Tumgik
#thinky thoughts
realtacuardach · 1 year
Text
One difference between the Lord of the Rings books and the Peter Jackson films that I find really interesting is what the hobbits find when they return to the Shire.
In the books, they return from the War, only to see that the war has not left their home untouched. Not only has it not left their home unscathed, battle and conflict is still actively ravaging the Shire. They return, weary and battle-scarred, to find a home actively wounded and in need of rescue and healing. All four launch themselves into defending their home and rousting those harming it, and eventually succeed. But their idyllic home has been damaged, and even once healed, is never quite again the Shire they set out to save.
In contrast, in the Jackson films, they return to a Shire shockingly untouched by the horrors of war. The hobbits of the Shire talk, in the Green Dragon in Fellowship of the Ring, about not getting involved with issues "beyond our borders," and it seems those issues have not invaded their sanctuary. After having been bowed to by kings, dwarves, elves, and men alike at the coronation in Gondor, their only acknowledgment upon returning home is a skeptical head shake from an older hobbit.
One of the most poignant scenes to me in Return of the King (and there are a considerable amount) is the scene where Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin are sitting in the Green Dragon. The pub patrons bustle around them, talking loudly, clapping excitedly, drinking cheerfully, just as they had in the beginning of the story. But the four hobbits sit silently, watching almost curiously at what was once familiar but is now foreign to them. Their home has not changed. But they have.
Which is the deeper hurt? To come to your home to find it irrevocably changed, despite all you did to keep it untouched and the same? Or to return home but no longer feeling at home, because it is only you that is irrevocably changed?
20K notes · View notes
ao3commentoftheday · 4 months
Text
The thing about spoilers is, I don’t actually think they spoil things for me. That momentary feeling of surprise when the big reveal happens is fun, sure, and I like trying to figure out a mystery on my own.
But I also just really love foreshadowing? Knowing what’s coming up lets me look for all the signs that the creator is laying out for me. It’s a different kind of puzzle, and one that I get just as much satisfaction out of, if not more.
If I enjoy a story, I’ll still enjoy it even if I know how it ends. The most lasting stories we have, as humans, have been spoiled for all of us before we even hear them. Famous tales become a shorthand that we use in every day life. Learning the story of the Trojan Horse actually became more interesting as a result of understanding the phrase first.
There was a time in my life when I didn’t understand people who would flip to the back of a book to read the last page before they started the story, but I think I get it now. There’s a comfort in knowing how things end and an enjoyment in taking the journey regardless.
4K notes · View notes
purpleminte · 16 days
Text
Not me getting secondhand anxiety looking at the absolute chaos of this hypothetical discord user’s life based on these messages-
Tumblr media
This person is apparently
• Travelling internationally likely very soon
• Currently having homework for an active biology class
• At least somewhat present in the moderation of a server
• Actively involved in competitive sports
• Has an engagement or event currently planned (that is understandably being ignored)
Maybe I’m lazy or something but this is enough to make me curl up and die
2K notes · View notes
thebibliosphere · 7 months
Text
With hindsight, I probably should have realized I was polyamorous/ambiamorous sooner than I did. (And to be clear, I realized it pretty young. I just didn't have the terminology for it.)
Ignoring the fact that five-year-old me used to watch Signing In The Rain! on a loop and was already making up stories about Don, Cosmo, and Kathy all living together in Don's big house and *gasp* holding hands (maybe kissing), I was never any good at shipwars.
Like someone would ask me, "What's your OTP?" and I'd be like, "Well, I guess I like X/Y, but also Y/Z is good too..."
And they'd be like, "No. I mean your one TRUE pairing," and I'd just blink at them like, I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
I'm sure they thought I was trying to stir shit or being deliberately annoying, but I just... couldn't wrap my head around it. Why did I need to pick one thing? There were multiple options with different things that made them appealing. That's like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and just drinking water. Which is fine! If water is all you want, great. But you don't get to go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and judge people for eating different foods...
