#there were no casualties

[borbology]

british cuisine moment

[patdevilles]

Toni Collette and Monica Bellucci | Mafia Mamma (2023)

[raggedy-spaceman]

Someone's jealous

[gingermintpepper]

In my Zeus bag today so I'm just gonna put it out there that exactly none of the great Ancient Greek warrior-heroes stayed loyal and faithful and completely monogamous and yet none of them have their greatness questioned nor do we question why they had the cultural prominence that they did and still do.

Jason, the brilliant leader of the Argo, got cold feet when it came to Medea - already put off by some of her magic and then exiled from his birthland because of her political ploys, he took Creusa to bed and fully intended on marrying her despite not properly dissolving things with Medea.

Theseus was a fierce warrior and an incredibly talented king but he had a horrible temper and was almost fatally weak to women. This is the man who got imprisoned in the Underworld for trying to get a friend laid, the man who started the whole Attic War because he couldn't keep his legs closed.

And we cannot at all forget Heracles for whom a not inconsiderable amount of his joy in life was loving people then losing the people around him that he loved. Wives, children, serving boys, mentors, Heracles had a list of lovers - male and female - long enough to rival some gods and even after completing his labours and coming down to the end of his life, he did not have one wife but three.

And y'know what, just because he's a cultural darling, I'll put Achilles up here too because that man was a Theseus type where he was fantastic at the thing he was born to do (that is, fight whereas Theseus' was to rule) but that was not enough to eclipse his horrid temper and his weakness to young pretty things. This is the man that killed two of Apollo's sons because they wouldn't let him hit - Tenes because he refused to let Achilles have his sister and Troilus who refused Achilles so vehemently that he ran into Apollo's temple to avoid him and still couldn't escape.

All four of these men are still celebrated as great heroes and men. All four of these men are given the dignity of nuance, of having their flaws treated as just that, flaws which enrich their character and can be used to discuss the wider cultural point of what truly makes a hero heroic. All four of these men still have their legacies respected.

Why can that same mindset not be applied to Zeus? Zeus, who was a warrior-king raised in seclusion apart from his family. Zeus who must have learned to embrace the violence of thunder for every time he cried as a babe, the Corybantes would bang their shields to hide the sound. Zeus learned to be great because being good would not see the universe's affairs in its order.

The wonderful thing about sympathy is that we never run out of it. There's no rule stopping us from being sympathetic to multiple plights at once, there's no law that necessitate things always exist on the good-evil binary. Yes, Zeus sentenced Prometheus to sufferation in Tartarus for what (to us) seems like a cruel reason. Prometheus only wanted to help humans! But when you think about Prometheus' actions from a king's perspective, the narrative is completely different: Prometheus stole divine knowledge and gifted it to humans after Zeus explicitly told him not to. And this was after Prometheus cheated all the gods out of a huge portion of wealth by having humans keep the best part of a sacrifice's meat while the gods must delight themselves with bones, fat and skin. Yes, Zeus gave Persephone away to Hades without consulting Demeter but what king consults a woman who is not his wife about the arrangement of his daughter's marriage to another king? Yes, Zeus breaks the marriage vows he set with Hera despite his love of her but what is the Master of Fate if not its staunchest slave?

The nuance is there. Even in his most bizarre actions, the nuance and logic and reason is there. The Ancient Greeks weren't a daft people, they worshipped Zeus as their primary god for a reason and they did not associate him with half the vices modern audiences take issue with. Zeus was a father, a visitor, a protector, a fair judge of character, a guide for the lost, the arbiter of revenge for those that had been wronged, a pillar of strength for those who needed it and a shield to protect those who made their home among the biting snakes. His children were reflections of him, extensions of his will who acted both as his mercy and as his retribution, his brothers and sisters deferred to him because he was wise as well as powerful. Zeus didn't become king by accident and it is a damn shame he does not get more respect.

[susellesie]

Claudia was my dark child, my love, evil of my evil. Claudia broke my heart.

