#Neil Gaiman is nothing if not ironic

[bitspieces]

I need Aziraphale to grab Crowley by the lapels of his jacket and pin him for the Second Kiss™. Or for it to be under the rain. Or, you know, both those things.

[who-dat-homeless]

Y'know most artist when do depict Crowley and Aziraphale post divorce depict them pretty much as they are in season1-2 without changes? Just.... I think that all this would REALLY impact their psych, especially Crowley as his mental state never was really good

Or maybe they will stay as they are, I'm not Neil Gaiman after all but for me it's funnier to explore them changed Like. Usually when faced with a traumatic thing Crowley goes into escapism, either by sleeping or drinking. What if that time it doesn't help? He can't fall asleep and even the faintest smell of alcohol makes him wanna vommit. He wonders uselessly through the city. Maybe for the first time after the fall he once again starts to question everything. Who he is. What is his nature. Is there any reasons left to keep up living and thing. What is the reason for anything really. Does he even has a will or is he just a tool in God's game. Were he only brought up to this world to always chase something that he'll never get. He's somber. More than usual. But at the same time he's soft. As soft as he ever was. What the point of keeping this cool, black, prankster façade if it doesn't even bring him joy, just a pitiful reminder of how he lost it all And at the same time this softens is all he's left with. The last reminder of his love.

Aziraphale is basically in hell, looking into mindless eyes. There's not a single thought behind them unless it's a want of a holy murder or a holy destruction. They all just a boot lickers looking how to be as useful as they can. They're all good, but there's not a single angel who is kind. That what Crowley was. Aziraphale understands it only now. Crowley was kind. Now he feels cold and lifeless, just a machine without organs. There's is no use of him, really, he's just a living paper signing machine. He has to listen to absolutely empty words, sometimes he has to attend a few days conference, as angels don't need rest, just to hear empty speeches of how they're productive, how they're the big family. how they need to find another ways to lick asses more effectively. He tries to change something, literally anything, he meets an iron wall of resistance and aggression. He tries to tell them how great the earth is, but for them it's nothing more but a tool that has its use. Just tools and usefulness, and don't forget to smile, we're family. There's no one who he can talk to. no one who can hear him he looks into a night sky and wonders if Crowley would ever... feel proud of him. Just for resisting. Just for trying. He wants to believe he would, but he knows he would never. He hates him now. Suggestion box is thrown away he only ever finds threats or insults there. He becomes neurotic, always on edge. He don't want to hear them anymore. He does his job, he looks for Metatron's plans and that's it He finally understands how Crowley did his paper work. He becomes weary. passive aggressive. he wants to blow out this place, but he takes 5 breaths and smiles to Metatron. as soon as he gets a chance he'll make a few new holes in Metatron's face. After all, he's got to put his license into use. Until than he waits.

so yeah i want them both totally wrecked

[feralplantwife]

On the 2023 Hugo Awards Disaster

I have a lot of huge feelings about the Hugo Awards disaster. I also have a personal stake, as Iron Widow by Xiran Jay Zhao was the best book I read last year and the most fun I've had reading a book in a very long time, so I'm mad about that in particular.

First and foremost, what the goddamn fuck??? The Hugo Awards are pretty much the biggest awards for genre fiction, specifically science fiction and fantasy, which continue to be shat upon by tweed-cocooned academics and their pick-me constituents.

The fact that they chose to eliminate minority authors and their works for the supposed sake of censorship (racism/queerphobia) has pretty much invalidated the credibility of the Hugo Awards past, present, and future. A major honor for authors has been reduced to a dubious bragging right and the validity of the final results are now nil.

If they weren't prepared for the responsibility involved in holding the convention in a specific country and weren't up to the task of carrying out their duties as a committee within the confines of that country with the bare minimum integrity, then they shouldn't have done so. The Hugo Awards committee have insulted the nominated authors, insulted the Chinese science fiction/fantasy audience, and insulted any even casual enjoyers of genre fiction.

And let's make one thing perfectly clear: there is absolutely no excuse for this, this is blatant RACISM and QUEERPHOBIA and nothing else. If you check my reblog from yesterday or visit Xiran Jay Zhao or Neil Gaiman's own blogs, you can literally follow an email chain where these absolute ghouls pick and choose which authors and works they're going to eliminate without even the slightest hesitation or reluctance. Just business as usual for them it seems!

There is already a huge problem with racism and minority suppression within the science fiction and fantasy genres, which are still largely dominated in the mainstream by cisgender, heterosexual white people, and the literature is still rife with racial/queer stereotypes and bigotry. The fact that these systemic issues have so deeply infiltrated one of the highest honors a science fiction/fantasy author can receive speaks of a downward trend in current sociopolitical practices and offers a dark glimpse into the future not only for these beloved genres but also for us- the readers.

I feel so bad for the Chinese people who voted so diligently for this convention to be hosted in Chengdu, only to find that the authors who represent them (among authors as well) were eliminated behind closed doors for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of their works.

Because of the fandom spaces that I exist in, I get people screaming crying bitching moaning over not seeing boys kissing or whatever All The Time, on an almost daily basis, but the people who hurt the most because of the Chinese government's censorship are the citizens that exist under that censorship. Now, because of prejudiced weasels, this includes the truly exceptional authors that represent them on a HUGE scale overseas.

I'm furious with the awards committee on behalf of all of us and especially for them.

What can you do?

Activism takes many forms, most obviously ACTION. An accessible way for anyone to take action and combat this type of shitty behavior from literary influences like the World Science Fiction Convention and the Hugo Awards is to read diversely.

It makes you uncomfortable? Good! It makes you think? Even Better! It makes you learn? That's the best! Every time you buy a book, you're making the statement that this is what you want to read, this is what you value, this is what we need more of.

Can't buy books? Use your local library! Libraries keep records of what books get checked out the most, so if you check out diversely, they'll acquire more diverse literature for you to read. This is literally the basic foundation of how public libraries operate.

Support minority authors, and don't rely upon some committee to tell you which ones are worth reading. Ask BIPOC and Queer readers and authors instead. Our communities know best, and are happy to offer recommendations and contextual information to help you grow as both a person and a reader.

Fuck racism. Fuck the Hugo Awards. And Fuck Dave McCarty in particular.

And don't forget to reach out to info@TheHugoAwards.org and let them know your thoughts and feelings on this matter

[thenightling]

Venting about a pretentious fan of Irish folklore

I'm going to vent a little here. Yesterday in my Facebook group dedicated to Neil Gaiman's The Sandman we started on a conversation about Irish folklore. It was a fine enough conversation which, almost predictably drifted to Banshees. I mentioned how the original word was the Gaelic "Bean Sidhe" (still pronounced like the modern Banshee) so it's almost like just saying "Woman faery." Somehow this earned a very pretentious and condescending response from someone who was insistent that Sidhe are not faeries. She said "Obviously you're not Irish." and then went on to tell me that Sidhe aren't "Fluttery little things with wings" and how they are "Not Tinkerbell" and that they are "More like Titania and Oberon from Shakespeare's a Midsummer Night's Dream. Two things had me seeing red with this. The first is the "Obviously you're not Irish." It was very condescending and dismissive. I think she had seen my American location on my Facebook account and then decided that I must not know folklore no matter what I said.

