#Russian interpreter | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

a-host-of-dancing-daffodils · 6 days ago

Text

HOKAI so I have been wanting to do a post about this for a while so in order to distract myself from The Horrors here we go!!

What's Up With the Countess??

I'd like to start by pointing out that this analysis is almost entirely based on Episode 3.7 of the show (The Double Clue) because I haven't read any of the books that she's in / mentioned in. SO. Feel free to Take All of This with a Grain of Salt. But. as far as the show is concerned. I believe I am. Onto Something Here.

While I do think that the Countess if she's even really a Russian Countess...we'll get there DEFINITELY has the hots for Poirot (I mean. Who could blame her? He is Very Sexy), I do NOT think Poirot wants her carnally at all. He does seem compelled by her. And he does seem to both Respect Her Methods and Want to Study Her Like a Bug. And he seems to relate to her as a refugee a great deal and, from this, seems to feel a bit protective of her in some ways. But let's take a look at how he actually interacts with her, and it'll become clear: the attraction seems to be VERY one-sided, and it seems to on the part of the countess, not on the part of Poirot. This is especially clear if we contrast their interactions with the way Poirot acts around Hastings (with whom. we all know that Poirot is actually in love. and I will Die on that Hill Thank You Very Much).

Anyroad! I will put most of this post under a readmore because it got superduper long. like. it is now legitly essay-length and yes there are citations LOL

Итак. Начнем. [So. Let's begin] The way Poirot acts when he first sees the Countess, I can get why Hastings thinks he was "taken" with her. But.

If you ask me, I think it's quite the opposite: she was quite taken with him right away, and I think he picked up on this...and immediately thought "Oh. Oh, I can use this".

Case in point: We see him use another person's attraction to him to probe into their involvement in a case in other episodes, too, such as in 10.3 After The Funeral:

And that's what his interactions with the Countess feel like to me especially since, as he talks to her, she seems to be bent on giving herself away to him?? at nearly every opportunity??

But his interactions with the Countess differ from the other cases of him doing this in two ways. For one, they have the added aspects of him understanding what she's gone through as a refugee and relating to her in this way. In some ways, he seems to understand why she would turn to a life of crime, and it seems like he very much respects her, but (for two) because of this, he wants to warn her away from trying to live this lifestyle in HIS territory. During their interactions, he is CONSTANTLY implying that he IS onto her and he WILL Get Her if she's not careful. Which. only seems to make her want him more? and. I mean. Fair I guess. He's So Sexy when he's Dangerous.

First, during their initial little promenade together, he tells her that he's the most famous detective in all of England - this is a bit of a downplay from his usual "greatest detective who ever lived" shtick, which I always found to be a bit odd...but when you really sit down and think about it, it almost feels like he's firing a warning shot across her bow...Like he's trying to warn her that he's on her trail, and England specifically isn't big enough for the both of them.

and don't even get me STARTED ON THE IMAGERY HERE of the stone ornament in the foreground LITERALLY SEPARATING THEM FROM EACH OTHER as they talk about this???? LIKE!!??? HELLO???

Then. After this, SHE'S the one who brings up that he's investigating the jewel thefts (plural), and he smiles as he says, "It seems a simple matter, Madame." Like. 'Oh yes. And I already know who did it.'

And when she ASKS HIM IF HE SUSPECTS HER, he turns it right back on her by asking "Should I?" And she admits "I was there". IMPLYING SHE WAS ON THE SCENE OF EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF THE JEWEL THEFTS. NOT JUST THE LATEST ONE. LIKE??? JUST CONFESS TO HIM OUTRIGHT THAT YOUDONEIT, WHY DONT'CHA???

And then, when they're at the museum, she brings up a specific one of the jewel thefts, implying that it is 'the perfect crime', and he fires another few warning shots, implying that he knows it was her:

"It is strange that you should choose to relate this to me, Countess, I also have read of it. Oh yes, the Atherton Diamonds? And it is true that the police, they were confounded, but it is because they look with the eye that is too, uh...English"

He then MENTIONS that the police failed to think of who the lowest common denominator was - who was present for all of the thefts?

and then he all but points the finger at her when he says "Because the culprit, he is not English enough".

