given its context

LOVE is not a GAME

It’s been weeks and I’m just so struck by the fact that the whole theme of Sherlock throughout the years was…“The game is on!”. Sherlock using the distraction of his detective work as a substitute high, and honestly a way to keep himself at arms length from ‘humans’ and any emotional and/or romantic relationships of course.

And then there’s THE FINAL PROBLEM and in comes Eurus Holmes, setting up this game for Sherlock, and putting Molly Hooper’s life in danger, and during that call we get all this…

  • Is this one of your stupid games? No, it’s not a game.
  • I’m not an experiment, Sherlock. No, I know you’re not an experiment, you’re my friend, we’re friends.
  • You know why. No, I don’t know why.
  • Because it’s true, Sherlock. It’s always been true. Well if it’s true then just say it anyway.
  • Say it like you mean it. I love you. I love you. 

He spends the whole phone call worried and pleading and as soon as it’s done he tries to shut all that off and get back to the game so he says…”Eurus, I won, I won…I won, I saved Molly Hooper.

But then you have Eurus coming back with that EMOTIONAL CONTEXT speech and being like, HAHA NOPE, silly boy, you just lost, you proved yourself wrong, you have emotions, you do care.

And the writers had Eurus use Molly Hooper against Sherlock, like this, to facilitate this exact epiphany, (disproving everything he’s said over the years, that he’s not a hero, that he doesn’t have a heart) because MOLLY HOOPER does count, she matters the most, he loves her, and LOVE IS NOT A GAME.

AND I JUST CAN’T GET OVER HOW IMPORTANT THAT SCENE WAS! NOT JUST FOR THIS SHIP BUT FOR SHERLOCK’S ENTIRE ARC OF CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!

anonymous asked:

the creators literally say once that they may not follow k/l storyline and ur 100% sure that will be the case even tho they're the same ppl who lied about pidge being a boy? did u immediately believe them when they said that and stuck to it??? its their job to be confidential, who knows what will happen right?

I mean,, I’m pretty sure I knows,, since…you know, they said it. They came right out and said it was never their intent. It’s really important to also consider that this is very different from Pidge’s gender. This isn’t about “not spoiling the secret!” This is a matter of the directors wanting to be as transparent as possible because, as they tried to explain, they’re against queerbaiting. And they have no intention of baiting the fans into k/l when it was never their intent. They don’t want to hurt their lgbt fans like that, and I think it’s very considerate of them:

  • Interviewer: “I feel like there was a little tease? It seems shippers want to ship Lance and Keith together, so are there gonna be any hints of that at all? Or is it just more like–okay, they’re friends, they’re starting to become friends.”
  • Lauren: “I think we had a very natural arc in mind for those two. Which is, they start out at odds, but then they grow to kind of respect each other. And if that leads into people being like–they’re spending time together! Then that’s a ‘thing,’ but…We’re not trying to cater to or bait anyone into anything, we’re just trying to do what’s right for the story.”
  • Joaquim: “We also try not to be overtly affected by what popular opinion might be.”
  • Lauren: “And we’re working in animation. Our schedule is so far in advance for that–even if people shipped Keith and Lance, we couldn’t go back and just change the story to be like–and now they’re in love!
  • Joaquim: “There’s just no way. We’re already years past that storyline, you know?” (source)

They’ve point blank said it’s too late to go back and make these changes–as animation is not a medium conducive to major change. They’re years past that storyline. They’ve also referred to Lance’s love interest with exclusively female pronouns when asked about it:

  • Interviewer: What would Lance look for in a future Mr. or Mrs. Blue Lion? I’m gonna guess she meant Red Lion now. I think she’s trying to fill out her space Tindr profile. But yea, what is Lance’s–And I like this, because Lance is kind of all over the place. He hits on anything that moves and is pretty, which all the aliens are pretty. But what would he look for, really, in a partner or a soulmate?
  • Lauren: I don’t know if Lance knows what he needs. I know what he might look for, but what he might look for is not necessarily what he needs. I think he needs someone who is self-assured and knows herself, so that he can kind of become that same person and know himself. (source)

I think they were really trying to be as clear about their intentions as possible, because they’ve been asked about k/l so much already, they wanted to set the record straight. Again, I’m sorry if you were disappointed. But to me, it’s a pretty definitive answer. “We couldn’t go back and just change the story to be like–and now they’re in love!” I honestly don’t think they could have been any clearer than that. 

