#therefore it is likely that a lot isn't being said around the phrase 'we were greeted by genji-san'

[pochapal]

if you consider eva's testimony by looking at the actions and motions devoid of any embellishment what you get is an admittance that she and hideyoshi were with genji at some point after midnight. obviously since eva knows how suspicious she looks she would only bring up meeting someone else if a) it helped clear her name without a doubt or b) she had no choice but to mention that she saw them for some reason.

[magicians-abode]

"You're sweeter than wine"

How would Dungeon Meshi characters (men) react to you telling them this phrase?

hopefully this isn't ooc, I tried my very best to make it accurate to each character's personality but, well, it's kinda hard for me. Anyways, here's me proving I haven't died and that I'm still willing to write despite my brain being a wreck because of anxiety. Hope you enjoy!

Laios: he's not exactly sure what you mean, but he smiles regardless of his confusion. "Oh! Thank you" but then the doubt crawls up his spine and it makes him ask "what kind of wine? Red? White? Rosé? They're all pretty different in their own way, you know?" so he starts making you explain exactly what you meant, which makes him end up smiling even more now that he knows exactly what you had wanted to express to him since the beginning.

Kabru: I feel like he's used to people thinking he's attractive, he's very analytical when he knows someone new, always paying attention to every detail, every gesture, every roll of their eyes or even when their breath hitches. So when you walked over to him and said hi, but your next words were such a thing, he froze for a moment, blinking owlishly. A little hint of a blush and a laugh erupt from him. He's both amused and flattered by how blunt and sudden you were with it, but he let's you know he appreciates the gesture by saying something along the lines of: "thank you, I could say the same thing about you" and then winking one of his pretty icy blue eyes. (I think I'm fainting)

Chilchuck: not a fan of sweet things, unless it's your compliments, so at first he's taken aback, but then he chuckles. "Well, where did that come from?" He tries to tease you, poking wherever he can reach on your body (depends on how tall you are, if you're a tall-man he probably pokes your stomach) he has a cocky smile on his face, and through all the teasing it probably looks like he wasn't really affected by it, but deep down he really, really liked it. It was a funny thing to say so suddenly, but that didn't mean it didn't make him feel happy and flattered. As an alcohol enjoyer, he finds it funny you're using such an analogy for him.

Thistle: "What??" He's a bit surprised you'd say that to him of all people, but still, a soft blush appears on his cheeks due to embarrassment and a bit of confussion because he just received a compliment from someone he loves. We all know that when he cares for someone, he cares... a lot. So it means a lot to him when you choose to compliment him in such a way, even if he doesn't really get it, since it's canon he doesn't like to drink, at all, but he supposes by your comment that all wines must be sweet then and therefore it makes sense for you to say that. (Even if he doesn't think he's sweet to begin with)

Yaad: he's a softie, so his immediate reaction is a surprised expression, accompanied by a soft blooming blush on his cheeks, and then a smile. "Oh, um, thank you..." he's not sure what wine tastes like, since he didn't use to drink even when he was able to taste food and drinks, but he remembers people around him enjoying a cup of wine from time to time before, which makes him capable of appreciating the compliment. Once the initial shock calm down quickly, he composes himself and with a smile, returns the compliment: "You're very sweet yourself" keep in mind that while he's saying it he's picturing a jar of honey in his brain since it's known that honey is sweet and soft. Just like you ;)

[sigruned]

Trying and failing to be normal about it but listen, as hard as last episode was to watch I am convinced that drinking that tea was the best thing that could have happened to Ruby after everything.

This is true for the sole reason that Ruby coming to terms with who she wants to be before anyone can move on isn't just necessary in the abstract character development sense, but also the primary throughline of the volume cannot resolve without it. By it's nature, the Ever After physically cannot let them leave until she does.

The Ever After mechanically operates by what we would recognize as narrative logic and has a demonstrated empathy with those who are present within it. The physicality of the space is defined and altered by that empathy as we've seen on many occasions now (the rain when Ruby gets sad, the entire nature of the punderstorm. The acres exist as they do to facilitate the afterans' purposes, not the other way around). That said it doesn't have a will of it's own, it's a passive. The plasticity of the environment is prompted by the feelings and desires of those who inhabit it, and the world reacts in turn. It looks like nonsense coming from the "real" world but makes perfect sense once you establish this as a fundamental rule of reality here.

We still don't have a reliable source of information the claim that the tree is how the team gets back to Remnant and a lot of different perspectives on what it really is. From the fairy tale it is the way home, for the afterans it is rebirth. According to Jaune it's death (which says more about him than the tree but I'll get to that in a bit). None of them are completely wrong, I think.

The first time we see anyone 'interact' with the tree is in the herbalist hut with the smoke. I don't think this was just some shadow self vision. We see that the smoke is made from the tree's leaves. Drinking the tea swallowed Ruby up the same way the Herbalist was at the end of this scene. So we have an established pattern here of what returning to the tree looks like, and how ingesting the leaves call out to it, for lack of a better phrase. The important part of this here is the stark difference in how wby interact with the tree, via the images of their past selves, as opposed to Ruby. I'm not going to harp on it too much because better meta than mine circulated when the episode aired, but we're shown how the losses from the previous volumes have ultimately helped to galvanize wby rather than weaken their sense of identity. They don't presently need to initiate a full deconstruction of themselves to find what they want or who they want to be: they don't need the tree and therefore will not be able to find it.

This is in contrast with Jaune's stagnation while in the Ever After, but is ultimately to the same effect. He's spent decades cementing his identity in his guilt. The tree is death because he can't conceive of being himself without that guilt. (We see this exact same concept with Ruby's first visit to the blacksmith. "I'm fine, I can handle it." She's not happy with this, but the tree cannot help her change until she wants to change herself. "If you change your mind...") Until he's able to crack this image of himself, there is no desire for change and thus he couldn't find the tree even if he wanted to.

Between them all, they lack a desire or need for substantial change to their sense of self, and do not have the ability to make it to the tree until they do. Despite her internal turmoil, the narrative has positioned Ruby as the only one who can lead them all to the tree and ergo out of the Ever After, because the Ever After itself has made this journey one and the same with her journey of self discovery.

"The tree isn't a place you go, it's a place you know."

All of this to say that the tree facilitates change, whatever that may mean to those who find themselves there. Deconstruction can be painful, it means stripping away things you thought were key structural components of yourself (Penny's sword, the emblem, maybe even the cloak ???) to find what's left. I am certainly not arguing that Ruby is in a good place right now, but on its face, not wanting to be me anymore is a statement desiring change, not erasure. And change requires destruction and creation both.

So, narratively, Ruby is being deconstructed, broken down to her core elements (a phase of the process we'll probably see conclude next episode because she still hasn't acknowledged Summer in the mirror-). It's hurt, it's not always come from a healthy place, Neo's torture circus certainly pushed the issue, but it is happening. So what is 'Ruby Rose' when you look at what's left?

I don't know but I'm excited to find out.

Ruby doesn't have to answer that question by the end of this volume, nor do I think she will, but what I do think will satisfy the Ever After's "requirement" before it can let them leave is a desire to answer that question. We're seeing the story of "a girl with a lot of problems" in this volume. When the Ever After no longer has a role in that story, literally, it will physically manifest whatever it needs to progress that story.

Like, say, a door back to Remnant. It's that simple.

[ssaseaprince]

I swear anyone who says Hannibal and Will aren't canon just didn't watch the show. It's not implied, it's not hinted, it's not subtext. It's incredibly romantic and is explicitly said so. The moment and embrace they shared at the end of season 3 was so powerful to me. Just because they didn't kiss or say "hehe want to be my boyfriend?" like they're in some teen romcom doesn't mean they aren't a canonical pairing. They got together at the END of the show after it being stated several times that they love each other and can't live without each other and want each other more than anyone. Lines like wanting to run away together and hungering for each other and "is Hannibal in love with me" are, apparently, completely platonic in some people's eyes or just wishful thinking or, christ, queerbaiting (a point I hope no one has made because it's ridiculously stupid). I'm quite happy with the end of season 3, but I'd hope for a 4th season if only, so they can be a couple on screen and people can stop being dumb about the canon of their relationship

I am so sorry that I have taken forever to reply to this, I lowkey forgot that my inbox was a thing 😅

You are completely right. I want to call it a lack of media literacy, but I'm not sure that's the best phrase. As an autistic person, I completely understand struggling with subtext and needing to have things presented in a straightforward, blunt way. However, with Hannigram, you don't even need to rely solely on subtext. Like you pointed out, Will flat out says, "Is Hannibal in love with me?" And then you've got the entire cast, the showrunner, writer, producers, etc, all saying that they are canonically in love.

And because of that, I really struggle to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say that Hannigram isn't canon or that their relationship is "open to interpretation." Because if you were solely confused due to issues with understanding subtext, then you wouldn't get all up in arms about people pointing out that Hannigram IS CANON.

This honestly leads me to believe that the very vast majority of people who will fight tooth and nail to convince everyone that Hannibal and Will aren't in love is because of homophobia.

We are not used to seeing queer relationships in media. There is maybe a handful of movies and TV shows that revolve around queer relationships. So it is people's knee-jerk reaction to assume that every character is straight and that only heterosexual relationships are canon, and it's because of this bias that they will fight against all queer representation and only accept it when the characters are physically affectionate, and even then they will find reasons to claim it's not valid.

Cishet people are a lot like white people, and men, and basically every other majority, in the way that they feel the need to relate to every single main character, otherwise they can't enjoy the show/book/movie etc. Hannibal and Will have been confirmed as canon, in and out of the show. But these people will fight against it because, whether consciously or unconsciously, the second that their characters are confirmed as queer, they immediately can't relate to them and therefore can't enjoy the show.

They see queer people and queer relationships as so *other* that queer representation literally ruins it for them. Maybe this is an extreme analogy, but it's like watching a movie about humans, and then halfway through finding out that they're robots, and all of a sudden, these aren't people that you're familiar with, they are something other. The knowledge that a character is queer is genuinely so incomprehensible to them that they will do anything to deny it.

And I think that kind of thinking is the biggest problem. It's not always done with bad intention, and it's not always conscious, but it's there. You can see actors and actresses who do the same thing. They have such a visceral reaction to the idea that their character might be queer, that they immediately shut it down. Because if the character is queer, the character isn't relatable, and if the character isn't relatable somehow, the show isn't enjoyable.