And Look at their expressions here! She seems to be very exited by the danger he poses to her. She is leaning in. She is INTO this. But Poirot's little smile? That isn't an I'm Into This smile. That looks like his I'm Onto You smile. It doesn't even really reach his eyes.

^^^^That^^^^? is NOT the smile of a smitten man.

Now THIS? THIS is the smile of a smitten man:

Like. When Poirot meets Hastings again at Styles? When he smiles that fond little smile at Hastings in so many different episodes?? His WHOLE FACE smiles. His eyes. His nose. His cheeks. His lips. He positively Glows with it. You look at that smile and you can FEEL the fondness radiating off of him.

He smiles at the Countess? and there's nothing in his eyes but a warning. In fact, sometimes when he's smiling "at" her, he's ACTIVELY LOOKING AWAY from her.

Which leads us to some other points about Poirot's behaviour and body language when he's around the Countess: Poirot seems to be very Pointedly Keeping the Countess at Arm's Length, which. He kinda does that to everyone, sure (in some ways, he even keeps Hastings at arm's length, too). But. I feel like many of his particular behaviours towards the countess wouldn't make sense if he was actually interested in her:

Firstly. Taking Poirot's own understanding of Love as our definition, when someone is in love with someone else, they smile at them and can't take their eyes off them (see episode 11.3 The Third Girl). and if you take another look at those pictures above, you'll see: Poirot's behaviour towards HASTINGS fits this definition quite well, actually.

And sure, Poirot smiles at the Countess sometimes. But, as I mention above, HE BARELY LOOKS AT HER WHEN THEY'RE TOGETHER. And half the time, he's looking off into space and he seems to be deep in thought.

During their first little promenade scene, he glances at her all of three times, and each time, it is for less than 2 seconds. He's not gazing at her like a man infatuated.

He gazes at Hastings, though. (Oh my, does he GAZE at Hastings. And Hastings gazes right back.)

Secondly, the Countess calls Poirot 'Hercule' twice in this episode, and each time, he doesn't seem to like it very much.

When the Countess calls Poirot 'Hercule' for the first time, it's at the museum. In response, he simply says "I do not think that there is anyone of my acquaintance who calls me by that name" (I would read that as a clear reminder that, она - знакомая, а не друг, и для русскоговрящего, это - очень важное различение [she's an acquaintance not a friend, and that is a very important distinction for a Russian speaker]). And when she apologises, he doesn't reassure her that it's alright. He doesn't say something to the effect of "Oh, it is alright for you to call me Hercule, I was simply surprised". No. He says "Madame." and goes DEAD SILENT. Almost as if to say "Yeah. Don't call me that." It's like he's saying "You're not allowed to get close to me. Don't Even Try."

And here's him looking away from her right after it happens. Again, I feel like he'd at least be looking at her if he was actually happy to be called that again

The second time she calls him Hercule, it's when she's about to leave on the train:

"Oh, I won't forget you, Hercule." "Nor I you... countess."

When he answers her, HE ANSWERS WITH HER TITLE, NOT HER NAME, and he doesn't even lean into her kiss look at how far out the window she's leaning, like. c'mon.

Which brings us to my third point: he doesn't seem to want to touch her. And when she touches him, he doesn't seem to know how to Handle It.

Like. To provide contrast for this, we know he touches Hastings every chance he can get, because whenever he gets an excuse, it's clear that he wants to touch him so bad. Just for one in-episode example, in the wound-care scene, he's feeling guilty for putting Hastings in danger, so he leaves his hand on Hastings' shoulder for a good. like. 20-30 seconds. He wants Hastings to feel his remorse, and so he lets his hand linger. and watch closely the next time you watch this episode, because when it's time for him to leave, he doesn't just take his hand away, he lets it slowly slip off Hastings' back like he doesn't want to let go.

And don't even get me STARTED on Hastings' Biting little Jealous "Where are you taking her?" Comment BABY IT'S OKAY HE'S NOT ACTUALLY INTO HER YOU ARE HIS ONE AND ONLY LOVE

He does touch the countess at the Picnic, but it's only for a moment, and, the way the shot is framed so that we never see his expression as he reacts to the touch? it really seems to be more for her benefit than it is for his own.

