#because there are things it is absolutely important to bring up!! but simply being dependent on someone else is not fucking one of the

[pom-seedss]

We can't expect individual people to have safety nets and contingency plans for everything when as a society we have gutted any safety net we once built.

The way people can get trapped in abusive situations, or be stuck without finances if your spouse dies, is absolutely important to talk about and bring awareness to.... but we can't keep doing it by throwing disabled people under the bus because this happens to us all the time. And unlike someone choosing to be a trad wife we really have no choice in our situation.

We need more robust safety nets, community supports and resources to help people from getting stuck with no way out of abusive relationships and bad situations.

We can't personal responsibility our way out of societal problems.

sometimes, when someone is criticizing the stay-at-home-wife movement being sold to young women by conservatives, it loses focus on the "selling you a repressive and authoritarian worldview" point and slides into... well... implicitly leaving disabled people to die.

and what i mean by that is, it's all well and good to say you should do everything in your power to make sure you're not financially dependent on another person... but what if "everything in your power" is "nothing?"

what if how society is structured means you have absolutely no choice but to be financially dependent on another person? what if it's that, or simply die? this is the choice disabled people are faced with. not even uncommonly... frequently. people who need full-time carers, or who have very expensive medication and assistive tech needs, or people who simply can't work in the current job structure, often have the choice of... well... find someone to be financially dependent on, or face a slow, painful death, usually without housing. even if you're lucky enough to get on a fixed income, it's never enough to even make monthly rent, and that's not counting the extra costs of food, toiletries, medicine...

in fact, a lot of disabled people (certainly notably women, but absolutely not limited to, and in fact i see this happen to trans men over and over again, and i've lost a dear transmasc friend because of this) are funneled into being stay-at-home parents and homemakers, forced to do all of the domestic labor and childcare in exchange for a roof over their head and access to their medications/assistive tech, and isolated in all the same ways tradwives are isolated. in fact, this even happens with leftist partners/parents. all the time, i see disabled people disappear from public life entirely, lose contact with all their friends, and consign themselves to a life of cleaning up after someone while struggling to handle their own health needs, even having their disabilities exacerbated and their lifespans shortened by the amount of domestic labor they're required to do.

but it isn't a choice... it can't be fixed by focusing on academia or work... and it's not due to buying into conservative propaganda. all i ask is, please remember this, and please never leave us out of these discussions.

[damianbugs]

dc might not like to address how they've unofficially retconned a lot of jasons original robin run to end up being absolutely classist, but i most certainly will bring it up whenever i can. while this is definitely narrative criticism, it is more of a study, as i am not expecting anyone, readers or dc, to really change how they view the todds.

jason goes from being a rather reserved, kind and genuinely friendly child to an angry and cruel boy who was contemplating murder at some point (batman: urban legends). not to mention willis going from an absent but well meaning man who turned to crime to support his family to now being an abusive father and husband. catherine todd was originally stated to have died from overdose, but was later confirmed in death in the family to pass away from cancer, so while the 'poor addict mother' stereotype still applies, it is more complicated in her case.

it is no surprise that in modern tellings, all three of them represent very realistic forms of poverty. willis the abusive criminal, catherine the addict (her battle with cancer is always noticeably left out) and jason the violent child left to repeat the cycle.

dc simply couldn't allow the todd family to remain poor but an all in all good family (though i am careful to say they were perfect, past or present, since depending how you read him, willis can still be seen as a bad father and horrible husband), and instead had to dramatise negative stereotypes of poor people in order to really perpetuate the existence of jason being the "angry" robin. this mostly comes down to dc perhaps wanting to bury older comics featuring the original characterisation (since the only way to read them is through piracy), and there is no better way to do that than make his current characterisation nothing like his old one, at all.

after all, how else can we ensure readers are aware of how angry, evil and emotionally unstable jason todd is, if not making his life the pinnacle of why poor people are terrible and should not have kids? dc is not trying to hide it at all, it's almost laughable.

while the blatant classism is very clearly the biggest issue, from a storytelling perspective it is also really disappointing. deconstructing catherine and willis todd to their morally reprehensible, abusive and neglectful 2d personalities in modern telling leaves a massive gap is what made jason so personable as robin. personally, i also think it takes away how homelessness and his own poverty seperate from his family might have affected jason's morals and opinions on certain topics — another aspect of his character that is very important but often undeveloped.

especially with jason; making him having always been this quick to rage and violent child/robin takes away the true devastation of his death and subsequent revival. he died an innocent, damaged and complicated but caring boy, and came back vengeful and spiteful. he is a boy who has suffered a lot in life, with a sick mother he had to provide for due to his absent father, who also died due to a life of crime — and yet jason broke free from the cycle and became something more.

he loved to learn, to go to school, to play sports and to help people. he loved being a hero, even when it got tough, and though sometimes it was hard to remember, he always tried to stay on the bright side of things.

it's one of the main reasons bruce is so unable to process and accept his son's return, because to him, the person who came back is not the son he lost. though, that is another conversation entirely.

on the one hand however, i can see why jason's current life story might be more appealing to certain readers (and depending on the work, fanon or canon, it can makes more sense). since now that he's broken out of the cycle of abuse, he can use his strength to protect other vulnerable people. the true 'people's hero' in a way batman and other adjacent vigilantes can not be.

it is just a little regrettable that to fulfill this, he and his family must adhere to classist stereotypes to make it more believable. after all, jason was very much the 'people's robin' even without all the retcons to his character. he has always stood up for people who couldn't do it themselves.

[whileyoureinschoolidothisallday]

lrt the key thing to remember about covid is that it isn't magic. It has to get in you first before it can infect you, and you have to have a certain amount of viral load before it can take over (it doesn't take much anymore, but it still has to reach that threshold).

The key to being able to do fun, indoor things is to find an n95 or higher respirator, test to make sure it fits you without leakage, and then do not take off your mask. ever.

This is where it gets people. I hear tons of stories from people who caught Covid even though they masked, and it almost always turns out they took it off for one reason or another.

"Hungry or thirsty?" Eat and hydrate beforehand or plan to stay until you get hungry. If you have a medical condition where you have to eat or take meds while you're out, find a place outside and bring multiple masks so you can put on a fresh one when you're done. For thirst, they actually make something for this. Do not take off the mask.

"What if we wanna take a selfie?" Take them beforehand or keep the masks on. Do not take off the mask.

"What about air breaks?" No air breaks. If you can't tolerate being in a mask for long periods, you cannot safely go to long events. Do not take off the mask.

Respirators have a seal. When you break the seal by taking it off, they do not work as effectively. The seal can also break after a certain amount of use, which changes depending on how many other people are masking around you. I used to have a diagram showing how long each masks last in different situations, but I sadly cannot find it so I won't say a specific time since I can't confirm it, but this is essentially why if I'm going to attempt something riskier, I wear a p100 because those are good for 8hrs before you have to change the filter, and anything that I go to indoors won't be more than 3hrs (simply because I'm old and I ain't staying out longer than that lol)

I really appreciate that op made a psa, because the point of that post I think a lot of people are missing is that we need to be in full pandemic mode specifically because of the wave. But the problem with writing Covid things in a sensational kind of way is that it makes mitigation seem like an impossible task that requires monk like sacrifice, and that makes people immediately shut down. It's not, even in a huge wave like this. Will you have to change your routine and behaviors, and some of those changes might be inconvenient? Absolutely. But they will never be impossible. It's important to remember that adaptation isn't sacrifice. You're not "giving up" anything. You're still gonna be able to have your social needs met, you'll just be doing it in a different way for awhile.

If you want to hang out with a small group of friends at their/your house, and it's too cold to be outside or you just don't want to, the safest way to do it is universal masking, full vaccinations, testing multiple times beforehand, and using at least one air purifier that filters up to 0.1-0.5 µm in the room you'll be gathering in. This can be done diy with a Corsi-Rosenthal box if you need something cheaper! Air filters suck in viruses faster than people can breathe them in, so the risk of getting covid would be incredibly low in this situation (but never zero). If you want to share a meal, know that taking off the masks will increase the risk, but at least let the purifer run at the highest setting tolerable for an hour before doing so

If you can't afford to stop reusing your N95s, I recommend either locating a mask bloc near you and ask for some mask donations, or buy an elastomeric n95 like this one. There are many to choose from and while they are more expensive, they're reusable, with the filter only needing to be changed after 8 hours (or sooner if in a big crowd)

Some people are currently inventing portable air-purifiers you can pair with masks, and you can 3-D print them!

