and since it's appealing and human

anonymous asked:

request for the angst queen with a prompt where one of the gods take over Noct's s/o's body (like Shiva w Gentiana) and their no longer the person he fell in love with. Also thank you two so much bc you inspired me to start my own side blog (take-pitioss-on-me) and I'd be blessed if y'all would check it out. 💚

Alrighty, while I’d like to point out that Shiva actually is Gentiana, I really really enjoy this concept you’ve suggested. (And I rly rly love Noct ok?) 

This was a difficult one to craft while trying to somewhat stay true to canon— something I always strive to do in some kind of regard. So I had to take some liberties with the (very vague) lore of FFXV. Roll with it my dudes.

SO! With that being said.

On with the pain train!

{1,611 words}


It started after Altissia.

After you finally woke.

The healers said that they were certain you’d never open your eyes again. Noctis never left your side upon waking to find that everything had crumbled around him. He held on to your hand as if it was the only thing keeping him balanced in this wretched world— where heroes die too soon and the innocent far too young.

He had been told by Ignis how it had happened. Who it had been. The same man who stole his eyes and Luna’s life.

The day that you woke, Noctis was resting his forehead in the palm of your limp hand, caressing your wrist when your thumb twitched against his temple. He assumed it to be another one of his fragmented daydreams, the ones where you finally opened your eyes and he took you into his arms.

He realized it to be nothing short of reality when he pulled back, watching your eyes flutter as he gripped your hand. Yes, nothing short of reality because when your clear eyes opened, they were anything but relieved.

You stared at him as if you had lost your mind.

Keep reading

Tumblr Tag Game: Top 10 TV Shows

@fandomqueenishere remembered me and now I know how the cool kids in class feel. <3 Thanks 

So, top 10 TV shows and maybe why you love them. (I might not be able to say for all.) 

1. Doctor Who (I cannot begin to explain, but I think that for one, with all its aliens, it is so incredibly human. There’s a lot about human nature explored and that appeals to me.

2. Sense8 (Love the representation; Wolfgang is even kind of Slavic, so I am living <3)

3. The Flash (it’s hilarious and there’s lots of science-y-ish stuff)

4. Shadowhunters. (A word: Magnus. Wrong, two: Magnus and Izzy

5. Brooklyn 99 (doing comedy without being assholes since ep 1) 

6. Andromeda (this is old, kids, but it was such a fun sci fi show - watched for Romi and Trance; could’ve used lot more rep though, but badass females !!!!)

7. Supergirl (Season 1. Not 2. 1.) 

8. Supernatural (first, it was because of Dean, then Cass, then Charlie, and now I love it because of Crowley and Rowena - I have not caught up yet, don’t tell me, shut up, I don’t wanna now, God is bisexual everything else doesn’t matter

9. Spartacus (Nagron, bitches!!!)

10. ….. I cannot think of anything else anymore. Sorry. 


Tagging: @bee-fabulous @cinnaminyard @magnificentvoidarbiter @luciferleviathan @mumi-things

naopao  asked:

Your OC drawings (the one with Wunder in particular) makes me think you'd be great at drawing human!zenyatta. If it's not too much to ask: a doodle of human!zen hanyatta? No pressure or anything though, but your art is hella and it's such a good rare pair. :')

I actually don’t really like human versions of Zenyatta because I… like robots… and the fact that he’s a sentient machine is part of what makes him such a great character and so appealing to me. But since you asked and I can always use a quick design challenge…

Figured he’d be Newar/Nepali to put his roots in Nepal and tie him to the fictional Shambali probably since birth, attempted to make him look like he’s actually just twenty years old and gave some obvious nods to the original design. Lazy and unoriginal, but, well, there you go. No Hanzo to go with him, tho, sorry. :< Maybe later!

Arthurian Legends

The early Arthur: history and myth

  • De Excidio Britanniae by Gildas, 490-560. To castigate the native British of his time in general, and a specific set of their kings in particular for their sins. In process he did provide something like an account of British history since the end of Roman rule, but it was sketchy, selective and vague, It was intended to  accuse the Britons of being both morally bad and unwarlike, and their defeats by the English as a just punishment by God.
  • Bede, 730s. To make out his own people, the English, to be the chosen people of God and the true heirs of the Romans. To justify that view, the native British had to be like the Biblical Canaanites: the low life that got swept aside in the proper implementation of God’s plan for Britain.
  • Historia Brittonum completed in Gwynedd, the north-western kingdom of Wales, at the behest of its monarch, Merfyn, during the year 830. It represented the Welsh as the natural and rightful owners of all Britain: pious, warlike and gallant folk who had lost control of most of their land to the invading English, because of a mixture of treachery and overwhelming numbers on the part of the invaders. Established the Arthur who has been commonly regarded, even since the collapse of belief in the later medieval pseudo-histories of Britain, as the ‘real’ one.
  • Oliver Padel: physical ‘wonders’ associated with Arthur represent the original, completely imaginary figure behind the legend, a giant associated with magic and with marvelous animals, who was later turned by some traditions into a quasi-historical warrior. Arthur and Fionn are the same mythical being, a land-protecting superman, deployed in different linguistic regions.
  • Stories among the Ossetians, a people living in a remote part of Caucasus Mountains. A mechanism has been found to explain how these traditions could have been transmitted to Britain, in the form of Sarmatian cavalry from the steppes north of the Caucasus, who were deployed by the Romans.
  • The legend in archaic Greece. A king of Arcadia called Arktouros. 104 passages in Greek and Roman literature that appear to refer to characters or episodes from the Arthurian romances.
  • The traditional appeal of archeology, since it began to emerge in the late nineteenth century, has been as a quest romance, undertaken to reveal the truth about particular episodes of the human past. Hugely more expensive than historical studies, and projects that make a powerful appeal to the popular imagination stand the best chance of raising the necessary money. To a post-war Britain, caught in the process of resigning its imperial and Great Power status, and jettisoning most of the attitudes and ideologies left from its Victorian apogee, the Arthur of the Historia Brittonum seemed to be a traditional hero better fitted than most to adapt to changing needs. Funding decreased later, reflecting the waning of the 1960s romanticism and idealism, in the harsher, more cynical and more pessimistic cultural climate of the late 1970s.
  • Ever since he appears in the record, Arthur has been more than one kind of being, demanding more than one kind of understanding. In that sense, the ‘early’ Arthur is actually more complex than many of those who have featured in legend since.

