#Anonymus

[doctorcranes-ask]

If we were in an a/b/o universe what do you think your secondary gender would be?

I’m 46 years old. What makes you think I know what any of those words mean?? I’ll google it

…

Why. Why is this the first ask I respond to after my break?! Im not answering this. Get better questions.

[chaifootsteps]

idk i just feel like there's something particularly cruel about having a solid episode concept like "verosika hosts a fuck you party for blitz and everyone else he's fucked over," because its a great way to show a pattern of behavior in blitz and the effect he has on others he's been with and hurt!

then.. they put stolas there. stolas, "you have sex with me every month or your I.M.P is going under without my book you need, no exceptions until i legally gave you an asmodean crystal a year later, for your work", goetia, or whatever the fuck his last name is.

this episode is trying so hard to make stolas on equal levels to verosika and the other imps dumped by blitz, but if any of these hellborn actually knew how he got into a "relationship" with blitz to begin with, and how blitz never even had a choice in whether or not he wants to be with stolas, (even when they were kids!) i really doubt theyd want anything to do with him. stolas never explains that their relationship wasnt a relationship, just a transactional monthly hookup to literally keep blitz's business afloat. he doesn't, because he STILL doesn't fully understand what he did wrong, but understands it enough to know he had to be the one to break off the deal he made. i doubt he'll ever actually explain what the deal was to any outsiders who ask, because then stolas would be forced to actually be held accountable for his own actions, and we cant possibly have that! /sar

i think one of the worst lines from stolas in this episode, aside from most of them because i think hes annoying, was when blitz expressed he didnt know why anyone would care about him, stolas responds that this party, dedicated to blitz, because they hate him so much, shows how much they ""care."" and that might have some kind of point coming out of verosikas mouth- implying that these people genuinely cared for him at one point and he pushed them away- but absolutely not stolas's. so its no wonder that blitz responds by self deprecating himself, saying, "i dont even know why youd want to be with me." followed by stolas admitting that what he really wants is someone to care about him.

and honestly, thats another thing too. i cant believe that after everything, after everything stolas has claimed about wanting blitz because he loves and respects him, when blitz then asks WHY stolas wants him, stolas responds, "you know what i want? i want to know what its like to not be alone. i want to be someone's someone. i want someone to care about me." because it shouldve been his moment to explain to blitz what he sees in him, and why he fell in love with him to begin with the more they slept together. but it wasnt.

not only is it unbelievably selfish of stolas to make blitz go through all of this for almost a year, to not only have NO reason as to why he has/had feelings for blitz, (basically confirming to me that stolas never really cared about blitz or his feelings, still doesn't, and just needed to have an adult relationship someone who didn't outwardly hate his guts like stella did, because were 2 and a half fucking seasons into this show and still dont know why the love interest romantically wants the main character, and die hard viv stans still think the stoliz insta posts count as canon because they're on copium,) but to ignore the one good thing in his life that he insists that he genuinely loves, octavia, in favor of him acting as if he'll die alone completely if he doesn't have a partner..

y'know that one scene in adventure time where jake is like, "dude.. let's kill the horse."? thats how i feel towards stolas right now.

Let's kill the owl.

I'm so tired, Anon.

[ask-reincarnation-boys]

So what do you two do most days? Do you have jobs? Do you still have your magic?

Right...

[hollowed-theory-hall]

I always figured since there are so many more muggles than there are wizards and wizards are such a small percentage of the population of humans, that magic was a sort of mutation that happened in the early humans. So they started off muggle but became magical through some type of evolution.

I also think that beings like goblins, Veela, and giants came from wizards considering they are all human-like.

I suppose you are referring to this theory.

You're right the muggles are the majority, but when I thought about it, it didn't really make sense. I mean, when species split up from each other and continue evolving on their own, we'd expect more differences to appear. The longer ago the split was, the more difference I'd expect to see between the current-day species. Let's look at the real-world:

This is a very basic chart of the evolution of apes and humans, just to get the idea. Basically, the more recent the split, the more similarities there are between the species.

If we apply the same logic to all beings in the magical world, if I had to guess, we'd get something more similar to this:

So wizards and veela come from the same branch, but they don't exactly come from each other. Even though muggles have the largest population they are the closest genetically to wizards, which, to me, suggests they split last.

