#and on your own terms scenes

[kruemel8]

[vlasdygoth]

think i'm gonna call it off

[taiturner]

Hayden, I've managed to stabilize the injury, but considering you're a chimera, I don't know how, or if, you'll heal.

[magnolia-sunrise]

well speaking of robots and wires, im realizing i definitely dont have enough time to finish both this and my actually new years themed piece in time without rushing one or the other, so im gonna shelve this one until after. but! a little wip preview for you

[tommygettingwrittenoff]

my favorite thing about bt is when there's an opportunity for buck and t to have a deeper connection, but then t just shuts it down. like, go girl, give us nothing!!!!

[sskk-manifesto]

Ep 6!!!

[bearenjoyers]

sorry im just thinking about bcs but like. why not add a few smaller scenes of gus interacting with his own men? why does it seem like, in comparison, mike is almost immediately elevated to a higher status than those two in bcs purely because we actually get to see him having normal conversations with gus? like i understand they might not keep the plot moving as well because of the fact obviously if victor is currently doing something it’s because gus told him to etc. but for the most part all of the smaller interactions gus does have with those two ends up being in a somewhat high stress situation where it feels very tense between everyone. and it’s just like damn! is it always like that?? why do those two even care that much about their jobs if their boss is a bit of a dick? etc. i think even an additional scene or two with those guys (either alone or the both of them) talking with gus in a more normal situation could’ve both added a bit more depth into how gus treats his employees (we got a lot with how he treats lyle and co., but not a whole lot with the illegal side of things), how comfortable vic and tyrus feel around him in a calmer setting, and exactly why they both feel the need to be as loyal as they are to the guy.

and also on the other side of this i don't think it'd hurt to maybe elaborate on their pay just a bit..? i'm not saying to randomly put a number out into the atmosphere but i just mean some smaller things like. do they buy nicer things for themselves? what's their housing situation? what's their car situation? are the escalade / yukon their own vehicles or does gus just use those two for business situations? do they use them when they're doing their own stuff off the clock or do they have their own cars? etc. that can also help with understanding their motivations a bit. don't get me wrong i don't think they should be visibly rich or something because that's not what gus would want but just smaller things! cause it's easy to write their loyalty off as Well they probably get paid super well, which i'm sure is true, but if they don't show a single hint of that then what's the point. even something as simple as giving tyrus a nice watch, or maybe victor having a nicer looking gun, etc. something small like that. because as it stands right now the average 41 year old viewer who watched the show once only knows and will only ever know victor and tyrus as those two guys in the background who do random stuff for gus with no clear motivation. just the personification of "On it boss (salute emoji)". and to be honest this is true for a whole lot of fans who do watch the show multiple times and enjoy thinking about it more in depth, because on screen we barely have anything about the two.

and to be clear i'm not trying to say we should have an episode just for them or something like no i understand they're side characters. i understand we don't need all that. and i understand this is also primarily Jimmy's show. but it's not like these two are on the same level as like, arlo or paige and kevin etc. these guys have been around since brba. victor was literally introduced in the same episode gus was. and they are a huge part of gus's story, especially in brba. s4 wouldn't have been what it was without victor and tyrus. and in bcs, ignacio's situation wouldn't have been the same if it weren't for victor and tyrus as well. and i just personally believe that if their goal with gus in bcs was to go back and elaborate on how everything came to be and show what he was like a few years younger, they could've dragged victor and tyrus into that. and i think his character would've benefited from taking that extra step with those two.

[halamshirals]

did you guys know that, well, the cruelty is the point

[rendnotmyheart]

Just some ramblings about the differences I've found interesting so far between the A and B texts of Doctor Faustus:

1) A-text 1.3.14 "Then fear not, Faustus, but be resolute."

vs. B-text 1.3.14 "Then fear not, Faustus, to be resolute."

Not many thoughts on this except that in the first, being resolute is put in contrast to fear, as if by being resolute Faustus can assuage his fear. Whereas, in the second, being resolute is what is to be feared. It's Faustus trying to assuage his fears about being resolute.

2) A-text 1.3.45 "No, I came not hither of mine own accord."

vs. B-text 1.3 "No, I came now hither of mine own accord."

