‘It was these records that brought the Grey Pilgrim to us. I first saw him when I was a child, and he has been twice or thrice since then.’

‘Mithrandir was lost!’ said Faramir. ‘An evil fate seems to have pursued your fellowship. It is hard indeed to believe that one of so great wisdom, and of power—for many wonderful things he did among us—could perish, and so much lore be taken from the world.’ 

‘…Mithrandir never spoke to us of what was to be, nor did he reveal his purposes. He got leave of Denethor, how I do not know, to look at the secrets of our treasury, and I learned a little of him, when he would teach (and that was seldom).

‘He is not as other men of this time, Pippin, and whatever be his descent from father to son, by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him, as it does in his other son, Faramir …’

‘The board is set, and the pieces are moving. One piece that I greatly desire to find is Faramir, now the heir of Denethor.’

In the night he was wakened by a light, and he saw that Gandalf had come and was pacing to and fro in the room beyond the curtain of the alcove. There were candles on the table and rolls of parchment. He heard the wizard sigh and mutter: ‘When will Faramir return?’

Gandalf it was that last spoke to Faramir ere he rode east. ‘Do not throw your life away rashly or in bitterness,’ he said. ‘You will be needed here, for other things than war.’

this is very important to me

anonymous asked:

would you rather have a sword, axe, or a flail?

I feel like I’d be less likely to accidentally hurt myself with an axe bc my motor skills are not the best? Also, since this might be a wood chopping axe we’re talking about it also has the added benefit of being designed for something that isn’t killing people, so it’d be more useful to have around.

November Writing Round Up

So the plan had been to do nanowrimo in November. That lasted until November 8th, when I stopped writing for a week. But I still made some good progress in the month. Here’s what I got done. 

  • - 34,024 words written for the month. 
  • - posted two chapters of Pragmatic Dreams and a chapter of Scattering Grief
  • - finished up most of the prompts in my inbox (only 2 left!)
  • - wrote chapter 28 and half of chapter 29 of Scattering Grief
  • - wrote chapter 5 and part of 6 for Pragmatic Dreams
  • - wrote chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Form 5763W (Jorgan/Wynneth wedding fic)

I’m really pleased with that output. Not as much as I hoped, but these things happen. Let’s talk December, aka hell work month. Last two years? I didn’t even write in December. But I’m 21k away from my yearly goal, and I really want to hit that. So I’m going to do my best to write 21k. Here’s the breakdown

  • - write 21,000 words
  • - post two chapters of Pragmatic Dreams and one chapter of Scattering Grief
  • - edit chapter 25 and 26 of Scattering Grief
  • - write chapter 29 of Scattering Grief
  • - write chapter 6 and 7 of Pragmatic Dreams
  • - write chapter 4 and 5 of Form 5763W
  • - finish the prompts in my inbox

My word count goal for 2016 was 200,000 words and I’m only 10% away. Fingers crossed!

They would warn you about me. They should warn you away from me. If they care about you, in the slightest, they ought to ensure you don’t get caught up in my whirlpool. It’s been 30 years in the making, so it’s bound to be one hellava whirlpool.

Well, are you going to stand there and ponder the implications? Are you going to listen to them? Are you going to take a breath, shut your eyes, strengthen your resolve…and walk away?

Could you do that to yourself?

I’ve always been impulsive and I’ve made tremendous effort to be a little bit more pragmatic. Such tremendous efforts nearly always end up in wrestling matches, rigged with impulse to win by pulling the rug from under my feet and plunging face first into stupid decisions.

And you’re still standing there, reading me, deciphering the tells and the tales. I figured by now you’re either going to make a run for it or take the plunge.

You simply cannot stand at the threshold forever.

/ keith being so damn resourceful and never wanting to waste anything. he won’t waste stuff and it’s impressive how much he can and will actually abide by this principle. he is very practical and pragmatic with this and he will use things up until they absolutely cannot be used any longer. and will stretch things way beyond that point a lot of the time. when people would’ve usually thrown something away or deemed it pointless to try and keep using, he’s still pushing it to the limit. 

and then when that time is over, he will rework and use these things for something else, combine them to make other useful things or fix other things with the stuff. 

i mean his table is literally some kind of board/slab thing being held up by a bunch of blocks (that aren’t even stacked the same way up or in any kind of order for gods sake keith) for makeshift table legs. keith is So Resourceful. 

