no other interpretations accepted

Anyway Soldier is perfect and good

One of the most unfortunate (and fortunate in some cases) aspects of completely delving yourself into a fandom is that you begin to accept how other people interpret characters versus how the true game interprets them. Like I mentioned, this can be a really awesome thing!

But sometimes, not so much.

A good example in our home sweet home, the tf2 fandom, would be the most antagonized character of the game (at least imo. Medic gets a lot of shit representation too)

Good ol’ Jane Doe.

Most of my opinion on this topic is from a personal experience so I’ll jump straight into that:

When I first joined this fandom/ got the game, my love for the characters was pretty contrastive; Medic was super up top, and engie, demo, and ya boy solly I wasn’t really into (yet of course). This was pretty realistic since I was newer and had set my heart on my favs. As I met people, enjoyed content, and created my own, my love began to spread and even out (thank God). 

Except…one merc was still lagging. Soldier. As I matured in my knowledge and independence of interpretation I began to really notice why. 

Soldier is portrayed very heavily as the angry hateful antagonist of many artistic scenarios, especially writing.

It’s too easy. Jane’s excessive expression of opinion and loud sense of patriotism and criticism made him an easy villain to give an insult, or cause a problem. I had seen this usage of his character so often that I had forgotten how this absolute DORK teleported fuckin bread for three whole days, just out of childish impulse

LIKE HOLY HECK HE IS SO BUBBLY AND ALL OVER THE PLACE! The interpretation is flawed in one major place. Is Soldier someone who has opinionated outbursts?? Yes. Are they all based on hate and bias?? NO. Soldier is very expressive in all fields, including excitement, love, and the support he has for his team

The team part is a big one. Like wtf are you thinkin’ Jane LOVES his teammates!! He is extremely supportive and doesn’t seem to push his insults any further than impulsive outbursts

look at him smiling during scout’s date!! He’s so proud


he’s so loving in his own way

anyway this kinda turned into a soldier appreciation post that is too long but uh yeah pls he’s not awful he’s a big ol dork thanks

Persona Charts: What do they mean?

Okay so it is common knowledge that the Sun is the bones of the personality. It’s what allows the other aspects of ourselves shine through. These other aspects or personas if you will, are characterized by the planets in our chart. This is where persona charts come from, there is no persona chart for the Sun because as the most important, the Sun’s persona chart is our natal chart. So what do the other nine person charts show us about ourselves?

There are 12 personalities but 9 persona charts because some planets rule two signs meaning that persona chart is applicable for both.

Moon Persona Chart (Personality 4): Corresponds with the “Mother” archetype and so can be used to interpret the native’s perception of their mother or the relationship there. Can also be interpreted as their inner child and emotions. This persona chart helps us find what makes us feel emotionally secure or what subconscious factors we have playing in the background.

Mercury Persona Chart (Personality 3 and 6): This chart speaks for both our intellect and style of communication as well as adaptability. It can be interpreted as both our interaction with others and our capability to accept and adapt to necessary changes.

Venus Persona Chart (Personality 2 and 7): This chart speaks for both our values (of others an ourselves), our security and insecurity and our beauty as well as our relationships with others and the world itself.

Mars Persona Chart (Personality 1): Takes on the archetype of the Warrior. It shows us our capabilities to take charge and assert ourselves in life. It shows us what fuels our motivation and how we execute our desires.

Jupiter Persona Chart (Personality 9): This persona chart shows us our relationships with religion and philosophy. It shows us our inner therapist and wanderer.

Saturn Persona Chart (Personality 10): This chart shows us the nature of our life lessons and where they appear in our lives. Here we see vocations and truths.

Uranus Persona Chart (Personality 11): In this persona chart we see where we must feel free, where we feel the need to rebel and where we cut ties. It shows us our localisation independence and liberty.

Neptune Persona Chart (Personality 12): Here we see how we as individuals transcend the mundane world. It shows us our spirituality and is great for looking at possible “gifts”. It shows us how to see through the illusions.

Pluto Persona Chart (Personality 8): This persona chart in particular shows us how we face our demons and come to peace with the darker side of ourselves. It shows us how we turn the darkness into our own light.

Guys guys guys guys

I’ve been directed to the Nibelung saga in search of magical beasties, and it’s the original tale of Wagner’s Ring Cycle which is fabulous and all but

The word Nibelung relates to the royal family of the Burgundians (people who came from Poland and settled part of the Rhine in roughly the 5th century) but, in the Ring Cycle, it refers to a race of dwarves. With treasure. Much treasure. Hoards of it.

And the original old Norse for Nibelung is Niflungr. The name may have come from Nifhel, a part of Hel (land of the dead) that dwarves, being underground creatures who live in darkness, may well have come from.

I therefore put to you that Nifflers are cursed dwarves who dug their way up into the surface world from Hel to reclaim the treasure that was wrongfully stolen from them. The greatest hero of them all is Motsognir (who, according to the Norse Catalogue of the Dwarves was “the mightiest made | of all the dwarves”) - he searches tirelessly and without end for every scrap of treasure, desperate to find the pieces of his family’s ancient hoard so that he can return home triumphant and break the curse, thus returning the dwarves to their rightful, dwarven state. Because really. What kind of curse makes a guy have a duck bill of all things?

Except! That Motsognir is foiled at every turn by the dreaded evil giant known as Newt! His great and endless battles to find his treasures and outwit the dastardly wizard that would take his gold from him are great and endless and will be retold for generations to come in the sagas of his people, just as soon as Motsognir triumphs over his eternal foe and is finally allowed to keep the treasure he desperately stuffs into his magic dwarven-made pocket.