And when the countess takes his arm at the museum, he doesn't smile, he doesn't blush or look flustered. No. He was smiling to himself right before that, and the second she takes his arm, he looks surprised and he actually STOPS SMILING. Look at the set of his eyebrows...pointing down towards the bridge of his nose instead of up. He almost looks annoyed.

^^I don't feel like this is the behaviour of a man who is happy to be receiving attention from someone he's attracted to. I feel like this is the behaviour of a man who is NOT into this at all, but he's gotta keep stringing her along if he wants to distract her from stealing more jewels^^

Which brings us to my next point: Yes, he's 'taking her out on dates' or 'letting HER take HIM out on dates' or whatever. But when you think about why he's doing this? He seems to be trying to Keep Her Occupied. No more jewel thefts? No more threats to Japp's career.

and again. DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE IMAGERY HERE. She's reclining on the blanket and he's not even reclining next to her!! He's frikken SITTING IN A CHAIR ABOVE HER. That's not "I'm into this person" behaviour!!!

Perhaps he's doing this as an experiment - if there is a robbery while they are together, he can eliminate her as a suspect, but if not...

Of Course. He Can't eliminate her as a suspect. Because He Knows She Totally Did It. But he kinda feels sorry for her. Because in some ways? He can relate to losing everything. In some ways, he respects her. And in some ways, he thinks of what she does as a necessary evil.

He tells us as much at their picnic together when he implies to her that it's criminals (like her) that give him job security. Perhaps he respects how smart she is and how well she was able to commit the crime he was brought in to investigate (even though he obviously saw right through her from the very beginning). And perhaps he also respects that, despite her chosen occupation, she chooses to be a Refined and Proper Lady who Doesn't Kill People and Only Robs Rich People. And that she's clearly someone with a method. All things Poirot can respect/appreciate.

THEN. TO KEEP HER OCCUPIED WHEN HE CAN'T DO IT HIMSELF, he gets two other private detectives to keep an eye on her, implying that they're there to make sure she leaves the country without doing any more crime: "during your time here in England, there have been four very clever robberies. I do not wish for you to be involved in a fifth."

SO. Poirot basically spends the entire episode trying to give the Countess time to run away and continue her...somewhat necessary work Somewhere Else Please And Thank You and to sneakily tell her 'England isn't big enough for the both of Us. Don't You Dare Let Me Catch You Being a Thief in My Town Ever Again Or I Will Not Be Able To Give You A Second Chance And It Will Greatly Sadden Me.'

And he says it right out loud when he says: "You must continue your work and I must continue mine. But not in the same country."

AND FINALLY, and perhaps most importantly, let's get to the whole reason I started writing this post in the first place: What's UP with the Countess??

Well. I don't think she's the Countess Vera Rossakoff at all. I don't even think she's actually Russian.

What? Yes. Listen.

So She's supposed to be this countess-turned-refugee from Petrograd (which is known today as St. Petersburg)? Okay. You know what? Fair. I would absolutely buy that she's a refugee given that she seems to understand what it's like to lose everything. And it is clear that she is familiar enough with Russia to understand something about Russian impressionist artists and to know that an educated Russian person at the time would absolutely know how to speak French.

And she does make a compelling statement when she calls the city she is supposedly from Petrograd (even though by the time when the episode is set, it would have already been renamed to Leningrad); By calling the city Petrograd and not Leningrad, she's invoking a time period during The Great War when anti-german sentiments were enough to take the german-root words Sankt and Burg out of the city's name, but of course, in her case, right up until the Bolsheviks rose to power, which would supposedly be a clue as to when she left Russia.

So Why don't I think she's Actually Russian if she does all these things """correctly"""?

Well. I'm a Linguist. So my impression is mostly based on how she speaks.

First of all, we never actually hear her speaking Russian (only French and English), and the way she speaks English doesn't follow some of the more frequent patterns of Russian phonotactics and grammatical constructions that often find their way into Russian speakers' English. For example, she uses the sound [ð] (the "th" sound in words like "this" and "the"), which is a notoriously difficult sound for Russian speakers to learn because it's not a sound that's found in Russian, and even her education in French wouldn't be able to help her master that sound, because it's not a sound Parisian French speakers typically use either. Moreover, she uses definite and indefinite articles (the words "the" and "a" respectively), which are notoriously difficult for native Russian speakers to learn because Russian does not have these articles. Her education in French should help her with these, but even if it did, she would probably use more of them than a native English-speaker would expect (kind of like Poirot does) because articles are used in more places in French -- and she doesn't.

