#deadly virtues 2014

[thedarkmistress16]

What movie or TV show most accurately portrays yandere?

for tv shows i have no idea but here's an old doc detailing the movies ive seen that include yan traits in a character and/or have storylines that are reminiscent of yan behaviors. no idea if I remember writing the summaries myself from compiling multiple ones or pulled them straight from their wikis, but the personal thoughts section are def all me, lol.

been a while since i watched these so my ratings may change, but lmk what you think of these! and feel free to rec some yan films or tv shows you want me to give my thoughts on 😊

[viriditic]

─── ⠀     *  ⠀     ❪  NO  VARIETY  is  a  fictional  girl  group,  based  in  south  korea.  the  group  was  formed  on  the  first  season  of  ENTVISS’  THE SUNDOWN SHOW  which  would  debut  a  five-member  girl  group  under  SOLARIA  GARDENS.  as  of  2013,  the  group  originally  consisted  of  JAENA,  TATIANA,  PEARL,  NARAE  and  HARUNA  and  they  had  a  dream/nightmare  concept.  in  2014,  CELENE,  former  backup  dancer  and  PRIN,  a  model  were  added  to  the  lineup  after  being  runnerups  on  mystery  box,  which  shifted  the  concept  to  the  seven  deadly  sins.  after  record  breaking  performances  in  south  korea  and  japan,  and  re-popularizing  solaria’s  company  lore,  new  york  popstar,  ANASTASIA  was  added  to  the  group  in  2015  which  stirred  controversy  becaue  she  wasn’t  korean.  however,  over  the  next  year,  no  variety’s  relevancy  in  south  korea  lessened  yet  became  sensations  in  north  america.  the  group’s  controversies  continued  when  DAVINA,  the  sister  of  OPERATIC’s  leader  debuted  in  the  gorup  alongside  YUA  NIIKURA,  who  was  olympic  medalist  figure  skater  and  youtube  cover  artist. 

despite  their  music  continuously  topping  charts  globally,  and  their  personal  content  raking  in  views,  no  variety’s  reputation  went  from  korea’s  sweethearts  to  undeserving  recklooses  almost  overnight,  a  reputation  propagated  by  their  own  manager–  who  invoked  a  year  long  lawsuit  against  the  girls  in  2020.

──⠀۪ ⠀⠀★ ۫  ⠀⠀ the details

GROUP NAME:  no variety

COMPANY:  solaria gardens

DEBUT DATE:  october 31, 2013

DEBUT SINGLE:  sweetdream

GENRE:  pop, pop rock, 

GREETING:  “always the odd variable, hello we are no variety!”

FANDOM NAME:  virtues

FANDOM COLOUR:  mountain mist (#998E9C)

──⠀۪ ⠀⠀★ ۫  ⠀⠀ the details

JU JAEEUN "JAENA" ( '93 )

TATIANA WON ( '94 )

MARGARETTA "PEARL" YOUNG ( '95 )

SOHN NARAE ( '95 )

XU HUIQING "CELENE" ( '95 )

PRIYANAN SAENGCHAN "PRIN" ( '96 )

ANASTASIA FROST ( '96 )

HARUNA KUROMIYA ( '96 )

DAYOUNG "DAVINA" OK ( '97 )

YUA NIIKURA ( '97 )

──⠀۪ ⠀⠀★ ۫  ⠀⠀ the discography

TBA.

[fuckyeaharthuriana]

mordred through time (movies, tv shows, opera and musicals)

Part 3: From 2002 to 2010

Other Parts: Part 1: From 1949 to 1981 -> here Part 2: From 1982 to 2002 -> here Part 4: From 2014 to 2017 Part 5: From 2018 to 2023

Complete list of part 2 media with extra information and some of my thoughs regarding the evolution of Mordred’s role is under cut.

In part 2 I talked a bit about how in movie adaptations (since Excalibur 1981) Morgause disappears and Morgana takes her role as Mordred's mother. Here I wanted to note how we actually have a very big gap of Mordred movies in the 2000s. Most of the media in this video are recordings of musicals or opera or tv shows.

Another small point is that we have here the second instance of Mordred in a romantic relationship (the first instance being Mordred and his lady in "Sword of Lancelot") in Merlin BBC, where his love for Kara is a central part of his character development. The third and only other instance will be in a webseries (in part 4!).

2002 Merlin the Return: Craig Sheffer plays an over the top extremely evil Mordred in this tv movie. He is still Morgana's son, and he is the main antagonist (and a wizard). The movie is - an experience. It mainly focus on modern day characters meeting time travelling Arthur and Merlin.

2003 Gary Hughes' album "Once and future king": The song is "The Hard Way", one of the two songs sung by Mordred (the other being "Demon Down"). This album (divided in two parts) has a total of 20 songs sung by different artists each interpreting an arthurian character. It is an interesting narrative musical that follows the rise and fall of Arthur. We do not know if Mordred is Arthur's son.

2003 recording of Albeniz's "Merlin" opera: This is a 1902 opera that is rarely performed nowadays. This recording is the only available dvd of it, and Mordred (a baritone) is played by Àngel Òdena. Mordred is the main antagonist alongside his mother Morgana.

2003 Camelot, Papermill Playhouse: I was lucky enough to have some bootlegs videos of Camelot performances so I decided to put them as well. It is pretty interesting to see how Mordred's "The Seven Deadly Virtues" and "Fie on Goodness!" gets campier, more comedici and sillier! Here Mordred is played by Barrett Foa.

2005 Camelot, Bad Hersfeld (Germany): Another recording of the Broadway musical, here fully translated in German! This is the website of the open air event. Unfortunately I could not find the name of the actor.

2008 Camelot (Live from Lincoln Center): Live from Lincoln Center used to be a tv series dedicated to filming and sharing musicals and performances. This is thus another Camelot musical adaptation. Bobby Steggert (who is now a therapist!!) played an over the top, super-campy, queer coded Mordred! This is probably the first time we have a Mordred that is so obviously queer coded in his presentation.

2008 Merlin (BBC): This 5 seasons tv show was extremely popular, so much it led to the rise of a bunch of arthurian tv movies that were probably trying to ride "Merlin"'s popularity. The show is episodic-like, slightly comedic, and focuses on Merlin and Arthur. Mordred appears as a child (not related to Arthur or Morgana) at the end of Season 1 and he was portrayed by Asa Butterfield (not in video). Then he returned as an adult in Season 5, potrayed by Alexander Vlahos. This is another instance of a sympathetic Mordred. While he ends up being a villain and finding an alliance with Morgana, the show makes a point to explain his reasons. At this point this is the second time we see a sympathetic (but still villanous) Mordred on tv. Interestingly this is also the second time we see a Mordred who is in a happy romantic relationship (there are only three instances, it seems, in all media!), as Mordred is in love with a woman named Kara.

2009 Merlin and the Book of Beasts: This is a fantasy tv movie that focus on Merlin helping Arthur's daughter reclaim Camelot. It features a baffling performance from Merlin's actor (not sure what the director or the actor himself was thinking), and a villain called Arkadian who is supposed to be Mordred and Arthur's son. Here we go back to the role of extremely evil Mordred, and Arkadian also kidnaps his half-sister to marry her and continue the Pendragon dynasty. Mordred (Arkadian) is played by Jim Thorburn.

