#not sure how to interpret this into a profession

[neroushalvaus]

Okay I am going to use the Somerton situation to talk about something that is very important to me. Following the discussion I have seen former Somerton fans being disappointed in themselves and questioning how they can ever trust another video essayist again. I have also seen some people being smug because to them Somerton was obviously unreliable from the start. As a person who also saw the "red flags" in Somerton, I would like to skip the smugness and talk a bit about what the red flags were to me.

Someone else has probably posted something similar and Hbomberguy's & Todd in the Shadows's videos touched a few of these points, but they didn't focus on them or how to spot these things. I think it is a good thing: I think it would have reinforced the idea that Somerton's fans were to blame for being lied to, and these youtubers didn't want to pin any blame on the fans. Also, some of the things I'm going to talk about were not by any means proof of him being unreliable, they were common tropes I personally associate with people who are bullshitting on internet. Think of it as something like spotting terfs: If you consider following a tumblr user and find out they have at some point posted "males will always be a danger to females no matter what they say", it is very possible that they are not a terf. Maybe they were having a bad day and were just wording their post badly – But you should probably search "trans" from their blog before following them, just to be sure.

So, the tropes in James Somerton's content that I consider red flags:

Lack of sources. This one may seem obvious and Hbomb talked about this in his video, but the lack of sources in his videos was outrageous. Video essays are called essays for a reason, they are not supposed to be just a guy talking about whatever comes to his mind, they should be well researched essays. Obviously video essays should contain one's own thoughts and interpretations and those do not need citations. But James Somerton didn't come out of the womb knowing everything about LGBT history, Disney and film theory, if he actually knew something about all this stuff, he should have learnt it from somewhere. There should be sources he could point to. It is very common that even when a video essayist doesn't tell you where they got all their information, they open their video by saying stuff like "when I prepared for this video I read the book Also sprach Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche and this one thrilling blog post about lesbian cruising in 1960s Sweden". From what I've seen, James does not really do this. From watching his videos you could arrive to the conclusion that James Somerton does not read any books, he just knows everything. There are situations where people don't feel the need to add sources, like when the information is considered common knowledge or when the topic relates heavily to the essayist's actual academic field or profession. This is okay and very understandable, but can sometimes be dangerous, since if the video essayist markets himself as a marketing specialist, people are more likely to take his word for stuff that has to do with marketing, even without sources. It is understandable that in many situations an essayist may think "why should I cite a source? I know this thing!", but doing your research well is partly about checking if the information you are certain of is actually true. Also, as Hbomb pointed out, if you can cite a source, your audience can go learn more about the subject. It's not about anyone doubting you know your stuff, it's about learning. That's why well-respected video essayists usually cite their sources very clearly.

Lack of pictures and screenshots. This is about different kinds of sources again, many things on this list are kind of about sources. An example: When James Somerton made a video about JKR, he mentioned something about Rowling at one time saying that trans students in 30-50Feralhogs (or whatever the wizard school is called) could use magic to present as their gender. If this was any other video essayist, you'd expect a tweet to pop up, or something else confirming Rowling ever said this. Nothing pops up, obviously because Rowling didn't say this, but you can't see anything fishy in that because things rarely pop up in Somerton's videos. He doesn't show you court documents when speaking about a court case, he doesn't show you the comments apparently mad at him for implying the gay anime is gay when he is complaining about people being mad at him. There is a reason people show screenshots and tweets in video essays. When a good video essayist says JK Rowling has tweeted that all people who menstruate should be referred to as women, the video essayist shows the tweet so people know they are not making it up. If there were hoards of annoying bitc-- I mean, angry white women whining about gay sex in HuffPost articles or Somerton's youtube comments, he should have no trouble showing you those. Remember that you should not trust someone just because they show you pictures or screenshots. Pictures can be photoshopped, screenshots can be doctored. Many youtubers are aware that you listen to their videos while cleaning or while walking your dog and don't actually see the screen all the time, and some may take advantage of that by saying something like "and here she threatened to kill me" while showing a text message where someone said "die mad about it". A screenshot alone isn't much but you should demand to see the screenshot.

Passive voice. I am once again bitching about this. Somerton repeatedly says things like "it's been said that" or "it was common knowledge that" or "a legend says that" or "according to most interpretations". He doesn't say who says it, making it very hard to fact check and that seems to be his goal in some cases.

Relying heavily on anecdotes. Writing a dense, analytical video about film theory or history can be exhausting and you may want to pepper in little fun facts. However Somerton seemed to rely on these heavily; he can't just talk about how he has totally bought every lie told by The Pink Swastika, he also needs to tell a cute little anecdote about SS men forcing sexual favours out of men. He can't just tell a story about a court case, he needs to add in ridiculous stuff about the jury booing. This is what I mean by not all the things on this list being necessarily proof of someone being unreliable. Many people use anecdotes and little stories in their storytelling, it makes the videos flow better and it's hard to decide which anecdotes are valid and which are not. A source obviously makes an anecdote a bit more believable, but here are some things that instantly make me fact check an anecdote:

It's a bit too convenient, poetic or ironic. Sometimes real life is weirder than fiction but if an anecdote is "perfect" and has an amazing punchline and you could write twelve poems about it, there is a possibility it was invented by pop science books.

It assumes your political enemies are stupid. Dunking on conservatives, MRAs and transphobes is always fun and after you've seen a lot of this kind of content it's easy to believe anything about these people. You must resist the impulse to believe everything that may make your opponents look stupid.

The person telling the anecdote implies it is an example of a larger, systemic problem. You know what's worse than taking a random happenstance from human history or internet and basing an entire political theory on it? The said random happenstance being made up. You should in general be wary of people telling one story and explaining why it's an example of everything that's wrong in the world. We live in a huge world. You can always find a white woman who loves cute gays but hates the idea of Nick Heartstopper and Charlie Heartstopper getting nasty but that doesn't mean it's an indicator of a larger issue.

Simplifying complex issues. We all know that "only the boring gays survived the AIDS crisis, and that's why gays started to only care about marriage equality and military" is a horrible, insensitive thing to say, but you also have to think about it for like two seconds to realize that it can't be correct. It kind of reminds me of the "roe v wade caused the crime drop of 1990s" claim in Freakonomics. It sounds logical and simple, like a basic math calculation. Societal issues rarely are like that, though. You should never believe anyone who tells you about a huge societal shift and says it happened because of one thing and one thing only.