Second of all, she doesn't use Russian intonational patterns in the places I would expect to hear it. For example: she asks 'Do you suspect me?' with a rising intonation at the end of the phrase. Based on the Russian intonational patterns most commonly used with questions, I would expect a Russian speaker to say 'Do you suspect me?', emphasising the focal word instead and ending the phrase with a falling intonation.

(Obviously, in reality, these little quirks of her speech are probably just due to writing choices and the actress not knowing much about speaking Russian / probably not having an accent coach, but. It's fun to come up with little in-universe explanations for these things!!)

SO. Let's be real, lads. A jewel thief could absolutely assume the identity of a dead Russian countess if she said all the right things & had enough money from hocking her wares to buy a really nice wardrobe and some good luggage / manage to look and act the part.

But the simplest--and, if you ask me, most damning--piece of Evidence-That-She's-Not-Russian of all?

That would be her saying that she has no use for the cigarette case Poirot tries to give her because she read the initials engraved there as the English letters 'B' and 'P'.

AND POIROT IS THE ONE WHO HAS TO EXPLAIN TO HER that those symbols also stand for the 'V' and 'R' sounds in Russian!!!!

AND WHEN HE DOES, she only looks dumbfounded and says "You've been studying!"

If she was really a Russian Speaker? She would have taken one look at the BP on that cigarette case and read it as a 'V' sound & an 'R' sound just as easily as reading it as English "B" & "P".

Source? As a bilingual English-Russian Speaker myself, what happened in my head immediately upon seeing that cigarette case at the beginning of the episode. Was that my brain unhelpfully lol supplied both the English Phrase "Blood Pressure" and the Russian Word "время" (time), which starts with those two letters.

I would argue that. If the Countess was really a Russian speaker, a similar kind of thought process should have happened in her brain, too. And given that Russian is supposedly her first language (or at least one of the ones she would have had the most exposure to), she should have read those letters as 'V' & 'R' first. But this so-called Vera Rossakoff? Reads these letters as the English 'B' & 'P'? Come ON.

Now. I guess you could argue that, since she was in England and speaking English with Poirot at the time, that she would have been ""In English Mode"" and that she could have "Not Been Thinking" that BP also makes the 'V' & 'R' sounds in Russian.

But. There is a lot of literature out there in the psycholinguistics world to suggest that multilinguals cannot suppress one of their languages to that extent (especially not a language one has supposedly known since birth) - and most recent scholarship on competition between a multilinguals' languages agrees on one thing: words and sounds in all the languages known to the multilingal are activated in the brain during linguistic processing.

There are many psycholinguistics studies which delve into these mental processes. In case you're interested in the scholarship on this particular topic, here's some links: Here's one that talks about between-language competition during reading in multilinguals who speak languages with different scripts (English vs. Korean): Moon & Jiang (2011) Here's one that talks about between-language competition between words with a similar orthography (spelling) during reading in Dutch-English Bilinguals: van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998) And here's a couple of studies by the same people that focus on a similar kind of between-language competition in Russian-English bilinguals specifically (although it's about spoken language instead of reading, but the mechanisms in the brain are probably very similar): Marian & Spivey (1999); Marian & Spivey (2003)

All of the above scholarship basically suggests that, when someone is processing words or sounds, even if the sounds/words of one of their languages do eventually get less activation than those of another, there is always some activation of all languages known to the multilingual at any given time during processing, and that competition between languages for activation differs depending on how familiar a speaker is with a given language (in other words, the more familiar the person is with a specific language, the more likely its words/sounds/etc. are to get activated in the brain during perception or production).

ANYWAY. I'M SORRY I KNOW SOME OF THAT WAS WORD SOUP. BUT LADS?? ALL I'M REALLY FUCKEN SAYING. IS SHE DAMN WELL SHOULD HAVE RECOGNISED HER OWN FUCKING INITIALS.