By relatable, I don't just mean, "They're straight, and I'm straight." I mean that they genuinely see queer people as completely other from them, and they just cannot grasp the existence of queer relationships as actual relationships and not just vague ideas. Yes, they know that queer relationships are real, but they genuinely can not look at a queer relationship or a queer person and actually have any level of deeper empathy and understanding. They see queer relationships are something completely different then cishet relationship, so the second that a queer relationship becomes the focus, they disengage.

This all relates back to people refusing to acknowledge any kind of queer relationship as canon unless physical affection is apparent.

Obviously, not all straight people do this, but it's an issue that's a lot more prominent than what most people think. As soon as you start looking for it, you see it everywhere. I'm not saying these people hate queer people or don't want queer representation, but this kind of homophobia is just so widely accepted and normalized that it's a knee-jerk reaction, and unfortunately, it's so normalized that people don't even realize they have these biases that they need to get rid of.

Sorry this reply is so long and late coming! I appreciate the ask and love hearing your opinions ❤️

[captainjonnitkessler]

So, I'm relatively new to a lot of online spaces...and I was curious, what is the deal with the 'scary reddit atheists' excuse when it comes to hating on atheists? Like, am I just not looking in the right places, because while I hear the phase get thrown around all the time, I've never actually seen them in the wild. Are they a myth? Were they super active, but then disappeared? Are they just atheists being clear about their beliefs and boundaries and people couldn't handle it?

You just seem really eloquent in your breakdowns of anti-atheist sentiments, so I was curious if you could shine some light on this. Have a good day. :)

Okay, I've got a four-part answer to this, which is probably more than anyone wants to read but here we go! Here's where I think the "reddit atheist" - which I typically interpret to be an atheist who is rude and disparaging towards religion and religious people, and takes pains to bring it up at every opportunity - stereotype comes from.

1 - Sometimes atheists are assholes online! Sometimes people from EVERY group are assholes online. It's not by any means exclusive to atheists, but for some reason atheists get sorted into the "fine to make fun of" category so it's okay to act like the fact that some atheists are rude is a condemnation of the whole group. But reddit is a site where you're more likely to see phrases like "sky daddy" and "all religions are cults", which are rude ways of phrasing criticisms of organized religion. Thus, "reddit atheist" becoming shorthand for "atheist who is rude".

2 - Most people only know a couple of prominent atheists, and most of them got prominent by being controversial during the New Atheism movement in the 2000s. So your most famous atheists are people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who tie their atheism in with right-wing bigotry. These people absolutely do not represent atheists as a whole - atheists are the most liberal religious category in America except for historically-black churches, support queer rights by a huge margin, and in general atheism tends to correlate with progressive values, while religiosity tends to correlate with conservative values. The "right-wing bigot smugly thinking they're superior for being an atheist whilst using it as a shield for bigotry" is not only not the majority of atheists, they are a fraction of atheists as a whole. So it's very, VERY grinding to see that stereotype keep popping up.

3 - Making up guys to get mad at. I'm thinking about the time a very popular tumblr user called Jordan Peterson "proof that New Atheists only ever cared about feeling smart and not about the actual science", and when it was pointed out that Peterson is a Christian who hates atheists basically said "well I was high when I wrote that but you get the point". Or when someone I otherwise highly respect referred to "atheists who worship Elon Musk" - is there any ACTUAL evidence that atheists really love Elon Musk or Jordan Peterson? Or did you see a bunch of annoying assholes and just assume that they must be atheists because of the aforementioned "right-wing bigot" stereotype, therefore reinforcing your belief that atheists are annoying assholes?

And 4 - as you said, atheists refusing to compromise their boundaries or soften their opinions and getting labelled "rude" or "pushy" or "smug" because of it. A religious person can be confident in their beliefs or say "god is real" without any major pushback, but an atheist being confident or saying "god isn't real" is viewed as "evangelizing" or "mean" or "can't handle people believing something different than them". It's just double standards.

[lady-harrowhark]

I’m more asking for confirmation than anything else since I don’t have a copy of htn or ntn I can check, but do we have any concrete evidence that John is still capable of performing full resurrections? Or were the original resurrections the kind of thing that were only possible in the aftermath of 10 billion deaths + 9 planets worth of thanergy being released (much like how harrow’s parents supposedly performed a type of resurrection in the aftermath of murdering 200 children)

I've been paging through, and I don't think we do have any concrete evidence... I also don't think we have any concrete not evidence though either...

I think most relevant to this question is this passage from when John is showing Harrow the 500 he's going to send to the Ninth:

No, I haven't truly resurrected anyone in ten thousand years. But at that time... I set many aside, for safety... and I've often felt bad about just keeping them as insurance. They've been asleep all this myriad, Harrow, and it's frankly a relief to my mind to wake them up.

So if we take this at face value (never a given with John), he resurrected them back ten thousand years ago, but will be waking them up now.

Which, of course, aligns with what he says in John 5:4 of NtN, "...resurrection is different from waking up."

That difference is something I've been mulling over since I first read it, and I don't have any great takes at the moment. It's definitely something I have flagged to keep an eye out for on my next reread though! I think your point about needing that massive amount of thanergy sounds very reasonable, especially compared to Harrow's conception, which he also refers to as a type of resurrection.

Also just as I was typing this I got curious and went back to the avulsion trial scene, where it says Gideon "died" and then pulls the "gotcha!" (except in hindsight it seems it was not a "gotcha!" at all lmao). Very interesting wording here, no?

"Ha-ha," said Gideon, "first time you didn't call me Griddle," and died. - Well, passed out. But it felt a hell of a lot like dying. Waking up had an air of resurrection, of having spent a winter as a dried-out shell and coming back to the world as a new green shoot. A new green shoot with problems.

So we've clearly got this resurrection vs waking up thing again, but I'm really curious about the comparison to the "green shoot," with green being so heavily associated with Alecto (e.g., Varun calls her "green-and-breathing thing"). And especially because it's used with this context of "A new green shoot with problems," because that particular turn of phrase sounds very much like Camilla's description of Nona getting dressed looking like a "worm with problems." (Is this anything? Am I reaching? Am I having fun while reaching?)

I'll also just throw in the verbiage around John saying he "switched [Alecto] off" as compared to, say, the NtN epigram poem's "sleep, I'll wake you in the morning" (and further: "Annabel, good morning.")

I feel like things are kind of coalescing around the difference between a true death and being brought back to life vs a sleep or suspended animation state in which one isn't actually dead, and therefore is simply waking up (I can't let myself go down this tangent right now but it does sound suspiciously like the whole cryo project... moving on!). It makes me wonder if it's not so much that John hasn't resurrected anyone in ten thousand years as much as it is that no one has truly died in ten thousand years for him to resurrect; therefore he can only wake them.

Which seems incompatible with necromancy at first, but is it? We know something's fucky with the River. Perhaps crossing the River (or whatever verb we want to use for that) constitutes a true death, and if something's stopped it up, the thanergy stays pooled up and accessible for necromantic purposes rather than crossing or being cycled back into the River or dispersed or whatever happens to it. A death magic dam, essentially. And if a soul can't finish its journey to a true death, he wouldn't be able to resurrect them, hmm.

I don't know how well that meshes with the 200 dead Ninth children, though, if that's also a resurrection, other than what Harrow says during the pool scene: "The infants alone generated enough thanergy to take out the entire planet. Babies always do - for some reason." The incomplete explanation is conspicuous here, but so is the reference to "taking out the entire planet", now that we know what we know. So that may actually track. (Is John's baby finger bone crown meant to be like... a tribute? Thank you for your service and all that? Yuck.)

Two more incomplete musings and then I really will stop! I've been harboring some thoughts about whether the Ninth (and specifically the Tomb) may have a more direct connection to the River (and the barathron specifically) than other locations do, and if that's the case, perhaps that's also at play in achieving a resurrection, whatever form that may take.

The other thing I'm thinking about here is the whole Alecto/Anastasia/tomb-keeper line situation. If the tomb-keeper line is carrying a bit of Alecto's soul, is this more of a direct, one-to-one passage down the line? Or, over the however many thousands of years since that vow, has it branched out from that central family tree and dispersed amongst the generations? What I'm getting at here is essentially, if many or all of the 200 Ninth children housed a bit of Alecto's soul, taking any/all of them out would be a small scale planetary death... which could account for why babies generate so much thanergy (again, the phrasing of "enough to take out the entire planet" seems significant). It feels reminiscent of the way Lyctors flip planets as well, turning them thanergetic... if killing a planet creates thanergy, could killing bits of a planet (and the children carrying them) create a necromancer?

I swear when I sat down to answer this, I only had the first two quotes in mind and then I just kept pulling at threads and ended up unraveling a whole sweater, so apologies from getting away from what you were asking. But thank you for providing some good food for thought!

[mariana-oconnor]

The Greek Interpreter pt 2

We have literally 0 plot to theorise on so far, just Mycroft in all his Mycroftian glory.

"I have had something quite after your own heart--a most singular problem--submitted to my judgement. I really had not the energy to follow it up save in a very incomplete fashion, but it gave me a basis for some pleasing speculation. If you would care to hear the facts--"

This is a bit like when my Mum tells me that I should look at the crossword she's started. Mycroft wants to share his enjoyment with his brother. Such a good older sibling. Also, he's too lazy to actually do the legwork required. But that's what younger siblings are for, isn't it? Or at least that's what my older brother tells me.

"This is Wednesday evening," said Mr Melas. "Well then, it was Monday night—only two days ago, you understand—that all this happened. I am an interpreter, as perhaps my neighbour there has told you. I interpret all languages—or nearly all—"

...He interprets all languages.

All languages.

All languages. Or nearly all. That's a lot of languages, my dude. I know some people who speak a lot of languages, but none of them comes close to speaking all languages. 5 or 6 I think is the most I've ever encountered, and only fluently in 3 or 4. There are definitely people out there who speak more, but nearly all. This man is officially the most knowledgeable person who has ever appeared in a Sherlock Holmes story. He's a linguistic genius.

The Internet tells me that historically the person who is said to have spoken/understood the most languages was Sir John Bowring, a 19th century governor of Hong Kong. He understood 200 languages and spoke 100.

