#and throw things with her mind

[chthonic-kids]

as it was written

[nikoco11]

spider nico (spider bot…. sometime i call him circuit too) ((he’s like what if spiderman sucked ass))

[vagabond-art]

"How's that for an answer?"

apology tour but interview with the vampire AU + bonus with @ughhhhhhh-cringe-side-blog

[homerforsure]

Thinking about how in a parallel universe there’s a version of this season where the Natalia actress was available so Buck got the “move in, move out, you don’t have to force intimacy on a speed run” storyline and Eddie and Marisol break up off screen.

And how, in that universe, there’s a 7.04 from Eddie’s perspective that ends with Tommy taking him home from the hospital and making a comment about Buck and Eddie saying “No, I knew he was jealous that we were hanging out without him. I kept meaning to invite him along but..” “But?” hesitant yet smoldering eye contact. “I didn’t really want to share your attention.”

[hyperfixationsposting]

an immortal bisexual witch and the cute lesbian butcher she may or may not have hooked up with once or twice :))

[cto10121]

[vaguely-concerned]

the change in zevran's demeanor from mildly annoyed that you're even speaking to him to straight up beaming gleefully during the scene where you give him the dalish gloves... protect him

[chipistrate]

Day 3: Out of Sight

This could be interpreted a few ways considering the prompt, but Cassie's just not havin a fun time today,,<3

[real-odark]

gatsby designs. does this make any sense.

[suusoh]

"I hate leaving you like this" OHHHH THAT FUCKING ASS. He's just gonna swoop in whenever his sister isn't around isn't he? You've made him so weird.

HAHAHAHHHAHA GUILTYYYY But no he's not just gonna swoop in whenever his sister isn't around. He's gonna swoop in even when she's around too. Take care of his sister's THEIR girlfriend whenever he'd like. He visit girlfriend's house and— hey, why are you throwing stuff at him? He's simply here to bring you food because you had a bad day and— how did he get into your room? Oh, well you gave him a spare key remember?....Well, technically you gave Nina a spare key, but he just took the initiative to make a duplicate for himself too. No worries.

[tweedfrog]

As a matter of fact let's talk about it. Why the fuck did Eloise punish Cressida Cowper more severely for pretending to be Lady Whistledown than she punished Penelope for ACTUALLY being Lady Whistledown. AND CONTINUING TO PUBLISH???? Like?????

[ingravinoveritas]

Why do I feel like this post just got personal and going in for the attack like she did for the radio one on twitter I'm not shocked or surprised by this cos the behaviour is getting more stranger and nasty and a fan on twitter shared this on her page saying we got ur bk u got a whole army behind u. I'm sorry what army and I'm sure if they spilt the fans wouldn't be behind her them they literally making it worst

What do u think ?

So, I saw/got a whole bunch of DMs over this Insta story this morning, but didn't have a chance to talk about it until now.

My first thought was that this was almost certainly in response to the negative reviews and backlash coming out for The Way in the wake of episode 3. The two biggest culprits in terms of media outlets seem to be the Daily Mail (Fail) and the Telegraph, and while I won't link to them here because I don't want to give either site any traffic, both reviews can easily be found via a Google search. Adding to those were a stream of vicious comments, both in the comments sections on the respective websites and on social media, largely from what seem to be right-wing/leaning accounts and public figures.

Knowing that, it made me think that Michael had to have been aware of what the potential reaction to the show could be. We know he was, actually, because he's talked about it in several interviews over the past few weeks, such as this one. And I think with Michael being who he is, he would be entirely amused at knowing he has pissed off exactly the right people. So while I could certainly see him in private having a reaction like the one in AL's story--more than understandably so, given how nasty some of the reviews and comments were--that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good reaction to have publicly. And I think Michael knows that, too.

What also adds to the disconnect for me is that a few hours later, an article that Michael had written as a rebuttal came out in the New Statesman:

What Michael wrote is a brilliant repudiation of remarks made by a Tory MP--a piece that is intelligent, snarky, direct yet unfailingly eloquent. It wasn't just Michael defending his show, but using it (and Nye) to make a point, to make clear what he believes in, and to stand for the truth. And in much the same way that Michael's acting and oratory skills elevate any piece of work he performs, his writing conveyed that same depth, and it came across as effortless as everything else he does.

