#so the moment has long passed

[esleep]

something some people fail to understand about the character names in Dune is that the ridiculously basic names like “paul” and “jessica” and “duncan” serve as slightly jarring reminders that this is all taking place in the far-distant future of our very own society. it’s such a fanciful future not rooted in reality that it can be easy to lose track of that sometimes until you read the name “duncan idaho” or references to the “orange catholic bible” and are reminded that oh yeah, our current earth has a place in the history of this world

[cybertron-smash-or-pass]

TFA Blitzwing

[introspectivememories]

roger who's nickname for buggy was "junebug" cause they found him in june and his hair is the same color.... buggy who hates it at first until he's climbing into his captain's bed at night bc of a nightmare and his captain says ever so softly, "oh junebug, c'mere"..... the nickname getting adopted by everyone on the crew until nobody calls him buggy anymore..... them meeting up with thr whitebeard pirates and getting irrationally jealous when the whitebeards use the nickname bc that's their nickname and who the fuck do these people think they are getting so close to their junebug.... rouge who has never met buggy calling him junebug in her head.... roger whose last words to buggy that fateful day before loguetown was "you shine like the sun, junebug. never stop"..... buggy who waits for years after the execution for a call from one of his former crew members, hoping every time the den-den one day it'll be rayleigh or seagull or gaban or sunbell on the other side with a familiar "hey junebug", except no one ever calls and the years go by and buggy slowly learns to stop waits, and gives on being the roger's junebug and learns how to be buggy the clown, buggy the genius jester, buggy the immortal, everything and anything other than junebug

[fictionadventurer]

I went into Ruth expecting a dreary read. How could a Victorian "fallen woman" story be anything other than dark and depressing? So I was shocked right from the beginning to find a sweet, gentle, romantic story. The dressmaker's apprentice who sits in the coldest, darkest part of the workroom because that's where there's a panel painted with flowers that remind her of her country home? How could I not adopt her as a favorite character? Ruth's innocent, romantic outlook on life gave us some beautiful descriptions of the scenery of both city and countryside, and my imagination went on overdrive to create very vivid images of the story. Even the love story, which we know is going to go very wrong, starts out sweet, with a kind, charming love interest who only shows flashes of just how wrong his character is going to go.

Even after Ruth's fall, the story is so gentle, putting Ruth among kind people who are willing to risk and sacrifice a lot to help her. And then the story gets almost too gentle--after some initial struggles with depression, Ruth resolves to bear her troubles patiently and work toward virtue, and her sweet, too-innocent character gets flattened out into someone who's just Good. Life just goes on, with things generally going well, and every potential turn toward drama results in someone deciding to be reasonable, which can make the story drag.

But, in a story like this, the lack of drama becomes the plot twist! It is refreshing to see characters who don't always jump to the worst conclusion or take the worst action, who pause and consider the whole story and act like decent human beings.

And in the places when the drama does kick in, it's good drama. Painful drama. It's also (especially in the last section of the story) melodrama. There were sections of the book where I was rolling my eyes at the cookie-cutter Victorian path the story was taking--but then there'd be one line or one moment that would just stab me in the chest because of how beautifully specific it was to this story. Just enough to elevate it from something bland to something unique and fascinating.

I often had the thought that this book could be about a third of its length without losing anything--yet it should also be just as long as it was. If the story cut all its repetitive musings about Ruth's regret, and used that space to develop the side characters and and show the plot instead of telling us about it, it would be a much deeper story. I found myself wishing Gaskell had reworked this one later in her career--the way that North and South was a more skillful reworking of the issues explored in Mary Barton. In a way, she sort of did in Wives and Daughters, with the story of Molly the quiet innocent getting tangled up in the intrigues surrounding her headstrong, flirtatious stepsister Cynthia serving as a more layered, personality-flipped version of the story where headstrong, sheltered Jemima gets tangled in the story of quiet, sweet Ruth and her past romantic intrigues. (The doctor at the end of the story also feels like a proto-Mr. Gibson).

