of polisci

This is not at all an ignorant question! This is a huge issue people argue about--maybe less in poli sci than in other social sciences, because poli sci has gone so completely up its own quantitative ass that it has abandoned what should be its obvious theoretical domain and so other disciplines have kind of taken over this kind of question. There are full professors who cannot answer this question (I know because some of them are on my listservs).

So: what is the state. Seriously, really, there is no one widely accepted answer to this. So I’ll go through a few of them under the cut for you. This ended up being really long because it’s something I’ve been thinking about lately, so the simplest, shortest answer to your question is the first one.

1. Institutions

In this view, “the state” means the institutions and bureaucracy that stay on when political leadership changes. The political leadership is called either “the regime” when we want to imply it’s evil or “the administration” or “the government” when we don’t. (I think this terminology is silly and “the regime” should mean the whole arrangement plus some other things--as in a regime of power--without negative or positive implications, but I don’t make the rules.)

Obviously these two things are not firewalled apart. Elected officials can alter the state through policy and/or direct reforms (creating, merging, or eliminating existing state organizations), and the existing state can constrain what elected officials can do through anything from ethics laws to bureaucratic foot-dragging. (In the US context, when we talk about “political appointees,” we mean high-level officials in “the state” that get appointed by elected leaders, but they take over organizations generally staffed by people who have come up through the bureaucracy and are supposed to be “apolitical,” i.e. just there to do a technical/bureaucratic job. So that’s another way that the two blur.) A great example of this would be what happened with the US’s Syria policy under Trump. Trump (”the administration”) wanted to pull out of Syria. The Pentagon, The State Department, various diplomatic branches, etc. (”the state”) did not. The state succeeded in putting him off executing his desired policy for years, even though as the Commander In Chief Trump in theory had really extensive authority to do whatever he wanted. Eventually he exercised that authority and state officials found themselves scrambling madly to try and salvage something of their preferred policy, which is how the US military ended up with this ridiculous non-presence in NE Syria. Another example would be the attempt to take down the USPS.

That’s why partisan politics and elected leaders are excluded from “the state” in this view; “the state” forms the organizational containers that those movements and individuals fill, and the structures they seek to act on or act from. You can think of it like the ground they stand on. This doesn’t have to mean it is itself “apolitical,” since the terrain has implications for everyone standing on it, but it is the object or delivery channel of politics, not politics itself. (Again I don’t agree with this, but it’s what you’re seeing reflected in the discourse you’re talking about.)

When people go on about “the deep state” they’re espousing a conspiratorial version of this view, where they think the ~real behind-the-scenes power lies in these institutions and the long-term bureaucrats who (sometimes) staff and run them. Definitely some power does lie there, but the conspiracists overweigh this into an Elders of Zion type thing.

2. A sovereign entity.

This is more about distinguishing states from other kinds of political entities, and as a result it’s less concerned with fine distinctions about what is and isn’t “political.” The idea is that there are lots of political structures and systems in the world (anything from tribal law to international associations like NATO) but not all of them are states. States are distinguished from other things by virtue of sovereignty. The classic definition (from Max Weber) of sovereignty is “a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a clearly bounded territory.” In other words, a state’s police, military, national guard, security forces, etc. have a license to use violence within its borders that no one else has--anyone else engaging in violence is a criminal. It is these groups’ status as “agents of the state” that grants them this license. The bordered, yes/no territorial nature of this status--Turkish security forces have no mandate to act in Greece and vice versa--is also distinctive; fixed, defined, cartographic borders are not necessarily a given. In this view, all power and indeed all law is ultimately founded in violence (enforcement), so what matters is who/what can use force with impunity. (When the state’s monopoly on force is challenged in its territory--e.g., Hizballah making war on Israel without the Lebanese army, the original Zapatistas forming a breakaway region during the Mexican Civil War, or any occupation by a foreign force--then the state’s sovereignty is “weakened” or “under attack,” etc.)