Which again left me with that feeling of disconnect when looking at Michael's article side-by-side with Anna's Insta story. It's not even that I disagree with her in this instance, as I do think the reviews were unduly harsh and devolved entirely too quickly into personal attacks in the comments. It's that when it comes to acting/directing, criticisms are part of the job, and whether she intended it or not, an Insta story like AL's conveys a sense of unprofessionalism. And when you put it next to Michael's writing, it looks more like a teenager throwing a fit instead of an adult giving a fierce clapback, which again probably was her intention.

Also keep in mind that everything I just wrote is predicated on the idea that someone seeing this story knows what AL is talking about. But I have to wonder how readily apparent it was, because it's so vague that it would probably be difficult for most people to suss out what she is referencing. So it's confusing to me that she is seemingly charging to Michael's defense...but without actually saying his name or the name of the show. Again, it feels like there is a disconnect/sharp contrast between Anna vague-blogging and how specific and incisive Michael was in that article, and it seems like they're not even close to being on the same page.

Those are my thoughts on Anna's Insta story from this morning. It's definitely a fair bit of whiplash, especially given the drastically different tone of her last few recent posts. But I'm interested as always to hear from my followers with your take, regardless of whether you agree or disagree. Thank you for writing in! x

[invasivebeetle]

[batsplat]

The reigning World Champion got the drive out of the final corner, but not enough to make the difference over the line. So Stoner did the smart thing, attaching himself to Rossi's tailpipe, never more than a breath behind the Italian, turning The Doctor's usual tactics against the old master. Flattered by such attention, Rossi returned the compliment, looking positively Stoneresque in his obliviousness to what was happening behind him. There could have been one Ducati behind him, or a thousand, Valentino Rossi seemed to be riding in blissful, and willful, ignorance of what was going on to the rear.

(x) kinda cute if u think about it. both of them taking on the role of the other in their most infamous duel. casey turning valentino's tactics 'against the old master'. valentino 'returning the compliment' by acting like casey. the line between the pair of them blurring in the heat of battle. 'flattered by such attention'...

there's an ask I am attempting to answer rn where I'm slapping my hands not to start using agassi/sampras quotes to talk about the rossi/stoner rivalry. so I'm just gonna do it here instead. this sampras quote is not not relevant imo:

and to ME this agassi quote also works as a description of laguna 2008:

(see here for more about the agassi/sampras rivalry)

the challenges of a rivalry forcing both sides not just to adapt but also to imitate each other... the tension causing this blurring of the line between the two of them, despite how defined this rivalry is by their differences... no hope of justice, and everyone will blame the victim...

also. not to be too bold here. but this bit is also sort of valentino/casey, wherein they both have a very different understanding of what constitutes 'best' and 'worst':

casey IN SOME WAYS low key valentino's favourite rival solely during the years where they were actually competing for titles, because he's super challenging and tricky to beat and forces valentino to get creative but isn't emotionally messy and is instead kinda fun to play with. valentino switches to casey's tyre in 2008 - he has to learn to do what casey has already accomplished and succeed on the bridgestones, because that's the only way to compete against casey. valentino is a better rider in 2008 for having had to figure out the casey stoner puzzle!! admittedly he'd prefer to have done all that in a season where he spent a LITTLE more time actually racing w2w with his competitors in a way that would've played more to his strengths as a rider, but that's mostly not casey's fault... and crucially they have their One Defining Battle where valentino forcibly wrenches casey and their rivalry from casey's comfort zone to valentino's. and it's not just one race, right - the whole point of that battle is that implicitly it's valentino threatening casey by suggesting he will always do this when given half a chance. valentino learns from casey and adjusts his approach and then takes control of the rivalry by dragging casey down into the dirt with him

