#makes it easier to handle?

[lazulisong]

I am doing much better than last year but today international sad bitch week arrived with a bang and I thank u for ur patience in advance.

The zoo quilt is 90% done - I need to tack and wash it -- and I'm hoping it will be sunny enough tomorrow to do a photoshoot.

Also I got a lucet hook and it makes the autism happy

And started on the quilt for me

[tanglepelt]

Dc x dp idea 91

The justice league only formed as Danny turned 16. Within a year of forming Danny had made a deal with the realm, accepting his fate as king upon his death, to keep ghosts out. Even getting his parents either by force or acceptance to shut down the portal.

So when Danny accompanies Sam to a gala and one of the ghost shows up. He calmly informs them that they were not welcome in this dimension. He made a deal with the king and they needed to leave before he made them.

Cue Bruce Wayne’s curiosity kicking in.

[edwinisms]

you ever think about how edwin got like. no warning, no time time to process, nothing, when he reappeared on earth faced with the fact that virtually everyone he knew in life is dead. his parents? probably died in the 1950s or so (at best) almost forty years prior to edwin’s return. if any of his classmates were still around, they’d have been elderly, possibly senile, and in a few years they’d all be gone– except, of course, edwin. nothing looks the same, cars look like spaceships, there actually are spaceships, he can no longer see the stars, and everyone he knew is dead.

[wowa-bublord]

heres my idea for a Zack Lives au! i like when people make him a little weird/unnerving hehe. puppy to unsocialized dog pipeline. he bites.

[randlemartin]

i feel like i should make a disclaimer that i don't think tom hanks was the god-emperor of the band of brothers set. i am very much aware that there were lots and lots and lots of people involved in the making of the show. i do think its very funny to say that this was tom hanks' personal rpf project though so i'll keep doing it.

[multiiocular-mushroom]

francis madoka magica crozier

(the witch designs are here and also posted separately with some lore under the tag 'the soul gem passage')

[governmentmandatedryujinstan420]

releasing this from the hj discord dungeon because the public populace was in agreement also i'm chronically offline on tumblr and need to fix that for my chronically online ahh

[flaskoflethe]

I think the most significant metaphor in I Saw the TV Glow, if only in my interpretation, was the fucking inhaler. It's the device that gives enough temporary relief from the suffocation of being buried alive and not even knowing something's wrong, not by temporarily making it not wrong but by making you not notice that specific problem. It's still there, you're still suffocating and crushed under the ground dying alone and with your actual self torn out of you, while the fake version of you huffs the inhaler again and again with growing despair because it never addressed the problem, you were just told it would fix what was wrong

[franollie]

ive reached the point where the term batfam is like a dog whistle to me

[fromtheseventhhell]

One major factor missing from most debates on Arya and Lyanna's beauty is that they're being judged by their society's extremely patriarchal values. In both looks and personality, that context is essential to understanding how others perceive them. George explores the misogyny experienced by non-conforming women, especially with Arya, and it's interesting how he plays with that regarding their physical beauty.

Her mother used to say she could be pretty if she would just wash and brush her hair and take more care with her dress, the way her sister did. (The Blind Girl, ADWD) "You never knew Lyanna as I did, Robert," Ned told him. "You saw her beauty, but not the iron underneath. She would have told you that you have no business in the melee." (Eddard VII, AGOT)

These two quotes offer a nice summation of this idea. With Arya, her supposed lack of beauty is defined by her being a non-conforming wild child. Her hair is messy, her face is dirty, and she's often in "lower class" clothing while engaging in unladylike activities. None of this says anything about her physical beauty but it tells us everything about how she's perceived. Arya could be pretty...If she conforms to society's standards for a highborn Lady. With Lyanna, however, we get the opposite. Where Arya is judged based on her personality, Robert's romanticization of Lyanna is rooted solely in her looks. He doesn't know anything about the person she really was. There is an assumption that, because she looked a certain way, her personality must fit and Robert imagines her much softer and more passive than she actually was.