The person who currently holds the record lives in Brazil and claims to speak 59.

The BBC website tells me that there are up to 7000 different languages, although 90% are spoken by less than 100,000 people. But Mr Melas does not specify that he speaks all the common languages or all the popular languages. He says he speaks nearly all languages.

Yes I am taking this literally purely to be difficult. It's more amusing that way. I know this is a case of hyperbole for fiction's sake, but I like the idea that Mr Melas speaks 6000+ languages. This is another case for random supernatural occurrences within the stories.

"I was not surprised, therefore, on Monday night when a Mr Latimer, a very fashionably dressed young man, came up to my rooms and asked me to accompany him in a cab which was waiting at the door. A Greek friend had come to see him upon business, he said, and as he could speak nothing but his own tongue, the services of an interpreter were indispensable."

First, I like the note that Mr Latimer is a fashion-conscious man. Second, how did he and the Greek man come to be friends if they could not speak each other's languages at all. Have they always spoken through other people? Maybe you should try learning some Greek, Mr Latimer.

"It was certainly more roomy than the ordinary four-wheeled disgrace to London, and the fittings, though frayed, were of rich quality."

Mr Melas is a cab snob. 'Four-wheeled disgrace to London' is a delightful turn of phrase.

"I had ventured some remark as to this being a roundabout way to Kensington, when my words were arrested by the extraordinary conduct of my companion. "He began by drawing a most formidable-looking bludgeon loaded with lead from his pocket, and switching it backward and forward several times, as if to test its weight and strength. Then he placed it without a word upon the seat beside him.

Well, this can't be good. Shenanigans are afoot. I like that Mr Latimer is very clear about this, though. Oh yeah, I'm a bad guy. Look at my bad guy credentials. There's no beating around the bush, just straight up threat of violence. Clear. To the point. No need for words.

"'This is very extraordinary conduct, Mr Latimer,' I stammered. 'You must be aware that what you are doing is quite illegal.' "'It is somewhat of a liberty, no doubt,'"

This is such a polite exchange. 'Uh, you are aware that kidnapping me is illegal, sir?' 'Yes, it's a little rude of me.'

So casual, so matter of fact. If I were kidnapped I wouldn't say 'hi, you know this is illegal, right?' But then i don't speak 6000+ languages, so what do I know about talking?

Realistically, this is terrifying, but Mr Melas' account is hilarious.

'I beg you to remember that no one knows where you are, and that, whether you are in this carriage or in my house, you are equally in my power.'

Less hilarious. More terrifying.

"'Well done, well done! No ill-will, Mr Melas, I hope, but we could not get on without you. If you deal fair with us you'll not regret it, but if you try any tricks, God help you!' He spoke in a nervous, jerky fashion, and with little giggling laughs in between, but somehow he impressed me with fear more than the other."

Yep, this guy seems unstable. Also 'no ill will'? You literally kidnapped him with a threat of violence. Yes ill will. Much ill will. I don't think you know what ill will means.

"'But say no more than you are told to say, or--' here came the nervous giggle again--'you had better never have been born.'"

Yep... this is the sign of a totally stable and reasonable person and absolutely not a creepy murderer. At least we already know Mr Melas survives to relate this tale, or I'd be certain he was about to be buried under the floorboards.

"'You are to ask the questions, Mr Melas, and he will write the answers. Ask him first of all whether he is prepared to sign the papers?'"

The fact he is not allowed to talk indicates that something about his voice would give something away. If they don't know Greek then writing and speaking are pretty much interchangeable for getting information across, so there would be no need to stop him from speaking because he can write incriminating things just as easily. Unless, one of them can read Greek, in which case why get an interpreter? So I stand by my thought that his voice must be incriminating. Or he's mute. Always possible.

"I took to adding on little sentences of my own to each question, innocent ones at first, to test whether either of our companions knew anything of the matter, and then, as I found that they showed no signs I played a more dangerous game."

Resourceful and intelligent. He tests the water first with non-incriminating stuff, then gets more in depth.

"'Harold,' said she, speaking English with a broken accent. 'I could not stay away longer. It is so lonely up there with only—Oh, my God, it is Paul!' "These last words were in Greek, and at the same instant the man with a convulsive effort tore the plaster from his lips, and screaming out 'Sophy! Sophy!' rushed into the woman's arMs Their embrace was but for an instant, however, for the younger man seized the woman and pushed her out of the room, while the elder easily overpowered his emaciated victim, and dragged him away through the other door.

OK, so Sophy seems to have been having quite a pleasant time of it all told. While poor Paul's been going through it. Kind of dumb of them to let her walk in on them, though. I assume that they had a plan to avoid that which somehow went wrong. Also, if she's being held of her own free will, this seems like it might put an end to that? Unless she's very gullible.

So, brother? I'm thinking relative because he has to sign something before she can get married? Or he wants her to be married? Presumably there's some sort of fortune involved.

"'We should not have troubled you, only that our friend who speaks Greek and who began these negotiations has been forced to return to the East. It was quite necessary for us to find some one to take his place, and we were fortunate in hearing of your powers.'"

'forced to return to the East' is that like saying he's in the cellar looking for a cask of amontillado? Maybe he just had a family emergency... maybe?

Also 'your powers', yes. Mr Melas's linguistic skills are clearly a super power.

"if you speak to a human soul about this—one human soul, mind—well, may God have mercy upon your soul!"

This threat clearly worked well, considering Mr Melas has so far told at least two souls about the situation, with great glee. I get the impression that Mr Melas is a stifled adrenaline junkie and this is the best thing that has happened to him all year.

"I cannot tell you the loathing and horror with which this insignificant-looking man inspired me. I could see him better now as the lamp-light shone upon him. His features were peaky and sallow, and his little pointed beard was thready and ill-nourished. [...] The terror of his face lay in his eyes, however, steel grey, and glistening coldly with a malignant, inexorable cruelty in their depths."

Sounds delightful.

Honestly, it's the little pointy beard that clearly marks him as a villain, though. Everyone knows that.

Although if he doesn't put more care into maintaining it, the league of villains will have him cast out for failure to maintain proper villainous standards.

"Any steps?" he asked. Mycroft picked up the Daily News, which was lying on the side-table. "'Anybody supplying any information to the whereabouts of a Greek gentleman named Paul Kratides, from Athens, who is unable to speak English, will be rewarded. A similar reward paid to any one giving information about a Greek lady whose first name is Sophy. X 2473.' That was in all the dailies. No answer."

Well now they're definitely going to know he said something. Subtle.

"In the meantime, Mr Melas, I should certainly be on my guard, if I were you, for of course they must know through these advertisements that you have betrayed them."

You don't say? No, seriously. I'd be worried if I were him. But apparently he's just got absolutely no fear.

"Then the brother--for that, I fancy, must be the relationship--comes over from Greece to interfere. He imprudently puts himself into the power of the young man and his older associate. They seize him and use violence towards him in order to make him sign some papers to make over the girl's fortune--of which he may be trustee--to them."

OK, so clearly that's entirely wrong because it's Watson's thoughts on the matter. So back to the drawing board. Not to disparage Watson, at all... but there's no way it's right if it's his theory.

"I really fancy that you are not far from the truth."

Really??!? That's probably the biggest surprise of this whole story so far.

Sophy seemed to have no inkling of any crime or ill-intent on the part of the bad guys, so they're clearly being subtle with her. Or they were. You don't just wander around a kidnapper's house going 'I came to find you Harold, because I was so lonely all alone up there'. Unless you're actually a character in an erotic thriller novel, then I guess that probably is a thing you would do.

I don't think this is an erotic thriller, however.

Did Watson really get this one right? I guess we'll find out next time.

[garycxjk]

Second chances

Let's get this out of the way. Throughout this post, I will not name one certain individual, not because she has done anything wrong, but to make ego searching this post a lot harder for her. This also means that this post will not be easily found. The thing is, I don't really even need to mention her to make a point, as her situation isn't a big part of it, it only serves as the backdrop. So I will neither name her previous life nor her current.

Second, I'm not gonna shit on Nijisanji EN. Too many have already done that before, and it's getting a bit tiring. Plus, again, it doesn't serve the point I am trying to make, however, it does serve as a backdrop.

So, basically, to keep it short, recently a certain person had been terminated in a pretty fricken dumb way which I'm not going to get into, which involves them self-exposing their own incompetence. This termination also came after the person who was terminated made two attempts on her own life, fortunately she's still with us.

But that's not the point of this story. Recently, three of the talents have released a not really smart video, basically digging themselves deeper into a hole, if I may so personally, those being Elira Pendora, Vox Akuma and Ike Eveland. Now there are theories going around, but let's keep it as a fact, they were used as spokespeople, either against their will or otherwise, we don't know. We'll get back to the three.

Now, out of all of this mess, one thing was clear. Zaion LanZa, also known in her current life as Sayu Syncronisity, was right. After her termination a month after debuting at Nijisanji as Zaion, she was terminated, and she wrote a scathing expose about how her experience at Nijisanji was, and spoilers, it wasn't great, and later, it turned out a lot of it lined up with what the most recent terminated member experienced.

The thing is, at the time, she was mostly ignored. Not by everybody, but by too many, in my opinion, mainly because she was only there for a month. I know, I was there when it all happened. People either ignored her, or just said that she was salty or straight up called her a liar. Her reputation as Sayu therefore tanked, and it was only after a week after the most recent termination that people slowly began believing her completely.

The thing is, her reputation only improved almost a year after it happened, and from what I understand, her offenses weren't even that severe. People called it mistakes, yes, but not bad enough to warrant a termination. But okay, maybe Nijisanji didn't think she fit into the Nijisanji ecosphere, so she was let go. I'm not going to go into how she got terminated, that's a whole different can of worms, all I'm going to say is, she got terminated, and her reputation didn't exactly recover.

But, and excuse me for repeating the same phrase but, here's the thing. After almost a year, people should have forgiven her. She had already apologized, I'm not sure if she's done it multiple times, but she did at least once. She had admitted she made mistakes.

I'm a firm believer of second chances, everybody deserves one. Now, I do have to say, people don't deserve second chances from everyone, depending on how bad the offense was, but, look. If we can forgive James Gunn for his tweets he made when he was dumb and stupid, we should be able to forgive Sayu for the dumb shit she said, right?