You're at work/the dentist/some other situation where you absolutely can't go outside in a non-crowded space, and you need to take down your mask? Nasal sprays like this one can be a good extra layer of protection for these situations. You can always, like with most viruses, rinse out your nose after being in public and rinse your mouth with CPC mouthwash for even more extra layers of protection.

One of the frustrations I have with the current Covid advocacy is that it's still largely focused on near-total abstinence, which has never been and never will be an effective education tool. I prefer taking a cue from AIDS advocacy and focus on education and providing resources. Of course, staying home is the only way to stay 100% safe, and you should choose contactless options whenever you can as long as the pandemic is still going. But isolation is becoming less and less realistic for most people and I want to still show them that you can stay safe even if you can't stay home.

Covid is not an impossible task. It's not magic. You do not need to catch that wave. These are imperative facts we as a collective have to internalize if we want out of this pandemic. You are not helpless. We've had airborne viruses for years and years, and we've known how to protect ourselves from them as well. We've known how to protect from Covid, specifically, for years. The only reason it's gotten this bad and is still a pandemic is because our governments benefit more from the masses being sick and needing resources, full stop. Like climate change, we have the tools to beat this virus back at any point. Because of this, even in this huge wave, there is no reason you have to only exist online. There are ways you can see your friends safely.

All people like OP are saying is that, at least until this wave improves, you should do that without going to the bars, clubs, restaurants, concert venues, etc. Because it's not only extremely unsafe for you, but it's putting other people in danger too.

[actual-changeling]

Welcome back to Alex's unhinged meta corner! I am fuelled up with coffee and my adhd medication, so this is about to be a RIDE.

Apologies in advance, since this post will probably get quite long and also scientific at some point, but I will try to keep it as plain and easy to understand as possible. Combine two of my special interests (Good Omens and chemistry) and you get absolutely insane infodumps; it's a blessing and a curse.

As always, this is simply a theory, and maybe I'm wrong, maybe we'll never find out. But it's an option, and I have canonical proof.

There have been endless theories about why the Gabriel-Hiding-Miracle (which I will shorten to GHM) set off alarm bells in heaven and reached a strength of 25 Lazarii. Are their half-miracles really combined that strong? Does it depend on their relationship or love?

Well, today I am here to tell you that, actually, there is no such thing as "half a miracle".

We are going to have a closer look at miracles themselves, but the first important thing to keep in mind is that most of the time, Crowley and Aziraphale are incredibly unreliable narrators and have barely any inside into how heaven and hell work. Remember, they have been on earth since 4004 BC, they are certainly not used to any of the internal routines and functions.

They can tell us all kinds of things, but that does not make them true.

Now, miracles!

Both angels and demons are capable of performing them, though they only seem to be counted as actual miracles when they happen on earth, seeing as they measured in Lazarii.

One Lazarus equals the miracle power it takes to bring one human being back to life—the consequence is that miracles must be bound to the earthly plane, since that is where their unit originated from. When they are performed in heaven or hell, they are still miracles in a broad sense—celestial beings using their powers—but not in a way that ascribes to the measuring system.

Neil once answered an ask about Lazarus as a unit, and he stated that miracles tend to be measured in Centi- or Millilazarii (mostly the latter), meaning that the GHM was about 1000x as strong as your usual, daily miracle. The labeling also tells us that the scale for Lazarii is the same as the metric one.

If we treat Lazarus as a base unit, we need to find a way of defining it that is unique to this specific unit.

Globally, we have a collection of agreed-upon base units, the SI units (coming from the French Système international d'unités, aka International system of Units). Those seven are second, metre, kilogram, ampere, candela, kelvin, and mole, and every single one has a very specific definition—they are too bloody complex. None of them can be expressed with one of the other SI units, which gives you great definitions such as these:

A little excursion for those that are interested: For a very long time, the kilogram was defined by. well. A cube. The "true kilogram", which is still in a vault somewhere in Paris. However, you can probably imagine why basing a unit on a physical objects isn't a great idea long-term, so back in 2018, the kilogram was redefined, along with three other units.

Now, all SI units are defined by natural constants, not physical objects, making them accurate and (more or less) absolute.

Back to miracles!

The reason I am telling you all this is that we need to find such a basic definition for miracles, too, or at least an approximation.

My proposal is that a miracle itself is the force exerted on matter by a a celestial being. That force is then measured in Lazarii, with one Lazarus being equal to the force required to bring one person back to life. This is where it gets a bit tricky because how do you visualize that kind of force?

Matter cannot be destroyed only created, so all the particles currently making up our bodies will continue to exist long, long after our deaths. Meaning when a person dies, the amount of matter that was them is still there, the consequence of which is that their body can be recreated at will. Now, souls seem to be separate from matter, making them metaphysical and thus irrelevant for this conversation. I am going with the assumption that once a body has been recreated, the soul can be put back into without additional cost in miracle power.

There might be another base unit hidden in the metaphysical, but that's a conversation for another time.

All of this amounts to one fundamental hypothesis:

A miracle is either done, meaning matter gets changed, or it isn't, meaning matter remains unchanged.

There is no in-between stage here, a "half-change" is not possible, either you exert a force on particles or you don't. What kind of change that is might not be tangible for us, but a change is a change.

When Crowley and Aziraphale try to hide Gabriel, they change the way he gets perceived, how others perceive him, aka they change the way his presence is processed.

The closest thing to compare it to, in my opinion, is the superior mirage—the Fata Morgana. At its core, it means that light bends as it passes through air layers with different temperatures; your eyes perceive the bent light rays and your brain processes them accordingly. You see images that aren't actually there.

Celestial beings look at Gabriel but see something that isn't actually there, so the "true" image remains hidden.

If we stick to this metaphor, then Crowley creates a mirage for any ethereal beings, and Aziraphale creates one for occult beings. The creation of that mirage is one miracle—not half a miracle, but ONE singular miracle. Both of them change matter, and both of these miracles can exist independently of each other.

Crowley and Aziraphale could have created their mirages on their own, meaning that two miracles were performed, not two halves of one miracle.

If you listen to the sound of the miracles, you can hear that it's different from the other ones they have performed on their own, with the "combined" miracle having two sound peaks instead of one. Tumblr hates it when I upload audio files, so have it like this.

In order, the miracles are Aziraphale lowering the chandelier and moving the shelves, Crowley removing the paintball stain, and the GHM.

IF they had both performed half a miracle, the end result would have been one miracle, meaning it should have sounded like any other—but it didn't! Two connected sounds, two simultaneous miracles.

There is still one thing left to talk about, which is the power of their miracle. Here is where my previous definition of Lazarus as a unit comes into play again.

Heaven measured a miracle power of 25 Lazarii aka a very high amount of force exerted on matter. You might think Alex, if they both performed their own miracle, how come that the alarm bells rang?

If we keep up the mirage metaphor, we can explain that! Crowley's intention was to make it so that ethereal beings cannot perceive him, so his miracle changed matter in a way that aligns with ethereal perception.

However, Aziraphale intended to change matter so that occult beings cannot perceive Gabriel, meaning his miracle changed matter in a way that is adapted to occult perception.

This is where science comes into play again!!

You see, particles aren't just particles, they are waves too. Wave-particle duality describes exactly that, e.g. an electron being both a particle and a wave at the same time. A connected theory to that is the Uncertainty principle, which describes the inability to measure the exact value of two different properties at the same time.

Or, to put it more plainly, if you try to figure out the exact position of a particle, its momentum becomes blurred, unclear. If you then focus on the momentum of the same particle, you can no longer describe its exact position.

You are probably looking at me now, thinking where the fuck are they going with this and why are there suddenly so many principles of quantum mechanics in a Good Omens meta post???

Crowley changes matter in way A.

Aziraphale changes matter in way B.