The twelfth-century Arthur

  • The History of Kings of Britain, Geoffrey of Monmouth. Invented a proud past for Britain before the invasions of foreign races. (On the face of it, there was nothing to be proud of: the Celts had been overrun, first by the Romans, then by the Anglo-Saxons, and then again by the Normans.)
  • Arthur so close comes to realizing it that the story of his rise and fall seems to have been shaped to impress upon us its tragic quality of ‘almost-but-not-quite’.
  • Chretien de Troyes. Having thrown off the shackles of history, he presents a universe that is self-consciously fictional and obeys its own rules. When he does not want to provide any justification for these rules, he simply calls them ‘customs’. The Knight of the Cart: true lovers know that Love has its own laws and is itself a religion, so if Lancelot’s actions are shameful and objectionable by all reasonable standards (Christian morality, chivalric honour), they are paradoxically necessary and meritorious in the cause of Love. The Story of the Grail: inscrutable principles of causality.
  • Grail: ‘a serving dish’, though certainly elevated beyond the ordinary by describing it in hyperboles and by giving it the sacred function of carrying the eucharist (Chretien). The cup of the Last Supper, given by Pilate to Jesus’ disciple Joseph of Arimathea (Robert de Boron). An emanation of the divine in the earthly world (Vulgate). A stone, lapsit exillis, once the seat of the neutral guarded angels and is now jealously guarded by the Grail family who live on the food it miraculously provides (Wolfram von Eschenbach).

The thirteenth-century Arthur

  • The ethic of solitary and individual enterprise; the knight-errant hero and the quest; the search for chivalric identity; the court of Arthur as the point of departure and the benchmark for individual adventure; the tournament as the locus for chivalric competition; the exploration of sexuality and desire; the conflict and reconciliation of love and chivalry; the pleasures of deferral; the problematic and irresistible ultimate adventure, the Grail.
  • Fascination of the Grail: deferral – ‘ending’, which one would expect to be the first consideration of any continuator, is not a preoccupation. The marked tendency towards cyclicity.
  • Robert de Boron responsible for the leap of imagination which transforms Chretien’s mysterious but neboulous Grail into the cup of the Last Supper. Wolfram von Eschenbach transforms the dish into a stone with mysterious powers guarded in a Grail Castle Munsalvaesche by an order of Grail Knights.
  • Lancelot remains as the epitome of passionate love and it is his son, Galahad, named for the ancestor whose connections link him directly to Christ, chaste and unsullied, engendered in mysterious and magical circumstances, who usurps his father’s name and takes on the role of spiritual hero. He is who finally achieves the Grail and puts an end to the ‘adventures’ of Logres. Lest the Grail quest come to seem a mere parenthesis in the biography of Lancelot and the history of Arthur, it becomes their defining moment: in the wake of the disappearance of the Grail, the Knights of the Round Table lose the chivalric impetus that built the kingdom.
  • The image of an ideological continuity, an ordered vision of world history. It is not fate which destroys the Arthurian idyll, but moral and spiritual forces generated by the characters themselves, and which find their narrative roots hundreds of pages previously. This is a vision of world history encapsulated in the dream of Fortune’s Wheel which Arthur is vouchsafed before the final battle and which epitomizes an organic understanding of world history and the rise and fall of kingdoms and civilizations.
  • Controlled narrative. Crucial to it is the pattern alternating assembly with dispersal: the great religious festivals which bring the Round Table at Arthur’s court as both the locus for communal activity and the arena from which individual knights are scattered to solitary adventure. Alternating chivalric activity with withdrawal.
  • Early Gawain romances: burlesque, faintly louche atmosphere. Gawain appears as a flirt if not an outright seducer.
  • The thirteenth century institutionalizes the parameters of what the modern reader will think of as ‘the Arthurian legend’; that makes Arthur the epitome of personal misrule; makes the overwhelming adulterous passions something to be celebrated (while recognizing its potential for tragedy); favours the collective over the individual enterprise; honours the elect and his impossible spiritual excellence over the prowess of the merely mortal.