These were some of the things I noticed in Somerton's content that caused me to distrust him. I hope these were helpful to you and feel free to add your own "red flags" if you feel like it!

#phew. maybe that's enough salt for one day. #james somerton #hbomberguy #todd in the shadows #edit:// embarrassingly many mistakes in the original post. in my defence i have a fever and english isn't my first language. forgive me #edit2:// made the text bigger!

[middle-earth-mythopoeia]

There are so many posts that are like "Tolkien making Éowyn a healer at the end of LOTR is sexist, it's like forcing her back into a woman's role" and it's so frustrating. By all means criticize sexism in LOTR but can we PLEASE recognize that the most prominent healers in LOTR are male? You know, like Elrond. And Aragorn. There's all that stuff about how the hands of the king are the hands of a healer and THAT is how the people of Minas Tirith recognize Aragorn as their king. It's also not entirely clear from what Éowyn says that she intends to go into medicine. What she says is, "I will be a healer, and love all things that grow and are not barren." The other thing we know is that she and Faramir turn Ithilien into a "garden." It sounds to me like she became a healer of the earth, a gardener basically, not a physician. It's a bit vague and open to interpretation. In any case, I get very tired of these posts that are like "It's so sexist to make Éowyn a healer!" Guys. Healing isn't a gendered profession in Middle-earth. And you can bet Tolkien knew a lot of male doctors during WWI so I see no particular reason for him to consider it inherently women's work OR anything lesser. On the contrary, I am sure Tolkien held healers AND gardeners in the highest esteem. It's kind of a theme of his books.

#Eowyn #LOTR #my writing

[itsclydebitches]

We've all rightly been gushing over Trent listening in on the parent-teacher conference and there are a lot of cool interpretations for why he'd eavesdrop: a crush on Ted, a tendency towards gossip (as seen in "International Break"), the fact that you just can't take the journalism out of the boy, Trent is clearly picking up personal tidbits for the book if the group's initial "Don't print that" worries are any indication, etc. So yeah, it's clear why he'd want/be okay with the door staying open.

Meanwhile, I'm slightly feral over Ted letting the door stay open and what that conveys to Trent.

Based on what we've picked up about his personal life and the direction of this season, we have good reason to believe that Trent was a deeply isolated man prior to Ted arriving. His job makes enemies simply by virtue of the profession itself, especially when you "bring the heat" as hard as he did. Roy flipping the press off at the gala in Season 1 and Nate sneaking out at dark this last episode shows us how journalists are treated on the regular: ignored, dismissed, told to "fuck off" as a matter of course. That's often well deserved, as Roy's two personal stories (Trent's article about him + the response to Isaac's attack) attest, but the end result is still a profession that alienates you from anyone other than your peers. When you're a "colossal prick" in your articles, people hate you all the more.

So Trent at least has other journalist buddies, yeah? Well, not that we've seen. I always think back to that chorus of "--The Independent" in the press room when everyone knew what Trent was going to say and how it... wasn't entirely fun ribbing. I think there's a fair bit of mockery there. Even if others disagree, I doubt that was received well by someone who wears their professionalism as an armor, who takes off his glasses as soon as they're complimented, who was, notably, closeted into his 40s. Trent is a man who is deeply aware of how others perceive him (pointing out his "vibe" feels quite calculated now: highlight what you want people to notice rather than waiting for them to find something on their own) and he is likely to read the worst of most interactions. Cue his shocked, "You really mean that, don't you?" when faced with someone like Ted who is not only genuinely nice, but blunt about it in a way that Trent can't misunderstand, or brush off via denial.

What's his home life like? Married to a woman when he's gay and that's putting a serious strain on them both. He tries to come out and isn't believed. The only other family members we know about are a toddler (who, while lovely I'm sure, can't provide Trent with the kind of emotional support an adult needs) and a father who, if we read the series through Lance's headcanons, may not have been very supportive of his son. Who else does Trent know? Uhhh... other subjects who hate him? Owners like Rebecca who want to use him? A random, potential date that he felt so little for he ditched to get a quote?

(EDIT: I can't believe I forgot to mention the strong implications that Ted was bullied in childhood/as a teenager, based on how he reacts to the whole of the club ignoring him -- resigned but unsurprised -- his reaction to Roy telling him to fuck off after he tries to mend that relationship -- disappointedly awkward "I can't believe I even tried that. What was I thinking?" -- and his body language during the locker room scene -- jumping, furtive glances towards Ted, backed up against the shower stall because shit, he's been in this situation before.

So uh, yeah. Trent may not have had a lot of friends growing up either! That was not the response of a social butterfly, but rather someone who is already very used to being ignored/dismissed/cursed out/threatened, not just within his profession, but within the school-like atmosphere of Richmond's family too.)

I'm by no means reinventing the meta wheel here, but Trent has truly undergone a STAGGERING transformation in Season 3 and the result of that is the reframing of his Season 1 and 2 scenes as, frankly, more depressing than they originally seemed. Seeing him now smiling, singing, gossiping, dressing just in t-shirts, casually snacking, making jokes, letting go enough to be a complete, hyperactive "dork" in front of others... it just hammers home how deeply unhappy Trent was before. How closed off. How closeted--in more ways than one.

So what must it mean to someone like Trent for Ted to leave the door open?

It's not just an open invitation towards community--sit near me, listen in, quietly participate, there's literally no barrier between us--but a staggeringly personal one too. I don't care if a 10-ish year old failing science is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, the fact remains that letting anyone hear a parent-teacher conference with your ex is a hell of a show of trust. That would mean a lot to Trent in general, this acknowledgement that someone trusts the ex-prick journalist with that amount of personal information, but Ted in particular? Oh boy. Ted is the one Trent betrayed with that article! And yeah, Ted forgave him the instant he learned of it, but Trent himself was obviously feeling a lot of guilt, hence him burning his source and orchestrating a firing. Toss in the fact that Ted, despite being a VERY open man on the regular (I still laugh at his "I don't mind" to Rebecca when over-sharing about Michelle) has in fact denied Trent information in the past. No, I won't tell you that was a panic attack. Yes, I will continue the lie that it was food poisoning. Perhaps for Ted it was less about Trent knowing and more about anyone getting at the truth, but at the end of the day it amounts to the same: there was a time when Ted did not fully trust him and Trent justified that fear by writing the very article Ted was looking to avoid, even if Trent approached that situation with as much grace as he could.