That Arya isn't pretty or Lyanna wasn't wild are two perceptions that George specifically pushes back against. This is where people miss the brilliance of them being linked as literary mirrors; it is largely about us learning more about Lyanna, but it touches on more than that. The significance of them being written as wild, willful, and with their own beauty is that George isn't writing his female characters around patriarchal expectations. When people debate their beauty, that's often the trapping they fall into. Beauty and non-conformity are treated as mutually exclusive factors when the story itself never makes that point; this is also the logic that leads people to the (incorrect) conclusion that Lyanna and Arya aren't meant to be similar. Arya's self-esteem issues around her looks and being a Lady make this a topic certain to be addressed in the future; George has made it a part of the story. The conclusion shouldn't be that "looks don't matter", but that looks aren't indicative of a character's value, personality, or morality.

[emry-stars]

I don't have any coherent thoughts about it but it's been a full year and I haven't stopped thinking about Matt quietly covering for Andrew/helping Andrew feel out a place or person by mentioning "his partner Dan" and clowning on whoever takes it badly

They're gym buddies and Andrew deserves to make more friends I think

[flowerakatsuka]

.*🍀 KUROKARA LORE [ 01 ] — rainy day reunion. 🌹*.

after putting off finishing the art and writing for this post, i finally dump the first major bit of kurokara lore on ya'll — their " first " meeting! i also wanted to include the song i imagine being the bgm for this lore event so please enjoy while you read the post. :3c

SO, i imagine this taking place during the first half of season 2 ( probably around episode 5 since rainy season is during summer in japan. )

their meeting happens one day in june, when karamatsu had decided to make the most of the ( at the time ) sunny weather and gallivant around akatsuka. the previous night hadn’t been the best — with osomatsu eating the pudding he had saved for later, being forced to buy the rest of his brothers snacks when he went to go replace it, and then getting splashed by a car going through a rain puddle on the way back from the konbini. but it was a new day, surely it will be kinder to him with how beautiful the weather was!

well, it seemed like kara’s bad luck from the previous day had decided to linger. everything he had decided to do to enjoy himself that day was not going in his favor ; totoko had already left home to go on a date when he tried to visit, catching only tiny cans and broken sunglasses at the fishing hole, the last croquette being sold to the previous customer. he even tripped and fell in front of the girls he was attempting to flirt with. at this point, he was really starting to wonder if he was cursed or something, but quickly picked himself back up and tried to reassure himself. there was no way this day could get worse, after all.

yeah, it definitely could.

meanwhile, kuroba had just managed to bring in the last of the store’s outside decorations before the rain really started to come down. thankfully, they were lucky enough to spot the accumulating storm clouds early and act accordingly. still, it was strange how suddenly it started raining when there wasn’t anything about it in the weather report that morning. sure, it was rainy season, but the rain really came out of nowhere. before they could get too lost in their pondering about weird weather patterns, they spotted someone walking through the ongoing downpour with nothing to protect them from the rain.

karamatsu was trudging through the rain on his way back home, having already resigned himself to whatever divine punishment he had brought on. it took him a moment to notice the shadow that had overtaken him and blocked the rain, only really coming to when a concerned voice called out to him.

kuroba handed him a towel to draw himself off with and suggested he wait out the rain in their shop ; walking around in rain like that wouldn’t be doing himself any favors, after all. taking them up on their offer, they let karamatsu in and excused themself into the back for a moment. while wandering around the shop, he wondered why he hadn’t remembered there was another flower shop in akatsuka... Until he recognized the shop’s name : yotsubana florals.

he definitely remembered passing by there in the past and being greeted by the kind granny that ran it before. kuroba overheard him wondering aloud if they had sold the shop and cleared some things up for him. they’re actually the previous owners’ grandchild, having taken over the store’s ownership and daily operations not too long ago after their grandmother’s passing and grandfather’s ( forced ) retirement. with things clarified, they directed karamatsu to a spot in the shop where he could relax while he waits out the rain and handed him a cup of tea to help warm him up.

much to his delight, it ended up being his favorite.

kuroba struck up a conversation with karamatsu while they continued their work and the two hit it off pretty quickly. their chat bounced from topic to topic and, in spite of him lulling back into his usual casanova shtick, they both seemed to have plenty of fun talking with each other. so much so that karamatsu hadn’t realized how much time had passed when he noticed that the rain was starting to let up.

he decided that it’d be best for him to head out despite there still being light rain, which kuroba had some objections to.