And I respect that they care enough about their fans to be direct with them rather than leading them on. So many other show directors will never give you that kind of consideration, but I think it’s very obvious Lauren and Joaquim genuinely care about their audience. Please don’t take any of this as an attack or anything anon, I’m just trying to explain this as best I can. If you don’t agree with me that’s perfectly fine, but I won’t be able to read this any other way given its context. Besides, if you feel that secure about it you?? Don’t really have to justify it to me, you know? We’re allowed to look at things differently, and it’s okay for us to look at things in our own way. 

You know, I’m just so glad that shows like Parks and Recreation and Brooklyn 99 exist? Yes, there are many ways in which each show could improve, but I am I always going to be a fan of the idea that there’s dignity and fulfillment to be found in working your ass off to be a good person, no matter what the world throws at you. 

And they don’t deny that it is work in many ways; how many times are Leslie or Peralta tempted to take a shortcut (and how many times does it backfire on them when they do?), but ultimately choose not to? Goodness is so often a choice, just like empathy, but these shows keep highlighting that it’s the right, if not the easy, thing to do. 

There are dark moments (more so in Brooklyn 99, which makes sense given its context), but it’s so peaceful and fulfilling to slip into worlds where the people in charge of protecting and caring for their communities actually care about those communities, and each other, in spite of being and because they’re flawed humans. They admit they’re wrong, they apologize, and they try to do better, every day. 

They’re shows founded on hope and love, and there’s never going to be enough of that. 

im seeing a lot of posts about safe mode but none of them mention this

this filtering option lets people flag posts that THEY think are sensitive

so its entirely possible that some mundane posts are only marked sensitive because of idiots throwing around flags

although given the context, its probably because tumblr has never worked properly

take this information how you will

anonymous asked:

re: the gulvi wearing a "queue" and queue actually being french for ponytail thing? queue means tail in french and can mean ponytail (depending on context), and it is also a slang word for cock! On the same subject, but less vulgar, you know how people use "rouge" when they mean lipstick? in french, rouge as a noun usually only means red wine (like "(vin) rouge"), never makeup (unless you say "rouge à lèvres"). it was so weird for me at first but I think it's a pretty funny thing with languages!

Language is weird!

I’m not sure rouge is used to refer to lipstick, unless it’s changed. It’s always been commonly used to refer to blush, both in contemporary times and also historically, even in France. (Though referring to make up as rouge and blanc has fallen out of favour and has been out of favour for like 150 years at least lol - gone are the days when we needed to denote our aristocratic class in France by publically painting our faces in multiple layers of white before covering it in unrealistic red to make sure the peasants knew we were heights above them - the only holdover is that blush pigment is still called rouge elsewhere, by some (and even that’s fallilng out of favour, many people just call it blush now, so we’re losing that historical connection to the 18th century, which is not necessarily a bad thing!)).

And it’s amazing all the slang words there are for cock (and varying other things). Language tries to be as versatile when it comes to slang erogenous zones :D I know in Australia you could pretty much throw a dart on any page in a dictionary and find something that’s been used at some point to describe some ‘naughty’ part of the body or act. :D

Euphoria

Imaizumi is used to the euphoria that hits at the end of races. He’s experienced enough to know that for the first few minutes even the greater considerations of victory or defeat fade into unimportance under the floating sense of physical bliss, exhausted muscles finally resting and oxygen-deprived thoughts going warm and hazy with the comfort. It’s a pleasant feeling, one that long ago lost the stress of unfamiliarity, and he would be more than happy to relax into it now that he’s completed his first Interhigh.

It seems unfair that he should be denied that comfort for such a minor reason.

It’s not a physical strain holding him back. He’s more than willing to collapse at the edge of the road just past the finish line, to gulp water and eat the handful of energy bars the other team members are offering him. But even as his skin aches pleasantly and his body goes light and weightless with the cessation of effort his mind is doubling back, returning over and over to who they left behind them on the course.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

What actually is fascism?