The fourteenth-century Arthur

  • Arthur passes from defending his own territory to conquering lands held by the Emperor of Rome. Arthur’s war-plans become openly imperialistic. He claims his descent from those British kings who formerly ruled Rome – just such an argument was used by English kings of the time in support of their claims on Scotland.
  • ‘Truth’ is a key item in fourteenth-century English vocabulary; denoted all kinds of fidelity – to a lord, a companion, or a lover, and also to one’s own pledged word.
  • Sir Gawain: the logic of stories such as this predicts that a hero who faithfully keeps to his agreement will be spared by his adversary at the return match. Green Knight blames Gawain the less since it was because ‘he loved his life’ that Gawain clung on to the belt – a politer way od referring to his fear of death, a natural passion.

The fifteenth-century Arthur

  • Malory’s immense subsequent influence lies in his perception that there might be unity that made sense of Arthur’s career and the Round Table world as a whole.
  • By contrast, in Scots traditions, the illegitimate Arthur usurped the rightful heir Mordred, son of Uther’s only legitimate child Anna and Lot of Lothian, so that Mordred’s rebellion becomes his bid for his birthright.
  • Dame Ragnelle. Gawain plays a central role characterized not only by his brave submission to tests, but also by his avoidance of coercion and courteous respect for others’ identity. Arthur himself – not in control of events – presented in a questionable and undignified light.
  • Arthur’s imperious impetus to compel submission and to appropriate. Chivalrously compassionate conqueror (Malory). Campaign to overcome Rome itself is both his crowning achievement yet also (implicitly) a hubristic overstepping, promptly undermined by news of Mordred’s treachery at home.
  • The obsessive and destructive passion of Tristan and Iseult – claustrophobic, antisocial, furtive and amoral. Malory’s Tristram portrays a fantasy of chivalric society – floating free of concern for any historical moment or political responsibility – it defines its own realities. It can stand for the extended summer of Arthurian chivalry at the heart of Malory’s Arthuriad.
  • ‘Joseph of Glastonbury’ aa the apostolic missionary to Britain and a new English national saint, and such affirmation of Britain’s conversion within living memory of Christ’s ministry had major diplomatic implications. At the Councils of Pisa (1409), Constance (17), Siena (24) and Basle (34), the English delegations invoked England’s conversion in bolstering her claims to rank as a nation alongside France, Spain, Germany and Italy; the date of Joseph’s arrival was moved progressively earlier to counter impertinent French claims for the primacy of their St Denis.
  • Malory’s hermits offer ethical judgements instead of mystical or typological expositions.
  • Arthur values the corporate ideal of the Round Table not only more highly than his wife but also more than any personal interest or injury.
  • The shrewishly capricious personality of Malory’s Guinevere, who so takes her lover for granted, catches something of the unromantic reality of a long-established relationship as Lancelot experiences it. Yet Guinevere has immortal longings in her, and comes to an end that both transcends her life and character, yet proves a development of her earlier constancy.

The Arthur of the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries

  • The Scots doubt. The increasing value given to classical learning over medieval tradition: Aeneas more credible nation-builder than Arthur. The new style of Tudor administrative organization made the idea of a king ruling through his great warriors with advice from a magical grand vizier seem improbable and irrelevant. Protestantism recoiled from Arthur’s Catholic ambience and Puritan moralism found the cheerful violence and sexual awareness unappealing.
  • Arthur’s deployment as an icon to validate the seizure and maintenance of royal power, and to euphemize military power from Edward I to Henry VIII.
  • English writers found it compelling to imagine the conquest of the cold, bracing regions to the north as a kind of ideological, political, response to the luxurious antiquity and power of the south.

Questioning Arthurian ideals

  • The romance could soothe tensions between different social groups within the aristocracy by offering an idealized version of unity in the form of the Round Table. The glamorizing of a royal court at which barons would attend for long periods, and so be prevented from building up a power-base in their own provincial lands, was very much in the interests of the monarchy.
  • National politics and prejudices can have a bearing on attitudes to the Arthurian story, as can the desire of clerical authors to educate the aggressive nobility of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries into more courtly behaviour.
  • The Grail introduces the notion of sin into Arthurian romance. In this new context, the choice of black or white armour carries moral significance, and beautiful damsel in distress may turn out to be devils in disguise.
  • In later Middle Ages, there seems to be a shift to stories about mistakes and failures. Failure is built into the Arthurian legend seen as a whole. Arthur and his Round Table knights do tame the wilderness and introduce civilization – but it cannot last. The flawed and doomed idealism and heroism of the Arthurian world are responsible for the enduring appeal of the legend.

Arthurian ethics

  • Arthurian scene is never now. Arthurian chivalry always lies in a past discontinuous from the present or in some fantastical otherwhere, and its contemplated at a distance by a consciously ‘modern’ commentator.
  • Somewhat like the Aboriginal ‘Dreamtime’, ‘Arthurtime’ exists in a constant tension with the present, pressing upon it and on what it may imminently become: neither now nor never.
  • Our moral judgements o  ‘Arthur Life’ and its actors are complicated by our perception of them as neither ‘us’ nor ‘not-us’ and neither real nor inconsequential.
  • Arthurian writers and readers can never fully inhabit the Arthurian moment, neither can its residents.
  • The characteristic Arthurian dilemmas can only be resolved in an elsewhere outside the court, a fantasy space receding within the works themselves. Thus the Grail is achieved in a distant castle, and knights love happily in far-flung domains.
  • ‘Camelot’, viewed as the conjunction of a set of ideals with a lived place, is an inaccessible object of desire and anxiety within the Arthurian world.
  • In the thirteenth century, Arthurian romances distanced themselves from the intellectual playfulness and ethical experimentation of the early works. The Arthurian moral space becomes didactic, a place of lessons directed to the text’s own present. Paradox and irony now signal a tragic mystery weighing on the human race.