You have to make a decision. When my teams are playing pragmatic football, and winning matches and winning titles, you say that is not right and nice. When my teams, like now, play very very well. There is a huge change in relation to the past 2 or 3 years. Now you say that what matters is to get results, it doesn’t matter what…So you have to make a decision.
—  José Mourinho

I guess a part of me just doesn’t buy May opening the Darkholm? It seems like a bit of a plot contrivance to me, because someone had to to move the plot forward with Aida?

Shitz totally makes sense, because he helped HYDRA get to Maveth, but just because May doesn’t always follow Coulson’s orders to the letter doesn’t mean she’d do that? Especially after almost dying because of the ghosts, which were caused by messing with the book? Endangering thousands of lives?

May doesn’t seem that irresponsible, more pragmatic, but they are possibly suggesting she was having a breakdown? So, okay, let’s actually talk about it, and not just use it for a plot contrivance and never bring it up again?

anonymous asked:

not judging, but you dont seem political online. do you is useful to talk about queer struggles without being political, or talking about the politics involved?

Hi, this is a strangely broad ask for a short question. When you say ‘political’, do you mean I’m not reblogging posts about Trump or the Tories? Or posting links to petitions and the likes? If you scroll back far enough in this blog, you’ll see I used to do quite a bit of that sort of posting and you wouldn’t be wrong in pointing out that it’s slowed down. There’s two main reasons for this.

The first is quite simple and pragmatic - I became self-employed as an illustrator again at the start of 2016 and this blog serves as my main website and portfolio for clients now. That means when people visit the blog, I need them to see my art, workshops and other projects first. I started a separate blog where I reblog art and other inspiration (another thing you’ll have noticed has slowed down on here) and another for resources centring on abuse, trauma, anxiety, cptsd etc.

Having a platform to share resources with survivors and another to share the work of artists I admire feels worthwhile to me. If a survivor finds those resources, there’s a decent chance I’ll be able to help them there and then. Whether that’s as simple as a new writing or breathing exercise or as significant as naming a condition or providing a helpline during a crisis. And sharing artists work, when credited to them, creates traffic on their blog in the same way people sharing my work would create traffic on mine. This in turn can lead to sales, commissions and so on.

Now I’m not saying that ‘political’ posts (in the sense outlined above) aren’t relevant, important or useful; they are. But the second reason I’ve consciously decided to limit my posting of this kind is simply because I don’t feel as if the effects of me posting in this way are anywhere near as tangible as posting mine and others’ work, or gathering resources for survivors. Is that a good reason to stop? Maybe not. I know that sharing information is important, representation is important, building communities of similar-thinking people is important and so on.

That being said, I’m one human being. And one who is easily overtaken by anxiety and despair at the state of things. I’m no less engaged with what’s happening in the world just because it doesn’t appear on my blog. Rather, I’ve chosen to focus my energy on the people in my life rather than posting into the void (read: the 600 or so followers I have). For example, being someone to talk to, offering practical help during difficult times - being useful in a way I can measure, rather than losing myself in the enormity of systemic problems that I’m largely powerless to solve; or at least, that posting on my blog won’t solve.

The next part of your question is curious though, as I think talking about queer struggles in any fashion is political by its very nature. We still live in a homophobic world. The support, respect and safety of queer people in the UK alone, not to mention the US and elsewhere in the world, is taking a nose dive. The reasons for this are intrinsically linked to the same political power structures oppressing POC, immigrants, disabled people and all other minorities. I choose to speak about queerness in my work as it applies to my experiences, rather than attempting to speak for someone whose experiences I have no way to fully understand.

People can make a sport of showing how political they are by devoting a lot of time and energy to cultivating blogs full of the petitions, protest photos and horrifying news stories in the world and to some degree, that can be useful. The information needs to be shared and the more people it reaches, the better - sort of. For me, it’s a fine line between sharing information I think is important and burning out by being saturated in it. When we’re burned out, we’re useful to no-one, and I’d rather be present for the people in my life than for strangers on the internet. If you have the resilience to do both, then I have a lot of respect for you. But I’m far too anxious a person to keep it up for long.