So this moment, beyond the humor, just makes my brain go !!!!!! for Trent. Ted Lasso, of all people, has left the door open for Trent Crimm, also of all people, to hear the messy details of his, Henry, and Michelle's life. He is not at all afraid that this information will be spun in a bad light--Local Gaffer's Son Suffers While Father Plays at Coach Across the Pond--despite the fact that Trent is actively writing a book about him. Trent himself is so unguarded in this moment, dressed only in a t-shirt, playing around with his orange, making little quips. The Trent of Season 1 would NEVER. I mean, I think we see small glimpses of the real Trent back then, especially when Ted amuses him enough to coax his guard down for half a second (Trent's reaction to “Make like Dunst and Union and bring it on, baby!" comes to mind. That's a gesture we're seeing a lot now that he's comfortable around the club), but on the whole he was still so, so, so isolated. No one knew the real him: gay, funny, dorky, inquisitive, longing for companionship and using the artificial 'closeness' of journalism to cover that ache up.

Now? Trent is fully a part of the Richmond community and he knows he's a part of it because everyone--Ted, Beard, Roy, Colin, Rebecca--are going out of their way to tell him that, notably in very overt ways. Trent strikes me as someone who wouldn't fully believe it when he's told someone enjoys his company; the kind of wounded, anxiety-prone person who, if casually invited to participate, would assume they're just being polite and he'd actually be an annoyance to them. Trent needs overt, obvious, beat-you-over-the-head-with-it reassurance, which is why Ted is so very good for him because Ted is composed of THE most over-the-top positivity you've ever seen. (Compare that need of Trent's to Michelle thinking that Ted is too much...) When faced with a defensive journalist Ted says explicitly that he liked spending time with Trent. When faced with a still unsure writer who thinks of himself only as an observer--never a part of the team himself--Ted literally begs with monkey noises to hear Trent's opinions. He's blunt to the point of absurdity and someone like Trent who has likely spent the majority of his life hiding/being told that his true self is inadequate needs that level of constant, neon-light reassurance.

So Ted leaves the door open to a personal conversation, refusing to literally bar Trent from his life. The best part? Colin re-opens the door because he understands Trent and he knows his coach; of course Ted wants him included. Colin asks permission to CLOSE the door, not open it, and Trent is seeing this openness again and again over the course of several months, with each episode bringing him further out of his shell as he slowly unlearns that self-doubt. Yes, please stay, please tell us what you think, please offer your advice, please join our Diamond Dogs, please ask us questions (they're no longer perceived as a threat), please become an integral part of our lives. We trust you and we like you and we want you here.

Everyone's waiting for Trent to catch the door again because, you know, the rule of three, but what if he doesn't need to? What if he's past slipping a hand or a foot through the crack and scraping by on what that gets him? He caught the door before it could close to get closer to Colin. He caught the door before it could close to get closer to Ted. Now they've both kept the door open for him, his presence welcomed from the get-go.

Trent doesn't need to sprint for that opening anymore.

#Ted Lasso #Trent Crimm #Tedependent #ted x trent #mymetas

[piratecaptainscaptainpirates]

I really found your meta on Ed's gravy basket Izzy flashback so interesting. I was wondering what your interpretation is of what Ed says to Izzy while he's dying. I'm not saying that Ed, Stede or the crew shouldn't/wouldn't have been upset when Izzy was dying. Ed had known him a long time, and Stede and the crew had grown to like and respect him more through series 2. But it was when Ed says something along the lines of "you're my only family" that did have me slightly confused.

Like, he just had a whole moment with Stede on the beach where he professed his love to him, and he just rallied with the crew to take down the English. So to then say that after all that Izzy is his only family?

Maybe it's because Ed still feels he has deep roots tied to Izzy, maybe because he still feels like he hasn't quite let go of his Blackbeard side, I'm not entirely sure. Maybe if he was the only remaining person left from his original crew, I would kind of get it, but Fang is still there. Though of course Izzy being his first mate does mean they would have had a closer bond, even if it was a toxic one. Sorry I'm rambling! Would love to hear your thoughts.

Honestly, in my heart of hearts, I think Ed only says that line so Izzy can respond with "Ed, you're surrounded by family." For Ed, Izzy is predictable (if not safe), and his relationship with Ed had just started to mend as Ed saw him become a safer person - it's a familiar fantasy to wishing you could see an abusive family member grow and become supportive of you. Izzy delivering that line is very important, I think, because it's such a huge constrast from how Izzy isolated Ed and acted like he was the most important person in Ed's life earlier in the show - here, he's encouraging Ed to lean on his relationships with others and acknowledging that he is not the only person who matters to Ed. In a conversation that had to be very tight, it was an easy way to get Izzy there without having Ed say something out of character or imply that Izzy is the single most important person in Ed's life.

However, I think another interesting angle of analysis takes into account how DJenks confirmed Ed sees Izzy as a father figure, and what familial relationships have been like for Ed in the past (especially fathers). Izzy is consistently contrasted with Ed's dad in s1 (like the framing of the scene where Ed chokes him for threatening him), and I like to think that Ed's thinking very literally there when he calls Izzy his only family. Izzy reminds Ed of his dad, he's the only character with whom he has that type of relationship, and he's also the only one of Ed's stand-in father figures with whom his relationship has started to mend (take Hornigold and even Pop-Pop as comparisons there). Izzy has just started to listen to Ed's feelings, encourage him to do what he wants, and support his relationship with his boyfriend. In a very real way, Ed's mourning the loss of having a father figure with whom he can have a supportive relationship.

#ofmd #our flag means death

[antiqua-lugar]

What makes me feral about Our Man Bashir is Julian looking at Garak and repeating what he means to be a spy, making Garak's words his own words. I know so many people are like "our man bashir is where garak and julian start having issues" but for me that's a very meta interpretation of the episode because we know they are not gonna appear on screen often anymore but I refuse to believe it 1) because otherwise In Purgatory's Shadows/By Inferno's Light don't make sense 2) because the episode at its very core is about Julian and Garak seeing each other completely. Julian gets to see what it means for Garak to be Garak like in real life, not in anectodes or easily hand waved issues (like the founder thing) and Garak gets to see Julian's strength and determination and steel and hope when he's not being a doctor.