2010 Avalon High: This is a tv Disney channel movie adaptation of Meg Cabot's novel by the same title. The movie butchers the main story of the novel and tries to surprise its viewers by changing the character's arthurian selves. The protagonist Allie is now King Arthur's reincarnation (instead of the Lady of the Lake), and William (her love interest) is... unknown character instead of being King Arthur. The novel has William's half brother as Mordred, but the movie changes that and now it is the teacher (Mr. Moore) who is revealed to be Mordred, while Marco is just a misdirection. Mr. Moore is played by Steve Valentine.

2010 Merlin and Arthur the Lion King: Continuing our journey into sympathetic Mordreds, we have another one here! This movie is one in a series of tv movies/dvd movies by variation of "Arthur" and "Merlin" in the title. My personal theory is that the hope is that people would find the movie by googling for more popular media (ex. "Merlin 2008 BBC", "King Arthur 2004"). In this animated kids movie, Mordred is a kitten and one of Arthur's friends. He first works with Morgana to stop Arthur from becoming king, but then ends up deciding he does not want to betray his friend anymore. This might be one of the few iterations of a completely redeemed Mordred in movies/tv!

Extra note: 2003 is also the year Heather Dale (singer) released her album "May Queen" which has one song that in my opinion seemed to be sung by Mordred or to Mordred: "Crashing Down". Because it is not certain but only my interpretation I did not add it.

In the same album we also have "War Between Brothers" which reference to Mordred (sung by an external narrator). A previous album ("The trials of Lancelot" in 2000) also contains the famous song "Mordred's Lullaby" which is sung by Morgana to Mordred.

[amayarblog]

Dystopian Movies Originated from YA Novels 🏙️

The Era of Dystopian Fiction

The 2010s was the era of dystopian fiction in cinema, featuring iconic films loved by many. With the incredible popularity and success of these movies, it is often overlooked that many were based on YA novels. Here’s a deeper look at “The Hunger Games,” “Divergent,” and “The Maze Runner,” some of my personal favorites from the time.

“The Hunger Games” (2012) 🏹

Based on: Suzanne Collins’ trilogy

Plot: Set in a post-apocalyptic world, the story follows Katniss Everdeen, who volunteers to take her younger sister's place in the annual Hunger Games—a televised event where children fight to the death. The movie was entertaining and quick-paced. As an adaptation, it does a sufficient job portraying the depth of the characters, particularly the mental turmoil that arises in life-and-death situations.

I found the dynamic between the two social classes particularly compelling. Specifically, between the wealthy citizens of the Capitol and the impoverished citizens, such as the citizens of Katniss’ district, District 12. The rich treat the Hunger Games as a twisted form of reality television. While the wealthy derive entertainment from watching humans fight to the death, ordinary citizens live in poverty and oppression. This dynamic highlights strong themes of life under an oppressive government, poverty, privilege, and the dissociation of humanity through the media.

“Divergent” (2014) 🏢

Based on: Veronica Roth’s Series

Plot: In a dystopian future, society is divided into five factions each representing their own virtue. Tris Prior discovers she is “Divergent,” meaning she does not fit into any one faction. As she navigates this world of Factions, she discovers corruption occurring behind the scenes.

Similar to many adaptations, the movie felt fast-paced. The movie, however, successfully provided visuals that highlight the important topics. For example, the different factions were well portrayed, showing stark differences through appearance and clothing. Additionally, scenes displaying Tris’ individuality as a Divergent are displayed strongly, highlighting the struggle living against conformity— a prevalent theme throughout “Divergent.”

“The Maze Runner” (2014) 🧩

Based on: James Dashner’s novel

Plot: “The Maze Runner” follows Thomas, who wakes up in a mysterious maze with no memory of his past. Along with other boys, he must find a way to escape while facing deadly creatures. The movie highlights the nature of humanity in extreme circumstances, exploring themes of friendship and a quest for freedom.

The movie is engaging due to its fast paced action and suspense. I found the movie to be an enjoyable watch for its portrayal of humanity, specifically through hope, as the characters faced seemingly impossible tasks where hope becomes a driving force for survival.

The impact of these movies is significant because they all address specific societal issues through extreme examples within fictional, dystopian settings. Whether you read the books or watch the movies, both offer worthwhile insights into the topics and themes presented in each story.

Movie Trailers:

[byneddiedingo]

Michael Keaton in Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (Alejandro G. Iñárritu, 2014)

Cast: Michael Keaton, Zach Galifianakis, Edward Norton, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Lindsay Duncan, Merritt Wever. Screenplay: Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Armando Bo, based in part on a play by Raymond Carver. Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki. Production design: Kevin Thompson. Film editing: Douglas Crise, Stephen Mirrione. Music: Antonio Sanchez. 

So, on a repeat viewing, does Birdman hold up as the triumph of style, technique, and performance that won it a best picture Oscar, or is it seriously undermined by pretentiousness and banality? That it is undermined I can't deny, just as I can't deny that the style of Kevin Thompson's production design and Antonio Sanchez's drum score are fresh and powerful, that the technical wizardry of Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography and the film editing of Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione provide a seamless flow that appears to be one long tracking shot through most of the film, and that Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, and Emma Stone give career-landmark performances. But I also have to say that I don't think the movie adds up to enough. As Richard Brody observed in his New Yorker review, Iñárritu even courts comparison to Jean-Luc Godard in the opening titles of his film -- a disastrous comparison to my mind, because whatever his faults, Godard was always going against the grain of conservative politics and social attitudes. Iñárritu is attempting a satire on the power of popular culture and celebrity to foul up even the best-intentioned attempts at doing something different. The problem is that his protagonist, Riggan Thomson (Keaton), is doing little more than trying to change his public image. He's known as a pop-culture hero from his hit Birdman movies, but like every clown who wants to play Hamlet, he's trying to make a Broadway debut in a deadly serious play he has crafted from a Raymond Carver short story. Naturally, he is plagued with insecurity, and nothing that his family, his crew, his fellow actors, or the busily buzzing entertainment media can break him free of it. There is a good human story here, but Iñárritu and his fellow screenwriters, Nicolás Giacabone, Alexander Dinelaris, and Armando Bo, can't be content to just tell it. Instead, it has to be tarted up with touches of magic realism (the first time we see Riggan he is in his underpants, levitating in his dressing room), and by the unstated fact that Iñárritu has cast as the former Birdman a former Batman. We are in the realm of that tiresome theme, the relationship between illusion and reality, and the screenwriters can't help hammering on the point. Riggan has a sign on his dressing room mirror that says, "A thing is a thing, not what is said about that thing." And Mike (Norton) insists that he has to drink real gin during the rehearsals because Raymond Carver was a drunk and everything else on the set is fake. He even tells Riggan's daughter (Stone) that the only time he is real is when he's onstage. The satire tends toward banality when the film takes as its target the omnipotent critic (Lindsay Duncan) for the New York Times, who is determined, even before she sees the play, to destroy it because she resents a movie star like Riggan invading the sacred temple of the theater. So does the technical finesse of the film make up for these flaws? Only if you're willing to shut off some key parts of your intellect, which is something Godard would never ask you to do.

[ingek73]

Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That Might Show Why She And Prince Harry Are Cutting Off Royal Reporters

Over the years, Meghan has been shamed for the same things for which her sister-in-law, Kate, has been praised.

