Thoughts about Spn 13x02


Trigger warning for mentions of self-harm and suicide

I felt asleep on the sofa. Don’t mention it.

Ah Bucklemming. On the plus side: they didn’t kill off a fan favourite. On the down side: everything else? It just felt like exposition, exposition, expostion, that really cool thing Dean did with the angel blade, expostion. Like a big info dump instead of an episode, with a weird cutting between the scenes, and the usual awkward dialogues (do they even read their scripts? Do they think actual people talk like this?). I mean we had worse from them, but it always saddens me to see in one week how great this show can be (13x01) and then we have this. I don’t think there was much to learn about the characters, at least nothing we didn’t already know, so I will focus a bit more on the mytharc stuff and what we could possible see in this season.

Bizarro World

In which Mary lands in apocalypse world and her hair still looks better than mine *sigh*. I really hope they kill of Lucifer, simply because the guy (and the dude who plays him) likes to hear himself talk. And is it just me but I think the reason why he keeps Mary alive doesn’t really make sense? He wants her as a trade for his son, but a trade doesn’t sound like Lucifer. Like, at all. I assumed he would just take Jack with him, and needed Mary to get back to our world. And by now I’m not sure iof Jack even wanted to be reunited with Lucifer, but maybe Dean’s behaviour will get him there? Believing his father is the only one who cares about him? (And does he? Don’t give this character feelings or a redemption arc, please don’t)

So, we learned a few new things about bizarro world. Appearently women are hard to find, which turned all men into rapists, because Bucklemming can’t write an episode without any sort of sexual assault in it. Angels dress up like soldiers, and Michael is cosplaying Cas. And he doesn’t kill Lucifer because he needs him, hopefully not for another trade. But why though? I wonder if this Micheal regrets killing Lucifer, because the big endfight didn’t bring paradise on earth like promised. Now he is stuck in an eternal warzone and maybe that is why he needs Lucifer to fix it? Also, look at these screencapes from the Shaving things promo: (credit to @postmodernmulticoloredcloak)

That looks like a cage to me. Is this some sort of ritual? Let me hear your thoughts.


I already don’t like him. Dude looks like a comic book villian in his white suit and his accent makes it hard for me to understand what he says. I had a hard time understanding why he would wanted Lucifer and Jack to return, especially after he told stunt demon number three how Lucifer humiliated him, but at the end the picture got clearer. Asmodeus is out for revenge, and he tries to get Jack in order to help him achive his goal (the same way Crowley wanted to use Amara, and we all know how that ended). He asks (as Donatello) Sam about two things: Jack’s powers and his relationship to Lucifer. What he learns: Jack might be one day even more powerfull than Lucifer and he barely knows his father. Bucklemming are not very subtle with it, but you can see the direction in which this is going and why Asmodeus won’t stop to manipulate Jack.

Other than that Asmodeus was used to introduce a whole lot of new stuff to the show’s mythology. In true Bucklemming fashion they just created new stuff instead of working within the existing mythology, to make the story they wanted to tell work. I hated it.

So, appearently Princes of Hell can shapeshift, which from now on will have us second guessing everyone who even looks at Jack. Also, there is another gate of hell, a special one, because why not? Makes Azazel’s big plan in season 2 kind of redundant. And now there are the Shedim, who will probably play a bigger role in this season. They are actually quite interesting, at least if you look at their wikipedia entry:

Shedim are said to have had the feet and claws of a rooster and share some characteristics both of human and angels. Like angels, they know the future and have wings, but like humans they eat, drink, procreate and die. […] The shedim are not always seen as malicious creatures and are also considered to be helpful to humans.

That… sounds like Jack? not the rooster part of course, but: both human and angel? Check. Knows the future (his vision in 12x19) and has wings (can teleport)? Check. Eats and drinks (and sleeps)? Check. Helpful to humans? Check. But also:

Asmodeus is a king of demons […]. In Jewish and Islamic lore he is the king of the demons (Shedim/Jinn).

Asmodeus is already linked to the Shedim, he wants to free them, but he also wants to free Jack (”Jack, they wanna stop you. Contain you”).