As I understand it right now, Garak accepts Julian by letting him take the lead and Julian accepts Garak by parroting his words to say "I heard you. I understand". It's when they deepen their relationship and become truly equals, when Garak can be open about his beliefs and for once they can have an open discussion and reach a mutual open agreement. Which is why the episode can end with them deciding to do it again but for fun. Julian is now comfortable enough to show Garak his silliest spy fantasies knowing he'll be mocked but not judged and Garak can see it simply as playing pretend with a friend. It's specifically a different kind of fun from their literally discussions because in a way it's more about them as individuals while their literary discussions are about them as individuals AND as members of their respective societies, worlds and professions.

I think.

Anyway if nothing else "Julian is now comfortable showing his James Bond hologram to all his friends" is Canon and I'm pretty sure that after reading Julian's report Jadzia spent three weeks just plotting how to get to see Garak play as a spy.

#ds9 #garashir #our man bashir #otp: especially the lies

[jessicalprice]

adventures in christian opinions about judaism

(reposted from Twitter)

So a while back I started writing a thing on the trio of parables that ends with the prodigal son (which I still need to finish) and like MAN OH MAN do Christian commentators insist that Jews hate shepherds.

Like, I can't even count the number of commentaries that insist that shepherds were "despised figures" for first-century Jews and the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin were designed to insult the Pharisees by comparing them first to a shepherd and then to a woman.

So, as is my wont whenever Christian commentators make a claim about what was normal for first-century Judaism, I decided to try to hunt down their source on this.

As I've said many times, when it comes to Christian parable interpreters' claims about what attitudes/beliefs/etc. were normal for first-century Jews, get used to the phrase "no sources are cited."

I mean, first off, as a 21st-century Jew, the insistence that 1st-century Jews hated shepherds rings odd, given that <checks notes> Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rachel, all of Jacob's kids (the founders of the tribes), David, etc. were all sheep-tenders. The image of God as a shepherd is pretty consistent throughout the Tanakh. That image reappears in the Qumran texts, which as far as I know, are one of the few Jewish sources we have from 1st-century Judaea.

The term "despised" gets used a lot, so I decided to dig into that one.

When I was able to find citations, I traced them back to an 1882 commentary by a guy named Frederic Farrar.

Farrar cites Heinrich Meyer as a source for this, but when I looked up THAT citation, it's Meyer saying that shepherds were a "lowly but patriarchally consecrated class" -- in other words, poor, but with a distinguished history and status.

So that's why everyone's tossing the term "despised" around--because Farrar just made it up. But what about primary sources? I went back on the hunt.

Surprisingly, in a number of reference works, like glossaries and Jeffers's "Greco-Roman World of the New Testament," I found similar assertions about the common attitude toward shepherds, for which they cited...

<drum roll>

Aristotle. You know, the Greek guy who lived 300 years before Jesus? Definitely a reliable source for Jewish attitudes of the time.

Some people cited Philo's On Agriculture. Okay, Philo was at least Jewish and lived when Jesus would have, although he was a wealthy Hellenized Jew living in Alexandria rather than a Pharisee living in the Galilee. But okay, at least it's the right culture and time period. (The reference in Philo turns out to be talking about the section of Genesis in which Joseph's brothers come visit him in Egypt. It talks about how they were proud to be shepherds, and criticizes (gentile) kings who look down on shepherds.)

Then we've got Mishnah Kiddushin, in which a bunch of rabbis are having a debate about which professions make you trustworthy vs untrustworthy, and one rabbi lists everyone from camel-drivers to herders to barbers to shopkeepers as untrustworthy. Another rabbi comes back and is like, nah, all those people are fine upstanding folks; it's doctors and butchers you've gotta watch out for. So they're citing one cranky dude with a LONG list of people he doesn't like, who immediately gets shot down, as evidence of the normative attitude for Jews about a century earlier.

Oh, and we've got a citation of Midrash Tehillim which says that God-as-shepherd doesn't have any of the failings of humans-as-shepherds, which... sure. Also, it was codified in the 1300s?

The most compelling citation is from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 25b), in which the rabbis discuss who's qualified to be a legal witness. They exclude shepherds, because shepherds graze their animals on other people's land, which some of the rabbis see as a type of theft.

The Talmud is a record of debates, but this passage definitely makes it sound like this is a majority opinion. (It should be noted that the passage disqualifies all KINDS of people, from those who lend with interest to those who fly pigeons, as having conflicts of interest.)

But the important thing here is that the Talmud includes records of debates from as late as the 4th or 5th centuries CE (300-400 years after Jesus's time), and the passage makes a point of noting that the disqualification of shepherds as witnesses is a later development.

So in other words, the idea that the Pharisees hated shepherds and would have been insulted by Jesus telling a story in which the protagonist was a shepherd is based either on Greek attitudes that are 300 years too early or Jewish ones that are 300-400 years too late.

But people will twist themselves into citation knots (or just not bother citing a source at all) to insist that this was a common attitude so they can position the Pharisees as hating those charming humble shepherds and their fuzzy little lambs.

As to WHY this idea seems to be so important to them, well, you cannot read about Luke 15 without encountering the word "outcast" roughly 90 times per page.

The framing is Jesus was friend to The Outcasts while the Pharisees despised The Outcasts and the Lost Sheep, Coin, and Sons are all parables about accepting The Outcast.

Never mind that neither the sheep, the coin, nor either of the sons got kicked out of their communities. The sheep wandered off, as sheep are wont to do, the coin was lost by its owner, and the younger son decided to leave to go on a spending spree while the older son declined to attend the welcome back party for him after his dad managed to hire a band and caterers but never thought to let his own son know what was going on and he had to find out from a hired hand.

Moreover, the term "outcasts" gets used as a synonym for "tax collectors and sinners." Tax collectors were usually pretty well-off because they ran a protection racket for the Romans. Outcasts? I mean, I guess? But hardly in the "marginalized and powerless" sense.