Those changes can co-exist, like an electron being a particle and a wave at the same time. However—and this is scientific theory adapted to celestial miracles—when an angel looks at Gabriel, then they are focusing on state A. When demons are looking at Gabriel, they are focusing on state B.

Focus on A and B becomes blurry. Focus on B and A becomes blurry.

Maintaining that double-state requires power though, because compared to wave-particle duality, these states aren't natural, they're inflicted—matter was changed. It's like the matter around Gabriel is flickering between those two states, a light switch trying to find a neutral position when there is only on and off.

How do we measure that power? In Lazarii.

The miracle energy that heaven measured is not that high because they each performed half a miracle and combined it into one, it is that high because they each performed one miracle that stands in opposition to the other; as a result, two different states need to be maintained at the same time, meaning the manipulation is ongoing, meaning it needs a fuckton of power.

If you want to keep balancing your light switch, you need to keep trying, you need to keep up the pressure, otherwise you either click it off or on. Same thing with the hiding miracle.

Twenty-five Lazarii.

The power you need to exert on matter to reshape twenty-five people—or to continuously hide one being from two opposing observers with rapidly-switching state changes.

While I think the whole "it's because of love" theory is fun and cute, scientifically it really doesn't make much sense because their powers have rules similar to our base units, so me must approach and treat them as such.

With that, thank you to everyone who made it this far and managed to survive our little excursion into the field of quantum mechanics.

Questions, thoughts, additions, etc. are very welcome!

[slavicafire]

hi! thanks so much for all the resources you share here. i'm starting to reconnect with my culture and your blog has been so nice for finding info about slavic folklore! i have a question, and i know it can be personal so it's okay if u don't wanna answer, but what are some practical things you do with slavic spirits&deities? do you journal, meditate, or make spells and charms and use candles more? that type of stuff 😊 cause i am not sure where to really start

there are two important things to know as we get into this. one: what I do vastly depends on who it is I'm dealing with - and what I want. it'll be different depending on the deity or spirit, and it will be different whether the act is one of gratitude, devotion, recognition or demand - and it is something you will probably organically come into in your own practice, too. two: while what I do in my practice is most definitely not a good starting point (for many reasons), the underlying drive of it is something I share happily and openly. and that is the thrill.

this isn't science, one absolute truth, a neat list of prettily categorised ingredients and methods and associations and meanings and recipes that have an inherent and irrefutable worth and are more true or relevant than what any other person does or believes in. the main framework should be seeking, understanding, and experiencing the thrill - do what feels good, do what excites you, do what you feel expands you as a person. for some that's reading books and solving sudoku, and for others it's spiritual endeavours. it is art, and craft, and hope - and thrill. no absolutes and no clean truths.

but! there's still plenty to talk about in terms for practical tips to begin, of course: I would definitely start with recognising exactly what sort of act it is that you want to engage in - ask yourself what you want out of it, how do you want to feel, what do you want to say through it - and plan the activities in line with that, combined with understanding of who it is that you want to offer this act to. purpose is crucial - even if it very basic, like simply the need to express yourself, to ask for help, or just not feel alone. doing things just to do them will quickly drain your inspiration and start feeling silly, so always find the exact purpose why you're doing something, no matter how simple or small that purpose might be.

purpose will help you identify the tools, too: a demand or thanks require an offering, one of material or time or feeling. recognition and gratitude will require connection or meditation or action. if your act is multipurpose, so should be the means through which you go about it - a ritual can have many tools and many layers, and be as complex as you fancy in the given moment.

think of the other end of this act - the spirit, deity, ancestor, any sort of being in whichever way you see it or understand it - and think what sort of tools, actions, and outcomes they would want to see. bluntly - and sweetly blasphemously - put yourself in the place of the god you pray to or the spirit you seek. if you were in their place, what would you want to see? what would you want to hear, or be promised, or be given? what would be meaningful?

when I want to show my devotion to Death Mother, let us say, I go to a graveyard: I read the necrologies at the gate to honour the recently departed buried there, with their names and ages and sons and daughters; I walk the length of the place to have time for contemplation, and I clean a forgotten grave or pick up trash lying around; when I want to thank her, I make an offering - of food or blood or time or emotion. there's rarely incense and sage or crystals charging in the light of the moon - because these are not tools that bring me thrill, nor do I find the act of using them fulfilling. I seek to understand my purpose and challenge myself with finding the thrill and expanding myself in the most satisfying way I can afford at the given moment.

so those acts will have to be varied - and personal, intimate, ever-changing, ever-challenging - and the thrill is in the journey and the experience, much less the outcome or some absolute truth. build your own calendar of celebrations and rituals, your own framework of beliefs, your own offerings and spells and songs. you have all the time in the world - take joy and pleasure in discovering what you find truly thrilling in your practice.

and best of luck.

[indnwitch]

I said last night we should talk about tattooing runes and sigils on your body, so here it is; (Note, the reference pictures I’m using I found Pinterest and best visually describe what I’m trying to convey)

Tattooing in itself is an ancient ritual that dates back to indigenous people, my people have been telling stories on skin with ink for thousands of years. That being said when you get a tattoo you bleed, and your blood is a form of your life force, your energy, a signature not just of your energy but of your DNA. We tend to get tattoos of things we like or something that has meaning to us, however it started as a way to document warriors, spirits, deities, and of course magick, these markings were significant to each tribe and custom to the person wearing them. How does that translate now into tattooing sigils and runes of your body? Well I’m gonna tell ya,

Blood magic

Tattooing is a form of blood magic, which isn’t as scary as it sounds. It’s simply put a form of magic that is stronger because a part of your DNA is used. So if you were to tattoo say a protection rune or sigil on your body it would draw it’s power from you directly, we trace invisible sigils or runes on use when we need to use them so the same quote rule and quote would apply here. When you need the power of the sigil or rune you’d simply finger trace over the tattoo to activate it. As mentioned up top it would draw from your own energy so, depending on how powerful the sigil or rune is you May feel dizzy, or get a headache. It’s something to keep in mind if you’re considering getting them tattooed. You can always temporarily draw it on your skin and see how it vibes with you before you get it permanently.

Choosing an artist

You’ve decided to get a sigil/Rune tattoo, amazing now you need to pick an artist carefully. If you’re not tattooing yourself (which I don’t recommend unless you know what you’re doing) choosing an artist is highly important not just to find someone willing to do the design but because let’s be real some people’s energy is highly crusty. You absolutely DO NOT want someone with off vibes tattooing you, especially tattooing something as energy heavy and important as a Rune or sigil. I recommend checking out each tattoo shop and artist available and feeling out the vibe, LISTEN TO YOUR INTUITION!

Color magic

If you want you can use color magic when deciding what rune/sigil you wish to have tattooed. Say you really wanted a pink tattoo, you’d find a rune/sigil that corresponds with what energy pink brings. You don’t have to do this of course, you can choose any color, rune, sigil you want.

Pictures/video

Note, the picture shows large runes tattooed all over the body, YOU DO NOT have to have runes/sigils tattooed all over your body, YOU DO NOT have to have them large. YOU CAN have them any size, any color, any location that you so wish. YOU CAN even incorporate them into your next tattoo piece, which would look rad in my opinion. Work with your tattoo artist to figure out what you like best.

REMEMBER THE PICTURE IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A TATTOOED RUNE OR SIGIL MIGHT LOOK LIKE FOR THOSE WHO NEED A VISUAL. Once again I found the picture on Pinterest under ‘rune/sigil tattoos’

[juliasdowntonstuff]

The beauty of The Little Prince

Those who know me a bit are aware of the fact that I absolutely LOVE Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's "The Little Prince". I bring it up any chance I get and because today has shown me again just how much this book means to me, I thought I'd use Tumblr as a journal and share at least a few of the reasons why. It is currently 2 am as I am writing this, so I don't guarantee for any of this to make any sense.

Apart from being the book my mum used to read to me when I was very little, apart from being the book I learned to read with and being the first book I ever read in every language I speak, "The Little Prince" is also just such a wonderfully poignant book that, for me, is just as important nowadays as it was back when it was first released in 1943.