… It would be easier if his evil nemesis wasn’t quite so dorky and adorable, but Motsognir will make sure that bit is edited when it comes to the actual saga writing.

i struggled for a minute or two trying to think of a caption for this but couldn’t think of much beyond ‘sfhajkg’ and ’[loud yelling about how much spock was pining]’ so i’ll just leave it like this

Making of soot..

So I received a couple of questions lately about Fuliggine and to answer I’m going to make a “making of” post, telling also some trivia about the comic. Ready with a cup of tea, let’s get started. 

I wrote Soot many many years ago, to feature in a collection of other spooky stories by me, it was mainly inspired by my childhood memories and by the magical creatures of soot in Ghibli’s movies

One of my uncles has a big old house in the mountains, we used to go there often and my grandparents too, on vacation. Differently from the kid in the story I was never alone, always playing with my borthers and cousins there. The big house was full of misterious places which triggered our imagination. We invented a lot of games and they were like enchanted moments. They lasted one day or two then they could not come again, because something just changed: one of us had to leave, we were on a bad mood, that room was closed, bad weather, or simply lost interest…

But I don’t like to make things in order to have one and only meaning, or at least this was not the purpose of this comic. So we can’t be sure that it was just the boy’s imagination, that coming out of the chimney and seeing himself all black by soot he pretended to be a black animal and had fun. And then because the chimney gets all new by the chimneysweep, he could not imagine it any more. 

Maybe soot is really bewitch… yes, this is also possible. He says that at the end: what he knows is just that he never transformed again. 

So I will not say that my comic is about how imagination works for children, but it is largely inspired by this. And secondly, every other interpretation is open and accepted. After all is a little spooky story.

Here is the storyboard..

There are some differences from the comic, like first animal was the cat, second the cockroach and then the crow, I inverted them because I thought the flying scene was more impressing for a beginning. 

That house exists!! Unfortunately I lost the photo which was my reference, I did it myself. This other photo is just an exemple, very closed to the original house as you can see. It is the kind of tipical architecture of the old houses here. I just love it, it’s like real life Ghibli Studio. 

The first concept for the stove was a bit more detailed. I wanted the type of old stove of South-Tyrol. It’s very big but the chimney is not so big so that a boy can climb it, like a fireplace chimney. But a fireplace has no door, I could not create the right situation with it. So I dealt with the issue drawing a sort of oven for pizza..

Well, I originally meant to make the cat episode more adventurous, hunting a mouse, jumping on trees, but then I looked at my cats and they answered to the question what cats like to do mostly, of course, sleeping. Isn’t it so?

 You know no old man can turn their spine in that way, maybe no human being can.. it’s 180 degrees or what, this makes me laugh every time I see it. Anyway, Giovanna is the actual name of my grandmother. 

And with this important information I’m finished, I hope you guys liked this post even if it was a bit long, I hope that I have fulfilled your curiosity. I’m eventually considering on making a video version for a second time, leave a comment if you please, and stay tuned for my next comic coming next month. Ciao!    

"Reading into it": a defense of finding affirmation in the Bible

When LGBT+ Christians choose to accept the solace and affirmation the Bible offers rather than viewing scripture as condemnatory, a common phrase they have to face from some other Christians is “you’re just seeing what you want to see.” Well, I will concede one point there. When I first realized I was queer, I did want to see affirmation in the Bible, with a desperation that straight, cisgender people cannot possibly understand. I wanted, needed, to find love and acceptance in the book that tells the story of my making, my salvation – my entire being ached for it. And, praise God, I found it. Despite the insistence of today’s popular scriptural interpretations, despite the fears that maybe I was just “reading what I wanted into things,” despite rejection and doubts and pressure from mainstream Christianity…I found my peace. I found the love and acceptance I was seeking in the Word of my Maker. I found life.

“You’re projecting your own biases onto the Bible. You say it doesn’t condemn queerness because you don’t want it to.” Hmm. I’ll put aside the obvious but not often effective rebuttal – maybe you’re reading condemnation into scripture merely because you’ve been raised to! – and ask a question instead: You know how people often say that God makes everything happen for a reason? Well, perhaps God made me queer so that I would read his Word differently. So that I would have a reason to move beyond popular interpretations that harm so many people, deny so many identities, place limits on so many lives.

Because I’m queer, I’ve been able to break past the traditional interpretations that other Christians have been conditioned to simply accept. Because I’m queer, I’ve had to wrestle with scripture, to ponder it and ask questions of it in a way that straight, cis Christians may never have to. And just maybe, the faith that has resulted from all this self-examination, all these hours hunched over the Bible desperately seeking hope, is imbued with something unique, something new, something that can stir up fresh meaning and illuminate truths and joys that once were hidden within Christ’s Body.

