#pro-robert carlyle

[chadwarwickd]

zachary john quinto said i was cute! true story.

hi i am elias, your local zq stan and president of the chad warwick defense squad. he/him omniromantic trans man living in the west coast of canada. enjoy your stay on my blog.

fandoms i am in: ahs, brilliant minds, ouat, marvel, sherlock, star wars, star trek, disney and more ! musicians i like: taylor swift, jonas brothers, smash into pieces, starset, owl city, against the current, red, sleep token, miley cyrus, fly by midnight, gregory dillion, chase atlantic and more ! celebs i favour: zq, chris hemsworth, robert carlyle, daniel radcliffe, adelaide kane, emilie de ravin, alice eve, chris pine, elizabeth olsen and more !

pro tony stark. pro gabriel gray. pro rumplestiltskin (not an apologist) fave characters: chad warwick, spock, gabriel gray, melody (ghostbusters afterlife), rumplestiltskin, tony stark, thor, han solo, ariel and more ! fave ships: wolfnichols, petlar, warslow, ironstrange, thor x jane, stony, swanfire, skysolo, spirk, spones, goldenhook, redbeauty, johnlock, zadison, frary and more !

95% of my content is zq don’t steal my gifs or edits and claim them as your own 🥊

[grace52373]

Rumple/Bobby!

What the hell is this? Hate on Bobby and Rumple night! I am sorry that most of us don’t forgive the unrepentant rapist and killer of our beloved Neal just because she is a woman! If she showed some damn remorse for her crimes maybe I would consider forgiving her but I will never want to be in the same room with her or wish her anything but contentment as far away from me as possible! Rumple at least is remorseful for what he did as is Regina. I know she changed but my God will it kill the writers to have her apologize to Rumple and Regina and Robin for what she did? If she was a man all of you would be calling for her head on a stick and would never forgive her!

She controlled Rumple, kept him in a cage and abused him for a year! She killed his son and laughed over his grief. She didn’t allow him to attend his son’s funeral and she continued to cause trouble for everyone up until her powers were stripped! What’s worse is she got to raise poor Robyn whose father she raped out right. Robin never got to raise his child and Rumple and Belle never got to work through their trauma along with Emma and Henry and every other character because the true misogynists of this show are Adam and Eddie! They just want everyone to forget their trauma and kiss and make up so they bend and twist the plot and force it and call it hope and people wonder why they are being cancelled???

Forgiveness comes with time and with actual atonement and remorse. You can’t force it! But yeah, the ones who are standing up for the abused man and the raped man are misogynists! Also, most of us never blamed Belle for leaving Rumple. We were upset about her exiling him using his dagger which controlled him. Saying that especially when Belle herself was remorseful for it is not hating on the character. Saying they both screwed up is not hate! Calling any character out on bad behavior is not hate! Saying that Rumple or Belle or Regina or Zelena or Snow or Charming or Hook or Emma or Henry deserve to be hurt , controlled, turned into a dark one against their will, raped, etc because they made mistakes is wrong. Does Zelena deserve a happy ending? Does anyone on this show? I don’t know if Zelena deserves a happy ending because I haven’t seen any remorse for her crimes. I know she loves her daughter and is trying to raise her right but it bothers me that she got this child through rape and never showed any remorse for it and in the end, she selfishly got what she wanted while Robin is somewhere floating around the universe and that is what bothers me most of all...the unfairness of it all!

As to what Bobby said at the con last year? Who cares? He is allowed an opinion on a story that was unnecessary and pointless! Bex Mader said it was gross, Lana even hinted at displeasure over it. All of them said problematic things at cons. All of them said tongue in cheeks or off the cuff remarks! Didn’t Lana say Regina/Graham was romantic at some point and Adam and Eddie called Graham Regina’s sex toy and who wouldn’t want that. The actors are human and say problematic stuff all the time. I also hear people saying Bobby is shirking his duties and does a bad job so they don’t ask him to do anything anymore? Where the hell is the proof and if that is the case, why does the cast have nothing but nice things to say about each other? I know they can’t say bad things about their co-workers because they are being professional but they gush about each other and how much fun it is to work together! I think this is more drama for the sake of drama! If you want to hate on Bobby or anyone else, fine just tag it so those who don’t won’t have to see it! Also, don’t be hateful to the actors! They have feelings too. If you take exception to what they say, please be polite about it and don’t harass them. They may not realize they said something wrong. Give them a chance to apologize.

I am literally crying as I type this because I am soo upset! I was looking forward to tonight’s episode but all I have seen all day is rehasment of an old argument and cowardly anons going into people’s boxes and harassing them into cutting off ties with others. All I have seen is negativity and fans lashing out at each other for no good reason! I know fandom can be bad. I know people can screw up.

I decided to apologize for my past behavior because some posts made me think about some things and I may have apologized in the past but I wanted to say it again because I was wrong. I know I can be a hot head and do things without thinking. I am working on that but its a work in progress. I also am aware that I  am overly sensitive at times. I let what someone said hurt me today and I let a male colleague basically punish me, because he thinks I voted for Trump even though I never revealed who I voted for, and it doesn’t matter because I don’t have to listen to him constantly telling me how awful the president is every single day just because he wants me to say something bad about Trump and I refuse to give him the satisfaction. In fact I won’t until he says something bad about Cosby or any of the people who gave rise to the #me too movement due to their assaulting and sexually harassing people! The point is, I don’t have to let these people hurt me even if I generally respect and like them for other reasons. 

My mom was right when she said that if they don’t pay your bills, you don’t owe them anything. In other words, live your life the best way you can and be the best person you can and don’t let others bring you down. I have seen some reasonable and kind things said on line. I have seen some fun debates and talks but I have also seen people get up on their damn social justice soap box and rip people apart for thinking differently than they do. I have seen people be silenced because they don’t want to deal with hate. I have seen people judge others for their politics, religion, opinions, heck even fictional characters and ships!   I am sick of it! I considered getting off social media permanently because of it. What happened to free speech? What happened to respecting other’s beliefs even if they differ? I am not talking about sexist, racist, homophobic, etc views. 

I am sorry about the rant but I needed to get this off my chest because it dawned on me tonight that I have been letting people here, on facebook and in real life upset me and silence me and I won’t do it anymore. I am done apologizing for my opinions and letting other people shit on me! I was bullied in school and called names and I refuse to let it happen here. Although, I rarely discuss politics because there is always someone who talks a good game about tolerance but doesn’t practice what they preach. If you don’t like my opinions, thoughts on Belle, Rumbelle, or other shows I watch than you know what to do. 