Ellie Hall

BuzzFeed News Reporter

Last updated on January 13, 2020, at 12:00 p.m. ET

Posted on January 13, 2020, at 10:40 a.m. ET

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex (aka Prince Harry and Meghan Markle) didn't just shockingly "step back" as senior members of the royal family this week — they gave the UK media a big "fuck-you" for years of what they said was biased and unfair coverage.

The couple's new website on breaking up with years of royal protocol laid out — among a lot of other things — their media strategy, stating that they will no longer participate in the traditional royal press system that grants exclusive access to a select group of UK outlets.

Britain’s royal correspondents, they said, are seen as reliable sources of information. "This misconception propels coverage that is often carried by other outlets around the world, amplifying frequent misreporting," they wrote. Removing themselves from "royal rota" coverage has sparked an outcry among UK media and drew a protest from the National Union of Journalists.

This isn't a new complaint from the royal couple — they just took an unprecedented step to do something about it. Harry and Meghan have said publicly that they believe they have been treated unfairly by the UK press since the moment news broke of their relationship — that they are bullied, that there are racist undertones to coverage of them, and that they have been held to a different standard than Harry's brother and sister-in-law, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (aka Prince William and Kate Middleton).

The UK media outlets that currently make up the royal rota are the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Evening Standard, the Telegraph, the Times, and the Sun.

Here is a look at 20 stories from these outlets that appear to show a double standard between press coverage of Meghan and Kate. BuzzFeed News has reached out to all of the outlets featured below for comment.

Kate: "Bumping along nicely! The Duchess was seen placing a protective hand on her tummy as she exited the event." Daily Mail: March 22, 2018

Meghan: "Personally, I find the cradling a bit like those signs in the back of cars: Baby on Board. Virtue signaling, as though the rest of us barren harridans deserve to burn alive in our cars." Daily Mail: Jan. 26, 2019

Kate and William: "Prince William was given one of the green fruit – wrapped up in a bow – by a little boy who's mother is suffering during her pregnancy too... 'He said he'd take it to [Kate] and see what happens – and said good luck for [the boy's] mummy.'" Express: Sept. 14, 2017

Meghan: "The pregnant Duchess of Sussex and so-called 'avocado on toast whisperer' is wolfing down a fruit linked to water shortages, illegal deforestation and all round general environmental devastation." Express: Jan. 23, 2019

Kate: "Royal sources said yesterday that the Queen understood and endorsed William and Kate’s decision not to spend Christmas Day with her. One said: ‘Her Majesty understands that it is a dilemma that many young couples face and acknowledges how close Catherine’s relationship is with her family." Daily Mail: Dec. 16, 2016

Meghan: "The fact is the Queen expects to have the family around her for the festive season... to the Queen, for whom the tradition of the family gathering is a key date in her calendar, Harry and Meghan’s absence will be a matter of great sadness. It will also be a source of frustration." Daily Mail: Nov. 13, 2019

Kate and William: "Creating their own companies will allow William and Kate to bring out, should they ever chose to, myriad items of officially-endorsed merchandise from tea towels to coffee cups... Kensington Palace officials said they were doing the ‘sensible thing’ in protecting the couple’s rights." Daily Mail: Jan. 17, 2014

Meghan and Harry: "The Sussexes want to stamp their name on dozens of products including T-shirts, hoodies, journals and gloves for their newly-created foundation Sussex Royal... Experts said Harry and Meghan were actively preparing to quit the Royal Family months ago by filing trade mark applications to commercially protect their brand." Daily Mail: Jan. 9, 2020

Kate and William: "Prince William yesterday backed brother Harry’s brave admission of his mental anguish — and blasted the monarchy’s 'stiff upper lip' tradition... William said: 'There may be a time and a place for the ‘stiff upper lip’ but not at the expense of your health... '

"'Catherine and I are clear we want both George and Charlotte to grow up feeling able to talk about their emotions and feelings. Over the past year we have visited a number of schools together where we have been amazed listening to children talk about some quite difficult subjects in a clear and emotionally articulate way, something most adults would struggle with. Seeing this has really given me hope things are changing and there is a generation coming up who find it normal to talk openly about emotions.'” Sun: April 19, 2017

Meghan and Harry: "Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have bucked royal tradition once again with their latest TV interview — in which they claimed they were 'existing, not living.' The couple ditched the stiff upper lip of previous Royal Family generations and flew the flag for 'Generation Therapy' as they revealed their emotions to the world - but were they right to do so?

"What you make of 'fragile' Prince Harry and Meghan's comments may depend on your generation. Sun parents and kids reveal what they think of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex airing their emotions in public - and whether they have the right to moan in such positions of privilege..." Sun: Oct. 23, 2019

Kate: "It was reported that new Duchess of Cambridge requested her favorite scented candles and toiletries from luxury fragrance brand Jo Malone be delivered to scent the Abbey. A selection of candles, handwashes and lotions was requested, specifically in citrus spring scents including Orange Blossom, Grapefruit and the ever-popular Lime, Basil & Mandarin." Daily Mail: May 4, 2011

Meghan: "'Meghan wanted staff to go around with these atomizers, like spritzer guns, and spray the chapel with scent before anyone arrived. Royal Household staff stepped in and told her office politely, but firmly, that this was the queen's chapel and it simply wasn't appropriate. I don't believe they said no because they thought it could affect the chapel in any way. It was simply the principle of the thing. This is a place that has held royal weddings, funerals and even contains the royal vault. I don't believe a request of that nature had been made before.'" Daily Mail: Nov. 30, 2018

Kate: "As far as bridal bouquets go there was nothing particularly regal about Kate Middleton’s modest arrangement of simple, seasonal flowers. Like the bride herself the bouquet was effortlessly elegant and understated.

"Yet behind that modest posy lay a secret story. Kate, the commoner-turned-duchess, had painstakingly selected blooms with real meaning. She is evidently well-versed in the language of flowers, a little-known romantic relic from the 19th century.

"Hence the use of lilac in her bouquet, which signifies the first emotions of love, the lily of the valley meaning a return of happiness, hyacinth standing for constancy, myrtle meaning love and the ivy, which represents fidelity. Then of course there was the suitably named Sweet William, which is shorthand for gallantry." Express: Aug. 29, 2011

Meghan: "[Meghan Markle] was holding a wedding bouquet which flowers were replicated in Princess Charlotte and the other bridesmaids’ flower crowns. Express.co.uk can now reveal the children’ crowns were made of flowers that can be deadly, especially for children. Meghan’s bouquet was made of forget-me-nots as well as sweet peas, lily of the valley, astilbe, jasmine, and astrantia...