Also, both goblins and elves are short with pointy ears and longer noses. Hence why I placed them together as a more recent split.

But you're right, muggles are the largest population among them, which is an interesting question since it's not what you'd expect. There are a few possibilities I thought of (the real answer is probably a combination of all of them):

Either a magical plague, like dragon pox, killed a lot of the magical population and created an imbalance then.

We know wizards, vampires, goblins, and elves all live longer than muggles, so like Tolkien elves, they likely have fewer children than muggles as a result, since there isn't as much of a need. So over time, there would naturally be more muggles.

Squibs seem to be similar in percentage in the magical population as muggleborns (maybe a bit less) in the 1990s, but muggleborns are a very small percentage of the muggle population, so wizards always have more squib children than new muggleborns that enter the population.

We see wizards have many many wars, between themselves, against goblins, and even against giants. It's possible this was always the case and a series of ancient magical wars greatly depleted the population.

Basically, what if Herpo the Foul had a reason to want to cheat death... like a magical plague or a war... maybe the guy who invented Horcruxes did it for a reason...

That said, all these disasters and wars to magical beings could've happened way before Ancient Greece... I assume some of them did, I don't think the decline of the magical population is the result of just one event.

[survivor-of-my-childhood]

Dein Ex durfte dich doch auch ficken dann darf ich auch also wann & wo?

Mein Ex ist mein Ex - zumal du die Story dazu nicht kennst also Klappe.

Und bin ich Freiwild wo du zu entscheiden hast oder was? Nö. Mein Körper meine Entscheidung. Also Verpiss dich von meinem Blog - Menschen die ein Nein nicht akzeptieren werden hier nicht toleriert.

[forget-mad-not]

If you want my honest opinion, the sentences feel overcomplicated. They are jumbled, forced, barely sticking together.

I don’t have much to go by, because based on these I barely know a thing about what these works and ideas could be 😕 But it feels like you’re trying to overcomplicate everything and twist it to sound like something it never will.

I think you write beautifully, but it doesn’t show here, these feel like something written by a different person, and unfortunately not in a good way :(

Then I sincerely hope you find writers that you will continue to enjoy reading and stories that appeal to you! :"3

However, for the sake of the future, please consider not behaving this way with other creatives. Especially, when they express the difficulties, anxieties and fears they experience while creating, and when yet they, as a gesture, give you a glimpse into the progress of their work.

This is not kind, this is not helpful, this is not the right place for this expression of opinion, and you have only made everyone unnecessarily sad.

[rururi-chan]

graylusucksforever is also dumb and you can fingered my nosehole👉🏻👃🏻

[peggy-sue-reads-a-book]

Some started called gay men achilleian as in emphasize the same term lesbians give on the term "Sapphic love" which doesn't make ANY SENSE.

Firstly Sapphic comes from the Greek poet Sappho who lived on the Greek Island Lesbos and was famous for her romantic poems.

Achilles is just a character in a story by Homer written thousands of years ago mostly remembered for his complex character, his rage. His love for Patroclus may be for debate, but soulmate love is also platonic as it is romantic.

Achilles was never a gay icon before Miller's fiction book and the Iliad is a masterpiece of literature and his character is waaay more than his sexuality which also isn't labelled or certain either so why people are having a YA novel be the source material for his sexuality?

Interesting question.

I do not believe Miller to be responsible for the queering of Achilles. In fact, if you listen to interviews with her, her reasons for a queer interpretation are thoughtful and thorough. Namely, that a “bomb seems to go off” when Patroclus is killed. She believed his consequent actions to be most aligned with those of a grieving husband.

The novel’s earliest draft actually began as an academic essay after she directed Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida, which characterizes Patroclus as more effeminate than Homer’s representation. Miller’s narrator is more closely aligned with Shakespeare, actually.

If you go further back, you have other ancient Greeks commenting on and disputing not whether or not Achilles and Patroclus were having sex, but who topped.