Just completely different meanings here. Did Meph come of his own accord when Faustus called or not? Well, you get a completely different answer to that depending on which text you read. (I like the second one, and I think it makes more sense for it to be "now" instead of "not." These two are close enough though that I feel like one of them is probably just whoever wrote the quarto mishearing the word)

3) A-text 2.1.136-142 "Faus:...cannot live without a wife / Meph: How, a wife? I prithee, Faustus, talk not of / a wife. / Faus: Nay, sweet Mephistopheles, fetch me one, for I will / have one. / Meph: Well, thou wilt have one? Sit there till I come. / I'll fetch thee a wife in the devil's name."

vs. B-text 2.1.136-138 "Faus:...and cannot live / without a wife. / Meph: Well, Faustus, thou shalt have a wife."

I thought it was interesting that the B-text didn't have this little spiel. In my other edition based on the A-text, the footnote for "How a wife? I prithee, Faustus, talk not of wife" says that Meph can't produce a wife for Faustus because marriage is a sacrament. Which I don't think marriage is a sacrament for Protestants? But it is interesting to think about how marriage is something holy, and therefore even when Meph eventually fulfills this request, he specifies that it's a wife in the devil's name, not God's.

I just really like that little bit of nuance about wives and marriage, and was like :// when the B-text didn't have it.

4) And right after that part above the stage directions for each are: A-text "Enter Mephistopheles with a Devil dressed like a woman"

vs. B-text "He fetches in a Woman Devil."

Which is just so so interesting. The distinction between a devil dressed like a woman and a woman devil. One is not a woman, just pretending to be. The other is a woman, but it's also a devil. Idk, it's just so so interesting.

5) A-text 2.3.17-24 "My heart's so hardened I cannot repent. Scare can I name salvation, faith, or heaven, / But fearful echoes thunder in mine ears, / 'Faustus, thou art damned.' Then swords and knives, / Poison, guns, halters, and envenomed steel / Are laid before me to despatch myself; / And long ere this I should have slain myself / Had not sweet pleasure conquered deep despair."

vs B-text 2.3.18-24 "My heart is hardened; I cannot repent. / Scarce can I name salvation, faith, or heaven. / Swords, poison, halters, and envenomed steel / Are laid before me to dispatch myself; / And long ere this I should have done the deed, / Had not sweet pleasure conquered deep despair."

Ok first of all, "My heart's so hardened I cannot repent" vs. "My heart is hardened; I cannot repent." To me, the first puts more emphasis on the degree of hardendness, which makes it feel more nuanced than the second. In the second, his heart just is hardened and that's why he can't repent. In the first, he can't repent because of the degree to which his heart has hardened. Idk, the first give off "how has it gotten this far?" vibes, while the second gives off "this is how it is" vibes to me. Add the extra two lines of the A-text to that, and it really emphasizes the way Faustus's fate is being shaped in contrast to the the B-text simply stating how things are. The hardendness is a degree; it has become hardened rather than it is or it isn't hardened. There is an echo that reminds him he is damned when he thinks on heavenly things, an echo that is followed by the appearance of various weapons. It emphasizes the series of actions that lead to an end instead of just stating the facts that Faustus can scarcely name heavenly things and that weapons appear before him. Idk, the A-text seems to show how Faustus believes he is damned while the second just tells us everything straight up.

6) A-text 2.3.76 "Never too late, if Faustus can repent."

vs. B-text 2.3.80 "Never too late, if Faustus will repent."

Can vs. will. One's ability to do something vs. one's choice whether or not to do something. Again, I really like the A-text, the question of can Faustus repent rather than will he. It's just so much more interesting to me to ponder how much control he really had over his fate than how he came to one choice or another. Like sorry, but that's so boring. Literally who cares what Faustus chooses. I care about whether he ever really had a choice to being with. That's so much more interesting.

7) A-text 2.3.161 "O, this feeds my soul!"

vs. B-text 2.3.63 "O, how this sight doth delight my soul!"

Nothing here except that I adore the A-text's line because of the way Faustus using magic is characterized as gluttony or surfeit throughout the play. I like how the A-text taps into that metaphor again.