Imperial Arthur: home and away

  • Today, Arthur’s imperial conquest is the least popular and least often retold of the main stories about him in medieval literature.
  • Rome embodies what is pre-eminently desirable but the Romans are enemies; the idea is for the British to beat them, not to be them. To become ‘Romans’ would be to become foreigners whose rule is arrogant oppression, so in that respect it may seem necessary as well as tragic for Arthur not to get over the Alps into Italy.
  • The central theme of Morte d’Arthur is to find an antidote for War (White). The literary result is a half-nostalgic, half-despairing retelling of the medieval story as a challenge to the European legacy of violence and militarism. White’s work is fundamentally about the socio-political and psychological effects of education and upbringing.
  • The Cold War concern with Western unity based on alliance with USA found several aspects of Arthurianism congenial: the political centrism of Camelot from which all adventures start and to which all return – the period of J.F.K.’s presidency later became known as ‘Camelot’; the Round Table, symbolizing political unity of the world itself; the sword Excalibur, understood as a symbol that ‘true’ power belongs to one wielder alone, whom all good people will benefit from supporting.
  • The modern discarding of Arthur’s Roman wars is more a means of preserving than abandoning the imperialist potential that they once realized. Arthur is allowed to make war without too many questions asked. The pressing Saxon threat and need for unity justify his will to dominate Britain. Without the further narrative of continental campaigns, he suffers less scrutiny of personal ambition and military aggression in many modern versions than in later medieval texts. Modern Arthurianism still seems wedded to the concept of a ‘true’ ruler, in whom imperium is vested by a superior and unquestionable right. However far from Rome, Arthur still claims the power to intuit the order of things and set global goals, on a destined mission to unite, control and justify his world.

Love and adultery: Arthur’s affairs (the BEST chapter)

  • In romance narratives, the queen’s adultery is a transgression against the king. The queen’s conception of illegitimate child would threaten the proper succession of the throne in a way that the birth of a king’s bastard would not, since the queen’s child would be born into the royal family, whether or not her husband was the father.
  • In the Post-Vulgate version, the king’s incestuous liaison with his sister is recounted at both the beginning and the end of King Arthur’s story – an effort to make sense of the consequences of the king’s sexual transgression or to displace the queen’s adultery with the king’s incest by identifying the king’s transgression, rather than the queen’s, as the cause of destruction of Arthur’s kingdom.
  • Arthur’s relationships with his lovers do not endure, but his love for them does, even after their deaths. If his love is initially won through magic, Arthur continues to love the women he has lost after the magic is no longer effective. He continues to love women who betrayed him, who seduced him with magic and drugs to take his land or his power.
  • As a spectator of battles rather than participant, Arthur risks his body only in love.
  • The body metaphors used to describe kingship in medieval political theory to explain Arthur’s bodily vulnerability to seduction. The immortal yet human nature of the royal sovereign is represented by the king’s two bodies, one undying and transcendent, the other mortal and human. While the body of the man experiences the pleasures and vicissitudes of human existence, the corporate body of the king transcends them through enduring symbolic power. This distinction doesn’t apply to representations of Arthur’s bodily vulnerability in love. In his case, the transcendent value of the king’s symbolic corporate body is inseparable from the king’s material body. To control the king’s body – through spells, with drugs, by love – is to control the kingdom. It locates kingship in the material body of the king.
  • The lack of an evident succession locates kingship in Arthur’s own personal body. His corporate body doesn’t extend to an heir; the symbolic, corporate body of the king is contained by, subsumed by, the king’s material body. In this, the kings is like the queen.
  • The status of a medieval queen is grounded in her material body – in medieval monarchy, the role of a queen is to produce an heir. The queen has no symbolic body through which she exercises or claims authority. For a medieval queen, personal and political influence are gained through the birth of the king’s heir. The queen might gain symbolic power only through her material body, as mother of the king’s heir. She may claim authority based on a relationship with her son.
  • Arthur is also like aa queen in his vulnerability to sexual intrigue. His status and authority are located In his body, and that body is vulnerable to seductions that threaten his status and authority. If the status in the king’s court depends on the king’s favour – on the king’s love – then the danger at the heart of the court is not so much that Arthur will be taken captive, but that Arthur will love his captor, not so much that Arthur will be seduced, but that Arthur will love his seduces.
  • The danger at the heart of the court is that Arthur will love a dangerous woman. If Arthur is vulnerable it is not – or not only – because he is betrayed by those he loves, but because he loves traitors.

Arthurian geography

  • Importance of water, and land somehow bounded by water, to the Matter of Britain from its origins: Arthur’s sword coming from and being returned to some mysterious watery realm, Lancelot and Gawain attempting to cross dangerous bridges into a kingdom that seems not quite mortal, the knights in numerous texts who defend less-unearthly bridges as a point of honour.
  • Tintagel seems to have been inhabited in the years following the withdrawal of the Roman legions from Britain, and was connected through trade with the continent and the Mediterrean.

forgotten-clone  asked:

Opinions on the Antz design? That movie always fucked with my emotions as a kid, especially the termite war scene where they ripped each other apart and spat their juices at each other. Nopety fucking nope.