The second issue is how wrong she was. For starters, I never once claimed that sidhe are "Tiny fluttering things with wings." and ironically we (others in the group and myself) had discussed Titania and Oberon previously in that very thread. The Fae Court turn up quite a few times in Neil Gaiman's The Sandman. Also it was kind of baffling that she felt the need to imply that Titania and Oberon are not faeries. "My Fairy Lord, this must be done with haste" is literally something Robin Goodfellow (Puck) says in Shakespeare's a Midsummer Night's Dream.

I think she, herself, was confusing the word faery and pixie. For though pixies are faeries not all faeries are pixies. Faery is a blanket term for many entities of Irish folklore including the Sidhe, and even the Dullahan (headless Horsemen). She felt the need to lecture me about how dangerous faeries can be. Ma'am, this is a Sandman group. Neil Gaiman's The Sandman features a homocidal hobgoblin version of The Puck. Most of us are well-aware of how dangerous these beings are in traditional folklore.

What made it even more infuriating was in her effort to "correct" me even though there was nothing to correct, she had somehow earned eight likes and loves on the comment. I pride myself on my knowledge of folklore. I have read Dark Faeries by Dr. Robert Curran, An Encyclopedia of Fairies: Hobgoblins, Brownies, Bogies, and Other Supernatural Creatures by Katherine Briggs, Irish Fairy and Folktales (leatherbound Barnes and Noble edition). And several others but those are the titles that come to mind.

What made this extra baffling is I said nothing that contradicts anything she said here about the Sidhe being dangerous, and closer to Oberon and Titania than Tinkerbell.

I think she, herself, was confusing the word faery and Pixie.

On a final note, I understand the frustration of those that think faeries are all tiny pixies but that's not what I had said at all and. And ironically, Tinkerbell isn't all that nice, herself. In the original story she tried to have Wendy killed out of jealousy.

[theravenpiper]

The Color of Éowyn’s Eyes: Economy of Description

You remember Éowyn, the niece of the King of Rohan in The Lord of the Rings? The killer of the Nazgûl , for whom the confines of a woman’s life were not enough? You should remember her; she’s one of Tolkien’s only woman characters as well as one of his most fully realized. So try to tell me what color her eyes were, and I’ll suggest something important about description.

From the movies, or the fact that Rohirrim were based on the Anglo Saxons, you might deduce that her eyes were blue. However, no one can be sure, because her eye color is never mentioned. Not once. The closest Tolkien comes is when Aragorn observes a feeling of compassion in her eyes for her uncle’s condition. Éowyn’s eye color is irrelevant to her story and those who want to know it are likely to fill in the details for themselves. Readers don’t need to be given everything about her to appreciate her.

This observation runs contrary to the advice often given to beginning writers. Take, for example, bibisco, an open source equivalent of Scrivener. Bibisco’s first tip to users is that “in order to write believable characters, you must know everything about them.” All of them, apparently, from your protagonists down to the walk-ons. To help you, bibisco offers nearly a hundred different categories to fill, divided into categories like personal data, physical description, behavior, attitudes, psychology, ideas and passions. Under psychology, for instance, you are asked for “Each and every aspect of psychology.” The idea is silly beyond words, yet reviewers nod solemnly at it.

I don’t know about you, but that level of preparation would leave me with no desire to write at all. Just as importantly, it allows no space for the alterations of character due to the development of the plot, whose discoveries are one of the delights of writing.

Moreover, most of that information will never fit into the story. The days of Thomas Hardy starting a novel with a whole chapter of description are over a century past. Modern novels have no place for more than the essentials: the relevant physical descriptions and gestures are mostly all that readers will endure. And even then, you generally have to be selective. It is considered clumsy, these days, to pause the story for an info dump that reads like a police dossier. If more details prove necessary, you can give them as they become useful. For example, Tolkien might have chosen to give the color of Eowyn’s eyes from the perspective of Faramir as he proposes to her and gazes soulfully into them. Be careful, though, not to overdo the gradualism and have a character refer to his pale forehead as he brushes his ash-blonde hair out of his sea-green eyes – that’s just clumsy writing.

So how do you decide how much description is enough? In his master class, Neil Gaiman suggests that the general rule for any description is to ask how any object stands out from the rest. In the case of characters, I suggest asking yourself what you would notice when meeting the character for the first time. Is there a physical feature that is unusual? Something about the way they move? Or talk? Occupy physical space? Interact with others? It could even be the fact that nothing about them stands out (which might be a useful trait for a spy). Probably, you only have space for two or three features before the patience of the modern reader wears thin, so you can choose only what helps identifies the character, or anything that advances the plot. For instance, if you know there’s a scene coming up where the character needs to shout a warning, you could add some drama and character development by giving them a stutter to overcome. But you need to be economical.

One effective but difficult way to be economical in your description is to choose a theme in the details you choose. For example, if you describe a man as being as expressionless as a sheet of iron, and standing as immobile as a suit of armor, you create the impression of a hard, formidable person. Similarly, if you describe a woman in terms of the rich fabrics and embroideries she wears, you make her sound rich and fashion-conscious.

More simply, you can use a metaphor. The past master of description by metaphor was the mystery writer Raymond Chandler,who not only created vivid characters using metaphors, but let readers fill in the details and gave an impression of the viewpoint character in the description. Often, too, the metaphors were hilarious. For example, Chandler described one character as being “as inconspicuous as a tarantula on a slice of angel food cake.” Another character described himself as being “an occasional drinker, the kind of guy who goes out for a beer and wakes up in Singapore with a full beard.” Probably his best known description remains, “It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained-glass window.” Notice how these examples concentrate on the impression that a character creates, leaving the reader to fill in most physical details. Chandler has been parodied so many times that many of his descriptions seem too over the top today, but a more subdued version of his technique remains possible. For instance, I recently described a character as looking like a plant that had been left unwatered for too long.

All these approaches to description demand thought and economy. All, too, are far more demanding than the encyclopedia-like info dump that novice writers often feel is required. But they are also more effective and efficient, and can move a story along in more way than one.

[snugglyporos]

wait what did Neil Gaiman do, his work is often very optimistic and about the value of stories and power of dreams, in comparison to Moore's more cynical view

So I'm just going to say this reads like you've only experienced Gaiman's work second hand or through adaptations. His stores are not optimistic. In fact the theme that runs through most of his works is one of powerless resignation, wherein nothing really matters and most people are consigned to endless suffering due to the actions of other people who they'll never meet or get revenge on.