"Lily of the valley is a highly poisonous woodland flowering plant and ingestion could be deadly... As Meghan’s bridesmaids were so young, having this flower on their heads could be considered a dangerous decision. Other brides have also used this flowers including Kate Middleton, Princess Eugenie and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall." Express: Oct. 13, 2019

Kate and William: "The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh missed the small family affair. The decision is understood not to have been taken on health grounds, and to have been mutually agreed by the Queen and the Cambridges some time ago. The Queen, 92, has a busy week ahead, with high-profile celebrations in central London marking the centenary of the RAF on Tuesday, and a visit by US President Donald Trump in Windsor on Friday." Daily Mail: July 9, 2018

Meghan and Harry: "The situation has surprised some senior staff at Buckingham Palace, who feel that the duke and duchess should have planned the day better. ‘There is huge support for the couple in not wanting to conform to tradition. They are young, they are striking out on a different path from other members of the Royal Family and there is enormous goodwill for them. But they shouldn’t do that without regard for tradition,’ said one. ‘Her Majesty was already scheduled to be in Scotland for her annual Holyrood Week and had a prior engagement at the weekend. There is a feeling amongst some that they should have been more accommodating about the date.’" Daily Mail: July 4, 2019

Kate: "It is a fashion conundrum not many of us will ever face, but what exactly does one wear for tea with the Queen? The Duchess of Cambridge met this challenge head on yesterday by co-ordinating her outfit with the Queen’s powder blue ensemble... The Queen, on her first ­official event to mark her Diamond Jubilee, was dressed in a pastel hat and two-piece coat dress with military-style rows of gold buttons designed by Angela Kelly. Looking relaxed and elegant, her outfit was perfect for what looked like a fun official engagement with the girls." Mirror: Feb. 14, 2013

Meghan: "The Queen's aides had told [Meghan] she would be wearing a green hat as a mark of respect to those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire. The Queen is said to have been 'baffled' when Meghan turned up without a hat as she didn't realize she was supposed to wear one too. A senior aide said: 'I don't think the Duchess fully understood. This was not a request. Those are for others to make, not the Queen.' The Queen's staff are said to have noted the Duchess's mistake or 'lack of deference'" Mirror: Oct. 29, 2018

Kate: "We see a woman in her prime: stylish, confident and positively radiant, nailing outfit after outfit in the style stakes — and it’s a joy to witness... That old uniform of girlish dresses, tan tights and nude heels has been replaced by dazzling super-chic outfits to satisfy even the most exacting fashionista." Daily Mail: June 16, 2019

Meghan: "Proper royalty is about tradition and duty, self-effacing service and loyalty — year after year after year, season after season... That is not to say that a monarchy cannot or must not move with the times — simply that it has to resist the temptation to be buffeted by passing cultural trends. Fashion is the exact opposite. And as fashion’s most famous bible, Vogue exemplifies the transient nature of the beast." Daily Mail: July 29, 2019

[toomanyf4ndoms7]

0lympus file Subject 10: The Master

BASICS

What’s their full name? Heath Jackson.

What does their name mean? He doesn’t know.

Do they have any nicknames? Dad, Father, My love, boss, False God.

How old are they? 36

When’s their birthday? 2014 7th of December.

What’s their species/subspecies? Human.

Do they have any special/magical abilities? Sorcery in many fields but refused to learn mind control as it goes against everything he believes.

 If none, what weapon do they favor? Rapier.

APPEARANCE

What do they look like? A man with red hair and brown eyes. Normally in a suit of some kind but can trade it out. Normally wears gloves with the symbol of an eye.

Do they have a face claim? No.

What’s their style like? Respectable.

Clothes, hair, makeup? A black suit with red accents, brown hair and no makeup unless necessary.

How do they carry themselves? Commanding when around subordinates and during work hours. More personable on off days.

What’s their default expression? Neutral.

Do they have any physical ailments or disabilities? No.

PERSONALITY

What’s their alignment? Lawful Evil.

Which one of the 16 Personality Types do they fit into? Commander and Logician.

What are their hobbies and interests? walk around the mansion, check on his wife, subordinates and employees, and read books.

Do they have any particular “favorites” (food, books, and so on)? Apples.

What are they bad at? Juggling and religious devotion.

What kind of things do they dislike/hate? Taking away choice and People who refuse to take responsibility for their choices.

Do they have any vices/addictions/mental illnesses? No.

What are their goals and motivations? assemble the fragments, gain Godlike power, make a new world without Gods.

What are their manners like? Proper but still personable and welcoming.

 Any habits? Drumming his fingers on tables or his throne.

What are they most afraid of? A loss of free will.

BACKGROUND

Where were they born?  An unknown island.

What was their childhood like? Born into a community that worshipped the two Gods, Heath started out following their footsteps. A child eager for knowledge and friendship, everything changed when he became a teenager and looked closer at its contents…

What’s their family like? Loving but very traditionalist in the religion. His wife is science orientated and so they’re both busy but make sure to check in. He loves Lara.

What factions or organizations are they a part of? Tartarus.

What ranks and titles do they hold? Leader and founder of Tartarus organisation.

How do they fit into their “story”? The Big Bad.

Where do they currently live? Tartarus base.

What’s their place like? A family photo, a painting canvas, a stack of books he get around to reading someday, and a drawing Lara made when she was six hung on his wall.

RELATIONSHIPS

Do they have any friends? he makes sure to keep a decent relationship with his subordinates. 

Would they consider anyone to be their best friend? No.

What’s their friend group like? Lara, Jacob, Michael, and Legion/vessel.

What role do they play in it? Gives assignments for them.

What’s their love life like? Married.

Who do they look up to? His parents when younger.

 Who do they trust? Family.

Who do they hate? Anyone who disregards individual choice.

Do they have any enemies? 0lympus.

Do they have any pets? He had a pet rabbit once.

Are they good with kids? Raised one.

Animals? Long as they don’t get in the way.

FUN FACTS

Which tropes do they fit? Affably Evil, Even Evil has loved ones, evil with good publicity, Godhood seeker, A God I am not.

Which archetypes?

Do they play any instruments? Violin or the flute.

 Sports? Fencing.

What are some items they always carry? His phone.

Do they collect anything? Art books.

What position do they sleep in? Facing skywards.

Which emoji would they use the most?🙂

What languages do they speak? English, learned other languages in his travels.

What’s their favourite expletive? Doesn’t curse.

What’s their favourite candle scent? Cinnamon.

Which animal would you say represents them? Unknown.

What stereotypical high school clique would they fit into? Teacher?

What would their favourite ride at an amusement park be? Any kind of accuracy based game.

Do they follow any religions/gods? He used to but after looking closer at how many mistakes the Gods made and its effects on the world at large, he quit.

Do they celebrate holidays? Yes.

Which Deadly Sin do they most correspond to? Envy.

Which Heavenly Virtue? Diligence.

If you had to choose one tarot card to represent them, which would it be? The Emperor.

[steeiydan]

OC-October 2019 Day 8

sable! i made her in 2009 or 2010, so she’s kinda old already!

sable changed a lot. her mascot still doesn’t have a name and im not sure on her magical girl outfit yet. for a while, she had piercings and short hair, but i removed those and gave her longish hair again, cause i love that particular haircut. the leg hair was added in 2014 cause i found it would be funny, and cause i picture sable as someone who rarely shaves. funny enough she’s one of my like... 8 ocs with leg hair lmao

she’s not a bad person, but kind of a dick. when i first made her, she was supposed to be one of these kinda inappropriate anime fans, and i just liked that and never changed it. she’s def the type to wear and ahegao sweatshirt to school lmao sable’s a bit of a rebel, all things considered, but she’s fair and doesn’t attack weaker people without reason. she embodies each deadly sin in one way or another, but she’s okay to be around if she likes you

she picked up the necklace one day and came home to the mascot thing telling her she’s a magical girl now, and she took the job cause she had to. her big rival/nemesis is a cool magical knight who embodies the cardinal virtues cause i thought it would be cool.

thinking about giving her some more magical girls and boys as friends, but im not sure about what to do for them yet

[theories-of]

Nicholas Pope The Conundrum of the Chalices of the Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Virtues (Hope), 2014

[ao3feed-coldflash]

Scarlet

read it on the AO3 at https://ift.tt/2xANb6A

by Archangel_dare

‘Scarlet’ is Len’s favorite nickname for Barry. It’s funny how one word can show the cracks in his mask, can convey every emotion that Len refuses to admit that he has. He’s said it in anger, in lust, in love, and every time he says it, Barry loves it, loves him, just that much more.