So yes, maybe I am just “reading into things.” But maybe that’s exactly what God was hoping I would do. I choose to see God’s Word as life-giving, as all-embracing, as both eternal and eternally new. Maybe being made queer has helped me to do that. How about you?

goldfilm  asked:

Hi! I remember you saying something a while ago about The Secret History, where Camilla was like Persephone, and Henry was like Hades, and whether or not Julian was Dionysus. And I was wondering who the others in the Greek Squad would be, in similar comparisons. Sorry if this doesn't make sense, thanks!

no, not at all dear! it actually makes so much sense, since i think donna purposely built up all the tsh characters as symbolic representations of the greek gods, but really much mixed up with so many other classical figures as well? if you’ve studied those subjects, it’s almost impossible not to notice all the hits the author left all around the novel, you know. and then, obviously there are even your own interpretations, as a classicist and/or as a reader, so it’s almost impossible to discern where donna’s intention ends and our personal opinions might begin? so, consider what i’m about to say as my personal interpretation of the matter, even if it’s clearly supported by some kind of obvious intention of the writer, ok? :)

said that, certain comparisons are explicitly written down in the novel, for example the one you already mentioned, henry being hades and camilla being persephone. that is said as a metaphor in the book with those clear words, no hits or allusions. it’s interesting tho, the fact that on the other hand at the very beginning of the novel bunny compares camilla to diana - in other words, artemis. i find this funny and super interesting not just because obviously to any person not completely unfamiliar with greek mythology camilla and charles would immediately be the exact representation of artemis and apollo, but what really intrigued me about this is, i’m quite a “deeper scholar” of ancient greek deities and their philosophies, i’ve read pretty much everything you can read about those subject by now, i did out of passion, and as anyone who has actually studied those matters digging a little more, i’ve come to realise in many fragments and text and poems, artemis and persephone actually were described as the same deity - at some point of the orphic hymns moreover, persephone is first called “artemis” and then a few lines afterwards, demeter even says something like “oh, my poor daughter! you were destined to bear the glorious offspring of apollo and now you are married to that hideous man!”.. does it ring a bell? camilla is first in some kind of relationship with charles and then she falls for henry? who is compared to hades?
anyways, i’ve already written about this and i absolutely don’t wanna bore you with the all hows and whys, but this superimposition of deities on the same figure is a pretty common phenomenon in ancient mythologies and it’s called “syncretism”. the same god could have many names depending on the function he was summoned for. artemis, persephone, selene, hecate - they were in truth just one goddess whom aspects had several names. so it’s super funny and as much as intriguing to me, that in tsh camilla is actually first called “artemis” and then “persephone”, given the fact that she first is with charles and then with henry, respectively apollo and hades. i don’t know if donna tartt was aware of all this and did it on purpose, or if this is merely a coincidence, but it’s totally something i’m really fascinated by and that makes a huge, cosmical sense in my “classicist eyes”? lmao
and i have to say they are oh so bloody perfect for the role? all three of them? camilla being the fragile forest creature who could actually eat you alive anytime, without even blinking; charles being so much apollo he could even be the god himself as far as we might know: charming, handsome, calming, nice, but at the same time violent, anxious, deeply possessive and jealous, his dark side as deep as his ability to enchant others; and henry, well, am i even to explain what makes him a perfect hades? shady, riflessive, lost in his own world, cold intelligence and a total self-made moral, so close to the one a king could have made up to excuse himself anything? superiority/god complex, great leader, but at the same time hunted by his own demons and his own solitude, so much he wanted to find some way to escape his personal “dark kingdom”, his own mind? and he then falls precisely for the said apparently delicate creature that in truth is so much like him it is almost scary when we do find out? do tell me if all those are coincidences, i really don’t think so.

regarding all the others, it is much more difficult to say, tbh? because we are not told something as explicit, you know?
if you already read my other ask, then you know that i’m really sceptical about considering julian being the novel’s personification of dionysus. i kinda see francis much more fitting for that role if i have to name someone, but honestly i don’t actually think dionysus to be among the characters of the novel - he is indeed in the novel, but being himself. in other words, being at the same time everyone and no one at all. that’s the nature of dionysus, his very purpose and i don’t think i could accept any other interpretation, tbh.
also bunny and richard, i don’t think they are the representation of any deity whatsoever in this book. they are respectively the representation of what we are going to call the “non-believer” and the “believer”, so dear to the ancient tradition of the cult of dionysus. i don’t know if you are already aware of this or not, but it’s really a fundamental theme of dionysus’ painful journey to regain his “godhood”, meeting this two symbolical figures wherever he goes. dionysus is the god who died and was reborn, the one god who become human and had to prove his own divinity once again before being allowed to come back to olympus to claim what was his by birthright. so, every single time, in every single myth, the theme is always the same: someone does not think him a god, they disrespect him and his power, trying to kill or imprison him and they always end up slaughtered in the most amazing ways. that’s bunny. bunny who never takes anything seriously, bunny who wouldn’t understand and so that is not invited to the bacchanal, bunny who realises everything and disrespects the holiness of the act, taking the accidental murder as an atrocious act and nothing more than that, bunny that does not see it as the sacred consequence of an even more sacred experience, bunny who blackmails the actual “maenads” of dionysus (that’s what the clique became that night, kind of, in a representative way) and bunny who has to be killed, not just because of the actual modern danger of what he knew, but even because of the moral ancient one - he doesn’t get the divine importance of what happened that night; dionysus himself would have wanted him dead. this is the non-believer’s doom.
the second recurring figure in all the dionysus’ mythology is a poor, usually misunderstood and underestimated human who, while everyone is making fun of this young lad who calls himself a god and wants to punish him for that, they actually believe in dionysus’ godhood and help him achieving his purposes. this is what i called the “believer” and that’s what richard is in tsh. richard doesn’t really fit in the clique and he kinda always sees things from the outside, even in the very end. he’s a man in a land of gods, no matter how badly he wants to become one, he’s well aware he is not, he himself tells us this at the very beginning of the novel. but unlike bunny, his merit is that he just gets it. he gets the beauty of what happened, he gets the higher purpose, he gets the importance of it. richard respects and is deeply fascinated by the all story, so he’s rewarded for it in the end, just as the “believer” is always eventually rewarded in dionysus’ tales. he cannot aspire to become “that high”, “that important”, “that godly”, but he is the best a human being can aspire to be - mixed up with gods’ business, helper of the gods, touched by the gods, accepted by the gods. and that’s no light thing in the end, if we think better about it.. no light thing at all.

