#like about 1500 years of this

[fanartka]

My dear @sobeautifullyobsessed , I can't help but re-reblog it with your tags, because your words are so true 🫂

[jerys]

thinking abt merlin through the ages contending with the fact that arthur is still so present in the land. in mythology in legend in fairytales told to children in books and films and countless other forms of memory. throughout the world he is remembered still, and yes it isn't really him they're remembering, it's the legend of him, the myth, the heroic fool's gold shimmer of his legacy. but he's still here.

[armandposting]

marius does seem to have a lot of complicated feelings about what he did to armand and I really hope one of them is guilt for his thinking in buying armand originally. he talks in blood and gold about how when he heard armand's mind, the entire reason he wanted him was because he thought, here is a child who has been so hurt that it will be no loss to the world if I make him a vampire. and he wavers on this later and I hope it's because he saw this child make friends and learn things and love rings and watches and swordfighting and realize that actually there is never a child so damaged that taking them from humanity is no loss. I wonder if part of the reason he never tried to talk to armand after seeing him with the children of darkness is that he saw that boy changed into a lonely stoic cult leader with no more will or verve and was too consumed with guilt to even try. I hope that guilt started when he took armand to kiev rus and saw how much armand still loved the family he hadn't seen in years and for a while barely remembered from trauma. also I hope marius explodes into one thousand pieces but that's mostly irrelevant

[midwestscreamo]

I know a thing that’s kind of been up for interpretation in fandom is whether the female form is that of the young girl in the spring, or if it’s of them if they were born female.

In the new anime, I think they lean towards it being the form of the girl that drowned (why she has pink hair and pink eyes instead of Ranma’s usual blue eyes). While this is fine and to each their own, I personally prefer to think of it as Ranma if they were AFAB. To me, it feels more aligned with the idea that Ranma is Ranma no matter which form they’re in and their experiences belonging to Ranma entirely no matter their gender at the time.

[figofswords]

anybody remember the stephanie brown essay I was working on under a research grant fully last summer? yeah it’s not done yet it super needs to be done and I’ve been avoiding working on it for weeks. someone tell me to just do it already

[lettersiarrange]

Has time always moved this fast? I'm genuinely asking. In 200 years we went from Bridgerton to AI. The everyday lives of people in each of these eras feel like universes apart. I'm no historian, but it seems like the everyday lives of people between 1500 and 1700 weren't that different.

Have humans throughout time immemorial reflected on life 30 years ago, 100 years ago and commented on how vastly different it was? It feels like we're running at a breakneck pace in the modern era. The It Gets Better project was founded in 2010 because gay people were so universally ostracized that lgbt teen suicide rates were off the charts. And while we're still pretty far from full LGBT equality, openly having a problem with gay people existing is a pretty fringe opinion now that's fairly universally frowned upon, even in the southern US.

I'm pretty sure the first time a woman wore pants in congress was in the 90s.

Culturally, technologically, resource-wise, it feels like every 5 years we leap 5 decades forward. Is it just our own preoccupation with the era we live in that makes this moment feel so significant? Or are we actually moving as quickly as it feels?

I know people have always laughed at the grandpa's who complain "when I was your age...", but has the gap ever been this wide? Or is there truly something special about now.

[probablygayattorneys]

So as while you all know, I've been super excited that Ashley is coming to the switch, but something about it that I've kind of kept to myself because I wasn't able to describe it was also this feeling that something was off. It was just... not right. I thought maybe it was a kind of selfish apprehension, like perhaps I just was so used to this game being something it felt like only I knew about, and then it was announced in a direct with over a million people watching and it felt like my secret treasure wasn't a secret anymore, and while I am selfish and childish, I don't think it's that.

After watching this video, it seems more clear to me. This is not just remastering the game for the Switch, like the Ace Attorney games. This is a remake. This is an adaption. I understood that some changes would have to be made to change from a two screen, one of which is touch device to a single screen that technically has a touch screen but also needs to be able to be played with a controller, changes would have to be made, but not to this degree. This feels like a different game. Especially the graphics. They may be much more smooth and technically higher quality now, but the original also had a certain charm that I'll miss.

And taking into account all of this, I have a message just for Nintendo, so if you don't work at Nintendo, feel free to stop reading.

Look at me and listen closely. Do not even fucking LOOK at Kyle Hyde or anyone else at the Hotel Dusk or even the building itself unless you're going to respect it's incredible unique design and honor it for what it was. Out of the quadrinity of puzzle games I loved as a child, even now, Hotel Dusk reigns supreme in my heart. I know it's only a matter of time before you port him over but you better ONLY remaster him, not remake him like you did to Ashley. You show him and every single guest and employee at that hotel some respect or I'll show you my crossbow, got it?

[maraeffect]

hi everyone, this is my monthly check-in <3

[icewindandboringhorror]

recent things

[grimaldiapologist]

dear diary

I am afraid

[yrlocalghost]

i really love pentiment so far because while i liked disco elysium, it is not something i would be able to enjoy anymore (too bitter to care about The Human Experience, too stupid for a lot of the things in the game) BUT i kind of do care if it is before to during the 16th century.

[archersgoon]

the haladyans probably wore some sort of armour, right? & knowing shit about them is like, an 'intellectual' thing. & we see modern perceptions of them ('men in skirts'). do u think the reason no one wears armour in skuldenore is because protecting yourself is seen as effeminate & therefore undesirable. no froi you can't wear chainmail if u want to be accepted by your peers. real men either dodge or let their opponent's blade tear through them like a hot knife through butter

[lady-of-the-spirit]

I think Matthew has some gender/sexuality stuff going on that he is deliberately not thinking about.

[malachitezmeyka]

Ah yes, Magnificent Century, or as I like to call it – “Why the fuck are the most likely Ukrainian girl and the Crimean Tatar woman speaking Russian to each other, what were the writers smoking???”

[lesbianbucky]

you guys know that tiktok audio about homosexual audacity and thinking you can do anything with no prior experience? "no i've never done that but i'm gay so how hard could it be?" that's me right now having almost no knowledge of computers but wanting to build by own pc

[fideidefenswhore]

so where would anne, george and mary fall in the "five kids in five years" time line if he's the eldest?

hm, well, we don't know what years henry and thomas boleyn died, since the 'c.1520' seems like it was the date their brasses were made, not, obviously, the date of their deaths (both tiny tombs suggest cot deaths). "the exact date of elizabeth's marriage to thomas boleyn is unknown but her jointure was settled on her in 1501 suggesting a recent marriage some time after 1498 [...]"

so, i would think george was maybe born 1499, 1500, or 1501, mary born 1500, 1501, or 1502, and my personal theory is that anne was born either 1503 or 1504 (possibly 1505...)

*also going back to this quote ('general line rather than heirs male'), why would hunsdon have only said 'eldest daughter/sister', not 'eldest child'? the latter would arguably have given him a stronger claim, i'd assume because he knew the first was true but not the second:

"Lord Hunsdon's rather complicated account of the Boleyn titles shows that he had a good grasp of family history. Although his daughter, in her tomb memorial, stated that Mary Boleyn was the second daughter, it seems more likely that Lord Hunsdon was correct. Where the queen was his co-heir to the Boleyn title, he would have wanted to be very sure of his facts." Anne Boleyn: Henry VIII's Obsession, Elizabeth Norton