I was just told people don’t use hyphens in anti tags anymore so now I got to revamp my blacklist.

[sorin-in-the-sixth-sense]

Robert Carlyle as Snape, thoughts?

[enixamyram]

A Once Upon A Time Season 7 appreciation post.

I don’t give a flying fruit cake what anyone else says. This was my absolute favourite season, with my favourite story lines, my favourite characters and my favourite cast. Even those I wasn’t sure on at first have grown on me - big time - and while I am forever bitter that we never got more, I’m still very happy with what we did get.

[much-darker-blog]

That's supposed to be a photo-scene, but I never wrote what came on my mind for this rp (maybe I'll do this one day, at least I hope so)... Anyway, I love these two together and wanted to share it with you, dearies and... Snape maniacs? Snape lovers? Snapedom? Dunderheads? ... Who knows it? XD

[panchibust]

reblog if you will watch S7...

ONLY FOR:

me:

[gravitascivics]

A PANTHEIST IN THE MIX

The purpose of this posting is to review, in a few words, the effect of Ralph Waldo Emerson – known to his acquaintances as Waldo – on the Transcendentalist movement in the US.  This account will be spotty but hopefully cover the importance of Emerson in advancing and, at times, inhibiting federalist values.  He initially set out to do his work in religious venues – he trained to be a minister – but in time he left that behind.

         Probably his most utilized stage was that of an essayist.  Originally, his efforts usually appeared as lectures that he then converted into written form.  His overall messages portrayed him as a champion of individualism and as a social critic.  As such, he portrayed an uncanny ability to foresee developments as he repeatedly set out to dispense good advice in relation to countervailing societal forces.  

In that effort, he described how and why those forces did what they did. For that, he enjoyed an expansive audience that grew not just across the nation but extended into Europe.   From his 1500 or so lectures, one can find the core of his thinking in the first two published collections of his essays, those being Essays:  First Series (1841) and Essays: Second Series (1844). A few of his well-known essays include “The Over-Soul”, “Circles”, “Experience”, “The Poet”, “Self-Reliance”, and his most famous piece, “Nature”.  

And underlying his main themes was his transcendent view and reliance on the role of intuition in determining one’s knowledge and the direction one takes in life.[1]  As a cited source puts it, using Emerson’s words,

… he explicitly identifies Transcendentalism as a form of philosophical Idealism. Emerson wrote:

As thinkers, mankind have ever been divided into two sects, Materialists and Idealists; the first class founding on experience, the second on consciousness; the first class beginning to think from the data of the senses, the second class perceive that the senses are not final, and say, The senses give us representations of things, but what are the things themselves, they cannot tell…Society is good when it does not violate me, but best when it is likest to solitude. Everything real is self-existent. Everything divine shares the self-existence of Deity…[Kant showed] there was a very important class of ideas or imperative forms, which did not come by way of experience, but through which experience was acquired; that these were intuitions of the mind itself; and he denominated them Transcendental forms.[2]

         On more political topics, he espoused the potential of the individual and of his/her freedom to seek those potentials.  This individualism should not be seen as the one seen in the twenty-first century.  It was more a concern for the integrity of a person and his/her challenge to overcome his/her weaknesses or other obstacles in life.  

And in true Romantic spirit, he extoled the virtues of nature.  Some would consider his philosophic bent to eventually become a pantheist or pandeist.  He is quoted as saying, “In all my lectures, I have taught one doctrine, namely, the infinitude of the private man.”[3]  His political contributions gained steam during the Civil War years.  

An antislavery person, he initially shied away from entering that arena.  But probably as a reaction to the number of his friends and family members being outspoken critics of the institution, he eventually joined the fray. Besides a series of lectures opposing slavery in 1837, he began taking a more active role in 1844.

Beyond giving speeches, he hosted John Brown in his home in Concord.[4]  During the war he met with Abraham Lincoln and upon meeting him, changed his estimation of the President.  His initial concern with Lincoln was that he was not as committed to ending slavery as he was in saving the Union.  His face-to-face meeting convinced him that his judgement was not accurate and became one of Lincoln’s great admirers.

So, on the pro-federalist side of the ledger, Emerson strove toward inclusion of blacks into the political partnership of the nation.  In that, he had no hesitation in promoting his belief in the need for a civil war and seemed to consider it as a rebirth of the nation.  On the not so federalist end of the scale was Emerson’s attraction to Thomas Carlyle.  Apparently, the Scot had a profound effect on Emerson.  

As alluded to earlier in this blog, Carlyle was a strong proponent of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon “race.”  In this, one can sense an exclusionary trait and the degree to which Emerson shared this belief is not clear.  Emerson wished for Carlyle to visit America and served as a sort of agent for the historian on this side of the ocean.  The two kept up an ongoing correspondence until Carlyle died in 1881.[5]

In this blogger’s opinion, Emerson did much to secularize American thought.  His opposition to slavery helped bring an end to that scourge on American federalism.  His travels, both domestic and in Europe, led him to meet just about everyone of any note in the literary as well as the political world of his time.  Early on, while living in St. Augustine, Florida, he even met a nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, Prince Achille Murat. They became close friends as they discussed the heady topics of the day such as religion, philosophy, sociology, and politics.[6]

That stay in Florida was where Emerson witnessed slavery firsthand and noted that on one of his outings to a Bible Society meeting, there was a slave auction taking place nearby. He is quoted as expressing, “One ear therefore heard the glad tidings of great joy, whilst the other was regaled with ‘Going, gentlemen, going!”[7]  

         The history of Emerson’s time and his influence betray much of American culture of the 1800s.  While his family’s background spanned the European experience in North America up to his time, he helped further define what the espoused political values of his countrymen should be.  In his efforts, he was more a force for liberating the prevailing federalist thought than adding to its parochialism.  In that, he helped Transcendentalism as a movement stay true to the nation’s basic moral stand in defining its political proclivities.

         Eventually given the title, Sage of Concord, he is judged to have upgraded the art of lecturing.  Reported are the later thinkers and writers who were influenced by Emerson’s work, and they include William James – who happened to be Emerson’s godson – and Nietzsche.  And despite his anti-establishment religious turn, he is credited by some as having a great influence on American theology.  With the focus this posting gives this great American lecturer/essayist, the blog ends its review of the Romantic/Transcendentalist movement in the US.

[1] David Boersema, “American Philosophy,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:  A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource (n.d.), accessed September 20, 2021, https://iep.utm.edu/american/#H2 .

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journal entry, April 7, 1840.