It deals with themes we all encounter on a daily. It talks about greed, love, friendship, sadness, vainness, and wisdom — just to name a few of them. And it does so very endearingly. Part of this book's charm is not just that utterly beautiful and simplistic style of its illustrations, but also that it can be read by children and adults alike. It's generally easy enough to understand for children while also being so descriptive of the themes mentioned without the so usual moralising undertone that is often apparent in comparable works. And there are so many layers to the quite simple story itself that I find something new to focus on every time I read it.

There are sequences that did not really interest me as a kid because I did not understand the full extent of what they meant. Sure, I knew there was something to take away from every sequence, but I did not always know what it was. And as I keep going back again and again, I keep finding new layers to uncover.

Take the sequence about watching the sunset 42/43/44 times, for example (depending on what edition/ language you're reading). It only gained my interest when I was about sixteen, because it suddenly spoke to me on another level that was not just about describing a pretty sky. It expressed exactly what I felt at the time but never managed to put into words, and it helped me understand what it was I was feeling. Before then, I only thought the short chapter was about the nice colours that make up a sunset, about the hues that are usually quite warm and can feel comforting. But it is really so much more.

Sadness can cause many things; for me, it makes me lose interest in most things I used to enjoy greatly. That one page that discusses the little prince feeling sad and watching the sunset so often told me to go outside and look at the sunset, and so I did that. After that, I began to appreciate the beauty in nature around me more. The sense of calmness and clarity that I get when I walk in nature and listen to the birds or sit and watch the sunset (or sunrise, occasionally) is something I never managed to replicate otherwise. People rarely talk about how they are truly feeling in everyday life, and there is still some sort of stigma around talking about mental health, depression, etc., which I think shouldn't be (but that's an entirely different discussion). We all are happy to talk about the things that fill us with joy, that excite us, so why can't we talk about the bad feelings we have in the same way? It is easy to feel that being sad or even depressed is simply not allowed in society, that one is alone with all the bad thoughts spinning around and around, because we never talk about them.

That short sequence about sunsets taught sixteen-year-old me that it was okay to be sad, that it was okay to be okay one day and a total mess the next, only to be better again. It taught me that sometimes, you just need to take a second to sit down, breathe deeply, and look around, try to find the beauty in things you usually overlook or see the beauty you have become blind to. It also taught me that extreme sadness does not last forever, which is what I keep clinging to, now that I feel myself slowly slipping back into that seemingly bottomless pit of sadness.

Another sequence that has greatly influenced the way I see things in life is the part about the fox. The taming. Because that is just such a vivid depiction of what making a friend is. It is a metaphor even kids understand. And it is so true to the core. You have to reveal who you are as a person to become friends with someone, you have to share your thoughts and beliefs. You have to get over that "being friendly strangers" phase, and for that, you need to find out more about the other person, their likes and dislikes. And only then you can determine whether you like the person enough to become friends with them. That seems pretty straightforward.

Sadly, though, we tend to skip parts. We don't get to know each other enough to get to the "being tamed"-part. We consider someone a friend too soon, when all they likely are is a friendly acquaintance and nothing more. I realised recently that I did not know some of my friends as well as I thought I did and it caused a lot of unnecessary added heartbreak. You know, when you find people you like and you get along with them splendidly whenever you see them, which might be frequent or sometimes not so much, it's easy to feel as though you're friends. But do they still message you when things get rough? Do they try to include you when they do not see you around as much as before? Likely, they do not. Or at least that is what I have experienced.

This goes hand in hand with what the fox says to the little prince about the rose. “You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed.”

Because that's what true friendships are like, or at least they should be. They don't just end, they don't just fizzle out. You can't just up and leave when you're bored or when you disagree. Unless there is a real reason for you to stop talking or stop being friends, you should always keep an eye out for your friends. You got to know them, you tamed them, and you are at least a tiny bit responsible for them, too. Certainly not for everything they do, no, but for the part of their lives that intertwines with yours. That is what you are responsible for.  

And there are some more quotes that have influenced me greatly. I won't go deeper into them now, because, frankly… if I did, I would never shut up. I will just leave them here to read and ponder for anyone who wants to. 

Maybe they speak to you as much as they do to me, maybe they don't. That's the beauty of literature.

“I must endure the presence of a few caterpillars if I wish to become acquainted with the butterflies.”

“Then you shall judge yourself," the king answered. "That is the most difficult thing of all. It is much more difficult to judge oneself than to judge others. If you succeed in judging yourself rightly, then you are indeed a man of true wisdom.��� (Chapter X)

“Where are the people?” resumed the little prince at last. “It's a little lonely in the desert…”

“It is lonely when you're among people, too,” said the snake. (Chapter XVII)

“Language is the source of misunderstandings.” (Chapter XXI)

“Here is my secret. It is very simple: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” (Chapter XXI)

“What makes the desert beautiful,” said the little prince, “is that somewhere it hides a well.” (Chapter XXV)

“In one of those stars I shall be living. In one of them I shall be laughing. And so it will be as if all the stars were laughing, when you look at the sky at night. And when your sorrow is comforted (time soothes all sorrows) you will be content that you have known me. You will always be my friend… I shall not leave you.” (Chapter XXVI)

And last, but certainly not least:

 “All grown-ups were once children… but only few of them remember it.”

On that note…

[taones]

hii! sorry, was just wondering if i could request head canons/scenarios of how suna, tendou, and sakusa would comfort their s/o who’s been feeling down and avoiding others because they feel like a burden (i’m just rlly going through it rn 🥲)

Comforting You - S.R + T.S

sorry that you're having such a hard time sweetpea! I'm going to leave Sakusa out these purely bc it's been ages since I've watched his scenes ●~● not edited bc I can't be bothered

warnings - hurt/comfort, nothing not mentioned in the request ●³●

Suna

I honestly thing he wouldn't have a clue what to do at the beginning of your relationship

depending on how long you had been dating, I think he would eventually get the hang of it

but even then, he definitely prefers to comfort you quietly, more of an observe and act rather than an act straight away

however - I think this is extremely comforting when you're crying

Sunarin can really be the softest, warmest person to snuggle up to and when he snuggles he goes hard

brings your double duvet into the living room, wraps you in it like a burrito and holds you in his arms for as long as you need

absolutely more of a listener than an advice giver but will murmur comforting words into your hairline while you're snuggled on him

especially if you open up to him about feeling like you're a burden

he gets this little knitted brow-frowny face and sits up so he's facing you, holds your hands in his and says, in the most sincere voice you've ever heard from him that you could never be a burden and never will be

and that you're the only person he can even stand to be around for that long amount of time, you're so important to him and he would look so stricken then you even think that about yourself PLSSS

late night drives are his thing, especially if you just need to scream out some lyrics of the songs you like to feel better

will take you to get whatever junk food you want and sit with you all night until he sees a smile on your face again

Tendou

oh please he is the king of comfort, he knows exactly how you're feeling without you ever having to say a word- he's just that in tune with your emotions

plus he's very experienced in feeling unwelcomed or like a burden to people, that's something he's worked through by himself and he's not going to let you be without a support system during this time

Satori is ON it immediately, has the best coping mechanisms and little self worth affirmations to tech you

but he knows, as much as those work, the best thing you need in that moment is comfort and reassurance

he obviously tries to spend some quality time with you, have some skincare/self care ngihts with you

but he also has a serious sit down talk with you about how you're feeling and how he can help

even if you're not overly sure how he can help - this will at least give him some insight so he can take a guess

so so so reassuring about what you mean to him and how much he loves being around you - you could never be a burden to him or anyone else because you simply make people around you so happy

starts leaving little post-it notes around the house in places he knows you'll see them

packing them in your lunch every day so you never forget how much you mean to him

ahh again, sorry I didn't include Sakusa, it's been ages since I've rewatched haikyuu so I don't think I could do his characterisation any justice, I'll put it on the back-burner for now and get to it as soon as I can <3 loves ya

reblogs and comments are appreciated <3

[buck-yyyy]

what do you think of boris’ sexuality? do you think he externalizes his internalized homophobia? this is a goldfinch ask !!

ohhhhh this is interesting. so sorry for answering this a couple weeks late!!

first of all—boris is 100% bisexual. he absolutely expresses attraction to both men and women throughout the book, that boy is BI.

