#this is. very very oversimplified

[gravelynz]

awful slideshow i used to briefly explain aqw tonight

[medraut-pen-draig]

on amok time again: they really did "spock experiences primal alien mating drive and murder fuck ritual," and didn't even play with "and this is an excuse to see our prim and proper mr spock get sensual with a lady!". like he expends ALL of his hot dominating fantasy uncontrollable lust rage energy ON KIRK. they wrote that and had ONE chance to make spock have any scandalous, carnal housewife jerk off material romance they wanted with any sexy space woman in the universe, and they chose kirk. when he does interact with a woman he throws a soup at her

[elbiotipo]

It's fascinating to me that for our modern (at least on European-influenced societies) thinking, the classical Roman way of life is so familiar. When you read about it, the rethoric of the speeches feels modern, a society based on contracts and laws and litigation, with public works, a state bureucracy and standing army and trade economy and even spectator sports, a concept of philosophy separated from religious dogma and tradition, with even a limited understanding of a government by 'the people' and 'citizenship', even the names all sound familiar even if in completely different contexts, and no wonder since they inspired our current politics.

This all in contrast to medieval feudalism, which is completely alien to me. A society created upon family connections and oaths of fealty and serfdom with no such thing as an overarching state, not even kingdoms were any more real than a title one person holds, and all held together completely, utterly, to an extent I cannot emphasize enough, by the institution of the Church and the Christian faith. In a way we just aren't used today in our secular world. I simply cannot overstate how everything, every single thing, was permeated by faith in the Medieval worldview and the Church which took its power from it, we have an understanding of it but I think people just don't realize it.

[bennetsbonnet]

Started reading Longbourn by Jo Baker and ooft... it's a struggle.

What's billed as 'a reimagining of Pride and Prejudice from the point of view of the servants' according to a quote on the cover is actually the author forcing their modern views onto domestic staff in the Regency era that it seems unlikely they would ever have held.

The narrative primarily follows Sarah (who is named in the original novel which furthers my point that the staff do have a role in it) who seems annoyed when she actually has to actually serve the family who employ her to be... a servant? Yes, to us today the concept of being employed by someone else to wash their clothes, help them dress and serve their food seems.... strange... to say the least, but at the time it was a job like any other and part of the strict hierarchical structure of society where everyone 'knew' their place.

While it is true that the Industrial Revolution saw domestic staff leave positions they held at estates such as Longbourn in droves and move to cities in search of better job opportunities and pay... that really began in earnest after this time (particularly when railways began to be constructed and travel became easier).

One of the servants came from a workhouse and as anyone with even a passing familiarity with the plot of Oliver Twist will understand, if you came from such abject poverty and dismal circumstances, being a servant at a country estate would seem like an amazing life in comparison.

There are also a lot of allusions to slavery which are, in my opinion, clumsily done and forced into the plot in an attempt, I think, by the author to subtly compare the suffering of slaves to the situation of domestic servants. Which is not only misguided but also pretty insensitive (to say the very least) given that tens of millions of human beings were forcibly removed across the Atlantic Ocean to work against their will in unimaginable conditions (if they even survived the Middle Passage) to line the pockets of the rich and to construct the nations which they and their descendants have largely been kept from benefitting economically from to this day... whereas servants in Britain worked for a wage and were (largely) treated well by their employers and had agency (obviously within reason, if they were treated badly they could quit but it would be a risk).

But servants spoke to each other, so masters and mistresses of estates knew that they must treat their staff well, otherwise they would never be able to secure decent help as no servant worth their salt would work for them. I don't dispute it was a tough life! But there were definitely more precarious situations than working an estate such as Longbourn for a family such as the Bennets.

Plus, I question the need for such as a perspective as I would argue that Pride and Prejudice actually does draws attention to the servants. We know the name of both Longbourn's housekeeper, Mrs Hill (who tells Elizabeth and Jane about the letter Mr Bennet received with news on Lydia) and Pemberley's housekeeper, Mrs Reynolds (who has an enormous part to play in improving Elizabeth's opinion of Mr Darcy).

In addition, we learn something of the respective companions of Anne de Bourgh, with Mrs Jenkinson ('in whose appearance there was nothing remarkable, and who was entirely engaged in listening to what she said, and placing a screen in the proper direction before [Anne]'s eyes') and Mrs Annesley ('a genteel, agreeable-looking woman, whose endeavour to introduce some kind of discourse proved her to be more truly well-bred than either [Miss Bingley and Mrs Hurst]').

Servants are present in the original novel. They are not described in detail because a contemporary audience would understand they would have been present, sort of like how modern day novels would not have characters charging their phones up or detailed descriptions of them being used. They're just so commonplace and second nature to us that we understand everyone does those things. and it was similar back then with servants. They weren't callously 'ignored' by Jane Austen; it isn't within the scope of the novel for a reason because Pride and Prejudice focuses on gentry families and their personal relationships with each other... rather than the servants who washed their dirty dresses...

[maythedreadwolftakeyou]

idk man i have seen a lot of speculation about Illario being a better candidate for First Talon rather than Lucanis, how he wanted it more/would be better at it etc, that maybe it was just Caterina projecting her desires for her favorite daughter onto that daughter's son...

but honestly I get it. like in game we see that when he DIDN'T get what he wanted, Illario made some huge power moves (arranging the death of his only rival, allying with the Venatori, kidnapping Caterina, sacrificing Treviso's independence) despite the major consequences that came with them (losing his only "brother", giving another organization an in/power over the Crows, kidnapping fucking CATERINA, giving the gods/Venatori a stronger foothold in Antiva). We don't actually know why he wanted the title or what his plans would be as First Talon--was he really gonna be content to just be named as in charge? Or was he gonna wanna make further big moves and leave his mark, or go for an even greater degree of power? We don't get that answer in game, but I really don't think his ambition would just stop. In part because I do think his desire for the role was tied up in just wanting Caterina's approval as the "lesser" Dellamorte, and so he WOULD probably keep putting more and bigger things at risk as he fails to find satisfaction in the title alone. He has the potential to not only throw their House into chaos, but the entire Crow organization, which is so ingrained with Antiva that this could shake the very foundations of the nation itself.

Even if we look at it as "Illario is more like Caterina so she should prefer him", i mean, Caterina got almost her entire house slaughtered. She failed, actually, at being a great Talon to her own house because her family ended up almost entirely dead. While I'm sure there's non-related members of the house (at the very least, trusted staff for the Dellamorte estates, contract negotiators, the people in charge of payroll, etc), and possibly even other assassins (orphans or whoever), they make it really clear in the game + wigmaker job that the only two left besides her who matter are Lucanis and Illario.

So if we take the traits the traits he shares with Caterina, that would make Illario more suited to it than Lucanis--he wants the title, he likes being in charge, he desires more power and is willing to compromise other people's wellbeing to get it--well that all already didn't work once. Caterina got a rough awakening for her actions and reputation, but Illario has--what, exactly, to reign him in? He already tried to get rid of his own biggest emotional liability, with hiring Zara to kill Lucanis. He already kidnapped and imprisoned grandma, and was working on a deal to sell out the city. What's left to shake some sense into him after that? If she picks him, is she just letting history repeat, ensuring the few left die and House Dellamorte itself falls to pieces, to be lost to history?

I do think it's telling that it's after seeing how badly all Illario's schemes went down that Caterina makes her choice and officially passes on the title to Lucanis. As far as we know, she never actually said who she wanted for the role--only that there were rumors she favored Lucanis over Illario, from the one line in the Wigmaker Job. We only know Illario believes it, not if it was true. So I think it's very possible she was hesitating in part because she really hadn't decided.

One grandson craves power too much, the other not enough. One has the social skills and charm to get people to do what he wants, but uses it for personal gain--while the other is so closed-off and unwilling to form connections he has no one he trusts outside the family. Neither of them are good choices, pre-Veilguard, and so she doesn't name either heir and puts the problem off for later--and it's in this way, funnily, that Lucanis takes after her more, with his allergy to planning ahead/making choices.

And finally the choice DOES make itself for her: when left to what fate brings for them, Illario's coup falls apart and despite all his charm he's left with "allies" who are just waiting to stab him in the back themselves. Meanwhile, Lucanis has somehow managed to break out of his shell, has new companions he trusts who are shown to support him, and he has lost some of his paralyzing fear of taking action on his own. He finally IS the clearly better choice in this moment--even if he doesn't actually want it still. I do truly think despite his hesitations, with how he grows over Veilguard, he wouldn't actually be bad at the job with some time to adjust. So while I certainly have my share of criticisms of the writing/spaces in Lucanis' personal quests, and just how cartoonishly villainous the game makes Illario to be, I don't think it's unrealistic that this is the moment when Caterina passes on the mantle of First Talon.

And I think Illario is a more interesting character when we keep in his desperation for power and approval, and where this could eventually lead post-Veilguard as well. Even if Lucanis decides "actually I am not subjecting myself to this" and promotes Illario in his place, is getting the title secondhand as a cast off really going to be satisfying to him? Even if he gets friends and his brother or even a lover afterward, how many times is it going to take before he believes it's real and not just something else he's going to have snatched away? For me personally I think the really interesting potential here is less in Fixing Him and more about just how many times he can bite the hands trying to feed him in a row. He's a very messy character and that's the part that's juciest to me.

[themoderatespeaks]

"Israel's actions in Gaza are genocide and need to stop immediately."

"Hamas started this war. Return the damn hostages immediately."

....

Why is it so hard to say those two things at once?

[erinwantstowrite]

im from new england and we also do king cake i didn't realize it was a southern thing? or like that most people didnt do it?

mardis gras is a celebration of the end of Carnival and the start of Lent (the name means "fat tuesday") and it's supposed to be about eating rich foods before the fasting period. it's a whole lot of celebrating and partying with all kinds of parades, foods, music, and costumes

[galaxygorl-does-stuff]

spent like an hour on this after a conversation i had w/ someone made me realize how similar ddlc and the ii finale are

[lesbianralzarek]

i think its really overlooked that 1) sekiro is a devout buddhist in every way except for the really big one where he kills people, 2) the absolute worst thing you can do in buddhism is kill your own father, and 3) buddhism is objectively true in this game

first fromsoft protagonist who will canonically go to a literal actual hell as conceived of by an irl major religion

[stressfulsloth]

Thinking about Disco Elysium and stars. Something about communal experience and simultaneous isolation, hope and idealism, fear and beauty and terror and burning. The inherent horror in the vast romantic starscape of the sky, the melancholy and loneliness inherent in the untold distance, a communal experience of something too enormous to fathom. Stars bear witness to humanity, to the millions of tiny people crawling on the face of Elysium. They watch the people, and the people watch back, and make up stories about the stars. Stars symbolise love, hope, something unreachable and unattainable.

The way that the light of the stars reaches every single being in Elysium, from human to phasmid, but no matter how far it reaches it is still a cold and distant glow, always on the verge of going out. A moral brilliance, a holy light to strive towards, something always at risk of burning out, but there's a dichotomy too. A duality between the stars as brutal unfeeling observers, moralists even, like the aerostatics flying overhead, tiny dying lights that watch impassively over every terrible thing in the world, and the flipside; stars as the burning kernels of hope, furious burning flames that parallel Harry and his golden-orange forest fire nature. Stars as the light of communism, the star-and-antlers. They're hope and dreams- a million years in the stars. Rockstars and superstars. The light of a brighter future (however short-term that future might be) coming towards them at the end of the tunnel. It makes me think of Sacred and Terrible Air and the light pollution in Vassa- ending light pollution as the world ends. "You may laugh at this, but in the evening, when the big world in the distance swells into a bloody maelstrom, families come out into the street in Vaasa and are insignificant together. Only distant explosions disturb the deep peace of the winter night, its flawless starry sky. Everyone watches, heads tilted back." The stars are a shared experience. Something that everyone watches, insignificant together, when there's nothing more that can be done. Light in the face of darkness, community in the face of inevitability. Togetherness. The stars are there in the church with the ravers. They're there watching Harry and Kim together. Insignificant together. In dark times, should the stars also go out?

[the-real-list-of-ominous-threats]

if anyone has no idea what I've been talking about recently, I suggest you go to @fanonical or @nyancrimew , who explain this better than I ever could, but from what I can tell, basically staff has been ignoring reports of harassment against trans women, one member of staff was actively banning trans users, and the CEO started a smear campaign against a trans woman because she jokingly said she wished he would get exploded with hammers (you know, the kind of thing I say regularly--because he wasn't doing anything to protect trans users and hired the aforementioned transphobic staff member), claiming that it was 'a death threat' and that she was 'being violent'....nevermind that she was getting much worse anon harassment with actual death threats on the regular. And then when he banned her and she went to a different site, he followed her there to continue the smear campaign instead of being normal and dropping the subject.

[atlas-of-galaxies]

just a disclaimer that it is Very unlikely I'll do tma entity pieces for the whole prsk cast partially due to the sheer number of characters and also the fact that a lot of character conflict is with the self/identity/ability and there are only so many spirals/strangers I can assign lol. that being said I Do have ideas

[deathandnonexistentialdread]

The fact that Babe gave Bison this book tells us that Kant definitely told him everything

[anghraine]

It feels extremely silly that only today did I realize that pantry and panadería are slightly similar-sounding for a reason >_>

(The English word pantry is one of the many, many common modern English words derived from Anglo-French: in this case, panetrie, from Old French paneterie, "bread room" ... Spanish panadería also has a complex etymology, but all are related to Latin panis, "bread.")

[hetheymerrill]

There's something to be said probably about the fact that, at least in more fandomy spaces, the complaining about likes-to-reblogs/kudos-to-comments came immediately on the heels of a very long era of complaining about people giving the wrong kind of positive feedback.

[as-the-stars-foretold]

never getting over how the twins and humanity BOTH needed Rem, and she knew this, and then made the conscious decision to try and help both parties (but we all know how well that plays out)

and obviously we know how vash and nai interpreted her parting words in completely opposite directions, BUT more importantly— they’re making the same choice as she did, aren’t they?

vash is choosing humanity, and nai is choosing the twins. They’re choosing the opposites of what they believe rem chose, in a way