Fascism was a political ideology and philosophical movement from the early twentieth century which was formulated by Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. In some ways, it is a highly historicist school of thought, focused on being able to act in the moment defined by a particular historical context; on the other hand, it reduces history down to certain eternal and fundamental truths (these truths form what is referred to as Ur-Fascism). On the most basic level, Fascism believes in the spirit of struggle and the spirit of unity. It believes in the struggle for unity, and, most importantly that we are unified in struggle. It believes in unifying hierarchy, unity within the state, sacrifice out of loyalty, and the battle to grow the empire.

Fascism is grounded in a philosophy called Actual Idealism, which posits that ideas are actions that are engaged in the world instead of being separate from it. According to this philosophy, subjectivity is therefore not something that exists in itself, outside of reality, but is something that exists objectively in relation to the world around it. Gentile believed that when we engage in the act of thinking (and engage in the thinking that accompanies action), we’re not just thinking about thoughts, we’re understanding their relationship to the world. On the other hand, he believed that when referencing thoughts without really thinking about them, we are depriving our thoughts of their vitality and objectivity. There is some merit to the dialectical ability of Gentile to use the thesis of pensiero pensante (the act of thinking) to account for and synthesize pensiero pensato (static thought), though he only goes half way (yet too far half way) in synthesizing by claiming that “thinking accounts for the thought” without considering how “thoughts motivate thinking”. I agree with his synthesis of the subject and the object, but he seems to start with the subject as a causa sui and prima causa without considering that the self is created by and has to always deal with something other than itself, that it has external conditions which it cannot surpass (including its own existence). Gentile certainly considers that the self has to actively exist in relation to the object to be real, but he doesn’t consider that the object exists in relation to many subjects (like a monarch does), or that the subject comes from and exists within the object (thus the reason choices (and choice itself) aren’t totally independent and have their causes, consequences (which can be beyond our control), and circumstances or context). There is a simple reason as to why this is the case too, namely, because the subject isn’t the only thing that is active, it is subject to an objective condition of activity and chaos. Objectivity is active too, this is how it creates the creative subject. Actual idealism represents a deeper side of Fascism that I see the merit in, but don’t fully subscribe to. I’m more of a Hegelian, believing that there are truths which precede us, which account for our ability to engage, and which we can realize in our engagement. I don’t think our thoughts can ever be inactive, but I believe some can actively come to terms with the nature of our reality better than others. Already you can see the notion of struggle conveyed in the idea of thought as action and you can see the notion of unity conveyed by the subjects active engagement in its own objective existence. Fascism is often wrongly classified as an irrationalist philosophy, when it doesn’t believe things are fundamentally irrational, but reducible to action/activity/struggle. Joseph de Maistre was more of an “irrationalist” in his belief that reason was futile, even though he rationally reduces things down to a kind of dark, primal, yet holy violence that sanctifies the world with blood and order on a very foundational level.

Fascism is also a rejection of positivism, believing not only that facts follow from perspective (like Nietzsche and the phenomenologists), but that perspective is subordinate to higher laws (like Guenon and the traditionalists). For the Fascist, man is subordinate to thought and action as well as the deeds of great men throughout history. In some respect, Fascism maintains a degree of traditionalism in the way it values great civilizations from the past, on the other hand, Fascism understands the need to move forward and develop within the confines of certain established traditions. It might be fair to call Fascism one of the first Archeofuturist ideologies. Aesthetically, this is symbolized by its affinity towards both classicism (especially stripped classicism on an architectural level) and futurism.

Mussolini and Gentile were both initially influenced by Marx (believe it or not) and Hegel. I think they appreciated the dynamism of Marx’s ideas on class conflict and the materialist dialectic. Gentile clearly rejected Marx’s materialism for Hegel’s idealism, however, he didn’t totally abandon the idea of thinking and acting (if not struggling) in relation to a material world, he just also fully acknowledged that the material world could be changed and formed by our thoughts (Hegel certainly saw a relation between subject and object as well, however he is often contrasted as being more idealistic in relation to Marx’s materialism). While Marx emphasized base structural conditions in society, he clearly conceded to Gentile’s inclinations on some level, as Marx saw how values and concepts could change society and even changed society himself using said means (though he didn’t change it exactly according to his intentions). Mussolini was initially more of a Leninist than a Marxist, and I think where Gentile might’ve preferred Hegel’s corporatism to Marx’s communsm, Mussolini preferred Lenin’s socialism to Marx’s communism. Mussolini was eventually led to abandon Marx all together when reading Nietzsche helped to further fuel and inspire in him a sense of the need for great men and a master morality. The prominent Italian “Elitist School” also helped to edge Mussolini in this direction, Robert Michels and Vilfredo Pareto even praised and aligned themselves with Mussolini’s movement. Gaetano Mosca was a little more at odds with Fascism.