the second part is wayyy harder. i think that it's really difficult to tell from what we know of him—since the book is obviously from theo's perspective, we can't quite get inside his head the same way we can with theo, so i'm just gonna list out some examples of his,,, varying queerness tolerance level, i guess lmao.

he's casual about suggesting that hobie may be gay, and has a very calm reaction compared to theo's immediate discomfort.

similar to theo, as a teenager, he never brings up the times they've had sex.

he's flippant about mentioning that theo is "the only boy [he's] ever been in bed with", and brushes it off as "[they] both needed girls".

that's.... it, i think. at least off the top of my head. so my conclusion, to be honest, isn't based on a whole lot of proof, as opposed simply to drawing from other aspects of his character.

from his casual usage of the N-word after spending time with kotku, who was "cool"; his conversion to islam, not because he believed in allah, but because the muslim people around him were good to him; and finally, his attempt to pretend to be jewish in order to work for mr. silver, it's really easy to point out that boris conforms to various environments with ease, something that he's had to be able to do because of how much he's moved around. he's not doing these things because of personal beliefs, ideas, or opinions, he's doing them because he's trying to blend in, or in some cases, seem "cool", whether it's intentional or not (depends on the situation). that doesn't mean that his actions are automatically morally good or even neutral, but it gives us an understanding of why he is the way he is, and why he's so different depending on where he is and what point of his life he's at.

i think from that, it would be easy to argue that perhaps boris himself has no personal issue with gay people, but he would most certainly display the same homophobia that was so typical at the time it was written: ie. he would be casual about someone he knows being gay, but he's also definitely described things as gay, or said the word faggot in a derogatory context.

i'm not entirely sure how to relate all of that back to his internalized homophobia, simply because we don't get to see what that's like for him, or if that's even a thought on his mind. i think i'd argue that, what with everything else that's happened/currently happening in his life, he doesn't care all that much. i doubt he would ever call himself bisexual, or pansexual, or any of that; we can assign those words to him because he's a book character, but it's also important to recognize that those weren't words he would've grown up using, and that would likely stick with him in ways that some younger people would interpret as queerphobic. he's simply boris, and if boris wants to kiss a man then boris wants to kiss a man and that's all the thought he'd devote to it.

so yeah. i suppose i believe that he's homophobic, but not because he hates gay people or himself for being gay. i also think that he would not devote any particularly meaningful amount of time to dissecting who he is in regards to his sexuality, simply because it's never been a particularly important part of his life or survival.

[shihalyfie]

Interesting, I thought the franchise made it pretty clear that now Yggdrasill was supposed to be the "true god" of the digital world all along, even placing it as the originator of the Royal Knights and not Imperialmon PM at some point. But I can't shake this feeling that it's a false god either? I mean, it doesn't really fit the description of the same god that the Three Archangels seem to serve. Is it Ygg? Is it Homeo? Is it something else?

As usual, this is only my personal impression, but I get the feeling Bandai wasn't necessarily intending it to be a false god at first, it's just that when your first major appearances happen to be X-Evolution and Digimon Savers, and when pretty much all of your later appearances are yanking from one of those two in some form, you're probably inevitably going to get associated with that stigma...I mean, I think it's definitely possible they could try to make a more benevolent Yggdrasil now, but it's probably too far to go back because of how many negative associations Digimon fans have with it at this point.

I definitely don't think Yggdrasil was what they were going for with the older Digimon lore referring to a "god", and I'm not really sure they actually had a clear idea back then -- for instance, it sounds like the Archangels are more likely to have been serving something resembling the Abrahamic God (of course, not precisely the same for obvious reasons, but at least pulling from that concept), but you also have Digimon taking cues from things like Greek mythology, and especially the original Adventure universe being very heavily tied to the Shinto concept of gods living in everything (more on this here).

The Digimon franchise did bring up some different options to consider who could be considered "gods" of the Digital World, for instance the WonderSwan games having ENIAC, or the Xros Wars manga introducing Yggdrasil as a fallen god (notably, while it doesn't portray Yggdrasil as a false one per se, it also explains that it had to be taken down because it went haywire) who was succeeded by Homeostasis. Note that this was actually new to the Xros Wars manga at the time; Homeostasis was very clearly stated both in Adventure episode 45 and the Adventure novels as not being a god, rather being the equivalent of the Digital World's housekeeper, and emphasized that "God's territory" was something that absolutely nobody, Homeostasis included, could reach or fathom. The Xros Wars manga reusing the name was more of a cute reference than anything, and probably shouldn’t be considered equivalent to the Adventure one.

Even putting aside the fact that it may not even be monotheistic (note that Japanese does not mandate plurals, so it really could be ambiguous depending on context), you also have the probably more philosophical question of what a god even is. Because you can have "gods" that are simply extremely powerful, and then you can have layers of "gods" over them that actually are on an entirely different plane of reality and are entirely impossible to directly interact with, like how fictional characters have their fates controlled by their authors/creators but don't exist in the same sense. Personally, the reason why I consider the X-Evolution and Savers incarnations of Yggdrasil to be "false gods" is not due to their position -- I think, if you wanted to be really technical about it, they certainly had enough power and jurisdiction over the Digital World to be considered gods depending on your point of view -- but because this is how their respective narratives frame them: as fallible entities who attempted to convince the residents of the Digital World that they were more important and infallible than they actually were.

[lighthouseborn]

repost and rate your muse's traits out of 10 in each category !

COMPASSION: 6/10. Sees people around him, and will go out of his way to help people, especially in little ways that are just very doable and why wouldn't you. Also, though, has greater commitment to loved ones than to strangers. He is more likely to be moved to action for people he feels connected to, some way. This can be as little as 'seemed like they were having a bad day', but as the stakes get higher, the circle narrows.

BITTERNESS: 2/10. There's a little bit of an edge, but it's really more frustration than bitterness, I think. Things could be so good if people would just let them be. But he doesn't feel owed. He just feels like people make it harder than it should be.

HAPPINESS: 8/10, generally. There's a little bit of an edge, how else do you end up at frustrated and willing-to-punch-things-into-order?

POLITENESS: ...3/10? He can sometimes just fall into 'polite' because his baseline is chill+nice until given the need to be otherwise, but he very rarely if ever adheres to Politeness as an intentional practice and standard. He also doesn't like the idea of manners being more valued than truths. Impertinent is a good word for it, really.

MORALITY*: idles at like a 6/10 but Henry... flexes. And contradicts himself, sometimes. He is, broadly speaking, in favor of helping others, or at least striving to not bring harm. However, he is also centered on people in his circle, and is pushable to excusing things as long as his people aren't harmed; he also has a tendency to answer violence and harm to himself/his loved ones with retaliatory harm, & sometimes capable of taking this Too Far.

PRIDE: 4/10. Not non-existent, but not, generally, more important to him than his life, others' lives, the truth, etc. He's skilled and confident, but also if he's wrong he's wrong and if it's beg-or-die he's begging. If you insult his mother, however, he will kill you. (That is an exaggeration (probably.))

HONESTY: 7/10. Very honest in the sense he is who he is and doesn't shy from it, doesn't feel the need to hide it. Rarely outright Lies and more often deflects or simply refuses to answer, when it feels necessary. Also, though, he's got a sneaky streak (mainly in a being-places-he-knows-he-shouldn't way, never met a locked door he liked) and it's not a compulsive habit but he has been known to pocket things without paying, here and there.

BRAVERY: 9/10. Absolutely terrified: stands his ground in front of the scary thing anyway. Docked one point for being slightly cagey when it comes to talking about the things that scare him. (He's afraid to give them more power to frighten and maim with his words. Ghosts may be hard to get rid of, but myths are impossible to kill.)

RECKLESSNESS: 5/10. I know what you're thinking. I know why you're thinking it. I agree, he is very impulsive. He also, and I will die on this hill, is way more measured than people take him for. It's true he can be goaded into not thinking at all, and he is, in general, quick to act. However! I think he bows to his impulses only around half the time, and it's just that he's struck by impulse so often that only indulging it around half the time means it's still a defining trait for him. This is also what makes him so easily frustrated — you're only seeing half of his go!go!go!, he's already holding himself in check, so people going "uh, hold yourself in check" is just. A very frustrating experience. Imagine you're walking and people keep blasting whistles in your ear to go 'no running!!!' at you like you're breaking the rules >:[

AMBITION: ..5/10? 6? In terms of when he has a goal, he'll go to every length to achieve it. Ultimately, though, his goals are usually just "the people I care about (including himself, btw) are happy and safe." Everything outside of that isn't necessarily important to him. So it really just depends on what level of 'my people' he's at, as for how ambitious this goal is.