And when I eventually found out multi-shipping was a thing, I was like, "oh neat, that's what I do!" and while there was a definite feeling of having found my people, it was weird having the moral judgment from other people who seemed to think multi-shipping was a symptom of a greater moral character flaw. Like my inability to settle on just one thing meant I was more likely to cheat irl.
This wasn't helped by the fact that I... kinda already didn't care about monogamy? Not the way my friends did. I didn't mind that my then-boyfriend liked Sarah, too. What I minded was that he went behind my back and kissed her when he'd told me I couldn't kiss anyone else.
It was the betrayal of the agreement that hurt. Because we'd agreed. He'd asked me to be exclusive with him, and I did. And then he... didn't. And my friends couldn't grasp that.
It was all, "How could he kiss someone else?!" and my chief complaint was, "Why didn't he tell me first?!"
Anyway, if I could go back in time, I'd tell teenage me, you're not weird and amoral, you're just queer, polyamorous, and have ADHD, lmao.
6K notes · View notes
brightwanderer · 5 months
Text
The more I think about hbomberguy's "Plagiarism and You(tube)" video essay the more I'm struck by a couple of his insights in particular regarding why people plagiarise - specifically, the combination of disdain for the people they steal from and entitlement to the things they steal.
Which has arranged itself into my head as: there is a kind of person who sees art - all art, including a witty one-liner or an essay on queer themes - as A Shiny Thing That You Put On Your Shelf So People Can Admire It And Compliment You On Owning it. When they see that Shiny Thing on someone else's shelf, they make a judgement on whether or not the creator deserves to have it. Is the shelf big enough? Fancy enough? Is the Shiny Thing being Properly Displayed?
And if the answer they come up with is "no"... well, then obviously it's fine to take it and Properly Display It. I mean, it's WASTED on that small-time creator who nobody knows about, right?
1K notes · View notes
stagefoureddiediaz · 20 days
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
So these pictures are gonna be an end of episode Eddie reassuring Buck that nothing will ever come between them isn’t it - it’s the I love you to the core scene.
This is the shift in things that we’ve been waiting for and need - because Buck getting jealous is gonna push him into looking at why he’s jealous.
Is it next week yet?!
690 notes · View notes
isagrimorie · 4 months
Text
The more I dig into the Voyager rewatch, and the more I see Janeway is giving in more and more to the Valkyrie she's always inside. The more intriguing Janeway is. I already think she's great but digging deeper into Janeway is amazing.
I keep thinking of how Janeway holds on to the Starfleet regulations and it makes me think of that Doctor Who quote and how she fits the description to a tee:
"Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many."
I feel this is Janeway -- she has rules for a reason, she's not evil but she also knows she can go very, very far.
Janeway has been through a brutal border skirmish in the conflict with the Cardassians. She downplays it but, how Kate Mulgrew, it feels like there was a lot more there.
Tumblr media
She ranked up from Lieutenant, not because of being a Science Officer but because she's a decorated vet in a bloody siege, where they won.
As we've seen from Sige of AR-558 and the episode in Strange New Worlds ground combat is a whole different beast from ship-to-ship battle.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
(Tom looks like a zombie in the last one btw)
Also, IMO, she's one of the more inventive tacticians in Starfleet-- the way she used the torpedoes in Year of Hell as a mine was amazing!
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
That's a great naval tactic shit. Hot girl navy.
But also, Janeway fits so much the Doctor Who, Good Man Goes to War rhyme:
Demons run when a good man goes to war. Night will fall and drown the sun, when a good man goes to war. Friendship dies and true love lies, night will fall and the dark will rise, when a good man goes to war.
It's also true of Janeway that when the three people that form the basis of Janeway's mental health died and/or became very sick, Admiral Endgame Janeway happened. And then she destroyed the Borg.
Janeway needs rules for a reason.