The emotions showing in the times Len has called him Scarlet

*Can be read as connected universe or stand-alone

Words: 1969, Chapters: 1/1, Language: English

Fandoms: The Flash (TV 2014), The Flash - All Media Types, DC's Legends of Tomorrow (TV)

Rating: Mature

Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply

Categories: M/M

Characters: Barry Allen, Leonard Snart, Other Minor Characters

Relationships: Barry Allen/Leonard Snart, Captain Cold/The Flash

Additional Tags: One-Sided Barry Allen/Iris West, Sexual Tension, Explicit Sexual Content, 7 Deadly Sins, 7 heavenly virtues, Heists, Gideon time/space calls, Minor Violence

read it on the AO3 at https://ift.tt/2xANb6A

[justincaseitmatters]

Rewind: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Dr. Strangelove after 50 Years

Originally Published in KCActive.com in January 2014. On January 29, 1964, the world discovered something that Bronx-born director Stanley Kubrick had known for a few years: that the only appropriate reaction to the arms race was a dirty joke. In the five decades that have passed since then, countries that once frightened the world have fallen, alliances and rivalries have reversed, technologies have changed and Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb has become more enlightening, infuriating and, yes, hilarious with time. The Chess Master I almost feel sorry for anyone who is forced to discover this movie in a manner that's different from the way I did at age 11. For some reason, Kansas City's KCMO (now KCTV) broadcast the movie for a 10:30 p.m. showing, probably on a Saturday night. My mother, my younger brother and I congregated around the used black-and-white TV in my bedroom, knowing only that the film in question starred our favorite comedian Peter Sellers, from the Pink Panther movies, and that it might be important because the local paper said it was.   I was delighted that my bedroom had turned into a mini-theater and that we wouldn't miss any beautiful color images. Gilbert Taylor's cinematography and Ken Adam's grand sets look just fine in monochrome. Other than the fact that the movie was in black-and-white, we knew nothing about the assault that was coming our way. For most adult viewers, Dr. Strangelove states its devilishly comic intents up front. The movie's notorious opening credits by Pablo Ferro feature a phallic arm fueling a plane in mid-air as a soft instrumental track of "Try a Little Tenderness" plays in the background. As the geeky son of a Baptist deacon, these amorous aircraft completely escaped my notice.

My mother curiously remained silent, but soon the three of us were so thoroughly entertained that we stopped caring that Kubrick and co-screenwriter Terry Southern (the mind behind the kinky novels Candy, Blue Movie and The Magic Christian) were about to turn all three of us into "deviated pre-verts."

It's not surprising to learn that Kubrick once hustled chess in New York as a young man because he reveals his comic intentions gradually. During the the run up to General Jack D. Ripper's unauthorized nuclear assault upon the Soviet Union, my family and and I thought we were watching a straight nuclear war drama. It wasn't until General Ripper made the following declaration at 24 minutes into the film that we discovered that Kubrick was taking the movie into a direction all his own:

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Hearing deep-voiced actor Sterling Hayden utter the word "fluids" without a hint of levity in his voice sent all three of us into hysterics. From here on we knew something was up and that the footage we saw previously was laced with comic venom. We finally noticed Ripper's name and that the pilot of one of Ripper's B52s is Maj. T.J. "King" Kong (played by former rodeo clown Slim Pickens). All Too Real Dr. Strangelove is loaded with characters afflicted with gag names, and sometimes these absurd monikers aren't obvious on an initial viewing. The Soviet Ambassador is Alexi Desadesky (British actor Peter Bull), the President of the United States is Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers), and his top strategist is a former Nazi known as Dr. Strangelove (Sellers, again). While Kubrick and Southern came up with a cornucopia of silly names with sexual connotations, the scenario in Dr. Strangelove is uncomfortably realistic. As more information from the Cold War has become publicly available, the scenario Kubrick, Southern and a Welsh Royal Air Force officer Peter George (from George's 1958 novel Two Hours to Doom a.k.a. Red Alert) cooked up was far from outlandish. Throughout history wars have been started for causes as inexplicable as fluids and water fluoridation, which General Ripper believes has made him impotent. Mental illness and just plain foolishness can strike at anytime  At the beginning of Dr. Strangelove, a disclaimer informs the viewers that the U.S. Air Force has safeguards to prevent the deadly events in the film from occurring. Not really. Around the time that George was writing his thriller about facing nuclear annihilation, Daniel Ellsberg, the future leaker of The Pentagon Papers, discovered that Washington's policy toward who could launch a nuclear attack and when was a mess. In theory, only the president had authorization. Ellsberg, a recent Harvard PhD grad from  working for the RAND Corporation, recalled in his 2002 book Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers:

I learned, for example, the secret that contrary to all public declarations, President Eisenhower had delegated to major theater commanders the authority to initial nuclear attacks under certain circumstances, such as outage of communications with Washington--an almost daily occurrence in those days--or presidential incapacitation   (twice suffered by President Eisenhower). This delegation was unknown to President Kennedy's assistant for national security, McGeorge Bundy--and thus to the president--in early 1961, when I briefed him on the issue. 

In other words, Gen. Ripper and his ilk had already been given a sort of green light. On both sides of the Iron Curtain, only whims of fate seem to have prevented nuclear first strikes. According to David E. Hoffman's The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and its Dangerous Legacy, on September 26, 1983, Soviet Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov received a warning on his instruments informing him the Americans had launched a missile strike on his country. His satellites told him that five missiles were on their way to Mother Russia, but there were no visual sightings to match the alarms wailing at his base. Working simply on instinct, he correctly informed his superiors that no attack was taking place and that the warning system was malfunctioning. It's a good thing he did. Doing so prevented an unprovoked Soviet first strike. Petrov's hunch saved countless lives. Sadly, he had only minutes or seconds to make his fateful decision. The Killing Joke Unfortunately, decisions like Petrov's were all too often made at the last minute and in a state of panic. This is one of the reasons Dr. Strangelove is so entertaining and why satire might be a more effective way to point out the horrors of nuclear war. George's novel is a dark thriller, and Kubrick and George initially set out to make a straightforward adaptation of the book. During pre-production, however, Kubrick noticed that some of the situations described in the book, like the President informing the Soviets how to shoot down his own planes, seemed weirdly comic. George was disappointed by Kubrick's change of heart but later wrote a novelization of the film that even included gags that Kubrick didn't film or eventually cut from the movie (like a coda where space aliens wonder how the planet they've discovered called Earth is now a radioactive graveyard). George's later writing focused on the grim potential of nuclear weapons. Sadly, his concern for the subject may have been a factor when he chose to kill himself in 1966. Strangely, in the finished movie, the humor seems to emphasize how fragile a world with nuclear weapons really is. When word of Gen. Ripper's assault reaches the Pentagon, the news arrives, not to a commander ready to deal with the crisis, but to Gen. Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott) cavorting with his bikini-clad mistress (Tracy Reed). Actually, he's in the bathroom when the urgent call comes. 

