reading the right book is like seeing a chiropractor
Jeremy Allen White as Carmen ‘Carmy’ Berzatto Dogs, The Bear
Ryuk: oh man he’s batshit I’ve hit the jackpot
Remembering Basil Rathbone, born on June 13, 1892 #botd
funniest thing about the “reddit migration” is that I haven’t seen a single post shitting on anyone coming from Reddit. when twitter started bleeding users everyone was firing rent-lowering posts but with redditors skittering about we’ve left the doors open and put out food bowls
SPIDER-MAN: ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE (2023)
joining the war on “pretentiousness” on the side of the pretentious
“Authors should not be ALLOWED to write about–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative
“This book should be taken off of shelves for featuring–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative
“Schools shouldn’t teach this book in class because–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative
“Nobody actually likes or wants to read classics because they’re–” you are an anti-intellectual and an idiot
“I only read YA fantasy books because every classic novel or work of literary fiction is problematic and features–” you are an anti-intellectual and you are robbing yourself of the full richness of the human experience.
As a trained librarian, I approve this message
I saw a post saying that Boromir looked too scruffy in FotR for a Captain of Gondor, and I tried to move on, but I’m hyperfixating. Has anyone ever solo backpacked? I have. By the end, not only did I look like shit, but by day two I was talking to myself. On another occasion I did fourteen days’ backcountry as the lone woman in a group of twelve men, no showers, no deodorant, and brother, by the end of that we were all EXTREMELY feral. You think we looked like heirs to the throne of anywhere? We were thirteen wolverines in ripstop.
My boy Boromir? Spent FOUR MONTHS in the wilderness! Alone! No roads! High floods! His horse died! I’m amazed he showed up to Imladris wearing clothes, let alone with a decent haircut. I’m fully convinced that he left Gondor looking like Richard Sharpe being presented to the Prince Regent in 1813
*electric guitar riff*
And then rocked up to Imladris a hundred ten days later like
Some people have been wondering about the raccoon. Listen. Listennn. Don't ask about the raccoon.
But does the racoon survive the Uruk-Hai? Does he curl up on Aragorn's head, or does he go straight to Faramir? Does he bite Denethor?
My friend. My colleague. My brother my captain my king. I too have been pondering this question, and in my mind there can be only one ultimate outcome.
A few months later
All hail the High Warden of Gondor.
Epilogue: It ADORES Faramir.
I’m going to wear this on my head like a raccoon and show everyone
*sigh* Its that time of year where freshman high school classes start reading Romeo and Juliet.
And I'm just so tired of the "well they werent REALLY IN LOVE they were just dumb teenagers with hormones" take.
What do you mean "not really" in love? They werent real people. They are fictional characters. The story says they are in love. The omniscient chorus says they are in love. The themes of the entire play are built on the fact that they are in love.
So what does it add to undermine that except as an excuse to not engage authentically with the story? To suggest that actually it's the two teenagers fault that they died because they were being stupid and hormonal, rather than society and their families for the senseless hate that forced them to extreme measures? Does that seem like Shakespeare's intent? Does that seem like an interesting or useful reading, or as a cop out reason to role your eyes and refuse to engage with the play at all?
I understand that we are now in an age where "love at first sight" isnt really a valid literary trope anymore. Even Disney is taking shots at it. But this play was written in 1597- when the omniscient chorus tells you that they are in love, it isnt tongue in cheek.
What I don’t really understand about the “were they really in love” criticism is that, well, suppose for the sake of argument that they weren’t, that this was just a passing summer infatuation. Okay, well, so what? Why does it matter if it was, perhaps, just a passing flash of teenage infatuation? Infatuation, hormones, that’s normal, that’s a natural part of life, it’s just a thing many people go through, it’s a learning experience, and teenagers should have every right to have a silly little summer crush, and maybe to develop it into something more or maybe not.
But that’s not what happens in the story, right? Because, love or hormones or whatever, what should have been a normal part of two kids growing up gets caught in the vicious feud between the two families. What should have been a normal thing because the flashpoint of a vicious, petty feud, and what should have ended with either two kids in love or two kids a little wiser about their emotions or both ends with all these bodies to bury. It’s a story about young lives being ended prematurely because of their elders’ foolishness and pride. What does it matter if they did or didn’t “really” fit this or that modern standard of “being in love”?