Mussolini was also inspired by another One-time-Marxist named Geroges Sorel, who was focused on the need for societal violence based on some sort of great and sacred myth. Sorel was initially fond of the myth of the struggle of the proletariat, but was later drawn to guild socialism and far-right (if not Fascistic) movements in France, particularly those related to Charles Maurras. Mussolini himself preferred the myth of a great roman empire to the struggle of the proletariat, and so Fascism was born (the Fasces is a symbol of a bundle of rods tied tightly together with an axe, a simple of domination and order in Rome (again, note the spirit of struggle and the spirit of unity)). Another point worth mentioning is that another huge influence was the nationalist Mazzini, who was also in favor of having a monarchical system in Italy (and yes, nationalistic monarchism/monarchistic nationalism is a thing (arguably absolutism gave birth to the modern nation-states), just look to Napoleon, Prussia, Greece, and many Arab nations from the turn of the century). It was in the tradition of Francesco Crispi (one of Mazzini’s associates) that Fascism based itself upon the maxim: “the monarchy unites us; the republic would divide us.” (though this monarchical influence would change near the end of the Italian Republic).

On a political level, Fascism was referred to as Corporative/Corporatist Syndicalism. Corporatism/Corporativism is an idea that touches upon where Fascism becomes Ur-Fascism. Contrary to what many Fascists say, corporatism does actually relate to corporations, but more importantly, it relates to the idea of a body politic (body is “corpus” in Latin). The body politic refers to the idea that society is organized like a body, with every part in its place, with higher and lower parts, and with a head to rule all the parts. Fascism doesn’t necessarily relate to the rule of highly privatized, joint-stock corporations (a better term for this might be corporatocracy), but Corporatism does, and so does Fascism by virtue of this point. You may wonder, “what society doesn’t have different roles and social hierarchy”, and the answer is: none. But some can accept the nature of roles and hierarchy better than others, if not see the benefits of such. Just as we seek to preserve our bodies, so too do some societies seek to preserve theirs. Other societies tear themselves apart, whether through middle class merchants killing the aristocratic heads or through plebs tearing down the merchants, if not the aristocrats. While some people see Fascism as a left-wing idelogy, it is precisely because it aligned with the idea of a hierarchical corporate state over any revolutionary ideologies (capitalism or communism), that Mussolini and Gentile both saw Fascism as Rightist.

Corporation was a term to designate a legally recognized, unified body of individuals (a corporate body) or an office consisting of one individual (a corporation sole (e.g. a monarch)). The term corporation can include the state itself, as was explicitly recognized in the roman empire. In addition to the corporate status of the state, after the roman empire, the predominant corporations in power were guilds within feudal societies. These were protective economic bodies that were put in place by feudal lords to ensure that there were roles for individuals and goods to supply those roles. This system was more about ensuring supply to maintain social functions than it was creating demand, given its context in an age of greater scarcity. As feudalism evolved into more centralized, imperialistic monarchism and mercantilism, the predominant corporations became large, monopolistic chartered and crowned corporations which often occupied colonial holdings. In some cases these corporations contributed to the decline of the guild system, in other cases the guild system was maintained (the latter is what defined the Cameralism of Prussia as distinct from Mercantilism). Either way, guilds and chartered corporations worked within the state. It wasn’t until Adam Smith that corporations became much more privatized.