after being told to be careful and sent off with a wave goodbye, karamatsu started to head back home. he couldn’t help but wonder if his luck was starting to turn around while looking at the clover-patterned umbrella.

a week or two passes after that and it’s rained a few more times since then. unfortunately for kuroba, their umbrella still hadn’t been returned yet. it was a shame, they’ve had that umbrella for a long time, ( and they were being genuine when they said they’d like to chat more with the person they helped, ) but there wasn’t much that could be done about it. at least, there was a bit of reprieve from the frequent rain that day.

just as they had finally resigned themself to getting a new umbrella, the shop’s door opened with a jingle and a familiar face entered with much more bravado than he had before. karamatsu was ready to put on the best casanova act he’s got, this could be the first beautiful chapter of his own sweeping love story, after all. he explained that a mild fever had kept him from coming back sooner, but assured kuroba that it wasn’t a result of the other day by going “ it seems not everyone shares your stunning kindness, “ and leaves it at that. ( really, he tried seeing if he could get something like his meeting with kuroba to happen again by standing out in the rain with. obviously poor results. )

while he came to return kuroba’s umbrella, he also hoped to return the kindness of his ✨ rainy day savior ✨ and, well, what’s a better way to show that than by showing patronage.

yeah, he really didn’t think that all the way through. karamatsu quickly perks back up when they tell him they were just teasing and would be happy to make up a bouquet for him, especially if he’s willing to stay and chat…

AND THAT’S ALL I’VE GOT! sorry that this took me forever to finish, so many different things kept on getting in the way. but i’m really happy to have some more kurokara lore out now, i’m hoping i can get some more out soon. >;3c

[vivi-the-sky-kid]

Psst

Ya wanna know my technique for getting around 17.5 candles a day without going Everywhere?

Geyser -> Brook Candle Cake and Light Farm -> Grandma -> Sunset Turtle

Then just do:

Whatever realm has the treasure candles for the day

Basic Vault (focus on the candle cakes)

Village of Dreams and Hermit Valley cakes

And then maybe the bouquets from Performance, the cake in Wind Paths, and then the cake in Starlight Desert (since the path to it is right next to the one in Wind Paths)

Super fast and doesn't take too much effort aside from getting to the timed events on time and dealing with Vault

[13eyond13]

underrated funny thing about lawlight is they never actually did get to confirm that 100% of the time they were basically thinking exactly what the other person thought they were thinking every single time

[snzluv3r]

my allergies are fucking torturing me right now and i can’t stop sneezing, and because i also have a cold right now my nose is even more sensitive than usual, so i’ve been sneezing on and off for hours and making a mess of myself. i’m lucky it’s almost the end of my work week because i’m going to be so exhausted tomorrow at work after being kept awake by my own stupid nose

(this has been happening most of the week tbh, so i’m extra tired but it’s making my sneezing a little more uninhibited and tonight i just can’t seem to hold back long enough to stray too far from a box of tissues)

[soracities]

Hey! It has been on my mind lately and i just wanna ask..idk if it would make sense but i just noticed that nowadays ppl cant separate the authors and their books (ex. when author wrote a story about cheating and ppl starts bashing the author for romanticizing cheating and even to a point of cancelling the author for not setting a good/healthy example of a relationship) any thoughts about it?

I have many, many thoughts on this, so this may get a little unwieldy but I'll try to corall it together as best I can.

But honestly, I think sometimes being unable to separate the author from the work (which is interesting to me to see because some people are definitely not "separating" anything even though they think they are; they just erase the author entirely as an active agent, isolate the work, and call it "objectivity") has a lot to do with some people being unable to separate the things they read from themselves.

I'm absolutely not saying it's right, but it's an impulse I do understand. If you read a book and love it, if it transforms your life, or defines a particular period of your life, and then you find out that the author has said or done something awful--where does that leave you? Someone awful made something beautiful, something you loved: and now that this point of communion exists between you and someone whose views you'd never agree with, what does that mean for who you are? That this came from the mind of a person capable of something awful and spoke to your mind--does that mean you're like them? Could be like them?

Those are very uncomfortable questions and I think if you have a tendency to look at art or literature this way, you will inevitable fall into the mindset where only "Good" stories can be accepted because there's no distinction between where the story ends and you begin. As I said, I can see where it comes from but I also find it profoundly troubling because i think one of the worst things you can do to literature is approach it with the expectation of moral validation--this idea that everything you consume, everything you like and engage with is some fundamental insight into your very character as opposed to just a means of looking at or questioning something for its own sake is not just narrow-minded but dangerous.