Can someone just like hug him? Kid needs a hug. A lot of what we saw was a continuation of 13x01: Sam thinks Jack can be good, Dean thinks he’s the devil. Nature vs nuture (and thanks Bucklemming for letting Donatello spelling it out, it’s not like every meta writer came to this conclusion since may this year). So far the jury is still out. What we know is that Jack is powerfull, enough to draw Donatello to him, and that he will become more powerfull. But his powers still don’t seem like a part of him, he has no control over them. He uses them unknowingly during times of emotional stress: when he is afraid, or hurting, or angry. He needs to learn to understand his emotions and how his powers are influenced by them, or else he ends up like the next Anakin Skywalker. (@margarittet wrote a great meta about the connections between Star Wars and what we could possible see in season 13, go read it).

Jack is still paralled a lot to his foster dad Cas. We start the episode with him sleeping in the back of the car like Cas did in 5x22, he enjoys TV the way Cas does (Scooby Doo, so you can bet Jack is somehow causing Scoobynatural) and he desperately wants Dean’s approveal. Mimicking Dean? That is what Cas has been doing for years. His whole manuael on how to be human is to act like Dean. And what is the first thing Dean teaches him about being human? that pain is being part of it. Because at the moment Dean is nothing but hurting.

There was a short moment where Jack rembered Lucifer reaching out to him, which was quite interesting, because if anything Jack seemed afraid of him. Donatello tells us that his power is not dark or toxic like Lucifer’s was, but then again power is just power, neither good or bad.

Sam tells Jack that he believes he is worth saving, like his mother and Cas did. Unlike them Sam though was never influenced by Jack. His faith in him is genuine. Also, with all the brainwashing talk, we should remember that Kelly already loved her son before 12x19. She wanted to keep him, to raise him, to take care of him. It was only after she learned that she wouldn’t be able to do so, and that Dagon would twist him into something evil, that she decided to take her life. At least when it comes to Kelly I like to believe she and Jack influenced each other in equal parts. “I was her”.

So what is Jack to the Winchesters? In the tattoo parlour Sam says they are brothers, that the tattoo is a family crest. But the tattoo vanishes, and though it is unintentional on Jack’s side it is rather symbolic. He is not a part of the Winchester family (yet). Later he calls them his friends.

The ending scene was pretty heavy. Jack doesn’t know who he is. More so, he is afraid to find out, that he will hurt everyone around him and can’t be saved. It was an interesting choice that Dean stopped him. Dean, who never believed he deserved to be saved, not after hell or the MoC. And he tells Jack the same. And I get where Dean was coming from, why he said, but that doesn’t make it OK. Dean telling Jack he will be the one to kill him makes me believe the opposite now, that Dean will die for Jack (who will bring him back of course).

Also, when Jack read the bible we saw The Book of Solomon opening:

Jewish tradition reads it as an allegory of the relationship between God and Israel. Christian tradition, in addition to appreciating the literal meaning of a romantic song between man and woman, has read the poem as an allegory of Christ and his “bride”, the Christian Church.

Now, I already speculated about Jack’s fate on the show. If he turns out to be good where will be his place in the universe? I could see him replacing God, and him reading a text about the relationship between God and his chosen people? Interesting.

Anyway, “What would Mr. Rogers do?” is a motto we should all live by.

Originally posted by looking-for-a--lifeline

Final Thoughts on Daniel Ogden’s Dragon Sourcebook

Having finished the accounts of Saints battling dragons, as well as the appendices dealing with Irish and British folktales and the likes, I have a little wrap up for the posts I’ve been making while reading the book for research purposes:

  • My previous post about how the assumptions people make about mythical European dragons are far less concrete than people make them out to be remains pretty apt I think
  • Not All European Dragons Were:
    • Inherently evil
    • Inherently repulsive
    • “Small” compared to their modern day Fantasy counterparts
    • Venomous instead of fire breathing
  • In fact, a good number (though not a majority) of European dragons were
    • Guardians of natural resources, often appointed as such by gods
    • Morally ambiguous/neutral at worst
    • Heavily associated with flame, to the point where almost all dragon venom was described as an explosive/combustible substance
    • Pretty damn big - if I had to guess, I’d say the average size of a mythical European dragon was somewhere between a Rhinoceros and an elephant.  There are a few that are smaller (but still pretty big), and a good number are straight up kaiju-sized.  If a dragon’s size is described, 9/10 of the time  it’s described as “large.”
  • At least a few dragons were capable of speech
  • More than a few dragons were capable of forming family relationships, both with other dragons/serpents AND with humans and/or gods.  Many of the Greek dragons are mourned by the nymphs, naiads, or dryads who lived alongside them, and Medea has a touching moment with the dragon of Colchis in one account
    • When dragons aren’t solitary or in great big swarms, they’re shown in pairs of male and female, i.e. mated pairs
  • Gorgons were a bit more dragony than I’ve ever seen them described in modern works
  • At least a few people considered “Echidna” a species, including the Greeks.
  • Heracles slept with an Echidna (notably not the one who mothered the Hydra and several of his other victims), proving that people have wanted to fuck dragons for hundreds of years
  • While early accounts of lamias were far more vague and ghostly, they eventually evolved into something that is straight out of that Monster Girls Encyclopedia.  And by that I mean there’s at least one account that’s like “a lamia has the head, neck, and enormous bazongas of a woman, and those parts are also way hotter than any normal human woman could be, and they like to have sex with hot men before eating them.”
  • Accounts of saints fighting dragons tend to suck because they spend 90% of the story talking about God and philosophy and converting people, 7% on expostion, and 3% on actually describing the dragon and its demise
  • Accounts of saints fighting dragons are also probably where a lot of the stereotypes of how Mythic dragons work started, because that’s where you get poorly described dragons who are just bad and that’s it - also because Christian stories kinda thrive on the black and white morality deal
  • Which is shitty because it not only ignores the Greek and Roman stories - which would still be highly influential middle ages because the medieval Saints tales reference them all the time - but also the not-explicitly-Christian folktales from the time, which often paint a more detailed and varied picture than the stereotype
  • The repulsive, pure evil, tiny dragons who are never explicitly associated with fire still exist though.  There’s evidence of them - they’re just not the ONLY type of dragon, nor are they the majority by a long shot
  • Dragons are complex

Patriotism, like honesty, is a luxury with a very high face value which is quickly pricing itself out of the spiritual market altogether. …

It is an emotion as well, and of course the emotion comes first. A child’s home and the ways of its life are sacrosanct, perfect, inviolate to the child. Add age; add security; add experience. In time we all admit our relatives and our neighbours, our fellow townsmen and even, perhaps, at last our fellow nationals to the threshold of tolerance. But the man living one inch beyond the boundary is an inveterate foe.

Patriotism is a fine hothouse for maggots. It breeds intolerance; it forces a spindle-legged, spurious riot of colour. A man of only moderate powers enjoys the special sanction of purpose, the sense of ceremony; the echo of mysterious, lost and royal things; a trace of the broad, plain childish virtues of myth and legend and ballad. He wants advancement-what simpler way is there? He’s tired of the little seasons and looks for movement and change and an edge of peril and excitement; he enjoys the flowering of small talents lost in the dry courses of daily life. For all these reasons, men at least once in their lives move the finger which will take them to battle for their country…

Patriotism. It’s an opulent word, a mighty key to a royal Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. Patriotism; loyalty; a true conviction that of all the troubled and striving world, the soil of one’s fathers is noblest and best. A celestial competition for the best breed of man; a vehicle for shedding boredom and exercising surplus power or surplus talents or surplus money; an immature and bigoted intolerance which becomes the coin of barter in the markets of power —

These are not patriots but martyrs, dying in cheerful self-interest as the Christians died in the pleasant conviction of grace, leaving their example by chance to brood beneath the water and rise, miraculously, to refresh the centuries. The cry is raised: Our land is glorious under the sun. I have a need to believe it, they say.

It is a virtue to believe it; and therefore I shall wring from this unassuming clod a passion and a power and a selflessness that otherwise would be laid unquickened in the grave.

And who shall say they are wrong?

There are those who will always cleave to the living country, and who with their uprooted imaginations might well make of it an instrument for good.