It's as if people don't actually believe in second chances. Now, I'm gonna be honest, I'm not really willing to give Nux Taku a second chance, not after he did Coco's graduation notice dirty, essentially acting like a rrat. But that's my personal issue, I've been betrayed too many times in my life, taken advantage of too many people that my flight response gets triggered quite easily. Fuck, it's why I stopped associating myself with the Steven Universe fandom, despite me still liking the series. It's not that they're inherently bad or that I think they're bad, it's that they're bad for my mental health, which is why I distance myself from them.

And if you ask me what my opinion is of Charlie (penguinz0) or Asmongold, I don't talk about them at all. They just give me too much of an I-don't-trust-them vibe. Not that they're untrustworthy, but I just don't want to burn my fingers on them.

The thing is, yes, the SA jokes were in bad taste, I agree. However, it just feels like people were looking for an excuse to hate on her. And now that all this shit with Nijisanji EN is going on, she's suddenly being hailed as someone who was right all along. It just doesn't sit well with me.

The thing is, we all want second chances, but we don't all want to give them. I personally believe that everybody deserve second chances. Not just one, but many. People continue to make mistakes in their lives, and yes, if it's better for your own mental health, you can decide not to give that person another chance. Maybe there are some people who just don't deserve second chances because they never take them, they never learn from them. As cynical as I am in life, I still believe people can change, either for the worse or the better.

Which brings us to Elira, Vox and Ike. No matter whether they're guilty of whatever people accuse them of or not, their reputation is toast. In the short term, they won't be able to recover it. However, let's look at another case.

Mikeneko. Amemiya Nazuna. Yes, even Uruha Rushia. Her reputation has sunk to the bottom of the ocean. However, I don't think it'll remain that way. In time, there will be people who will give her a second chance. Remember, it's forgive, not forget. People may forgive her, but they won't forget. Honestly, I've decided to stay away from that drama, as I really do not care about it, but I do believe she can, in time, recover her reputation.

I mean, fuck, if Logan Paul can come back from that Aokigahara controversy, as much as I still think there should have been more repercussions from it, anyone can.

So, as a closing thought. Elira. Vox. Ike. Your reputations are pretty much toast, at least at Nijisanji EN, but possibly also in your PLs as well. However, it's not unsalvageable, it never is. As long as you're willing to change, as long as you're willing to better yourselves, as long as you want all of that, you can come back on top.

Tanking your reputation isn't the end of it all. You'll probably have to start over from scratch, and you'll most likely never going to go back to the reputation you had before. But it's not the end. Just live and learn.

But I do think Nijisanji EN is practically done.

[anarmorofwords]

Hi! You're probably not going to like this ask, but before getting into it I'd just like to say that this isn't meant as Kamala hate or anything, and I don't really want to offend.

Having said that, wouldn't it make sense that we get to see how Kamala treated Anna after she came out? It's in all likelihood one of the things that's weighing on Anna the most.

Obviously Kamala had her valid reasons: her parents aren't as liberal as the Lightwoods, she believes (knows?) their love is conditional as she's adopted, she's not white and not being heterosexual could further any treatment she's suffered from being different... Her reasons have already been listed multiple times by multiple people. Kamala has the right to stay in the closet and fear coming out. And while that shouldn't be villianised, we can't forget that closeted people can harm those around them.

If Kamala had kept treating Anna like a good friend, rumour would've sparked, and even if it was denied, she'd have been harmed by merely associating with Anna. Especially with the life Anna began leading; she could have been labelled as one of Anna's 'conquests' by the Clave. That, as we've established, is detrimental for her safety.

But at the same time, it would create a breach between Anna and Kamala. And Anna had the right to be hurt by it and weary of it when Kamala said she wanted a relationship.

If we look at it from that perspective, Anna's actions (though inexcusable in how they treated Kamala --who was also at fault for not accepting a negative for four months) make sense. Kamala wasn't only a fling of a week*, but also the girl she lost her virginity with, who asked her to be her secret (until she married Charles, after which Anna's affections would be discarded), who hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna suffered from homophobic commentary, and who now wants a relationship hidden from most of the people that know her.

Kamala shouldn't be forced to come out; but the harm that can do to the women she may engage with is reflective of what happens nowadays. I can mostly think of examples with gay men, so my apologies in advance. But how many women have seen their marriages ruined by their husband having affairs with men?

Creating characters that reflect a toxic part of the 'hidden' LGBT community shouldn't be seen as hating or villinifying. Thomas isn't out and he isn't labelled a villain by the narrative --because his actions don't harm anyone. The hate Alastair gets in-universe is because of his past as a bully, not because he's gay. Matthew's not fully out and he isn't villianised --like Thomas, because the decisions he makes to keep his sexuality hidden don't impact anyone negatively.

I'll even go as far as saying that not even the narrative villianises characters like Kamala and Charles. If it were, they'd be seen more like Grace in Chain of Gold. We'd see how Kamala's actions are affecting Anna's in more ways than anger (that in itself put the fandom against Anna), and the characters would note so. We wouldn't see scenes were Cordelia empathised with Charles, nor Matthew said he loved him.

Be it as it may, Kamala and Charles represent ugly parts of being closeted that can naturally occur when someone is in their position. LGBT people are human. Humans, when put into very difficult situations (and Charles risks his career; Kamala her safety), can make decisions that harm those around them. Consequently, the people they're harming have a right to feel, well, harmed in whatever range of ways --this goes mostly for Alastair, and very partly for Anna, whose treatment of Kamala was horrible.

Readers need to understand what is pushing these 'villianised' characters to harm (again, mostly for Alastair) the more prominent characters and go beyond how they are instantly depicted. Because these are complex characters based on complex real people influenced by very ugly realities we will move on from someday, but sadly not yet.

By the way, Charles and Kamala's situations aren't that similar beyond the closeted thing, but I crammed them together because of a post I saw you reblog.

Please understand I'm not justifying Charles's actions; that I understand the pain he's put Alastair through, and know that he shouldn't ever be near Alastair. Nor am I trying to justify Anna's actions nor hate on Kamala.

I'll just finish my pointless rant by adding that I do think cc has sensitivity readers. I think she asked a gay man to go through tec (I don't know if he still revised her other books, though), and know she asked POC's input when writing someone for their culture. I don't know much beyond that, but I doubt who revises her stuff is up to her. Wouldn't that be something the publisher is responsible for (honest question)?

*I've also noticed people using the argument that they didn't know each other long enough for Anna to harbour such ugly emotions towards Kamala, but Kamala also remembered Anna pretty deeply and is 'in love' with her. I just wanted to say that considering cc writes (fantastical) romance where someone can ask a woman they met two months ago marriage, stressing over time spaces doesn't make much sense. Just my take.

hi!!

alright, where do I start? probably would be best with stating that while I can analyse Kamala's situation with what I know/see/read about racism and discrimination and reasonably apply things I've read/heard from PoC to the discussion, as well as try to be as sensitive about it as possible, I'm still a white woman, so not a person that's best qualified to talk about this.

that being said - if someone wants to add something to this conversation, you're obviously more than welcome to, and if there's something in my answer that you don't agree with or find in some way insensitive or offensive - please don't hesitate to call me out on that.

back to your points though: (this turned into a whole ass essay, so under the cut)

I don't think Anna shouldn't be able to reminiscent on Kamala's behaviour/reaction to her coming out, or be hurt by it. what bothers me is the way CC talks about it - I can't remember the exact phrasing, but the post where she mentioned this suggested something along the lines of "you'll see how Kamala sided with the Clave and didn't defend Anna after her coming out", therefore putting the blame on Kamala and completely disregarding the fact that Kamala wasn't in position to do much at all. It suggest that their situation was "poor Anna being mistreated by Kamala". therefore I'm afraid Kamanna's main problem/conflict will remain to be portrayed as "Anna having to allow themselves to love again and forgive Kamala", while Anna's shortcomings - and Kamala's vulnerable position - are never discussed. I think it would be possible to acknowledge both Kamala's difficult situation and the possible hurt her behaviour caused Anna without being insensitive towards Kamala's character, but it would take a really skilled - and caring - author to do both of the perspectives justice. CC would have to find a balance between being aware of the racism/prejudice Kamala faced/ writing her with lots of awareness and empathy, and still allowing her to make mistakes and acknowledging them. As it is however, I'm under impression that she's just treating it as a plot device, a relationship drama.

I'd say no one expects characters of color to be written as flawless or never making mistakes, it's mostly the way these mistakes are written and what things these characters are judged/shamed/

And that's - at least in my understanding and opinion - where the problem is. it's that the narrative never even addresses Anna's faults, and portrays Kamala as the one that caused all - or most of - the pain, without ever even acknowledging her problems and background.

White characters in TLH make mistakes and fuck up - because they're human and they're absolutely allowed to - but the thing is, non-white characters aren't afforded that privilege. Anna's behaviour is never questioned - none of it, shaming Kamala for not being able to come out, dismissing her desire to be a mother, or any of the questionable things she did in ChoI. Same with Matthew, James, Thomas. Alastair and Kamala however? they're constantly viewed through their past mistakes, and forced to apologize for them over and over, forced to almost beg for forgiveness. Moreover, those past mistakes are used as a justification of all and any shitty behaviour the other characters exhibit towards them now, which is simply unfair and cruel. They're held to a much higher standard.

So I'd like to say that yes, Kamala was in the wrong to keep nagging Anna after numerous rejections, and she was in the wrong to not inform Anna about Charles prior to them having sex - but that doesn't give Anna a free pass to constantly mistreat Kamala. And let's be real, Anna isn't stupid - while at 17 she could be naive and uninformed, I can't imagine how after years of hanging out with the Downworlders and numerous affairs and being out and judged by the Clave she's still so ignorant about Kamala's situation. I definitely think she's allowed to be hurt, but to still not understand why Kamala did what she did? Anna isn't blaming her for not telling her about Charles earlier - which would be fair - but instead for refusing to engage in an outright romance with her. She's being ignorant - and consciously so, I think.