[4] Len Gougeon, Virtue’s Hero:  Emerson, Antislavery, and Reform (Athens, GA:  University of Georgia Press, 2010). 

[5] Robert D. Richardson, Jr., Emerson:  The Mind on Fire (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1995).

[6] Peter S. Field, Ralph Waldo Emerson:  The Making of a Democratic Intellectual (Lanham, MD:  Rowman and Littlefield, 2003). 

[7] Richardson, Emerson, 76.

[confessionsofadearie]

So how many of you are willing to bet that Rumple gave the Black Fairy his heart in exchange for Gideon’s?

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Private equity firms should be abolished

In his latest BIG newsletter, Matt Stoller (previously) relates the key moments in the history of private equity, from its roots in the notorious "leveraged buyouts" of the 1980s, and explains exactly how the PE con works: successful, productive business are acquired through debt financing, drained of their cash and assets, and then killed, leaving workers unemployed and with their pension funds looted, and with the business's creditors out in the cold.

Private equity's story begins with William Simon, "a mean, nasty, tough bond trader who took no BS from anyone" whose idea of child-rearing was the douse his children with buckets of ice-water to rouse them from bed on weekend mornings. Simon was given senior Treasury appointments under Nixon/Ford, then became America's energy czar during the oil crisis. He was pro-austerity and blocked the bailout of NYC in 1975.

Once out of government service, Simon set about to create a Republican "counter-intelligentsia" to swing the party to the right. He ran the influential far-right think-tank the Olin Foundation, and dispersed money to fund law and economics scholars who were devoted to discrediting the New Deal and the idea of any limits on corporate power, all cloaked in "scientific" rhetoric.

The darlings of this movement -- Henry Manne, Milton Friedman, Michael Jenson -- promoted the idea of "shareholder capitalism" and the notion that managers have a single duty: to put as much money in the pockets of investors, even at the expense of the business's sustainability or the well-being of its workers. They joined forces with Robert Bork, who had set about discrediting antitrust law, arguing (successfully) that the only time laws against monopolies should be enforced was when monopolists raised prices immediately after attaining their monopolies -- everything else was fair game (Bork is a major reason that every industry in the economy is now super-concentrated, with only a handful of major firms).

Simon's policy prescriptions -- massive reductions in capital gains taxes, deregulation of trucking, finance and transport, and a move from guaranteed pensions to 401(k)s that only provide in old age if you make the right bets in the stock market -- were adopted by Carter and the Democrats, flooding the market with huge amounts of cash to be invested.

That's when the leveraged buyout industry was born. In 1982, Simon convinced Barclays and General Electric to loan him $80m to buy Gibson Greeting Cards from its parent company RCA. Once the company was theirs, they looted its bank account to pay themselves a $900k "special dividend," sold off its real-estate holdings for $4m, and took the company public for $270m, with Simon cashing out $70m from the transaction (Simon's total investment was $330k).

This was the starter pistol for future leveraged buyouts, through which companies like Bain Capital and the Carlyle Group buy multiple companies in the same sector and transmit "winning strategies" between them: new ways to dodge taxes, raise prices, and avoid regulation. PE owners suck any financial cushion out of companies -- funds that firms set aside for downturns or R&D -- and replace it with "brutal debt schedules." The PE owners benefit massively when this drives up share prices, but take no downsides when the companies fail.

Under PE, companies have emphasized firing workers and replacing them with overseas subcontractors, and amassing "brands, patents and tax loopholes" as their primary assets. PE firms specialize in self-dealing, cutting in the banks and brokers who set up the deals for a share of the upside. A company bought by a private equity firm is ten times more likely to go bankrupt than one with a traditional capital/management structure.

Elizabeth Warren has proposed some commonsense reforms to private equity: making PE investors liable for the debts they load their companies up with (including an obligation to fund workers' pensions); ending special fees and dividends; and reforming bankruptcy and tax laws to force PE companies to operate on the same terms as other businesses. Stoller calls this "reunifying ownership and responsibility": making the people who assume ownership of these productive companies take responsibility for their liabilities, not just their profits.

As Stoller points out, critics of Warren's plan say that this would end private equity investing as we know it ("Unfortunately, Warren’s fixes for these problems... would pretty much guarantee that nobody invests in or lends to private equity firms" -- Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post), but of course, that's the whole point.

But centrist Democrats love private equity, as the firms are major political donors, and many's the politician who cycled out of public office and into a cushy job with a PE firm.

Stoller discusses this further in his new book Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy.

https://boingboing.net/2019/12/16/capitalisms-grave-diggers.html

[celticheartedfangirl]

My OUAT Rewatch -- S5E14 -- Devil’s Due

Link to Rewatch Review and Ranking archive

Everyone stand back, it’s time to honor the MOM OF THE YEAR!

Yeah, if you’re a Milah fan, you may want to back away now.  In fact, you may want to back away PERMANENTLY from my blog because I have no love or empathy or sympathy or ANYTHING for this fucking bitch except cheering for the fact that not only is she dead, she’s DOUBLE DEAD.  

Yeah you heard me.  Not even sorry.

So I went back to look at March 2016 me to see what some of my thoughts were on this one.  I had LOTS to say but I want to focus in on a few key things:

1.  I loathe Milah.  She’s a bitch, an abusive spouse, and just a piece of shit in general, and probably one of THE worst parents on the show, and that’s saying something given this show.  I don’t feel one ounce of sympathy or sorry for her.  Not ONE.  Not even half of a half of a half of a half of one.  

And I had about HAD IT with the Milah apologists in this fandom, and I’m not just talking about the OUAT fandom in general, I’m talking about the RUMBELLE fandom.  Yes, there are Milah apologists in the RUMBELLE fandom.  I’d wave hi to them, but I’m pretty sure they all have me blocked.  Or vice versa.  Or we are mutually blocked.  

GOOD.

Anyhow, I wrote this very lengthy, pointed post after this episode on why the character of Milah disturbs me so much, so here it is:

https://celticheartedfangirl.tumblr.com/post/141406210392/seeing-pro-milah-stuff-on-my-dash-is-so-upsetting

I blocked A LOT of people after this episode initially aired.  Not even sorry.  