Similarly, the Soviet Premier Dimitri Kissoff (who, curiously, is never seen or heard in the film) is not at his office in the Kremlin toiling to make his nation a worker's paradise. So where is he when the Soviets need his attention the most? "You would never reached him at that number," says Ambassador Desadesky. "Our Premier is a man of the people, but he is also a man, if you follow my meaning." 

I should probably add that he's also drunk. Disasters, whether natural or man made, rarely happen at moments that are convenient for us mortals. Kubrick and Southern spent a great amount of time figuring out where leaders might be and wondered what they might eat or drink during the crisis. That explains the improvised buffet table in the Pentagon's War Room. They also knew that leaders are human beings and that they are as prone to mistakes and panicking as anyone else. In most of the dramas that preceded or followed Dr. Strangelove, world leaders appear as conscientious or calm despite the heavy stakes involved. President Muffley, however, is understandably nervous and awkward in explaining the crisis to Premier Kissoff. Sellers improvised much of his dialogue, and the call between the two leaders is hysterically funny because it's impossible to think of a polite or an effective way to relay the grim message at hand.

Kubrick's willingness to embrace panic eventually influenced more mainstream nuclear thrillers. In an interview I conducted with director Phil Alden Robinson for NitrateOnline.com over his 2002 adaptation of the late Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears, he readily acknowledged how Kubrick's comedy affected his own, more serious movie:

Kubrick is the best who ever lived. I have to believe that's what goes on behind closed doors. Once in a while, the President's emotions must get the best of him. Clancy once said, "If you put the leaders of a country in a room and tell them the decisions they make might lead to blowing up the world, only a sociopath would not have an emotional reaction." The most reasonable people in the world, by virtue of their reason, are going to be emotional and distraught and kind of at wit's end at some point.

Why I Still Love the Bomb As I've grown older Dr. Strangelove has become less of a movie to more and more of an old friend. Yes, it's odd that this cynical, fatalistic movie has such a fond spot in my heart. It's no spoiler to reveal that all of the human machinations in the movie fail to stop a nuclear Armageddon. It's also hard to think of a more clever or even nourishing film. Every time I come back to I learn new things. I spot gags that I missed when I saw the movie earlier. Kubrick consulted over 50 books during the making of Dr. Strangelove, and his attention to detail only shows up on repeated viewings. A friend of mine politely told me that Kubrick's movies like Lolita, A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey are an acquired taste, but those of us who have   picked up an appetite continuously love coming back to his films, waiting for new treasures hidden in their frames. One aspect that does hit me from watching the movie again and again is that Kubrick, contrary to what his detractors have contended, actually could create sympathetic and completely human characters. Kubrick skillfully manipulates the audience into liking the crew on Maj. Kong's B52. When a Russian missile stalks the plane, Kubrick wants viewers to feel for the crew. Unlike their commander, Gen. Ripper, their intents are not tainted by his madness. For the sake of the story, it would be best if the missile sent them to a fiery grave. Nonetheless, watching the crew trying to stay in the air is nail biting. Unlike his make believe characters, Kubrick understands that real people are the casualties of war. Gen. Turgidson is little better than Gen. Ripper because he has no sense of proportion or consequence. He suggests that proceeding with Gen. Ripper's strike would be worth it, even if millions die. "I didn't say we wouldn't get our hair mussed," he says. Curiously, time has actually made Dr. Strangelove funnier. When I've discussed the movie with younger people, they've told me that the reasons we and the Soviets looked at each other with dread now seem remote and ridiculous. They're fully aware that the world is still a dangerous place, but they understandably think that fluoridation is not good reason to risk the lives of troops. Kubrick was only 32 when he made Dr. Strangelove, but he wound up making something that continues to enrich our lives long after his death in 1999. Through his love song to the bomb, he's revealed how far we as human beings have to grow to become responsible stewards of the technology we have. It's doubtful he could have conveyed this message so eloquently with a straight face.  

[antoine-roquentin]

In November, Gorsuch delivered the keynote address at the Federalist Society’s annual black-tie dinner, which took place in Washington’s Union Station. Among the conservative VIPs in attendance were Jeff Sessions and Scott Pruitt, Republican senators Ben Sasse and John Cornyn — who would later have Gorsuch to his home for dinner — and Justice Alito. Gorsuch warmed up the room, like a hype man for himself. “Tonight I can report: A person can be both a publicly committed originalist and textualist and be confirmed to the Supreme Court!” And: “Originalism has regained its place, and textualism has triumphed, and neither is going anywhere on my watch!”

Gorsuch was right to note the remarkable rise of these ideas since the Federalist Society’s founding in 1982. Robert Bork, a famously disastrous Supreme Court nominee, was laughed out of his confirmation hearing in 1987 for suggesting the Constitution should be read as it was in the 1780s. Thirty years later, there’s nothing more basic than a conservative judge who swears by the original intent of the Framers. According to one study, the incidence of the word originalism in law-review articles has risen from 15 between 1980 and 1984 to 2,351 between 2010 and 2014.

And yet, Gorsuch complained, his work was still being maligned by liberal elites. He began to call out his haters. “Some pundits have expressed bewilderment that I ask questions at oral argument about the text of our statutes,” he said. “I want to take a poll. I want to know what you think. Should I keep talking about the text and original meaning of the Constitution?” This was like asking Skynyrd fans if they wanted to hear “Free Bird.” A few minutes later, he brought up a critical article from the Harvard Law Review, referring obliquely to “some folks up in Cambridge,” as if he hadn’t once been one of them. “Does anyone else find it curious that daring to ask questions about the status quo is apparently illegitimate, while defending the status quo seems just fine?” Pause for claps. “Oh, well. I think we should just go ahead and ask the questions anyway. Whaddaya say?”

Tonally, the speech seemed a tad … aggressive. “It could have used a little bit of, I don’t know, self-deprecating humor,” says one Federalist Society member who attended. But if the evening felt at times like a campaign rally, that was by design. The point of the Federalist Society is to make room for conservative jurisprudence — and that means, in part, finding ways for right-wing judges to let their hair down. (No transcript of Gorsuch’s speech was made available, but I obtained a recording from someone who attended.) There is a concept known as judicial drift — or “the Greenhouse effect,” after the Times writer. “You get these good conservative justices, they move to D.C., they get on the Court, D.C. is a liberal area, the media is liberal, they want approval, start tempering their conservatism, and drift to the left,” explains Amanda Hollis-Brusky, a Pomona College political scientist. “What the Federalist Society has done has created a competing judicial audience, so these justices and judges don’t need to seek the applause of the liberal, Establishment media.” If they stay true to this constituency, they get celebrated, invited to more conferences. If they go off the reservation, they get roasted. Which helps explain why Roberts fled to Malta for two weeks — “It’s an impregnable fortress island,” he joked — after upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate in 2012.

In the same way that tea-party — and now Trumpian — politics have become indistinguishable from mainstream Republicanism, the Federalist Society has come to occupy the dead center of conservative judicial thought. The paradigm shift started in 2005, when George W. Bush nominated his friend Harriet Miers, the White House counsel, to the Supreme Court. Conservatives had already been burned when Bush’s father nominated the moderate liberal David Souter, who was friendly with the White House chief of staff. The Federalists revolted, Bush pulled the Miers nomination, and he nominated the far-right Alito instead. When it came time to choose Scalia’s successor, no revolt was necessary. “Because of the force of the Federalist Society,” Hollis-Brusky says, “Trump was just taking orders.”