LOYALTY: 10/10. You can't get rid of him if you try, once he's grabbed on. Even if you hurt him.

LOVE: 10/10. Heart on his sleeve. He's not afraid to get close to people, not afraid for them to know it, not afraid to be known - prefers to be known, in fact. I think he's pretty easy to love, too. He is, notably, several closed off characters' weak spot.

SENSE OF FAMILY: 100/10. I told myself I wasn't going to dick around with the greater-than-ten value numbers, but. C'mon. The key to a Henry corruption arc lies somewhere in his unwillingness to let go and the way his people can be used against him.

ATTRACTIVENESS: .. 8? 9/10?? I'm biased about his literal appearance but I feel like it's gotta be... if not more, then equally about his nature. Which I guess is also a 'to each their own' kind of situation, but like. He's warm and reliable and communicative and supportive and earnest and a little bit possessive and there's that surprising edge of wildness and he's got big stupid brown eyes like. I dunno man I feel like a lot of people would fold, at some point. Like come on.

AGILITY: 6/10. Stronger than he is fast, but he'll surprise you with it. Reaction time is very important if you want to work the rigging of a ship. Henry's is reliable, without being flashy or gimmicky; it's more to do with him being attentive than being above-average nimble or anything; suffers/goes down when he's distracted/overwhelmed.

SEX DRIVE: like.... 7/10. Pushing toward higher than average. Not to the point of distraction/preoccupation, but he's definitely down & interested more often than he isn't, if that makes sense? And also very curious, in this regard. In every regard really but here it's relevant.

[rockofeye]

Hey Houngan Alex, I left my Sosyete years ago (respectfully, and only after many attempts to work out our ethical differences as a House) and there's something I've always wondered about. Is there any kind of ceremony that needs to take place to let someone leave a Sosyete, and does that ceremony involve the po tét?

Months after I stopped coming around, I was told I needed to bring my po tét to my Mambo for a ceremony so her Lwa could formally release me. It was emphasized that she would give it back to me, and this was not punitive or a big scary deal, just a traditional formality that would let me continue as a Mambo without issue. "The right, traditional way to do things".

I was suspicious, so I reached out to a brother I trusted who'd been in the Sosyete for decades. He told me it was true, and echoed that this was totally safe, NBD, just a formality.

This was years ago and I never did it, of course. I'm sorry but absolutely nobody is touching my po tét. I was not surprised that my Mambo would suggest something like this, but I lost a tremendous amount of respect for the brother who encouraged me to do it.

I'm wondering if there's some kind of totally legit, sensible precedent to this within the tradition that isn't centered around cutting a person off from their Lwa, or removing their stability. This doesn't keep me up at night, but I trust your knowledge and it's something I've always been curious about.

Thank you for all you do for the community.

Hi,

I have not heard of this specifically and it's possible that it is something specific to that sosyete but there are some things that concern me. In my experience, this would not be common or accepted.

There is a part I find pretty troubling, about having her lwa release you. That's just something that doesn't exist, because you have your own lwa. You are not living under and serving her lwa, you are living under and serving her lwa, and she has no control over that and no right to meddle with it.

Further, when you undergo ceremony that produces a po tèt, that work is irreversible. It can't be taken away or cut off simply because you choose to no longer be a part of a sosyete. If that were so, people would be stripped of titles and initiations and that's not possible. It doesn't matter if it was a lave tèt or a kanzo, it can't be undone or removed from you. It is irreversible. There are ways it can be modified or overwritten, like if you had a lave tèt and then did a kanzo in a different sosyete or were made a hounsi kanzo or sou pwen in one sosyete and took the asson in another sosyete...but what was done can never be undone, and that is why it is so important that people discern before committing (not saying you didn't, speaking generally only).

I would also feel pretty resistant to someone I was breaking off a relationship with touching my po tèt. It is literally the seat of my soul and being, and I would question why and how someone would need to touch it as part of parting, because there is literally no work necessary. Po tèts are very rarely worked on for any reason post ceremony and really only addressed in the case of imminent death or grave illness; that is when a spiritual parent or someone they designated would do work on it.

There is no process to leave a sosyete, really. Like, if you (in general) are leaving on good terms it's good to have a discussion because issues can be addressed even if they are irresolvable but it's not necessary. I know a lot of folks who have left sosyetes; some leave after conversations, some leave after a massive falling out that is visibly messy, and some just fade away.

Part of the reason there is no process is that once the work is done, it's done. There is no control factor in a lave tèt or kanzo; your ceremony is not dependent on your relationship to a person and your relationships with your lwa are likewise not dependent on the person who did the ceremony. Is it ideal to stay in the same sosyete and learn from the same person? Yes, but ideals don't always work out. If I chose to leave my spiritual mother and sosyete I was initiated in, it would be painful but there would be nothing for her to do about my lwa and my title.

It's also something that is not that uncommon, particularly in Haiti and particularly for people who are not asogweman. It's not unusual for people to be made senp or sou pwen in one sosyete and take the asson somewhere else. I know folks who do senp or sou pwen in a family temple, but then find themselves led somewhere else. Sometimes folks might relocate geographically and it may make more sense to do their ceremonies somewhere else.

From what you describe, you already know there were issues where you were and your lack of surprise should inform you. It sounds like there is an aspect of control in this situation that just doesn't exist in reality and that sounds like an environment where growth may not be encouraged.

I hope you are feeling supported wherever you are now. Happy to speak privately with you if that would be helpful.

[screemnch]

A not so “mini” mini-essay about writing advice.

This may be old news and entirely obvious to everyone, but this is MY internet void space and I get to put my thoughts down here if I want to. That being said.

“Only write things that are essential to the plot. If it does nothing to further the story - get rid of it.” Is a piece of advice that I heard a bunch of times, and I have things to say about it.

I’ve been hearing this advice since I was in middle school, just learning how to staple together a story, and it always felt so mean to me. Same with “kill your darlings” though I’ve come to tolerate that one a lot more. But this whole “whatever doesn’t further the plot must be cut” always sat wrong with me.

I think its partially because often times it had been used by people around me to tell me (the author) what I should cut or keep. I had people telling me that things that seemed to me extremely important were actually irrelevant and should have been cut. But that’s not exactly fair, is it?

It creates the notion that all stories have the same priorities. Any book/movie/narrative must follow a plot and have its purpose, comply with story structures and fulfill audience expectations. It creates a conventional cookie cutter for a story which the author may simply fill with whatever the current trend of storytelling is. But if you pose a wider question to the audience “what is essential to the story? What does actually further the plot?” You probably won’t have everyone come to a consensus.

To some it may be simply the hard actions that encompass the journey and its destination - how things began, how they ended and what troubles happened in between. But then the question arises - are those hardships relevant to the plot? Does the story really need the struggle, especially if it’ll be overcome anyway? Is our ultimate story actually just “hero needs to do thing - hero does thing”? Or is it that by getting rid of the issues within the journey that we’ve made the story itself obsolete and therefore must cut it as well? Which then of course eventually becomes the question of: does your story need telling? Do people need to hear it at all?

A lot of the things I was told as a teenager were irrelevant to the story were things about emotions. Subtle elements of a character’s backstory that inform their decision making throughout the plot, even if the actual element never reenters the narrative. Is then what we need to move the plot further - information? Do we need to keep in only the things that make the story comprehensible, getting rid of any embellishment that god forbid may obscure some parts? But then what’s the point of detective novels, or postmodernist obscure fiction, stories that are based entirely on misleading and confounding the audience’s understanding of itself? This, of course, brings up the important question of what the barrier is between the author and the audience. Do the readers get to know as much as the author? Do you leave them in the dark to reach their own conclusions? How much of the story is dependent on who it is consumed by?