Art isn't obliged to be anything--not moral, not even beautiful. And while I expend very little (and I mean very little) energy engaging with or even looking at internet / twitter discourse for obvious reasons, I do find it interesting that people (online anyway) will make the entire axis of their critique on something hinge on the fact that its bad representation or justifying / romanticizing something less than ideal, proceeding to treat art as some sort of conduit for moral guidance when it absolutely isn't. And they will also hold that this critique comes from a necessarily good and just place (positive representation, and I don't know, maybe in their minds it does) while at the same time setting themselves apart from radical conservatives who do the exact same thing, only they're doing it from the other side.

To make it abundantly clear, I'm absolutely not saying you should tolerate bigots decrying that books about the Holocaust, race, homophobia, or lgbt experiences should be banned--what I am saying, is that people who protest that a book like Maus or Persepolis is going to "corrupt children", and people who think a book exploring the emotional landscape of a deeply flawed character, who just happens to be from a traditionally marginalised group or is written by someone who is, is bad representation and therefore damaging to that community as a whole are arguments that stem from the exact same place: it's a fundamental inability, or outright refusal, to accept the interiority and alterity of other people, and the inherent validity of the experiences that follow. It's the same maniacal, consumptive, belief that there can be one view and one view only: the correct view, which is your view--your thoughts, your feelings.

There is also dangerous element of control in this. Someone with racist views does not want their child to hear anti-racist views because as far as they are concerned, this child is not a being with agency, but a direct extension of them and their legacy. That this child may disagree is a profound rupture and a threat to the cohesion of this person's entire worldview. Nothing exists in and of and for itself here: rather the multiplicity of the world and people's experiences within it are reduced to shadowy agents that are either for us or against us. It's not about protecting children's "innocence" ("think of the children", in these contexts, often just means "think of the status quo"), as much as it is about protecting yourself and the threat to your perceived place in the world.

And in all honestt I think the same holds true for the other side--if you cannot trust yourself to engage with works of art that come from a different standpoint to yours, or whose subject matter you dislike, without believing the mere fact of these works' existence will threaten something within you or society in general (which is hysterical because believe me, society is NOT that flimsy), then that is not an issue with the work itself--it's a personal issue and you need to ask yourself if it would actually be so unthinkable if your belief about something isn't as solid as you think it is, and, crucially, why you have such little faith in your own critical capacity that the only response these works ilicit from you is that no one should be able to engage with them. That's not awareness to me--it's veering very close to sticking your head in the sand, while insisting you actually aren't.

Arbitrarily adding a moral element to something that does not exist as an agent of moral rectitude but rather as an exploration of deeply human impulses, and doing so simply to justify your stance or your discomfort is not only a profoundly inadequate, but also a deeply insidious, way of papering over your insecurities and your own ignorance (i mean this in the literal sense of the word), of creating a false and dishonest certainty where certainty does not exist and then presenting this as a fact that cannot and should not be challenged and those who do are somehow perverse or should have their characters called into question for it. It's reductive and infantilising in so many ways and it also actively absolves you of any responsibility as a reader--it absolves you of taking responsibility for your own interpretation of the work in question, it absolves you of responsibility for your own feelings (and, potentially, your own biases or preconceptions), it absolves you of actual, proper, thought and engagement by laying the blame entirely on a rogue piece of literature (as if prose is something sentient) instead of acknowledging that any instance of reading is a two-way street: instead of asking why do I feel this way? what has this text rubbed up against? the assumption is that the book has imposed these feelings on you, rather than potentially illuminated what was already there.

Which brings me to something else which is that it is also, and I think this is equally dangerous, lending books and stories a mythical, almost supernatural, power that they absolutely do not have. Is story-telling one of the most human, most enduring, most important and life-altering traditions we have? Yes. But a story is also just a story. And to convince yourself that books have a dangerous transformative power above and beyond what they are actually capable of is, again, to completely erase people's agency as readers, writers' agency as writers and makers (the same as any other craft), and subsequently your own. And erasing agency is the very point of censors banning books en masse. It's not an act of stupidity or blind ignorance, but a conscious awareness of the fact that people will disagree with you, and for whatever reason you've decided that you are not going to let them.