Returning to the Iliad itself. I believe it is most accurate to say both men were bisexual. They live together in fairly close quarters. If they aren’t partners, they are at least comfortable performing sex acts in front of one another with their concubines. I would say that Miller’s version where they “rescue” the girls but never sleep with them is a bit far fetched. However, there is also some implication that the two men shared a bed. I’d ask yourself, if this were a man and a woman, would I be thinking this hard as to whether they were a couple? Probably not.

There is finally the issue of the word “philtatos” itself. The -tos suffix is superlative. There’s no way around the translation “most beloved.” I am dubious of Victorian scholars who were bent on inserting “comrade” or “companion” in there. I call censorship.

So yes, I think queer interpretation really is an interpretation and not a fetishized, contemporary theory.

However, I’d like to address your point of platonic love and it’s societal value. To the understanding of many, (actually, Aristotle) “philia” between two men was the most fulfilling relationship possible. This creates a bit of a confusing wrinkle in ancient literature, doesn’t it? Gilgamesh and Enkidu’s behavior certainly queer-codes in 2023, but they come from a context which de emphasized women and their capacity to relate to male partners. So sure, maybe Patroclus and Achilles are meant to be broing out this whole time mainly because Briseis is too stupid and too afflicted by wandering-womb to understand them. I guess that’s the book you could read.

Maybe you wish to shelf that criticism and what you saw was a rich friendship. To challenge my own point above about if they were a straight couple, we accept completely different behavior from two women. There’s no reason friends can’t share profound intimacy and physical affection without any sexual connotation. You can’t say the death of a dear friend isn’t big enough to serve as the poem’s crisis point. You’re right — especially considering that these boys were raised together and have been living together and at war together their whole lives. The same could be said of David and Jonathan, another popular queer speculation. A sexual relationship is not needed to validate such a bond.

I still think they were having sex. I am sorry to have nothing to cite but remember my own mother explaining a queer reading of the Iliad to me before The Song of Achilles was even published. I believe she was teaching the Aeneid at that time but doing some background research. She mentioned specifically reading that sex was normal and encouraged between specifically infantry and charioteers. The idea was that by forming a sexual/romantic bond, those men would be more effective as a team. The point being, this is nothing new.

I want to speak to your comparison to Sappho, because it is pertinent. The prose of The Song of Achilles is heavily inspired by Sappho’s style. Her intention with that particular project was to focus on the perspective of a sidelined character and give him an intimate, lyric voice. That was the point. For her purposes, Achilles is a sexual and romantic icon because of who is telling the story. Contrast even the openings, “Sing, muse of rage of Achilles,” to, “my father was a king, and the son of kings.” One is invoking Calliope to tell us an epic about an angry little man and the other sets the expectation that you’re going to get his life story. If you read this book, you will get a subjective one-to-one experience of Achilles as a primary love interest and sexual partner. If that’s not for you, I recommend Pat Barker’s work.

A fair question, and I don’t know the answer, would be when did guys start referring to themselves as Achillean? Personally, I don’t really care. I think other people should describe their sex lives how they like. Hypothetically, even if the term were responsive to Miller’s fiction, I still don’t care.

And here’s where we get to what I really have to say. The Homeric tradition is oral— no one really “wrote” the Iliad in accordance with modern standards of intellectual property. We carry that tradition today. Here is the part where I disagree with you: Achilles is not just a character in a book written by Homer thousands of years ago. He is ours. Fluid and thriving, part of culture. If the myths of Achilles continue another millennium, carried by tumblr girlies and esoteric gay men, then great. It’s as it should be. It’s how fiction works.

[drakvuf]

itt jön a csavar

[hanako-san]

i wonder why tsukasa's eyes were black when he spoke to his brother 😦😦😦 ??

Hmm… I'm wondering about those eyes, you know? Amane and Mei also had such eyes and I just think it's supposed to give a sign that the supernatural is 'cold' (?) and impassive… that's my impression.

[patolemus]

did you see that the pmiyc wont be continuing the fic anymore? im so sad

I did! To say I’m completely devastated is an understatement, it’s one of my favorite lucemond fics. But it’s the author’s decision, and we have to respect that

[chaifootsteps]

The latest episode of TADC was really good, but there was something about when Caine mentioned how he can't allow NPCs to stay because it'll be hard to keep track of who is human and who is not that has me thinking about something. Could it be possible that one of people in the main cast is actually an NPC? It might have been just a comment that might only be relevant for this ep, but the possibility that an NPC could have managed to slip in to the group for who knows how long now is interesting to think about. 🤔

That line stuck with me because you know it just has to mean something. Does he just not want to let NPCs in the circus because it would be too much hassle? Does he genuinely not know whether something bad could happen? Did someone try, and did something happen?