The infrastructure built up by the Federalist Society — and the Heritage Foundation, and the Judicial Crisis Network — is designed not just to breed elite conservative lawyers but elite conservative lawyers in the flame-throwing mold of Scalia. “One of [Scalia’s] functions was to provide a line for the larger conservative community to latch on to both in oral arguments and in opinions,” says University of Baltimore Law School professor Garrett Epps. “He was always very sure to dominate the op-eds with something and go way over the edge.” While his caustic dissents alienated colleagues — and may have undermined his own influence on the Court — they became, over time, a canonical body of work around which the conservative legal movement would rally. Among the conservative justices, Roberts and Kennedy now occupy the ideological center of the Court; Thomas and Alito, while reliably right wing, aren’t rock stars. That leaves Gorsuch — and Gorsuch knows it.

A few weeks before his Federalist Society speech, Gorsuch heard a case with major political implications. The justices would rule on the electoral maps Wisconsin Republicans were accused of gerrymandering for partisan gain. Gorsuch’s seat is located on the far side of the Supreme Court bench, next to Sonia Sotomayor’s. It is not a young court, and Gorsuch’s fresh-scrubbed look stands out. Ginsburg is visible mainly from the scrunchie that peeks out over her seat. Thomas reclines at impossibly low angles and often appears unconscious. Gorsuch, eyes wide, hair gelled, has the bearing of a man who sleeps well at night.

Toward the end of the case, Gorsuch jumped in to grill Paul Smith, the lawyer arguing against Wisconsin’s maps, implying the Court had little business getting involved at all. “Maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter of the Constitution,” he tut-tutted. “Where exactly do we get the authority to revise state legislative lines?” A moment later, Ginsburg piped up with a sharp rejoinder: “Where did ‘one person, one vote’ come from?” (Answer: the 14th Amendment.) Gorsuch then tried again. “Do you see any impediment to Congress acting in this area?” he asked Smith. “Other than the fact that politicians are never going to fix gerrymandering?” Smith replied. “They like gerrymandering.” The audience in the gallery cracked up, and Gorsuch stopped talking. “It was ‘Welcome to the NFL, rookie,’ ” says Epps. “My 1Ls could answer that.”

This mirrored an immigration case that took place the day before. “I look at the text of the Constitution — always a good place to start — and the Due Process Clause speaks of the loss of life, liberty, or property,” he intoned. “When the law runs out and the judges cannot say what the law is, they don’t make it up. Right?” And that in turn echoed a moment from his very first oral argument, when he asked a lawyer if they could explore “the plain words of the statute” together. When the lawyer replied that he wasn’t asking the Court to break new ground in interpreting the law in question, Gorsuch interjected, “No, just to continue to make it up.”

Delivering civics lessons from the bench has turned out to be Gorsuch’s signature move. “He showed up and started speaking a lot at arguments and, quite frankly, said a number of condescending and stupid things to his colleagues,” says a recent Supreme Court clerk. Compared to Scalia, who terrorized lawyers during oral arguments, Gorsuch is mild. But if Scalia’s defining trait was snark, Gorsuch’s might be smarm. Take his habit of asking lawyers to “help” him with some aspect of a case he evidently finds obvious. He’s done this in 15 different cases.

Behind the shtick, Gorsuch is performing a conservative virtue signal. In his 2016 paean to Scalia, Gorsuch called for judges “to apply the law as it is,” not to decide cases based on “moral convictions” or “policy consequences.” In theory, this gets to the heart of his predecessor’s narrow jurisprudence. In practice, it can be difficult to argue, credibly, that the answer to every single Court case is obvious from the words of a statute, or the Constitution, or the thesaurus, or whatever. Gorsuch doesn’t have Scalia’s dexterity. “It’s almost like a kid trying on his dad’s suit, and it’s just too big for him,” says David Lat, the founder of the legal website Above the Law. Or as Rick Hasen, a professor at UC Irvine’s law school, puts it, “He’s Scalia without the spontaneous wit and charm.”

The textualist monomania seems to grate especially on Ginsburg, who was famously close with Scalia. In January, after a Gorsuch dissent called out the “absurdities” of her reasoning in an otherwise deadly case about legal filing deadlines, she cheekily responded in a footnote, writing that Gorsuch’s tendentious reading of the case “conjures up absurdities” of its own. In April, she wrote a terse one-paragraph dissent critiquing Gorsuch’s “wooden” reading of a law, and in her blistering dissent in May’s big workers-rights case, she called his opinion “egregiously wrong,” invoking the infamous 1905 anti-labor decision Lochner v. New York.

The pro-Gorsuch crowd thinks the anti-Gorsuch crowd is being hysterical. “He seems to trigger a very intense reaction on the left,” says National Review legal writer Ed Whelan. “I don’t think it’s easily explicable by objective fact. Our president can disrupt and derange people in a lot of ways. I think a lot of people are deflecting their hostility toward Trump onto Gorsuch.”

Perhaps. But talk of intra-Court feuding doesn’t seem outlandish. Last fall, veteran CNN Court correspondent Joan Biskupic reported on an emerging rift between Roberts and Gorsuch. Later, NPR’s Totenberg said it was Justice Elena Kagan who was taking Gorsuch to task in the justices’ twice-weekly conferences. “With Elena Kagan and the chief justice, you have this sense that they’re playing the long game,” says Amy Howe, a Supreme Court beat reporter who publishes on Scotusblog. Both dissent less frequently than their colleagues and strive behind the scenes for consensus.

And yet the Court has published opinions this term at a historically sluggish pace. Some speculate that’s because Kennedy is flagging and will soon retire. But it might also be because an intransigent Gorsuch is gumming up the works. Like a gunner in a 1L lecture hall, Gorsuch strives to make himself heard. In his first 30 cases, Gorsuch dissented six times; Roberts, by comparison, dissented once. (“Media speculation suggesting Justice Gorsuch isn’t getting along with his colleagues is ridiculous,” says Jamil Jaffer, who clerked for Gorsuch last term. “Of course, the justices are going to disagree on the law, but it never gets personal.”)

[handlewithcharacter]

Tagged!

Rules: Tag 9 people with excellent taste

I was tagged by @dorothy-williams technically bc she tagged everyone.

Colour(s) I’m wearing right now: So I have a navy blue skirt and a blouse that is stripes of a cream color and a color I’m going to describe to you all as “pastel rust”

Last band t-shirt I bought: I have absolutely no idea. I don’t tend to buy band t-shirts. I genuinely think it was an Elton John t-shirt that I made my dad buy for me when we went to see him at MSG in 2014.

Last band I saw live: Unless you count the really crappy band my sister and I heard at a park in Boston then the last concert I went to was...Fleetwood Macked (a Fleetwood Mack cover band)

Lipstick or Chapstick: Lipstick

Last song I listened to: See You Again by Whiz Khalifa ft. Charlie Puth. It was in a Timeless fanvid and it was really effing sad.

Last movie(s) I watched: I just watched a two-hour movie-ish-thing on Hallmark Movies & Mysteries (they have shows where each episode is two hours so basically a movie) called Signed, Sealed, Delivered: The Altar (I think that’s the title of it.)