Corporatism became popular in the 19th century, as a reaction to laissez faire economics. Adam Müller was the first to formulate the ideology, at which point it was also referred to as distributism. Müller looked to the guild corporatism of the middle ages as an ethical model for just distribution, and saw it as a system where the interests of the upper class were unified with the interests of the lower class. He engaged in a critique of Smith that was more instructive and compromising than it was critical. Hegel also formulated a model for Corporatism in his “Philosophy of the Right”, which was highly popular among the Protectionists of the Prussian School. The German sociologist, economist, and philosopher Othmar Spann largely represents a synthesis of the protectionists (like List), the mercantilists (like Colbert), and the guild corporatists (like Müller). Around the turn of the century, many other prominent corporatist thinkers emerged, including: H. P. Lovecraft (who praises guild corporatism), Oswald Spengler (in his Prussian Socialist ideology), Gottfried Feder, Major General J. F. C. Fuller, and Oswald Moseley. Austria, Portugal, and Ireland also had explicitly corporatist movements, some of which came into power. In addition to this, the Roman Catholic Church also favored Corporatism around the turn of the century (protestants came to favor it later on, in contrast to their supposed work ethic (that was a Weberian joke)).

In the U.S.A., Keynes’ model for industrial and corporate growth linked business and government together in a manner that embodied the body politic, and this was further substantiated by: FDR’s economic advisor being a huge Mussolini fanboy, Taylorism encouraging scientific management by an elite; and Fordism encouraging a more standardized, technological system over a more organic, free system. Keynes and Mussolini even “flirted” with one another, Mussolini praising Keynes’ critique of Laissez-Faire economics, and Keynes acknowledging Mussolini “had his wisdom teeth”. It was during this period in the U.S., that U.S. joint stock corporations became so powerful that they started to monopolize around the world, however, a lot of them killed each other off while competing, resulting in a system where people are more inclined to sell out or size down rather than continuously undercut competitors (IBM is a great example of this). One could say this corporatocratic competition caused a dying body politic, unlike in China, where a more mercantilist corporatist model is being followed. Northern Europe also started to adopt social corporatist systems around this time, which were influenced by a similar movement as Keynesianism referred to as the Stockholm school, one difference seeming to be that the Stockholm school seems to emphasize a more Statist model than Keynes, who primarily had the Anglo-Saxon model in mind.

In Fascist Italy, Mussolini started off his economic policy in a manner that would’ve shocked many corporatists. He started off by favoring laissez-faire, classically liberal economics. I believe this was in sync with his theory on how capitalism developed (he was right to think it started off chaotic and then consolidated/grew stronger more and more). I imagine Mussolini did this to see which companies could offer the best prices and the best quality while making the most money (this would determine which companies could operate the most efficiently when later-monopolized). He reduced taxes, there were actually  attempts to attract foreign investment (All foreign capital was exonerated of taxes) and establish trade agreements, and efforts were made to balance the budget and cut subsidies. In addition to all of this, Mussolini privatized health care. This was all in favor of what he dubbed heroic or dynamic capitalism and for the sake of productivism.

To contrast this, while Mussolini got rid of labour unions, he recreated them as corporate syndicates which were granted a considerable amount of power to control and regulate production practices, distribution, expansion and other factors with their members. These syndicate corporations were able to monopolize the representation of labour, and sought to maintain their power through fair representation. Each industry had it’s own syndicate corporation. These syndicates generally put measures forward that were more feasible for bigger monopolistic businesses than smaller businesses, and so a shift towards state-monopolization succeeded the shift towards privatization, corporatization, and syndicalism. Mussolini believed this phase of monopolization to be the second state of capitalism.

Due to all the speculation and excess wealth in wages, the Lira was faced with inflation and was loosing its value. To combat this, Mussolini restored the gold standard, which, although initially reducing real wage growth, was able to provide a solid platform for wages to grow. Mussolini would later re-introduce representative currency in a more productive (and profitable) economic environment.