Overall, I think you're definitely right about how coming out - or staying closeted - can be messy and hurt people in the process, especially in unaccepting environments/time periods, and I've seen enough discourse online to know there will never be a verdict/stance on this that will satisfy everyone. I, for one, would really like to refrain from putting all the blame on a single person - but, at least the way I see it, CC is pointing fingers. maybe not directly, but she is. Kamala, Alastair and Charles have no friends or support systems, and the only people in the narrative that defend them are themselves (ok, Cordelia does defend Alastair from Charles, but not from shitty takes about him and his "sins"). Also, sorry, but I don't like how you say "hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna experienced homophobic comments" - it sounds very much judgemental. Kamala had every right to do that? The fact that she slept with Anna doesn't means she owed her something, and certainly not coming out and most probably destroying her life, or even defending her at the - again - expense of her own reputation, or more possibly safety.

As for Charles - it's a different issue here, at least imo - I fear that it'll be implied that his refusing to come out will is his main "sin", and therefore not something he can be judged for, which ironically, will be villainizing, but mostly will mean his actual sins are dismissed. This is where the scene with Cordelia feeling a pang of sympathy for him comes into play, and it worries me. I've never hated Charles for not wanting to come out, but rather for, let's see - grooming Alastair, disregarding Alastair's needs and feelings, disrespecting his mother, being a sexist prick, being low-key far-right coded "make Shadowhunters great again" etc.

As for sensitivity readers - I'm no expert, so I don't think my input is worth much. From what I've gathered from multiple threads/discussions on twitter, tho it is probably consulted/approved by the publisher, many authors push for that - and authors less famous and "powerful" than her. I'm not a hater, but seeing fandoms' opinions on much of her rep, I think she could do better. Because if she does have sensitivity readers, then they don't seem to be doing a great job - maybe they're friends who don't wanna hurt her feelings? Or maybe she thinks a gay guy's feedback will be enough for any queer content - which, judging by the opinions I've seen from the fans, doesn't seem to be true.

Again, these are mostly my thoughts and I'm more than open to reading other opinions, because *sigh* I really don't know how to handle this.

Bottom line - I really really don't want to be hating on the characters in general, playing God in regards to judging the struggles of minorities, or even criticising the characters too harshly for being human, flawed etc. What my main issue is is how CC handles those complex and heavy topics.

I hope I make sense and this answer satisfies you somehow - I also hope someone better equipped to answer might wanna join this conversation.

* I desperately need a reread of TLH before I engage in any more conversations like this, but I didn't wanna leave you hanging. So yeah, I might be remembering things wrong. Again, let me know, I'm very much open to being corrected as well as to further discussion.

* I use she/her pronouns for Anna because that's what she uses in canon

[slowlyreadinghouseofmirth]

Page 7

In truth, he had never liked her as well as at that moment -> Selden's affections here are plain to see, made so especially by subordinate clause 'in truth' which conveys an honesty and freshness about his feelings. Most importantly, he likes her when she is being her true self, unconventional, and willing to take risk. It's likely informed by his disillusion with high society and finding commonality in someone willing to disregard its etiquette. This is where Lily is unique.

There's also this sense that Selden likes Lily because she is impulsive and this sparks his curiosity to try and understand why she does the things she does-- understand Lily as a person.

He knew she had accepted without afterthought: -> This reaffirms Lily's lack of hesitancy, which alludes to how willing she is to be in Selden's company. It also shows how comfortable she is with him as she is aware of the rumours that could occur but never merits them with being a possibility, showing great trust.

Alternatively, being aware of the risks and having not afterthoughts could suggest that she doesn't fully understand the risks' depth and nuance as in future the situation at Monte Carlo would suggest, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

he could never be a factor in her calculations -> there's a colon that separates this clause from the previous one which suggests this is an explanation for Lily's certainty. To me this would point more towards Lily not really associating the risk of rumours with Selden because she trusts him so much. i.e she does not think of him when she thinks of the risks. But given that they are going up to his apartment it seems strange that Selden would not think himself a factor in her decision. It's therefore possible that he thinks that Lily does not think of him worthy of great consideration.

Also the noun 'calculations' would suggest a lot of thought had gone into the decision where it was previously implied it was one of impulse. This seems like Selden thinks that Lily is playing an intricate game, which further demonstrates his curiosity about her and need to understand her.

there was a surprise, a refreshment almost, in the spontenaity of her consent -> This further contrasts Selden's perception of Lily's 'calculations' and I think the narration is a fine weave between objective reality--where Lily is impulsive-- and Selden's subjective perceptions-- where Lily appears impulsive but there is something more complex informing her decisions. I think this is meant to show that Selden is blinded somewhat by his affections for Lily, seeing things deeper than what are there or what everybody else sees. Alternatively, we as the reader lack Selden's sight into the complexities of Lily and so she is introduced to us as other people see her, which isn't well at all, and we have to learn how Selden sees her. It's a challenge to care for Lily as he does.

The spontaneity invokes a light hearted and refreshing feeling of being in love which mirrors the honest of truth mentioned earlier.

So there's Selden's surprise at Lily being so spontaneous which draws back to a previous point about she is unique for being impulsive almost reckless. It's like we get a sense of her character and her environment from how the two are at odds with each other. Lily is impulsive; noone else of her class should be like that. In a way that makes her free from the system and yet shows her struggle against it but ultimately her struggle will be more defining.

She noticed the letters and notes heaped on the table -> I assume that this is a reference to future letters although I don't know if they would be the same ones. If they were, I don't even have the mental capacity to unpack that. Just the thought that Lily's fall is inevitable, that even when she is happy, having a nice time, an unknown omen lurks within the same room that will bring her sorrow... oh its symbolic, for sure. But I don't want to think about it.

Lily sank into one of the shabby leather chairs -> the verb 'sank' shows how at home Lily really is with this kind of surroundings, how the shabby whilst not fashionable or expensive, is comfortable. From this we and the the pile of letters we get an image of a a slightly disorderly but well-lived in home. This is one of the tragedies where we see the possibility of what her future with Selden could look like where it is unconventional but Lily is comfortable at home even with it.

"How delicious to have a place like this all to oneself! What a miserable thing it is to be a woman," -> I love Lily's exaggerated turns of phrases like 'delicious' and the exclamations; I think Wharton's emphasis on these exaggerations is to capture Lily's innocence through her speech by making it similar to that of a child who is easily excitable.

Again with the exaggeration but this time with 'miserable', we get the sense that Lily has found the world difficult as a woman to live in but miserable seems too strong of a word, certainly at this stage in the book and is sort of hidden within her other hyperbolised expressions. Maybe this creates a kind of cry-wolf situation where, when Lily properly starts to struggle, people don't take notice not only because it wasn't the done thing to do to talk about struggles but also because of her melodramatic personality, everyone thought the same stuff was happening as it had before and Lily was making a big fuss over nothing.

There is repetition of 'miserable' in association to being of female sex further down the page which is another example of Lily's melodrama. But at this point we as a modern audience start to question if she is actually alright (or at least I did). I'm not sure if a contempary audience if the time would have given the strict taboo over discussing any kind of struggle financial/physical health etc. let alone the discussion of mental health. From the impression I get of the time, the only real source of outlet for people struggling with mental health beyond self medication was art, which makes me wonder as to the position Wharton is writing this from.

she leaned back in a luxury of discontent -> The juxtaposition of 'luxury' and 'discontent' raises an important theme that wealth does not equate happiness and that Lily is not happy as a socialite but happy in the company of Selden, and that actually money is the source of Lily's unhappiness. In this specific context, she is lamenting her lack of freedom to live the lifestyle that Selden does.

"Even women," he said "Have been know to enjoy the privaledges of a flat." -> Putting the discourse marker directly after the subject of 'women' breaks it apart from the rest of the sentence and emphasises the extraordinariness of women being able to live independently. But it also raises the possibility of it and suggests that Selden thinks Lily is extraordinary and unconventional enough to achieve the possibility if she chose to.

"Oh governesses– or widows. But not girls– not poor, miserable, marriageable girls!" -> Again we have the breakdown of womanhood into distinct classes like governess, widows, and girls,which creates the idea that there's no intersections between any of them and is a reflection of of societies fixation for categorisation which loses sight the complexity of situations and problems. And it also makes it easier to place social stigmas like those on governesses and widows. Those stigmas are made apparent here but in contrast to how Lily describes girls, being a governess or a widow seems desirable.

In the list of adjectives 'poor, miserable, marriageable', marriageable is equated to these other adjectives and we see that Lily associates marriage with a poverty of kind, of the heart.

It's also interesting that Lily talks about herself as a girl where Selden speaks of her as a woman. Lily plays up her innocence as she has probably been taught to to make desirable marital match, but with that Lily carries around an air of immaturity and naïvity; she's still very child-like. Perhaps that's a part of her that's trying to cling to her youth so she doesn't have to face her future where she will need to marry to survive. Lily sees her adulthood as a constraint on her and her desires whereas Selden sees her potential.

"you mean Gerty Farish," she smiled a little unkindly. "But I said marriageable–" -> Okay so definitely a little tone deaf on Lily's part buts she's honest to a fault and her honesty is refreshing and entertaining.

I'm no expect on autism and don't claim to be but there's something about Lily's mannerisms here that reminds me of people who I know and am very close with who are autistic. And it makes me wonder if Lily was autistic and neurodivergence was recognised in her time if her fate would have been any different.

"Her cook does the washing and her food tastes if soup. I should hate that you know." -> I just love the imagery of the first sentence, it strikes my funnybone. I guess it also illustrates that Lily's privileged upbringing if she thinks this is a bad situation to live in.

Okay I'm going to bring in a bit of a technical term to describe the verb 'should'. So it's a modal verb (expressing possibility based on context) but specifically a deontic modal verbal, meaning that Lily's hate depends on social rules. When she says she should hate it it implies that society wants her to hate it but she wouldn't necessarily hate it. That's what that verb phrase implies in today's english, but language has changed since the time it was written so it may not have been written with this meaning, especially as a signifier of an older text is the use of modal verbs in places we wouldn't today and a lot more of them.

The shift from Selden's reflections to the quick dialogue and short simple sentences of action creates a lively and charged atmosphere that feels almost flirtatious in its rhythm but by the nature of the content is more domestic (preparing afternoon tea). The balanced turn taking feels comfortable in that they both have equal power in the conversation, being allowed to say what they want to and being listened to. It goes towards simulating what a possible future could be and also shows how happy they are in this moment.