Antz is an ugly and dull lookin movie, on top of just being uncomfortable to watch. Its also another victim of producers thinking weird animals should have “human” faces so they are “cuter” and more appealing, but actually end up making them much more horrifying and charmless.

On the topic of the termite war, kid me was annoyed by it since real life termites are generally smaller and mushier then ants, and ants are the scarier aggressive insects that attack other bugs and actally have venom. The movie is just blatant anti-termite propaganda and i cant stand for it


If there is one thing I like I guess I kinda like the WASP wasps 

‘That’s what I figured’ – an alternative explanation

A tumblr post by glamdamnit spread like wildfire last year, and not without reason. It presented an intriguing take on a Labyrinth mystery that’s very rarely discussed – exactly why Hoggle is expecting Sarah when she first arrives in the Labyrinth. This post does not exist to refute the argument presented in glamdamnit’s post – instead, it will simply present an alternative explanation.

The first living creature shown in Labyrinth is an owl (yes, this will sound obvious but stay with me) – the owl is briefly shown watching Sarah before flying away. After Sarah makes her wish we discover that Jareth can assume the shape of an owl. Therefore, making a link between Jareth and the owl we see at the beginning of the film is not unreasonable. He is clearly established as a supernatural creature, and he is usually characterised as a sort of Faery – the kind of Faery that has existed forever and takes immense pleasure in interfering with human lives, granting boons and causing chaos according to whims.

With hindsight, it becomes clear to the viewer that the first character we see in the film is actually Jareth. The first thing we see him doing is watching Sarah, disguised and from a distance.

The next time we see Jareth is in Sarah’s bedroom. Keen eyed viewers have long noticed that Sarah has clippings and photos attached to her mirror and glued into her scrapbook; these photos show a woman with a strong resemblance to her (strongly implied to be her mother in the film, and confirmed to be her mother in the novelisation) leaning close to a character ‘played’ by David Bowie. In the novelisation, the ‘character’ Bowie portrays in these images is called Jeremy and is the boyfriend of Sarah’s mother – he is described as being charming and cultured, and the similarity to Jareth clearly goes beyond his looks.

If you view Labyrinth through a psychological lens, this simply becomes a key ingredient in a rich Freudian stew. Since I’m basing this argument on the premise that Jareth is an independent character with his own agency and motivations, I won’t be going down that route.

So, there is a new question – why does Sarah’s mother’s boyfriend look exactly like the Goblin King? Dismissing the remote possibilities that Jeremy could be a twin or the product of a genetic fluke, we are left with a single possibility – Jeremy and the Goblin King are the same person. This, of course, has numerous unsettling implications. It suggests that Jareth has been taking calculated actions to infiltrate Sarah’s life, and physically separate her from her mother (it is again only implied, but the novelisation suggests that Sarah’s mother left her husband to be with Jeremy).

So, why? An explanation for Jareth’s interest in Sarah can only be the product on conjecture, but it’s safe to say Sarah is unusual for a teenager – she loves fairy-tales, plays dress-up in the park by herself and constantly dreams of better things. She is passionate about her fantasies, and hates anyone who threatens to break them (case in point, her step-mother) with equal passion. As well as this, Sarah has an unusually symmetrical and well-formed face. Faeries, in the Celtic tradition, took keen interest in certain types of humans: children, nursing mothers, brides on their wedding nights and beautiful youths. Indeed, they had a worrying tendency to kidnap them. The alignment of Sarah’s character traits and her beauty makes her appealing, particularly to a creature who is conscious of his failing powers and lost influence. The novelisation repeatedly stresses that Jareth is conscious of his age, and implies it has been a very long time since a human last visited the Labyrinth.

My personal impression of events is this – Jareth is ruling over a forgotten kingdom, a place that no one remembers and that hasn’t seen a human child in years. Bored, Jareth takes to making excursions to the human world to study its people and discover why they no longer believe in him and his people. He finds that humans have new and mysterious preoccupations – their lives revolve around television sets and glossy holiday brochures. They’ve become dull, their imaginations and prior acceptance of the strange and supernatural long since lost. It takes him a long time to come across a human worthy of his interest, a child who believes in the impossible – Sarah. Sarah proves to be brave, tenacious and passionate. She feels things deeply, in the way only a child can.

But Jareth is subject to certain rules – he can’t simply spirit Sarah away, not without permission. So he begins to pay attention to Sarah’s mother. The plan was never to have Sarah’s mother wish her away, for that would be far too messy – he would be directly responsible, for a start. Instead, Sarah must make a wish herself. For that, there has to be a child. Since Sarah’s mother can have no children (note, this is a completely personal head-canon – nothing of the sort is established in the film or any of the tie-in material), Jareth drives her away from her family by making her dream of becoming an actress come true. He remains with Sarah’s mother, after a fashion, and the two of them become distant idols that Sarah considers her heroes – they achieved their ambitions, and provide a lively contrast to her dull father and his new, peroxide-blonde wife.

Everything goes to plan. Jareth continues to watch Sarah, and makes careful preparations for her eventual arrival. When suitably inflated by frustration and self-righteousness, Sarah makes her wish and Toby is taken. Hoggle expects Sarah because she’s special – she’s the first human to enter the Labyrinth in years, a leftover from an age when humans considered faeries and wishing every bit as potent and dangerous as poison. There’s that, and the fact the Goblin King’s obsession with a human girl named Sarah is common knowledge. There’s simply nothing else left in the Kingdom to gossip about.