Writers and poets are not separate entities to the rest of us: they aren't shamans or prophets, gifted and chosen beings who have some inner, profound, knowledge the rest of us aren't privy to (and should therefore know better or be better in some regard) because moral absolutism just does not exist. Every writer, no matter how affecting their work may be, is still Just Some Guy Who Made a Thing. Writing can be an incredibly intimate act, but it can also just be writing, in the same way that plumbing is plumbing and weeding is just weeding and not necessarily some transcendant cosmic endeavour in and of itself. Authors are no different, when you get down to it, from bakers or electricians; Nobel laureates are just as capable of coming out with distasteful comments about women as your annoying cousin is and the fact that they wrote a genre-defying work does not change that, or vice-versa. We imbue books with so much power and as conduits of the very best and most human traits we can imagine and hope for, but they aren't representations of the best of humanity--they're simply expressions of humanity, which includes the things we don't like.

There are some authors I love who have said and done things I completely disagree with or whose views I find abhorrent--but I'm not expecting that, just because they created something that changed my world, they are above and beyond the ordinarly, the petty, the spiteful, or cruel. That's not condoning what they have said and done in the least: but I trust myself to be able to read these works with awareness and attention, to pick out and examine and attempt to understand the things that I find questionable, to hold on to what has moved me, and to disregard what I just don't vibe with or disagree with. There are writers I've chosen not to engage with, for my own personal reasons: but I'm not going to enforce this onto someone else because I can see what others would love in them, even if what I love is not strong enough to make up for what I can't. Terrance Hayes put perfectly in my view, when he talks about this and being capable of "love without forgiveness". Writing is a profoundly human heritage and those who engage with it aren't separate from that heritage as human because they live in, and are made by, the exact same world as anyone else.

The measure of good writing for me has hardly anything to do with whatever "virtue" it's perceived to have and everything to do with sincerity. As far as I'm concerned, "positive representation" is not about 100% likeable characters who never do anything problematic or who are easily understood. Positive representation is about being afforded the full scope of human feelings, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and not having your humanity, your dignity, your right to exist in the world questioned because all of these can only be seen through the filter of race, or gender, religion, or ethicity and interpreted according to our (profoundly warped) perceptions of those categories and what they should or shouldn't represent. True recognition of someone's humanity does not lie in finding only what is held in common between you (and is therefore "acceptable", with whatever you put into that category), but in accepting everything that is radically different about them and not letting this colour the consideration you give.

Also, and it may sound harsh, but I think people forget that fictional characters are fictional. If I find a particularly fucked up relationship dynamic compelling (as I often do), or if I decide to write and explore that dynamic, that's not me saying two people who threaten to kill each other and constantly hurt each other is my ideal of romance and that this is exactly how I want to be treated: it's me trying to find out what is really happening below the surface when two people behave like this. It's me exploring something that would be traumatizing and deeply damaging in real life, in a safe and fictional setting so I can gain some kind of understanding about our darker and more destructive impulses without being literally destroyed by them, as would happen if all of this were real. But it isn't real. And this isn't a radical or complex thing to comprehend, but it becomes incomprehensible if your sole understanding of literature is that it exists to validate you or entertain you or cater to you, and if all of your interpretations of other people's intentions are laced with a persistent sense of bad faith. Just because you have not forged any identity outside of this fictional narrative doesn't mean it's the same for others.

Ursula K. le Guin made an extremely salient point about children and stories in that children know the stories you tell them--dragons, witches, ghouls, whatever--are not real, but they are true. And that sums it all up. There's a reason children learning to lie is an incredibly important developmental milestone, because it shows that they have achieved an incredibly complex, but vitally important, ability to hold two contradictory statements in their minds and still know which is true and which isn't. If you cannot delve into a work, on the terms it sets, as a fictional piece of literature, recognize its good points and note its bad points, assess what can have a real world impact or reflects a real world impact and what is just creative license, how do you possible expect to recognize when authority and propaganda lies to you? Because one thing propaganda has always utilised is a simplistic, black and white depiction of The Good (Us) and The Bad (Them). This moralistic stance regarding fiction does not make you more progressive or considerate; it simply makes it easier to manipulate your ideas and your feelings about those ideas because your assessments are entirely emotional and surface level and are fuelled by a refusal to engage with something beyond the knee-jerk reaction it causes you to have.