As a side note, I think celebrating queerness is just as important and political as addressing queer struggles. The work I’ve been doing with Black Lodge Press and my band FOMO this year has felt defiant in its positivity, and it’s definitely upwards-looking, forwards-moving queer art that I gravitate towards for strength during dark times. So maybe I also need to defend myself somewhat against the claim that my blog isn’t very political. I think it is political, but only in the ways it can be most effectively. The rest of it tends to happen off-screen.

Sorry if the blog or this response disappoints you though, anon. I’m sure there are lots of other blogs who can provide you with the content you need, minus the effort of having to message and ask why it isn’t there in the first place x

anonymous asked:

What are five things about your character that no one (or not many people) knows?


  1. Reed struggles a lot trying to find a balance between the law, doing what’s right legally and what he considers to be right in the given situation — such occurrences have become more readily apparent since coming to Ashkent. As such, this tends to make for a more neutral stance in regards to discussion but he is more inclined to take a pragmatic approach in the actual situation. I think he would sacrifice his job as like the ultimate extreme if it meant morally doing what he considers to be right and just (and there are a few examples of him already doing this). So his morals and behavior has been called increasingly into question intrapersonally. He is loyal to the law and respects it but understands that things don’t work as ideally as he’d like them to in Ashkent.
  2. Struggles with his fear and fascination with firearms. No one really knows that except for Veronica, at the moment. He likes them and dislikes them, sometimes he gets along with them enough to be able to do his job as a CSI and an officer, others he detests them and their existence. It’s a very complicated relationship with feelings and thoughts that conflict and overlap.
  3. Probably has tried to make contact with his father (assumed, by Reed, to be in South Korea) during his early and mid-twenties but was unsuccessful. Hasn’t made any attempts since.
  4. Has given consideration to a commitment ceremony or something of that nature, as well as a future where he could have children. I think he thinks about that from time to time especially as he gets older (“nearing his prime”) and wonders what all of that would be like, and also because he recognizes that his society sees these as milestones and there is this pressure from society (and his mother) to go through with it. (Him being asexual also gets thought about a lot as well, what his boundaries are and etc…) Reed is largely content with his working lifestyle and caring for two dogs (though that can sometimes feel additionally strenuous, especially during times where he’s pulling overtime at the station and can’t be home often to be with his dogs; he fears that casts him as potentially neglectful when he doesn’t want to intentionally be as that goes hand-in-hand with abandonment and leaving/quitting/giving up for him, and Reed is very dedicated to what he gives all of his heart to, almost to a point of complete loyalty), but he has thought numerous times about a future where things like that could happen and if he actually would go through with any of that if given the chance.
  5. Birthday is April 20th and will be turning 34 in 2017!

An interesting thread about the discursive function of “waslike”.

Technically speaking, I wouldn’t say that this construction is really a compound verb “waslike”, because it still conjugates like you’d normally conjugate the verb “to be”. (I’m like, you’re like, s/he’s like; I was like, you were like, s/he was like - not I waslike, you waslike, s/he waslikes.)

The linguistic term for it is quotative “like” and there have been several academic papers about it, including this early one from 1990 and this extensive survey of functions of “like” by Alexandra D’Arcy.

17 things (other than grammar) linguists know about language. And so should you. #lingchat

Languages are not a simple matter of grammar. Any language policy must consider what is known about language from the fields of pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and cognitive linguistics. These are the key aspects of what we know about language collected from across many fields of linguistic inquiry:

  1. Every sentence communicates much more than just its basic content (propositional meaning). We also communicate our desires and beliefs (e.g. “It’s cold here” may communicate, “Close the window” and “John denied that he cheats on his taxes” communicates that somebody accused John of cheating on his taxes. Similarly choosing a particular form of speech, like slang or jargon, communicates belonging to a community of practice.)
  2. The understanding of any utterance is always dependent on a complex network of knowledge about language, about the world, as well as about the context of the utterance. “China denied involvement.” requires the understanding of the context in which countries operate, as well as metonymy, as well as the grammar and vocabulary. Consider the knowledge we need to possess to interpret “In 1939, the world exploded.” vs. “In Star Wars, a world exploded.”
  3. There is no such thing as purely literal language. All language is to some degree figurative. “Between 3 and 4pm.”, “Out of sight”, “In deep trouble”, “An argument flared up”, “Deliver a service”, “You are my rock”, “Access for all” are all figurative to different degrees.
  4. We all speak more than one variety of our language: formal/informal, school/friends/family, written/spoken, etc. Each of these variety has its own code. For instance, “she wanted to learn” vs. “her desire to learn” demonstrates a common difference between spoken and written English where written English often uses clauses built around nouns.
  5. We constantly switch between different codes (sometimes even within a single utterance). Think about what is going on in a sentence like “The Joe said unto Karen.”
  6. Bilingualism is the norm in language knowledge, not the exception. About half the world’s population regularly speaks more than one language but everybody is “bi-lingual” in the sense that they deal with multiple codes in their language. They may seem like very close but for a child without much familial academic background, entering school and learning to read may feel very much like a foreign language and they often need the same sort of support learners of second languages need.
  7. The “standard” or “correct” English is just one of the many dialects, not English itself. It is not something other dialects diverge from, it is their linguistic equal.
  8. The difference between a language and a dialect is just as much political as linguistic. An old joke in linguistics goes: “A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.” There is no standard measure or universal definition of one language as opposed to another.
  9. Language prescription and requirements of language purity (incl. simple language) are as much political statements as linguistic or cognitive ones. All language use is related to power relationships. Language purists often just parrot half-remembered rules from school and personal peeves.
  10. Simplified languages develop their own complexities if used by a real community through a process known as creolization. (This process is well described for pidgins but not as well for artificial languages.)
  11. All languages are full of redundancy, polysemy and homonymy. It is the context and our knowledge of what is to be expected that makes it easy to figure out the right meaning. Speakers always use context, expectation and all kinds of inference to figure out the intended meaning.
  12. Language speakers have many tools to figure out what a statement is about other than just listening or reading carefully. In a dialogue, people use something called ‘conversation repair’, they raise their eye-brows, ask 'Sorry’, etc. With written texts, they use reference materials, highlight, bookmark, look things up in an index, etc. All of these strategies are a part of their language competence.
  13. There is no straightforward relationship between grammatical features and language obfuscation or lack of clarity (e.g. It is just as easy to hide things using active as passive voice or any Subject-Verb-Object sentence as Object-Subject-Verb).
  14. It is difficult to call any one feature of a language universally simple (for instance, SVO word order or no morphology) because many other languages use what we call complex as the default without any increase in difficulty for the native speakers (e.g. use of verb prefixes/particles in English and German)
  15. Language is not really organized into sentences but into texts. Texts have internal organization to hang together formally (John likes coffee. He likes it a lot.) and semantically (As I said about John. He likes coffee.) Texts also relate to external contexts (cross reference) and their situations. This relationship is both implicit and explicit in the text. The shorter the text, the more context it needs for interpretation. For instance, if all we see is “He likes it.” written on a piece of paper, we do not have enough context to interpret the meaning.
  16. Language is not used uniformly. Some parts of language are used more frequently than others. But this is not enough to understand frequency. Some parts of language are used more frequently together than others. The frequent coocurrence of some words with other words is called “collocation”. This means that when we say “bread and …”, we can predict that the next word will be “butter”. You can check this with a linguistic tool like a corpus, or even by using Google’s predictions in the search. Some words are so strongly collocated with other words that their meaning is “tinged” by those other words (this is called semantic prosody). For example, “set in” has a negative connotation because of its collocation with “rot”.
  17. All language is idiomatic to some degree. You cannot determine the meaning of all sentences just by understanding the meanings of all their component parts and the rules for putting them together. And vice versa, you cannot just take all the words and rules in a language, apply them and get meaningful sentences. Consider “I will not put the picture up with John.” and “I will not put up the picture with John.” and “I will not put up John.” and “I will not put up with John.”