#sorry if someone said this already

[io-u-a-moon]

hands

[sunfire-shield]

Ohhhh. I get it now. the star falling to earth in the poster, in the last of the s6 promotional posters, which Aaravos looked so distraught about. was Leola’s corpse. falling to earth

[intersexcat-tboy]

I didn't see the TV glow, it saw me

[dhampiravidi]

what if Jason Todd is Percabeth’s baby who was orphaned & taken in by mortals? it’d make sense why the Lazarus Pit seemed to work more effectively on Jason than anyone else (as far as I know)...the sea-green eyes, the dark hair, the loyalty as a fatal flaw, the snark, the calculating mind...

[bisquitly]

Is it just me or does the new twitter logo (and the fact it gonna be called freaking X) look like some gay corn site... just saying

[hbogirls]

and when the cruel summer music video has a female love interest what then... 

[willtheweirdrat]

"Ableds shouldn't baby talk disabled people cause it's infantilizing" and "Some disabled people need things to be explained to them in an easier to understand way" are thoughts that CAN and SHOULD co-exist.

[dykephan]

we're cooked

[branwinged]

"dragons plant no trees" gets thrown around a lot as fact, but i think the veracity of that claim is still up for debate in the books. because dany (like bran and jon and many others) is a narrative symbol of hope and rebirth within the series because of her connection to dragons and fire, not in spite of it. this is because dragons in asoiaf have a much more expansive narrative function than simply 'nuke metaphor'. the 'exclusively weapons of war' image they have acquired breaks down immediately if you recall that the first thing dany does with them is begin dismantling an unjust status quo. she rallies the unsullied at the gates of astapor with cries of dracarys! dracarys! freedom! <- dragons as a symbol of hope and freedom for the persecuted. and obviously they've been built up as an oppositional force against the others. we're told when the last dragon died summers became shorter. in that respect the dragons, or more specifically, fire which is warmth which is passion—very much embodies life against the numbing, deadening threat of eternal winter that the others represent. but fire also consumes, which simultaneously makes dragons agents of destruction, or as adwd shows: the monsters who eat little girls and leave behind their bones. but when dany found herself chained to a false peace which effectively undid her cause in meereen, it was the dragon that rescued her and reignited her fire to fight back—which is to say that dragons represent a wealth of contradictions within the text and this is likely something grrm means to parallel with the others to some extent, by questioning their apparent narrative role as the one true evil. because i doubt the series is gearing up towards a spectacle-esque battle wherein our heroes get to practice righteous, easy violence on a monolithic army of monsters. that feels like it would undo a lot of asoiaf's preoccupation with investigating violence against socially acceptable targets, even if said target is ice sidhe. and this binary between a one true good and a one true evil, i.e. melisandre's philosophy ("if half an onion is black with rot, it is a rotten onion. a man is good or he is evil.") is not something the story takes as given.

instead there's this exchange between bran, jojen, and meera in asos: "but you just said you hated them." / "why can't it be both?" / because they're different. like night and day, or ice and fire." / "if ice can burn. then love and hate can mate."—and i think it's talking about reconciling two conflicting ideas. because the dream of an eternal summer is just as unsustainable as the threat of eternal winter. i think the battle for dawn is more about questions of seasonal harmony. the first line from agot's summary says, "long ago, in a time forgotten, a preternatural event threw the seasons out of balance", so it's not totally out of question for the series to end with that seasonal balance restored once more. and that question of balance and how it can be achieved then works as a metaphor for a bunch of other things. because asoiaf at its core is very interested in exploring big contradictions, like love and duty? how do you keep all your oaths without betraying someone you love? how can one hope for a just, rightful ruler in a world where the systems in place can never allow such a thing? how do dragons plant trees?

you cannot frame dany's arc as a binary choice between planting trees or embracing (dragon)fire. because the fire is hers, it is a part of her, that's who she is. and her character has always existed outside of rigid dichotomies. at the end of agot she had two options, resign herself to a life of seclusion as a widow or die with the last of her family in that pyre, instead she performed a miracle. presently, i think grrm means to explore necessary, revolutionary violence with her arc because you cannot deal with institutional slavery by simply negotiating with slavers like she does in adwd. and the consequences thereof because she's also been set up to be more reckless with dragonfire in the future. but i think there will be an eventual reconciliation there, between her dreams "to plant trees and watch them grow." and her role as the mother of dragons, as a revolutionary figure. because if ice can burn, then maybe dragons can plant trees. they'll learn how to.