THEREFORE. TLDR??? I DON'T THINK SHE'S REALLY A RUSSIAN SPEAKER. BECAUSE ANY RUSSIAN SPEAKER WOULD SEE THE LETTERS ON THAT CIGARETTE CASE AND READ 'V' & 'R' FIRST. AND IF SHE DIDN'T RECOGNISE SOMETHING SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GETTING FAMILIAR WITH FROM THE TIME SINCE SHE STARTED LEARNING HOW TO READ, I DON'T THINK THOSE ARE REALLY HER INITIALS.

AND I BROUGHT A BIBLIOGRAPHY TO PROVE IT.

ALSO. TO RECAP MY POINTS FROM EARLIER. POIROT WAS NEVER INTO HER, EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE--INCLUDING HASTINGS--THOUGHT HE WAS.

NO. HE WANTED TO STUDY HER LIKE A BUG BECAUSE SHE'S A JEWELLERY THIEF WHO IS GOOD ENOUGH AT HER 'CHOSEN OCCUPATION' TO IMPERSONATE A RUSSIAN COUNTESS AND BASICALLY GET AWAY WITH IT, DESPITE ALL THE STUPID MISTAKES SHE'S BEEN MAKING. AND, LIKE A BUG, POIROT CAN APPRECIATE HER PLACE IN THE ECOSYSTEM, AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INCLUDE HIS HOUSE.

IN THIS EPISODE, HE BASICALLY PUTS HER IN A GLASS JAR FOR A FEW DAYS TO OBSERVE HER SO SHE WILL STOP WREAKING HAVOC AND THEN HE PUTS HER OUTSIDE AND TELLS HER NEVER TO COME BACK INTO THE HOUSE AGAIN, OR ELSE.

AND!!! LET ME REITERATE!! THAT!!! HERCULE POIROT!!! IS IN LOVE!! WITH ONE PERSON!! AND ONE PERSON ONLY!! AND THAT PERSON'S NAME IS CAPTAIN ARTHUR J.M. HASTINGS!!!

I REST MY CASE YOUR HONOUR.

Anyway!!!! TLDR-TLDR: If you ask me, Poirot's behaviour towards the countess isn't that of a Man in Love. It's the calculating behaviour of someone who knows a good adversary when he sees one (even if her attraction to him made her transparent from the start) and a man who would feel a little like he was vandalising an exquisite forgery of a Rembrandt if he had to go and get her arrested - like. Sure, she may not be the real thing, but damn, is she good at playing her part.

AANYWAAY Now that I have shouted my opinions at the subway walls. I will stop here. because this post has already gotten entIRELY too long.

If you made it this far in this post, thank you very much for reading my ramblings to completion!! I hope you enjoyed them!! Спасибо за ваше внимание!!

#Long Story Short: I'm arguing that Poirot is NOT in love with the Countess and She's Not Really Russian IMHO спасибо пока #I know. It's pretty well canon that he's attracted to her in the books but. Listen. From the show??#All I know is what I see on the screen babe. and I do NOT see the attraction here #but y'know. this is just my own interpretation. I'm not looking to convince anyone who isn't already convinced LOL #what's up with the countess #essay #and yes. It DOES have citations #Character Analysis #long character analysis #REALLY long character analysis #this post took me four days to write okay. it's looooongggg #OKAY LIKE ON A WHIM I DECIDED TO SEE HOW MANY PAGES THIS WAS?? THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE. MAYBE 5?? LADS THIS IS 8 PAGES #8 PAGES OF ANALYSIS. THIS IS VERY NEARLY 3800 WORDS. WOW. I HAD WAAY MORE TO SAY THAN I THOUGHT #long post #3.7 The Double Clue #10.3 After The Funeral #Poirot #watching poirot #agatha christie’s poirot #David Suchet #Captain Arthur Hastings #Hugh Fraser #Felicity Lemon #Pauline Moran #Countess Vera Rossakoff #Kika Markham #back on my screencapping bullshit #and Back on my Essay-Writing Bullshit again apparently????

35 notes · View notes

gregoriaofnyssa · 10 months ago

Text

On the Higher-Critical Method of Hermeneutics

It is exceedingly trendy to devour religious information of all kinds through the lens of secular scholarship, for either the sake of general knowledge, or for the sake of an artistic adventure. For either of those purposes, and certainly for the purpose of actual religious learning, the higher-critical approach fails on every level. The biggest perpetrators of this online are Genetically Modified Skeptic and Religion for Breakfast; the biggest print perpetrators are Bart D. Ehrman and George Harris. This method fails to accurately describe and convey the concept of religious orthodoxy, and therefore fails to accurately convey controversies within religions; it also fails to anthropologically contend with religions in a way that is honest and charitable; it denies not only the very concept of truth, but also the very concept of literary analysis.

