Pairing: Kuro/Mahiru Fandom: Servamp Rating: N / SFW
Notes: short smutty one shot that I might edit and put into a longer fanfiction. Been struggling to write lately so I thought I’d write a little thing and it ended up being this. I hope you like it! I miss KuroMahi a lot; it’s a shame the tag rarely updates! Under a read more for obvious reasons!
He falls on the bed at an angle. The pillow corner presses into the side of his head, but he can’t bring himself to care. Not when Kuro drapes his slender body over him, intertwining their fingers upon the cheap bed sheet. Nor can he help the rise in red on his cheeks or the sunshine in his smile that lures Kuro’s lips to his own.
This is such a tough question and I don’t think there’s really an easy answer. So, bear with me, because this is going to be long.
I think it’s important to look at context when talking about this play. Shakespeare lived during a period and in a country that was decidedly anti-Jewish. Jewish people had been expelled from England in 1290 and weren’t allowed back until Oliver Cromwell took power and well after Shakespeare died. Those Jewish people that remained in England had to convert or practice in private. Jewish people were viewed as lecherous, greedy, and g-dless. So, in some respects, Shakespeare wrote what he knew. Jewish people were only allowed to be money lenders in Europe, so that’s what Shakespeare wrote. He was told that Jewish people were ruthless, so that’s what he wrote. What’s more, Shakespeare’s peers were also writing Jewish people as villains. Marlowe’s Barabas makes Shylock look like Tevye the Dairyman and Marlowe was one of Shakespeare’s chief influences.
HOWEVER, I think Shakespeare also had a fascination with the “other” and a keen eye for societal injustices. Shakespeare came of age during England’s shift away from Catholicism to Protestantism; when the very nature of justice and what it meant to be forgiven had shifted radically. And with that shift came a new justice system and a new relationship with G-d. Of course this is just speculation, but I feel like it would be naive to say that Shakespeare wasn’t effected by that seismic shift in religious culture. Shakespeare’s father was a Catholic and it’s entirely possible that he remained so even after Elizabeth became Queen. So, Shakespeare would be going to Protestant church services and then going back to a Catholic home. It’s highly likely that he spent his whole life grappling with those two cultures, trying to understand why, beyond political reasons, one group was marginalized and the other favored.
So, in Shylock, Shakespeare wrote a man that was unyielding and merciless, but he also makes it abundantly clear why Shylock is that way. He is treated like shit by everyone besides Tubal and you get a very clear sense that this has been a constant in Shylock’s life. To paraphrase, Shylock says, “Yes I am a monster, but you have made me that way.” Shylock is not a great guy, no, but I kind of like that he’s not perfect. Most modern writers write Jewish people either as saints, lambs to the slaughter, or neurotic, arguing New Yorkers with pushy wives and mothers. It’s kind of refreshing to read a Jewish character that’s, you know, an actual fucking human being. He’s got a harsh world view, but that’s necessary to the world in which he lives. You get the sense that he’s never quite recovered from the loss of his wife and he has no idea how to parent his daughter. That’s not that different from a lot of other fathers in Shakespeare. I think it’s completely fair to play Shylock as an imperfect or even a cruel man, so long as it’s made abundantly clear that he is oppressed because of his religion and not his personality.
Then, we also have to remind ourselves that, to an Elizabethan audience, Shylock would have been a figure of fun. The audience would have spent the whole play laughing at him, rooting for him to fail, but then, when he loses his court case, is forced to convert, and is effectively silenced, you cannot help but feel the injustice of the situation. Shakespeare does this a lot, particularly in his comedies. The trial in The Merchant of Venice feels very similar to Malvolio’s treatment at the end of Twelfth Night. Again and again, Shakespeare shows his audience how people are other-ized. You get comfortable, fall into entrenched ways of looking at people, and laugh right along to fit in. But then Shakespeare always turns it around and forces us to question why we’re laughing. We also have to remind ourselves that Shakespeare’s plays had to pass a censor (the Master of Revels) and we know he had to make edits to a number of his plays. He had to be subtle in the ways in which he made socio-political statements or his company couldn’t perform his plays.
It’s hard to talk about Shakespeare’s intention when all we really have of what he was thinking and feeling beyond what’s in the plays is lost to us. It’s entirely possible and perhaps likely that he intended to write an anti-Semitic character and, because Shakespeare just didn’t write stereotypes, accidentally gave the man some humanity. But, when I look at Shakespeare’s larger body of work and the way in which he focuses on issues of justice and marginalized people, I just don’t think that’s the case.
I think it’s important to note that pros have spent a year trying silence/convert antis about their thoughts/feelings for the naruto ending travesty.
Well, after all this time, some of us are still around, many of us have simply moved on from this trash……but, the overall main idea is that, after a year…..Our Hatred/Disliking towards the ending will remain the same.
While different antis dislikes the ending for different reasons…..what’s common is how incompetent Kishi made the ending to be.
I am a political prisoner, jailed for my beliefs — that black people must be free. The government has taken a position true to its fascist nature: those who cannot convert, they must silence.
This government has become the enemy of mankind.
This can no longer alter our path to freedom. For our people, death has been the only known exit from slavery and oppression. We must open others.
Our will to live must no longer supersede our will to fight, for our fighting will determine if our race shall live. To desire freedom is not enough.
We must move from resistance to aggression, from revolt to revolution.
they believe they have seen the light/understood a truth that the general population doesn’t
they mostly only hang out with each other and validate their shared believes, often they work themselves into a frenzy over it
they antagonize a certain group of people as the enemy and paint everything the enemy does as evil, they joke about doing physical harm to them or killing them, or how much better it would be if they didn’t exist
they invent standards that are impossible to meet in order to feel morally superior
everyone who thinks differently has, in their opinion, not seen the light and needs to be silenced or converted
they believe the media should censor everything they deem as not meeting their standards and one of their main goals is the accomplishment of this
they view themselves as victims of an evil society and draw feelings of moral superiority from this
their doctrine includes certain very smart ideas, that dodges every sort of rational criticism
they have an: you’re either with us or against us! stance
Zim sitting is the way he comes back to mind, for me. Like a few other old coaches, he had converted clubhouse silence and immobility—elbows on knees, hands folded, head aimed forward and downward, lips zipped—into something like a regional religious practice.