Additionally, many people are of the belief that stories need to have some sort of moral. A lesson for the audience to take away and carry with them for the rest of their lives as a reminder of what’s really important. Of course, in the current world of fast paced information, media trends, and an absolute flooding of content, that timeframe may be as short as a few hours. Most stories hardly stick with audiences long enough to even elicit an emotional reaction, let alone actually affect them on a deeper level. And while the argument of what it really means to be changed by a piece of media is a super interesting one, it’s also not all too relevant here. The question we have here is about whether the things that a story ACTUALLY needs are all the elements that reach the audience, convey the message and encourage an empathetic and analytical interaction with itself. One might say that that is what’s essential to the story and needs to be kept in at all costs, but… The same story doesn’t have the same reception in different groups. Some stories lose their affective quality over time. Do those stories then cease to be relevant and must be cut? Does the author actually, truly have the control to bring forth the needed reaction and prompt the “right” kind of discussion from the audience? If the fate of a narrative is to be consumed by an audience, then shouldn’t the audience’s intention to interpret be consider above the authors intention to persuade?

And that’s when it kind of clicked for me what I found so unnerving about this piece of writing advice. Some people may have found it useful and that is wonderful for them, but I think the main thing that I take issue with is… It instills insecurity. All of these questions that have been asked in this mini-essay don’t have definitive answers. It’s not easy telling what’s relevant and what isn’t, and it brings on further doubts, eventually making you wonder if you should be trying to say something at all? Why write a story if it’ll have an ending? Why write a story when you could have a series of factoids? Why write a story when the audience will take from it only what they want, if anything at all? Not to mention the criticism levied against writers of indulgent “pointless” stories, such as fanfiction and erotica: why write if you, presumably, don’t have something deep, compelling and high-brow to say?

I resent this notion - the whole concept that a story must be something, and has to be a particular kind of way. I resent the idea that people are made to feel a certain way about their writing based on simply whether parts of it should have the right to exist. Especially since there isn’t even a consensus on the matter alongside literary academics. Literature will always be subject to debate, to discourse, just like other art forms. The idea that something has to be important in order to exist? I think it’s stupid and capitalistic at its core. Even if I, as an individual, find something unimportant or unappealing, that doesn’t mean I get the right to say that it needs to disappear. The author is trying to communicate something, whatever it may be: world altering philosophical ideas, political propaganda, high-stakes emotional turmoil, or the typical kind of excitement people get from erotic fiction. Whether people will listen or respond positively is another thing, but communication is an important tool under humanity’s belt. We shouldn’t limit it based on a theory that may he obsolete within the next year.

If anyone does want advice in regards to killing your darlings and getting rid of the fluff in a story, may I offer you something first: consider what kind of story you’re trying to tell. Identify your priorities in this particular narrative and use that to decide what’s relevant. Sometimes a story doesn’t need to make sense, sometimes it can just be stupid fun. A story about people having a nice swell time and a story about people suffering are not likely to prioritize the same elements. The things you include and exclude are just as much a part of the story as what it ends up being in the end. Know what informs your decisions and consider if this is what you, the author, want.

Also don’t listen to random people on and off line telling you what to do without applying critical thought. If it’s upsetting to you that someone may look at a story and immediately move on to something else, maybe remember to practice engaging with texts critically and not just drift in the ocean of contradictory content. Peace.

[thiefofcrows]

I have some Headcanons for Kaz to share in reference to his trauma / haphephobia. A couple of them involve vague mentions of ~intimate situations~. Also updating this a bit from the last time.

It's never really explicitly mentioned in the books, but I suspect blood is one of his triggers—although fresh blood isn't as much of an issue as I think it has a lot to do with scent rather than the physical sensation of it. It's the sickeningly sweet, rotting coppery scent and if he's stuck with it on him long enough, it can easily lead to a panic attack, getting physically sick and/or a fainting spell. It's also very likely the reason why the only time he gets someone's blood all over him is either when it's a last resort or when he just .... loses his cool, which doesn't happen very often. In SOC when he rips that guys' eye out, they change POV after Kaz goes bellow deck to clean himself off and stuff and like ..... I think about that a lot. Might write a drabble abt it some time, who knows.

His reactions to getting badly triggered are within a certain range and it depends on a lot of things, but - symptoms include severe shaking and panic attacks, breaking out in a cold sweat, hallucinations, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, exhaustion and/or fainting. His natural response for this is also very severely in flight, so he is most likely to get tf out of the situation if he's able to.

When/if Kaz gradually starts to work through his touch aversion issues in order to be able to physically touch someone casually or intimately, he is ... very intense once he's comfortable. Because of his aversion, he's also very touch starved, which becomes immediately obvious very quickly in that case.

I think, when it comes to kissing someone, that is likely one of the easier things to work through for him simply because of how stark the contrast is. Like, the heat of someone's mouth, the intimacy of being able to hear and feel someone's breathing, feel how very much alive they are. And for that reason, it becomes pretty immediately apparent how much he enjoys it once he gets there.

One of the ways he keeps himself grounded during situations with any bare physical contact is being able to feel someone's pulse, which he can do by either feeling for it by resting his hand on their throat / pressing his thumb against their pulse point there, doing the same on their wrist(s) or their chest.

However, something important to note; it will absolutely take a lot of tries, trial and error, for Kaz to be able to work through these things. Depending on where we are in the timeline, he is probably going to have several panic attacks along the way and it's gonna be a rough start; it's especially going to be complicated and very, very meaningful for him to allow someone to be anywhere near him when that happens too, so it'll require a ton of thorough plotting. I don't mind skipping ahead, as long as we thoroughly discuss and establish the difficulty in Getting There.

On that note, I also firmly believe that Kaz achieving his goal of not only getting Pekka tf out of his city but just ... bringing him down to his knees and getting his revenge was a much needed step for him re: his healing process. Kaz is no longer hastily covering his infected wound with a shitty band-aid, where every single time he brushes up against it, he gets fucked up. Post CK, it's a scarred over wound that will always be there and it causes him pain and difficulty still, but ... overall, things are a little easier. I mean, not always and he has his ups and downs, but ... he's doing better.

I will also say that, as someone on the asexual spectrum myself, I am 5000% very, very flexible about what intimacy would mean for him. Smut does not have to happen for Kaz to be intimate with someone; literally him letting someone hold his hand is a very huge indication of intimacy for him okay. There's a part of him that deeply, deeply struggles with shame regarding his trauma and limitations because of it, so. Someone eventually knowing What Happened and insisting on giving him the space and patience that he needs and/or being like "you don't actually have to Ever btw" despite his stubborn attitude sigh lmao is 👌👌

Kaz's struggles with touch will never fully be gone, no matter how much he works through it. There will still be days where he can't handle physical contact and there will be days where he's handling things just fine but the slightest thing twists the wrong way and he has a panic attack or can't touch anyone for hours or the rest of the day, ect. It's always going to be there in the back of his mind, being considered with everything he does. And, even with working through it to be able to touch Certain People or Someone In Particular, he still won't be able to deal with it casually, with people he doesn't know well or trust. It's especially Bad if it's not anticipated.

[ayakh03]

Denotations and connotations in movies: How and why are they useful in animation movies?

Simply put, denotation is the straightforward, literal definition of a word, while connotation is the figurative meaning, it includes the emotional and personal associations that the word brings, that goes beyond the literal meaning of the word.

Movies can use connotations to evoke emotions and set themes in a subtle way. It involves symbolic and emotional association with the viewer through sound, lighting and dialogue to allow a richer form of storytelling. I always find it really fascinating when I discover the meaning behind a specific choice in movies (which also leads to believe that absolutely everything in movies is done on purpose)

A very common example would be the colour blue: Seeing the colour blue in movies more often than not connotes sadness. Same for the colour red and anger and green for evil in Disney movies.   

Inside Out (2015) Directed by Pete Docter, DOI or Available at Disney+

However, depending on the movie and the franchise, the same colour, word, or sound could mean different things. Staying on the theme of blue and red, in Star Wars, for example, blue is good, and red is evil. 

Star Wars (1997) Directed by.George Lucas, DOI or Available at Disney+

Artists use connotations way more than the viewers realize, and learning about them is always a shocking revelation, that ends up making so much sense and might change your view and opinion on so many subjects and theories regarding the piece. 

Now regarding animation movies, I think denotations and connotations are especially important because animation relies a lot on visual symbolism and storytelling to create. A more engaging and memorable experience for the audience.

A good use of denotations is to establish clearly and quickly some scenarios and characters.

For example, in Zootopia, they used the species of the animals to indicate their personality, or role in society.  

Zootopia (2016) Directed by. Byron Howard, Rich Moore, DOI or Available at Disney+

As we can see, the lion is the mayor, the sloth is the slow, lazy worker, etc…And of course, the movie basically covers the dream of the little rabbit that wants to become an officer, and the predators being viewed as automatic threats in society. 

On another hand, Inside out uses connotation through colours. Joy is yellow, she radiates comfort and warmth, while sadness is blue and lacks energy. They represent the emotions and the colours used for them work really well.

Other forms of denotations and connotations are through shapes, movements and actions. For instance, in kung fu panda, Po’s clumsiness and round physique, bring positive connotations of humour and warmth. 

Kung Fu Panda (2008) Directed by.Mark Osborne, John Stevenson, DOI or Available at Netflix

There are many more examples I found that are really interesting, but that would take a while. In summary, denotations can provide clarity while connotations grant artists the ability to add creativity, depth and emotional richness to the story telling. Denotations and connotation participate in making animation one of the most powerful mediums for storytelling, for all ages. 

However, during my tutorial with Saint Walker, he pointed out that denotations and connotations can be understood differently depending on the viewer's cultural background, personal experiences, and emotions.

Going back to colors, for example, a red envelope in chains usually signifies a gift or means good luck. But on the contrary, when I received a red envelope in the mail I automatically assumed that it meant something bad, which turned out to be true. So the way I see it, even if some connotations might be done on purpose, they might be understood differently. And of course, sometimes they don’t mean anything, but each viewer might just understand them in their own way. So I realized, that denotations and connotations can be really useful and important to each viewer's individual experience with a movie. So of course, using them to pass across a specific message to the audience will of course be of great use for storytelling, but I find it interesting how we can use them to create a more personal and immersive experience for each viewer. This is of course very complicated, but it’s very interesting, and I’d love to use this to my advantage in future personal projects.

In conclusion, denotations and connotations in animated movies are essential tools for storytelling, and the subjective aspect of it allows free interpretation to each viewer, allowing them to have a unique and personal experience. This flexibility is what makes movies resonate differently with the audience. It also invites viewers to rewatch to interpret scenes in a new way, as we are always affected and changed by events in life as we grow older. 

sources:

Fiveable.me. (2024). Denotation and connotation in film | Film and Media Theory Class Notes | Fiveable. [online] Available at: https://fiveable.me/film-and-media-theory/unit-5/denotation-connotation-film/study-guide/3Tjy800AGSDoCT0D [Accessed 10 Nov. 2024].

Steains, T. (2020). Film Symbolism | How to Analyse Symbolism in Film or TV. [online] Matrix Education. Available at: https://www.matrix.edu.au/film-symbolism-matrix-cinematic-techniques/.

Tavares (2021). What’s the Difference Between Denotation and Connotation in Film? [online] BeverlyBoy Productions. Available at: https://beverlyboy.com/filmmaking/whats-the-difference-between-denotation-and-connotation-in-film/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2024].

‌

‌

‌

[daughter-of-melpomene]

ship asks 10-20 + aj x roman — @xoteajays

Thank you so much for this!! Also gonna tag @stelstellakidd since I know she loves Fast & Furious too. <3 <3

Do they share any hobbies or interests? How do these things bring them together?

Well, of course they do share a mutual love for cars, even if AJ’s interest lies more in modifying and suping them up then actually driving them, and, of course, all of the craziness the Toretto family gets up to and breaking the law in general. And these things bring them together in a lot of ways; in addition to AJ’s ties with the Shaw family quite literally being the reason they met in the first place, spending time with the team on adrenaline-fuelled adventures and committing smaller crimes together in between missions allows them to bond and reaffirm all the things they love about each other.

How do they feel about nicknames/pet names? If they like them, what pet names do they use? If they hate them, why do they feel that way?

AJ doesn’t like them very much, mostly because he’s kind of awkward with affection directed at him in general, but he doesn’t mind when Roman calls him “babe” or “baby”. Roman’s a bit better about them, but he’s still not comfortable with anything too mushy - he does really like when AJ calls him “love,” though.

Do they have a difficult time when separated from each other, or are they fairly independent?

They are both fairly independent people, but because of AJ’s anxiety, he tends to have the harder time when Rome’s off without him. It isn’t that he doesn’t trust Roman, but he does know the other man’s reckless tendencies all too well, and he often worries that he’ll get himself into danger if AJ isn’t there to act as his impulse control. Roman is a lot better about being left without his boyfriend; depending on where AJ’s going or if he knows where he is, he might worry, but mostly he trusts AJ to keep himself safe.

How do they keep in contact when they’re apart? Do they write letters, talk on the phone, or simply wait out the time?

They’re not often apart after AJ becomes an official member of the Toretto team, but when they are, they usually content themselves with texting each other, or doing a video call if there’s time for it; neither of them could stand just waiting out the time until they’re reuinited.

Do they enjoy PDA, or are they more private with affection?

They may hold hands in public or, if they’re going their separate ways, share a quick kiss before they go, but nothing beyond that; AJ’s too awkward with affection for anything else in the presence of others, and although Roman has gotten to a much better place with his feelings about his sexuality and love for AJ, there’s still a part of him that gets nervous at the thought of being too affectionate around other people.

What songs remind you of their relationship?

“Tough Love” by Avicii, “Delicate” by Taylor Swift, and “Good Old-Fashioned Lover Boy” by Queen.

Would they ever get matching tattoos? If yes, what would these look like?

I don’t know if they ever actually would, and if they did it would be AJ’s first and only one because he’s terrified of needles, but if they did, the tattoos would be matching sports cars on their forearms.

How well do they communicate? Are they open with their feelings/thoughts or more reserved? Why?

They are… not fantastic at communicating, mainly because neither of them are very good with emotions in general (AJ more with properly communicating them and Roman more with expressing them in general). This can cause problems in their relationship, but they do try to make the effort because they know it’s important.

How do they care for each other when one of them is wounded/sick?

If it’s a person who’s hurt Roman, AJ will actually get angry, raring to go out and get revenge on the person who hurt him, but he will make sure he’s okay and his wounds are properly tended too first. If he’s sick, however, he will absolutely dote on his boyfriend, making sure he has everything he needs and checking up on him as constantly as he dares without getting annoying.

Roman isn’t as good at taking care of people, it doesn’t come naturally to him, but he will make sure to be right by AJ’s side and lean on the people around him for extra support. If AJ’s injured, he’ll leave the patching up to Mia or Brian, hold AJ’s hand the whole time, and be at his side the whole time he recovers; if he’s sick, he’ll call Tej because he makes the best chicken noodle soup, and make sure to make a list of all the things Mia told him help best for sick people so he never forgets for next time.

Do they wear each other’s clothes/jewelry?

It’s mainly AJ wearing Roman’s clothes, since AJ’s are too small for Roman to wear, but he will occasionally snatch a shirt or jacket that Roman will vehemently deny that he finds cute, and they also get matching chain necklaces after two years together.

How do they comfort each other when one of them is upset? Is this method of comfort effective?

AJ isn’t very good at verbal comfort, so his usual method of comforting Roman is just to tuck himself into his boyfriend’s side and lay his head on his shoulder, giving Roman all the time he needs to speak or return the contact and making it clear that he can tell AJ to leave if he needs to. It’s his way of making it clear that he’s right there with Rome no matter what, and though it may not always work immediately, it does always work.

Roman, however, is a very verbal person, as we know, so if AJ is upset or overwhelmed, his usual tactic is to just start talking - telling a random funny story, sharing memories about him and Brian as kids, anything lighthearted that he can think of. It’s a trick for bringing AJ out of his head and cheering him up a bit, and though it can be hit-or-miss, it’s always done with the best of intentions.

ship ask game!!