A minor correction to the above – everything goes to plan until Sarah realizes that magic and the impossible are not, in and of themselves, enough for her. As much as she loves her fantasies, she doesn’t want to live in them – not full time, at least. So instead she conquers the Goblin King and returns home, all smiles and self-congratulation.

And then the film ends as it began. We see an owl watching Sarah, unseen and cut off from Sarah’s celebration of her victory. We gain no insights into how he feels, but the picture at the top of this article should tell you all you need to know.

This is very long and rambly, but I wanted to present my own theory on this - feel free to respond/counter/point out holes (I’m sure they are bountiful). I felt it would be interesting to present an argument based on materials of semi-dubious canoncity, primarily the novelisation. I can express myself far more elegantly in the form of fic, so if you want a story that kind of riffs on this idea you can check out What Dreams May Come.

[T]he question of what constitutes European modernity is a complicated story of genocide, slavery, ecocide, and, most strikingly, the production of a new world not just for those colonized and enslaved but for those engaged in the project of expansion as well. The New World moniker is not a sentimental or history-denying term, but it does reference the brutal realities of life in the Americas as the bedrock of European modernity and its satellite campuses like Canada. The Enlightenment’s naming and ordering of peoples, places, and things has bequeathed to us those namings and orders as the very terms through which it might be challenged. The Haitian revolution of 1791 took up liberty as its central rallying cry from the same French Revolution that sought to crush it. In our time we have become Black and Aboriginal, among other names we have been forced to take on, and internalized them out of the very cartographies of Europe’s global expansion since the fifteenth century. It is indeed these names that only partially make sense in the logics of, and appeals to, the invented genres of European Man that apologies are meant to assuage. The question we are often faced with is: how are we to make other conceptions of being human and of traversing the globe appear? What intellectual, political, and cultural—not to mention economical—space do different conceptions of human life have to offer our present globalized, networked humanity?

In my view the politics of reconciliation throws these questions up without offering answers. The politics of reconciliation ask us to come into the apology as the people Europe invented, not as people we once were. And one cannot be romantic about a past, given that how history has intervened to be a part of the conversation often means one must in some way work with Europe’s violently profound re-ordering of the globe and the peoples within. Thus, one is often left asking: what is being reconciled, with whom, and to what?

Reconciliation suggests a past action. It suggests that some wrongdoing has been done for which the possibility of forgiveness is an act of coming together again. Reconciliation suggests a significant rupture of some kind has occurred. Above I have suggested that European colonial expansion from the fifteenth century onwards produced a rupture in the Americas, which in part produced the settler colonial nation-state of Canada, which also produced new states of/for being indigenous peoples and belatedly African peoples. Those kinds of collective namings—Indigenous, African, Indian, Asian, and even European—are the cataloguing evidence of the historical rupture for which European Man comes to overrepresent itself
as if it was indeed Man. As Paul Gilroy suggests, the “[b]lood–saturated histories of colonisation and conquest are rarely allowed to disrupt that triumphalist tale,” and one that apologies and the politics of reconciliation attempt to make invisible in the contemporary moment. Thus reconciliation also suggests a certain kind of suturing is possible in the aftermath of the brutalities that makes it a necessary response in the first place. But what reconciliation does not appear to do is dismantle the institutional basis of the present arrangements of human life. Reconciliation does not ask us to rethink where we are; it asks us to accept the present as an accumulation of injuries for which apologies must suffice as the entry into the flawed ecocidal, genocidal, anti-human, late-modern world still premised on Europe’s partial conception of the human as the only option for being human in this world. Reconciliation might provide us a view towards new and, or more, hopeful human relations, but it does not allow us to seriously grapple with the brutalities that have brought us together in these new geo-political zones and their multiple disadvantaged relations of Europe’s invented Others. 

“Into the Ranks of Man: Vicious Modernism and the Politics of Reconciliation”, Rinaldo Walcott

Sexualized Vodounista And Human Voodoo Doll Powers

@dogdreamingboy​ asked: 

“One of my horror/scifi comic MCs is Latinx and an antihero with near instant healing factor and ‘human voodoo doll’ like abilities. She is a survivor of sexual abuse and most of her vigilante activity is aimed at abusers/rapists/traffickers/etc, she sometimes uses her attractiveness to lure and isolate criminals then kill them. She has a sibling relationship with her partner in crime/Co-MC (a Jewish man) and a complicated relationship their deceptive adoptive father/mentor (a black man).  I’m aware of how sexualized Latinx are and I’m worried I’m going to contribute to this trope no matter how much I will show the audience that she has agency and isn’t there to be the ‘sexy exotic femme fatale’. Most of the other cast members are PoC of varying races, genders and sexualities and she is not the only Latinx character.”

Re: The Latina Fatale

Since you already seem to have covered the standard “has agency, not the sole representative” bases, “how far can I go” appears to be the only base left to cover. I trust that you know better.  Consider your plot and character arcs privately. At what point considering her potential actions do you become uncomfortable? Dial that scene back a little.  Finding out if you were right is what Latino alpha and beta readers are for.  