There is also this excellent post laying out exactly how Milah is abusive for all the idiots who claim that “Milah never abused Rumple”:

https://violetfaust.tumblr.com/post/133300598121/milah-never-abused-rumple

I know I’m being blunt here but this character triggers me more than any other character on the show.  She is TERRIBLE.  Just in this episode, let’s look at what mommie dearest did in the flashback ALONE:

1.  She yells at Rumple for PLAYING WITH HIS CHILD.  Seriously.  

2.  As soon as Bae gets bitten by the snake, they go to a healer and her immediate -- IMMEDIATE idea is “Hey, let’s KILL HIM!”  I mean, sure, her kid is dying, I’m sure any parent would do anything to save their child, but I honestly think most would stop short of “Hey, let’s do murder!” unless the way of saving their child was stopping an actual murderer who was trying to murder their child.  But nope, Milah goes right for bloodlust.  But of course SHE can’t do the killing, let’s make her husband do that, then get mad at him when he can’t muster up the same level of glee for murder that she can.  

3.  After Bae is healed, she goes STRAIGHT TO THE BAR.  Doesn’t stay to comfort her son that almost died. Nope -- goes off to drink and look for the pirate that flirted with her earlier.  You stay classy, Milah.

Which brings me to the issue that caused all kinds of debate when this episode aired -- “Ermagod Rumple took Milah’s agency with that deal he made!”

Oh, please.

Who thinks that Rumple and Milah had anything that remotely resembled sex since he came back from the ogre wars?  

PLEASE.  That was a DEAD BEDROOM.  They weren’t planning on more kids.  

And hey, if mom of the year Milah wanted more kids, why weren’t there a bunch of baby Killybunnies running around on the Jolly Roger given that she was off with him for at least EIGHT YEARS.  

https://celticheartedfangirl.tumblr.com/post/141199068997/violetfaust-chanceofserendipity-rebelside

Rumple’s choices are always -- ALWAYS -- shit, shittier, and shittiest.  He NEVER has a good option.  His choices were

a) Bae dies

b) he commits MURDER

c) he give up a hypothetical second child that he literally has NO REASON to think will ever exist

Which one would YOU pick, oh great and wonderful Milah defenders?  Tell me your brilliant plans if YOU were in that situation.  

“Oh he should have talked to Milah” HELLO have you ever seen this abusive cow be reasonable to him?  NO.  You can’t reason with an ABUSER.  So don’t even give me that bullshit answer, sit down.

Just look at this bitch:

https://celticheartedfangirl.tumblr.com/post/141713831697/emospritelet-thatravenclawbitch-woodelf68

Using sex as a weapon on her abused, desperate spouse.  Yes, I know we love squishy woobie!Rumple but this is ABUSE.  Using sex as a weapon is ABUSE.

https://celticheartedfangirl.tumblr.com/post/141212899672/milah-never-abused-rumple-we-only-saw-a-little-bit

And in the underworld, Rumple is AGAIN faced with a no-win, no good solution situation.  

https://celticheartedfangirl.tumblr.com/post/141427043007/you-used-to-say-belle-not-having-a-reaction-when

Honestly, if the genders were reversed and Rumple were a woman and Milah were a man, the whole fandom would be like:

I’m done with Milah, just talking about her makes me stabby.  So onto Emma . . . . here’s March 2016 me:

https://celticheartedfangirl.tumblr.com/post/141400138912/so-hold-up-emma-tells-milah-about-neal

Someone slap her for me.  

Also the “Poor Hook” bullshit:

https://celticheartedfangirl.tumblr.com/post/141200226257/what-pisses-me-off-the-most-about-the-whole-save

And Adam running away from fans who ask him valid questions that he has zero answers for:

https://celticheartedfangirl.tumblr.com/post/141895654207/audreyslovegrows-queen-of-the-merry-men

But Belle is pregnant so . . . . . yay?  I remember thinking back then, “Gee I wonder how they’ll fuck THIS up.”

Here, have some hilarious fan art from the really good scene we all love:

https://celticheartedfangirl.tumblr.com/post/141429781082

BTW, despite all the bitching, MAJOR KUDOS to Robert Carlyle for knocking it out of the park on this one!  Well done, sir!  

This show doesn’t deserve you.

Points tally:

40 points to start

15 points for Rumple centric (was the last one SERIOUSLY Season 3?  I think it was, JFC, this show . . . . )

10 points for Papafire

5 points for Swan Queen

5 points for in character Rumple

5 points deducted for Hook

Despite my bitching, which is mainly about the CHARACTER Milah, I didn’t dislike this episode.  Full 25 bonus, no deductions.

Total points:  95

Follow #celtichearted OUAT ranking tag for more to come!

[msclaritea]

The Consequences of Jean Paul and Food For Thought, an excerpt from Aurora's Feather: The Queer Decoding of The Sign of Four.

"Some things should not be hidden behind glass. They were made to be touched."

    “How small we feel with our petty ambitions and strivings in the presence of the great elemental forces of nature! Are you well up in your Jean Paul?"

"Fairly so. I worked back to him through Carlyle."

"That was like following the brook to the parent lake. He makes one curious but profound remark. It is that the chief proof of man's real greatness lies in his perception of his own smallness. It argues, you see, a power of comparison and of appreciation which is in itself a proof of nobility. There is much food for thought in Richter.”

Now, this was odd. Jean Paul Richter never became friends with Von Goethe, who disliked some of his literary methods. Goethe even dubbed him 'A Chinese in Rome' due to his perceived overuse of Orientalism in his writings..."but in Weimar, as elsewhere, his remarkable conversational powers and his genial manners made him a favorite in general society.”  Carlyle liked him.

Goethe spoke often of, especially in his play about striving and strife, itself, but so had other Romantics, so why use a quote from another author, already so close to the thoughts of the original muse it seems ACD has been using so far, especially if Goethe didn’t even like the guy?

You know something I have finally picked up on, is when having to look into historical figures, there is the official version...and then there is the rest that gets left out, which is a theme that seems to be peeking out from this story; that of an incomplete tale, searching for wholeness; the same theme that was used in BBC Sherlock.

Enter Warm Brothers: Queer Theory In The Age of Goethe by Robert Tobin, which contributed to most of the following information.

                Jean Paul

Johann Paul Friedrich Richter at one point changed his name from it’s more German sound to Jean Paul, which was French and what German society considered effeminate.

While most Romantic novelists wrote in the positive about Marriage, he usually wrote the experience as a negative; a deadly trap.

When he decide to marry, J.P. was quoted as saying “what he wanted was a woman to cook for him”.

18th century blurred the lines between homosexuality and heterosexuality. A person could have several ‘friends’ of different sexes, but could only love one person. Under the guise of friendship, people could say and write things that sound incredibly queer. Some men did not want their spouses to know about their letters, but others who were more pro-feminine, shared their lifestyle with their wives.

He coined the term “love of friends” used as a term among German homosexuals in the 20th century.

Jean was upset with the Christian faith, in part because he could not engage in health, fun horseplay with his male friends.