As far as "sinners," the NT doesn't usually bother telling us what, exactly, they did to "sin," but on the rare occasions when it does offer that context, it's almost always wealthy people.

But why talk about that when they can present the objection the Pharisees had to Jesus's dining with "tax collectors and sinners" as the Pharisees despising lowly outcasts, and insist that the Pharisees hated the idea of such people repenting and returning, and so Jesus was tweaking their noses by comparing them to shepherds and women.

As if, you know, teshuvah wasn't something the Pharisees were ALL ABOUT. If you want to actually understand, consider that the iconic tax collector in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector shows no inclination to STOP being a tax collector.

The objection wasn't you're having a friendly dinner with poor lowly outcasts for whom we have contempt. It was you're having a friendly dinner with people who are extorting their neighbors on behalf of the invaders who kill us for looking at them funny and have expressed no intention to stop doing that.

Now, there's a good discussion to be had about whether shunning Trump lawyers and Marjorie Taylor-Greene donors or inviting them to dinner and trying to win them over with compassion is more effective, more ethical, more compassionate (to whom?), etc.

But presumably we can see why people of intelligence and goodwill might disagree on which of those approaches is the right thing to do, and why such people might might object to the strategy they don't agree with.

But what really gets me is that Christians have the utter fucking NERVE to paint the Pharisees as inhumanly awful for not wanting to have dinner with tax collectors while viewing Corinthians as Holy Writ:

I mean, Paul's all YOU MUST SHUN ALCOHOLICS AND PEOPLE WHO ARE GREEDY and Christians are like yes, that makes sense, but if the Pharisees are like, no, I don't want to have dinner with that guy who narced on my cousin and got him crucified, Christians are like, they're monsters.

Cool, cool.

Anyway, this has been your weekly edition of Christians Need To Stop Just Making Shit Up About Jews And Then Citing Each Other Like It's Fact.

And there were a lot of "I've never heard anyone say Jews of Jesus's time hated shepherds..." responses: Maybe you haven't, but that doesn't make it uncommon.

Sources in which I've found it:

Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary, Society of Biblical Literature, Tyndale House, NIV translation committee)

Jared Wilson (professor at multiple Baptist seminaries)

Stephen Wright (Spurgeon College (British evangelical college))

Arland Hultgren (Luther Seminary (ELCA))

Kenneth Bailey (Presbyterian/Episcopalian)

Joachim Jeremias (Lutheran, cited EVERYWHERE)

Bernard Brandon Scott (Disciples of Christ, the Jesus Seminar)

Klyne Snodgrass (Evangelical Covenant Church)

Barbara Reid (Catholic Biblical Association)

That particular trope spans denominations, decades, etc. It's not a fringe viewpoint.

#christian exegesis #antisemitism #jumblr #citational politics #bad methodology #parables #pharisees #first century judaism #second temple judaism #good shepherd #prodigal son #why are christians like this?

[yumeka-sxf]

A chronological analysis on Twilight and Yor - Part 13

*This is part of an ongoing post series. If you missed the Introduction/Part 1, click here*

----------

During the episode where Anya has to give a report on her parents' work, we learn more about Yor's job as an assassin, which sheds some insightful light on the theme of moral ambiguity in the series. During an interview for the Spy x Family fanbook, Endo states that the Forgers should not be seen as shining examples of moral virtue; he doesn't think it's correct to only see their "nice family" side. And he's right of course, as both Twilight and Yor have professions that revolve around immoral things, like deception and killing. But while Twilight doesn't see those he has to kill or manipulate as "bad guys" necessarily – they're either helpers or hindrances to his missions and that's it – Yor's view is much more black and white. In her mind, all of her targets are traitorous villains, and by killing them, she can take pride in knowing that she's helping her country, much like a soldier.

While she does try to maintain some humanity in her work, like being extremely careful not to kill the wrong person and making sure her targets die a painless death, it's clear that her view of being an assassin is more straightforward than Twilight's view of being a spy. We don't yet know exactly how Yor became an assassin, but we do know that she started as a child, so it makes sense that she'd be brainwashed into a naive interpretation of her job as simply "helping her country by getting rid of bad guys" (unlike Twilight, who was an adult when he became a spy). And, as I mentioned before, she likely had to forgo a proper education because of her work, and so missed out on many real-world experiences that would allow her to think more critically about the morality of her profession. From what we've seen of her work, eliminating the "bad guys" is technically what she's doing, but we also know that there may come a time when someone she's sent to assassinate is not the villainous scum that she's used to…someone like Twilight perhaps? Just as Twilight's worldview may shatter when he realizes he cares too much for Yor and Anya to continue to deceive them, Yor's childlike opinion of her job would certainly be crushed when she realizes she's being sent to kill people who are not always the "bad guys" that Shopkeeper tells her they are.

Anya eventually decides to use Twilight's cover up job as a psychiatrist for her report. But at the end of their excursion, when she hastily puts together the sandbox exercise, we see another example of Twilight truly empathizing with her. We saw him start to take a less strict approach in the episode where she got her first stella, where he made an effort to find specific activities she would enjoy rather than continue to push her to be a scholar. But here, his reaction to her chaotic creation in the sandbox is anything but his usual standoffish attitude – he panics about how much stress she must have been under, not only from being in the orphanage, but also from being suddenly dragged to a stranger's house. He even starts blaming himself for not realizing it sooner (has he always been prone to this line of thought, or is Yor's imposter syndrome continuing to rub off on him?)

His fatherly side is forced out again not too long later when a jealous Bond chews up Anya's Penguinman plush. When Anya adamantly cries that she only wants the plush her papa gave her and won't accept a replacement, Twilight complies. He spends time carefully mending Penguinman (while Yor sits by his side watching intently, giving her full moral support. It's just like her to look that concerned as if he's performing surgery on someone, since she knows how important Penguinman is to Anya!)

Afterwards, Twilight has just the right things to say to Anya to make her feel better about the whole situation, like how honorable Penguinman's "scars" are, and even quoting an episode of Spy Wars when Bond comes over to apologize.

The Twilight that first adopted Anya and saw nothing but annoyance in her irrational behavior, would certainly not have adapted so well to the situation. Yet another example of how his skills as a father are improving, slowly but surely.