- The Vampire Lestat

And with his death, the war of ravens and envoys and marriage pacts came to an end, and the war of fire and blood began in earnest.

- Fire and Blood

lyrics from ptolemaea by ethel cain

[utilitycaster]

The thing about Otohan is that she had an awesome mechanical build and she served a narrative purpose in that the party lived in fear of her for nearly 60 episodes but she truly did die as she lived, with a personality replaced by frogs and murderous intent. And the thing is I suspect there's plenty of interesting stuff about there. I've been there as a DM, having built a super cool NPC with worldbuiding ties that the party simply did not give a shit about, and I think that's the same situation here.

Legend of the Peaks isn't particularly meaningful since only two party members have any recollection of the Apex War and neither show the slightest interest in the politics thereof and they haven't really been relevant to the story. We don't know why she worshiped the Raven Queen once nor what happened to make her stop while still using that symbol...and it hasn't really been relevant to the story. We don't know if the backpack came from her or was from Ludinus...but it's not really relevant to the story other than tracing the potions of possibility back through Treshi and Jiana. We don't know what specifically drove her towards the Vanguard other than lacking answers as a Ruidusborn - which may have simply been enough - but again. Not relevant. We have Liliana to represent the perspective of a Ruidusborn who went through the Omen Archive study and whose motivations warped and twisted from a place of genuine worry and fear, and we have Ludinus to represent the centuries-long architect of this entire plan (plus he can't stop monologuing about his motivations, and that is a compliment). That's plenty.

And so Otohan consistently fails the Sexy Lamp With A Gun Attached Test, and it doesn't really matter, and I'm sure there was a backstory there but there's quite literally been no reason to care about it at any point, and I think most people do not. Her entire purpose within the narrative was that of a sentient evil Jersey Barrier that ultimately had to be blown up. I'm infinitely more interested in the loot drop that resulted from her death (and obviously the emotional ramifications of FCG's sacrifice) than any of her repetitive zealot bullshit.

[asurrogateblog]

The Syd Poll

the topic of this poll is one that is frequently avoided in the pink floyd fandom, but inevitably one we all consider – our individual views on what we think caused syd's psychological struggles (and by extension, led to his departure from the band). I think that – at least in this neighborhood of tumblr – this is a conversation we are capable of having in a way that is civil, nuanced, and at least minimally disrespectful to syd.

So, to help facilitate this, here are some ground rules:

let's all assume we have a mutual understanding of the complexities of this. syd could never actually be reduced down to a poll, and all of our viewpoints are limited in various ways

the poll options just serve as just a conversation starter, and responses are not necessarily a statement of absolute beliefs

feel free to discuss as much or as little of your own perspective as you feel comfortable sharing.

in the case that debates break out, please try to assume good intent – and also demonstrate it (unless, for instance, someone is being blatantly insulting beyond a misunderstanding that needs correcting)

please do NOT vote if you are not actually a pink floyd fan with at least basic knowledge about what we're talking about here.

The options I've included below are not meant to be exhaustive, they are simply the "theories" that I have seen most commonly circulated. I have also decided not to include combinations. I'm fairly sure we'd all agree multiple factors were involved. Rather than make the poll too complicated, I ask you to instead select the one that you think is the "most" important to your viewpoint, and clarify further in your tags/comments as you wish.

so. here we go.

READ BEFORE VOTING ^^^^

(note of correction: "late-onset schizophrenia" should just be "schizophrenia". the typical timeline for onset of symptoms is late adolescence/early adulthood, so syd would've been well within that period at the time)

[hyperionwitch]

The evening weather FINALLY cooperated for long enough (mostly--it was SO windy, lol) so we ran out to the river and finally did a photoshoot for Princess Serenity! These turned out so dreamy, I love them~

Photos: @tasty-patches (touch ups/effects editing by me)

[lysreadsbookssometimes]

Imagine the emotional rollercoaster Ctimene, Odysseus' sister and Eurylochus' wife, went through during EPIC.

Through all the Trojan War, she fears for both her brothers' and her husband's life. She sits there with her mother Anticlea, and her sister-in-law, Penelope, watching her nephew Telemachus grow up. We can only imagine how she misses him. Maybe she wants to start her own family. Maybe there are suitors after her, too.

They hear that the war is over, and their boys take their sweet time coming back. They finally see the ships on the horizon, only to watch a gigantic storm absolutely demolish the ships.

They have pieces of the ships wash up on shore. Some bodies, too. Fishermen sail out, looking for survivors and finding none. The bodies they find get buried, their families mourn them. And everyone else just sits there, having seen the extent of the storm, the bodies, and come to the conclusion that their loved ones are lost to the sea.

Ctimene sits there with the realization that her husband and her brother are dead. Her mother dies. She lost her entire family. Penelope is convinced Odysseus survived somehow, so Ctimene is pretty much alone in her grief.

Years pass. I imagine Ctimene and Penelope help each other with suitors, raising Telemachus and just ruling Ithaca, but there is always this divide between them.

And then the impossible actually happens. Odysseus is back. He kills Penelopes suitors. He is reunited with his family. Ctimene hears, comes running, her brother has returned. And with him the hope returns that her husband might still be alive.

So she asks him. And Odysseus says no.

And then he starts telling the story. Of Eurylochus, the voice of reason. That he survived the storm, survived Poseidon, resisted Circe, survived the underworld, survived the Sirens. That he survived Scylla.

Ctimene listens to his reasonings for the sacrifices and then chews him out just as Eurylochus had.

Then Odysseus tells her about the Mutiny. And then Zeus.

Neither Penelope nor Telemachus are in the room when he explains what choice Zeus had him make. And while Ctimene rationally knows that she couldn't have chosen between her brother and her husband, she also knows that for his chance to see his loved ones again, 36 families lost that chance. Including her.

Odysseus doesn't explain in detail what happened on Ogygia nor afterwards, and Ctimene only mildly cares. Because her husband died. Because of a decision her brother made. Because her husband tried to protect his fellow crew.

She doesn't talk to Odysseus for a while after that.

[antianakin]

There is exactly one criticism that I agree with my, very anti-Jedi, cousin on and that's the Jedi were TERRIBLE Generals. Generals may TRY to make sure their men mostly come back. But useless sacrifices are not only acceptable, but expected, the men are mostly expandable in war. The Jedi did not consider sacrifices like that acceptable or expected. Sure it did happen. It was WAR. But they tried their best to make sure it DIDN'T. The Jedi were terrible Generals. But they were the teachers and Leaders the CLONES NEEDED.

I'm not sure I'd ENTIRELY agree with that. I think I'd be willing to agree that the Jedi were perhaps less CONVENTIONAL Generals, and they definitely do seem to at least TRY to place the lives of their men above just tossing them away for an easy victory, but you can just as easily claim that keeping the men alive to keep fighting is a good strategy in and of itself.

The biggest piece of evidence I'd point to that the Jedi were actually perfectly good Generals is the Citadel arc and Tarkin's criticisms. The one real criticism he makes of the Jedi as military leaders is that they're occasionally too soft and will abandon a mission if it looks impossible to win without near total casualties (on either side). But he's generally fairly positive about the Jedi and if they were truly awful at their jobs, I don't think TARKIN of all people would hold back on saying so, even to the Jedi's faces.

And we DO see the Jedi willing to make sacrifices and accepting that this is a necessary part of war. The Citadel arc is, again, a perfectly good example of this. Obi-Wan and Anakin go in with like 3-4 men each I think and they come back with a grand total of 3 (Rex, Cody, and Fives). A LOT of clones die on this mission that they all KNEW was basically a suicide mission because the Jedi themselves decided that getting the information about the hyperspace lanes was vital enough to the war that it was worth losing multiple lives over (including their own).

So it's not that the Jedi don't understand that sacrifices are necessary in war or even that they avoid it entirely, they just avoid what they see as UNNECESSARY sacrifice for what might amount to a fairly minor victory. Keeping more of their men alive might, in the long run, be a better strategic choice than losing all of them on one campaign, especially if it's over like one uninhabited moon or something like that. There's nothing to say that the losses the Jedi deem acceptable are things that would've changed the entire tide of the war had they chosen to push forward instead.

The other good evidence that the Jedi acting this way would've been the WORSE choice is the Umbara arc. We are told and then see that Krell IS the kind of General who is willing to lose a lot of clones in order to gain victories in battle, and the clones do recognize that he has a lot of victories under his belt. But never once do they discuss whether those victories really MEANT anything or had a large impact on the war effort. It certainly never seems that the Republic is majorly pushing back the Separatists because of Krell's victories, nobody ever mentions that Krell gained them a major advantage with those victories or took out anyone of any consequence on the Separatist side with his strategies. And by the time he gets to Umbara, he's explicitly using this strategy to WEAKEN the Republic side and cause a loss. Several of his strategies WOULD'VE meant the Republic lost on Umbara and it's only the clones utilizing different strategies that put fewer of them at risk that they actually end up continuing to HAVE victories at all.

I'll also point out that the Jedi continuously getting their men killed en masse would've bankrupted the Republic a LOT earlier because they'd have to be paying for more clones a LOT more often than they did in canon and I can't imagine anyone would've considered that a particularly sound strategy and at some point I'm sure the Senate would've felt obligated to put a stop to it anyway and insisted on strategies that kept more clones alive for longer. So I'm not sure it's fair to claim the Jedi were utilizing BAD strategy by not just exclusively using tactics that meant most of their men were killed for every single victory.

So the ONLY criticism we EVER see of the Jedi's ability as military leaders is Tarkin claiming they're "too soft" and Tarkin is the kind of person who would likely say that until the Jedi started carpet bombing entire Separatist planets. Would it give them a victory? Yeah, sure, maybe, but that's the exact same strategy the Separatists are using and look how well that works out for THEM. Everything else we ever see seems to showcase that the Jedi are in fact perfectly good Generals, not just in that they're kind to the clones and are unwilling to carpet bomb Separatist planets, but also because they're just... good at this. They CAN be strategic, they CAN run wars if they want to. And I think that's the whole point of the Jedi in some ways is that yes, they CAN make war when they need to, they just actively choose NOT TO every time they can. THIS is why Qui-Gon tells Padme that he and Obi-Wan are there to protect her but that they can't win this war for her and they end up going off to fight off a Sith while Padme has to actually win the war with her own people and the Gungans instead. The Jedi don't WANT to be in the position of doing nothing but fighting, but they're absolutely capable of this kind of work.

That's the tragedy of the war in some ways, the Jedi ARE good at this no matter how much they wish they weren't sometimes. But being good at it means they can actually protect the Republic, their own men, and even the Separatist civilians better, so they're not going to just sit there and do things that will screw over a bunch of people. Yes, they're going to fight the war in such a way that they reduce casualties as much as possible, but reducing casualties also requires doing enough to not LOSE the damn war, too. It's a delicate balance they're trying to hold on to and I'd argue they manage it better than anybody else would've ever done in their position.

[grimdarknokia]

heh! ngozi and nicole kissing?? is everyone in this show gay now? what next? are they gonna make siobhan snog a woman? siobhan snogs a woman? siobhan snogs a woman?? SIOBHAN?? snogs a woman?? SIOBHAN SNOGS A WOMAN??? WILL SIOBHAN SNOG A WOMAN??? BBC?? BEE BEE CEE?? SIOBHAN WOMANSNOGGER WHEN??? SIOBHAN??