He once wrote to a friend, "Love must have something physical, a twig, down to which it flies. Send me a twig!” 

   (Seriously, these German dudes are killing me!)

Jean Paul is...or should be...considered an important voice in Love, Romance, and Homosexuality in German literature.

His novel Siebenkas is about Same Sex Desire, Orientalism, and a Love Triangle. From Transcendental Masturbators: Jean Paul's Siebenkas:

"Siebenkäs found Jean Paul leveling a more general critique at the Romantics and at Fichtean Idealism. This novel has been called “the first German marriage novel.” It appeared at a time in which the theory of marriage and the theory of self-consciousness were curiously intertwined. Jean Paul's critique of philosophical language threatened the self-understanding of German Idealism, construing it as a radicalization rather than a partial repudiation of the Enlightenment. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's Wahlverwandtschaften showed that a married couple has sex while committing imaginary adultery. The erotics in the Wahlverwandtschafte imagined the four partners (real and imaginary) in four different sexual arrangements."

  Orientalism

The Orient had a reputation of an ‘excess of intercourse’ and that it ‘exuded dangerous sex’. It is probably not a coincidence that increase in colonization to parts of the Orient run parallel to the popularity of it’s ‘Sexual Exoticism’ in widespread European literature. Germany reinforced cliches about Sex and the Orient, codified and promoted them in literature and philosophy.

The 19th century British explorer Richard Burton mapped out what he called the SOTADIC ZONE; an area outside of Europe that seemed more prevalent to Homosexuality and Pederasty. (For Burton, pederasty and homosexuality were "geographical and climatic, not racial," meaning it could be found in all the red bits.)

The countries included Morocco, Tahiti, Siam, the West Indies, Northwest America, India, Arabia, Algiers, Egypt, Turkey, China, Siberia, Italy, Constantinople and more within this zone.

Many Europeans, including Wilde, regarded North Africa as ‘a playground full of potential partners’. Italy was well known for its male prostitutes. Hans Christian Anderson was quite ‘distracted’ by them.

Goethe penned an Orientalist novel The East-Western Divan. It turns out that among Goethe’s many interests, it included Eastern Religion and Literature. In an amenable nod to Jean Paul, he stated that “A man who has 'penetrated' the breadth, height, and depth of the Orient, will find that no author had approached the Eastern poets and other authors more than Jean Paul.”

From Holmes quoting Jean Paul, if one were to assume that he wasn't merely referring to Paul's general philosophies, but his other 'foods for thought', then that would have to point to the German novelist being an advent for same sex male friendship AND desire, his use of Orientalism, in Paul's case, BOTH of very close male-male friendships, and Exotic male bodies. He wrote novels, poetry, and papers on the subject, particularly about the acceptance of close male friendships, be they homo-social, homosexual, or otherwise.

(Incidentally, the story within the story of Small, and his exotic adventures...where is it set, again?)

"In response to an ongoing public feud between a local Gay poet and a known homophobe, Goethe took up the cause of homosexuality when it was under massive attack. The attacks had begun in earnest in 1807, not only in response to Goethe’s championing of Winkelmann in his essay of 1805, but in a politically charged campaign against the supposedly treasonous Homosexual Johannes Muller...the attacks on Muller, one of the most celebrated historians of his day, were venomous, for the first time, bringing Nationalism to bear on the interpretation of Homosexuality (at the same time, incidentally, when anti-semitism took on a particularly modern virulence)”

“Man, esthetically is after all much more beautiful, superior, more complete than woman. Once it had arisen, such a feeling then can veer off easily into the animalistic, brutishly physical. Pedarastry is as old as Humanity, and we can therefore say that it is found In nature, even as it is AGAINST nature.”

At this point in the meta, I was almost finished, and had saved Jean Paul for one of the last pieces. I almost stopped here, but I kept having a thought: WHAT IF 'FOOD FOR THOUGHT' REFERRED TO SOMETHING ELSE? A POEM OR OTHER BOOK BY PAUL?

From Amazon: "Life of Jean Paul F. Richter Volume 2", by Eliza Buckminster Lee and William Howitt, is a replication of a book originally published before 1845. It has been restored by human beings, page by page, so that you may enjoy it in a form as close to the original as possible."

This book includes a quote, from a critic, on a piece of work:

Only...the critic above was not speaking about Jean Paul, but Fredrich Schiller, and his highly praised piece of work,

The Philosophical and Aesthetic Letter and Essays of Schiller.

 Johann Christoph Friedrich Schiller (1759–1805) is best known for his immense influence on German literature. In his relatively short life, he authored an extraordinary series of dramas, including The Robbers, Maria Stuart, and the trilogy Wallenstein. He was also a prodigious poet, composing perhaps most famously the “Ode to Joy” featured in the culmination of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony and enshrined, some two centuries later, in the European Hymn.[1] In part through his celebrated friendship with Goethe, he edited epoch-defining literary journals and exerted lasting influence on German stage production. He is sometimes referred to as the German Shakespeare; his are still among the most widely produced German plays both in Germany and internationally.

In addition to his literary accomplishments, Schiller was a formidable philosophical thinker. Between 1791 and 1796, he authored a range of theoretical works that are both sophisticated and original. These writings primarily concern aesthetics, but they stake out notable positions on ethics, metaphysics, ontology, and political theory as well. Together, his essays helped shape one of the most prolific periods of German philosophizing; since then, they have served as a significant source of philosophical insight from an aesthetic practitioner of the highest standing.

"As we shall see, Schiller’s solution to Kant’s belief that morality can only be achieved by negating man’s negative sensuous impulses, is to educate the emotions of man, in order to bring them into harmony with reason. For Schiller, a human being who has achieved such harmony, by transforming his selfish, infantile erotic emotions into agape of truth, justice, and beauty, is a “beautiful soul.” Moreover, since only such a person is truly free, durable political freedom can only be achieved by deliberately fostering such an aesthetical education of man’s emotions among the population. Because Schiller’s writings are such a devastating critique of the philosophical basis for continuing oligarchical oppression of humanity, academic agents of the oligarchy, taking advantage of the abstraction of Schiller’s argument, have gone so far as to attempt to deny his opposition to Kant, even to the point of lyingly portraying him as a Kantian".

Thomas Mann did a life-long study of Schiller in Queer terms for decades, and asserted in his last work Essay on Schiller, that the philosopher had an intense love for Goethe:

"The great adventure of his life, his experience of passion, of passionate attraction and repulsion, of deep friendship, deep desire and admiration; of give and take, of jealousy, of melancholy, envy and proud self-assertion, of lasting, affective tension...was an event between man and a man. It was his relationship with Goethe."  Mann asserts that Schiller was the completely 'masculine' writer, that wanted to attribute to Goethe a 'feminine manner'.