and then you've got casey, who very much did not love this rivalry. who is always talking about how much he learned from valentino, how he learned about having to stand up for himself on the track, with the media, had to learn to treat some riders with less respect, to suck up to the press, to race more aggressively, to sell himself better - and crucially NONE of these things he would want to be doing in an ideal world!! he doesn't want to have to ride aggressively and he CERTAINLY doesn't want to be a pr merchant. but he gets pretty good at all of these things... because he has to. because that's the sort of challenge valentino poses for him. and. again. not to get too bold here. but what's also interesting is how... there is just this sense that casey's development doesn't just help him in fighting valentino: the rivalry makes him an all-round better competitor. casey doesn't just talk about having to race valentino differently due to valentino's aggression - instead it's "after two years of racing people who don't worry about you", he's had to change. which, yes, is obviously mostly indirectly slagging off valentino, but in that same answer he's also saying EUROPEANS simply do not understand what he's talking about - this IS a grudge that extends beyond valentino, even if it's always focused around him. (obviously europeans are not inherently more aggressive riders than anglos but... let's not even touch that.) laguna is a turning point of his CAREER, not just of that particular rivalry. it made him realise he had to race only for himself, which is an ethos he carried with him even when they weren't direct rivals anymore. likewise, casey was already constantly feeling misrepresented by the media long long before valentino began working his dark magic. casey came to realise that refusing to engage with the media simply wasn't going to work for him... it's a process valentino jumpstarted, but its effects on casey's approach went beyond the immediate scope of that rivalry, eventually transforming casey into a far more effective communicator for it. casey learned valentino's tricks because that's what it takes to succeed in the sport - both in the literal sense of succeeding on-track as well as the more abstract sense of getting people on your side, selling your story to people. winning them over. even to casey, valentino remains the ultimate point of reference

and these are the parts of the sport casey wishes didn't exist, and they're all so closely connected to valentino. and THAT is where the tension comes from, because casey hates valentino in one breath and learns from him the other and always has to reckon with how much he is willing to cross his own lines to succeed. and it helped him be a better rider! but not in ways he actually liked. this grim tone in which he talks again and again about having had to learn to respond to what an arsehole valentino was... he did not want this. he did not want to have to learn these things. and yet casey ended up becoming a little more like valentino than he had been when their rivalry began. and so his discomfort with valentino becomes his discomfort with the sport becomes his discomfort with himself. and thus even for all the obvious contrast between the pair of them, the line that separates them would occasionally still be blurred

[all-i-do-is-live-in-daydreams]

WHY CANT SPENCER REID BE HAPPPPPPYYYYYYY !!?!?!?!?!?!? WHAT DID HE DO TO DESERVE ALL THIS TRAGEDY ?? HES JUST A SWEET NERDY AUTISTIC BOY LET HIM BE HAPPY PLEEEAAAASSEEEE

[historyartthings]

Absolutely loving, adoring, Le*nda de L*sle’s review of MacCulloch’s work...

My thoughts, feelings, opinions I’ve put below. It gets very long because I cannae haud me wheesht

I don’t know why she’s obsessed with the idea that he mustn’t have loved his wife. ‘the supposedly grieving widower’? I don’t think the arrangement of a marriage for a king - which Henry obviously agreed to - is a sufficient way to judge what Thomas’s relationship with his wife was like. The (foreign and domestic) political, religious and dynastic factors at play there can’t be ignored in favour of extrapolating that he didn’t understand marrying for love. The “happy marriage” in quotation marks😭 have got to laugh. her condescending cynicism is based on nothing tangible, as far as I can work out. She shades MacCulloch as well through the, ‘he believes that although the evidence is sparse, Cromwell was indeed a grieving widower'…. Ngl I would argue it’s not a particularly strained logical leap to assume he might’ve been upset.

We know barely anything about their relationship. Mostly what can be concretely said is he, unusually, never remarried - we’ll obviously never know the reason(s) for that, but still. There was seemingly one notable relationship outside of it, which we only know of because it resulted in an illegitimate daughter, a wee while after his wife passed away. But even that isn’t for 100% certain. He also atypically didn’t have a mistress. There’s also exactly one (1) extant letter from him to his wife, which is pleasant enough, but not much revealing - he asks her for news of home and sends her a deer. she didnt live long enough so as to have any external remarks on their marriage once he entered court spheres. Essentially it’s impossible to draw anything more than speculative conclusions, but based on what can be tentatively extrapolated from his actions, it seems more likely he grieved for his wife than didn’t imo. And also just considering natural, human emotion??

(Even if you want to suggest they didn’t marry for love in the beginning - and/or weren’t in love by the end - they were married for what? Roughly a decade and a half? With no signs of estrangement, and friendly correspondence in letters to Cromwell asking him to pass on their regards to his wife. So even if it was simply an amicable relationship, on a basic level being with someone in such close proximity, for that long, and losing them is probably going to be upsetting?)