[aotopmha]

Attack on Titan Chapter 122 Thoughts

This chapter is pretty straight-forward in comparison to the previous ones, but in a deceptive way, where a lot of moments have a bunch of nuance, when they at first glance don't seem to.

Most of the chapter is very thoroughly "show, don't tell", which I can see getting people confused and leave them asking questions, but the key to this is context.

When taking this chapter as more stand-alonish, I feel like it would 100% feel much more obtuse and confusing, but almost every panel calls back to something and the story simply asks you to put the story together based on this. I feel it still definitely leaves some stuff up for potentially varying interpretation, but much less so.

Here's my take on it.

Firstly, the only voice in the whole Ymir flashback is that of King Fritz. Everyone else is silent.

There is much talk about how AoT is this morally gray series and there are certainly many morally gray elements here, but in truth, I'd phrase this idea more in the sense of the story having really well fleshed out antagonists.

It emphasizes humanizing every character, including all those that are presented as shitty people, in a specific way of giving them at least one quality that's if not sympathetic, then at least understandable from the characters' perspectives (this is something Isayama has actually straight-up mentioned to aim to do in interview material).  

Karina is a horrible mother to Reiner, but she is a product of her environment and has never gotten to see outside of the world she lives in.

Alma treats Historia horribly, but her life is in danger because of a powerful man and the society she lives in.

Floch started out as a tactless asshole and has only grown worse, but there are understandable points in what he is saying during various moments in the story.

Gross is straight-up a candidate for the most hateable character in the series, but there is a spelled out, concrete perspective to his evil you kind of understand in a twisted way that also stems from the system he's living under, which often makes for my favorite type of antagonist.

I point this out because I think the first King Fritz is the most straight-forwardly villainous character in the series so far and I think that's fine.

The truth is, sometimes there isn't a "both sides". Sometimes there is a good and evil and in this case, Isayama opted for a powerful man that exploits the weak to further gain power for the evil, which is still a very real evil, but, as said, also pretty straight-forward.

He doesn't develop in any way - he's an abuser to begin with and in a position of power to begin with.

The only sliver of nuance to him is that he's a smart opportunist: he's a powerful man who knows to take advantage of the position he's in to gain even more power.  

You could argue this also comments on power abuse and how a priviledged position and availability of the means to take advantage of others encourages to do so and gain even more power. People are more likely to use a gun when they are given access to it than when not.

But even then, as he says to keep passing down the spines of the Titans, due it being at the cost of the daughters he had with Ymir, whom he already saw as a tool to be used, he most likely doesn't even do it for the good of his people, but his own self-serving desire to preserve his position of power and influence and that way remain important and influental even after his death.

He's more interesting as a vehicle for exploring the social situation he creates than as a individual character.

Him being the only one to talk is thus another neat example of the story making a narrative point through meta elements. Abusers silence and take away people's voices through fear and conditioning and this is exactly what he does and therefore is the only one talking.

In this case, it's even literal, as we see a slave having their tongue cut out. We don't ever see this happen to Ymir, but it's an easy assumption to make that she might've had her tongue cut out, as well, based on what we see done with the other slave.

Regardless of any physical element, though, Ymir simply doesn't go against King Fritz because she doesn't understand she can do so. Her chains are entirely emotional. She seems to have been a slave for most of her life, never getting to see any other perspective regarding herself, so because of the conditioning and indoctrination stemmed from her position as a slave, she believes serving him is her purpose in life:

It's how she is lead to percieve herself that keeps her a slave.

This is interesting to me because this seems to reflect Armin's initial character resolve. The only reason he didn't believe in himself was because of his own, negative, perception of himself. It's through an alternative perspective given through Eren and Mikasa he grew to see himself in a different light. His arc is one of the first arcs in the story that involves a character gaining nuance in their perspective (technically Mikasa has a moment like this before him, but I think Armin's arc fits the comparison better because it very specifically relates to his self-image):

(Chapter 11)

This later also evolves into the Marleyan Eldians' single-mindedness and unawareness of playing into a corrupt system. Neither Ymir nor them simply never get an opportunity to see the world differently/in a more complex light.

In the case of a more typical damsel, the rescue would have had a much more straight-forward and simplistic explanation and through that in my eyes would have been much less interesting and I really appreciate whenever a story understands abuse like this.

Related to this, Eren's speech in this chapter probably makes it one of my favorites.

There are some uncertain connotations to it, as Ymir truly probably is in no good emotional position to make her own decision and Eren ultimately gives her two very specific options to choose from, but I think his words are genuine and the point of the speech still stands.

It's a powerful speech that says everyone is an autonomous person and is not obligated to be bound to anyone:

As said, the elements of a typical damsel in distress story are here, but I think it's more human than just a standard crying girl asking for help situation and on a meta level, the story says that whoever is in a similar situation also has a choice.

As also said, you could tear this into pieces when you focus on a bunch of the technicalities surrounding it, but I think as a general sentiment I really do think it’s incredibly powerful.

I mentioned how this chapter commented on how powerful men exploit women, but I think it's more gender neutral than it might initially seem. I think the general feelings here would work just as well if were Ymir a boy, with the only difference probably being another woman being involved to force him to have children. The story has gendered aspects, but it handles them with not only taste, but also in a way where the general point isn’t gendered, similarly to Mikasa's backstory.

Related to this, I think the final element to look at in relation to Ymir's story specifically is Historia’s pregnancy. I think it made it directly much more harder to make natural.

It felt artificial to begin with, but before this, I was much more open-minded about it.

Okay, since Historia genuinely seems to care for everyone, maybe this could've been somehow spun around her sacrifice being genuine and of her own choosing, but now it's as literal of a representation of history repeating itself as it possiblt could get and whether Historia chose the pregnancy or not, subtextually it will always represent history repeating itself.

The pregnancy has a bunch of potential problems: erasing the gay part of a character (since Historia is the most overtly gay character in the series and this happens after her love interest is killed, it will come across this way even if it's not the intention), contradicting a character's arc, but more than that, at this point, I just don't see anything interesting and unique said through it specifically. All other options where the pregnancy is fake sound much more interesting to me.

If the story finds a way to somehow make the pregnancy work in a interesting way, I'll applaud it, but right now I don't see all that many possibilities in terms of how it could.

This chapter literally calls back to the image of the kind girl Historia saw in the book Frieda showed her that she went against and while this contradiction in her arc already existed just with the reveal of the apparent pregnancy, this now puts a big red exclamation mark on it:

It's so obvious that the story missing this contradiction and not even addressing it would be extremely puzzling (which I do think it will).

More than anything, as if it hadn’t done this as strongly as possible already, this also even further (as it possibly could at this point), fortified the idea that something definitely, most certainly, without a doubt, is up. 

Moving on, though, in the same vein as I said there are points in the real world where good and evil exists, there is actually a truth in history. History is a series of facts interpreted by people and with showing the "real truth" here I think the story dodged a dangerous potential implication about history not being factual.

I think it also fixed some of the potential implications with the historical imagery the story has been using.

Firstly, the Eldian empire was born through the exploitation of the weak. We don't even know if Ymir and all the other slaves were all actually Eldians, so depending how you interpret this, it takes away the potentially historically revisionist perspective of the Jewish analogue race ever being the oppressor. There is no place for "both sides" when it comes to the Jewish parallels because it's one of the most black and white situations in all of history. If nothing else, this element at least makes it clear that the story simply wishes to explore the thematic element of the dynamics between the oppressor and the oppressed the idea of power abuse.

Then, through making the encounter with the parasite creature happenstance and the Titan power not biologically inherent to Eldians, it removes the potential implication of the Jewish analogue being biologically different, therefore being "special" compared to other races, which is not the case with any race.

The element that has been there for the longest in my eyes and I think didn’t even need to be elaborated on because it’s been there and explored so much already and that always removed the possibility of the story (at the very least intentionally) being racist to me, though, is that the story treats all characters from all races the same without ever resorting to using caricatures or excessive stereotyping. The Eldians specifically are the main characters of the story, with there being equally good and evil characters among them.

The key element to racism has always been othering and dehumanization and the story for the most part makes sure that even the characters that are awful people have fleshed out perspectives.

I think what also helps in this chapter specifically is having more of a history-inspired than strictly historical situation, showing it all through a fantasy veil compared to the more direct usage of imagery with Marley and the Marleyan Eldians.

Finally, I really liked the potential Titan lore this chapter presented us.

I think it's really neat how it might potentially connect mythology and biology with the possible inspiration being, both, the prehistoric creature Hallucigenia and the mythological dragon under the roots of the world tree Ygdrassil, Nidhoggr, more than that, though, I really like the potential "nature you scary" element of the Titan origins.

The creature driving a horror story usually either isn't explained or is explained through something like aliens, lovecraftian horror, a human-made catastrophe or an experminent.

In this case there are elements of all of these in here and I think any of these could still be revealed to be the direct origin of the Titan parasite, but I really like the potential "nature you scary" element here because we usually always look outside of our world to find horror because we fear what we don't know, but Earth's own nature has plenty of that, too.

Nature can be really unsettling and horrifying at points and I’d like to see that being taken advantage of more.

Overall, though, I really liked this chapter. I think it might be one of my favorites because of Eren's speech, but I also really enjoyed it for it's "show, don't tell" aspect. Sometimes one image can say much more than a thousand words and I think this chapter did a really solid job with that.

[incorrecttwoset]

Lesson time with Dani:

I think the thing we all learned here today is classical music is still very, VERY much alive. And that pop could be a pretty iNtEreStInG way to indoctrinate introduce people to classical music. I've been listening to a bunch of pop lately and honestly? It was a WEIRD experience. I kept getting befuddled by the amount of music there was (3 minutes of catchy beats is nOTHING against a half hour of intense musical dialog, argument, and passion) and the repetitiveness and simplicity of it (like dude wheres the motif? Is the motif your beat? Why is it playing the same thing over and over? Huh?). But, its still good music. There were a couple outliers too, that really gave me an experience. (Check out seasonal feathers by hitoshizuku it broke my heart) Look, what im trying to say is- classical and pop are both amazing genres of music that can do incredible things and I'm just happy that they can coexist together in one... piece? Of music. (My opinion might be a lil different compared to my lesson time on their other vid but hey people change)

So, lets get on with the songs!