and here we arrive at francis, don’t we? francis is the most difficult to frame, he’d always been to me. he can seem many things, but he’s truly none of them at the end of the day. after accurate consideration, the god to whom i feel more comfortable comparing him is hermes, without any doubt. now, hermes is always seen as the playful god of thieves and mischief, apollo’s best friend, never serious, grand in wit, but not that important, am i right? well, in truth hermes is one of the most important gods of all the greek pantheon and i think he fits francis’ character perfectly as hell. first of all, hermes is playful yet always unreachable on the outside, but really complicated and shady on the inside. he’s not just the god who protects commerce and trades, he’s also one of the few phsycopompos deities of all ancient greek mythology, in other words he has the power to freely come and go as he pleases between the different realms of existence, both the living and the dead one - he’s both light and shadow. also, hermes is one of the freest sexual-oriented gods i know (he fathered hermaphroditus), but he kinda always keeps everything for himself? he doesn’t go around showing off as all the other gods. he loves deeply, but there’s always something holding him back, some shadow following him everywhere he goes. he’s also the messenger of the gods, he has the power to create a bound, a real contact between divinity and humanity. that’s so francis, tbh. francis who seem so unreachable, but at the same time so easy going and comfortable with anyone, francis who is probably the only one who actually really bounded with richard (the humanity i was talking about), francis who is never free to completely be himself out of the fear of letting down his “theoretical role” in the society, but at the same time never shows his sorrows on the outside with anyone? he lives constantly divided between two worlds, never having the courage to be fully “a god”, but scared to death to be left alone in the land of the humankind. that’s precisely hermes in my eyes, even if i don’t actually think this was really donna’s intention? who knows. i’ve certainly always seen him in this particular light.

really hope this will make any sense to you? lol if not, i’m so deeply sorry. i tend to be a little too passionate about those subjects, you know!

The final clear up of Kakashi's words in 675

This is actually a response to this post.  I’ve already reblogged and responded directly, so there is no cowardice.  I simply want to share this knowledge with the SasuSaku fandom and put their minds at ease.

I’d like to thank an unbiased translator for this information as well. Credit goes to her for the majority (almost all) of these explanations. 

As you may know, Japanese is a heavily contextual language. Interpretations of individual words and sentences should be made relative to the holistic meaning of a given passage. In other words, the process of comprehension should be thus: ① processing holistic meaning —> ②deriving nuances for each constituent of the passage (individual sentences and words). It’s a process of deduction, where you discard interpretations that are irrelevant to the context. 

However, what NS has done is the opposite. They have gone from ②—>①. The problem with doing that is that you can’t distinguish what is appropriate from the inappropriate meanings; you can’t distinguish what was intended, from what was not intended. Moreover, they fixated only on some constituents (whilst discarding others), and accepted interpretations convenient to their own bias. Therefore, the “holistic” meaning derived differs significantly from the original text — so much so that you have missed the point.  

For clarification about Kakashi’s passage, the translator first re-translated the raw, and then explained the constituents NS fans unnecessarily nitpicked. We are doing this in order that they understand why certain interpretations are more applicable than others, with the holistic meaning in perspective. 


Kakashi: And Sakura…your feelings towards Sasuke compared to that time is different now, right?


Even though it’s the same love, those feelings are something else#.

You still love the enemy that tried to take away your life…

何があろうと好いていたサスケを切り捨てず、サスケを闇から救うのは自分の役目だと思っている 。

Not discarding the Sasuke you liked* no matter what, saving him from darkness is what you hold to be your duty.


That’s the kind, gentle girl you are.

#別のものだ (“something else”) is used in a way to mean, “it’s on a whole  different level now” i.e. it’s a word used for emphasis. Even in English you can use the word “something else” to mean just that. Example sentence: Listening to a classical music CD is one thing, but attending a live orchestra is something else.

*The “liked” here should not be misconstrued to mean that she no longer loves him. To elaborate, Kakashi is saying that Sakura is not going to throw away the old Sasuke (in her heart) that she knew and loved, no matter what. i.e. like Naruto, she’s holding on to the older and sane Sasuke in order to save him from darkness.

Okay now, with that in mind, let’s look at what you nitpicked.

I. The “same love” or “same type of love” (同じ好き)

“Whether you include “same” or not it doesn’t change. The “same” is not directed towards the content of what kind of like/love it is. It’s directed towards the word itself.”

I don’t think you need to know Japanese to understand that this is a moot point. If one is talking about the word, then they are automatically referring to the content of the word.

“(In the word love there is different content-family love, romantic love, friendship love, etc.)" 

Well, obviously. This is true even with the English word “love”. That is why context exists to shape the type of love discussed.

“To be more detailed, Kakashi’s line can be translated to “even if you call it the same (word)love/like, the type of love/like is different.”

What she feels for him is love, but the feeling (or should I say type?) of love is different.” 

This is incorrect. All Kakashi said was同じ好き (same love; “onaji suki”).  Even in Japanese, you need to add more words to “onaji suki” if what you really want to say is “even if you CALL IT love”. “Onaji suki” is just “onaji suki”. In other words, you are simply adding extra words to distract the original meaning; you are altering the original text — a big no-no for any translator.

Needless to say, I understand the underlying your argument — that Kakashi is being “paradoxical” in his statements about her love. However, this is not true. Kakashi is in fact clarifying the nature and magnitude of Sakura’s love towards Sasuke.  