I do want you to consider since you wrote “sexy erotic femme fatale,” that one does not have to actually be erotic to weaponize their sex appeal, so you can still do this without coming anywhere near “sexy erotic femme fatale” in the remotest sense. For example, asking someone to pick you up at 8 (and ambushing them when they show up alone and unarmed).  

Re: Human Voodoo Doll

When I read “human voodoo doll like abilities” it kind of reads to me like … “human magic wand abilities.”  “Human vooodoo doll” kind of casts its net on like, …. Everything.  Basically, she has nonspecific catalyzing or beacon-like powers that can be harnessed by other people who, well, USE her properly. She’s like, a literal tool. An OBJECT.  

That is, unless you’re talking Queenie in American Horror Story, which I admittedly only know about because Colette told me about it (I am an uncultured tramp).  Apparently Queenie can hurt other people by mutilating herself and it gets pretty graphic?

While voodoo is not what I’d call popular in comparison to Santería, Palo Monte, and Candomblé, those three very Latin American practices I named are prevalent enough in certain parts of the United States that when I needed a Santera I found one within like an hour.  

Paleros and Santeros get to explain to outsiders that they are, in fact, not satanic or inherently evil or biting the heads off of babies or robbing graves. This isn’t just something they have to explain to their neighbors, it’s something they get to explain to police. At one point, I believe the 1980s, the Miami Police Department had to assign a specialized group of people to specifically handle calls relating to “cultural magic” and half of the time they had to go out and tell people “oh my god calm down,” because they found a nganga/prenda (a physical beacon/catalyst for spiritual effects, which, to be fair, can look really freaky).

So, pulling a Queenie with a Latina can definitely perpetuate that whole “crazy animal-slaughtering satan worshipper” rep.  If you intend to pull a Queenie, with a Latina, here’s a very well-directed video on how to do it respectfully.

- Rodríguez 

Howl

13 Days of Halloween:   October 27th: Supernatural Creatures/Monsters AU

Hey so remember that time I talked about writing a fic where Dex is a werewolf?? Yeah I did it! ( @houston-i-have-problems, @audiaphilios, @protectormode, @dizzy-redhead, @sweet-chipko, @rhysiana)

Summary:  Over his first few weeks at Samwell, Dex becomes sure of three things. 1) Eric Bittle is not entirely human, 2) Larissa Duan is most certainly a Druid, and 3) Derek Fucking Nurse is the most annoying person he’s ever met in his life.

(please read the tags on AO3, there is some violence and bloodiness that generally comes with werewolves?? I basically followed teen wolf mythology so yeah…)

Every time William Poindexter leaves Mount Desert Island, he’s taking a risk. He knows this, it’s something that’s been drilled into his head since he was small, but he still makes the 5 hour drive down to Marblehead, Massachusetts every summer to work on his Uncle Charlie’s lobster boat. Charlie isn’t like Dex and the rest of their family up in Maine, but he knows enough that Dex’s mother felt comfortable enough letting him go. But going to college in Massachusetts? That was an uphill battle.

He’s heard the whispers, okay, it’s almost impossible not to, with the enhanced hearing and all. They think he’s trying to rebel against his alpha; they think he’s trying to prove he’s more than just the pup that grew up in his eldest sister shadow. But he’s not, he’s really, really not. He knows the rules, and he knows what he’s supposed to do, but trying to make a living driving a log truck like his dad or barely breaking even in the Hardware/Repair shop like his other uncles doesn’t seem all that appealing. But as he well enough knows, being away from the pack comes with its own risks, regardless of distance.

Dex was born a werewolf, into a well-established pack that coexists peacefully with the human population of Tremont, ME. It’s a prime location, with a small year round population and an influx of tourists in the summer and fall. Tourists reporting the occasional sighting of glowing eyes, or strange tracks in the woods aren’t all that harmful, and the locals have long since learned to turn a blind eye to the strangeness that seems to hover around the outskirts of their town. The Poindexter’s have lived on Mount Desert Island for years, but the Cote’s have been there longer, tracing their bloodlines back to trappers that used to come to the island long before the English settlers got their hands on it. They weren’t werewolves then, that didn’t happen until the Civil War, but the Cote Pack is still considered American Werewolf Royalty…. Without the money. But Dex’s mom doesn’t need money to be an alpha, and she certainly doesn’t need it to be beloved by their pack. It was a shock when she inherited the rank at the young age of 24, newly married with a baby on the way. Her father had died suddenly while on a trip to the north woods, ambushed by a Hunter with a wolfsbane bullet. The pack was more than a little surprised that Colleen received the powers instead of her brother Tim, but the siblings themselves were more than happy with the arrangement. While the pack mourned their loss, Colleen tried to hide her fears regarding her own competency – and the fact that she was in the early stages of pregnancy when the change happened. But Dex’s elder sister Katherine was born perfectly healthy, and over the next twenty years, the Cote Pack continued to grow and thrive.

[continue on AO3]

5

Farewell, Walnut: Hundreds of animal lovers support a heartbroken dog owner as he takes his beloved 18-year-old whippet for his final walk

Hundreds of animal lovers turned out to support a heartbroken dog owner as he took his beloved pet on its final walk. Mark Woods stole the nation’s heart after he appealed for fellow dog lovers to join him on his last walk with Walnut, the 18-year-old whippet he has had since a puppy.

