#i hope this makes sense to someone

[alicelufenia]

I do agree with Emma Gregory that, while it's nice the knock out method has allowed more people to enjoy Minthara's character, it has the potential to weaken the complexity of her character, especially for those who never experience her full arc (act 1 included) as intended. It also, I think, fundamentally changes the relationship between her and the main player character.

The decision to raid the grove is a deliberately heavy one, and I think there's an irreconcilable difference in the dynamic between Minthara and a player who actively participated in one of the Absolute's atrocities, and that between Minthara and a player who remained morally irreproachable throughout act 1. Raiding the grove leaves you with no moral high ground over Minthara post-mind control, except for what you do going forward.

That's how it worked for my Tav (now a Durge)—she regretted it at the time, but as her bond with Minthara grew she found her confidence in her own Paladin ideals returning, and she sought to not fall into despair or seek atonement, but to carry on doing good despite her fall. Had I skipped that entire dilemma by knocking her out, that bond wouldn't be the same, they wouldn't be struggling with such similar past burdens, and their story would suffer as a result.

As Fray the Dark Knight trainer from Final Fantasy 14 said, "Do not seek forgiveness, for it will not ease the burden. It weighs as it should."

Killing the grove, I think, weighs exactly as it should.

[thelvadams]

watching megatron *** ******** ***** ** ****

[fruitysalamander1398]

i think it's very interesting to look at the way masculinity is examined in scarecrow (1973)

this is of course embodied through the glaring differences between max and francis, both in physicality and personality. not only is max much physically larger, but he carries himself with a bravado and brashness while francis's body language is more antsy and hectic, he is either fidgeting around or constricting himself into a more compacted position at all times. the film really takes advantage of the enormously different statures of the two actors and the actors take advantage of their characters' body language. there is a clearly hyper-masculine bent to the way max conducts himself while francis does not do the same.

beyond the physical however, is the way in which sexuality is treated in regards to these two characters. max is a very sexualized character, his sex drive is a huge part of his outward personality and takes precedence in a large number of scenes. francis, on the other hand, is decidedly de-sexualized. he never pursues anyone sexually and treats women more as confidants (ie the scene he has with colie) or potential friends (the scene where he is trying to make frenchie laugh in the kitchen). when max says sexual things about women, francis either doesn't really respond or simply humors him with a few words. of course, francis is also eventually subjected to sexual abuse but his own sex drive is really not a part of the story and in this scene, his trusting and innocent nature is severely taken advantage of. max embodies a hyper-masculine sexuality while francis clearly does not.

but it is the softening of max by the end of the film that makes both of their character arcs so poignant. i have seen some analysis about how the two characters sort of swap places, and while this is somewhat true, i think it is less that they have swapped places and more that max is no longer a caricature of himself and has learned from francis. i think there is really no getting around the queer subtext of this film, not necessarily just because of max and francis's own relationship but moreso the subtextual elements of each character's relationship to masculinity and their sex drive. this is embodied for me when max decides to start calling him lion because he "has a little trouble with francis". it is a very clear discomfort with a more feminine sounding name in favor of a clearly "stronger" sounding name, brought about by max's insistence on hyper masculinity.

this is literally just a bunch of rambling but i love this movie so dearly and i have so many thoughts on the characters and the various ways in which the themes of this movie are handled and brought across

[shouldiusemyname]

Some thoughts about the excellent make out session in ep 7 of La Pluie:

Please be patient with me as I take a sharp turn into how different their relationship is in the bl landscape and the concept of soul-mates in their reality (there are squirrels everywhere)

Tai is signalling what he wants and doesn't want, and Patts reading him so well.

We're seeing Tai climbing on Patts for the second time now, showing his need to control the situation. This time Patts tries to get on top, but he's attentive enough to let Tai lead.

Once Tai feels he's losing himself, he stops. Further showing his need to control what's happening, letting his head win over his desires. Which For me personally, is very relatable...

I feel that if Patts hadn't stopped their first interaction saying he wants Tai to be ready and fully present in the moment, Tai wouldn't have felt comfortable communicating the fact that he's not ready yet.

Then. Then! Patts reaction being so real but at the same time not pressuring. Priceless!

Then. Then. Then! Tai's offer! I'm gone.

Tai is a gay man. He is human with needs, desires, inhibitions, fears, and worries. We are seeing ALL OF IT in the way he communicates with Patts.

This is so different from what we usually get in BLs. I don't see them as falling into traditional roles in this relationship. There's Patts who is more experienced and has already been in a relationship, as opposed to Tai who is new to all of this. Having this "imbalance" in the relationship is not used in the typical way it usually is. Tai is not led by Patts. He is the one setting the tone and dictating the pace. Usually, it will revolve around consent, but not here. Here it's all about doing things differently:

Everyone is rushing them into a relationship because it's what they should be doing. They are soul-mates after all. It keeps coming up in every interaction they have with the people around them. However, they choose to take a different path.

They are testing the water before they are officially relationshipping, which is not the traditional path most bl couples take, especially where there is an imbalance such as age gap, experience, or status.

There is no hesitation or childish panic when they are together or when they share a room on the trip. Tai doesn't run away or shy away. He does need some time to gather himself, but that comes back to his need to control the situation and lead with his head and not his body (desire).

Even when Tai holds back, it's not the typical oh let me back away so you can chase me. Tai wants to be intimate with Patts, he just knows his boundaries. He understands Patts reaction and he shows him that he's not rejecting the sexual intimacy. He just wants something else that he can handle. Right now he can't handle losing himself, he can however, handle getting Patts to lose himself. And it shows in his expression when they fall asleep that night.

As for the soul-mates thing, I think it simultaneously makes it easier and complicates their relationship...

On the one hand, placing them in this soul-mates relationship with them accepting that they are meant to be together, makes it easier for them to communicate their needs and taking their time with it. As I see it, it helps them take the pressure off. However, at the same time, we have Tai being well aware of Patts past, as well as his own parents' soul-mates fate, which brings about a ton of insecurities and doubts about where his own relationship is heading.

Now, my nd brain has made a leap and I'm wondering whether, in their reality, romantic soul-mate relationships can only work for same-sex couples... We only have one other example of a soul-mate relationship which didn't go so well. Plus we don't even know how Tai's parents' relationship got the definition of soul-mates. Are there other types of soul-mates in this reality?

[chocokatsicle]

i need sleep

[thewrongesttrousers]

Lately I've been struggling mentally with myself and my self worth. One of the lingering pieces of disappointment I had in myself came from the fact that I could see every one of my siblings having an aspect of my mom in them and taking her lessons to heart. I hadn't felt like I was doing that at all. Her impact is there, I know, but it felt like it wasn't reflecting in my actions. She was an incredible person, a beacon of courage, strength and kindness. She was so passionate about things and was our family's guiding light.

I know at the places she used to work she'd be friends with everyone there (with the exception of people who didn't jive with her). They'd always be pretty happy to see her and talk with her. It was honestly really impressive. She was a light to them too in a lot of ways.

And it didn't occur to my until now that, while I don't think I've attained the level she has, I kinda have the same effect. I was sitting in the break room and 4 different people from differing departments came up and talked with me. It was surreal. I can see them brighten up a bit seeing me. And just today I had a new work friend from floral come up to me (on the opposite side of the store) to ask me when my lunch was to hang with me. So in some way I have taken something from my mom to heart. It made me feel relieved.

And it's eye opening to realize that people care about you. To care enough to go out of their way to talk to you or ask you about things going on with you. Look at those interactions that people have with you and remind yourself that you're worth their time. You are worth something to yourself and to them.

[funkscop1997]

NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE FACKING HANDCUFFS THAT ROGUE WEARS dumping my autism all over the floor. like. so none aterians have been like exiled from the planet before so SCORIA COMMISSIONS some elites to make these like bracelet things for rogue. they cant really take them off and they were born speaking both their native language and English so the cuffs..... the cuffs help rogue understand the fundamentals of life on earth. because scoria feels bad right? WELL. scoria has not been on earth in 200 years so all of rogue's knowledge is soooo outdated. ough. OUGH.

and then when Richard (phonestore) finds out that rogue is an alien prince/war general basically. right. and he wants to know whyand how rogue knows human stuff. rogue has NO idea what the cuffs are for. so he just looks him dead in the eyes and says "i don't know actually. isn't that weird? i come to this whole... planet. I've never seen a human before. I've never been on earth, and yet i feel like I'm at home." which is a DOUBLE ENTENDRE because RICHARD AND DENICE ARE LIKE ROGUES STEP PARENTS (who are better parents that the royals btw) UGH. OUGH.

[level1cleric]

HELP

[rattofadyke]

I love love so much it's unreal. If it weren't for the risk of folks having a bad relationship with the word I would say it all the time. I would say 'i love u' to the guy who I see all the time at 7/11, to the lady that's leaving the elevator I'm in, to the person who held the door open for me, to the delivery driver who brought me and my roommates our pizza. Everyone wants to be loved, so why not spread it around? Yes I know I just met you and we don't know each other well, but you're a human being in a scary world and you're still here! Isn't that beautiful? Is that not worthy of all the love I could give? Even those who have wronged me and I don't desire a connection with anymore, I still hope they find love. Everyone deserves it!!! "Hurt people hurt people" is clichè but like. Idk it holds truth to it. Like humans evolved and thrive as a cooperative species. People who have been hurt and traumatized and abused are reacting in response to that, and the only way to feasibly get them out of it is to remind them what love is like.

I don't really know how to end this or if there is a greater point just. Go love the world. Love yourself. Things get better if you do I promise.

[somnimagus]

My page for @sheikahzine; about Impaz's duty to her village, empty of people and full of memories.

[id in alt text]

[inkskinned]

for a while i lived in an old house; the kind u.s americans don't often get to live in - living in a really old house here is super expensive. i found out right before i moved out that the house was actually so old that it features in a poem by emily dickinson.

i liked that there were footprints in front of the sink, worn into the hardwood. there were handprints on some of the handrails. we'd find secret marks from other tenants, little hints someone else had lived and died there. and yeah, there was a lot wrong with the house. there are a lot of DIY skills you learn when you are a grad student that cannot afford to pay someone else to do-it-for-ya. i shared the house with 8 others. the house always had this noise to it. sometimes that noise was really fucking awful.

in the mornings though, the sun would slant in thick amber skiens through the windows, and i'd be the first one up. i'd shuffle around, get showered in this tub that was trying to exit through the floor, get my clothes on. i would usually creep around in the kitchen until it was time to start waking everyone else up - some of them required multiple rounds of polite hey man we gotta go knocks. and it felt... outside of time. a loud kind of quiet.

the ghosts of the house always felt like they were humming in a melody just out of reach. i know people say that the witching hour happens in the dark, but i always felt like it occurred somewhere around 6:45 in the morning. like - for literal centuries, somebody stood here and did the dishes. for literal centuries, somebody else has been looking out the window to this tree in our garden. for literal centuries, people have been stubbing their toes and cracking their backs and complaining about the weather. something about that was so... strangely lovely.

i have to be honest. i'm not a history aficionado. i know, i know; it's tragic of me. i usually respond to "this thing is super old" by being like, wow! cool! and moving on. but this house was the first time i felt like the past was standing there. like it was breathing. like someone else was drying their hands with me. playing chess on the sofa. adding honey to their tea.

i grew up in an old town. like, literally, a few miles off of walden pond (as in of the walden). (also, relatedly, don't swim in walden, it's so unbelievably dirty). but my family didn't have "old house" kind of money. we had a barely-standing house from the 70's. history existed kind of... parallel to me. you had to go somewhere to be in history. your school would pack you up on a bus and take you to some "ye olden times" place and you'd see how they used to make glass or whatever, and then you'd go home to your LEDs. most museums were small and closed before 5. you knew history was, like, somewhere, but the only thing that was open was the mcdonalds and the mall.

i remember one of my seventh grade history teachers telling us - some day you'll see how long we've been human for and that thing has been puzzling me. i know the scientific number, technically.

the house had these little scars of use. my floors didn't actually touch the walls; i had to fill them with a stopgap to stop the wind. other people had shoved rags and pieces of newspaper. i know i've lost rings and earring backs down some of the floorboards. i think the raccoons that lived in our basement probably have collected a small fortune over the years. i complain out loud to myself about how awful the stairs are (uneven, steep, evil, turning, hard to get down while holding anything) and know - someone else has said this exact same thing.

when i was packing up to leave and doing a final deep cleaning, i found a note carved in the furthest corner in the narrow cave of my closet. a child's scrawled name, a faded paint handprint, the scrangly numbers: 1857.

we've been human for a long time. way back before we can remember.

[retroautomaton]

🍳🐖🌱

[milkywayes]

GARRUS VAKARIAN: DATABASE IMAGE ACCESS. > PT. 1 : 2160, 2166, 2170. > all files backdated according to user preferences: (terran_coordinated.calendar).

[nachobsns]

Hello - I was impressed and extremely relieved by what you wrote in the post about the cult mentality of the Left RE Israel and accusations of genocide. You mentioned that you bought into the mindset until recently. If it's all right for me to ask, what was it that helped you break out of it? (Please feel free to delete/ignore if you'd rather not answer!)

thank you!! and no worries about asking— i think i put something in my pinned post about how people are welcome to send asks about this stuff, although my story isn’t super interesting. i fell down the typical online rabbithole, a couple weeks after october 7; i knew what had happened, at least vaguely, but the posts trickling onto my dash were all about the (undeniably tragic) loss of life in gaza, with little to no acknowledgment of the hamas atrocities that had started the war, so my narrative was pretty one-sided from the beginning. it just continued to snowball as the months went on and people became more radicalized, calling into question the reality of the 10/7 attacks and the humanity of all israelis. i never went all the way down the pipeline to full-on endorsing hamas or justifying their attacks, at least on a personal level, thank god, but i would reblog other people’s posts referring to hamas as a “resistance movement” and calls to boycott starbucks and mcdonald’s and condemnation of the “zionist media” etc etc etc. what pulled me out of it wasn’t any one thing— if someone had directly called me on my flawed logic and antisemitic biases while i was in this mindset, i doubt it would have done much, just reinforced my belief that i was on the “right side of history” and zionists were aggressors who couldn’t be reasoned with. it was mostly just passive observance and a slow exposure to other perspectives. i’m pretty sure the first post that led me to question my thinking was an ask on jewish-vents, which popped up on my dash in like, late july. this led me down another rabbithole, first scouring every single post on jewish-vents, then moving on to more popular jewish blogs that i had seen on “zionist blocklists” (applesauce42069, xclowniex, and spacelazarwolf were probably some of the blogs that influenced me the most, though i told myself i was just hate-scrolling at first, lol). i felt incredibly guilty seeing all the harm the movement i was a part of had caused to random jews and israelis just trying to live their lives and i realized how it went against everything i believed about how minority groups should be treated. from there, the aspect of actually undoing my thinking and changing my behavior for the better still took several weeks. denial of jewish indigenity to the levant in the face of tantamount archeological and cultural evidence was the first to go, as well as any ambiguity in my feelings about hamas. after that, it’s mostly been a slow process of redefining the idf’s actions from a “genocide” to a “war.” i still believe that what’s happening in gaza is unconscionable and horrific, and that too many innocent civilians have died, but i also understand how difficult it is to fight against a terrorist group that systematically embeds itself in civilian populations, and that the ratio of militant to civilian deaths is incredibly low compared to most urban warfare. i quietly deleted my old blog in early august— if i had directly engaged in harassment against jews, i likely would have kept it to make amends to the harmed parties and put a face to my actions, but as was, i had just contributed to the larger atmosphere of antisemitism on this site, and i felt uncomfortable knowing that i had a blog full of sentiments that no longer matched my values and beliefs. i decided i would be better if i took my endorsement out of the equation entirely, because when you’re looking through the notes of a post, it obviously doesn’t matter if someone who’s reblogged it no longer agrees with what was said— their notes still count as tacit approval, and i did not want approval of this “activism” attached to my online presence. i still have unwanted kneejerk reactions that crop up sometimes, particularly around the fundraiser posts from people “in gaza”; even though i know logically that they have all the markers of scams, there is still a part of me that really wants to believe i could help.

[jamiemaybeme]

adding some more incoherent rambling to this (semi) incoherent rambling:

Romeo & Juliet is also often regarded as the greatest love story written, but it is, at its heart, a TRAGEDY about two people ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF A FEUD falling in love.

extra context for those not doing GCSE english/who haven't read or watched R & J

the "no nightingales" line is said the morning after they've consummated their marriage (meaning it's official now). romeo has been banished, and says he needs to leave because he can hear the "morning lark" (aka ‘it's morning i gtg’). but juliet doesn't want him to leave, so she playfully says it's a "nightingale" he can hear, and he still has hours before he needs to leave. however, he needs to leave because if he gets caught in verona he'll be executed, as punishment for disobeying the laws of banishment.

so...

...essentially, the lark is also a symbol of death/ impending doom, whilst the nightingale is a symbol of freedom and (BRIEF)* escape.

*(this word 'brief' is important because Romeo & Juliet is building up to their deaths at the end, and their happiness is also brief, and in GO, they have escaped from heaven and hell's watch, but - as crowley points out - it's not for forever, just a few years.)

symbolism

throughout the play, there is a lot of symbolism of juliet describing her wedding bed being = to her grave, and after romeo climbs down the ladder, she says he looks almost dead. this foreshadowing is immense and - at this point in the play (act iv(?), i believe) - important.

the significance of having this conversation after the symbolism of the birds makes the lark = death even more prominent.

and if the lark = death, then - contrastingly - the nightingale = life. and no nightgales = no life.

how does this link to GO?

NOW, in GO, it is unlikely this is the death of the actual characters, seeing as they've already been victims of attempted murder, so what does the nightingale symbol the life of?

aziraphale and crowley's relationship.

(i know i'm stating the obvious here bear with me)

the life of it: which is at its height at the end of season one (hence the presence of the nightingale); and its 'death': at its lowest, potentially even its end in the last episode of season two (the nightingale has gone = their relationship is dead).

but but but, i DON'T think it's over. in fact, i know it's not. so, there are two options.

ONE: the symbolism is from THE CHARACTERS' perspectives. crowley especially, believes that this is it. aziraphale has left him, and he's just been waiting for it to happen all these years. he'd hoped it wouldn't happen, even dared to believe in aziraphale, but now he feels betrayed. i don't think he can see this relationship being restored, although i do think he desperately wants it to be. not that he would EVER admit this.

TWO: this is the end of their relationship AS WE KNOW IT. of course, it's had many different phases, from eden to 1941 to present day. none of them have quite ended this way, in fact they've almost merged into one another (from what we've seen). but maybe they haven't. this sort of thing could happen way more often than we think. we saw their argument at the bandstand in season one, and both of them were convinced they weren't coming back. and guess what? they did.

i don't think they'll be as quick to reconcile with each other as they were then, but given they had to save they world, and once again they need to save the world, i think it'll be rather similar. they seem to be able to make up a lot quicker when humanity is at stake.

conclusion

anyway, this was a lot of rambling that got off topic, but i could literally talk about this for HOURS (haha hyperfixations, am i right?). i hope someone gets something out of it at least.

i think my main points were:

nightingale = symbol of life

lack of nightingale = the end of Something

crowley and aziraphale are being dramatic tbh

they'll sacrifice their pride for the sake of humanity, so they'll be fine.

also i only lightly touched on this at the start but romeo & juliet is literally about two people destined to be together, who are on opposite sides of a fight, and who suffer the consequences of other people's bias. they are the embodiment of 'right person wrong time'. if that's not aziraphale and crowley idk what is.

HELLO HI I HAVE SOME RAMBLINGS ABT THE GOS2 ENDING (yes I know it's been almost six months)

so, obviously we know that 'no nightingales' is a reference to a Nightingale sang in Berkley square. but here's another point that could be completely unrelated, for all I know. in act 3 scene 5 of Romeo and Juliet, Romeo says 'no nightingale' in response to Juliet saying 'it was the nightingale and not the lark'

Juliet is saying it is the nightingale because she doesn't want her and Romeo's evening to end - the morning brings Romeo's banishment. But Romeo has realised he has to face his fateat some point and so tells Juliet that there are no nightingales singing.

The nightingale symbolises the peak in their relationship and the lark symbolises the ending. So Crowley saying that there are 'no nightingales' also tells us that his happiest moments with Aziraphale, no matter how brief, must come to an end.

[dadszlo]

WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS — 4.06 The Wedding / 5.10 Exit Interview