Continue to Part 14 ->

<- Return to Part 12

#twiyor #spy x family #spy family #sxf #spyxfamily #loid forger #yor forger #loidyor #loid x yor #sxf meta #sxf analysis

[mystic-ang3l]

I love bg3 and stardew! I'd love to hear/read your interpretation of some of the characters meeting eachother! (Ex: Harvey and Gale, will and Elliot, karlach and Abigail)

thank you for the request :p i LOVE this idea

these are just little blurbs of the characters meeting each other and how that would go. i chose the pairings the way i did bc i felt like they made the most sense... if you want more let me know, enjoy!!

When Harvey and Halsin met..

Harvey was initially intimidated by Halsin.

Was confused by this large mass of a man entering his clinic.

They introduced and conversated with one another, seemingly getting along.

“So you’re a doctor? How interesting… I am also a healer of sorts. As a Druid, I was gifted my powers from Silvanus, as I now protect and care for his creations, whether that be animals in the forest, or fellow companions.”

Harvey kind of stares at him for a second.

As Halsin talks about his god-given power and healing abilities, Harvey can’t help but get a bit jealous.

Why was he gifted such healing powers? He didn't have to go to medical school for years, and take all of the god forsaken exams. 

“Yeah, well I went to medical school for many years. I had to learn how to help people, and I believe in the ability to use modern medicine to help my patients. I’m not too sure about your powers, but I believe that my method of healing works as well.”

Harvey spoke more passive aggressive than he liked, realizing that his jealousy was obvious.

“Pardon me… I tend to get a bit worked up when it comes to my profession. Your gift is amazing, I wish it had been that easy for me.”

Halsin registers that maybe he was gloating too much.

The last thing he wanted to do was offend anyone, especially not someone he just met, that was similar to him.

“I apologize dearly for my accidental gloating… I had no intention of discrediting your profession. I think the way that you’re able to heal people is nothing short of astounding. I know that it’s a privilege to help others and that feeling is… unlike any other.”

Harvey lets out a sigh of understanding and feels a bit better after their miscommunication is resolved.

As no patients entered the clinic, they continued to talk amongst themselves about medicine and healing, something they both are knowledgeable of.

Once it was 3:00 P.M. and the clinic was closed, they both said their farewells.

“I’ll return again in the near future. Farewell, Harvey.”

Harvey returns the goodbye, smiling as he thinks about the return of his new healer of a friend.

When Haley and Astarion met...

Astarion was walking through the small town of Stardew, observing the area.

He walks up to a wooden board with several different flyers posted.

Some are looking for certain foods, others looking for minerals and such.

But, there was one flyer that caught his eye. It was very colorful, and definitely pink.

“IN NEED OF SOMEONE TO GIVE A MAKEOVER!! I NEED EXPERIENCE FOR MY COSMETOLOGY LICENSE. SRS INQUIRIES ONLY!”

Astarion was a bit… intrigued by this.

Why? He would never let some girl use him for makeup… right?

As he’s deep in thought, a high-pitched voice from behind him made him jump a bit.

He turns around to see a short, teenage blonde girl. She had a huge smile plastered on her face, he was kind of scared.

“Hey mister, I saw you looking at my flyer! Are you interested?”

Astarion scoffs at her.

“Absolutely not.”

Haley looks a bit defeated, but something tells her she can convince him.

“Come on! I saw you looking at it for, like, 5 minutes! It won’t take long, I just need to do one makeover for my class and I can get my license. Pretty please?”

Astarion looks at her, raising his eyebrow. He never thought he’d be in a predicament like this, and he also never thought he’d be looking forward to something like this… but he’d never admit it to a soul.

“As long as you don’t make me look like a clown, dear, I guess I can fulfill your request.”

Haley jumps up and down, squealing.

Without a chance to think, Haley grabs Astarion’s hand and drags him to her house.

She seats him at her vanity, as she sets up all kinds of things. Makeup, hair tools, everything you could think of.

Astarion looks at all of this, and raises his eyebrow.

“I thought you said this wouldn't take long?”

Haley looks at him, a playful smile on her face. 

“It wont be long! Maybe like, an hour or two…”

Astarion sighs as he realizes what he’s got himself into. Although, he’s a bit excited for what the result will be.

As Astarion gets more comfortable, he also begins to talk more.

Especially when Haley starts to gossip about her neighbors.

“Yeah, there’s a boy that lives in that house named Sam, I think he totally might have a thing for me. I see him looking at me through the window sometimes. Oh! And he has this friend named Sebastian, and he’s so emo, it’s kind of scary…”

Astarion listens to her gossip, being slightly amused by it. 

He even chimes in from time to time.

After what feels like forever, Haley is finished with the makeover.

Astarion looks in the mirror, a bit taken aback by how… good he looks?

Deep down, he loves it. He loves the way the makeup looks, and how she puffed his hair up.

“So… what do you think?”

Astarion looks at her, trying to hide his excitement.

“It’s okay, a bit chalky but it’s plenty adequate.”

Haley scoffs, as Astarion laughs. 

Afterwards, Haley makes them tea as they sit at the table, continuing to gossip about the whole town.

When Maru and Gale met...

Maru was excited when Gale showed up in her mom’s carpentry shop.

She looked at him from afar, noticing his purple robe. Was he an actual wizard? With actual powers?

As Gale is talking to Robin, Maru comes around the corner and walks up to him.

“Hi! I’m Maru, I’m her daughter”

Gale looks at her, shaking her hand.

“Nice to meet you, Maru. Your mother was just telling me about how much you like science.”

Maru looks at Robin, making a face as she hates the fact that she was talking about her.

“Yeah, my dad’s a scientist, so I’m really into that kind of stuff. Do you want to see our lab?”

Maru speaks excitedly, realizing maybe she’s too enthusiastic. She doesn’t want to scare the (maybe) wizard off. 

“Of course, lead me there!”

Maru leads him to the small lab, where there are many scientific posters and instruments.

As they talk, Maru can’t help but wonder if he’s actually a wizard.

The possibility is killing her, and she refrains until she can’t help but ask.

“Are you a wizard? Like one who can cast spells and turn people into frogs?”

Gale is a bit taken aback by her sudden question, but then laughs a bit at her enthusiasm.

“Well, yes… you can call me a wizard. I have the powers to cast spells and such… and it is possible for me to turn people into frogs, though I don’t usually have reason to.”