Last three TV shows I watched: Good Witch, Preacher, and this show on the science channel that I had to google the title of but it’s called Deadly Intelligence and the episode was on Dr. Bruce Ivins aka possibly the Anthrax Killer.

Last 3 characters I identified with: Ugh the mother in the above referenced Hallmark movie when she was talking about her mental health struggles and how she wanted to be brave like Nellie Bly and Amelia Earheart and this one girl was like “but don’t you see how brave you are?” and the entire thing just had me bawling like a baby. And before that Nick Radford and Lucy Preston.

Book(s) I’m reading right now: “Remain Free” by Gautam Narula and “The Night Watch” by Sarah Waters

Tagging: uuuuuhhhhhh.... @constellationsarestellar @binahlaurellance @by-the-virtue-of-the-muse @amberlewrites @atomicbadass @lifewithpatience2013 I know that’s not nine but anyone who wants to can jump on board this tag train

[mostlysignssomeportents]

#1yrago If you're not reading Saga yet, Book 7 proves you should get caught up RIGHT NOW

Saga is Brian K Vaughan and Fiona Staples' magnificent, visually stunning, adventurous, funny, raunchy, complex and provocative graphic novel; the first six volumes of collected comics moved from strength to strength, fleshing out a universe that was simultaneously surreal and deadly serious, where cute characters could have deadly-serious lives: now, with volume 7, Staples and Vaughan continue their unbroken streak of brilliance.

You know that bit at the start of The Princess Bride where the narrator's father (or grandfather, in the movie) is selling the book to the young boy? All the virtues he enumerates? "Fencing. Fighting. Torture. Poison. True love. Hate. Revenge. Giants. Hunters. Bad men. Good men. Beautifulest ladies. Snakes. Spiders. Beasts of all natures and descriptions. Pain. Death. Brave men. Coward men. Strongest men. Chases. Escapes. Lies. Truths. Passion. Miracles."

That's Saga for you. Volume 7 fleshes out some of the series' best villains (Prince Robot is such a perfect, well-rounded baddie now!); introduces an entire new species of fatalistic weasels as well as impossibly vast, planet-eating babies; gives us vengeance and bravery; comeuppance and self-sacrifice; and heart-ripping tragedies.

Saga feels like it's hitting the balance George Lucas got so horribly wrong with his three prequels: mixing real politics (and realpolitik) with fast-paced adventure and some of the most eyeball-kicking visuals this side of Mos Eisley Cantina (or Metal Hurlant). Vaughan is nominally the writer and Staples the illustrator, but from Vaughan's own descriptions, I know that Staples is really best thought of as a co-writer, and the collaboration is so very fruitful.

I know that it's hard to imagine jumping into a series that's already produced seven collected volumes, but if there's one thing Staples and Vaughan keep proving, it's that this is a series that will repay your investment of time and attention.

Saga Volume 7 [Brian K Vaughan and Fiona Staples/Image Comics]

Previous reviews:

Volumes 1/2 (2013)

Volume 3 (2014)

Volume 4  (2014)

Volume 5 (2015)

Volume 6 (2016)

https://boingboing.net/2017/04/07/beasts-of-all-natures-and-desc.html

[rhetoricandlogic]

Review: KNIGHT’S SHADOW by Sebastien de Castell (Jo Fletcher Books)

...

Sebastien de Castell’s debut, Traitor’s Blade, is one of my favourite novels from 2014 — it was fast-paced, swashbuckling, interesting and well-written. It brought back some of the fun to fantasy, while remaining somewhat (grim)dark. It was with much anticipation, therefore, that I dove in to Knight’s Shadow very shortly after I got my hands on a copy. Right from the start, we learn that this is a far more substantial, ambitious novel.

I’m going to keep this relatively short, as I want to avoid spoilers where possible. Knight’s Shadow is about half again as longer as Traitor’s Blade. When I first saw the size of the hardcover, I was quite pleased by the prospect of reading a more substantial novel set in de Castell’s world, featuring his engaging, varied characters. After finishing, I am of two minds about the added length.

First of all, de Castell packs in a lot of story — a lot happens, there are many switcheroos, and a few red herrings. The three core, original Greatcoats at the centre of our band of heroes — Falcio, Brasti and Kest — really get put through their paces, suffer a lot of abuse (physical and emotional), and also do one hell of a lot of travelling. This allows for a great amount of character development as well as story development. And, certainly, events move forward quite a bit. (While there is a third novel planned, this could also work quite well as an ambiguous ending.) The three Greatcoats are interesting and engaging guides to this setting, and while the novel is told entirely from Falcio’s perspective, we learn a lot about them and their companions — including Aline, the heir to the throne; the new Greatcoat and formerly fake princess Valiana; the Tailor, with her hidden agenda and single-minded determination to protect her granddaughter at all cost. Even secondary and fleeting characters are interesting and well-drawn.

That being said, because there’s so much story crammed into these 600 pages, the momentum is a little off. Knight’s Shadow is not nearly as tightly written/plotted as Traitor’s Blade. There were plenty of chapters, or groups of chapters during which I was hooked, utterly engrossed in de Castell’s storytelling. But then, all to often, a following chapter would slam on the breaks, or give a strange amount of attention to an event or scene that could have been cut or pruned considerably. I couldn’t escape the feeling that de Castell managed to do more with less in his debut.

The author injects plenty of ambiguity into the story, as well as onto the world’s past. As the characters experience ever-more-brutal set backs, they start to question themselves, their memories of the King, their purpose. Falcio in particular, who has always been self-deprecating to a fault, experiences the most self-doubt. There are betrayals aplenty (some might think a couple too many), less swashbuckling action, but a lot more mystery. There are multiple factions, working towards their own ends, strings manipulated by any number of nefarious power players. I liked the scope of the story, and the way de Castell maneuvered his characters to the final confrontation and short conclusion. I enjoyed the fact that de Castell doesn’t explain everything — save for a few early passages, there was no info-dumping (or, if there was, it was expertly woven into the story and didn’t come across that way). I even enjoyed the fact that, in one way or another, each character is sometimes unpleasant, unheroic, selfish. Even Falcio, who is as near a paragon of virtue as one can find in Tristia, is flawed. His apparent lack of awareness of his awesomeness and virtue, however, saves him from becoming a lame Awesome Hero. The villains are not cartoony, and a handful of them go through realistic shifts in character, grounded in events and justifiable. But, of course, not too transformative. The Duke of Rijou, for example, will likely always be an arsehole…

Overall, then, Knight’s Shadow is a solid follow-up, but one that suffered a bit from the author’s considerable ambition (and ambition is not a bad thing to have by any means). I know I’ve focused a bit more on the ‘negative’ side in the review, but this is because they are flaws that were almost entirely absent from Traitor’s Blade. There’s still plenty to love in the novel, but given its uneven momentum, it doesn’t deliver as powerful or immediate an impact as Traitor’s Blade. It was only after finishing that I could really appreciate the scope of the novel.

This second novel is grimmer, certainly, and de Castell does a good job of keeping his characters three-dimensional and complex: even the sweetest can make bad decisions — decisions that have deadly or devastating results on their compatriots.

I’m still very eager to read the third novel, and will always love the first instalment. Indeed, I would still very much recommend the series to anyone looking for a well-written fantasy series. With luck, the final novel will deliver on the promise of this ambitious, twisty fantasy series.