I will say this- to me, in my reading of the text, it matters to the extent that if you don't accept that Romeo and Juliet are in love, then their actions and the Friars actions in the play feel.... unreasonable and irresponsible.
Their love should seem a little miraculous. Their introductions form a perfect sonnet. They say the rhyming couplet when they kiss. It should feel undeniable and heightened and fairy tale-esqe. (All that talk of Queen Mab and the fairies on their way to the ball vs all the holy imagery in their first meeting) It should feel like the hand of God reaching down to lead them to each other because their love will bring peace to their families. (Think how much Friar Lawrence, the only agent of the church and of God we see, does to help them together) So all their desperate moves, the elopement, the sleeping potion, should feel like the true desperation of souls that yearn to be together.
And when they die because their families can not set aside their hatred, it should feel like an abomination. Like destiny has been denied. But still in death, their love brings peace to Verona, because how could anything but peace have been born out of a love like theirs?
For me, I think it is *sadder* and more tragic if their love is true, and that even this rare and magical thing is destroyed by the cycle of violence, but that cycle of violence itself is destroyed by that love in return.
Obviously, the play can and does still work even if you handwave it as just normal infatuation. People should be allowed to love without it killing them. (Though this makes the Friar feel rather irresponsible I think.) But for me, the themes come through more strongly if you just... believe the play when it tells you that they are in love.
Classic lit isn't relatable TO YOU. I have something wrong with me though
In light of recent events, I would like to remind everyone that the correct pro choice talking point that will actually pull people to our side is NOT whether a fetus is human or not because you'll never win. The correct argument is how the state should never have the power to force you to give up physical autonomy for the sake of any other being.
if the state can't force you to be an organ donor after your death, it shouldn't be able to force you to be an organ donor before your death. if you can't be forced to give even a pint of blood for half an hour, you shouldn't be forced to give up your uterus for nine months. if your alcoholic father can't demand you give him half your liver, if the red cross can't just demand your blood, if those wig making companies can't demand your hair, no one should be able to demand your reproductive system.
even if a fertilized egg is exactly as much of a person as a twenty one year old citizen, no one else in the world should have a legal right to make use of your body parts without your express consent.
Furthermore, having risky sex is not the same as consenting to having your body co-opted. If you drive recklessly and die in a car accident, the state still can't harvest your organs without your consent. If you've been a bad person you're entire life, that still doesn't give the state the right to take your blood without consent. No behavior on your part can exempt you from bodily autonomy.
This is the main point of Judith Jarvis Thomson's 1971 paper "A Defense of Abortion," which is so famous and influential that it has its own Wikipedia page (conveniently for people who don't have access to, or don't want to read all the way through, the original):
Came across the most charmingly delivered piece of advice on r/houseplants
The diagram:
The diagram is great but my favorite part is the quotes around “purchase”
“Purchase”
Every culture in all of human history was so right about carbs and fat together being a blessing upon earth. Eating bread with butter knowing I am partaking in one of humanities biggest shared joys
In 4th grade, my bff was in a death feud over chess with a boy in our class but instead of competing like normal people they decided that the best way to determine who was chess master was for each of them to select one of the two biggest idiots in class and teach them to play chess, My Fair Lady style, and see whose idiot won. We are just now, 22 years later, grappling with the moral implications of this exercise.
There is no shame in loving without abandon. ✌️❤️
And the real trick to it is falling madly in love with literally everything. Gomez Addams isn’t just madly in love with Morticia, he’s madly in love with his house, with his train set, with his kids, with his brother, with his weird normie neighbors, with literally everything. Different kinds of love for each, but love all the same. For having such morbid tastes, Gomez is madly in love with life. THAT’S how you land a Morticia, by being unapologetically and madly in love with everything around you.
Bitches love me for my passionate swag and my unrelenting appreciate for the zest of life
I often see people ask how to get started with doing this, because it seems like a daunting task to be in love with everything, when you are starting off in love with nothing, or very few things perhaps. But the answer isn’t grand or elaborate or secret. The answer is to pick something, and choose love.
And then do it again, and again, and again.
The act of being in love is just choosing love over and over.
The act of being
in love is just choosing love
over and over.
Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.