Lots of people have criticized and elaborated on this definition. I don’t want to go on forever about all the critiques that exist, but basically in reality, sovereignty is not a yes/no binary where either you have it completely or you don’t have it at all. Things tend to be more mixed and blurry. It also has more dimensions: two important examples are 1) controlling and disposing of the territory itself (exploiting natural resources, moving people around, etc.), and 2) recognition. In many cases, the difference between a state and a non-state is whether other states recognize it as such, i.e. act like it is one. So for example, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus exercises sovereignty and has a state bureaucracy, elections, etc., but because it is not recognized by ~the international community~ it isn’t “a state.” (This isn’t just semantics; it may seem arbitrary when you just think about what goes on inside the TRNC, but when its citizens try to emigrate, for example, they encounter very specific, concrete problems on this basis--e.g., their passports will not be recognized as valid.)

I find this more useful personally, especially because it doesn’t assume a liberal democratic state--it can apply to a dictatorship or a monarchy or whatever you like. But in practice, i.e. how people use it, I still think this approach is frequently too worried about pinning down differences that aren’t always useful. On the one hand, I wrote my BA thesis about how Hamas and Hizballah aren’t states (it was common for a while to refer to them as “states within states”) while also not just being political parties, terrorist organizations, service providers, or any of the other things they get tagged with, precisely because of the way they relate to the Palestinian and Lebanese states. This is worth understanding because it helps explain their political projects and their successes. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s very helpful to go around arguing that, say, ISIS was a state (or state-like) and the Houthis are not because of some detail of how they think/thought about territory, or courts, or bureaucracy. Like what do you get out of making that distinction. If you want to argue that a tribal council somewhere is “the state” for its context I think that’s fine depending on what you’re trying to get at. It all depends on what kind of question you want to answer, and on what scale.

3. There’s no such thing.

This view recognizes that the state is a salad bowl full of different organizations, individuals, ideologies, etc. that do not actually all work in lockstep together or have the same goals. To talk about “the state” is to reinforce the fallacy of unified power and cooperation. Instead, we should recognize that actors within states have their own agendas, institutional cultures, power struggles, etc., and that whatever the state does is the outcome of 1) these internal dynamics, 2) the ability of different external actors (from citizens to foreign governments) to play on/appeal to/push back against different pieces of the state, and 3) the interactions of 1 and 2.

This to me is common sense. You just have to be careful not to take it too far. We can acknowledge that the state is internally differentiated/not any one single thing without going so far away from what most people understand about their worlds. There’s no point saying “there’s no such thing as a state” when people still have to pay taxes.

4. "The state effect,” or: there both is and is not any such thing

This idea, put forward by Tim Mitchell, is my favorite. It is also the subtlest, and a little tricky to explain, but I think it’s the most useful.

This view steps back and looks at all the endless, elaborate debates about every possible nicety of “stateness” and says: perhaps we are asking the wrong question here. Maybe it doesn’t matter what the state is. Maybe it matters what the state seems to be; how it seems to be that; and what “resources of power” are generated by these impressions.

This is the tricky explanation part, so bear with me for a few paragraphs.

Where exactly do we draw the line between “the state” and “civil society”? Are NGOs and nonprofits part of the state? What if they get government funding? Especially in a neoliberal context, when so much policymaking is done through contractors, consultants, tax breaks, etc., are these kinds of organizations not carrying out the state’s agenda, consciously or otherwise? Okay, that’s tough, let’s try something easier: individual people and families aren’t the state. But if a household depends on an income from state employment, does that not affect their politics and their actions in society? Is a person “part of the state” in one building and not in another? How do we account for the way off-duty cops behave, for example, then? You can do this same exercise for “the economy” or any of the other things that are supposedly separate things/domains that the state manages. How can, e.g., the American economy be separate from the state when the state prints and guarantees the currency, sets interest rates, enforces contracts, and generally sets the terms on which the economy can exist? (Going back to your original question, you could probably also do this same exercise re: political parties, or partisanship.)

The point here is not that absolutely everything is actually the state. The point is also not that there is no state. It’s that there are not firm lines. Amazon may be the state when it builds systems for the Pentagon even though it is also, clearly, a private company and not part of the state’s institutions or subject to the same kinds of political controls that state institutions are. Similarly, the state itself is not one smooth solid object (as in #3). But it seems obvious, common sense, that “the economy” is a thing, just as “public health” is a thing, etc., and both of these things are objects of state management/governance/power.