Yet I'm still fascinated by the themes specific to this story. Contrary to expectation, this "fallen woman" story isn't about sex, or gender, or how unfairly women are treated (though it does touch on that in the end). It's about sin. It's not questioning why Ruth's behavior is considered a sin or looking to dismantle the society saying that it's a sin. It comes from the Christian perspective of saying that sin is real and harms people--so how are we going to deal with that?

The story shows lots of people struggling with temptation, failing, and dealing with the consequences (or harming others with the consequences). Sin is always a case of either not caring enough to do the more difficult, good thing, or a case of "the ends justify the means", where people rationalize their bad behavior as something necessary in this specific case. It always leads to harm, but some people--and some sins--suffer greater consequences in the eyes of the world, whether or not they deserve it. I wish the story had developed and resolved this theme better in places, but the raw material there is fascinating food for thought.

This book is Gaskell at her preachiest, but also Gaskell at her kindest. It explores deep, difficult issues in a very loving way. As a story, there are ways it could be better, but I'm very glad I read it. Perhaps I'm making a point to be kinder to it because I know it's the type of story that today's readers tend to judge harshly. But amid my issues with the story, there are some lovely images, some great messages, and some wonderful characters that going to be living in my heart for a long time.

[skunkes]

if life is categorized by Before Loss and After Loss then I exist in the before but with a countdown to the after. and the countdown is always always present and debilitating. the loss will be debilitating too but i cant help myself. i will always suffer twice.

[mus1ca1]

november 2022 - final shot

[revenantghost]

I love so many Trigun creations of so many flavors, I can't choose a favorite. But there's something so special about that warm and tender feeling you get when you see something, have to sit back or step away, shut your eyes, and think, "God they're so fucking stupid."

[deeva-arud]

Boo!

I'm the paranormal activity on your dash :]

[crownrots]

[birdkittenn]

writing a character who has permanent cracked bones over their heart ? dont know how the fuck to write them in pain over that specifically ? its ok you can get a free trial of what that sort of feels like for free by lying down so cosy in your bed

[minka-cola]

got my first of the super emeralds!! i feel like i'm losing my mind

[brother-emperors]

I'm so sorry if you get tired of answering asks about Pompey and Crassus BUT your response to the anon asking if Crassus let Pompey get away with things really got me thinking! Specifically about the way that Plutarch (I think?) says that Crassus didn't hold ill-will against Pompey for "stealing" his triumph. And how it feels like Crassus just kind of decided to shrug it off and instead asked Pompey for help for the consulship elections. Crassus seems so ruthless and direct while on the field, and I have so many questions about how he and Pompey worked together in Spoletium which will never be answered 😭 But then when it comes to politics I really can't see the pattern!

oh, I love talking about Crassus (and Pompey too, by extension), literally I can't stop. you can ask several people. I'll be talking about one thing, and all of a sudden: Crassus has entered the conversation. it's terrible, I can't stop. mostly, it takes me a thousand years to articulate my thoughts in any kind of way that makes sense.

I actually think that there are two times that Crassus subtextually calls Pompey a bitch, and the triumph incident is one of them!

specifically in that Crassus's comment about it:

Crassus, for all his self-approval, did not venture to ask for the major triumph, and it was thought ignoble and mean in him to celebrate even the minor triumph on foot, called the ovation, for a servile war.

Crassus is also not the first person to hold this sentiment.

Crassus' Ovation in 71 B.C., B.A. Marshall

I think it's important to remember that for Rome as a whole, the Third Servile War was terrifying because of the scale of the threat it posed to how an imperial wheelhouse running on a slave economy functions, but also because it's really fucking embarrassing for Rome's identity.

Crassus is also not the first person who commands the leading role against Spartacus. Spartacus goes through two other commanders before Rome asks Crassus to enter the scene. Crassus specifically is a private citizen when he is asked to step into this role: up until now, Rome's own praetors and consuls have failed to rise to the occasion.

