#Bartlett School

[animatejournal]

Hey Arnold! | Creator: Craig Bartlett Studio: Nickelodeon | USA, 2002

[intersection-of-art-and-science]

“‘All the externally exposed surfaces of buildings and urban infrastructures, from blank walls and facades to roofs, retaining barriers and fences offer vast quantities of area to absorb and store water,’ [says Marcos Cruz, Professor of Innovative Environments at The Bartlett School of Architecture.] ‘Hydrophilic design allows us to take advantage of plants that will help us improve the storm-water management of facades and increase absorption of CO2, nitrogen and pollutants while emitting significant levels of oxygen.’��

[foxyou-too]

Bartlett School of Architecture

[fall-out-boytoy]

Hi im barrington anon. Does Bartlett acknowledge Jon at all because Barrington is weirdly silent about The Fucking Album Named After Us.

i've NEVER seen anything about him 😭 i only found out about it in the first place bc my classmate's aide is a former/elder emo and when she mentioned it i was like HOLY SHIT NO WAY

[shiraoyagi]

hot take ??

the only reason people say that "mafuyu and tsukasa have nothing in common" when presented with mafukasa parallels is because they equate mafuyu and tsukasa being similar to "tsukasa has depression" because the fandom equates mafuyu's personality to being depressed and nothing else.

it doesn't help that people (primarily younger people in the fandom) who DO believe in mafukasa parallels end up making the mistake of portraying tsukasa as depressed because as of right now he is not (although it's possible he was in past because of his Very Unclear Middle School Backstory but that's irrelevant)

anyways, mafuyu and tsukasa are narrative foils because their core personalities are built off of the concept of wanting to make the people around them— especially their families— happy.

they both developed personalities at a young age based on someone they looked up to. for tsukasa, it was seiichi amami's performance that inspired him to be a star— a hero that could cheer anyone up. for mafuyu, it was her mother taking care of her that inspired her to be a nurse— and you can see the similarities from there.

for mafuyu, her identity would first come into conflict when her mother expressed her want for mafuyu to be a doctor— suddenly, "everyone's" happiness didn't match what she wanted to do, leaving her in a state of disorder and eventual depression.

for tsukasa, his identity was something he nearly forgot in its entirety at the start of the main story— becoming arrogant and fully absorbed in a hero persona, forgetting the kind person he truly is. furthermore, his current character arc seems to be foreshadowing that what "being a star" to him is going to be called into question— maybe it is something more than just being the main character that saves everyone.

their insecurities are incredibly similar.

in mafuyu's first mixed, mafuyu feels insecure towards ichika because unlike ichika, she feels as if her lyrics have no genuine meaning to be expressed to other people— despite them being her very real feelings. this is brought up again in her second mixed as well.

in tsukasa's third focus event, something similar happens. when watching seiichi's performance, he thinks that his acting is "real" and feels inferior towards him, which is ironic because tsukasa has been method acting this whole time. when tsukasa is acting out rio or bartlett or really anyone at this point in the story, it's not just those characters— it's a reflection of his traumas.

just like mafuyu, tsukasa undermines his passions he's poured his feelings into because someone else's work is more genuine in his eyes.

now, then, foils have many similarities and parallels (and i could honestly list a lot more), but how i define them is that they usually have some kind of major branching difference that MAKES them foils.

for mafuyu and tsukasa it's pretty straightforward.

mafuyu's people pleasing behavior comes from external expectations and pressures— her mother's demands.

tsukasa's people pleasing behavior comes internally, from himself— if he can't meet his own standards, if he can't be the perfect big brother or the perfect star, then he is nothing.

and even then, there's some overlap.

tsukasa's behavior was indirectly encouraged by his mother praising him for being a "good big brother" over the phone instead of asking him if he was okay while home alone.

mafuyu's terrified to be herself around other people because she doesn't want to worry or bother them— she doesn't want to be a burden— and projects her mother's expectations onto them, not realizing that they would prefer the real mafuyu if they knew the truth.

and the concept of mafukasa being foils is most perfectly and blatantly portrayed in these two cards.

mafuyu, the marionette, sitting limp on the floor— puppeteered by her mother's demands and donning a mask to hide her true self.

tsukasa, the jester, standing above everything else— puppeteering silenced plushies— his feelings. he's not being completely honest with himself, and he doesn't even realize it.

mafuyu has cut her strings and ripped her mask in half. she has acknowledged her true feelings and expressed them to her mother, even if she had to run away in the end.

tsukasa has not yet cut his.

[ms-demeanor]

Knowledge Fight anon again - thank you for the list and recs! I look forwatd to checking them out. I was excited to see there's a West Wing podcast because I enjoyed that show, but yourself and the hosts hate it so maybe not for me lmao. Though I will still give the first episode a listen - very curious to understand why our feeligns about the show differ so vastly. And if you -want- to rant about why you hate TWW - feel free! I'm genuinely curious - I'm European, have never lived in the US, so for me it was one of the biggest tools of learning how US politics work, which made it absolutely fascinating to watch.

Anyways! I'll be looking at the other podcasts as well, they all seem very interesting, and the common-denominator format you describe them having does jive with me. Thanks again!

My very republican father and sister very much wish that all democrats would act like the democrats in the west wing. It's touted as a point of honor and a great example of compromise when Democrat Jed Bartlett appoints a republican justice to the Supreme court, any time there's an environmentalist or a union supporter on the show they're painted as extreme and uncompromising, in the later seasons the Jimmy Smitts character is running as a democrat on a pro-school-vouchers, anti-tenure/union (so anti-public school, basically) platform, the show as a whole is against entitlements (free college especially is something the ostensible dems in the show aren't even interested in enough to lament).

Idk at a certain point it gets frustrating to see anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-healthcare republicans being praised as the mature compromisers in the room with complicated motivations and good points when every time a leftist protest shows up it's a warehouse full of people without enough message discipline to talk to to cameras without erupting into a shouting match and getting brushed off as whiny babies by toby zigler.

"Oh, we need CJ to look a little loopy, let's have her agree with these cartographers who are pointing out that the mercator projection privileges the global north." "Oh we need to present something that's a ridiculous waste of money, how about a wildlife crossing that would prevent keystone species injuries in an area of urban incursion, that's bullshit that we shouldn't spend money on." "Oh, we want to explain why big pharma can't provide free HIV meds to african nations in 2003, let's suggest that it wouldn't matter even if they did because *Africans don't have clocks and can't take meds 12 hours apart.*" "this hollywood producer is pushing too hard for gay marriage in 2007, let's lecture him about how you need to slow down and respect the process instead of being an activist about it"

There's this interview with Aaron Sorkin where he's saying "America used to be the world's heroes, when my dad was a soldier people would say 'thank god, the Americans are here' and they don't say that anymore and it's because of Donald Trump" - Sorkin totally ignores US imperialism and the way that people in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't say 'thank god, the americans are here' to an extent that is genuinely startling, and that shows up in the show. At one point in the show president bartlett okays the assassination of a foreign leader and says 'today we enter the league of ordinary nations' as though the US hasn't backed coups or assassination around the world, as though the CIA isn't a thing, as though Henry Kissinger isn't a thing, and it's *bizarre* from a show that is supposed to be politically aware.

I'm actually super hesitant to recommend the west wing thing to general audiences because i don't always agree with the hosts or their guests but as an analysis of the surprisingly right-leaning politics of the show it's a worthwhile listen.

It's honestly something i could rant about for way too long because I had early warning signs about it. My sister *loves* this show and its politics. She's got a "my president is Jed Bartlett" sticker that she keeps next to her signed copy of one of Ann Coulter's books. If my sister thinks your liberal character is reasonable and level headed and has good policy positions, your liberal character isn't all that liberal.

The show is steeped in American exceptionalism and imperialist apologia but it's got a tearjerker soundtrack and maybe the best and most charming cast ever assembled so you ignore it when CJ wants to brush off constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure or cruel and unusual punishment (she's a huge fan of cops and intelligence agencies and not a fan of oversight) or when she shits on affirmative action (she believes her father lost his dream job to a less qualified candidate who was selected due to minority status, and that that job loss led to his mental decline - CJ Craig thinks that DEI hiring practices killed her father) because Allison Janney is an incredibly talented and charismatic actress who is elevating the hell out of her character.

But, you know, it would be kind of fucked up if a Democrat president's chief of staff was cheerfully on-record about the fact that she thinks intelligence agencies are more effective when nobody knows what they're doing so we should leave them to their own devices.

Thank you for the opportunity to rant i cannot fucking stand this show and i kind of want to do an episode-by-episode breakdown of various flavors of bullshit but there are much better things to do with my time so i don't but it's nice to have a chance to yell about the stuff that makes me crazy off the top of my head.

That said: if you want a podcast that is less vitriolic but does actually get into how parts of the US political system work, check out 5 to 4, which is a podcast by 3 lefty lawyers talking about Supreme Court decisions. It's great!

[jbaileyfansite]

Interview with the Los Angeles Times (2024)

“This is where all the cruising happened.”

Jonathan Bailey and I are standing in Pershing Square on a bright, blustery spring afternoon, nearing the end of a homemade queer history tour of downtown L.A.: One Magazine, Cooper Do-Nuts/Nancy Valverde Square, the Dover bathhouse, the Biltmore Hotel and this, the city’s former Central Park, a haven, since before World War I, for “fairies” and “sissy boys,” servicemen on leave and beatniks on the road.

“Is it still happening now?” he asks.

“Probably not as much,” I venture.

“Well, you let me know if it’s happening,” he teases, a mischievous smile lighting up his face.

Bailey understands the uses of the charm offensive. As Sam, the handsome Lothario of Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s delightful pre-”Fleabag” curio, “Crashing”; Anthony, the romantic hero of “Bridgerton’s” second season; and John, the jerk of a protagonist in Mike Bartlett’s love triangle play “Cock,” the English actor, 36, has swaggered up to the precipice of superstardom. With roles in such studio tentpoles as “Wicked” and “Jurassic World” on the horizon, he may just break through. Yet he delivers career-best work in Showtime’s queer melodrama “Fellow Travelers,” as anti-Communist crusader-turned-gay rights activist Tim Laughlin, by leaving behind the self-assured rakes and tapping a new wellspring: soft power.

Tim may be, as Bailey puts it, “an open nerve,” but as it turns out, the devout Catholic and political naïf — who falls for suave State Department operative Hawkins “Hawk” Fuller (Matt Bomer) just as Sen. Joseph McCarthy tries to purge the federal government of LGBTQ people — is formidable indeed.

Stretching from the Lavender Scare to the depths of the AIDS crisis, in scenes of tenderness, cruelty and toe-curling sex, Bailey’s performance communicates that little-spoken truth of relationships: It takes more strength to submit than it does to control. The former demands discipline, courage, trust; the latter requires only force.

“In ‘Bridgerton,’ [Bailey] is like a Hawkins Fuller character — he is very sexy and has lots of power, has that kind of confident charisma that absolutely is not Tim at all,” says “Fellow Travelers” creator Ron Nyswaner.

But any doubt about Bailey’s ability to mesh with Bomer, who boarded the project early in development, was put to bed with the actors’ virtual rehearsal of a meeting on a park bench in the pilot. “‘Well, that’s a first,’” Nyswaner recalls an executive texting him. “I cried in a chemistry read.”

‘Am I inviting people in?’

Bailey grew up in a musical family in the Oxfordshire countryside outside London, and this, coupled with an appreciation for the morning prayers, choir practice and Mass he attended as a scholarship student at the local Catholic school, fed his precocious talents. (“I loved the performance of it,” he laughs. “Not to diminish the celebration of religious process, but I did love the idea of wearing a gown.”) By age 10, he’d appeared in the West End, playing Gavroche in a production of “Les Misérables,” an experience he now recognizes as an encounter with a queer found family — albeit one shadowed by the toll of the AIDS crisis, which peaked in the U.K. in the mid-1990s.

“When I’m asked about my childhood, there’s so much I don’t remember, and I think that’s true of anyone who’s been in fight or flight for 20 years,” he says. “I would have been in a cast of people whose friends would have died in the last seven years. I think of where I was seven years ago. I had all my gay friends then. It’s only retrospectively that I can retrofit a real gay community around me [in the theater], that I just wasn’t aware of [then].”

During the late 1990s and early 2000s, American and British culture presented queer adolescents with a bewildering array of mixed signals. As beloved celebrities came out in growing numbers, and the battle for marriage equality became a central locus of LGBTQ political organizing, the media continued to propagate harmful stereotypes of gay men as miserable, lonely, perverted or worse — and, Bailey remembers, callously turned George Michael, arrested on suspicion of cruising in a Beverly Hills restroom in 1998, and Irish pop star Stephen Gately, who revealed his sexuality in 1999, fearful he was about to be outed, into tabloid spectacles.

No wonder Bailey, like many LGBTQ people of his generation, should feel the “chemical” thrill of “validation and acceptance” during London Pride at age 18, then embark on a two-year relationship with a woman in his 20s.

“Dangerously, if you’re not exposed to people who can show you other examples of happiness, you think that’s the easiest way to live,” Bailey says. “It’s funny. You look back and you can tell the story in one way, which is that I always knew who I was and my sexuality and my identity within that. But obviously at times, it was really tough. I compromised my own happiness, for sure. And compromised other people’s happiness.”

Disclosures about his personal life have become particularly thorny for the actor since the premiere of “Bridgerton,” the blockbuster bodice-ripper from executive producer Shonda Rhimes.

“The Netflix effect does knock you off center completely,” he says, recalling the experience of finding a paparazzo waiting outside his new flat before he’d even moved in. “Suddenly, you do start having nightmares about people climbing in your windows... Even now, talking about it makes me feel like, ‘Am I inviting people in?’”

He is also critical of the media for churning out headlines about the smallest details of celebrities’ private lives, often detached from their original context. In an interview with the London Evening Standard published in December, Bailey described a harrowing encounter in a Washington, D.C., coffee shop in which a man threatened his life for being queer — and, in recounting the experience, offhandedly mentioned the “lovely man” he’d called, shaken, after it happened. Although Bailey acknowledges that the original story handled the subject with aplomb, he felt dismayed that more attention wasn’t paid to the intended warning about rising anti-LGBTQ sentiment: “The only thing that got syndicated from that story was that I had a boyfriend, and it wasn’t true,” he sighs. “It was kind of depressing, if I’m honest.”

Still, Bailey, who once turned down a role in a queer-themed TV series because it would have required him to speed along revelations about his personal life he wasn’t ready to make, is prepared to embrace the power of vulnerability when it feeds the work. Although a member of his inner circle expressed doubts about “Fellow Travelers’” steamy sex scenes, for instance, the actor intuited that they were what made the project worth doing: “I was like, ‘I’m telling you, they are the reason why this is going to be brilliant.’”

‘He’s changed my trajectory in my own life’

To those who would complain about the state of sex in film and TV, “Fellow Travelers” is the perfect riposte. All of it matters, from Tim’s first flirtation with Hawk to the finale’s closing minutes, because the series, at its core, is about the importance of soft power: the strength required to bend, but not break; to adapt, but not abandon oneself; to survive without shrinking to nothing in the process.And depicting that through sex, specifically gay sex, makes “Fellow Travelers” radical indeed.

Bailey understands that baring so much comes with certain risks. When I tell him that research for the story has filled my algorithmic “For You” feed on X (formerly Twitter) with speculation that his onscreen relationship with Bomer has a real-life element, he notes that “shipping” fictional couples and costars alike has long been part of Hollywood fantasy. But he bristles at the implication that he and Bomer are anything but skilled actors at work.

“I would love for people to know that the success of our chemistry isn’t based on us f—. It’s actually about us leaning into the craft,” he says. “It’s a vulnerable situation to be in, talking about it on record. I don’t want to rob people of their thoughts. But I do have a set of values, and as an artist, you don’t need to be f— to tell that love story.”

Underlying that craft, Bailey adds, is the confidence to speak up, as with one scene in “Fellow Travelers” that was adjusted because he said, “I don’t want to be naked today.” He learned to use his voice the hard way: In his early 20s, he recalls, he was once “bullied” on set when “someone was threatened” by him and vowed to himself, “I’m never going to do that to someone. I’m never going to allow that to happen.”

This impulse to direct his influence in support of others has blossomed further with “Fellow Travelers.” On the day of our interview, Bailey enthuses about an upcoming meeting with legendary gay rights activist Cleve Jones and shares his idea for a docuseries recording the stories of elders in the LGBTQ+ community while they are still here to tell them. He describes lying in a hospital bed on set on World AIDS Day, in character as Tim, surrounded by gay men who had lost friends and lovers during the crisis, and finding himself thinking, “What do I want to leave behind?”

“I think he’s changed my trajectory in my own life,” Bailey says.

This is, perhaps, the most common reaction I know to diving deep into queer history — the understanding that we, like our forerunners, are responsible for shaping the queer future, whether in politics, society or art. No one is going to do it on our behalf.

As we stand on the nondescript corner now named for her, I relate the story of the late queer activist Nancy Valverde, who was arrested repeatedly while a barber school student in the 1950s on suspicion of “masquerading” because of her preference for short hair and men’s clothing, and later successfully challenged her harassment by the police in court.

“What a hero!” Bailey exclaims, wondering at Valverde’s bravery. “The thing that’s so interesting with power battles is, ultimately, identity is the thing that gives you the most strength and power in your life, isn’t it?

“Because that’s one thing people can’t take away from you: who you are and how you express yourself.”

Source

[womenloverlmao]

I love you?

(Slightly ooc) Scott Bartlett X Reader

Warnings: Cursing? Slightly cringy? Scott eating lipstick?? Reader is implied to be a feminine.

WC: 0.6K

No one believed it when Scott said he had a partner. Not his brother, not his mother, not his father. I mean, he wasn’t exactly the most pleasant person. He was aggressive and moody, I mean, he was basically a teenage girl in the most coquette way. 

He was your silly boy, though, and you loved him dearly. Although he said he didn’t like it when you were super affectionate, you know he did. You called him sweet names, held his hand and hugged him, you did almost everything that would show you loved him. He did it too, in his own special ways. You understood it, even if you were the only one who did. The one thing that you haven’t been able to do to show your love yet is say it. 

Sure, it sounded like a red flag that neither of you could say it. The thing is, though, you were high schoolers. You weren’t meant to be perfect. You had your silly flaws, and you had a few blatant red flags. Even so, you made it work. 