/edited
853 notes · View notes
ditzycowgirl · 9 months
Text
I’d like to put my 2 cents in about tarot readings. It’s like a weather forecast. What may be true now will likely be subject to change later. For an example: a reading about your love life today will be drastically different than, let’s say, two years ago. Even if you’re in the same situation more or less. The future is in your hands. You are in charge of your destiny.
650 notes · View notes
minecraftbookshelf · 4 months
Text
At some point I'll be able to fully articulate my Thoughts about how Mumbo Jumbo's only previous Life season was also the only one where reds were explicitly forbidden from maintaining their old alliances and how he immediately turned on the other Mounders when he became red in Secret Life.
Of course he turned on them. He's never seen the loyalty of a red and their greens/yellows. He's never gotten the chance to.
246 notes · View notes
madlori · 1 year
Text
Yes, criminals need rights.
So I move in a lot of true crime communities. I’ve been a fan of true crime since, oh, 1980 or so (so enough with this “oh this brand new true crime trend” which has in fact been happening for hundreds of years). 
Sometimes there are opinions there which...trouble me.
Mostly when people express frustration about the rights of the accused, how rigorously they need to be defended, and the wish that criminals just had no rights and we could do whatever we want them.
Stop. That’s BAD.
But what about the rights of the victims and their families?
Here’s a hot take: the rights of the accused - and even the convicted - are more important.
Not because criminals, or those accused of crimes, are widdle babies who need protecting and we want to make things easy for them. That is not the reason.
We have to vigorously defend the rights of the accused, not for their sake, but TO PROVIDE A CHECK ON THE POWER OF THE STATE.
Lemme say that again.
THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED MUST BE DEFENDED IN ORDER TO CURTAIL THE POWER OF THE STATE.
If you are going to give the state the power to punish, to restrict someone’s liberty indefinitely, or in some states take their life, then you better make fucking sure that the rights of the people at risk of this are being defended to the utmost extent of the law. The state can never, never assume that it will be easy to throw someone in jail. It must always know that it will have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, respect the rights of the accused, and that the accused will be defended by people dedicated to that purpose.
If the state starts finding it easy to throw people in jail, or mistreat them during that process, you are handing it a tool to use against its political enemies. Which might at some point include you.
Should an honorable state require such countermeasures? Ideally, no. But the Constitution was written by men who understood the need for checks on governmental authority, and the right to incarcerate or execute citizens is one of the most dangerous rights the state has. 
So the victims and their families have rights, of course. But they are not the ones facing the state’s punishment. Their liberty or life is not in jeopardy.
If someone has committed a crime and the state needs to exercise its right to punish them, they should do so. But only after a rigorous process. Yes, it’s frustrating. Yes, guilty people walk free. Yes our emotions sometimes make us want to just see them hurt, damaged, or violated. But as they say, don’t ever hand the state a weapon it could use against YOU.
The state must have the hardest job in the room when someone is facing imprisonment or execution. That’s why their rights are important.
2K notes · View notes
thoughtfulfangirling · 2 months
Text
One of the coolest things, looking back, at Gargoyles is that it was a kid's show that featured a cast of adults. I never really thought about how unusual that is. One could argue that Brooklyn, Broadway, and Lexington are like teenagers, but even if we do, they take a backseat to the main character of Goliath and often enough Elisa, our main human character who is absolutely and entirely treated as an adult.
And I was not bored at all with that! In fact it made adulthood interesting in a way I hadn't really conceptualized it in the past if I ever thought to really consider it at all. And I just, I really like that about it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
162 notes · View notes
realtacuardach · 9 months
Text
One of my favorite takes on Frodo, and why I value him so much as a character: unlike so many central characters in fantasy, he was not a Chosen One.
Instead, he was the One who Chose, and that made all the difference.
2K notes · View notes
ao3commentoftheday · 6 months
Text
managing creative envy
Just like in other areas of our lives, it's easy to be jealous of others when we create in fandom spaces and post online - the online aspect of fandom just offers more opportunities for it. Hits, kudos, comments, reblogs. Whatever unit of measurement you look at, there's always some number out there ready to tell you who's "better" and who's "worse" at whatever creative endeavor you engage in.