And that's pretty obvious if you take a trip down his catalogue, because he began his career working on Judge Dredd of all things.

That's not really a surprise. Gaiman, like many UK writers, had to deal with the magazines they had, and the reality is that most UK comics are darker, bleaker, and more violent. Ironically, for all the sex and violence in US media, it's the UK comics scene that ended up being far more lurid and violent, mostly due to them not having the US Comics Code.

But I digress. If you really wanted to boil down Gaiman to two works, it's Sandman and Lucifer, and neither is optimistic. Neither is any good, either. Yes, I can defend this, and it comes down to the fact that Gaiman can't stop masturbating to his own ego in regards to how smart he is.

Roughly 60% of a Gaiman comic is his espousing on nonsense. Well researched and smart-sounding nonsense, but nonsense. He also can't just be like everyone else; he has argued at length for example that characters like Dream aren't psychopomps. He can't tell you what they are, because any definition of a character like Death or Dream ends up being that of a psychopomp, but he's determined that they're different just because.

To read a Gaiman story is to be trapped in a lecture with an extremely boring person who apparently just read their first philosophy textbook. Sandman, in my view, might be the most overrated comic ever written, simply because it's protagonist is a giant pile of shit. The entire comic has him journey all over the universe to get his things back, only for him to remark that actually, he doesn't need them, and thus the entire comic has been a giant waste of time and you're a fool for reading it, because you wasted your time.

Lucifer is what happens when a writer thinks they understand theology better than they do, and rely heavily on theology in order to prop up their barely put together stories. Lucifer tries to pick up where Paradise Lost left off, but the end result is Lucifer getting what he wants and creating his own multiverse. Because you see, Lucifer is what Gaiman sees himself as, same as Dream; a person who is trapped by the conventions and designs of lesser people, and who shouldn't be restrained because he's simply smarter and better than they are.

Lucifer's story is one where a person does everything wrong and gets what he wants. Sandman is a story where a protagonist couldn't give a shit about being in a story and also gets what he wants.

But ultimately, most people don't really like either for the story. Most people like them because they fit a vibe. If all they were were empty headed nonsense that was artistically and emotionally appealing, then I would be happy enough to say that he's not one of the people who ruined comics, because he would already be suffering enough.

No, Gaiman's sin against comics is that he injected a whole host of esoteric nonsense into the mainstream. Now it's not enough to just have stories, you need everyone to have endlessly complex cosmological nonsense stapled onto it. Moore didn't add that, and Miller isn't capable of it. Gaiman added that.

The fact that every story in comics is now about 'the multiverse' and has cosmic implications no matter what is going on is because of Gaiman's popularity with Sandman and Lucifer. Others tried, he succeeded, and this success showed comic companies that they could go bigger, and as a result everything became a lazy mess.

Are you tired of confusing, barely coherent multiverse stuff? Blame Gaiman, who pioneered it all first in the modern context.

Gaiman's sin is that he brought all of this smart-sounding bullshit to the mainstream and he did it in the laziest way possible. Sure, he didn't do it out of spite like Moore and Miller, but he did it all the same. He probably felt he was elevating things, but the reality is that everything that came after has resulted in less coherent, less interesting nonsense.

And you can draw a fucking red line straight to him when it comes to making that a reoccurring theme.

His work is very much not for me (I'm sure you're shocked to hear that) but I get why people like it aesthetically. But he absolutely sinned when he opened the floodgates of esoteric bullshit, like Lucifer tempting humanity.

[whatyourusherthinks]

Princess Mononoke Review

Ohohoho I was looking forward to this one! Word on the street is that Spirited Away is what most people think is the best Miyazaki movie, but Princess Mononoke is the actual best one.

Fun fact, I watched every one of these Ghibli movies subbed, since I saw them after a shift and our theater showed the dubbed versions earlier that the subbed versions. Honestly, I don't think it makes a significant difference, especially when it comes to Ghibli. Don't come at me anime nerds. My point is I made sure to watch the dub for Mononoke. Why? Because it was adapted by Neil Fuckin' Gaiman (pretty sure that's his middle name, complete with apostrophe) who just so happens to be my favorite writer of all time. So this movie has got to be good!

What's The Movie About?

A prince of a hidden village gets cursed, exiled, and forces his way into a conflict between two human factions and the gods of the land. Can he heal his curse, make peace between the humans and gods, as well as get together with the hot wolf girl?

What I Like.

Broken record time, the animation is fucking gorgeous. This time around I was really impressed with the fighting animation. The speed an choreography was a sight to behold I tell ya. It was also shockingly violent, which I dug the hell out of. Kinda made me wonder why there was a bunch of families in the audience, I guess anime parents don't care if their kids get traumatized. I also really dug the score. I usually don't go for instrumental pieces but it felt like every twenty minutes I was marveling at the orchestra. The story was pretty cool, but the world building was what really impressed me. It, like Spirited Away, was clearly based on Shintoism. But unlike Spirited Away I never felt like I was missing information about the world building because I didn't know much about the religion. I really liked the characterization of the different tribes of animals/forest spirits. And speaking of characters, Miyazaki writes some pretty damn good female characters doesn't he? Well, to be accurate, he write good characters regardless of gender, but I really liked the Lady of Iron Town despite her being an antagonist. And speaking of the antagonists, I really like how complex the human characters were. The monk was a scumbag yet I still got worried when it seemed like he was gonna die. When the people of Iron Town were fighting the wolves I legit didn't want either side to lose. That fight ended super fucking cool as well, the lead walking out of there was raw as hell. There were some raw as hell lines as well. The line "I'm going to show you how to kill a god. A god of life and death. The trick is not to fear them." makes me want an RPG about mortals killing gods, which is about the highest compliment I can give something. Also I wanna ride an elk.

What I Don't Like.

I feel like just saying this is going to get me looks like when San first sees Ashitaka, but I have a couple problems with this movie.

One, the message is kinda shaky. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that promoting pacifism and environmentalism is a bad thing, it's just that, to me, the gods seems completely justified in their actions. The humans are not only killing each other, but completely overstepping their bounds, destroying spirits with their consumption. All the gods want is to stop their ravaging of the land. They also tried to rebuild, but the humans wouldn't let them, that's what was driving the Apes into wanting to take up arms. Maybe doing that would get them cursed, but also the curse came from the bullets the humans made so it seems like the spirits didn't have a real choice here.

Two, and I know this makes me sound like a miserable bastard, but I wish the movie ended more nihilistically. Like, I know all the gods died, but not a single named human did. The movie should've ended with the Forest God dying in peace, and then the valley is just forever fucked. You kill the spirit of the land and nothing grows there anymore. Sorry, but you fucked up! It felt like the movie was going in a more tragic direction as well, but instead all the pretty flowers came back and everyone's like "We can rebuild!" And the two leads are together even though they should've definitely done a self-sacrifice. Speaking of that...