[ask-reincarnation-boys]

Why where did he take you?

I swear, he's like a real life Roronoa Zoro...

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Hello, hello! i just got curious with the blood lineage subject and ive been doing research on my own (for a fic im writing), but would definitely be honored to get your own Hollowed Theory on this: Squibs, more specifically their children.

Like say, a Squib (whose both parents are considered purebloods) + pureblood sire = halfblood child(?)

or say both parents are Squibs (parents are halfblood and muggle) but produce a magical child (muggleborn?)

very curious about your take on this and thank you for taking the time to reply! (i dearly consider your metas canon in my head)

Hello!

Firstly, thank you so much! This is so sweet!

As for your ask, I assume you're talking about the discussion of magic and genetics in this post, regarding the likelihood of children being born with magic depending on their parentage.

Now, I'm not sure about your question because genetically speaking a wizard is a wizard and the only difference is how much genetic diversity exists and therefore the likelihood of squibs and powerful magical children varies. So, genetically a child of a "pure-blood" squib and a "pure-blood" wizard will be like any other pure-blood. The squib, even if they don't have magic, still has the same lack of genetic diversity like any other pure-blood wizard. (I think a child of a pure-blood squib and a pure-blood wizard is actually more likely to be another squib rather than a wizard because I believe squibs are the result of a lack of genetic diversity...)

The moment you add muggle blood in (some genetic diversity) there is no real difference. So genetically, a half-blood, a muggleborn, or someone who calls themselves a "pure-blood" but their great-grandma was a muggle, are all the same. There is no major genetic difference. A wizard is a wizard.

(There are differences in power and skill, along with unique magical hereditary abilities like Parseltongue and things like that. But in general, all wizards are genetically the same)

If the question is more, what would wizards call them according to their social definitions and use of blood-purity terms, that's a different question. Because their society is pretty obsessed with blood, so I'd say they would care a lot about what someone is called.

From the patterns, we see if I had to guess most edge cases like this would all be called "half-bloods" by wizarding society.

I reblogged a thread about this a bit ago, but essentially anyone who isn't a wizard with like 7 generations of wizards from each side would be called a "half-blood" since it's their catch-all for anyone who isn't "pure" enough to be considered "pure-blood" but technically isn't muggleborn. A wizard born of a squib, even if the squib isn't closely related to muggles, would still probably be considered a "half-blood" due to squibs not being wizards.

If a "muggleborn" has a known magical grandparent but their parent is a squib (like the second case you asked about), I think they would be referred to as either "half-blood" or "muggleborn" by people in the Wizarding World, depending on who they're talking to. I'd expect more extreme blood-purists would call them "muggleborn" or "mudblood" and the less blood-fanatic ones might call them "half-blood", but some would still call them "muggleborn" probably. It would depend on how they present themselves and how well-known their ancestry is because even the less fanatic ones are pretty bigoted and blood-obsessed.

Hope this helps and good luck with your fic!

[survivor-of-my-childhood]

Ist ADHS deine Ausrede für alles?

Boha wie ich diesen Satz hasse.... wie sehr ich ihn hasse....

1. Wenn ich eine Ausrede hätte, wäre ich definitiv kreativer! ADHS ist meine Realität, in welcher ich leben muss. Es ist eine neurologische Erkrankung, die meine Wahrnehmung und mein Verhalten beeinflusst.

Wenn jemand ein gebrochenes Bein hat und deshalb nicht rennen kann, würde man demjenigen ja auch nicht vorwerfen das sei eine Ausrede.

2. Für alles? Ehm ADHS wirkt sich eben auf jeden Teil des Lebens aus.

Diese Nachricht zeigt mir, das du dich nicht wirklich mit dem Thema befasst hast, sondern einfach Stereotype wiedergibst.

[maviruhlusizofren]

Mavi donlu sizofren

Yanlış, bilemedin