The intense male friendships in many of Schiller's works have resulted in the inclusion of his works in various compilations of 'Gay Literature', including Bullough's Bibliography of Homosexuality. His piece Wallenstein is a known source for Gay Male History. During Schiller's time and beyond, his work was considered so Queered, that it seems 'The Appropriation of Schiller' actually became a thing. You will find his influence in plays, essays, adaptations, cinema.

So prominent was the talk about Schiller's perceived Homosexuality in Queer circles, that a Satirical magazine, Jugend, featured in one issue a drawing of two boys, resting, and overlooking a bridge and a tower, complete with a quote from Schiller. Sascha Schneider, untitled, 1897, Queer Schiller?

 From Warm Brothers: "Let us leave the realm of psychoanalysis and return to Schiller . As Jane Bennett points out, confining Schiller to the purely abstract, to concepts like humanity and liberty vitiates his most heartfelt beliefs. Schiller was quite capable of writing abstract theses but chose instead, to write dramatic plays. In the abstract thesis, he went to bat for Aesthetics...for that realm of experience that attempted to bridge the gap between the mind and body; that attempted to connect sensual pleasure with thought. Schiller's hope, in the Letters of Aesthetic Education on Humanity, was that people could will to do what they ought to do. 'The 'willing' is often a sensual, physical, bodily act. The drama attempts as to flesh out the moral problems that Schiller confronts by giving these problems to people with actual bodies. By ignoring the sensual, physical, bodily in Schiller's dramas, readers have tended to turn him into an intellectual, concept artist, which is at odds with his philosophy of art. Schiller had begun his career with writings on the mind/body problem, inspired by the medical models that denied the separation."

Faust is academically seen as a treatise on Schiller's Letters. And the skull that Faust has is based on the actual skull of Schiller's that Johann kept for a short time.

If HoImes sees himself in this story, as Goethe and Watson as Schiller, he may have just hinted to Watson that he is a man of faults, but that he yearns to have a more human existence; a friendship that goes beyond the platonic, and to be made whole, through a sensual, physical act.

After all of this, everything just seemed to go quiet. I stopped working for a while, and started to cry.   

@sarahthecoat  @possiblyimbiassed  @holmezyan  @theconsultinglinguist @iamsherlockedbyholmes @impossibleleaf  @raggedyblue  @elldotsee @gosherlocked  @elwinglyre @consulting-nerd-of-many-things @bluebluenova @devoursjohnlock @may-shepard

[scribbles-by-kate]

Series rewatch thoughts - 1.8 “Desperate Souls”

I think this is the best back story reveal the show ever did, to be honest. For the first seven episodes, Mr Gold/Rumplestiltskin is a very shadowy figure. You don’t know what his deal is apart from knowing he’s got some animosity against Regina, that he gave her the curse, and that he’s considered very dangerous and very powerful. Then suddenly we get all this information about this character. He was once a very different man. He had a son he loved dearly. He became a very powerful dark sorcerer. Rumple does clearly become a villain at times during the show’s run, but he also has a very sympathetic back story, and they never fully lose sight of that, even when they want him being the bad guy. He’s one of the most compelling, layered characters on the show. He’s a complicated guy, and that all starts in this episode.

Having seen the whole series, I’ve seen the struggle Rumple underwent choosing between love and power. Watching this episode again, I see that desire for power very clearly. I don’t know if I noticed it the first time, or if I got caught up in the pro-Rumple fandom bubble, but power is clearly presented as something Rumple lacks and would like to have. Hordor mentions his lack of power: the beggar talks of a way he can get power. And Rumple is very interested in what the beggar has to say. When the beggar asks how he thinks an idiot like the duke has power over the Dark One, Rumple says ‘Tell me’. And you can see his eagerness to have power when he says to Bae ‘Imagine me with that power’. So, when he tells Belle in season five that he craved power, he wasn’t lying: he did.

But I also know that the craving for power is, on the surface, related to his lack of power. He’s poor, lame, friendless. As Hordor points out, he’s got no money, no land, no title, no power. There are no fairies coming to grant his wishes, and you can bet he made them. But his craving for power also has a magical cause. What his mother did in cutting away his destiny as the Saviour left him with a hole he didn’t know how to fill, until he found out about the Dark One. You cannot read Rumple’s character and his relationship with power independently of what his mother did to him. The weakness for power is instilled in him first by Fiona and intensified by his poverty and low situation. In his situation, anyone would take the kind of power that’s being described to him: that’s human nature, with a little magical direction thrown in.

So it’s a sympathetic back story. It’s even more so when you see how Rumple was tricked. Now, I do think, had the beggar not been the Dark One in disguise, the outcome would still have been the same: Rumple would have gone after the dagger and still become the Dark One. I think that was a foregone conclusion. Rumple wanted power: he was going to take it. And I think that’s what he means when he says that becoming the Dark One was the act of a coward - he views it as cowardice that he didn’t find a more righteous way to save his son. I think he viewed it as cowardice that he craved power too. So, no, he wasn’t tricked into summoning the Dark One, or killing him: he was considering murder when he talked to Bae about having the power, and it didn’t actually take much persuading by Zoso to get Rumple to kill him.

The real essence of where he was tricked was that Zoso didn’t tell him the nature of the bargain he’d made. Rumple didn’t realise it wasn’t possible to do good with the power: he didn’t realise he was getting a soul-destroying Darkness. Cue four hundred years of battling that Darkness for his soul. Cue loss and pain and bad choices. Cue the Darkness feeding on his insecurities, whispering into his ear, encouraging him to choose it over love. Cue Rumple, at different times, feeling like all he has is the power. Cue an ultimately very satisfying journey of growth and redemption for this particular viewer. Cue Rumple becoming the Saviour he was born to be, and choosing that. He was also the longest lived and last Dark One, the Dark One who ultimately destroyed the burden of the Darkness. Did I imagine I was going to get a story like that when I saw this episode? No, I don’t think so. I did become aware at some point that the task of destroying the Darkness should ultimately be Rumple’s, but I don’t think I foresaw how epic that journey would be. Rumple’s one of my favourite characters ever, this episode is the start of why. Thank you very much Once Upon a Time and Robert Carlyle for that!

I think the reason that Rumple is always so clear that there’s a price for magic is because he was tricked. He made a deal he didn’t understand, so he always makes sure to tell people the price. There’s always been something honourable in Rumple: he doesn’t want to trick people as he was tricked, and he’s always angry if someone doesn’t tell someone about the price, or if they try to avoid paying it.