[hawleywilby]

[lucifer-is-a-bag-of-dicks]

reasons not to leave food for the neighbourhood feral cats right in front of your downstairs neighbour's front door:

they will start to assume any food delivery left on the doorstep is for them and will chew it out of the bag and drag it across the yard if you don't get it in time (a considerable problem when your food delivery people are allergic to knocking on your door when they drop it off)

(to be clear, I am the downstairs neighbour, I do not feed the cats)

[mortemcatabasis]

🌈Goobert!! 🤡🐷

7½in/11cm, Sculpey, Wire, Acrylic paint, Linen/Fleece fabric, & Polyester stuffing. Started & finished in roughly 2 days

[mangle-my-mind]

Todd Haynes on Mandy Slade

OM: How did you come to cast Toni Collette as Mandy? She doesn't strike me as an obvious choice for the role as it is written; her most famous part was in Muriel's Wedding where she played the podgy, Abba-obsessed ultra-hetero outcast.

TH: Mandy was the hardest part to cast in the film. It's a particularly demanding role due to the range Mandy has to display as she changes from the seventies to the eighties. This type of camp female character has basically vanished from our cultural landscape, as far as I can tell. The closest equivalent today is probably a Parker Posey-type character, but she's still quite different from the Liza Minnelli of Cabaret or the Angela Bowie of the glam era. Mandy has a theatrical, campy party girl persona that can be turned on and off at will, and owes a great deal to the gay male sensibility of the time. I think women around the world were liberated from all kinds of highly codified notions of femininity when people like Patti Smith entered the pop cultural arena. It had such a profound effect on women but girls today have no memory of that kind of camp femininity.

I saw so many strong actresses for Mandy, both in the US and the UK, and it was really tough to find the right one. We came close a few times, but it wasn't until I met Toni that it all clicked. I had no doubt about her acting ability, but the question was how to transform Toni Collette psychically, both for the camera and in her own self-regard into this very different, very confident, overly sexual creature. She really had to go off the cliff; I'm sure it was terrifying. And what you see in the film is such a transformation, such a complete commitment to the role that she almost becomes unrecognizable as Muriel in Muriel's Wedding. After a certain point, nothing was too scary for Toni. What you get with the character is what you get with the actress playing her - this range of changes and the effects of various cultures and various experiences on one extraordinary woman.

OM: Although the script informs you of Mandy being an American bisexual who reinvented herself, you get the sense of invention fully in the scene where she presents Brian with the divorce papers. She breaks down and you see the façade in a seventies context. It's a very moving moment and it's contrasted with Brian's coked-up emptiness. What did you discover in your research about the 'back-stage' women of the glam era?

TH: I guess Mandy's basic expression of real needs is made more vivid by that scene, but the beaten-down, hard-boiled Mandy of the eighties gives you the framework for that. She was definitely one of those people who was feeling and hurting and acting out at the same time. Often the casualties were the women of the male rock world. I really feel the film builds and develops complex sympathies for Mandy that you won't necessarily feel going in. The character is loosely inspired by aspects of Angela Bowie, and it's very easy to make fun of that kind of pop creature after the fact. But in all the books I read there was no argument on how fundamentally essential Angela Bowie was to the invention of Ziggy Stardust and to glam rock in general. She inspired risk-taking and flamboyance to a degree no one else can claim credit for. It wouldn't have happened without her.

Source - "Superstardust: Talking Glam with Todd Haynes", Oren Moverman.

Photo source

Emphases my own :)

[laughhardrunfastbekindsblog]

I was considering writing a longer post about why I'm still sad about how the CXs were ultimately handled in Bad Batch, and I still might, but really what it comes down to is this:

Those clones were tortured and brainwashed beyond what even the inhibitor chip was able to accomplish, the show really seemed to be building up sympathy for them (and rightly so)... And then we end the series with an abrupt about-face where we're apparently supposed to cheer (or at least be relieved) that they all get killed without any chance whatsoever at being (re)reconditioned and reclaiming their original identities.

If the CXs were intended to be considered evil, they should have been choosing for themselves to follow orders and acting under their own volition.