Three, the romance between the prince and princess is completely unnecessary. Like if you cut it out entirely the movie would have been just as good, if not better. It's really rushed and really just seems to be there to have the lead chase wolf girl for a bit, but it makes equally as much sense if he thought she knew how to get to the Forest God. Or if he was just curious about why she was siding with the wolves. Oh yeah, I guess the power of their love saved their lives at the end but that was so eyerolling my retinas twisted. I feel like Miyazaki either doesn't know how or doesn't really like writing romances. (And before you go, "What about Howl's?", according to most sources Sophie and Howl's relationship seems to be completely lifted off the page of the novel, so I have a feeling he didn't actually write that part.)

Final Summation.

Princess Mononoke is great. Obviously. Watch it. I don't have anything else to say, but since I have your attention down here, I'm gonna give you all a little bonus.

All Ghibli Movies I've Seen So Far Ranked

Real quick from worst to best:

6th: Ponyo-It's not really fair, but I'm putting Ponyo at the lowest because the last time I watched it I was like 10, and I don't remember much about it. I do remember liking it, but according to most sources 10 is like the perfect age to enjoy Ponyo. If I ever do that Ghibli marathon I'm constantly thinking about, I'll rewatch it.

5th: My Neighbor Totoro-Totoro hits me right in the nostalgia, when I rewatched it I was all curled up in my chair smiling ear to ear. But honestly, it's a "stuff just kinda happens" plot. There's not really anything wrong with that, it just suffers comparing it to more complete narratives.

4th: Spirited Away-Me putting this here is just drawing a target on my back for white people who unironically own katanas, but counterpoint: Bite me. It's good, just not goddamn mandatory viewing.

3rd: Princess Mononoke-Urgh I had a hard time between choosing between my second and third favorite Ghibli movie, but the deciding factor was creativity. Mononoke is pretty imaginative, but not compared to...

2nd: The Boy and the Heron-I liked this movie when I saw it, but after this Ghibli Month at work I like it a whole lot more. It took some time to figure out what the hell the story was supposed to be about, but I honestly think it occupying my mind for several weeks is a boon.

And 1st: Howl's Movie Castle-No duh. Look, the plot of Howl's isn't as good as the majority of this list, but Howl's has one advantage over every other movie on this list. That is that it fucks. I'm not referring to how I want Howl to fuck me, or that it's the only Ghibli movie I've seen so far with a romance that is worth anything. (I don't know if I made that clear in my review, but I really liked the romance in the movie.) I mean that it has way more personality than these other movies. The the titular character, Howl's Movie Castle has a charm and pluck that carries it over it's flaws and into my heart. Also it's goddamn sexy.

[ao3feed-deckerstar]

I'll Take Care of You (They Say I've Gone Crazy)

read it on the AO3 at https://ift.tt/M3jdwZg

by WargishBoromirFan

Crowley is very good at protecting the boss's son from his father. Not so much at protecting him from himself.

While Crowley would go up against God and the devil with nothing but a tire iron for the kids he's raised, it's not much help when the first one was the devil. Adam's nudge towards America worked on his (not) father, too.

Words: 2274, Chapters: 1/12, Language: English

Series: Part 1 of I'll Take Care of You

Fandoms: Good Omens - Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett, Good Omens (TV), Lucifer (TV)

Rating: Teen And Up Audiences

Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply

Categories: F/M, Gen, M/M

Characters: Crowley (Good Omens), Aziraphale (Good Omens), Lucifer Morningstar (Lucifer TV), Adam Young (Good Omens), Warlock Dowling, Mazikeen (Lucifer TV), Trixie Espinoza, Pepper (Good Omens), Brian (Good Omens), Wensleydale (Good Omens), Amenadiel (Lucifer TV), Ella Lopez, Linda Martin (Lucifer TV), Marcus Pierce, Eve (Lucifer TV), Azrael (Lucifer TV)

Relationships: Crowley & Satan | Lucifer (Good Omens), Aziraphale/Crowley (Good Omens), Lucifer Morningstar (Lucifer TV) & Adam Young (Good Omens), Minor or Background Relationship(s), Chloe Decker/Lucifer Morningstar, Aziraphale & Crowley & The Them (Good Omens), Aziraphale & Cain (Good Omens), Abel & Crowley (Good Omens), Crowley & Eve (Good Omens), Aziraphale & Crowley & Warlock Dowling, Azrael & Ella Lopez, Trixie Espinoza & Lucifer Morningstar

Additional Tags: Crowley Loves Kids (Good Omens), THE FIC, Cross-Posted on FanFiction.Net, Post-Apocalypse, Crowley Was Not Raphael Before Falling (Good Omens), (But he may have played one for a prank), Fallen Angels and their issues with kids, Footnotes, no beta we saunter vaguely downwards like Crowley, Team Mom Crowley, Can be seen as ace relationship; can be seen as more hands-on; I won't stop you now

read it on the AO3 at https://ift.tt/M3jdwZg

[ao3feed-ineffablehusbandz]

I'll Take Care of You (They Say I've Gone Crazy)

I'll Take Care of You (They Say I've Gone Crazy)

by WargishBoromirFan

Crowley is very good at protecting the boss's son from his father. Not so much at protecting him from himself.

While Crowley would go up against God and the devil with nothing but a tire iron for the kids he's raised, it's not much help when the first one was the devil. Adam's nudge towards America worked on his (not) father, too.

Words: 2274, Chapters: 1/12, Language: English

Series: Part 1 of I'll Take Care of You

Fandoms: Good Omens - Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett, Good Omens (TV), Lucifer (TV)

Rating: Teen And Up Audiences

Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply

Categories: F/M, Gen, M/M

Characters: Crowley (Good Omens), Aziraphale (Good Omens), Lucifer Morningstar (Lucifer TV), Adam Young (Good Omens), Warlock Dowling, Mazikeen (Lucifer TV), Trixie Espinoza, Pepper (Good Omens), Brian (Good Omens), Wensleydale (Good Omens), Amenadiel (Lucifer TV), Ella Lopez, Linda Martin (Lucifer TV), Marcus Pierce, Eve (Lucifer TV), Azrael (Lucifer TV)

Relationships: Crowley & Satan | Lucifer (Good Omens), Aziraphale/Crowley (Good Omens), Lucifer Morningstar (Lucifer TV) & Adam Young (Good Omens), Minor or Background Relationship(s), Chloe Decker/Lucifer Morningstar, Aziraphale & Crowley & The Them (Good Omens), Aziraphale & Cain (Good Omens), Abel & Crowley (Good Omens), Crowley & Eve (Good Omens), Aziraphale & Crowley & Warlock Dowling, Azrael & Ella Lopez, Trixie Espinoza & Lucifer Morningstar

Additional Tags: Crowley Loves Kids (Good Omens), THE FIC, Cross-Posted on FanFiction.Net, Post-Apocalypse, Crowley Was Not Raphael Before Falling (Good Omens), (But he may have played one for a prank), Fallen Angels and their issues with kids, Footnotes, no beta we saunter vaguely downwards like Crowley, Team Mom Crowley, Can be read as ace relationship; can be seen as more; I won't stop you now

From https://ift.tt/QHYLhDg https://archiveofourown.org/works/46039744

[asinglemagpie]

Mum sent When does season 3 come out?