It’s striking how decent a man Rumple was too. Although poor himself, he didn’t hesitate to give a few coins to the beggar, and then share his food with him. That’s a generous, decent soul. And we see that generosity again throughout the series. He can be very selfish with the Darkness, and, of course, he did commit murder at the least provocation here, which suggests he was always capable of that if pushed, but there’s a lot of generosity and nobility in him too. I think he wanted to be good, and I think maybe Zoso knew that, and, along with the desperation, that’s why he chose Rumple to pass the curse onto. Maybe he knew he could deal with it better than someone starting with a dark heart, and Rumple did. He wasn’t setting out to open a portal to the Underworld anyway. He caused plenty of destruction, it’s true, but he was guided mostly by love. If he hadn’t been trying to get back to Bae, he’d probably have gone darker much quicker. And if he hadn’t met Belle, he’d probably have been lost to the Darkness when Bae died. He had a massive selfish streak, it’s true, but he did always come back to trying to conquer that, and he succeeded in the end.

Something I thought was interesting was that, related to the Rumplestiltskin fairytale, no one seemed to know the Dark One’s true name, apart from the one controlling him. The power seemed to be in the name, rather than his soul being tethered to the dagger, initially. They changed that later, though, and we know that Rumple gave his name out freely. He possessed the dagger himself, so the power in his name was people knowing it so they could call on him for help.

This episode is very much about choices we make when we’re in a difficult situation. Rumple chooses power to save his child, while Emma chooses to be truthful, knowing that she might lose hers, or the child she’s deciding she wants to be a mother to. She wonders what she is to Henry if she’s not a hero and not the Saviour. Rumple wonders what he is without his son. In fact, Rumple knows he’d turn to dust without Bae. It’s very interesting to see these two paralleled like this, especially knowing that those parallels continue. Both are, at different times, Dark One, Saviour, hero, villain. I don’t know that it was initially intended that Rumple and Emma would be paralleled as much as they came to be later, but this episode you can certainly see that they’re connected.

They’re connected as parents too. It’s interesting that Emma thinks in terms of what she is to Henry, while Rumple thinks in terms of what Bae is to him. Emma wants to be everything to Henry: Rumple sees Bae as everything to him. And when Rumple tells Regina not to underestimate someone who’s acting for their child, he’s talking about himself, though of course Regina believes he’s talking about Emma.

The idea that good loses because good has to play fair is important here too. And it’s interesting because, again, Rumple, Emma, and Regina do duty as heroes and villains through the show’s run. I don’t think anyone could have foreseen that that would be the case at this point. I love how good sometimes needs a little helping hand from someone in the grey area. Rumple knows human nature well: he knew Emma wouldn’t be elected without him orchestrating a situation where she would let her natural sense of right win out. So maybe it’s fair to say that good doesn’t win without a little helping hand from someone walking the line between good and bad. And, again, what Rumple does here allows Emma to become more part of the community, thus keeping her in Henry’s life.

We get a little sense of Enchanted Forest politics in this episode as well. The Duke of the Frontlands is clearly a war profiteer, sacrificing his people so he can make money off the war. He could easily get the Dark One to end the war, but he doesn’t. The only explanation for why is that he’s making money off it. Rumple is quite right when he says the law wants Bae to die, not fight. Even the press release for this episode calls this a meaningless war. It’s actually interesting to think of how Rumple and Belle are aligned in relation to the war. Belle views her father and his men as to blame for the ogres attacking them - their cruelty is causing the ogres to retaliate in defence, while Rumple is openly critical of the law calling for children to fight. They both have a sense of humanitarianism. And don’t get me started on Hordor having Morraine ride with him. Did that girl get home from the war with her virginity in tact?

Another thing that was interesting is that this is the first episode where we get a different edit of the opening ‘In a town in Maine’ sequence, and it focuses heavily on Rumple. There’s a shot of Rumple with Emma’s voiceover saying ‘How the hell did you get like this?’ We’re about to find out… Also, it struck me how evil they made Regina look in that sequence. The voiceover guy says ’She’ll stop at nothing until someone breaks the curse’, as we see Regina crushing Graham’s heart.

Rumple and Regina’s animosity is clear. What’s also clear is that Rumple enjoys it. Well, he enjoys Emma being pissed at him later too. He gets very gloaty when people come to him annoyed about something he’s done or his interference in something. He’s what we like to call in Ireland a shit stirrer :)

The idea that subtlety is not Regina’s strong suit is something that holds true for the entire series. She learns to temper her rashness, but she’s always direct. It works for her. Well, it does when she moves from being the antagonist to working with the heroes, and then being one herself. At this point, she’s like a bull in a china shop, and Rumple clearly enjoys her frustrated rage, even joking about making space for it. Cheeky little shit!

The back of Rumple’s shop is clearly just a corner of the studio at this point - the floor is different, and there are no windows along the side, as there are later. I’m sure they weren’t sure at that point how much they would use the back room of the shop (a lot!), or hadn’t had time to build the set.

As sympathetic as I am towards Rumple’s back story, the character I feel most sorry for at the end of those flashback scenes is Bae. The camera is positioned from his point of view as he’s watching his previously gentle and loving papa kill men with the dagger. You can tell that Bae knew his father going off alone was a bad idea, and he was right. I can’t imagine how frightening it must have been for Bae to see that transformation. We know that Rumple began to get a handle on the Darkness, and we know that he protected Bae from it after the encounter with Beowulf, but imagine you’re fourteen years old - it’s your birthday, even - and the father you saw last night is now gone, replaced by a killer. Of course Bae, hundreds of years later, was reluctant to have anything to do with his father. It says much about how much he loves him that he was able to forgive him, that he didn’t let the trauma of his father’s transformation keep him from reaching out to him in the end.

[dropsfal]

@luciananepomuceno, o que é que só você viu? 

Dois gols em 3 minutos: te amo. Defesa bem postada, posse de bola, o que tenho a ver.Depois do domingo, entre mortos e dormidos: nas quartas de final estarão a anfitriã Rússia e a comovente Croácia. 