After his brother left, he wasnt doing as well. You tried to be gentle with him, you knew what it was like for someone in your family to leave for the military. That’s when he started to get clingy with you. 

You’d be doing something on your own, and he would come up behind you and wrap his arms around your waist. He no longer whined when you held his hand, or kissed all over his face. Hell, he even affectionately bit you. Safe to say, he was… kind of a mess, but it's okay because it was cute. 

It was one of those days where he was physically attaching himself to your hip. Everything you were doing, he tried to join in on. After seven hours of doing that at school, he convinced you to come home with him. Or, at least, let him come to your house. You decided you would let him, I mean, you wanted to spend time with him as much as he did with you. 

You took him there and snuck him up to your room (which your parents definitely knew about but they didn’t give half a shit about either of you so they didn’t say anything… Im not sorry) and put some random record on quietly. He was sitting at your vanity (which was a desk that you placed against the mirror you put on the wall), probably eating your lipstick or some shit while trying to figure out what the hell everything was. You went to lie down on your bed, reading the Chronicles of Narnia again. He’s pretty sure he’s seen you read that fifty times since you started dating. 

Without saying anything, he crawled over to you and laid his head on your chest. You didn’t say anything, you just moved your book and put it on his back instead. 

“Hey, babe?” He said, but his voice was slightly muffled. 

“Yeah?” You asked, setting your book down. 

“I… ummm…” 

“Hmm?” 

“I love you?” He said. It was more a question than a statement, but it was the thought that counts. 

“You… love me?” 

“Yeah, I think so. I mean, I don’t really know what it’s supposed to feel like, but I… think I love you.” 

You smiled a little. “I… think I love you too.” 

“Yeah?” 

“...yeah.” 

[ilovecoelacanths]

Bee's Ultimate Collage Party!!!!

hello everyone!! okay so in case you didn't know, a few months ago i bought like 85 vintage National Geographic magazines and i have been making A Lot of collages. i really like making collages and i think old nat geos are pretty neat!

i had all my friends over for a collage making party a couple weeks ago and it was lots of fun, so i decided i wanted to do something with all of you, my friends in the computer! so this is your official invitation to my collage party! <3 all kinds of collages, digital or traditional! it will be all month (or whenever you wanna make your collage, i cant stop you) and i have put together just a very few things for you to look through if you want to find some collage pictures.

first, here are just a few pictures i thought were neat and scanned from my magazine collection.

July 1962, Lolo from Tahiti. Photo by Luis Marden.

March 1976, photos by Des and Jen Bartlett

January 1980, photos by Bianca Lavies

January 1980, photo by Jim Brandenburg

there aren't too many here since i went back to school and had to leave the bulk of the magazines at home, but fear not!

there are tons of old nat geos that have been scanned and put on the internet archive! you can find them here: https://centurypast.org/magazine-directory/national-geographic-magazine-back-issues/

i also made a pinterest board and saved a few pictures on there if you want to check those out! you can also request to join the board and save more pictures there if you want :)

of course, you don't have to use any of these pictures if you don't want! i just want everyone to have fun and make collages. and if you want to show me your collages i'd love to see them! just tag me or use the tag #bee's ultimate collage party 2024. so uh, yeah! you're invited to my collage party!

[azspot]

Thus began my long and painful journey away from the Republican Party and the conservative movement, groups I had belonged to since high school. No one taught me to be a liberal. I’m not sure I am one. But I no longer believe many things I used to believe about the role of government in our society and the nature of freedom. I no longer believe that government is the enemy of freedom, that the growth of government necessarily diminishes freedom. I want government to do more, not less. I think big corporations are greedy and don’t have the best interests of consumers or the public at heart. I think only government has the power to control them and it must do more to do so. I think the distribution of wealth and income is obscenely unequal; I think taxes on the wealthy should be much higher. I am bothered by discrimination against minorities and am saddened that our society has not done more to eliminate it. I could go on. But my point is that I see the world differently today.

Bruce Bartlett

[howlsmovinglibrary]

Hello, I hope you are having wonderful day! Do you have an romantic sideplot book recommendations of any genre? Thank you so much!!

hey anon! I'm having a sleepy day bc I had to get up early for a work thing, otherwise doing ok!

books w. good romantic sideplots but where romance isn't the 'focus'

The biggest one for me is the Daevabad trilogy by SA Chakraborty. This is an epic fantasy trilogy and romance is a large part of the plot, but the ENDGAME romance is a slowburn of frankly epic proportions. These books are amazing but I can't usually recommend them in good conscience as 'romance' bc of the slowburn. BUT WHAT IF THE SLOWBURN WAS EVERYTHING ACTUALLY. WHAT IF THEY INVENTED ROMANCE.

The Unspoken Name and The Thousand Eyes by AK Larkwood - this fantasy book series has several romances (including some very fun and cool toxic old man yaoi) but the duology as a whole focused more on the dynamic of the found family unit.

The Dark Days Club by Alison Goodman is a regency era urban fantasy about demon hunters, with a heavy romantic sideplot but again, one that takes several books to develop. so worth it though, the bit where she removes his coat in book 2 is seared on my brain forever more.

Nice Dragons Finish Last by Rachel Aaron is a self-published urban fantasy series about a dragon who is a nice guy when all of his family are court intrigue experts. There are several romances but honestly I'm mostly in it for the 'sunshine with a heart of gold wins' plotline of watching someone kind succeed.

The Winter Duke by Claire Eliza Bartlett is another court intrigue story, similar to the Goblin Emperor, where simply a nice person who wasn't expecting the throne suddenly gets the throne. But she also gets a hot girlfriend. 10 out of 10 content.

Nettle and Bone by T Kingfisher - most Kingfisher books have some degree of romance and if you like stoic men/himbos this is the author for you! but Nettle and Bone is my favourite book of hers for plot before romance (Swordheart is romance before plot)

Scott Westerfeld's Uglies series is a YA sci-fi series but the shenanigans that are happening would today be read as the polycule blueprint. Everyone is in love with everyone that's why it's so messy.

Among Others by Jo Walton is one of my favourite books, it's essentially a coming of age fantasy novel in which you read a girl's diary and that girl also happens to be magic. but she also... goes to a bookclub. And meets a guy. It's just a really good book honestly.

Eliza and Her Monsters by Francesca Zappia is a YA romance-ish book about a webtoon artist and the boy who is her biggest fan on her fandom server. He moves to her school and they become pals, before her identity as the webtoon author is revealed!

Oh! and literally anything by Tamora Pierce!!!

[alainas-sims]

Mina Bartlett for @plumbob-pudding's Henford Ladies College

The eldest child of Edmund Bartlett and Savita Grover Bartlett, Mina Rosemary Bartlett, age 17, is a candidate for Ms. Agnes Crumplebottom's Henford Ladies College. Her well-off father is a member of London's merchant class, her mother of mixed English and Indian heritage, the daughter of a doctor. When the Blitz arrives in London, Edmund and Savita venture to send their daughter to boarding school in Henford, additionally hoping that the rural setting will help mitigate her melancholy temperament. An artistic prodigy, Mina loves to paint portraits and hopes to find classmates to befriend as she was often lonely in childhood save her younger brother, Eddie. Her grades in other subjects are middling as she prefers to focus on her creative gift. Mina puts pressure on herself to follow the rules to earn others' approval and play the role of a proper young lady to fit in amongst her peers. Will she learn to let loose and have fun, make friends, and hone her talent?

I know submissions are probably closed by now but I worked hard on Mina and wanted to share her anyway.

17 years old

Painter Extraordinaire Aspiration / Art Lover, Gloomy (possible Proper, Good, Loner)

Bisexual (though she hasn't explored much romantically yet)

Download and CC Below

Download: SFS

Packs Used: Cottage Living, Laundry Day

Genetics: Hair / Skin Blush / Face Overlay

Underwear: Shorts

Formal: Necklace / Dress

Athletic: Top / Shorts

Sleepwear: Nightgown

Party: Top / Skirt

Swimwear: Swimsuit

Hot Weather: Dress (Shirley)

Cold Weather: Hat / Suit

[fuhlensworld]

🎀Riding Scott bartletts thigh🎀

Au: YALL I lowkey love this idea so imma bring it to life for y’all I hope you enjoyyyy read the tw pls!!

Tw:thigh riding,afab!reader,use of y/n,cursing,smut,fluff at the end.

You had been dating your boyfriend scott Bartlett for about a month and the two of you haven’t had sex yet not even a blowjob,the most you two would do would make out,you weren’t bothered by that you just wanted-no you craved a little more.You had always been a “good girl” so this was a little out of character of you but you didn’t care.So you waited till after school and you payed your boyfriend a little visit, you knocked twice on his front door,and then the door swung open.

“oh hey y/n you look pretty today” Scott says as he leans against the frame of his door,blushing from just the sight of you.

“Hey Scotty,can I come in? I wanna talk to you” you said,ignoring his sweet comment with a slight smirk on your face

“Yeah cmon in”he said he’s tiring for you to come in the house,you both stride up his steps towards his bedroom and when you get in you lock the door without him noticing.Scott turn son his heels to face you and he hugs you and plants a soft kiss on your lips then to your dismay pulls away, “i missed you” he said quietly as he looked into your eyes. “I missed you too Scotty”you said while smiling “so uhm I wanted to talk to you…about something” you said getting slightly embarrassed as your confidence depletes, “well I’m listening” Scott says as he walks over to his bed and sits down,motioning for you to come sit next to him, you sit down and take a deep breath before you start, “so I know we’ve only been dating for a month and we don’t ever talk about…sex or anything …” Scott gets tense as he listens, he always got nervous at the topic of sex, he was a virgin and so were you so it was a forbidden topic between you two,until now.

“So I was thinking…instead of going straight into you know…doing it I thought maybe we could start with something uh easier I suppose” you say slowly meeting his gaze, your cheeks flushed from the conversation.

“W…well what we’re you uh thinking?” Scott says obviously embarrassed, you noticed his aching boner growing throughout your conversation, seeing that made the ache between your legs more unbearable by the second so you decided to get straight to the point.

“Could i uh, ride your thigh…?” You said turning your face away to hide your utter embarrassment,feeling regret pool along with arousal deep in your stomach.

“You…want to ride my thigh?” Scott says shyly but with a bit more confidence.

“Yeah here lemme just show you I guess” you say as you climb into your flustered boyfriends lap, straddling one of his thighs, you reach down under your skirt and shift your pink panties to the side and lower yourself into Scott’s thigh, a whimper of pleasure seeps through your lips.

“F-fuck Scott kiss me please” you begged him as he watched,eyes wide as you pleasures himself on his thigh

“Of course baby” he says as he grabs the back of your neck and pulls you in for a kiss,you moan into his mouth and you freeze feeling his tongue glide into your mouth tasting your mouth,

“Is this okay?” Scott asks as he pulls away and looks into your eyes

“It’s more than oka-fuck oh my god” you gasp when you feel Scott’s hands on your hips,moving you back and forth on his thigh,sending sweet shocks against your clit, causing you to throw your head back moaning out Scott’s name,

“Fuck you look so pretty rubbing your pussy on my thigh, does it feel good baby?” He asks you as he brushing a piece of your hair behind your ear.”f-fuck y-yeah m’feels s’good Scotty” after a few more seconds of praise from Scott you felt your climax nearing, you grip onto Scott’s shoulder and let out a whimper, “fuck I’m gonna c-cu-fuck!” You let out a cry as you reached your peak and came all over Scott’s thigh.he slowly brung your grinding to a stop to ride you through your orgasm,”you did so good baby” Scott says as he layed you down on his bed, planting a kiss to your forhead. “I’ll come lay down with you in a minute let me just go to the bathroom to take care of my uh problem” he says eyes trailing down to the bulge in his jeans, you chuckle as he exits the room.He comes back a while later and squeezes into the bed next to you, “you did so good today baby” he says as he holds you close to his chest watching as you asleep in his arms.

Au: AHHH SORRH IF THIS SUCKED LMAO OLS LMK IF YOU WANT ME TK WRITE FOR ANITHER PROMPT OR CHARACTER SORRY THIS ISNT PROOFREAD!!!

[theteltales]

The Letters That Move Us - Violet Evergarden x Amy Bartlett (Isabella York) FanFic

Summary: Violet Evergarden finds herself taking an unexpected assignment as a handmaiden for Miss Isabella York while she attends a prestigious women's academy. It's a far cry from Violet's typical work writing letters and made more complicated by the secrets they must keep.