You sent Well, first all the major companies need to come to an agreement with the WGA and SAG-AFTRA (writers and actors guilds of America). Then they need to renew the contact for season 3. Then Neil Gaiman has to write it. Then they need David and Michael to be available for it (don't panic, both want season 3 as much as Neil and every fan on the planet). In the event Amazon are really fucking stupid (which isn't outside the realm of possibility, but knowing how much money they could make out of season 3..? You have to have hope) then we have to wait for Neil Gaiman to write it as a book. So... it could be a while. (Which I DID rant about once, and warned you about a few days ago when I re-recommended watching it.)

Mum sent It’s too good to wait, but obviously we have to You sent You are probably being the most reasonable person on the planet about this right now XD

--

It has been announced that this is the best thing she has ever seen in her entire 62 years of life - better than her favourite movies (one of which is, kind of ironically, “The Sound of Music") - and she doesn’t want to be reasonable but there’s nothing she can do about it.

We are now in negotiations over who gets to watch it when since we are using the same account.

My mum decided to take my advice and watch "Good Omens" yesterday.

She finished season 1 and started season 2 - she thinks season 1 is brilliant, and had to "literally tear" herself from season 2 to go to bed.

Based on the last time I peeked in on her, she should be finishing season 2 any moment now.

I don't know what to expect from her when it ends, but I know I'm in trouble 🤣

[tanadrin]

Dev Patel and the Green Knight

I finally got around to seeing The Green Knight. Overall, I enjoyed it--David Lowery does a good job capturing the essential weirdness of the tale, which is very much about taking a mundane circumstance (a Christmas feast) and suddenly catapulting the reader into a mythic otherworld through the intrusion of the alien and monstrous, and the fantastical costumes, dramatic lighting, and dissonant score all contribute very well to a sense of otherness that permeates the original story.

But I find it interesting--and, I'll admit, a little frustrating--that no modern film adaptation of medieval literature is really capable of taking the story it's adapting on its own merits. This isn't an objection to modifying the source text, or taking it in new, non-literal direction. I can think of plenty of adaptations of work that play with the source material in interesting ways, and are better for it. Even very faithful adaptations like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings are inevitably going to alter the source based on the need to adapt it for the screen and the whims of the director. But when it comes to medieval classics, texts like Beowulf or Gawain and the Green Knight are always held at arm's length. An ironic layer is always interpolated into the original story, and even in modified form the story is never allowed to stand on its own.

Contrast, for instance, modern retellings of Arthurian legend; or Wagner's Nibelungenleid; or something like Neil Gaiman's book of Norse mythology. These are all adaptations of much older stories, all medieval; and the authors typically happy to let the stories operate on their own terms. In fact, that is often a selling point: dipping into these tales is a way of sampling an alien culture, one that is remote from us in time rather than space, and part of the sense of heightened drama is the understanding that these stories do not necessarily depict the world in the same way that modern realist prose does. They are fairy-stories, in the Tolkienian sense, and something not quite even like "high fantasy," which, although it is a genre which owes much to the mythic tradition, is usually *told* in the same manner as other realist fiction. And you could take these stories and re-cast them in a realist mold--that's definitely been done with Arthurian legend, either via anachronism or trying to place them in an era-appropriate historical context, and even that yields something quite like the original in tenor, even if the language used to relate the story is often very different.

Watching this movie, I was *strongly* reminded of Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf, in that this did not feel like an attempt to adapt Gawain and the Green Knight for the screen. It felt like an attempt to tell a story *about* Gawain and the Green Knight (the text), a story which does not stand on its own. You don't have to have read the text to understand the movie (although I think some directorial decisions would be a bit mystifying if you hadn't), but the movie definitely situates itself *as a response* to the text. Which is an odd choice! Actually, another good point of comparison is Spike Jonze's Adaptation. It started life as an adaptation of Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief, but Charlie Kaufman sort of gave up writing that halfway through and wrote a movie about the difficulty he was having writing *that* movie, and the result is something very weird (and very good) that is full of metafictional elements that depend on the existence of this other work, in a way that a straight retelling of The Orchid Thief for the screen obviously would not. And while The Green Knight isn't that extreme, it is definitely playing on the structure of the medieval poem, and replying to it.

The core of the movie (as I understood it) is a tension between young Gawain's aspiration to knightliness, his ambition which is born at least in part from his mother's encouragement, and his own failure to live up to the heroic ideal of greatness. Not chivalric--this is a movie in which the ethos of chivalry makes not even the briefest of appearance, which is weird given that it's nominally an Arthurian romance, and that the chivalric ethos is extremely important to the original text. Instead we have a generic greatness being described, one which is associated with renown, with taking part in mythic events, and with achieving high rank and honor. In the service of seeing her son obtain all this, Gawain's mother seems to cast some kind of spell, whereupon the titular Green Knight appears at Arthur's Christmas-feast; and as in the poem, a game of beheadings is proffered. Gawain accepts the challenge, beheads the knight, and the knight rides away, promising he'll meet Gawain a year and a day hence at the Green Chapel. So far so straightforward. When Gawain sets off a year later to meet the knight, his mother gives him an enchanted belt to keep him safe from harm. Gawain goes on to have a couple of side-of-the-road adventures and mishaps, the kind of thing that's par for the course when you're telling an Arthurian romance, until he arrives at the house of a mysterious benefactor, just about a day away from the Chapel, who grants him hospitality until the day of his challenge.

Now, in the original story, this is where Gawain gets the magic belt, and it's hugely important: Gawain and his host promise to exchange anything they might receive at the end of each day, when the host has been out hunting all day and Gawain has been in the house recuperating from his travels. During this time, the host's wife repeatedly tries to seduce Gawain; and Gawain is trapped between the imperative not to sleep with his host's wife (a major violation of the rules of good chivalric conduct!) and the imperative not to offend the woman (also a violation of those rules). He succeeds, for the most part; he is forced at one point to give his host a kiss at the end of the day, since the wife kissed him; this is shown as him holding nothing back and acting in good faith on the vow he made to his host. When Gawain finally rebuffs the wife for good, she insists that, even if he won't sleep with her, he should at least take a magic belt she has woven that will keep him from harm. He does; but he does *not* give this to his host. When he finally goes to the Green Chapel, the Knight returns the original blow as promised--but only nicks Gawain lightly. He reveals himself to be none other than the host who was sheltering him; the nick was his reprimand for withholding that final gift, but because of his good conduct he is otherwise left unharmed. The whole thing was a test of sorts, one which Gawain passed. Despite flinching at first from the blow, and keeping the belt secret, he shows himself ultimately to be a man of good (albeit not perfect) conduct, and *that* is why he wins honor from the whole affair.

The movie takes this basic narrative and alters it in key places, completely changing the valence of the whole thing. First, Gawain gets the belt at the beginning of his quest, as mentioned; he loses it on the way, but when he reaches the castle, the wife of his host (who succeeds in seducing him with a handjob) presents it to him as if she had woven it herself. He does not actually engage in the game of exchanged with his host, who is *also* not the Green Knight. And we're treated to a monologue about the color green from the wife that feels beat for beat like it's been ripped off from someone's undergraduate essay about Gawain and the Green Knight, which is a little weird even in the context of the rest of the movie. Finally when Gawain reaches the chapel, the knight goes to return the blow--and Gawain completely chickens out and flees. We are then treated to an extended sequence of Gawain returning home; being feted as a hero; earning his knighthood (presumably by lying about what happened); succeeding Arthur as king; him abandoning his low-class beau once she bears him a son, and marrying a princess; going to war; his son dying in a war; and finally, as an old man, being trapped in his throne room as a besieging army breaks its way inside. Just before they do, he removes the magic belt from around his waist, his head fall off, and bam--we're shown this has been an Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge thing this whole time, and the Green Knight has not yet landed his blow.

Gawain finally takes off the belt, throws it aside, and tells the knight to go ahead--and the knight bends down and congratulates him. In context, the reading seems to be this: the belt is a talisman of Gawain's mother's influence, of external expectations for what kind of man he is. The Knight is Arthur or perhaps an agent of his, and the test in *this* case is whether Gawain can be his own person. All the events leading up to this point are perhaps a part of the original magic Gawain's mother cast, an effort to Lilith Weatherwax her kid to greatness by putting him into an epic story. Implicitly, then, the Gawain and the Green Knight we all know is the false version of the tale, the tale as Gawain's mother would have it told.

This is all very clever. But I'm afraid it's so clever it falls apart in the end. Because the structure of the original story that this depends on is dependent in turn on taking the whole notion of chivalric virtue seriously, which this movie plainly does not. Gawain is shown as irreverent and lustful and a bit of a party animal--lovable and good hearted fundamentally, but definitely not an Arthurian hero. That's fine, but that's a very modern sort of character, one that feels out of place in a movie that is trying very hard also to be tonally unmodern, firmly embedded in a mythic otherwhen of Arthurian legend. Moments of slice-of-life mundaneness, while charming, strain mightily against the epic tone the movie tries to take in other places, and strange events like a ghost seeking her lost head or immense giants striding the landscape. We are jostled: are we in the land of myth? Or are we in historical Britain? We cannot be in both!

And this is a movie that was definitely made by people who had read the original text; not just the original text, but also a great deal of criticism *about* the original text. The movie namechecks the theme of fivefold symmetry that's incredibly important to the structure of the poem; there's the aforementioned undergrad essay about colors about 3/4th of the way through; and there's the fact that the structure of the original plot (down to Morgan LeFay in disguise as an old woman in the host's castle) is present in altered form in every detail. But none of these details add up to much. There's a weird homoerotic kiss with the host that implies that in fact *he* wanted to sleep with Gawain, in addition to his wife; the ghost Gawain encounters early on tells him the Green Knight is in fact someone he knows (and therefore *can't* be the host; I think it's implied to be Arthur, like I said, but this is never quite confirmed), and while all these things *about* the original poem are shown, none of them ever get integrated thematically into the plot.

I think as a result, whatever Lowery was going for, the whole movie kind of falls apart in the end. And that's a pity, because somewhere in there is just a really weird, visually striking, really gripping, embellished-and-polished-for-modern-sensibilities-but-also-thematically-true-to-the-source retelling of Gawain and the Green Knight. And that would have been a much better movie! What are we to make of this, a movie that purports to be telling a story-behind-the-story, but one that leaves no room or context for the original? After all, Gawain in the end does *not* flee, does not return home a coward and a liar; presumably, he earns his honor, and can be honest about what happened. But if he is honest, none of the rest of what we have been shown makes a lick of sense, or has any point.

One feels a bit as if modern directors, when confronted with medieval texts being a bit weird, a bit alien in their worldview, instead of realizing that's actually something people like some of from time to time, feel like they have to construct an artificial bridge between the Middle Ages and the present day. But because it is invariably metafictional and self-referential, as if to say "don't worry, we know nobody REALLY wants to watch a bunch of boring medieval shit played straight," it comes off as cringing and ashamed of its source material. This isn't a plea for historicity! Gawain and the Green Knight is not history. But one does occasionally want to see an adaptation of one's favorite works without directors being ashamed of the text they are adapting! And since most people will not have read the original, I am rather confused about what the director intends for the audience to get out of all these references that are dependent on it, but don't stand on their own merits within the narrative of the movie itself.

The acting was good, the set design and costumes were terrific, I loved the slow and measured pacing and the weird score, and the design of the Knight himself, and the landscapes and almost everything else about the movie. So I don't think it's a waste of time, especially if you have read and enjoyed Gawain and the Green Knight, in the original or in translation. But it's definitely a pity to see a movie that was, well, *almost* great, but ended up merely OK.

[dharmadischarge]

Top 5 Novels: or it gets dark around here early.

So now I am trying to say something. That is all. No, that will not do at all... Here is a list of my top 5 novels, with one short review and four long ones.

1, Jim Dodge - Stone Junction. Reading Stone Junction by Jim Dodge is like meeting the father you never had

2, Thomas Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow Subtlety is overrated... and just because you have a boner doesn't mean you're a terrorist. I mean, it doesn't mean you're not causing those rockets to come from the sky. But, still, that is beside the point.

For me, this book is about obliterating the arbitrary distinction between high and low culture. The ironically arbitrary distinction between good and evil and the dangerously subtle distinction between despondency and hope.

Fractured, layered, elusive, you could accuse Pynchon of all these things.

The way characters bleed into one another to make one voice. A hellish symphony of discordant cries of pain reaching out to a belief that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and paranoia is the glue.

Also, it is funny. Like in a dumb way and there are songs. Also, dumb.

Everyone will talk about how polarising this book is but I don't believe it. you can follow the bouncing ball and sing along or live in fear that at any moment the terror will become real and you will collapse into ellipsis...

It is the third and newer testament. An epilogue to western culture as racist cultural energy written by a crazy white guy. T.S. Elliot and his wasteland were a prelude, in hindsight, nothing but a john the baptist-like figure for the cross that Pynchon presents to all readers as their burden to carry with this book.