Is it quite beyond us in this land? Is there no one will take up this priceless thing and say, Here is a nation, with such a soul; with such talents; with these failings and this native worth? In what fashion can this one people be brought to live in full vigour and serenity, and who, in their compassion and wisdom, will take it and lead it into the path?


Francis Crawford, Game of Kings by Dorothy Dunnett

There it is: Lymond’s entire speech about patriotism. I’ve excised all the expostion — the stage directions, rather: Lymond lacing his fingers and looking at his palms, the cadence of his voice — as well as the one interjection from another character. The first ellipsis indicates where the speech was interrupted briefly, and the rest indicate only important pauses.

While searching for this online (I don’t have my copy of the book right now) I found what appears above as the third paragraph (“a fine hothouse for maggots”) quoted in many, many, many places. The end, though, where Dunnett strikes the ringing blow, starting with “these are not patriots but martyrs” — and let us refrain from a long discussion on the ways in which the rising chord is her usual endpoint, even in Knights and Pawn, that exhortation is her interest as much as criticism — the end was more difficult to find. I was a bit sad that I found as a notable quotable bit the counterexample rather than the argument.

To me, “Who is to say they are wrong?” is the “We are here” of this book — really, I think, “We are here” answers the very question he poses above. “We will work together” answers it. I have said before and will say again, no doubt, how much I love the thesis of this series, raised again and again, unfolded over all those pages: the view of love, of ethics, the soul of man and man as the soul of his nation: the final words of Checkmate are the equal of this, and the response to it. The whole series is in some ways a lovely essay: begin your argument with a question, explore it, meditate on it, and conclude with your answer.

leanmeanjolyne replied to your post: kinda weird how wearing pants was Forbidden for…

but pants would show the outline of the legs, too scandalous, and i think the ankles were seen as inappropriate because they connected to the legs, which connected to…..you know (not trying to be rude i just find it hilarious)

oh true i didnt even think of that! i was more thinking about it in terms of expost skin but you dont even want anyone to see your legs outline or they might think about…. you know ;)

anonymous asked:

I just realised something in your recent idol! Oso art... Is the uniform shirt too small, is it designed to expose the stomach, OR ARE HIS PANTS MISSING???

it is designed to exposte the stomach LOLLOL

i just realized i forgot to draw the belt lol


Marines of Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego participate in the “Garden Party of the Centruy” honoring the 1915 Panama - California Expostion, which drew milllions of spectators to Balboa Park and put San Diego on the world map. Saturday’s parade took place in Balboa Park and culminated with a recreation of a photo taken 100 years ago of Marines crossing the Cabrillo Bridge.

captain-amira-deactivated201504  asked:

When writing stories i find i drag out the beginning a bit too long with maybe 2 chapters of the main character until the main plot or problem arises. Is this normal or is there a better way to backup the characters lives etc without taking too long?

Sometimes writing those introductory chapters can be a good way for you to get to know your characters and kind of get a taste of this universe you’re creating. Once you’re further into the story, you can go back and reevaluate those chapters and decide what information is truly important to keep at the beginning. To play around with it, decide what event begins your main conflict, and then make that your first scene. Then, look at everything you had before it and decide which parts need to be in the beginning and which ones could probably wait. And when I say “need,” I mean details that make it difficult if not impossible to understand your new first scene (the event that kicks off the conflict). Information that is “nice to have,” can be brought in later on once the conflict has been established. 

Don’t be afraid of writing too much intro at the beginning. You can always edit, and it truly is helpful to just write the character without worrying about plot. Where you put back story depends on the context of your plot, but after that initial event, it’s usually a good time to pause and give us a little back story to what brought your character to this event. As you’re writing, look for triggers in dialogue or narrative that could transition well into some exposition. 

Hope that helps!


Teacher: Why didn’t you deliver your assignment?

Me: Well sir let me tell you. After being expost to the korean boygroup bts.
Short for bangtan sonyeondan. Every move i made has been influenced by min august yoongi. I have learned from his skills that the best thing to do is to not give a shit nor a fuck. So sir, i didn’t do assignment bc “I don’t give a shit. I dont give a fuck.”