Crassus' Ovation in 71 B.C., B.A. Marshall

Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic, Allen Mason Ward

this is a deeply humiliating moment for the Roman reputation and identity. Pompey taking credit for Crassus' victory is an expected power grab, but it's also kind of cringe that he did it. Crassus was doing Roman's Duty To The State (or, if you like a spicier take on it, may have pulled strings for it. after all, you can't consider a man rich unless he can fund his own army. and the army Crassus brought with him for this was is own)

and so taking credit for that is like. man. this was NOT a "glorious war" that was fought. (Lucullus cites this as a blemish on Pompey's character during his vulture speech, it's very fun!)

so while Crassus may have realized that writing back to Rome and requesting back up was a mistake because whoever showed up would have the world's easiest time taking credit and accepted that it would happen, I do think that he took alternative measures to even the playing field in a 'okay sure, have your triumph, but don't think you're going to have it all,' kind of way because he also does this

Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic, Allen Mason Ward

Pliny, Natural History 15.125

Gell. NA 5.6.23

Cic. Pis. 58

which does not strike me as the behavior of someone who is letting Pompey just run away with it without any kind of pushback.

and now to throw out literally everything I just said about the Triumph Incident, B.A. Marshall (whose article I've cited several times already in this) has an incredibly compelling case to make that there wasn't really as much conflict between the two over this as ancient narratives might indicate (which. seems to be a recurring theme with them)

Crassus' Ovation in 71 B.C., B.A. Marshall

I will stick to my narrative speculation that some of their respective peers probably thought it was at least embarrassing behavior on Pompey's part, because Lucullus has a lot of vitriol to direct at Pompey, and he does cite this incident as something negative to Pompey's overall character) someone who steals credit and glory from other people). so. hm. I think the assumed personal and periodically biting rivalry (in addition to the usual political rivalry) between the two is extremely fun, but so is. this. thoughts! much to think about.

[gifti3]

happy bday to me! 🎂🥳🎉

for this very special day i wanted to list and compare the presents and interactions i got in the mobile games ive been playing consistently lmao

under cut cause the pics are big

Time Princess A letter with 10 golden tickets, 100 stamina, and 10000 coins

Obey Me! Nightbringer 1 UR+, UR, and SSR Joker each 3 Demon Vouchers 30 Karma Points 200 AP 30000 Grim 50 Devil Points Along with a bday video, birthday calls from the characters throughout the day and a UR guarantee for a 10 pull There's half-off on Devil Tree unlocks There's also special birthday dialogue in the Surprise Guests: -- the first Surprise Guest I did gave me 30 more Devil Points -- and you can press anywhere on the boys and get max hearts :]

What in HELL is Bad They haven't implemented bday stuff yet so nothing (´。＿。｀)

Twisted Wonderland A Happy Birthday from the character you have set as your favorite card and a Tenfold Key Set (for rolls)

and last but not least.....*drum roll* 🥁🥁🥁 Love and Deepsace! Special Happy Birthdays from each guy which include them singing happy birthday to you :3 Birthday Dialogue on the home screen Presents from each one (items you can use to decorate their desks) 500 Diamonds 5 Empyrean Wishes 1 Bottle of Wishes: SSR 1 Energy Capsule: Powerful And 2 birthday stickers

[mqonlighting]

real talk in the tags for a second because i have a crush on a girl and i. a hehe. ahehehe.

will be burying this in reblogs and never touching on it again

[philsmeatylegss]

Today is like the last hot-ish day (not hot is wearing leggings without sweating) and good timing because girlie is having body issues more than normal

[nicoappreciation]

i’ve had a few days to think and in all seriousness, for all of its flaws, i really didn’t think tsats was THAT bad. i at least believe it wasn’t written any worse than heroes of olympus. so yeah, there are reasons to complain about it, but i think the fan reaction on here is a bit disproportionate to how bad it actually was. if you go into the book already convinced that you’re not going to like it, then every tiny flaw is going to jump out at you and you’re going to take every reason you can to justify your belief that it’s the worst thing you’ve ever read. when in reality it was pretty good at best and kinda bad at worst. there are valid arguments for both.

i am in NO WAY saying that this book is perfect or that everyone complaining about it is stupid/hates fun/doesn’t know what they’re talking about, i’m just saying that i believe some people are being a bit too harsh and should maybe reconsider their initial reaction.

if you’re hesitant to read tsats because of the bad fan reception, i say at least give it a chance. keep an open mind, try not to let others’ perceptions influence your own too much, and form your own conclusion. if you don’t like it, then it’s just not for you. and that’s not a bad thing.