[bigcats-birds-and-books]

Books of 2024: August Wrap-Up.

Hey, would you look at that, it's suddenly September! Rude and uncalled for. This month, I did a lot of knitting (two sets of gloves and two hats! gearing up for holiday season), and a LOT of writing (finished the first 16k draft of a scene, who???), and read uh. Some. I didn't finish a ton of books, but I did make it through what felt like a ton of pages.

Two-thirds of this month's reading were post-apocalyptic-community-oriented, on purpose, to feed into my current writing project, and that worked really well--either I'm very good at choosing books that match the vibe I need, or my ADHD brain is good at making connections, OR a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. Photos and/or reviews linked below:

GHOST STATION (pages-out stand-in book pictured above, because I checked it out from the library after canceling my paperback pre-order, which was a good call) - ★★ This was very bad. Bad science, stupid incompetent characters, JUST enough neat worldbuilding to make it FRUSTRATING that this missed so hard. I'm bummed because I wanted to read DEAD SILENCE by this author, too, but I don't trust her now :(

ALWAYS COMING HOME - ★★★★½ Loved this!! Dense and chewy, and it required a lot of patience, but it was very rewarding and I'm really glad I read it. My absolute favorite passage was about scrub oaks, but I posted a few other highlights and tagged them as "le guin posting," if you're interested! If you like Le Guin and/or utopias and better futures and/or huge books that push what it means to Be A Novel, check this out for sure.

ARCHANGELS OF FUNK - ★★★½ So. I didn't realize that this was attached to a few other novels she's already written. And I read it cold (oops). Goodreads informed me that it was Book #2 of Cinnamon Jones, and review-diving indicated that REDWOOD AND WILDFIRE is also implicated in its worldbuilding, but that didn't stop me because I can't read. I would like to revisit this one after I've read those other two, I think, but!: The community and vibes and Making Art At The End Of The World were all immaculate, and the character names made me feel vindicated in some of my own naming conventions (seriously: there's an Indigo in this, and a Game-Boy, and Hawk, I can't make this shit up).

Under the Cut: A Note About ~*★Stars★*~

Historically, I have been Very Bad™ about assigning things Star Ratings, because it's so Vibes Heavy for me and therefore Contingent Upon my Whims. I am refining this as I figure out my wrap up posts (epiphany of this month: I don't like that stars are Odd, because that makes three the midpoint and things are rarely so truly mid for me)(I have hacked my way around this with a ½). Here is, generally, how I conceptualize stars:

★ - This was Bad. I would actively recommend that you do NOT read this one, no redeeming qualities whatsoever, not worth the slog. Save Yourself, It's Too Late For Me. Book goes in the garbage (donate bin).

★★ - This was Not Good. I would not recommend it, but it wasn't a total waste or wash--something in here held my interest/kept my attention/sparked some joy. I will not be rereading this ever. Save Yourself (Or Join Me In Suffering, That Seems Like A Cool Bonding Activity).

★★★ - This was Good/Fine/Okay/Meh. I don't care about this enough to recommend it one way or another. Perfectly serviceable book, held my interest, I probably enjoyed myself (or at least didn't actively loathe the reading). I don't have especially strong feelings. You probably don't need to save yourself from this one--if it sounds like your jam, give it a shot! Just didn't resonate with me particularly powerfully. I probably won't reread this unless I'm after something in particular.

★★★½ - I liked this! I'll probably recommend it if I know it matches someone's vibes or specific requests, but I didn't commit to a star rating on Goodreads. More likely to reread, but not guaranteed.

★★★★ - I really enjoyed this!! I would recommend it (sometimes with caveats about content warnings or such--I tend to like weird fucked up funny shit, and I don't have many hard readerly NO's). Not a perfect book for me by any means, but Very Good. This is something I would reread! Join me!!

★★★★★ - I LOVED THE SHIT OUT OF THIS, IT REWIRED MY BRAIN, WILL RECOMMEND TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE AT THE SLIGHTEST PROVOCATION (content warning caveats still apply--see 4-star disclaimer). Excellent book, I'll reread it regularly, I'll buy copies for all my friends, I'll try to convince all of Booklr to read it, PLEASE join me!!