Mussolini also started to cartelize a lot of the big monopolies (that had come out of growing private players and syndicate interests) within the CGII (Confederazione Generale dell'Industria Italiana). Just like Mussolini forced the labour unions to merge into corporative syndicates, he forced industrial monopolies to merge (we do the opposite with anti-trust laws today, though we still have monopolies all the same). Where the CGII represented a government-linked (though not fully state owned, albeit state controlled)) corporate monopoly over industry, the GCFSC (General Confederation of Fascist Syndical Corporations) represented a corporate monopoly over labour. To quote wiki, “Finally, the Industrial Reconstruction Institute (IRI) was formed in January 1933 and took control of the bank-owned companies, suddenly giving Italy the largest industrial sector in Europe which made use of government-linked companies (GLC). It saved at the end of 1933 the Hydroelectric Society of Piemont, which shares had fallen from 250 liras to 20 liras, while in September 1934, the Ansaldo trust was again reconstituted under the authority of the IRI, with a capital of 750 million liras“. Throughout most of the 30′s, Italy witnessed GDP growth, real wage growth, and an increase in the value of its currency. That being said, the economy had it’s faults. Not much capital went to investment goods and most of the economy was made up of the agricultural sector.

In Mussolini’s eyes, capitalism could go two ways for its final stage, the first is that it seeks to supply a uniform demand worldwide or that it turns to the State to restrict the merchants lust for power to the benefit of their own community (instead of enabling it at the expense of said community). To be fair, I think a worse risk than world-wide supply and demand is worldwide privatized lending. Had Fascism had even bigger, global monopolies at it’s disposal, who knows what that could do (in terms of reducing costs, prices, increasing profits, increasing income/wages, and creating general global stability). Ultimately, the Fascist economy could be classified as being somewhere in between a regulated market and a planned economy. Economics were subordinate to politics (namely the state), however, a unique economic model with vast potential still developed nonetheless.

While Fascism was limited to a particular place and time, it touched upon certain truths that inspired other similar regimes and truths which underlie every society, even our own. Proto-Fascism refers to political systems prior to the Fascist ideology which had fundamental similarities to it. Para-Fascist ideologies (ideologies influenced by Fascism) differ in terms of National spirit and certain particularities (race, cultural attitudes), Crypto-Fascist ideologies differ in terms of their ability to come to terms with the nature of the body politic, but Ur-Fascism forever recognizes the potential strength of the state and governing forces, through which Fascism actualizes itself on some level, again and again.

I get that people love that miracles quote from The Pandorica Opens, but in context the whole point of that line is that the Doctor has never seen such a miracle and still hasn’t because Rory’s return is actually a trap. They’re beautiful words, sure, but also fairly empty.

3

Les Dames Du Bois De Boulogne (1945) dir. by Robert Bresson: “Each shot is like a word, which means nothing by itself, or rather means so many things that in effect it is meaningless. But a word in a poem is transformed, its meaning made precise and unique, by its placing in relation to the words around it: in the same way a shot in a film is given its meaning by its context, and each shot modifies the meaning of the previous one until with the last shot a total, unparaphrasable meaning has been arrived at. Acting has nothing to do with that, it can only get in the way. Films can only be made by bypassing the will of those who appear in them; using not what they do, but what they are.” 

Excuse me I think I’m going to be screaming for a million years with Fox’s tweet showing his early Papyrus sketches because of a “brother named comic sans and a [blank] named [blank]” seems like pretty good indirect proof we’re talking about a “father named Gaster.”

Given the context of the quote that came before the blacked out text, it would make sense we’re still talking about family. The spacing of the first word which is blacked out could be something like ‘father.’ The fact we have the full listed named ‘comic sans,’ referring to a font, means that we could also have the context of another font being listed. The fact that something is blacked out means that there still has to be secrets he’s not sharing. Such as the biggest secret character of his game, W. D. Gaster.

Four ways Kanan found out that Hera could sing

1.

It was like a flood had been let loose in Hera; since the arrival of their daughter - and since the sheer panic and worry and ohfuckohfuckohfuck had worn off - Kanan learned something new about his captain every day. Stories she had never shared before, told in a lilting whisper to the tiny bundle strapped to her chest as she finalised jump points. All of her favourite little things on Ryloth, snatches of happy memories that had been hidden for so long (save the rest for later, introduce her to the good before raising the bad). Hera’s r’s  rolling that little more, her vowels elongating as her native accent overrode her acquired outer rim accent.

Never moreso than when she sang. Hera sings. She sings. All this time, and Kanan never knew. She had hummed, in frustration or absentmindedly or chasing a nightmare. Singing was an entirely new development. Smoky and low, the ryl words pouring out and wrapping around him, filling the cockpit with specters of a lost world.