Maru’s face lights up as so many questions pop into her head. Could he maybe show her a spell, or even teach her? Maybe he can turn her into something…

“Can you turn me into a frog? Right now?”

Gale raises his eyebrow, a bit hesitant to answer.

“Technically, it is possible… but what if someone like your mother sees? I don’t want people to dislike me already, for potentially turning their daughter into a frog.”

Maru is a bit disappointed. She pleads to the wizard, hoping he would listen.

“Please please please! I promise I won’t tell a soul! I just want you to turn me into a frog, and then you can turn me back into a human after. It would be revolutionary!” 

Gale takes a quick look around the room, before he sighs and looks back at Maru.

“Fine… but very quickly. Do not tell a soul about this.”

Maru nods as she stands in front of Gale.

As he focuses on her, a green colored hue appears around him as reaches a hand out towards her.

The next thing he knows, there is a small frog on the floor.

He crouches down to the little frog.

“There, you are now a small little frog. Can I change you back now?”

Gale is answered with a croak.

He stands back up, and as he begins the spell to make Maru human again, Robin walks in.

“Have you seen Maru recently? I can’t find her.”

Gale looks at her, eyes widening as he tries to contain himself.

“N-no, I haven’t seen her.”

Robin nods her head, and looks around. She spots the frog on the ground.

She approaches it and picks it up.

“Well hello little frog… you must be one of the frogs that keeps escaping from Sebastian’s room… I’ll go put you back.”

Gale’s heart drops to his stomach. He decides he has to tell her that the frog is Maru.

“Wait! That isn’t a regular frog. That may or may not be… your daughter?”

He speaks, his voice slightly high-pitched as he prays she won’t scream at him.

Robin’s jaw drops, as she looks at him angrily.

It seems like Gale has a lot of explaining to do, and a spell to cast after Robin finishes scolding him.

#stardew valley #sdv harvey #sdv haley #sdv maru #bg3 #baldurs gate 3 #astarion #halsin #gale dekarios #bg3 gale #blurb #fanfic #sdv x bg3

[seandwalsh]

Is it possible that Madame Clairvoya from Luigi’s Mansion is actually a Shaman from Super Mario RPG?

I’m sure many of you are familiar with the Shamans from Super Mario RPG, which went on to play a major role in Paper Mario, Paper Mario: the Thousand Year Door and Super Paper Mario. These odd folk are are depicted as magicians and fortune tellers. Many use Crystal Balls to predict the future and guide Mario on his adventures, usually by reading the Stars.

In Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, we received some elaboration on who these Shamans are:

About Merlon on the east side of Rogueport and Merluvlee underground... Ol' Wonky hears they're from a strange tribe that names people by profession. So, for example, if someone did the same work as Merlon, they'd have the same name... So there could be Merlons all over. Don't you find that strange? Wonky does!

[Source: Wonky, Info guy, Non-player character in Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, October 2004]

Meanwhile in Super Paper Mario, Shamans became the focus of the game, where they are revealed to be the descendants of the Tribe of Ancients, a people who had magic powerful enough to predict the distant future and transfer spirits of the dead into “Thinking Tools” called Pixls.

So yeah, ever heard of an advanced civilization called the Tribe of Ancients? They were, like, a thousand times smarter than you or me.

[Source: Garson, Owner of The Underwhere, Non-player character in Super Paper Mario, April 2007]

So yeah, you meet Merlon and Merlee yet? They're descendants of the Ancients and distantly related to each other, I hear.

[Source: Garson, Owner of The Underwhere, Non-player character in Super Paper Mario, April 2007]

So do you know how the Pixls came to be? A powerful magician among the Ancients created them about 3,000 years ago. He did it by transferring a spirit into a vessel he created for that purpose. He's said to have created 12 Pixls like this before he passed away. But his apprentices kept researching Pixls after his game ended... They learned to create many more Pixls based on his original 12. These Pixls became widely used as 'thinking tools' for the grateful Ancients. Through the work of many Pixls, the Ancients prospered as they never had before.

[Source: Carson, Owner of The Overthere, Non-player character in Super Paper Mario, April 2007]

In Luigi’s Mansion, Madame Clairvoya is a fortune teller who uses a Crystal Ball to read Mario’s items and guide Luigi. Her senses from reading the Crystal Ball are incredibly similar to those of the Shamans, with both seeing locations and people from the present or near future within their Crystal Balls and interpreting what they see into advice for the heroes. It’s also stated that Madame Clairvoya can see nearly 49 days into the future thanks to her close connection to the spirit world.

Madame Clairvoya actually wears similar clothing to many Shamans, particularly Shaman women, such as long robes, a headscarf and a veil covering her mouth. While the Shamans have largely been covered by shadows throughout their appearances thanks to their outfits, they are described as humans several times in Super Paper Mario, which aligns with Madame Clairvoya’s clearly human appearance.

Madame Merlar from Paper Mario and Merlumina from Super Paper Mario both return as ghosts long after their deaths and continue to serve as helpful guides, as is the case with Madame Clairvoya.

Madame Clairvoya also describes the Crystal Ball she uses as a "symbol of [her] clan”. This clan could very well be the Tribe of Ancients, whose descendants are shown to consistently use Crystal Balls to perform their work.

Finally - and this is what really got me to consider this possibility in the first place - the Japanese name of every member of the Tribe of Ancients and their descendants follows the same naming conventions, with all of their names being a play-on-words with the addition of the endings "ēru", "āru" or simply "ru", originating from the Japanese name of the Shaman species in Super Mario RPG, "Supēru". This also applies to Madame Clairvoya, whose Japanese name is “Madamu Miēru”.

What do you guys think? Could Madame Clairvoya actually be a descendant of the Ancients? If so, this is certainly a very interesting connection from Luigi’s Mansion back to Super Mario RPG and Paper Mario, though it wouldn’t be the first!