This makes it easy for political leadership to make claims on the basis of these other things as separate “objects.” I.e., “we need to take drastic action to save the economy.” So the impression of these divisions can be used to justify or legitimate state action. You can see this super clearly in the current coronavirus situation. How many times have we been told the US has to “reopen” for “the economy,” and how many times has it been pointed out that the government could just take its own economic measures to allow people to stay home--because “the economy” is not some separate object that works by itself. (I myself had to explain to a friend that the government couldn’t just switch the economy back on by “reopening.” I think we underestimate how powerful these conceptual divisions really are in people’s understanding of how the world works.)

So, therefore, “the state” is the effect of ideas and practices that make things that political leaders and institutions do seem like they form a freestanding, separate structure, a thing, that we call “the state.” It is the ensemble of all these pieces (as noted in #3), and said pieces often include things that are generally thought of as not the state; these lines between state/nonstate shift all the time. What matters is not where the line is at any given moment but what the particular configuration allows state power (including the consideration of force from #2 and the structural concerns from #1) to do.

The problem I have with this is that it doesn’t really account for state capacity very well, but that’s for another day because I haven’t figured it out via paper-writing yet.

[horrorfilmadddict]

Anyway, here I am really bothering you and not leaving you alone, aren’t I?

I wrote you this letter from the bottom of my heart. I hope you have the patience to read it, sorry it’s long. Anyway I hope you look back on this letter and know my intent was pure and with love. Tell you what I really feel. What my heart tells me.

Dear Sue,

I write you because hell, might as well put my thoughts to “paper”. No one knows about this page except you.

Sooooo when it comes to us, or just women, the way it goes after you get dumped or put down is

I shouldn’t care anymore, right?

I’m sorry for making you uncomfortable if you have moved on from me. It’s just you have to empathize with me. My heart was ripped out of me.

I wonder how you’re doing, do you miss me as much as I miss you. Do you still think about us, the butterflies, Do you still want me as your man, haha stupid questions I know. Ive been getting by with henny and romantic comedies haha but hey again the whole us blowing up was my fault. I do hope you’re doing ok mentally, spiritually, emotionally. Truly I do wish for your well being. I’m just relieved I didn’t break your heart, again, better me than you.

I miss my dream catcher, it hurt like hell giving it back and the Disney tickets. I didn’t do it to hurt you, just spare myself of seeing them and thinking of you. You once or maybe several times, told me you always think of me. And now You really do cross my mind a thousand times. But anywho I hope my t shirts get put to use btw not as cloth rags 😂😅, along with my hoodie. Better uses than my birthday gifts, little mike, red bag and all, pennywise, alll in the back of a car, hidden in shame or just not treated kindly in my opinion.

I feel what drove you to end us was me not paying attention to the anger issues. Me, making excuses would say, you should’ve sat me down and stressed the danger of pushing you away, causing you to do some fucked up shit. But I was dealt Karma. I am a hypocrite to complain, since I did the same to you but I hope the caring you will see what massive effect your decisions made.

I also see that you dealt with a lot of internal conflict, feeling like I’d only want to change when you’d be leaving. I didn’t mean to make it seem like you were stuck in a bad never ending circle, i did make it feel that way, nothing hurts more to see someone you love do that to you. Again another mistake on my part of not realizing you were leaving, hurtin due to that type of attitude and behavior that came from me.

You are such a big positive force in my life. You are. Which is why I made bucca a big deal, I know it was extremely unfair since it was my fault we couldn’t hang long but thinking back you probably didn’t say yes to being my girl because you already were someone else’s, that kills me, that’s why I felt so betrayed by you. I mean I was in shock, just thinking why would you do this to me, pretty traumatizing. I feel your emotionally unavailable stuff was all a fat lie. It’s killing me inside why you didn’t just sit me down like a human being and talk to me.

Nonetheless you’re a special beautiful woman that I love for her smile, her jokes, her dorkiness, ability to no matter what is going on, be worried about me, how I was doing, feeling, no matter what troubles you were going thru. One of my favorite things about you is your ability to sing, that truly melted me, the idea of riding in the car with you and singing, expressing ourselves through music. I really did drop the ball with you, I have to live with that, the reason why I’ll hold on to you for as long as I can is because of what you mean to me now. However I do know Eventually emotions fade and memories with them so eventually we will truly fade away. If you haven’t already.

But still this was out of left field. You are a sweet heart and I think you already know that. You’re ability to stand by ppl you love, obviously not me 😅but the way you stand by Ana as her support even if she doesn’t match your love for her, she does love you and I pray she does come around because man she’d take a fat L losing you, or with Emily, the way you spend quality time with her as your friend. Little things that have big meaning and are easily overlooked. But yet you find ways to make ppl feel special before yourself.

You are an amazing, beautiful woman and I mean it. The sooner you see it, the sooner it will help you feel like you should be happy to be who you are.

Ever since that day I have been at a loss for words. You’d probably say it’s dramatic but I’m living with a void in me. What happened? When did I lose you, I guess that’s the point of feelings huh, you don’t see them coming. I had no chance to fight for you this last time. In a way I hope the time away from me, really really clears your mind and heart so you can see if you really did love me, and maybe you have a good good explanation for yourself as to why you did what you did even though not two weeks before had you said “ i hope you still love me” “te amo”. You can lie to me. But not yourself. For me as much as it hurts to think of you not choosing me, that’s what happened. And if hes what you truly want, I can live with that.

I often think about all the times I’d ask you are you sure you still want this. And I break down mentally just trying to find out why you’d say yes but then play me. Don’t get me wrong It was a lot of work to work on us with me however I feel I was on the verge of getting that down, like I understand it was far from perfect but did I make you feel loved I wonder. Probably fucked up too much for you to say yes.

I was only about you whether I was upset or not. I thought I was mending all that tbh. Somewhere along the way your words really had me thinking I was loved like I never have been but your heart was wanting another at the same time. Haha I’m all worked up because of what I thought I meant in your eyes. It really was like hey you’re enough and I want this to work. And so I took ALL you said to me to heart. Which made the heartbreak that much more painful, I’m glad I didn’t do that to you because, the guilt would kill me, what I did with Daria and you still does. I still have the crying clip of you, after I left bby.

I wish you’d talk to me about it, I really do, for you to just show respect for what was there, for your words of I love you, cariño, Habibi, that you said to me. Honor their memory just give me true closure. I can leave you alone, never speak to you again. Drop off a map and disappear you’d literally never hear from me again if that’s what you really prefer. But if not and communicating was an option, I’d want to know where I lost you. If it makes you feel a tad better I feel once it sinks in that you are gone, and the emotions and memories fade, I will truly leave, disappear to become an insignificant memory by my own action just to give you peace, ya know. Do right by you for once.

But for as long as the emotions and memories last in your heart I’ll take pride and hope the sunflower really sticks, it’s a symbol, a memory. Every time the song comes out I do think about you, makes me wish I was miles and youd be my white girl, mi hermosa guerita. Sounds juvenile but I really was excited to teach you more Spanish for when you’d meet my family. How sweet, a thought. Those are priceless. Hope the song brings you positivity on your path. You’ll go far with make up and doing hair. I still think youd make a great YouTube horror movie channel host.

I do love you, make no mistake about that. I will for as long as that fire burns.

As cheesy as it is, you made me feel like the hero or the lucky guy who gets the girl like miles here. I believe in my heart I coulda done amazing by you, I know a version of me has to be out there In an alternate reality where my dumbass got things right, fuck this sucks, for me of course lmao 😂 you do seem to be doing fine and I’m thankful that you’re loved and still loving someone, it’s a special gift. Just make sure you never use I love you carelessly like with me.

If I had the chance to do it over again I would, never hurt you and let your love complete me, help me feel not alone.

Ps: the app shows my edit in a better way

You changed my life for the better by showing me what a woman is capable of, what you bring to those you love. But I’d be lying if I didn’t say my guard is fully up yet again and I’m afraid haha afraid to let anyone, ANYONE in. I thought I was safe with you...

You’re with me in my heart. lol kinda sounds like Tarzan huh

Well uhhh gtg 👋🏽

*g lock handshake

I really am sad and sorry we just ended the way we did, no talking, no hugs, no last kiss. I miss you Habibi, I do. You were my Disney princess. 🌻

Well with that long ass letter, I leave you here. Probably, it seems for good , soon I’ll delete my social media and I’ve already started looking for another job. So while my heart will be spoken for as long as it chooses you, I won’t be around anymore, too painful and this is the first time I’ve had my heart broken, like truly.

So,

Kenzy Sue Schumacher

ich liebe dich

Quizás en otra vida

Love,

Your cariño

Ps: Someone actually read the entire thing and liked it lol hashtags huh

[janiedean]

Idk if anyone already asked this but: what about ASOIAF/GOT characters and opera? Who are the experts, the casual fans, and the one who don't care but get dragged along anyway? Does anyone relate to a particular character? *cough* Is Tyrion the biggest Rigoletto fan? *cough* And/or, does any OTP relate to a particular opera pairing? :)

OKAY SORRY IT TOOK ME AGES BUT HERE I AM

(spoilers: you can find 80% of the following or will find it in my amazing opera singers au series)

lannisters & partners

tyrion is 100% an opera nerd and he identifies with rigoletto in frankly worrying ways - he’s like me with la traviata and cries at rigoletto’s first aria every single time and then at the ending PERIOD I DO NOT MAKE THE RULES but he also likes unconventional stuff ie russians/20th century germans (TYRION LOVES ALBAN BERG YOU CAN PRY THAT FROM MY DEAD HANDS)

bronn is the friends he drags with but the only character in any opera that he likes is sparafucile

cersei only listens to wagner because everything else is for the plebs and ofc her favorite is the valkyrie YES YOU KNOW THE ONE WITH THE TWINCEST she’s the biggest sieglinde stan

jaime likes it tho not as much as tyrion but he hates both dramas and wagner and tends to like comedies/stuff that ends well better and he and brienne meet bc tyrion set them up and sent them to see fidelio with his tickets and YOU KNOW THAT JAIME AND BRIENNE ARE 100% LEONORE AND FLORESTAN YOU DON’T CHANGE MY MIND ON THAT EVER IT’S THE MOST JB OPERA THAT EVER JB-ED

brienne also likes more the happy stuff than the sad stuff but yeah fidelio is Their Thing okay

tywin went because joanna liked it and then he stopped 

starks & partners

ned & cat are that couple of nerds who goes to the opera for their anniversary and likes just about most stuff except a few single things they find boring but not as much to argue about it. for themselves, cat tends to like those donizetti operas with sopranos who at some point 100% lose it, ned is more into verdi and probably would agree with tyrion on rigoletto because y’know, FATHERS RELATE

but they also wanted their kids to get into it so their family tradition is that all go to see the magic flute together bc it’s kid-friendly and it worked bc all the stark kids love it ;)

robb’s totally into the comedies and hates the dramas and not counting the magic flute which ofc he loves because IT WAS HIS FIRST his fave is 100% rossini’s cenerentola FOR REASONS

addendum to say that theon is the friend he dragged with and thought would be boring but instead loves it and ends up converting and theon’s favorite - bc he’s a nerd - is most likely le comte ory ie THE ROSSINI CRACK OPERA WITH THE THREESOME WHERE THE TENOR IS CROSSDRESSING AS A NUN AND THE MEZZOSOPRANO PLAYS THE GUY AND THE BASS SINGS AN ARIA ABOUT STEALING ALCOHOL

but their ship they see themselves into are carlo and rodrigo from don carlo because lmao IT’S THEM

(robb prob. also have a soft spot for la clemenza di tito bc he and tito are the same person but nvm)

jon’s like 100% into dramas ALL THE DRAMA ALL THE TIME his fave is 100% la forza del destino ie the most terribly dramatic telenovela in history of dramatic opera

(he introduced it to ygritte who ofc is instead into all the rossini comedies with the a++++++ main lead ie italiana in algeri, barbiere di siviglia and so on which is a cause of endless amusement on her side because then they have to compromise)

(sam doesn’t need to be introduced because he’s 100% a nerd who cried over la traviata too but he likes all kind of stuff and who’ll go to both sand and fun operas and HE ALSO LIKES CENERENTOLA BEST THO)

sansa ofc is into THE ROMANCE so her fave is totally la traviata but she and robb totally agreed on cenerentola as well basically she robb and sam are the cenerentola stans cinnamon roll brigade

arya isn’t that much into it but she’ll go to most fun stuff and admittedly she has a soft spot for la fille du regiment because she totally identifies with maria (and tonio’s... well tonio is gendry let’s be real lmao)

(gendry is the friend she brought with once bc she likes that one and he immediately noticed)

bran goes with the others and he’s fine with it but he’s more into symphonic and not opera but he does like the family magic flute xD

rickon at some point got dragged to see the firebird when he was like six and everyone thought he’d sleep through it and instead he comes out of it like ‘guys I want to play the drums when I grow up’

baratheons & partners

robert thinks it’s boring af and wouldn’t set foot inside an opera ever, he just went once with ned to see don giovanni as a compromise

renly thinks it’s boring af and never went, then turns out that loras is 100% into it especially ACTUAL older stuff ie gluck and he totally dragged renly to see iphigenie en tauride BECAUSE ORESTES AND PYLADES ARE THE TWO OF THEM and renly had to relent and actually liked it

stannis is The Opera Nerd. he has a subscription to the local theater, he knows everything there is to know, he has a knowledge of minor baroque authors that would scare music professors, he also always goes alone because robert and renly wouldn’t go with him IF they cared, and his favorite is 100% rossini’s guillaume tell but only in the original french version WITH THE BALLETS or it’s a travesty

and he realizes davos is His Guy For Real when he shows up for their anniversary with tickets and then realizes that maybe someone who never went won’t want to see SIX HOURS OF FRENCH GRAND OPERA but davos just blinks like ‘k sure I’m open to everything’ and actually likes it (spoilers: davos’s fave becomes rossini’s la gazza ladra after he gets into it bECAUSE HE TOTALLY RELATES TO THE GIRL’S FATHER WHO SHOULD GO TO JAIL BUT IS ACTUALLY A GOOD GUY but he also likes le nozze di figaro bc YOU FEEL THE LOVE FOR THE LOWER CLASS)

tyrells

all of them used to go with olenna so all four are into it

loras as stated is into early-mid 18th century stuff ie gluck/handel/the likes (he’s the only one who actually likes julius caesar)

willas totally is into romcoms he cried the first time he went to see l’elisir d’amore and he’s been mercilessly mocked since

garlan is a sane person and likes more or less everything except extradramatic stuff

margaery is into bellini don’t tell me norma isn’t her fave

tullys

lysa never was into it bc cat was and so she always refused to go

brynden totally introduced cat to it but he’s a man of not much taste for EXTRA DRAMA so while he likes his verdi he just wants to relax with his mozart gdi but his fave is something totally overlooked ie PROBABLY IDOMENEO BECAUSE WHY THE HELL NOT HE’D LIKE IT

edmure totally went with cat & brynden and also was more into comedies turns out that his favorite is eventually falstaff and he’s always grumbling that verdi shouldn’t have made just ONE comedy ffs

targs:

viserys prob is a nerd but just of his favorite stuff and he’s either into countertenor stuff OR obscure shit or french grand opera AT BEST, he’s probably the only person other than loras who likes julius caesar

dany’s into it but very casually, she probably likes il trovatore because fire imagery everywhere tho

rhaegar is 100% into verdi drama like jon took ONE thing from him and that’s it, he probably is the kinda person who likes othello best for the Sheer Drama Factor

greyjoys:

balon and victarion legit hate it

euron is the only person other than cersei who actually willingly would go to see the ring and loves wagner

asha only goes with theon but she doesn’t mind it also bc alannys is 100% crazy into it that said she hates drama

alannys loves it her fave is la traviata I don’t make the rules

martells:

oberyn’s the hugest don giovanni stan in existence I DON’T MAKE THE RULES HE IS HE IDENTIFIES TO A T

elia’s chiller but the martells have the best taste and so they’d all like mozart she’s prob. into le nozze di figaro best because she totally relates to the countess

arianne likes così fan tutte and would punch anyone who says it’s sexist

other ppl:

sandor was dragged by sansa and he had been like WHAT DO I EVEN DO IN A THEATER HELP but then she picked something like gounod’s faust which he would like, turns out that then he ends into the most obscure SAD stuff and likes boito’s mefistofele best lISTEN HE’D BE INTO FAUSTIAN DEALS OPERA

lf is the kind of person who says they love opera but then criticize every single thing in every single staging and keep on saying opera should have died with maria callas

pyp/grenn/edd/the nw crowd went with jon once to watch something REALLY fucking sad TBH IT’D BE ERNANI and they’re like ‘jon wtf this is the worst’, then when sam learns it he goes like GUYS NO LET’S RECTIFY THIS and he brings them to l’italiana in algeri or SOME rossini fun opera and they change their mind

... okay I think I got MOST OF THE RELEVANT ONES IF I FORGOT ANYONE/YOU WANT ANYONE ELSE PLS ASK ;)