Road to Kingdom - T. O. P. (Covered by Golden Child) and Swan Lake - Tchaikovsky. I... honestly, I didn't hear it at first. The electro music covered up much of the phrase. (please forgive my horrible usage of musical terms im just a kid thats really into classical music, in still learning how to understand and appreciate it everyday mkay?) Well, that's what I thought at first but I guess the transition from electro pop to singing along with classical jarred me so much that I had to listen to it a couple times before catching it. Anyways, the singing kinda vibed a lil with the music but when they changed singers or went a higher key, it started loosing that (already really loose) connection because even though I knew the tchaik would go higher, the singer went higher in a different key and it felt pretty weird and strange like what Eddy said. But overall, id listen to it. ...which isn't really that high of praise since I listen to everything (oh man... the days when i could still rap eminem's rap god to perfection...)

Shinhwa - T. O. P. and Swan Lake - Tchaikovsky (again). I'm not mad at them for using this a lot actually. I've been trying to watch the ballet on youtube but my classical music listening and appreciation and understanding skills are not yet that refined. (Aka i was already a goner when aCT ONE SCENE TWO WAS STARTING. Sigh, i need more training... and more Inside the Score) aNYWAYS- To quote Eddy, oh tHATS SO WEIRD. I literally said it at the exact same time as him lol. But like seriously thoooo. I thought it was gonna like, transition to the piece but like. No. They're just... singing to the tune. I mean like, you can't ruin perfection you guys but like- add a tune? Or something of your own? That isnt just lyrics? Ah shit, now I cant stop imaging playboy!Tchaik ugh. Thank you for making my brain run a mile a minute and being the reason why I won't be sleeping for a couple hours.

Top Dog - Topp Dog and Symphony in G Minor, No. 25 - Mozart. When I heard the first notes of the piece, I reacted the same as both of them. Aka, i recognized it but I forgot the name. As you do with classical music. I've always wanted to download and listen to that piece. Maybe this is a sign... Anyways, the piece here really just vibed with the song ykno? I think its because they decided that they didn't want to overpower the piece by slapping their own music on top but like... they accented and accompanied and complimented it without the spotlight being stolen from them. They brought their own little twist to it and I feel like thats why it works so much. But, I still prefer the orig because it isnt just tHREE MINUTES LONG. (cue airhorns and fire emojis) But its a great combo overall. 10 out of 10, would classical again.

Jimin - Lie and La Vida Breve - Manuel de Falla. Honestly, to me, i feel like literally anyone could come up with that tune. Its like, a really fast beat. You know how almost every basic piece of music uses dun dun tss as a beat? Its kinda like that to me. Because, speaking from my own personal opinions here, fast beats sound nice and that doesnt necessarily mean that it was inspired by a fast part in a piece. Or maybe Jimin listens to classical. WhO kNoWs?

Cherry Bullet - Hands Up and Beethoven's Fur Elise. That "EeeEeeeh" part made me laugh out loud the first time i watched this vid. It still jarrs me like oh my god what the heck why. Dude, they literally just slapped that part into different parts of the song and im- you didnt need to give me more reason to be sick of the opening of Fur Elise. I feel like if I listened to that, the opening is gonna be stuck in my head forever. At least they didnt repeat the "EEEEEE" thing. And honestly, id love to agree with the bois on this one but like... the opening of the song itself broke me im so sorry im so hung over this one detail gOD.

Gfriend - Summer Rain and Schumann - Dichterliebe. All i can say in this part is... Thank you editor-san for adding in that one detail those precious boys missed. But, as ive only seriously gotten into classical recently and therefore arent familiar with a lot of composers works, i can only hear the influence in the beginning instrumental of the song. So uh... might give it a listen for detail. But, i probably wont.

And, oh yeah is it just me or do they seem really tired? Or just... kinda out of it in this one? Because at the end, Eddy was just kinda... playin around with ding ding while Brett carries the energy for the both of them. Hope theyre not stressed but if they are, i hope they get some much needed rest and energy. I also wonder what was up with yesterday. Aka, they didn't post a vid yesterday and i got cONCERNED. I just hope theyre alright.

[boardbysara]

Manifest That Money, Yo

I use an app that sends me affirmations to say out loud every day on the hour. Yesterday, it sent me one that said:

"I am tapping into a never-ending supply of finances. I declare that wealth is gravitating towards me from every direction."

Literally like 10 minutes later, I walked to my mailbox and picked up a check that was truly completely free money.

Pro Tip: anytime you get a letter from a law office asking if you want to be included in a class-action lawsuit, you ALWAYS SAY YES. It is the closest thing to free money on the planet.

I'm a passionate Protestant and used to think that manifesting was sacrilegious and woo woo. But four years ago, I started "claiming in faith" what I desperately wanted and needed and have been witnessing miracles ever since. Now I know that manifesting is both A) science and B) Biblical.

Here's the science:

"Every thought we experience creates a chemical reaction in the brain which then triggers an emotion. As we engage with this thought, it creates a new circuit that sends a signal to the body and we react a certain way. The more we repeat this pattern, the more it seeps into our mind and becomes a habit. This is why neuroscientists say “cells that fire together wire together.”As you keep thinking the same thoughts, producing the same emotions and performing the same actions, you continue to live by the same experiences.As we repeatedly engage in the same thought patterns of think, feel, do, these patterns encode as a blueprint in our subconscious mind. And what does our subconscious mind do? It runs 95% of our life on automation.As Dr. Bruce Lipton explains:“Neuroscientists have shown that most of our decisions, actions, emotions and behavior depend on the 95% of brain activity that is beyond our conscious awareness, which means that 95% of our life comes from the programming in our subconscious mind.”This is why it’s so hard to make change happen!It’s because we’ve repeated the thought patterns so many times that they’ve now become rooted in who we are: Our thought patterns reinforced our beliefs, and our beliefs came to define who we are and the reality we experience." Source Article Here.All of this means that when you repeat positive, present-tense affirmations - including ones about being wealthy - you are building new beliefs that you will subconsciously act on.You will DO things that will help you become wealthy, to an extent without even really thinking about it, and your efforts will feel easier than if you were trying to work against your beliefs.Here's the Bible: The Bible says in Mark 11:24, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."Job 22:28 says, "You will also declare a thing, And it will be established for you; So light will shine on your ways."Christians have been manifesting for generations, they just call it by different things - they use terms like:"Claim it in faith.""Thank God for the miracle before you receive it.""Declare it on earth as it is in heaven."These all work by the same science that we just learned about - we are altering our thoughts and therefore our beliefs.Even though we might be using different words, we are still speaking positive affirmations which are influencing our beliefs and becoming greater faith.I believe that, just as the Bible says, the miracles happen because of that greater faith.

As for me

I use a combination of the mainstream and the faith-based methods for manifesting.

I repeat non-faith-based affirmations on a daily basis through the app I use - PepTalks by Lindsey Eryn - I love it! Although, spoiler - she is a Christian and a lot of her material is faith-based in a gently concealed manner - i.e., some of her affirmations are based on Bible verses and she inserts "Goodness of Life" for God to make it more palatable. Still, her pep talks are gold. They're always exactly what I need.

I also use many of the trusty old faith-based forms of manifestation.

On a regular basis, I form my affirmations in statements with the phrase "I declare and decree in Jesus' name that I am _______." And I will also thank God before the miracle comes with the phrase "I thank and praise God that I am____" or "for _______."

My miracles

So what's happened for me since I started manifesting?

I've gotten jobs paying me more than I've ever made before - along with MULTIPLE unasked for raises, lifting my income even higher.

I've gotten my dream rental home - even while I signed the lease papers without ever having seen it in person!

I've received myriad other perfect-time financial gifts.

I found my dream church - and without knowing it when I started attending, found out they are moving into a building literally right around the corner from my house - exactly the kind of proximity of community that I wanted and was praying for.

My dream of working from home came true (although, thanks to the Pandemic which isn't happy, but I've seriously wanted to work from home my whole adult life. Now, I'll be able to work from home part-time permanently which means the world to me.)

The last three years have been the best of my life!

And true to my "no marketing bs" word, there is no program or offer attached to this blog post. I might write a book about it someday though.

[shhhselah]

What A Wonderful Life...

​Friday, May 17, 2019

2:35pm

​​"What an interesting life you've caught me in the middle of...."

I caught myself saying this out loud a few weeks ago. That date overhead to be exact.

Life is such a journey. Such a process.

Constantly, we're growing, changing, evolving- never really staying in one spot or settling into one modus operandi. Have you ever heard the phrase, "A master piece and work in progress?" That's truly a concept I feel slips the mind of so many. Even ourselves. We know that we're changing and adjusting, but, honestly, we don't always agree with, like or desire the change we find ourselves going through. Sometimes that change alters us physically, and it may not always be flattering or pleasing.

And other times, we witness emotional, mental and spiritual transformations that either excite us, or frighten us. I've experienced this. We all have. (And actually, correction- I ​​am experiencing this. A season that rattles me because I don't recognize my spiritual surroundings.)

We all have those moments where you take stock of who you are versus who you used to be and find yourself to be a current stranger to the you once known. A stranger in your own body, a foreigner in your own thoughts.

​​When did I get so defensive? When did I become so broken? Why did I stop trusting, smiling, opening up? When did I stop talking, believing, hoping? How did I stop loving? When did I stop truly ​​living? What happened.... to "me?"

And you know what can be so damaging and yet helpful all at once? ​​M e m o r i e s.

See, while it's good to recall memories, it's so harmful to ​​harp on them. We were made to live in the present, it's why our breath comes and goes so steadily instead of staying behind in one spot that we have to consistently travel backwards to in order to reach. We were designed to live in the moment.

Those memories are a blessing. They're an opportunity to view and learn from every present you've ever found yourself in, every gift you've gotten to live in- so that you can walk a little straighter, wiser and freer in the next....but the moment you start harping on those past presents, you neglect all the undivided attention this current one requires. And you live in a duality that brings both anxiousness and confusion.

You bring a nasty case of comparison into the mix. We tend to split our time between nostalgia, trauma, reality and delusions of grandeur. Past. Present. Future.