This story is a re-imagining of the movie Violet Evergarden: Eternity and the Auto Memory Doll. It explores what might happen if Violet walked a different path and eventually reciprocated Amy's feelings. The story will go beyond their time at the school and expand on the adversity they have to overcome if they want to be together.

Written in a way that is (hopefully) fandom blind friendly.

Rating: Everyone (for now, may change in the future for language or more "adult" concepts).

Notes: Before we start, I'm going to set the stage a little since the timeline (especially ages) can get a little ambiguous. So, I'm writing as if all the events of the season 1 anime to have happened already. Chapter one starts at the end of the final episode and then we are off into the movie.

I consider Violet and Amy to both be over the age of 18. While I don't plan on including any smut in this story, I feel more comfortable if that is established from the beginning when dealing with romance. That kind of content will be separated out into other pieces. I hope you enjoy!

(Primarily published on AO3 if you want to catch up quicker)

Chapter 1: A Promise on the Wind (Violet) Chapter 2: A Fateful Assignment (Violet) Chapter 3: A Rough Beginning (Amy) Chapter 4: A Lesson in Irritation (Amy) Chapter 5: A Break in the Day (Amy) Chapter 6: Boiling Over (Part 1) (Amy) Chapter 7: Boiling Over (Part 2) (Violet) Chapter 8: A Bump in the Night (Amy) Chapter 9: A Dance and a Dip (Amy) Chapter 10: A Dip and Some Rest (Violet) Chapter 11: A Step in a New Direction (Violet) Chapter 12: Intermission 1 (Claudia) Chapter 13: An Echo of Sadness (Violet) Chapter 14: Kindred Spirits (Isabella) Chapter 15: Turn and Twist (Isabella)

[sixty-silver-wishes]

you don't understand I need to talk about shostakovich's antiformalist rayok because HOLY SHIT

okay. so.

I've been wanting to talk about rayok for a while because it's truly mind-blowing what rayok is. hell, it's mind-blowing, considering the circumstances, that we know about rayok. and it's even more mind-blowing what we don't know about rayok. this is probably one of the most impressive works by shostakovich when you really dig into it, just because of how ridiculously multilayered it is. there are scholarly essays and research conducted on this piece because the rabbit hole that is rayok just goes so fucking deep that in order to fully understand it, you need to know a decent bit about music, russian history, the russian language, the relationship between the soviet government and the artistic sphere, etc. I'll mainly be citing manashir yabukov's essay on it in rosamund bartlett's "shostakovich in context," because while there are many publications about this piece, this one is especially comprehensive.

so. what is rayok. WELL.

the antiformalist rayok, simply put, is a shitpost. less simply put, it's a satirical cantata by dmitri shostakovich. it lampoons stalin- and post-stalin era political officials who attempted to interfere with the artistic, particularly musical, culture of the soviet union. shostakovich essentially argues in this piece that political figures have no business policing the arts, especially when they have little to know artistic knowledge themselves.

the way "rayok" works is sort of like a soviet musical SNL skit. there are four characters at a conference on "realism and formalism in music" (sometimes played by the same singer) who are all caricatures of a specific political figure or idea, imitating these figures in a mocking, ridiculous way. the characters are the announcer, who introduces the other three, "yedinitsyn," who represents stalin, "dvoikin," who represents andrei zhdanov, head of the central committee propaganda department of the USSR, and "troikin," who represents zhdanov's successor, dmitri shepilov. shostakovich caricatures each of these figures through references to quotes or speaking patterns, musical quotations, or satirizing their ideologies. for instance, yedinitsyn's (stalin's) verse is often sung in a georgian accent (stalin was a native of georgia), the music quotes the folk song "suliko" (said to be stalin's favorite song), and the text is repetitive without saying anything, parodying stalin's manner of delivering speeches. (an example of a line- "formalist composers are formalist because they write formalist music")

nobody knows quite when rayok was written, or if shostakovich was the sole author. we know that shostakovich often performed it in private gatherings with close friends, but the authorship of the text is disputed. shostakovich wrote the music, but it's contested who wrote the words- shostakovich's friend isaak glikman claimed that shostakovich was the sole author, while another friend, lev lebedinsky, claims he had a hand in writing the text. (many of lebedinsky's other claims have come into dispute.) interestingly, rayok is referenced in "testimony," the highly controversial supposed memoir of shostakovich, which was published before the piece became known to the wider public. it's assumed that shostakovich started working on "rayok" around 1948, and continuously added onto it into the 1960s. along with the piece itself, shostakovich also wrote a hilarious preface (which I'll get into later) and a sarcastic questionnaire to go with it, perhaps as a nod to ideological exams that were required in schools.

so, what does the title "antiformalist rayok" mean? that requires some historical context. "formalism" was a term used to describe art considered unacceptable by the soviet government, and was used most often from the 30s to the early 50s. it originated from the term in academic analysis which meant interpreting a work of art by its "form," or removed from the context intended by the author. formalist analysis was popular in the late 1920s, a more liberal time in soviet history that gave rise to an avant-garde art movement. as such, by the 30s, art considered "formalist" was deemed "art for art's sake," and was derided as "bourgeois" or "western." the crackdown on the arts was part of a larger cultural campaign under stalin, in which he sought to increase the soviet union's industrial production and differentiate it from the west, both culturally and politically. "antiformalist" art, therefore, was the opposite of "formalist"- safe, patriotic, and easily digestible by the masses. such art was also referred to as "socialist realism." "formalist" artists faced increasing persecution that culminated in the "great purges" of the late 1930s, a campaign that sought to eliminate anyone who could be viewed as a threat to the soviet union through exile, arrest, or execution. people who were purged included stalin's political opponents, artists, accused german spies (often in the military), ethnic minorities, farmers who refused collectivization of their land, and civilians suspected of dissent.

still with me? good.

now, the word "rayok." this is a reference to two concepts- rayok shows, and another piece of classical music called "rayok" by modest mussorgsky, a 19th century russian composer. the original word "rayok" refers to rayok shows- a popular form of entertainment in 18th and 19th century russia, in which rotating figures of people or animals would be displayed inside a fairground box with holes that viewers could look through. a performer called a rayoshnik would rotate the figures in the box with a crank and narrate a story, usually of a satirical nature:

mussorgsky's "rayok" took its name from this form of entertainment. like shostakovich's "rayok," it was a satirical piece, focusing on the conservative musical establishment and its patrons, in which specific people were lampooned, similar to the performances by the rayoshniki. by the 1920s, rayok shows were beginning to die out, but shostakovich (b. 1906) displayed an interest in them. as a reference to these performances, he sometimes jokingly referred to his colleagues in letters with exaggerated diminutives, a common practice in rayok shows- for instance, the composer vissarion shebalin was "shebalalishki." (put a pin in that bit about diminutives. it'll be important later.) shostakovich's title "antiformalist rayok" is therefore a reference to the mussorgsky piece and rayok shows, as well as the concept of "antiformalism."

and if you think that's complicated, that's only the title.

so, let's walk through the piece. again, there are four characters- the announcer, yedinitsyn (stalin), dvoikin (zhdanov), and troikin (shepilov). the names "yedinitsyn, dvoikin, and "troikin" correspond to the words for the numbers one, two, and three in russian. some people speculate that these names do not only refer to the order the characters appear, but also the russian school grading system. in russia, students' assignments are graded on a scale of 1 to 5, with a 1 being the lowest grade, and a 5 being the highest. therefore, these names could potentially be a snide remark on the intelligence of shostakovich's subjects of ridicule. elizabeth wilson also notes that the name "troikin" could be a reference to the nkvd's "troika"- a group of three secret police members tasked with sentencing the accused to imprisonment or death, which would line up with troikin's remarks towards the end of his verse.

"rayok" starts out with the announcer introducing a panel on "realism and formalism in music." he introduces yedinitsyn, who sings over and over again about how "realistic music is written by the people's composers, and formalist music is written by formalist composers." that's it. that's the whole verse. as I said, there's a suliko quotation to tip us off to the fact that this is stalin (shostakovich even lists his full name in the score as I.S. Yedinitsyin- as in Iosif Stalin, removing any doubt of who yedinitsyn represents). the announcer then says, "let us thank our dearly beloved comrade yedinitsyn for his historic speech, and for his exposition, enrichment, and elucidation of complicated issues of the musical sphere." this is typical shostakovichian sarcasm- as seen in his letters, he tends to over-elaborate a statement to communicate distaste or irony. this statement is even funnier when we consider that yedinitsyn did not "elucidate complicated issues" in his verse, but rather repeated the same thing without elaborating. and of course, the ensemble thanks him for his "historic speech" and "fatherly care." the next character up to the stand is comrade dvoikin, and this requires a LOT of historical context to explain. while yedinitsyn is fairly straightforward, dvoikin and troikin are much more multilayered. so again, bear with me as I go on another tangent about soviet history.

in 1946, andrei zhdanov launched a series of denunciations and censorship against soviet writers and poets. by 1948, this expanded to scientists and musicians, in a period known as "zhdanovshchina." among the composers denounced during zhdanovshchina were big names like shostakovich, prokofiev, and khachaturian, as well as a little-known georgian composer named vano muradeli. muradeli had written an opera called "the great friendship," which had come under fire because he had written his own lezghinkas (a kind of caucasian folk dance) for the opera, instead of incorporating "authentic lezghinkas" instead. shostakovich, as one of the most prominent composers to be attacked during zhdanovshchina, was particularly targeted. many of his works were censored, he was fired from his teaching positions at the leningrad and moscow conservatories, and he was pressured into denouncing his own music, resorting to writing banal film scores and ideological pieces to make a living. while no composers were arrested during zhdanovshchina, it still took a heavy toll on many of their lives, shostakovich included. worse yet, after ww2, a wave of anti-semitism in the soviet union began to take hold around the same time, impacting many jewish artists and professionals. some were assassinated, including solomon mikhoels, the father-in-law of mieczyslaw weinberg, a composer and close friend of shostakovich's. (weinberg himself would be arrested on false accusations of zionist conspiracy, but was released from prison after stalin's death.)

so, all that being said, 1948 was a really, really bad time in the soviet union. this is likely when shostakovich began composing rayok, as well as some of his other "desk drawer" pieces that would not be performed until after stalin's death, such as the first violin concerto and the "from jewish folk poetry" song cycle (note- while shostakovich was not jewish, he took a strong stance against anti-semitism, which would be more pronounced in his later years).

as such, zhdanov comes under serious fire in "rayok." many of his speeches are referenced, if not quoted word for word, in "dvoikin's" lines, including where he refers to dissonant and atonal music as a "dental drill" and "a musical gas chamber." these criticisms were leveled by zhdanov at shostakovich's music- the second directed towards his eighth symphony. this was a serious insult considering the time period- the 8th was written in 1943, when the soviet union was at war against nazi germany. in his essay, yabukov points out something interesting- after the ensemble laughs at dvoikin's remarks, a transposed instance of the dsch motif- shostakovich's musical representation of himself- is heard, implying that while zhdanov is laughing at him, shostakovich ultimately gets the last laugh by satirizing him in "rayok." dvoikin is introduced as having the "ability to vocalize" as he sings exaggerated arpeggios, a dig at the fact that zhdanov was said to be a good singer. he stresses how music must be harmonic, beautiful, elegant, etc., until the music does a complete 180 from oversaturated, kitschy romanticism into- of all things- a georgian lezghinka, just like zhdanov denounced muradeli over. he suddenly sings obsessively about how "in caucasian operas, there must be authentic lezghinkas," the caricature exaggerating to ridiculous lengths as he sings (and in some productions, dances) the lezghinka, before the announcer gives the floor to troikin.

troikin. troikin. oh boy, troikin.