Rússia X Espanha

Espero que todo mundo que estava assistindo tivesse nas mãos ou café ou uma cervejinha. Pra se manter acordado. Que jogo chato. A Espanha naquele nhé-nhé-nhé de sempre. Toca pro lado, gira, toca pro lado. Gentileza nossa continuar chamando de futebol. Os russos, coitados, nenhuma intimidade com a bola, pouco talento, insistiram no paredão.  Aos 12 minutos os espanhóis marcaram seu primeiro gol. Bom, marcaram foi jeito de dizer, o gol foi contra, de calcanhar, um gol todo esdrúxulo. Pensei eu: abriram a porteira. Quanta inocência. Os espanhóis com zero vontade de jogar, não atacavam, insistiam naquele inócuo domínio do meio de campo.  Os russos perderam o medo e resolveram avançar, o zagueiro espanhol deu uma mãozinha, pênalti. Russos empataram aos 41 minutos do primeiro tempo e nos propiciaram os 5 melhores minutos do jogo com a Espanha tentando o gol de qualquer maneira. Intervalo, mais cerveja ou café, uns comentários legais na net, agora vai – pensei, não tem jeito da Espanha não entrar com vontade. Olha, tinha sim. Sabe quando teve a primeira tabela vertical buscando penetrar na área adversária? Aos 75 minutos de jogo. Né mole não, amigos. Os torcedores estávamos naquela indecisão: torcer pelos pênaltis pra ter um resquício de emoção? Mas e o medo de ter que ver mais 30 minutos de modorra e aí a Espanha fazer um golzinho mequetrefe no fim do segundo tempo da prorrogação? Não fizeram. Terminou o segundo tempo, passou o primeiro tempo da prorrogação, passou o segundo e a Espanha emperrando na sua falta de objetividade e na forte determinação russa de passar o cadeado na sua pequena área. Pênaltis. Vamos confessar: tem coisa mais gostosa que disputa de pênalti quando o do nosso time não tá na reta? Tem nada. Pois bora cobrar. Espanha, sim. Rússia, sim. Espanha, sim, Rússia, sim. Espanha, não – goleirão pegou o chute de Koke. Rússia, sim. Espanha, sim. Rússia, sim. Espanha, não. Akinfeev defendeu, com o pé, a cobrança de Aspas (juro que é o nome dele). Rússia nem precisou bater a última cobrança, festa nas ruas, Rússia nas quartas-de-final, depois de quase matar todo o resto do mundo de tédio. Espanha fora da Copa, fim de uma era do futebol tic-tac (espero). Fim do Iniesta na seleção espanhola: aí sim, uma tristeza. E se não tivemos um bom jogo pelo menos a Rússia tem um novo herói.   

Croácia X Dinamarca

Antes do jogo começar já tínhamos uma má notícia: Dinamarca faz mudanças para entrar “mais fechadinha”. Mais, gente? Até agora Dinamarca tinha jogado burocraticamente, uma vitória insossa e dois empates, dois gols marcados, um sofrido, péssimo ritmo. Aí o jogo começou e em menos de um minuto a Dinamarca tinha feito um gol. E a seguir, a Croácia empatou. Nem cinco minutos e já tinha dois gols no placar. Opa, jogo promissor. Junte-se a isso minha esperança que a Croácia desfilasse em campo toda a categoria de seus jogadores com nome de inflamação, especialmente o Modric. Mas a técnica superior não decidiu o jogo, pelo contrário, a equipe croata estava bem atabalhoada em campo. A maior parte do jogo foi morno, aí chegando perto do final a galera foi dando o gás de novo. Os croatas correram muito, correram demais. Na metade da prorrogação estavam exaustos, completamente pregados. E foi depois da metade do segundo tempo da prorrogação que o destino pareceu sorrir pros croatas: pênalti. Eu disse em voz alta (embora pra ninguém, já que vejo o jogo sozinha): não bate, Modric. Ele estava visivelmente cansado. Aquela história engraçada do “não tem mais perna”. Era ele. Sem força nenhuma pra uma batida decisiva. Mas craque do time, responsável, pegou a bola e foi. Resultado: goleirão (nos dois sentidos) defendeu. Daí pro fim foi só correria em campo, tanto dos croatas que ainda conseguiam como dos dinamarqueses. O jogo técnico, sofisticado, envolvente não apareceu. A decisão foi pura emoção. Teve suor, teve entrega, teve coração na boca. Penalidades. Um festival de defesas imensas e cobranças fracas. Não lembro quem disse: pode errar, mas tem que errar com convicção.... não foi o caso da maioria dos batedores que erraram sem categoria mesmo. Mas Modric bateu de novo e, tal como o Zico de 86, embora tivesse errado o do tempo regulamentar, acertou o da fase final. O goleiro dinamarquês Schmeichel defendeu duas de cinco batidas. Um monstro. Mas o goleiro croata Subasic defendeu três. Milagroso. Festa maravilhosa dos croatas. Eu chorando de alegria #medeixem. O mais engraçado foi ver os jogadores croatas tentando correr pra comemorar a classificação, mas tão cansados que quase não conseguiam pegar embalo. Modric foi em direção ao goleiro que o pegou no colo. Tanta ternura que comove. Uma cena daquelas pra lembrar por anos e anos, retrospectivas e retrospectivas. Mas o mais importante é: cês repararam que o Modric é a cara do Robert Carlyle? 

Luciana Nepomuceno,

escrete PISTOLA Drops

#dropsnacopa

#dropsdafal

[ploppythespaceship]

Once Upon A Time Rewatch - Season 1

Pros:

The concept is solid and fun to explore. At this point, the fairy tales are woven together expertly in a way that feels fresh and original without forcing anything.

The two worlds contrast each other beautifully and parallel each other.

The characters are interesting and fun to watch.

The episodes are incredibly well structured. You can tell these are the writers who worked on Lost. They know what they’re doing.

Rumplestiltskin/Mr. Gold is at his best here. Knowing how much he takes over the spotlight in later seasons, it’s so refreshing to see him more mysterious here, a softer dark presence that you know holds all the real power. Robert Carlyle plays him to perfection.

Jefferson is also a fantastic character. It’s almost a shame Sebastian Stan got pulled away to Marvel, because his presence on the show is missed.

Best episodes:

“The Thing You Love Most”

“Desperate Souls”

“Skin Deep”

“The Return”

Cons:

The season does drag a bit in the middle, and it feels like nothing is happening.

The David/Mary Margaret affair plot is dragged on just a hair too long. It feels old after a while.

I think they killed Graham off slightly too soon. It feels like something is finally happening and then oops! Out he goes.

I’m sorry, the eighth dwarf named Stealthy?? Who gets murdered?? Whose idea was that??

Worst episodes:

“True North”

“What Happened to Frederick”

“Dreamy”

[much-darker-blog]

[panchibust]

reblog if this man is YOUR KING¡... (and i will serve him with MY LIFE):

ME: