#if i had a nickle for every time bad has been in a terrible mental state and was down to do anything to get someone back i'd had two nickle

[theredcuyo]

Small recap from what happened in the stream :D!

Bad talked for a while with Tubbo about the systems and the backpacks

Bad gave Bagi a tour around, and they played in the lucky ducks and visited the museum, both museums actually, he gave Bagi a Pig named "emergency bacon" that they got in lucky ducks

Bad was clearly sad when visiting the museums, and went silent every time an egg appeared in the pictures

Bad took Bagi to his tank, and there was Dapper's dinner goat, Bagi said that next time she sees him being hostile to animals shes going to kill him, Bad didn't take it very seriously

Bad went to a certain room around there where there was a book, looked around there and said "Not yet"

Then went back to the farm, sat down over there, said he misses Dapper, and then the screen went black, after a few minutes, we heard something like screaming of monsters (for some reason, remained me of the whiter, but the sound is not that one) then he ended the stream

Bad is up to who knows what in short

[lady-of-the-spirit]

Bah, I meant 19! Sorry! It's been a minute since I've read S1, but yeah, it's still disturbing. Fine, make Persephone significantly younger than Hades, that was always going to be a given anyway. But why 19? A great example of this sort of concept being done better is the Hades and Persephone series by Rachel Alexander (who actually has a blog on here and her third book's coming out in March!). Basically Hades and Persephone are each the eldest of their respective generations and by the time the main story starts, the latter has been an adult for a really good while now, but her mental growth is still very much stunted due to Demeter's overprotection.

Also, what is it with adaptations making Thetis a bitch? First Song of Achilles, now this. I don't even care for her that much (certainly not as much as Hestia), but if I had a nickle for every time I read of her being awful, I'd have two nickles. Which isn't alot, but it's weird that it happened twice. And by all accounts, she at least had a soft spot for children, as she basically helped raise Hephaestus after Hera rejected him and was a doting mother to Achilles.

Actually, that gives me another idea: imagine a Thetis who just genuinely thinks that Hera has been an awful queen after this incident, allowing her resentment to fester until she finally decides to give in to Zeus' advances towards her more so out of spite and genuinely wanting Olympus' best interests at heart rather than trying to break up an already uneasy marriage out of... what, exactly? Power? Lust? Boredom? All three, maybe? Based on her "crying is for wives" line, it doesn't seem like she actually cares much for whether or not Zeus would actually marry her, just so long as their relationship isn't kept secret anymore.

And maybe this'll come into play later, but throw in the prophecy about her son one day becoming greater than his father (the reason she was forced to marry Peleus in the first place), and we could still have a scheming Thetis, just one who's so desperate to usher in a new era for the gods by secretly planning to overthrow Zeus as well that she ends up causing far more harm than good.

lmao no worries anon. but yeah, why 19???? she has a birthday in chapter 77 I think, making her 20, but like... that's not better?

I've heard of that series! I've heard it's good, maybe more accurate to Greek culture than other series.

Oooh, yeah, I remember that from SoA. I started that book, haven't finished it, but I was startled at the depiction of Thetis. I mean... what did she do? I mean all of the gods had terrible moments at some point or another, but what did Thetis do?

NO ANON KEEP GOING. I LOVE THIS IDEA. GOD I WANT THIS SO BAD.

I mean??? A Thetis who is still a terrible bitch - maybe even still a shitty friend to Minthe and Thanatos - but isn't just a one-dimensional bitch? Who has her motives and reasons for disliking Hera and wanting to break up the royal couple that aren't just petty jealousy or causing drama? I'd love it. also more accuracy to myths.

I know that this comic can only have so many plotlines without getting too complicated, and it's already too complicated and RS has shown she can't write different plotlines in one story and give each one the attention it needs or deserves (either giving them too much attention or not enough), but damn now I want this.

[ladyjaneasher-blog]

final take on fab: an intimate life of paul mccartney: 0.5/5 do not buy save your money find a free copy

(and only because i suppose for a man of his... caliber, it is an achievement to string together a pseudo-coherent sentence.)

these reviews hit the nail on the head:

1)

I kept having the urge to get out a big red marker pen and scribble all over this as I was reading it. "FALSE", "CONJECTURE", "PERSONAL OPINION" and "DEAR GOD, ARE PEOPLE STILL BELIEVING THESE OLD PHILIP NORMAN MYTHS" would be the most frequent. It's always a bad sign when you start mentally correcting a biographer. I love Macca, I don't love this book. It's just a hatchet job.

2)

I have problems with the entire book as it was written in a critical way. I found the author looking for petty views of this man he was writing about. For instance, in the research that he did, it appears that he probed to get a tense angle on Paul, no matter what the setting, who the person interviewed, whatever a situation 'looked like', without knowing for certain. In a nutshell? This author tries to show us that Paul McCartney is a difficult person, and no matter what, he wound up each situation with that conclusion, as a Beatle, then as a post Beatle.

i’d like to add that it’s also a bad sign if the author himself feels compelled (or was perhaps compelled by someone else) to add the following sentence to his acknowledgements: “i did not have an agenda to find fault with sir paul”.

even more so, if truly every chapter does just that. indeed, sounes has a negative anecdote for every part of paul’s life.

teenage paul? oh, he was a terrible and cold child after his mother’s death, “unaffected” and citing it as “as evidence of a lack of empathy on paul’s part“. 

pre-beatle paul? a driven egomaniac, showing his true self by being equally cruel to people as to animals, determined to “to be a star anyway” as he “would do anything to get ahead in what he had seemingly decided would be his career” with or without the band. 

beatle paul? from “pushy [...] within the group” as a person, to his songs being of an “insipid quality” and “virtually meaningless��� simply fitting “rhyming words to a melody, like a hack” and deeming him “to betray an unconscious inferiority complex” to john. what of his depression, you ask? surely, he must acknowledge that? oh yes, he does. posing the theory that paul grew his beard not out of neglect of himself, but simply because it would “help him get about unrecognised” which is every bit as laughable as norman claiming six years later that it “signified was that he was happy”.

post-beatle paul? is equal parts the ruthless businessman, the flighty hack, the strict father, the stingy boss during wings going “berzerk” over a pile of nickles in a game, the violent egomaniac with a temper, threatening and intimidating employees and family alike. he unquestioningly cites schwartz’s body count and jann wenner’s lennon remembers. he derides first and important solo records mccartney and ram, echoing the empty, subjective, puerile manner of christgau, wenner, et all of the 70s, to the point of posing the following idea:

“while it had been ridiculous to suggest in 1969 that paul mccartney was dead, one might wonder if he’d undergone a lobotomy before leaving the beatles.“

to wondering if paul, after his reaction to john’s untimely death, had truly just proven himself to be "really” just “a shit”, displaying an outrage over a paul’s treatment of his “best friend” when he belittled and misrepresented their relationship as little else but a partnership of convenience at every other point:

[...] over the ensuing years mccartney tried to persuade the public that john wasn’t a saint, and that it was unfair to label paul as a platitudinous balladeer in comparison to lennon the intellectual and musical heavyweight. But if john wasn’t a saint, there was a grain of truth in this characterisation of their respective roles in the beatles, [...]

and at which point i had to stop reading. the first time i did not finish a book i started.

however, do feel free to judge for yourself. i’ve also posted excerpts here, here and here.