while troikin is based on dmitri shepilov, soviet minister of foreign affairs during the khrushchev era, he can be read to represent, in general, the disastrous effects of politicians in the musical sphere. troikin is portrayed as a complete idiot, singing to a simple melody about how "the soviet man is a very complex organism." in my favorite joke in the entire piece, troikin sings the names "glinka, tchaikovsky, rimsky-korsakov" three times in a row- romantic-era russian composers whom soviet composers were encouraged to imitate, in opposition to avant-garde western composers. (note- tchaikovsky is a complicated case when it comes to his legacy in the soviet union, but his music was regarded far more positively after ww2 than before it, due to the increase in russian nationalism during the war to boost morale.) during this part, troikin mispronounces "rimsky-korsakov" as "rimsky-korSAkov" each time, singing to a 3/4 time signature (for you non-music people, that's like a waltz rhythm). the mispronounced syllable falls on a downbeat, making it stand out even more. according to lebedinsky, shostakovich once heard shepilov give a speech, in which he listed off the names of classical and romanticist composers that soviet composers ought to imitate. however, he pronounced "rimsky-korsakov" as "rimsky-korSAkov," and shostakovich thought it was so hilarious that he puts it directly into the spotlight in "rayok." (remember covfefe? it's like covfefe.) and FURTHERMORE, during this "rimsky-korSAkov" bit, shostakovich is quoting a song called "we'll tell you" from a film score called "faithful friends." this film score was written by none other than tikhon khrennikov.

who's tikhon khrennikov, you may ask? khrennikov was the general secretary of the composer's union from 1948, all the way up to the fall of the soviet union in 1991. he played a role in the zhdanovshchina denunciations against shostakovich, but later stated he was pressured into it. whatever the case, shostakovich didn't forgive him, and we'll see another multilayered shot at khrennikov a bit later on.

troikin continues to be a hot mess on stage. he begins listing kinds of music that should be written, but gets stuck on "suites," before giving up entirely and switching to a parody of "kalinka," a popular folk song. this in itself is another joke- troikin knows nothing about classical music, so he switches to a folk song associated with socialist realism, but it's like, one of the most basic ones you can think of. and in these modified "kalinka" lyrics, troikin drops two names- "dzherzhinka" and "tishinka."

okay, remember what I said about rayok shows and how the rayoshniki performers liked to use exaggerated diminutive names as a part of their satirical shows? this is an example of that right here. "dzerzhinka" refers to one ivan dzerzhinsky, a socialist realist composer best known for his opera "quiet flows the don," whom shostakovich was on unfriendly terms with- shostakovich had helped dzerzhinsky with the music for "don," which was upheld as a "proper" soviet opera after the denunciation of shostakovich's own opera, "lady macbeth of the mtsensk district," in 1936.

tishinka, of course, is khrennikov once again, but there's another layer here. "tishinka," as yabukov points out, was also the nickname for the transit prison "matrosskaya tishina," or the "silence of the sailors." but shostakovich uses the words "raskhrenovaya tishinka"- yet another triple play on words. "khrenoviy" means "rotten" or "worthless," "ras," in this context, meaning "completely." and furthermore, "khren"- as in "raskhrenovaya" and "khrennikov," means "horseradish," and can be used as a euphemism for "penis." so essentially, shostakovich is saying, "khrennikov is a fucked-up dick."

so, after the kalinka segment, troikin's tone suddenly changes. he begins singing about being vigilant for the enemies, and consequences for those spreading "bourgeois lies," such as being "sent to the camps" and "extra hard labor in the snow." as the verse goes on, his mask comes off. while he may be a complete idiot, he's dangerous. this is a common theme in shostakovich's works- that stupidity breeds danger, and that the comedic and tragic exist alongside one another. as soon as troikin makes these threats, the music picks up again and becomes circuslike, trivializing the "vigilance, vigilance" theme- but also adding a threatening undertone to the humor, as shostakovich gives us a grave reminder that real people indeed suffered consequences under the ridiculous ideologies posed by the figures behind yedinitsyn, dvoikin, and troikin.

I want to close off this extremely long analysis by mentioning the written preface to rayok and questionnaire by shostakovich. these are somewhat difficult to find both of them. the questionnaire is at the bottom of this page (in russian, but you can autotranslate it) and the preface, in english and russian, can be found here, with notes by scholar elizabeth wilson. it's honestly one of the most hilarious music history tidbits I've ever read, so it's seriously worth checking out. the preface is essentially a fake article about how the script for rayok was "found," and I'm just going to share it in full here because it's just. you have to see it

like. look at these fucking translation notes. dmitri shostakovich made these names. you can't make this up

so like. here it is (in english)

also, this is the best performance of rayok I've ever seen. just. just watch it

would highly recommend reading yabukov's analysis btw. it's WAY more comprehensive than this post, which tbh is just scratching the surface.

[librarycards]

hello everyone, and welcome to my slightly-belated quarter 2 2023 book recs! i spent the last 2ish weeks in europe both sighteeing and attending the amazing FAC No Borders Summer School, and am still getting back into the swing of being home, getting over jet lag, etc. since coming back, it's been really nice to take stock of the books i've read since March, and rediscover some gems. So, without further ado, here they are (links are to my reviews of each book - let me know if you like being linked directly to my reviews! I also do this on my Substack)!

Jennifer Bartlett, Sheila Black, and Michael Northern (eds.), Beauty is a Verb: The New Poetry of Disability

Joshua Whitehead (ed)., Love After the End: An Anthology of Two-Spirit & Indigiqueer Speculative Fiction

jia qing wilson-yang, Small Beauty

Srikanth Reddy, Voyager

Paris Green / frog k / @play-now-my-lord , how about a little kiss?

Ruha Benjamin, Viral Justice: How We Grow The World We Want

Connie Willis, Doomsday Book

Mieko Kawakami, Breasts and Eggs

Robin Coste Lewis, Voyage of the Sable Venus

tagging people whose faves i'm interested in below, but as always, anyone can make their list and tag me -- i love seeing what you're reading!

@gwenderqueer @discworldwitches @aldieb @tamagotchiplanet @probablymoons @capricornpropaganda @killyfromblame @myalgias @oatsmilk @secretcircuit @closet-keys @fatehbaz @sawasawako @takemyrevolution1997 @tirragen @trans-axolotl @llleighsmith @bioethicists @smokedsalmoniloveyou @materialisnt @grimesapologist @vawoolf @kissedbytheriver @twinkubus @sadhoc @hamath @thedyke @endure @osmanthusoolong @heavenlyyshecomes @stephen-deadalus @querxus @pf2e @coffinbutch @punkkwix @r00tvegetables @abstractlesbian @handweavers @r-ob-yn @mastincala @campgender @feypact and anyone else who wants to!