[rustystars]

s1 of true detective has its own share of misogyny but at the very least, there’s a thread throughout it that not treating the women in your life with respect leads to those women not wanting to be around you. marty consistently views women & girls as either in need of protection or in want of sex rather than as complex people, & the story punishes him for this. maggie leaves him & his daughters barely talk to him & his girlfriends are few & far between. & this doesn’t make him a bad person! he’s the hero of the story & he cares incredibly deeply about them, but until he sees them as people, it’s hard for them to want to be around him. it’s a baseline understanding that misogyny, both systematically & on personal levels, leads to women being miserable.

compare that with s2, which somewhat builds itself around conversations of sexual agency & exploitation, but cannot define a single woman outside of her relationship to men. women are abused by men & must be saved by them; when women help themselves they do so ineffectively; they scream & cry & fuck & even then men know how to do it better. even ani, the main character & the Strong Badass Woman detective, is punished for having sex. she cannot protect herself or process her own sexual trauma (only men can help her do that), & she cannot make good decisions in terms of partners (& it's only fair that men degrade & shame her in response.) the only way she, & any other woman in s2, can be happy is through marriage or motherhood. she expresses nowhere in the show that she wants to be a mother, but the viewer is meant to accept her ending as happy, because she has a baby, so she MUST be. the only women who matter, or who can find any sort of contentment, are the mothers of sons. every child in s2 is a boy because women exist only to raise or fuck them, & have no experience of girlhood at all. you can be happy only if you find a good man, & if you can't, only if you commit yourself to being a good mother to your sons. women can only be happy with men to guide them. & also the mystery is boring to watch because fuck you

[sengokubasara3]

there's another post i want to make, eventually, about what i feel is the most overarching theme in slayers -- and it's such a simple yet broad theme that it feels difficult to explain or articulate anything about, but... there's such an emphasis on being alive, and continuing to live no matter what. the mazoku, by nature, exist in direct opposition to this mentality (though it's not so clear cut as that), making them perfectly suited to be the ideological opponents of lina and co

[icharchivist]

But honestly, Maleagant's speech moved me to tears. Just. Being subjected to all of that horror just because of the way you were born. Being ostracized and hated and treated as less than human just because of the way you are... As a LGBTQ person, that hits close to home. That's really relevant in today's times and I'm glad the subject matter was treated with respect and they weren't made out to be the villains because they retaliated against the oppressive system. It was just really good. cries

honestly yeah, same. it genuinely messed me up.

i don't really talk about it on here but hhh my Mom is of Jewish and French&Algerian descent, and while she didn't pass down anything culturally speaking (she considers herself atheist and she did everything in her life to conceal our heritage, so i don't know as many cultural stuff that isn't just. the Trauma:tm: or just things my mom unconsciously passed down), the conversation, especially, about how much our family had lost to the holocaust when her family lived in France, and then to the Algerian war after they moved there have been.... a lot. this is something we talk about a lot.

like. i think it's why i also kinda flew off the handle a little at receiving dick jokes out of it because to me it's just. Yeah. Yeah i those are conversations that hit extremely deep especially in term of generational trauma, and, of course, current politics as well.

I think it's also like. something i'm kinda eyeing Lancelot about in case his Valiant heritage ever happen to be relevant. Because i know i've seen people brush it off like it doesn't matter because Lancelot doesn't seem to feel anything with the dragons around him or not but there's... definitely something to be had with a heritage to a culture you weren't taught anything about and yet still the ghost of knowing it could fall down on you at anytime.

I think it's really hard to find a story that really talk about genocide while also being like. fair to the victims. More often than not fantasy stories in particular end up falling into the trap of saying that there was a reason it happened, actually, or that well it's from the past you can't punish the people now :/ or stuff like that and it's. wehh.

Personally, it made me think especially about the Ainu people in Japan. I am not really well versed on the topic, but there was basically a whole genocide on the Indigenous people of Hokkaido, and i know in recent years, Japan has been trying to take some lands that belonged to the Ainu in order to build in some themeparks, and when the Ainu survivors tried to make their plea heard and have Japan acknowledge their warcrimes, the government denied it fully. (and it's not to mention how Koreans have been asking for the past decades for Japan to recognize their warcrimes and the gov still fully in pure denial it even happened. which is a similar topic that is worth mentioning)

in the past few years Japan has been under fire for their complete refusal to address the genocides and warcrimes they had commited, and there's been a really big public outcry around the world about the state denial going on and the way it also transcribe on how those genocides are... well... /not/ taught.

so i do think it's like, extremely relevant to Japanese politics. I even saw a seiyuu mention how topical this event is. This is an event that directly criticize the current Japanese policy of constant denial and stuff.

and, obviously, it can apply to any other situation where rights are denied to people for various reasons, which is extremely relevant all around the world because of the rise of fascism and the way most governments these days are completely lost in the history revisionism sauce, and it's genuinely alarming. Look at any country's politics and all of them are trying to rewrite history in some way and it's sickening.

I personally immediately connected to it because, on top of my history awareness, it's just like. conversations i regularly have with my mom when we discuss our family's past. It stung extremely close from home. even if i'm also LGBT+ this was where my thoughts immediately went.

but therefore, it's something that applies to any experiences of oppressed people who are currently having their history erased by fascist government that are trying to get rid of "the undesirable"

i genuinely think granblue dealt with the topic with a lot of grace, and Maleagant genuinely managed to pass down the politics, the pain, the history, the old hurt as well as the new hurt, just so well.

it really struck a cord with me. It was really well done.

so yeah feeling you fully on this one friend.

I think this event was pretty graceful at addressing this topic while also really anchoring itself as anti-fascist and it was honestly a breath of fresh air.

[notmoreflippingelves]

For the pairing ask meme: Jo/Laurie from Little Women (really curious about it!) And Carla/Mateo from EoA (because kinda love your Mateo roasting and takes 😁)

Jo/Laurie (????)

This is hard, because I don't know whether I ship it or not. I do but I don't. I think if I were to guess I'd say overall, I primarily don't except for Winona Ryder!Jo/Christian Bale! Laurie from Little Women (1994). I guess I'm going to go with "no" overall, because honestly as much as I love that adaptation, Christian Bale Laurie is arguably too "cool"/suave compared to book!Laurie (who tbh is more than a bit pathetic sometimes). Like I'm genuinely a little "What are you thinking?" when Winona!Jo turns Bale!Laurie down but I am mostly okay with it in all other incarnations. I do also mostly like Amy/Laurie and Jo/Bhaer as much if not more , so yeah I'm not really cut up about it Jo/Laurie not being endgame.

Why don’t you ship it?

For me, it's largely that there is a sense (more pronounced in some adaptions than others) that Laurie wants to be a March Girl™ (gender-neutral) more than he wants to be Jo's life-partner which is not really the idea ship vibe--even if I can't exactly blame him as I too would do almost anything to be a March Girl. Like sure Jo was his first choice by far and I do believe that his eventual relationship with Amy is genuinely based on more than "settling"--but I also feel relatively sure that he might have hypothetically settled for Beth or Meg under other circumstances. And that's just not a solid start for a relationship, if your s.o. could've hypothetically is always low-key considering your sibling as a backup plan if things go south with you too. (I mean you could say that the same is true of Laurie/Amy, but I do think it's less bad b/c Amy has literally been in love with Laurie since she was 12 and because overall their personalities "mesh" a little better than Jo/Laurie).

I also worry a bit about how Laurie's wealth might hypothetically impact the Jo/Laurie relationship. I do think that he would continue to be supportive of her writing and theatrical dreams, but I can also see him overcompensating/supporting her "too much." Unlike Bhaer, I don't think Laurie is capable of offering her constructive criticism that is necessary for her work to improve. He's too much of an inherent simp who thinks Jo March is already the most amazing human to ever exist (again can't totally blame him for that) to even conceive of the possibility that she has genuine strengths and weaknesses. I can also see him throwing his money and influence around a little in order to get her published/earning favorable reviews. Jo is fiercely independent and so achieving her dreams on her own terms/by her own merit is supremely important to her--arguably more important than her achieving them at all. Laurie interfering in her career even positively/with good intentions would inevitably cause a lot of conflict between them and create some self-doubt of Jo as to whether she really "earned"/"deserves" her success at all.

What would have made you like it?

As I mentioned I do sort of like it even as I also dislike it. I guess I would like it more consistently/wish it was endgame if Laurie was just a wee bit less eager/obsessed/convinced they were "meant to be." Also if we had a stronger sense that Jo herself wanted the romance specifically as opposed to just Laurie staying in her life. Another thing that makes me a little wary about Jo/Laurie is the meta-aspect of knowing that Louisa May Alcott was very adamant about not wanting them together. Her publisher pretty much insisted that Jo needed to find love in Part 2 and so she created Professor Bhaer in order to give Jo an alternate love interest

Despite not shipping it, do you have anything positive to say about it?

A lot, especially since I don't not ship it even if I don't ship it. Their "meet cute" scene at the ball is one of my favorite scenes in the book and arguably one of my favorite "character introduction scenes" in all of literature. I think that the two of them have great chemistry and a really supportive dynamic. They care deeply about each other and have so much fun together. (You see this as well in the sequels. Even though they're both romantically with other people, they are still go-to confidants and partners-in-mischief for each other).

I also think that narratively Jo/Laurie has to "work" on some level in order to justify the direction that story takes. The first time that you encounter the story, the reader/viewer needs to really like them together and assume that them being endgame is inevitable. It gives Jo's decision to reject his proposal more poignancy and agency. She needs to love him deeply and know that he loves her--even if they can't love each other in the same way--in order to fully be able to choose herself and her goals over him. If he's not an otherwise desirable option, her choice not to choose him isn't a real choice. She needs to be conflicted, tempted even, if her decision to prioritize her own dreams and needs over his and her family's is to hold any real weight.

And Alcott (and most of the adaptions) do a fantastic job of making Jo/Laurie seem plausible/desirable so that the rejected proposal emotionally fulfills its narrative purpose for Jo's character development (and a lesser extent Laurie's and Amy's as well).

Carla/Mateo (I ship it albeit very low-key though Carla probably deserves better)

What made you ship it?

Probably their interactions in late S3 most of all (especially the finale). I think there is clearly attraction and chemistry between them. They seem to have similar, slightly dorky and clumsy personalities that seem like they would mesh well. And shallow , I know, but their character models are also attractive and look good together.

What are your favorite things about the ship?

Is it bad if I say that I like how easily Rita!Carla was able to make Mateo look like the biggest fool in all Avalor?

I think there is a lot of potential for the two of them to bond. They're both very family-oriented, and I think there's a lot of potential for them to grow closer as being the only (and a little coddled/spoiled) children of very loving but somewhat smothering single parents (Victor and Rafa)--as well as missing their absent other parents (Ash and Mateo's father).

They are also arguably THE characters (well them, Victor, and Olivia) who are most actively interested in learning magic. (Gabe and Elena express some curiosity but specifically in the context of magic being a tool to protect the kingdom as opposed to something they want to learn just for itself). So it's nice to think of magic being another way that they can grow closer/flirt/have fun together.

I also adore the Delgado father and daughter relationship and enjoy thinking about how Carla/Mateo would impact Victor and his relationship with his daughter. Whether he's supportive (most likely) or hesitant (my personal head canon), it has the potential to be really fun/funny and heartwarming.

Is there an unpopular opinion you have on your ship?

Carla/Mateo is one of the only Mateo ships that I can tolerate. Sorry not sorry. It's this and like two non-existent rare pairs . And even then, I don't think I am ever doing more than casually enjoying it, since my Mateo indifference is so strong. (I do really like Carla though and have a few more ships with her).

[rearranging-deck-chairs]

thinking about these friends partners

[blorbosexterminator]

For all there is negative to say about the spin-off and Berlin I at least have the comfort to know that Pina would never mischaracterize and misrepresent Berlin as the fandom did when everyone just decided to shut their eyes and ears in the Viking Gold scene and instead assumed the exact opposite of what happened. Just completely ignoring what Andrés literally said in the scene so just they would have a "at core Martín and Berlin are actually the opposite uwu and Martin is so much better" when the scenes were literal direct parallels of each other and where Andrés and Martín said the exact same things just about different cultures and different groups of people