Hope is crazy painful, consciousness is such a fragile thing and the burden of consciousness is the pain of knowing that (beyond the act of effort itself) it is a futile one.

Jim Dodge once said, "a stone falls till it hits the earth, transcend what?" and that about sums it up.

3, Cormac McCarthy - Blood Meridian.

Blood Meridian is a kind of repetitious, primeval-hillbilly level of primitive interpretation of the morality expressed in the book of revelation fighting its way onto the page as barely literate poetry.

It is not a book of social niceties, justice, or the warm feeling you get when you do something good. also, this book could also easily be seen as porn for serial killers.

I scanned the reviews and saw all the campy (and not the good kind of campy) parodies this kind of book inspires in the age of irony we live in (though it seems like it is on its last legs). And while I like me a good parody, I find that Eli Cash did it better.

There is something to be said about how Cormac McCarthy (ab)uses the English language. The one good line I read from one of the negative reviews of his books was that a middle schooler could list what he doesn't like about the kids who bully him and that this list would have more emotional nuance and better use of punctuation than a Cormac McCarthy novel. This is fair.

The conceptional power of Blood Meridian though is that it frames cruelty and violence for what it is: reality. While also through its sometimes monotonous exaggeration of William Faulkners styled repetitions it creates a sense of unreality. A sense that like David Lynch's best work that we are walking, daily, through something so evil and violent that it borders on slapstick, and at last we laugh in self-defense.

I think the people who parody the book without much thought got trapt in the intellectual self-defense state that is part of coping and couldn't see the forest for the trees.

Civilization is a fragile thing, it is the human race trying to domesticate itself, and the longer it goes on the more it seems like we're just sweeping what we don't like under the rug.

4, John Crowley - Little, Big.

There is a kind of hokey-Americana style kitsch that most of my favorite writers could be accused of, from, Tom Robbins to Jim Dodge. John Crowley may be the peak of it. It could be because on the surface Americans don't have a unified culture we are a melting pot with capitalism only encouraging the lowest common denominator (the pursuit of greed as its own reward).

But in any creative act that does not presume to be the literal expression of anything but pure gratitude, there is politics. The politics of worth, of greatness, inherent value, and the desire to prove that the wisdom offered was truly earned. That a difficult pleasure does not mean that there is none.

This is an American fairytale. A once upon a time that seems eerily to remind of another Crowley, that codesigned the deck of Thoth tarot cards (A really good one for those curious) more than the writers of magical realism. And probably because I didn't read this in translation I preferred it to a hundred years of solitude. This may seem random to people of the fantasy crowd who know that genre is only a limitation to artistic merit if you want it to be (usually for cultural-political reasons). but people often compare this book to Gabriel Garcia Marquez's writing. And while they are both family chronicles with supernatural elements. this is kind of a shallow comparison.

Crowley's work is more in the tradition of an occult mystic, and Gabo is more a romantic using personal folklore as the vocabulary of that romantic expression (of which I think love in the time of cholera, is his masterpiece).

I am trying to not give away any spoilers, or even talk about specifics at all. but the ending is worth it. Like most things in life, it's your journey to go on so I won't ruin it for you, but they are out there waiting for you, where the lights never go out.

5, Neil Gaiman - The Ocean at the End of the Lane.

"words save our live's sometimes"

I was a frustrated borderline feral child, who could not deal with reality. My parents taught me how to read and not much else. I was homeschooled and weighed three hundred pounds by the time I was thirteen. I remember one night unable to deal with any more abuse that I laid down and decided my dreams would have to be enough, I close my eyes and went away for a long time. Lettie Hempstock's ocean is real to me I almost drowned in it.

When I was a teenager the cult-like fundamentalist atmosphere of my home life became less extreme, but the damage was done. I was still in the ocean. it says something about my state of mind that the closest I came to getting traction on reality was starting a habit of reading insistently, my favorite book was Stardust by Neil Gaiman.

Once on Twitter, I told him "thank you" for writing it. I later after reading this book I wrote a short review of this book and sent it to him. He said "thank you" to me in a @ mention. It was nice. I later @ mentioned him in a playfully sarcastic way and he deleted his original comment.

I was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia when I was twenty-four or twenty-five. I have been told I had childhood-onset schizophrenia. I have been told I milk it. I have been told that I self isolate.

I have been writing reviews tonight, going through my favorite books, and just live streaming my mind. Thinking about how they made me feel and what they make me think. Neil Gaiman's work always makes my brain retreat on itself. Possibly because of stardust. But more than that it is the wisdom he has. He knows that stories are true in a way that transcends a mere list of facts. communicating for those with an ear to listen that there is more than what we know, there is more than our understanding, there is more than us. More than you, more than me. There is an ocean that is healing for some while necessarily absent for others.

We forget, and we remember. Each other and ourselves. Cruelty and innocence. But there is an ocean and it is Lettie Hempstock's.

[bluestringpudding]

5 Movies, 4 Songs, 3 Essentials, 2 Books, 1 Quote

I am the worst at picking favourites, so this is definitely a random list of the first however many came to mind. Ask me again next week and most of the answers would almost definitely be different. Thanks @lunapwrites for the tag.

Movies - I definitely did not have to try hard not to make these all kids movies (I definitely did).

1- The Emperor's New Groove: I could quote this film for hours. It will always make me laugh.

2- Iron Man: Because nothing beats and origins story and this one has cool tech in a cave.

3- Infinitely Polar Bear: The story telling in this film is superb, and it will always stick with me.

4- Paddington: a) because they were some of my favourite books as a child and b) because it is just heartwarming as fuck and really funny to boot.

5- Pan's Labyrinth: Just the most beautiful, imaginative and yet creepy film.

Songs - Never mind asking me next week, ask me tomorrow and this will have changed. Here's some songs I've listened to today.

1- Run you - Qemists

2- Promise - Eve 6

3- Kiss Me Girl - Hands Off Gretel

4- Freak on a Leash - Korn

Essentials

1- Music

2- Notepad and a biro (I'm counting them as one as they're not much good on their own)

3- My bike

Books - I don't read much (that comes printed in books and sold in a shop), so this was at least easier. (I'm excluding the HP series because, well, it seems obvious.)

1- Good Omens - Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman

2- Neverwhere - Neil Gaiman

Quote - “It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.” - Terry Pratchett.

(Theme? What theme? Don't know what you're talking about.)

I suspect all the people who indulge in such frivolities have already been tagged, so this counts as an open invite to anyone who hasn't!