On a tangential note, as MacCulloch does point out, the valentine to Mary mentioned here wasn’t at all romantic - it’s misleading to present that, as she does, as an attempt for he himself to marry into royalty. Or more charitably, I think she misremembered the context for it from the book

I’d also question de Lisle’s point about the executions. Personally I don’t think it suggests a greater misogyny than any of his contemporaries? Imo it’s indicative of the broader pattern of a brutal, violent ruthlessness towards those he saw as any enemy, in his way, and/or as going against the crown/policy etc. As opposed to any particular or especial hatred towards women. This isn't meant as an excuse for those actions in any way, because they're - quite obviously - horrific. I just question the rationale behind such a judgement of even-worse-than-usual-for-the-time-misogyny based upon it. Such brutality wasn't isolated to women, men were treated just as abominably. She talks of their humiliation to evidence her point, but again, men were faced with the same. (Ask Richard Whiting who got dragged up Glastonbury Tor at nearly 80, whose case involved, 'to be tryed [presumably for treason] at Glaston and also executyd there' from cromwell's remembrances; or John Forrest, who was strung up in chains, which is a humiliating - to use her term - prolonged death in itself, but was also supposedly burnt using kindling made from a statue of a saint - oh how clever of you!). We don’t (afaik) have letters or remarks which reflect cromwell’s views on women in the same way as for Norfolk, for example. it's just a bizarre extrapolation to me. again, imo it's an incredibly dark, ruthless streak through his personality. it seems to have been his standard handling of any major execution. Also, to be clear, I’m not suggesting he wasn’t sexist/misogynistic, because ofc he was. All men back then were, as a symptom of living and socilisation in such a patriarchal society.

(also interesting for her to pair this suggestion w/ her thoughts about his marriage come to think of it. she seems to be linking the two in a broader picture, I assume wherein this should be added to the ‘evidence’ he didn’t/couldnt have loved his wife)

also the contrast of his physical looks in the Holbein, against his 'becoming' a 'convivial figure' in MacCulloch's work, is disappointing. not reading personalities from portraits, nor ascribing negative character traits to appearances and/or weight (implicitly or otherwise) shouldn't be a big ask, but apparently is. It'd be a wee bit different if she’d pointed to his expression - I still think that’s an unsound way to go about things fwiw - which at least isn’t intrinsically linked to his features, but alas no.

Lastly, re: MacCulloch’s arguments, i would say he’s more impartial than she implies. He might be Anglican, but I wouldn’t say he’s ‘on the Protestant side’ particularly. I struggle to see how his presentation of Catholics - from what i remember, altho it’s been a while since i've read it - is less than fair? He directly praises more and fisher iirc. but someone with a better knowledge of the book could correct me on this point.

also, positioning that he's on the 'protestant side', alongside the next line being about his argument that cromwell was grieving, is an interesting choice. is the suggestion that if you agree with the latter your sympathies must lie with "protestantism"? that it's only through a biased lens you could reach that conclusion? sksjksjk diabolical suggestion that that's the only reason anyone might consider he mourned his wife. like am i going insane or is it genuinely what she's saying??… i cant see why she'd juxtapose those specific points otherwise. Like critiquing mantel's comments about catholics and their presentation in wolf hall is fair enough, but connecting that with the fact she wrote cromwell as 'heartbroken' and that he loved his wife, comes across to me as though she's suggesting the former should invalidate mantel's interpretation of the latter. which again i dont think is fair based on the evidence we do have..

I would also question (because it is confusing to me) despite the fact that MacCulloch and Mantel were friends, why the “”””””happy marriage”””””” across both works is the way in here??? like why are you so bothered as to both lead and finish the article with that?

(And, frankly, MacCulloch paints a picture of a happier marriage - he writes that the simplest explanation is, ‘he couldn’t bear to marry anyone else’ - than Mantel does. Who presents their relationship as literally (as in, textually), ‘loves’ but not ‘in love’. and has him actively wanting to remarry. she had a line in TMATL that goes he was ‘mostly faithful’ which? I’m not sure if she meant to imply infidelity but… altho she did present a picture of him missing her i guess)