Even though it’s the same love, those feelings are something else

Paradox is only valid if the latter half of the sentence is literal — FYI it is NOT. The term 別のものだ (betsunomono da) is often used by Japanese people as an emphasiser. It is an idiomatic word used to mean  “of a different level”. I will re-iterate my previous translation note so that this makes sense to you.

#別のものだ (“something else”) is used in a way to mean, “it’s on a whole different level now” i.e. it’s a word used for emphasis. Even in English you can use the word “something else” to mean just that. Example sentence: Listening to a classical music CD is one thing, but attending a live orchestra is something else.

Therefore, since the latter portion of the sentence isn’t supposed to be literal, the correct interpretation of the sentence would be thus:

Even though it’s the same love, those feelings are on a whole different level.

Adding the “the same kind of love” bit doesn’t change the holistic meaning of the sentence at all, here. It adds clarity to what Kakashi is talking about.

So, since it is clear that Kakashi is simply clarifying rather than contradicting himself here, interpreting the line as “What she feels for him is love, but the feeling (or should I say type?) of love is different.” is invalid, and completely off the mark. The latter portion of the original text is not a contradiction to the first half. The latter portion simply adds greater magnitude to the love mentioned in the first half.

 ”For example, the love you have for your friends, for your lover, or for your parents are all feelings of love. But the feeling (type) of love is different.”

As I explained in the above paragraphs, this interpretation is wrong. Furthermore, the visual context makes the nature of love discussed to be romantic, very clear. I mean, the background flashback was of a 12 year old Sakura blushing at Sasuke. The “same love” corresponds to the visual context — it is therefore valid to assume what Kakashi meant was that her love is still of the same, romantic type.

"Another translator at H&E has backed this as well:

In fact 同じ in this case would better be translated as “Still” rather than “same”. Like “it’s still love” and not “it’s same love”.”

 Wrong. 同じmeans “same”. 今だorまだmeans “still”. Get your facts straight.

In any case, I hope you can see how fixating on the constituents of the passage (particular words or word compounds) rather than the holistic meaning (even that of the sentence itself), makes one come up with grossly inaccurate interpretations of the text. One needs to consider the visual context in accordance with the overall meaning of the passage if they hope to interpret it as accurately as possible.

Context, context, con-fucking-text. 

II. Now on to the next point.

"Regarding the portion where Kakashi says, “You still feel for the person who tried to take away your life”, they say:
想い is used in contexts where you are trying to express emotional feelings. However, it is NOT limited to romantic emotion. You can use it when you express your feelings for your friends, parents, children or even hometown.
Some examples 想い is used that are not romantic:
小学校が懐かしく想う。I think about my elementary school.
ふるさとの母を想う。I feel for my mother at our hometown.
我が子の将来を想う。I feel for my child’s future.
You can use it for your friends too.
As long as you have strong emotions for that person, you can use it.”

Of course it does. That’s why context exists to help you differentiate the intended use of the word. Nevertheless, since there appears to be confusion about this word, I will quote and explain it myself.

First and foremost, the only difference between the provided initial transcript of the raw and the raw itself was the differences in kanji for omoi思い (initial transcript) vs. 想い(actual raw).

Another explanation:

『思う』→感情とは関係ない思考のときに使う。英語ではthinkとかconsiderとかguessに該 当(例:お金が必要だと思う)

Omou(思う) —> Used when involved thoughts are not related to emotions  and feelings. In English it’s usually translated as “think” or “consider” or “guess”. E.G. “I think I need money”. 

『想う』→感情(特に愛情)を文字で表したいときに使う。英語ではbe in loveに近い(例:彼女を想う=I’m in love with her.)
Omou(想う) —> Used to convey emotions (especially emotions of love) in writing. In English, the word “be in love” is pretty close. E.g. “I’m in love with her”. *

*NB: Especially in cases where想う is used between a man and a woman, the romantic connotations are strong. Like in the above example sentence, if you say:
[someone]を[想う], it means I am [in love] with [someone]. 
Now, as I said before, context shapes what type of emotions or feelings are conveyed with想う. So let’s sit down and consider where Sakura fits the bill.

Does Sakura feel for Sasuke as a parent, child, hometown, or platonic friend? If you are literate and have good memory, you will know that Sasuke doesn’t fit any of these categories. Sakura has been romantically loving Sasuke throughout all of the manga (all of part 1 e.g. chapter 181, and all of part 2, e.g. chapter 540). Furthermore, the visual context of this passage (flashback of 12 year old Sakura blushing towards Sasuke) should make it clear that Kakashi is thinking about her romantic love towards Sasuke.

Therefore, with this context in mind, the most valid and accurate translations for the following sentences that contain想うare:


Kakashi: And Sakura…your (romantic) feelings towards Sasuke compared to that time is different now, right?


Even though it’s the same love,(romantic) those (romantic) feelings are on whole different level.

You still (romantically) love the enemy that tried to take away your life…

Kakashi in this last sentence actually directly states that Sakura is still in love with Sasuke.

Recall that: [someone]を[想う], it means I am [in love] with [someone].

Literally, this is:
[The one who tried to take away your life] still with you are [in love]

Now put that into a coherent sentence and you get:

You are still in love with the one who tried to take away your life.

As you can see, Kishi is being extremely clear about the nature of Sakura’s love. So much so, that there’s no longer room for doubt (at least, for the non-delusional readers).