Books are profoundly, and I do mean profoundly, important to me-- and so much of who I am and the way I see things is probably down to the fact that stories have preoccupied me wherever I go. But I also don't see them as vital building blocks for some core facet or a pronouncement of Who I Am. They're not badges of honour or a cover letter I put out into the world for other people to judge and assess me by, and approve of me (and by extension, the things I say or feel). They're vehicles through which I explore and experience whatever it is that I'm most caught by: not a prophylactic, not a mode of virtue signalling, and certainly not a means of signalling a moral stance.

I think at the end of the day so much of this tendency to view books as an extension of yourself (and therefore of an author) is down to the whole notion of "art as a mirror", and I always come back to Fran Lebowitz saying that it "isn't a mirror, it's a door". And while I do think it's important to have that mirror (especially if you're part of a community that never sees itself represented, or represented poorly and offensively) I think some people have moved into the mindset of thinking that, in order for art to be good, it needs to be a mirror, it needs to cater to them and their experiences precisely--either that or that it can only exist as a mirror full stop, a reflection of and for the reader and the writer (which is just incredibly reductive and dismissive of both)--and if art can only exist as a mirror then anything negative that is reflected back at you must be a condemnation, not a call for exploration or an attempt at understanding.

As I said, a mirror is important but to insist on it above all else isn't always a positive thing: there are books I related to deeply because they allowed me to feel so seen (some by authors who looked nothing like me), but I have no interest in surrounding myself with those books all the time either--I know what goes on in my head which is precisely why I don't always want to live there. Being validated by a character who's "just like me" is amazing but I also want--I also need-- to know that lives and minds and events exist outside of the echo-chamber of my own mind. The mirror is comforting, yes, but if you spend too long with it, it also becomes isolating: you need doors because they lead you to ideas and views and characters you could never come up with on your own. A world made up of various Mes reflected back to me is not a world I want to be immersed in because it's a world with very little texture or discovery or room for growth and change. Your sense of self and your sense of other people cannot grow here; it just becomes mangled.

Art has always been about dialogue, always about a me and a you, a speaker and a listener, even when it is happening in the most internal of spaces: to insist that art only ever tells you what you want to hear, that it should only reflect what you know and accept is to undermine the very core of what it seeks to do in the first place, which is establish connection. Art is a lifeline, I'm not saying it isn't. But it's also not an instruction manual for how to behave in the world--it's an exploration of what being in the world looks like at all, and this is different for everyone. And you are treading into some very, very dangerous waters the moment you insist it must be otherwise.

Whatever it means to be in the world, it is anything but straightforward. In this world people cheat, people kill, they manipulate, they lie, they torture and steal--why? Sometimes we know why, but more often we don't--but we take all these questions and write (or read) our way through them hoping that, if we don't find an answer, we can at least find our way to a place where not knowing isn't as unbearable anymore (and sometimes it's not even about that; it's just about telling a story and wanting to make people laugh). It's an endless heritage of seeking with countless variations on the same statements which say over and over again I don't know what to make of this story, even as I tell it to you. So why am I telling it? Do I want to change it? Can I change it? Yes. No. Maybe. I have no certainty in any of this except that I can say it. All I can do is say it.

Writing, and art in general, are one of the very, very, few ways we can try and make sense of the apparently arbitrary chaos and absurdity of our lives--it's one of the only ways left to us by which we can impose some sense of structure or meaning, even if those things exists in the midst of forces that will constantly overwhelm those structures, and us. I write a poem to try and make sense of something (grief, love, a question about octopuses) or to just set down that I've experienced something (grief, love, an answer about octpuses). You write a poem to make sense of, resolve, register, or celebrate something else. They don't have to align. They don't have to agree. We don't even need to like each other much. But in both of these instances something is being said, some fragment of the world as its been perceived or experienced is being shared. They're separate truths that can exist at the same time. Acknowledging this is the only means we have of momentarily bridging the gaps that will always exist between ourselves and others, and it requires a profound amount of grace, consideration and forbearance. Otherwise, why are we bothering at all?