Much of the basis for this argument is rooted in vintage anthropology-- I preface “vintage” because anthropology has changed a great deal in the last 100 (even 50) years, and has come more and more to reflect the higher-critical method of hermeneutics, of course applied to secular cultural artifacts. In the past, anthropologists did not seek to study other cultures as a way to change their own, or as a way to frame their own. They studied it for pure passion. They studied it for themselves. An anthropologist doing similar good work today is Daniel Everett who wrote the sympathetic, raw, and amazing book Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle. A main reason why Everett’s work is so effective is because it takes the word of the Pirahã people (the subject of the book) as true. This makes the book strikingly intimate, especially because it is told from Everett’s own perspective. We thus get a greater understanding of the culture-- a highly mysterious and un-understandable culture at that. He writes, “‘I mean, what are you going to do to him for shooting your dog?’ ‘I will do nothing. I won’t hurt my brother. He acted like a child. He did a bad thing. But he is drunk and his head is not working well. He should not have hurt my dog. It is like my child.’ Even when provoked, as Kaaboogí was now, the Pirahãs were able to respond with patience, love, and understanding, in ways rarely matched in any other culture I have encountered.”

A key problem with the higher-critical method is that it applies a hermeneutics of suspicion, rather than a hermeneutics of trust, as vintage anthropology did. The passage above would read much differently, and be much less revelatory, had Everett followed the encounter with an insistence that the Pirahã must not actually be so compassionate, and must, in fact, be putting on a show to fool outsiders for more canoe money. Just as that is unsatisfying, so too is a hermeneutics of suspicion that insists Jesus said to care for the poor in order to manipulate starving Jeudeans into joining his “movement”. Not only is it unsatisfying, but it makes no sense. The higher-critical scholar must invent new motivations seen nowhere else in the text, or in adjoining texts of the day, to justify what is essentially a headcanon. It assumes too much, and what it assumes is an insult: people do not say they believe what they do because they believe it-- they have ulterior motives. The higher-critical method demands you see all people as charlatans.

We should notice that this is an anti-historical method as well. Historians do not make a habit of assuming primary sources are lying unless there is extremely good reason. I’ve studied the writings of Ibn Fadlan on the rituals of the Vikings, and not once did a professor or a critic write that he must’ve been making up the horse-killing for the sake of making barbarians appear worse than Muhammadeans.

The method is also unliterary. It is possible for an atheist to read the Bible (or any scripture, for that matter) and encounter it as a complete work of fiction, whilst still applying the usual rules of textual analysis and letters. It is possible, even in the context of “fiction” for interpretations to be baseless and wrong. We hear in school there is no such thing as a wrong answer in literature, but be assured, there is. There are analysis, conclusions, and summaries that are disconnected from the text so to have nothing backing it up for any kind of merit. For example, if someone were to say, “The theme of Hamlet is that love conquers all,” that would be a conclusion so wrong you’d probably assume the speaker was pretending to have read it. The same is true with the Bible, and with all other scripture. The theme of Maccabees is not that the oppressed should take their torture lying down and there is nothing in the epistles to suggest the Apostle Paul was gay. The latter is fanfiction and the former is active subversion-- look out for that.

You may believe I want only the Bible to be interpreted in such a way. But this would be wrong. I am frequently disgusted by the mistreatment of other sacred texts; in the HCM, this is particularly suffered upon the Quran. My insistence against the HCM is not only religious, but born of an anthropological conviction. I love people; the whole world is my people. I love to study them, to learn about their experiences, and to read what they have written. It breaks something in my heart when even documents I disagree with are encountered as if they are intentionally lying. The Quran was written by a man, and I believe that man believed what he wrote to be true, and I believe that those who believed him really did. I do not like to be taken for a liar, and I assume the feeling is the same through all people.

It weakens the position of the opponents of any text, because in order to argue against something, you must actually know it. You must understand it, and you will never understand something you don’t trust to be the words someone once believed.

10 notes · View notes