The both good and bad times of the past, the ever steady action of the present and the unknown possibilities of the future. We live in them all and somehow expect our present selves to maintain order and a standard of satisfactory being that appeases each viewpoint.

Let me set you free here and now-

You will ​​never be completely like your old self- you've gone through too much. So much more than that self of even ​​days ago has experienced. I'm starting to learn and accept that, but it's hard for me on some days when I liked the old version better. What gives me hope, is knowing that God has a greater design for me that He didn't leave in the past, but lays peacefully in every step forward I take. If the past were better, I'd be there. But it's not. There was something there that was still obsolete, untapped and lacking.

What's more, you will ​​never be like your future self- they've witnessed more than the present can presently tell you. Secrets that God has purposed only time to hold.

And understand, your present self is constantly being prepared for the future and shaped by the past. They're under a lot of work. But that work is null in void if you don't allow them to soak up every moment they're in so they can pull something from it and be molded by it.

​​What an interesting life you've caught me in....

Who we're used to being and used to being known as, isn't going to always be the truth of who we are and will be. So set yourself free to forever be a work in progress and masterpiece all at once.

Set yourself free to live life and experience life as it comes. If the day is unpredictable, why can't your growth process be? Don't set restrictions on yourself. Live. What's meant will come and happen, because you have a sovereign God who always starts what He finishes (​​Isaiah 46:9-11). And He calls you His workmanship, His clay, His skillfully and wonderfully made creation in whom He delights.

Trust me, He has an attention to detail and His attention is all yours. You're worth it, and truly, He loves it. So be free, and live in the beautiful, yet startling vulnerability of being creation, where you don't have to constantly create yourself- forever loved and governed by Almighty above.

"12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own. 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything (in any point) you think otherwise (differently), God will reveal that (make it clear) also to you. 16 Only let us hold true (live up to) to what we have (already) attained."

Philippians 3:12-16

Don't ever feel like you have something to prove. What God has put in you is intrinsic. The areas you walk into were made to build you, be a catalyst that sparks your nature and be a field in which to practice, hone and shine in who you are. You were created for those places.

Your only job is to BE. God will continue to sculpt exactly what that "being" looks like at any given moment, whether seemingly good, bad, ugly or pleasing. That's a part of Surrender- ​​ceasing resistance, submitting to an authority greater than your own, to give up possession of, to deliver up."

Give up your ideas of what you should do, who you should be, and where you should be. It's an act harder done than said, but it's a journey that is best walked with the Creator- who has all the finer details etched out and all the possibilities accounted for- purposing each one for good. (​​Psalm 37:23, Proverbs 16:9, Romans 8:28)

Do you know the difference between Evidence and Proof?

Proof is a biased concept. It seeks to discount one thing and support another.

Evidence is objective. It has no agenda. It is simply there, and its presence tells a story.

The story of God's existence is in the evidence of creation- our world. He tells us this in ​​Romans 1:19-20.

Trees, animals, the ocean, the wind, birds, bees, flowers, and even our complex DNA, they have never moved to prove anything. They simply exist and operate in their nature, and have been a consistent testimony to something greater.

We have sought for years to understand their origin and complexity, ​​our origin and complexity. They derive from the same Caretaker who clothes the fields of grass and feeds the birds of the sky.

​​"25 'Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

34 Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.'"

​​Matthew 6:25-34

You will always feel behind and be behind when you have something to prove.

God is always with us. In every moment. Living in the past or future holds no meaning, it's a trick of the enemy that keeps us between condemnation and striving desperately and futilely beyond grace.

​​"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

​​Ephesians 2:8-10

I've had a habit of pointing to the past to remind God of where I can't go again or where I was better off. I also have a habit (which was the entirety of my 2018), where I take the snippets of what God has shown me He has for me, and I drag Him around and try to drill Him like a sergeant to get me there. The year was saturated with impatience, exhaustion, resentment, bitterness, envy, confusion and hurt.

This life is not yours when you're in Christ. It's His. ​​​​Galatians 2:20 ​​tells us that,

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."

And in being His, there are plans, achievements, dreams, timings, and revelations that He's taken on the responsibility to deliver and create. This is not yours to carry.

Why carry something on your own that God told you He'd do Himself? If He put it on your heart, it's for Him to do, not you. Why try to do God's job and be Him? How futile. We fail and stall out when we attempt to take His plans, make them our own and go running off with them.

There is a partnership called Faith. That leads us to Obedience. But we can't obey who we do not serve or even acknowledge. When striving in our own efforts, understandings, assumptions and desires, when do we have time and room to consult the One who prepared our good works ahead of time?

Stay steady with Him in the now. His grace has covered your entire timeline, but reap the benefits of the fresh mercies He purposed for this moment.

​​"22 The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases;

   his mercies never come to an end;

23 they are new every morning;

   great is your faithfulness."

​​Lamentations 3:22-23

Don't try to run ahead. Take it from me, it leaves you bitter and worn.

Be spoiled by the God who has already completed the works.

​​"9 Remember the former things of old,

For I am God, and there is no other;

I am God, and there is none like Me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning,

And from ancient times things that are not yet done,

Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,

And I will do all My pleasure,’

11 Calling a bird of prey from the east,

The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.

Indeed I have spoken it;

I will also bring it to pass.

I have purposed it;

I will also do it."

​​Isaiah 46:9-11

Prove nothing and never strive . Like evidence, just be, and watch yourself ever unfold on this journey of life as God unravels all the beautiful secrets He's placed down on the inside of you, tucked neatly away in the timeline of your path.

Time to be set free, darlings.

Live. Presently.

[keshetchai]

I don't know how to phrase this question exactly but please understand that I'm being genuine! ... Do white jews and white converts suffer from anti/semitism? Because I'm not sure if it's a racist issue,,, or if Jewish is even an ethnicity?? ahh i have a lot to learn. I hope this isn't insensitive. thank you

Um I’m a lil low on spoons rn but I’ll try to just…generally answer and other Jewish followers can add on?:

1.) Jews are members of an ethnoreligion. Meaning that the majority of Jews are ethnically/genetically related to each other, but that ethnic group also shares a religion. The exception is generally speaking, converts, who may not be ethnically Jewish. There’s a lot more nuance there but I’m just saying the basics. But yeah you can be ethnically Jewish. 2.) Jewish people existed as an ethnoreligious group prior to the modern idea of races/race in general. Uhhh…basically the concept of human races comes after the concept of a unified Jewish people/identity, afaik. 2a.) Related: early “race” classifications tended to do….weird things! (Hello that’s because racism, obvs) but like in the 18th century a lot of white Europeans classed a lot of MENA people as “caucasoid” - actually let’s be super clear: racist ass 18th century Germans said this. And Caucasoid was divided into Aryan, Semitic, and Hamitic. So…Europeans, West Asians (“Middle Eastern”), and North Africans, plus some of India. …conveniently encompassing anywhere that had been Ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece, basically.

That dude ranked light skinned people at the top of his model and everyone else below - even within “Caucasoid” as a race. KEEP THAT RACIST GERMAN GUY IN MIND. Uh…then other ppl came in and…edited that model.

Most racial categories have some kind of system where people are divided into European, Asian, African, and American (as in Native), plus possibly something that covers Oceania (one person called it the “Malay” race). We….generally speaking have not really gone very far beyond that, at least not in the US, where MENA people are still auto-categorized on the census as “white”. (And because the US government doesn’t…really account for mixing of indigenous ppl with colonizers well, most latinxs are forced to mark themselves as white Hispanics/Latinos if they’re not also API or black or registered native, regardless of whether or not they are say, European-white and Latino or not.)

ANYWAYS throughout history Jewish people have been persecuted for being Jewish and different, and therefore as the concepts of races were developed, the ethnicity of Jews played into negative treatment of Jewish people.

3.) by the time Nazi Germany rolled around, that racist 18th century German guy? They basically said “Look at the caucasoid race. The darker Slavic ones are inferior, and the Semitic people (read: the Jews and only the Jews) and Rroma (who fit under that loose - we include India and west Asia definition) are poisoning the race.” so caucasoid or not by anyone’s older and equally racist definitions, they were not Aryans (the very same Germans that 18th century dude talked about being the height of superiority) and they basically claimed that Jewish and Rromani people were vermin/a racial plague/going to be the downfall of the race, etc etc.

I don’t really know how to best explain this atm but basically whether or not Jews were or are caucasoid or white was an incredibly moot point in Nazi Germany. It did not matter.

4.) Antisemitism was and has always been about hatred of Jewish people, regardless of their skin color or tone or regardless of whether or not “Semitic” was classified under “caucasoid” at any point. White Jews are the victims of antisemitism because antisemitism is about hating Jewish people (even if they are caucasoid, because you have to understand that if someone is using those old and racist terms, they genuinely believe Jewish people are going to be the demise of the Aryans, whom they believe to be the superior Caucasoid people/the “whites” vs the…other ethnic ones).

5.) Basically all Jews - even converts - are the targets of antisemitism because it’s aimed at anyone Jewish.

White converts will usually not be the victims of antisemitism aimed at the “ethnic” features of Jews, but they can and do still face antisemitism.

6.) white (usually xtian) people, historically speaking, may see some assimilated “white” Jews and treat them like white people (until they feel like not treating them like white people, in which case they will stop), but white Nazis will never consider “white” Jews as anything but Jewish.

Since race is a social construct: some Jews can ascribe to whiteness but may have that taken away from them at any point by white supremacist/neonazi groups; Jews are “Caucasian” but can never be Aryan “white”, only “Semitic” and antisemitism means hating Jews; Caucasian is not synonymous with “white” or occupying the status of being “white” in society since plenty of MENA people, Indians, and Jews are not light skinned and aren’t treated as if they are “white” in society; but all white people are Caucasian; and when people say “white” they usually MEAN white as in “looks Aryan/light skinned” but “white” doesn’t actually play out that way socially, and includes non-Aryan but sufficiently light skinned people; Jews might be able to be “white” but they’re never “Aryan” and white supremacists/neonazis care about “Aryan white” specifically.

So like even if some ethnic Jews have white skin and occupy relative white privilege (over darker Jews even) in today’s world, they can still be murdered by white supremacists for not being white.

White converts remain the same race and ethnicity they were previously, but can still be targeted by antisemitism.