Kanan held her extra close that night, legs around his waist as they sat on their bunk. Determinedly but gently tickling her neck with his beard as he whispered for her to sing again, just for him. She will, but only if he’s the one to get up and see to the child when she wakes up in the night.

2.

The intel had gotten to them too late, the camp already under attack as they sat, idly, waiting for the coordinates to be confirmed. Another blow to the straggling remnants of Ryloth, free no longer.

As the crew picked through the smouldering remains, a tearing gasping breath came from under the shredded remains of a crate. Hera scrabbled desperately, silently to reveal a Twi’lek woman, more ash than flesh. Unknown to her, but familiar mother cousin aunt. Taking care to avoid the charred flesh, Hera took the dying woman’s head in her lap. Too far gone, there was nothing that could be done. Gently stroking the base of her lekku as the crew watched on, Hera began to hum softly, faltering notes soon forming words soothing and sweet. A living piece of home in an alien place of death; she sang a song passed on by her mother and by her mother.

Before the second verse was done, the woman let out a final sigh. Gone.

That night, Kanan found Hera in the cockpit. Why should she sleep when there was so much work to be done? Together they sat in silence for the longest time, staring. Into the void of space, the silence deafening. Until, so low he’s not sure he’s sensing it or hearing it, she started to sing. The words sweeping and soothing, though he did not entirely understand it. When she sang her last, Hera squeezed Kanan’s hand and returned to sitting in comfortable, contemplative silence. Until the morning yells came from Zeb and Ezra’s room.

3.

Ripped from dreams of gunfire and death and run, Kanan woke up to hands gently carding through his hair and a lullaby in his ear. It was just a nightmare, he’s fine, everyone’s fine, Master Billaba -  but no. The barely audible words were unknown to him; not basic - Ryl? Green hands soothing his aching head instead of brown.

He was lying face down on the sofa in the Ghost’s lounge. He didn’t remember getting there; he did remember a desperate need to drown the past. It didn’t work. It never worked. Hera, sitting on the floor next to him, met his eye with an understanding smile that didn’t reach her eyes. Her fingers faltered but she didn’t drop a note, continuing her song until he drifted back to an uneasy sleep.

They never spoke of the incident, but that was the last time Kanan passed out in a drunken stupour. (He would have taken Hera’s singing as a substitute to keep the nightmares at bay, but that probably would have been a breach of their agreement.)

(She sang for him again several years later.)

4.

Peace and quiet reigned at last on the Ghost. Kanan had swept the rest of crew off to run errands, buy supplies. Hera had begged off, citing repairs that urgently needed her attention. Truthfully, she need to be alone. She loved her crew - her family - but there were times that she missed when the ship was her ship.

The tanks were full, water was hot and no squabbling queue to use the ‘fresher. She was going to indulge and luxuriate in a shower that lasted longer than five minutes. Stepping into the deliciously scalding water, it wasn’t long before the tension was seeping out of her bones and a song bubbling out of her lungs. Strong and wilful, the Ryl rolling from the bottom of her belly as she let loose as she hadn’t let herself in so long, reverberating through the fresher.

Skin beginning to wrinkle and  having sung through all of the loudest and most defiant songs that she could think of, she turned the cooling water off and stepped out of the stall. She must have nearly gone through the entire tank. Oops. Still humming - a bawdy cantina number that her father had once caught her singing and no she definitely didn’t know where she heard it or what it means honestly daddy - she moved to wrap a towel around herself. Brushing water from the length of her lekku, and coming face to face with a broadly grinning Jedi leaning against the ‘fresher door.

Before he could say whatever witty remark he had ready, she flung the damp towel at his face and retreated back into the shower stall, turning the water back on. Daring him to follow her into the cool water.

  • me: this gay ship is canon
  • some asshole: um obviously it isn't, this het ship is way more canon
  • me: oh yeah why
  • them: because it just is, you know? it just is!
  • me: so what you're saying is you think heterosexual relationships are inherently more valid than homosexual relationships, even if the latter is much more plausible given the context of its series?
  • them: um... no... how Dare you accuse me of being a Homophobe..... I was born with glass bones and paper skin. Every morning I break my legs, and every afternoon I break my arms. At night, I lie awake in agony until my heart attacks put me to sleep.