[agentearthling]

you know what I think is really beautiful?

Edwin and Charles were literally running from Death. if she caught them, it's over. that's always been their greatest fear. so the smart and easy thing to do would be to avoid doing ANYTHING that might bring her near them, to stay under the radar, and avoid any situation that could have Death visiting.

but they don't cower. they HELP ghosts to move on. they're actively putting themselves in danger to solve mysteries and assist others, even if it brings Death uncomfortably close (like, even showing up in their office close)

they didn't have to do that. but they did. sure, they may often charge for their services or have personal reasons like "possibly leniency from Hell" or whatever, but it's still such a kindhearted thing to do. they're so impressive and good honestly I love them so much

[dnpbeats]

ok so are we thinking segment of the tour where they impersonate each other orrr

[pestilentbrood]

in other news

[eddiegirls]

✨ eddie wore that cologne when he took buck to poker and that's how buck knows it's his date night cologne ✨

[garciapimienta]

the beggining of this video is so funny because why was unai simón's first instinct to someone grabbing his sleeve to turn around ready to beat them up

[eye-of-yelough]

I am of the firm belief that when Durge tells Astarion “Repeat after me: Thank you for helping me, it was very kind.” they are subconsciously mimicking Gortash.

[sunfire-shield]

Just rewatched The Red Wedding and thinking about the word idealist and how it relates to Karim and Ezran this episode. Idealist can mean a person who is guided more by ideals than by practical considerations, and it can also mean someone who strives for an ideal, or for an optimistic goal. Ezran embodies the latter; he believes in peace, and he is willing to fight for it even in the face of unflinching opposition. But Ezran is very much not the former; Karim is. Karim is guided more by his ideals, and puts less thought into the strategic side of it. In s4 he challenges his sister before he has the full support of enough politically key individuals, on the impetus that he believes himself right. He hires Kim’dael and is unable to follow through on what he promises her, and he doesn’t learn from either of these failures. Ezran came to the meeting calm and collected and with his heart on his sleeve, because he genuinely believes in the power of love and peace, and not just as a dream but a decision, as he puts it; he speaks for and negotiates for peace with his whole chest, but he plans contingencies. Corvus is at his side; Aanya takes up a sniper position some distance away; and Zym lies in wait. Ezran is guided by his ideals, but he isn’t foolish. He knows what kind of lions den he’s walking into, and he has a very hope for the best, prepare for the worst, kind of strategy in place. He covers his back. Karim does not do this. Karim had no plan for if Sol Regem didn’t show; it was just so unthinkable to him. He was so confident in his own righteousness and his own myth, his own destiny, that he doesn’t have any back ups, he has planned no contingencies, and hoodwinked his own followers with his overinflated opinion of himself and his destiny. Even Miyana didn’t seem to consider that they could lose today, or what to do if such an event came to pass. It’s why she’s willing to be so plain about attitudes she’s had all along, but kept closer to her chest. Her disdain for the humans, her belief in Karim’s Sunfire Empire. “Open your eyes, Little King,” (use of a diminutive to demean) “You cannot be blind to destiny.” She believes in Karim’s total victory today as much as he does. She may rebuke Ezran for being “blind to destiny”, but she’s blinded by destiny, or Karim’s belief in it. Even she, the traditionally more careful of the pair, plans no contingencies, even though she’s always seemed the greater strategist. Things don’t really go ideally (pun intended) for either of them on this day, but Ezran was prepared, and Karim was not. They’re both idealists in the most wonderfully opposite ways