I will quote my translator’s Japanese-speaking friend to make this even clearer:

You use one(思う) more generally/everyday, but another one(想う) is more poetic to evoke more imagery. You see it [the latter] used a lot in song lyrics and poems for that reason. So when you use that particular kanji (想う)for someone’s feelings AND taking in the context of Sakura->Sasuke, it’s very much romantic love/feelings. Like, it couldn’t be clearer.

“Again, this is backed by another translator:

It’s more logical in the sense of the sentence to say that it means “consider” you still consider the one who tried to kill you, meaning she still have some esteem even towards someone who tried to kill her.”

Completely and utterly wrong, because this tones down the romantic and deep connotations that is present in the raw text. See above explanation.

“Regarding why SS fans thought the script is pro-SasuSaku:

Because they interpreted it to be that way. In the end the only difference is the 同じ好き and it was proven for not meaning it’s the same kind of love (pure romantic love). And because in their translation they translated “same/similar/ still love” into “same kind of love”, so of course everyone believed Kakashi said Sakura loved Sasuke in the same way.”

Wrong. See the first section, titled: The “same love” or “same type of love” (同じ好き).


It’s unbelievable that they ignored the 好いていた. It’s a past tense for like/love. Even in English, if it was written “loved” in a sentence, you wouldn’t interpret that as still in love with you?”

Gross misinterpretation of the text and shallow understanding of Japanese. 好いてい た is not supposed to be interpreted individually. You are supposed to interpret it as好いていたサスケ (“the Sasuke you liked”). This is because this portion is a relative clause.

Japanese sentences can be very dense in the amount of information it entails, and this is often done through the use of relative clauses. 

Relative clauses are when you have a noun that is specified by a preceding nominalised verb, or group of other nouns, etc.. 

Let’s look at a simple example. Say the noun is “Tom”, and the verb is “running”. Sure, you can put the two into a sentence as: “Tom is running”. But, that’s rather a simplistic sentence, and you can’t really do much to it, right? That’s why, modifying the sentence by nominalising it can add complexity to the sentence in order that you can add further content to it. So, let’s make the sentence into a relative clause now:

Tom is running —> The Tom who is running

Notice how now, the whole clause acts like a noun.
If this still isn’t clear, I’ll quote a site that explains with Japanese examples:

“For example, consider the sentence: “The person who did not eat went to bank.” The “did not eat” describes the person and in Japanese, you can directly modify the noun ‘person’ with the clause ‘did not eat’ just like a regular adjective. This very simple realization will allow us to modify a noun with any arbitrary verb phrase!

Here are some examples of direct noun modifications with a conjugated noun clause. The noun clause has been highlighted.
1. 学生じゃない人は、学校に行かない。
Person who is not student do not go to school.
2. 子供だったアリスが立派な大人になった。
The Alice that was a child became a fine adult.
3. 友達じゃなかったアリスは、いい友達になった。
Alice who was not a friend, became a good friend.
4. 先週医者だったボブは、仕事を辞めた。
Bob who was a doctor last week quit his job.

Verbs clauses can also be used just like adjectives to modify nouns. The  following examples show us how this will allow us to make quite detailed and complicated sentences. The verb clause is highlighted.

1. 先週に映画を見た人は誰?
Who is person who watched movie last week?
2. ボブは、いつも勉強する人だ。
Bob is a person who always studies.
3. 赤いズボンを買う友達はボブだ。
Friend who buy red pants is Bob.
4. 晩ご飯を食べなかった人は、映画で見た銀行に行った。

Person who did not eat dinner went to the bank she saw at movie.” 

I hope it’s now clear that好いていたサスケ(“the Sasuke you liked”) acts as one whole noun. Think of how 1 + 1 gives the “meaning” of 2. No matter how much you try to argue, a simple 1 will never equate to 2. You need both 1s for it to make any coherence in the 1+1=2 equation. Likewise, you cannot obtain the intended meaning if好いていたandサスケare not compounded to好いていたサスケ.

If you consider the holistic meaning of the sentence, it will be more apparent that what is implied by好いていたサスケ is not “you used to like Sasuke [i.e. no longer love him]”. Rather, it’s simply referring to the state or psychological condition of Sasuke that Sakura liked — the old, sane, good Sasuke from part 1. “Liked” is in past tense purely because the current Sasuke isn’t the same as the one from part 1.


Not discarding the Sasuke you liked* no matter what, saving him from darkness is what you hold to be your duty.

Re-iterating the point with the previous translation note:

The “liked” here should not be misconstrued to mean that she no longer loves him. To elaborate, Kakashi is saying that Sakura is not going to throw away the old Sasuke (in her heart) that she knew and loved, no matter what. i.e. like Naruto, she’s holding on to the older and sane Sasuke in order to save him from darkness.


"So it looks as though MangaPanda’s translation is correct, which makes sense because they tend to give a more direct translation from the raw. The only reason why SS fans are losing their shit is because they are ignoring the context and thus misinterpreting the dialogue. No surprise there.”

MP’s translation connotes Sakura moving from a crush to full-on romantic love. It’s you people who are grossly twisting the raws through needless compartmentalization, decontextualization, and discarding of relevant terms. One needs to process the holistic meaning first, before looking at the individual constituents. That includes the sentences themselves. You need to see how they fit within the passage overall. There is a step-by-step logical explanation that loses meaning when contextualized.

On a side note regarding Viz, since it’s hilarious how NS tries to shit on paid, official translators.  Viz translated the chapter in a way English readers could understand the actual intention/meaning (aka context) of Kakashi’s words.  That’s why they used different words. Again, English and Japanese are fundamentally different languages. Viz did not use the literal wording because they wanted to convey the real meaning to readers.

Have a nice day! :)


HE TRIES TO IMPRESS MIKASA BY SAYING HES STINGY WITH GAS USAGE ON HIS 3DMG can you imagine him at a club like “hey baby wanna know my annual salary” or “wanna know how much i saved on groceries this month” and every person he talks to just walks away from him without looking back even once

jean was arrogant in the beginning of the series bc he was kind of doing that stupid thing where he wanted to impress The Girl and also bc of eren (the two cases are connected of course) but hes not usually like that 

also another instance in which jean is a dork: he tries so hard to keep the potato joke alive and even sasha doesnt even give two shits about it jeans a pathetic meme loving fuck hes a DORK FROM THE VERY CORE AND I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY OTHER INTERPRETATIONS

anonymous asked:

I don't want openly LGBT+ characters in my novel because it wouldn't make sense (some characters are LGBT+, but it's never relevant and not mentioned in story). However, I'm afraid my novel will get a lot of hate for not having them represented and, if I mention afterwards that there are LGBT+ characters, I'll be accused of baiting. My editor said to leave the characters as they are, but I'm so worried, I can't write a thing anymore. Any advice?

I’m going to preface this by saying that you can write whatever you want, and if your editor says keep it, and you’re happy with what you’ve got, then keep it. The below is food for thought.

So you’re saying there are LGBT+ characters in your story, that are never stated as being LGBT+, and this is because their sexuality is irrelevant and you don’t want them openly LGBT+ because it wouldn’t make sense.

Are there reasons for this? Legitimate reasons that are in no way hand-wavey or “because of reasons?” Are they aliens for whom sexuality is a non-issue? Are they progressive future humans who have resolved all issues of gender identity and sexual identity and live in an enlightened age? Does personal identity not exist in this story? I’m not saying that all stories with LGBT+ characters have to revolve around their identities, because obviously it’s just one facet of them, but it’s still a facet. And not an unimportant one.

Why are they LGBT+ at all, if it’s never mentioned in the story? I’m being serious. Keep in mind: Telling us Dumbledore was gay in interviews after the books have been published isn’t quite the same as explicit, leaving-no-room-for-interpretation statement that he was gay in the books themselves. One is representation, the other is open to interpretation. And unfortunately, the most widely accepted interpretations in our society are of the cishet variety.

TL;DR: My big question is, what exactly is keeping you from having openly LGBT+ characters in your novel?

Like I said, food for thought.

- Allie

This is a thing I posted on Facebook and just copy and pasted so here you go

(also disclaimer I am not referring to the entire fandom, just the vocal minority of immature children who were involved)


I’ve been reading more into the zamii070 (who I will refer to as Paige) drama in the Steven Universe fandom and am starting to more fully understand the situation. And boy, is there some complex stuff going on here. And my final take on the matter is this: I understand why people were upset with the artist in question, I just don’t think they went about expressing their concerns in an acceptable way.

If you don’t know about the drama, here’s a quick summary: in Steven Universe, there are plus-size characters. A fan artist, Paige, drew these plus-size characters as skinny. The fandom went bat-shit crazy and sent her death threats and abused her until she eventually attempted suicide. She is currently, I think, recovering in the hospital.

Steven Universe is a show that celebrates diversity and acceptance. It explores a wide variety of body types, gender expression, and types of relationships. Diversity in media representation is a super important thing, and it is extremely validating when marginalized people find a popular character that they can relate to.

So when fans represent the character in a way that erases some of this diversity, I understand why people can get protective and act hostile towards the fan in question. Whether it’s taking the character who is happily and unapologetically plus-sized and drawing her skinny, or whitewashing a character that the fans have interpreted as black (even though the Crystal Gems do not have race, as far as we know, but that’s an issue for another day), it’s definitely a slap in the face to members of those marginalized groups who look to these characters for representation. The media is already chock-full of skinny, white, cisgendered, heterosexual characters, so why bother messing with the characters who do not have those qualities?

I believe in freedom of speech, on both sides. I fully support the artist’s right to interpret a character however they damn please, even if it goes against the commonly accepted interpretations within the fandom. On the other hand, I also support the fans who do take issue with erasure, whitewashing, etc., and wish to criticize artists. Artists are free to create art, and critics are free to criticize. Artists need to understand that while they are free to interpret characters however they want, an interpretation that is problematic in nature will be criticized. And critics have to understand that, problematic as the art may be, the artist has the right to make it (as long as it doesn’t delve into illegal territory like child porn, of course).

And I would have no problem with the criticism of Paige’s art if it was just that: criticism. But it’s not just criticism. It has escalated to bullying. Death threats. Harassment to the point where this poor girl attempted suicide. All because a small portion of the fandom so strongly disagreed with her interpretation of a character that they were willing to cause physical and emotional harm to the artist.

And when the creators of the show spoke up in support of Paige, the harassers basically said, “If you don’t take our side we’re not gonna watch your show anymore,” to which I say, good riddance. And the worst part? They still show no remorse. They still believe they were fully justified in how they treated this girl.

So, do I support Paige’s decision to draw the characters the way she did? On a personal level, no. I think issues like fat erasure and whitewashing are serious problems that need to be addressed. Despite this, I think she should have every right to interpret the character as she pleases without putting her health at risk. And the fact that people are essentially willing to kill someone over a children’s cartoon is really, REALLY messed up.

anonymous asked:

Is it wrong that I'm mad they made felicity the villain in this ep? Everyone agreed with oliver's lie, everyone except for felicity. they've made her look bad on purpose. she's getting so much hate just because she was upset she was lied to. i don't understand why ppl can't see that.

You can interpret however you want the show, nobody is forcing you to accept other people’s interpretation, but like I don’t see in any way the show vilifying Felicity? Parts of fandom and fuckboys probably will, but the narrative of the show itself didn’t.

Hell, the way they built the discovery wasn’t vilifying Felicity, actually they just highlighted how fucked up was Oliver’s actions (Thea, Malcolm and Barry knew before her), he actually acknowledged he fucked up because he chose to not let Felicity in. Oliver didn’t even try to mend the situation during the removing the ring thing, because he understood the dimension of his fuckup. Felicity actually spelled out she couldn’t marry him, if he couldn’t be entirely her partner. The writers gave all the reasons why Felicity taking a break of her relationship with Oliver was in her right. It’s not their fault people twist everything and love to hate on women cause they hurt their fave male - regardless of fave male epically failing. 

What the writers did and you seems to have misinterpreted is that Oliver hiding about having a kid was something she could get over as it wasn’t something as terrible, especially as he was respecting baby mama wishes.

House, M.D.: Allison Cameron [ESFJ]

OFFICIAL TYPING by Charity / The Mod.

Extroverted Feeling (Fe): Allison has a dynamic, warm personality, oriented toward putting patients and their family members at ease. She is so gutted at the thought of giving bad news that she can freeze up; she may lie to the patient and give them false hope “for a few hours of happiness, because if he’s dead tomorrow, none of it will matter.” She often gets on House’s case for his rudeness and has no problem calling him a jerk to his face. She’ll go out of her way to wish him happy birthday or get him a Christmas present. Allison sometimes says whatever she is feeling or is on her mind, without thinking about how it might impact her coworkers (an innocent remark about sex has Chase reeling for an entire episode). She is very insulted to learn House hired her for her looks, rather than her intelligence – but mollified once he explains that it shows her determination to be taken seriously that she took the hard route of medicine instead of relying on her looks to get ahead in life.

Introverted Sensing (Si): She trusts House almost completely – he has been right so many times in the past, Allison automatically assumes he will be right this time. She is very attentive to details, and argues with him when he brushes over symptoms or more obvious diagnoses that explain what is going on. She sometimes sticks to her own diagnosis because it fits “all the details.” Allison has no problem doing the legwork involved in being a doctor – the research, the testing, the pouring over of medical books. Her own experiences, like losing her husband to cancer, influence how she interacts with her patients.

Extroverted Intuition (Ne): When throwing out possible solutions or related illnesses, Allison has no problem coming up with alternatives or solutions to explain problems in patients. She can change course very quickly; she doesn’t stick to any single interpretation, but is willing to accept other people’s ideas as equal to hers. She treats them with the same respect as her own ideas. Allison is good at sensing what is going on with House’s emotional state, although she doesn’t always come right out and say it to his face until he puts pressure on her.

Introverted Thinking (Ti): Her angry outburst over realizing that House hired someone else for his juvenile record, which leads to their discussion about him hiring her for her “looks” (he’s kidding, mostly), reveals she’s a little sensitive about her logical detachment and thinking process. She places a lot of emphasis on how she was “almost” the top of her class in medical school, showing she knows logic and good grades are important, but she’s analytical enough to know she wasn’t “the best.” Allison tends to look into things deeply, searching for the cause just as much as the solution.

anonymous asked:

Maybe you can help me understand something you identify as Catholic but you seem support of gay right and marriage but the Bible and the Church is clear on Homosexuality it's a sin to be condemned (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27. Now I don't understand why anyone who calls themselve a Christian would ignore what the Bible has to say on homosexuality as a Christina myself I can't understand why you would ignore what God says

1) The vast majority of modern-day Christians, as Gentiles, don’t fall under the Law of Moses, so I’m not convinced that citations to Leviticus are appropriate.  (Also, “as one does with a woman” seems open to narrower interpretation, given how women were treated at the time.  >_>; )

2) As far as Sodom is concerned, it’s a pretty big stretch to apply a situation concerning the rape of guests (who were given specific protections as guests, hence Lot’s willingness to do literally anything to avoid harm coming to them) to people thousands of years later who are in mutual agreement about what they want to do.

3) My understanding of the quotes from Romans and Corinthians is that both instances were referencing specific historical context involving idolatrous worship through sex.  The words used there are, at the very least, not fully understood and hence open to interpretation.

4) Marriage itself is a completely different institution now than it was 2,000+ years ago in a number of other ways.  It seems entirely natural that an institution designed to reflect mutual love between equals might require different considerations than one that was used as a way to create alliances between families and usually ignored the preferences of at least one of the participants regardless of whether they had any interest in people of their spouse’s sex.

5) In the context of the present, it’s entirely possible to interpret the Golden Rule to demand acceptance of who others choose to marry (since most everyone would have others accept their own decision in that regard!) in a way that might not have been true 2,000 years ago.  (Interpreting “as one does with a woman” through the lens of the Golden Rule is certainly suggestive of a narrower interpretation, by the way.)

6) Imposing one’s religious understanding of marriage onto a political institution that looks nothing like the religious equivalent in a number of ways anyway seems counterproductive and unlikely to do any actual good.  (What would one actually accomplish by denying non-Christians the right to marry same-sex partners?  It’s not like they’ll suddenly stop sleeping with same-sex partners or consider your position worth listening to just because you have political power.)

…in other words, ignoring is entirely unnecessary.  Texts – particularly translated texts – are open to multiple interpretations, and it seems valuable to take societal context into account when determining which one to choose.