Scream AU with supernatural/magic elements.
Billy's murders functioned as a blood sacrifice, but he dies before he can claim his rewards. His mother taught him all he knew about the hidden world within their own, of magic and demons and the power of blood. She knows that when the enlightened die without redeeming their owed prize, it's granted to their next of kin. Mrs Loomis thinks this is her. She seeks to use it to take revenge, certain it will keep her safe in her quest, that it will protect her in the end. It doesn't.
Sam is born enlightened, blessed by the darkness, by the blood that coats her family line. Her father is mostly absent, an unwilling parent forced into the role. Her mother is a mess, too young to be a mother, sometimes too drunk to function. They learn about prayer on the tv, and one night she gets down on her knees and prays, she begs for a friend, for someone to love her, to not be alone.
It gives her a sister.
Her sister is hers, will love her like no other, will understand and accept her in ways that no others can. Her sister is a part of her, of her soul.
But to be blessed is also a curse. The enlightened are shunned, sought after, hunted and hated. Those who know know, and those that don't feel. Sam gets her wish, but in doing so damns her sister to a life of darkness as well. She never realised how much loving someone could hurt.
20 notes
·
View notes
thinking about doing a month-long event for the homestuck tumblr community to encourage people to make + post fanworks as well as reblog other people's fanworks.... where people can opt-in by being randomly assigned one of two teams (probably red and blue) so that each team has roughly the same amount of members. teams get points for making fanworks and having their posts reblogged, which encourages people to make posts and also reblog the posts made by their team members. and the top 3 people in each team to get the most points get some kind of reward... hmmmm
220 notes
·
View notes
Ignore the arm ignore the left arm ignore it ignore it ignore it I spent an entire day on it and now I am deciding to leave it in my dark twisted past DONT LOOK AT IT
jon kind of closeup + Martin unclouded yay
291 notes
·
View notes
bitch, noun: this is a misogynistic slur to me and i hate how casually and widely it's used, though i recognize and respect that other women may have a relationship with it that is different from mine.
bitch, interjection: this has become a more or less neutral way of expressing alignment and/or a term of affection in many dialects, but i don't use it myself. too close to the noun.
bitch, verb: clearly derived from the noun and with negative rather than neutral or affectionate connotations. despite this, the verb bitch doesn't really bother me for some reason. however, i still mostly avoid using it because otherwise i feel like a total hypocrite.
bitchin', adjective: absolutely baller word. 10/10. no notes.
18 notes
·
View notes
There is this whole idea that flipping a two sided coin doesn't have a 50-50 probability. It's not a new idea by any means, but the explanation is if you measured the mass of the coin, the force of the flip, the temperature of the coin & of the room, the force of any breeze, wind, or vibration in the air as it traveled, and so on, you could accurately determine within a small margin of error what side the coin will land on every time, and if you kept those constant it would flip on the same side every time. And that idea is also KIND OF the explanation for the conclusion in quantum physics that there is no free will.
A lot of people hear that and either clutch their pearls, roll their eyes, or aren't interested either way. (I mean, when you say some shit like that you're just going to immediately turn off any interest most people would have otherwise had but I'm digressing now). We all like to think we make decisions and choices, and then amateurs who want to talk about quantum mechanics alienate everyone by saying it's not true: you were always going to make these choices with no chance to make the other one.
But what I said in the first paragraph is something-like (but not exactly) what it means when you hear or read that according to quantum physics we have no free will. That if we had an unfathomable device that has been measuring all the variables of every single particle that was expelled during the Big Bang, with an also-sufficient/also-currently-unfathomable algorithm to plug those variables into, all within a computer that could do all of the calulations for BILLIONS of years, we could compute exactly where every particle was going and where it would end up, including those that make up the stars and planets, that make up the ground and oceans, that make up the animals and plants, that make up your brain and all of the proteins and neurotransmitters. That if it could all be measured and an algorithm sufficiently built then the decisions you make are already determined by the ongoing relationships and interactions the particles that make up your brain had in the past and are having right now.
However, humans cannot measure that, they likely never ever will.
Anyone that tells me they don't like quantum mechanics because something something affront to nature blah blah "they" don't believe in free will, etc. literally doesn't know it's just a rescale of the coin toss description. You still believe coin tosses are 50-50 because you aren't going to measure the variables used to receive an answer, you can still believe in free will because you can't measure the variables used to determine the ultimate path of all particles; I mean, I wouldn't become a theoretical physicist if that meant so much to you but I'm not your dad, do what you want.
Edit: I know I described the science mostly wrong, please check out the replies and reblogs for others' corrections and feel free to add corrections of your own for mine and others' learning, thank you.
105 notes
·
View notes
saw someone on twitter say "one of the main characters in a loki show should have been thor odinson, not some random Sylvie or Mobius.
...... It's like a written law"
wdyt do you agree
I don't think it was necessary to make Thor a main character in a Loki show, the same way it WOULD be possible to throw together a Thor movie without having Loki be a main focus.
The issue comes in the quality of the narrative itself, and writing that if evidently without intention to care for (whichever) main character's importance will not work out. Neither the Loki series nor Thor 4 cared about the arc, motivations, history, or continuity of the titular characters beyond trying to make the media marketable.
Overall messaging can add a layer to the impact a story will have. Musical score can be a bonus way to control tone or tie a story together. Supporting cast can be vital to tell a good story. Prioritising their presence over anyone's (especially Loki's) characterisation is what the Loki series suffered from, not that other, original-adjacent characters were there.
16 notes
·
View notes
i still think the funniest possible outcome of the steddie height difference back and forth is ultimately the truest one where they are almost exactly the same height looking each other right in the eye when making out and both of them refuse in the deepest depths of their souls to admit it for absolutely no reason at all and they are like constantly getting back to back in every possible scenario and making an increasingly larger and larger group of people measure them like two little kids. and eddie would also like insist he's grown more every time and the day steve decides to actually pull his shoulders back and stand up straight for the first time in his life and eddie has to kill himself again
58 notes
·
View notes