Except that none of those numbers actually gauge skill or quality.
When we're jealous of those numbers, what we actually wish we had isn't bigger numbers, it's attention. Reassurance. Excitement. Community. Whether the number is 5 or 5000, that's what it represents. We want those things and that other person has more of them, and so we end up jealous.
To manage that jealousy, we need to understand what we need and then find ways to get it. It might not come from posting on AO3, but maybe it comes from a local writer's group. Maybe there's someone in your life that you wish cared a little more about your "silly stories" and took you more seriously when you spoke about writing. Maybe what's missing isn't related to writing at all and it's more about having someone who cares about you and thinks you're important.
But numbers are just one thing to be jealous of. Perhaps the envy is instead because of another person's abilities. They come up with such interest plots! They have such fun ideas! They always have the perfect words, the singing phrases. For them it's easy, and for me it's just impossible!
Whether it's easy for them or not isn't what's making us envious, though. It's not about them and their abilities at all. It's about feeling like our own skills are lacking. The envy comes in because that person has what we want and don't yet have.
If we want to get past this type of envy, we need to refocus our energy away from being sad or angry or hopeless because another person is able to do something. Focus instead on celebrating the things we already do well. Take the time to notice improvements. Identify specific things we want to do better, and figure out how to learn. Remember, asking for help is always an option - and it might even lead to that feeling of community that might be lacking too.
Emotions are information that we need to take the time to interpret. Take the time to reflect on what's causing it. Find the thing that's missing from your experience and then figure out how to fill the gap.
4K notes · View notes
curiouscarnifex · 2 years
Text
There's a post with two gifs showing ASL signs for abortion going around, unfortunately while correct the second sign and information along with it was added by a terf.
So here's the original video by glassmenagerie on TikTok where they explain the two signs for abortion, the issues with one, and go over the signs for immigration as well because there's a similar right vs left wing sign difference.
Edit; I know how important captions I need them and there are captions on the original video, Tiktok glitched and removed them when I shared the video;
Please reblog this version with the script added
3K notes · View notes
brightwanderer · 2 years
Text
There’s a paradox in Bram Stoker’s handling of bigotry in Dracula. The narrative seems like it wants to stand up against the classism, sexism, ableism etc on display by the white men, but the vibes are… not great? It’s confusing sometimes how Stoker seems to be both condemning and reinforcing these attitudes.
I think I’ve figured out why that is. At the heart of all this bigotry is the basic idea that these “civilised” white men are the highest form of human being, and that everyone else is less than. The “peasants” of Transylvania are less than, ignorant and credulous. Women are less than, emotional and fragile. A madman is barely human at all. The clever men of England do not have to bother listening to those who are less than.
And the narrative punishes them for it! Jonathan ignores the fear of the locals and is trapped with the Count. The men dismiss and exclude the women, and so Lucy and her mother die and Mina is left vulnerable to attack. Seward treats Renfield like a funny animal that does tricks and so fails to grasp the significance of his attempted warning. Stoker is clearly challenging this belief that people who are less than can be safely ignored.
But. I think what’s happening here is that Stoker is challenging the wrong part of the belief. He is not, in fact, trying to say “actually, these people are not less than”. He’s saying “yes, of course they’re less than, but you should listen to them anyway”. He’s not saying “actually you shouldn’t sideline women because they are our equals”, he’s saying “actually you shouldn’t sideline women even though they are not our equals”.
Which is fairly progressive for a Victorian man, but LIGHTYEARS from actual equality.
2K notes · View notes
stagefoureddiediaz · 20 days
Text
The whole thing with Ryan and Oliver constantly talking about buck and Eddie getting closer than they’ve ever been - stronger than ever etc pairs with a jealous Buck episode is only leading in one direction - there’s literally no where else this can go
238 notes · View notes