Hordes of well-wishers, many accompanied by their own dogs, joined Mark and his family on a wind swept Porth beach in Newquay for Walnut’s emotional farewell. Mark carried Walnut across the beach in Cornwall as his health has deteriorated in old age and he’s no longer able to walk. (Photos)

Heavy Words Are Hard To Take

Okay, so it’s not exactly what you asked for willowaus, but it’s kind of where the story took me.  It covers around 25 to 30 years rather than 50, but it’s pretty hopeful and should make up for my killing Caroline?  Hopefully? Also, it was written while listening to Please Don’t Say You Love Me by Gabrielle Aplin, so listening to that while reading might improve the experience.

He stayed out of her life.

               He knew that she had expected him, on some level, to keep up with her.  To stalk her, or whatever quaint description she would use.  But when Klaus told her that he would step away and let her have her life, he meant it.

               When he walked away from Caroline Forbes, it was with the hope that he would someday see her again, but he left that decision entirely up to her.  He walked away, and he lived his own life.

               He became King of a city, and then handed it back over, because home was a strange concept to him, and after Hope died, it became entirely foreign. He had no need of a home, and without a daughter to raise…

               Well, he had no need of a home.

               So he left behind New Orleans and its memories and ghosts, and he picked up his nomad lifestyle once more.  He stopped briefly in Mystic Falls – the one time he broke his promise – only to find out that Caroline had gone.

               “You’d have to ask my brother the details,” Damon told him. “I’m a little sketchy on them.”

               Stefan, starving in a basement, clothes stained with blood, the sure signs he once again gone Ripper, had looked at him with dead eyes.

               “I offered her my world,” he said simply.  “She decided to find her own instead.”

               After that, Klaus had no interest in Mystic Falls and its war zone and crazed vampires.  He had declined Damon’s plea for assistance – even the thought of Elena’s once again human Doppelganger blood had lost its appeal – and instead left for greener pastures.

               It had been far too long, since he had been to Paris. Since he had walked the streets of London.  He missed the culture and scent of Europe, and so that was where he went.  And if in the dark of night, he occasionally thought of Caroline, wondered where she had gone…

               Well, that was no one’s business but his own.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Hi! I just realised there is ONE thing that annoys me in Star Trek, and I was wondering what you'd thought of that: the length of the women's dress uniform. Why is it so short while men wear pants/trousers? Do women actually wear something under these dress (like short trousers) and I never saw it? This is what keeps annoying me whenever I see a women crewmember aboard the Enterprise. So.... Thoughts? ^^'

Hi, Anon.  Thanks for your question.  I tend to ignore the fact that the female officers are in mini-skirts for two reasons. First, I know TOS was filmed in the 60s and mini-skirts/short dresses were fashionable.  (The same could be said of TNG with the late 80s style reflected in their uni-sex uniform styles.)  Second, viewership matters.  A show can completely go their own way - meaning they can put women in pants if they want to, have same sex couples, be promiscuous, have actors of different ethnicities, and poly relationships - but the truth of the matter is that moderation is what works best in the entertainment business.  A show can lose its viewers for being too radical for the times.  That’s not to say the best shows don’t push the boundaries (because they do!) but they know how to walk that fine line of appealing to their viewers while challenging them at the same time.  In other words, a show has to compromise in order to survive.   I think TOS compromised as best it could in order to relay the messages of social, racial, and gender equality.  Maybe the women are walking around in the shortest mini-skirts ever but they are holding phasers, treated like senior officers, and can talk down to their doctors when it pleases them.  I mean, that’s pretty awesome. 

Looking at it purely from the sense that TOS pandered to the audience in terms of the sex appeal of their actresses… yeah, that’s a fail.  But I wouldn’t beat them up over it.  They had to work within the confines of how their culture was structured at the time and, as wise they sometimes seemed, they were never perfect.  Today that mindset of “actresses as sex objects” is still very much prevalent in show business but tv and movies are more apt to come under fire for doing it without good reason.  We’ve changed how we look at the sex appeal issue since the 60s and granted we still have a ways to go - but at the end of day it's shows like TOS which are driving that change because they dare to change too, even if at the time their change is in their words and not their clothes.

Luckily as ST has evolved from the first show, it has tried to uphold its premise in every way and that’s something to look forward to as well as be proud of, not just as a fan but as a human being.

anonymous asked:

I understand why you don't want SU "porn" but, to call it gross is wrong. That's someone's art you're talking about, people post their art because they're proud of it. To call it gross just because its not something you like is what's really gross.

Wow, I seriously don’t wanna get into this, but ok. If ya want an answer I’ll give ya one. For one I don’t view it as art, so there’s one thing we don’t have in common. Since YOU view it as art, I’ll humor you and say it is art as well for the time being; I agree with you that posting art is something you should be proud of, and hey, I’m all for artistic freedom, but I seriously lose some actual hope in humanity when people go and perv up a kids show, this is something for children, no matter how much it appeals to adults its target audience is children. If you liked the show so much you would respect it. You would respect the writers, the animators, the actors, the kids who the show is supposed to be for and the characters themselves. This “art” is not helping anyone. Maybe the artist, but do you think that the creator of su would be proud of this? Does this benefit the show in anyway? No, in fact, it is probably one of the things that give the fandom an even worse name than it has already made for itself.

SO, if I’m gross for calling nsfw art FOR A KIDS SHOW gross, then ya, I’m gross.