[rockislandadultreads]

Standalone Fantasy: Reading Recommendations

Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch by Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman

‘Armageddon only happens once, you know. They don’t let you go around again until you get it right.’ People have been predicting the end of the world almost from its very beginning, so it’s only natural to be sceptical when a new date is set for Judgement Day. But what if, for once, the predictions are right, and the apocalypse really is due to arrive next Saturday, just after tea? You could spend the time left drowning your sorrows, giving away all your possessions in preparation for the rapture, or laughing it off as (hopefully) just another hoax. Or you could just try to do something about it. It’s a predicament that Aziraphale, a somewhat fussy angel, and Crowley, a fast-living demon now finds themselves in. They’ve been living amongst Earth’s mortals since The Beginning and, truth be told, have grown rather fond of the lifestyle and, in all honesty, are not actually looking forward to the coming Apocalypse. And then there’s the small matter that someone appears to have misplaced the Antichrist…

Iron Cast by Destiny Soria

In 1919, Ada Navarra—the intrepid daughter of immigrants—and Corinne Wells—a spunky, devil-may-care heiress—make an unlikely pair. But at the Cast Iron nightclub in Boston, anything and everything is possible. At night, on stage together, the two best friends, whose “afflicted” blood gives them the ability to create illusions through art, weave magic under the employ of Johnny Dervish, the club’s owner and a notorious gangster. By day, Ada and Corinne use these same skills to con the city’s elite in an attempt to keep the club afloat. When a “job” goes awry and Ada is imprisoned, she realizes they’re on the precipice of danger. Only Corinne—her partner in crime—can break her out of Haversham Asylum. But once Ada is out, they face betrayal at every turn.

City of Bones by Martha Wells

Where once great galleons roamed the sea, sand ships now traverse the Great Waste, and a glittering chain of city-states dots the desert that has no end... And the greatest city of them all is Charisat: Imperial seat and wonder of wonders, a great monolithic structure towering over the desert. Charisat, a phantasmagorical place where silken courtesans and beggars weave lies side by side, where any man’s dreams can be fulfilled at the whisper of a genie, and where the tier that you live on determines how high up the food (or more importantly, water) chain you are. It is the goal of every schemer, treasure hunter, and madman intent on finding his heart’s content — a place that dazzles the senses, makes the most somber mind dizzy with its scents and sights — and where no one knows friend from foe when it comes to the desperate fight for dwindling resources. And where a beautiful woman and a handsome thief will try to unravel the mysteries of an age-old technology to stop a fanatical cult before they unleash an evil that will topple Charisat. And destroy all the water in the world.

The Forgotten Beasts of Eld by Patricia A. McKillip

Sybel, the beautiful great-granddaughter of the wizard Heald, has grown up on Eld Mountain with only the fantastic beasts summoned there by wizardry as companions. She cares nothing for humans until, when she is 16, a baby is brought for her to raise, a baby who awakens emotions that she has never known before. But the baby is Tamlorn, the only son of King Drede, and, inevitably, Sybel becomes entangled in the human world of love, war and revenge - and only her beasts can save her from the ultimate destruction...

[anotheruserwithnoname]

Why it can pay to follow someone on Instagram

When I finally got an Instagram account a few years ago, one of the first people I followed was Jenna Coleman (obviously). One benefit of signing up and following someone is you can see who they, in turn, are following, and from time to time I like to check that list out. I think there’s an option to make this private but Jenna’s is public right now so it’s fair to check it. I know there are people who check out who I am following.

One reason why it’s a handy feature is because she occasionally telegraphs upcoming engagements by her follows. For example, this morning it was announced that she’s on the cover of the next issue of The Glass Magazine (never heard of it, either). But a few days ago I noticed she had followed its Instagram and, sure enough, now she’s on the cover. I don’t pay attention to how often this has happened, but I think she also telegraphed her casting in The Serpent by following people involved in its production just prior, and I think at least one previous magazine appearance (Glamour UK, possibly) was also “telegraphed”.

Another recent new follow (around the same time she followed Glass, actually), is another magazine - again, sadly, rather obscure, at least to this Canadian - titled Purple Fashion, so keep an eye on it in case she’s coming up in it, too.

A few months ago, she started following Neil Gaiman’s account. Again, nothing too unusual about that by itself (and he has a lot of celebrity followers), but this was around the same time Jenna started mentioning in interviews about an upcoming fantasy project she’s apparently filming this spring and Gaiman is the king of fantasy right now, so the math works out. Right now speculation is that she might be involved in the upcoming adaptation of Gaiman’s version of Sandman, with further speculation that she might be playing Death, a perky character who has become one of the most popular of the DC “Vertigoverse” line. Ironically, if Jenna is playing Death, this would be the second time she has touched on a character played by Kat Dennings: Dennings played Death for an online audio drama adaptation of Sandman in 2019, and back in 2010 Jenna auditioned for Dennings’ character, Max, in the sitcom 2 Broke Girls.

It’ll be interesting if this guess turns out to be correct once details of whatever project she’s doing are finally announced.

[lokidokimagines]

Y/n: *shuffles up to Thor and Loki*

Y/n, visibly vibrating with excitement: *holds out a piece of paper and a pen* Hi, sorry to interrupt. Huge fan. Can I get your autographs?

Thor: Of course!

Y/n: Is Sigyn here too? I’d love to meet her.

Loki: ...who?

Y/n: Your wife? Sigyn?

Thor: Brother, you have a WIFE?

Y/n: Wait, what do you mean BROTHER?

Y/n: *looks at Loki* I thought Odin was your blood brother?

Loki: *blinks* Excuse me?

Y/n: And don’t you have shoes that allow you to fly? *looks at Thor* Where are your iron gloves? *gasps* What do the apples of immortality taste like? Can I try one? Just a little bite?

Loki: *completely baffled* Where are you getting your information?

Y/n: *slowly pulls out a copy of Neil Gaiman’s Norse Mythology*

Loki: *grabs the book from you*

Loki: *flips through pages*

Thor: *peeks over Loki’s shoulder*

Loki: I don’t know half of these names...

Thor: *stares at Loki* ‘The Children of Loki’? How many children do you HAVE?

Loki: You’re married to Sif? So much for your mortal girlfriend...

Thor: Wait, why does this say I’m ‘not the brightest of the gods’? What’s that supposed to mean?

Loki: *cackling* ...finally something accurate.

Thor: *takes the book from Loki*

Thor: *losing his mind* I’ve never ONCE worn a dress.

Loki: You did what now?

Thor: Since when have you been having an affair with a giantess?

Loki: GIVE ME THE BOOK, THOR.

Thor: HELA IS YOUR DAUGHTER- actually that explains a lot.

Loki: I WANT THE BOOK-

Thor: FENRIR TOO? AND FATHER’S HORSE? WHAT HAVEN’T YOU DONE?

Loki: *rips the book from Thor’s hands*

Loki, frantically flipping through pages: Who has been spreading these LIES??

Y/n: Wait so NONE of it is true? Nothing at all?

Loki: *grins* Well they got one thing right....

Loki: *tosses the book back to you*

Loki: I am INCREDIBLY handsome.