#mario lore #super mario #paper mario #super paper mario #luigi’s mansion

[arisingonmorningsinnocent]

the sincere kindness and gentleness of this update notwithstanding, i do think you can see some undertones to this letter. as in, i think some of the messages jonathan apparently asked sister agatha to include make a lot more sense if you take them as his self-conscious attempts at proving he was returning to mental stability. like, if i woke up in a hospital in a foreign country and found out that i was brought there after collapsing dramatically in a public place and subsequently spent weeks raving incoherently about things that actually did happen, things i would never be able to prove really happened... well, i would probably be extremely careful to present myself as a generally stable person who had a one-time mental breakdown that i’m now recovering from quickly, right? so that i could go home as soon as possible without further questions being asked, questions that i would not be able to answer believably under the circumstances.

to be clear, i do think that jonathan “ultimate wifeguy” harker would jump on the opportunity to talk about how great mina is to a captive audience regardless. i do think its very in-character for him to be anxious about letting his boss/mentor down regardless. i do think he would be winning the hearts of all the nurses with his puppy dog charm regardless. i do think he would want to donate to a charity hospital regardless.

but there’s still something about the details he emphasized in the letter. I have a good job, a respectable job, and I’m already eager to return to it. I hope this doesn’t tarnish my established track record of professional responsibility! Did I mention my beautiful fiancee, Mina, who is “shortly to be [my] wife?” Also I’m back to thinking about finances and social responsibility, so when you write to her on my behalf can you make sure to ask about paying my hospital bill in advance?

like, i’m not sure if jonathan is doing this consciously or not! but i do think one plausible interpretation of his state of mind in this letter is that he’s doing everything he can to demonstrate that he’s a respectable, responsible man with legitimate, stable social ties. he’s performing membership in society, basically. so that he can go home and so that any previously professed belief in monsters/demons/vampires will be solidly chalked up to delirium.

#op #dracula daily #i hope this is coherent. i did not edit it much because i wanted to be timely #just... something about a careful performance of resepctability even with people who genuinely want to help you touches me deeply

[magistralucis]

"Kiss me." - Trazyn/Orikan (for @beril66; Necrontyr AU, R-18)

(Drabble for a prompt fill challenge, prompts available here.)

-------------------

"Well?"

Orikan's eyes flickered open. "Well what, my lord?"

"You don't think I've behaved myself so far?" Trazyn had a lovely wryness about him, not only in his smile but his attitude, his long slim fingers playing over Orikan's forehead. It was not often that he saw the Diviner unveiled, but whenever the cloth was set aside, he took great joy in the knowledge Orikan only ever did it for him. "Isn't that why you are come to join me, since I've proved myself trustworthy? No words could express how much it grieved me to sit opposite fair Orikan, merely the length of this little table away, unable to embrace or even touch him but for a fingertip."

As if to claim his due Trazyn pulled him into a back hug, nuzzling the back of Orikan's neck. His hand roamed downwards in a gentle sweep past the cryptek's chest, and Orikan thanked the gauss-lights of the sanctum that his blush would not show. "Grief is a strong word for one hour apart."

"More like two, if you count the time we took to come here. Two weeks, if you count how long it's been since we last met. So you see, the word is completely warranted."

One slender white eyebrow was raised in response. "And I suppose you feel I am at fault for your condition."

"Oh yes, it is all Orikan's fault, all the time and always." Trazyn nodded, mock-wounded. His hand came to a standstill on Orikan's lap. The Diviner let out an incredulous noise in lieu of turning to stare at him; ridiculous or not, those Nihilakh robes were very warm, and comfortable to lean against. "I wouldn't have thought the stars deigned to shine on one such as I. Clearly they do, seeing as you were drawn to me by them, and you've never left me since - fairly sure they tell on me, too, since you've figured out so much of my nonsense. Yet you never stop me. Could it be that you enjoy it too?"

The scent of the Nephrekh incense had filled the sanctum entirely. Orikan hummed in quiet contemplation. Years ago, when they were newer to one another, he might've taken Trazyn's words as a barb against his profession; against his dynasty, against crypteks, whatever was the least charitable interpretation he could slap onto a lord he found obnoxious. They'd argued plenty over this matter and a thousand others in their time. Back then it had felt natural the two scholars should be opposed, for wherever bad faith was concerned, the necrontyr had ever wanted a share of it.

But they were different people now. Life's autumn was brushing its leaves over their heads. Orikan was well-traveled now, instead of merely envying Trazyn for having done so much earlier; he'd seen how in every world the noble folk disdained stargazers, whereas the Nihilakh lord had only ever given him curiosity, as well as a quiet respect for the things Orikan could see. For all of their differences, the two of them had only ever strived for wisdom. Trazyn was perfectly aware that he was being seen, and held no resentment about it; when he'd teased Orikan about those things, he had not done it to lord his riches or his station over Orikan's head, but rather to open his heart and understand.

(Not that this had ever stopped Orikan playing coy about it.)

"Who's to say I've never stopped your nonsense?" He remarked, lifting his chin in a lofty gesture. Like most other crypteks he had a faint tan-mark there, where his false beard was bound during his official duties, and which Trazyn found so tantalizing to trace. "Or that your nonsense was ever worth stopping?"

"Ah!" Then the overlord was quiet for some time, beguiled or bested, Orikan couldn't tell. "You haven't missed my antics then, dear one?"

The Diviner smiled. "Not at all."

"Really." Trazyn looked down at him, quietly amused. And that was when Orikan realized he'd never been bested at all: unnoticed by him, the hand that had been still for so long had slipped under his robes, finding its mark where flirtation had brought his secret core to a melting point. "Because the mouth I can see and the mouth I can feel are telling me very different things."

This too was not new. In hindsight he should have expected it, but in the moment Orikan was mortified.

An angry blush rose to his cheeks. "Well aren't you a knave."

"Yes, Master Orikan, but a honest man."

This, however, made no difference whatsoever to arousal, whether the Diviner's or the overlord's. At long last Trazyn felt empowered to disrobe the suitor's mantle, and he did so right away, searching out bare flesh and the heated moisture that left his slender fingers drenched. "Should I not praise the praise-worthy? Argue, against all wisdom, that what is beautiful is not so? I may be a knave but I will not be made a liar - I want you - I've wanted you ever since you drew that blindfold about me, and took me to this secret place, unknown and unheard by those of your dynasty. For that is not the true void, is it, sweet Orikan?"

He nodded towards the ceiling. Orikan's breath caught in his throat ere he could respond, for the lord's other hand was roaming over his chest now, thumbing langorously over the linen that had peaked with the tips of his nipples; but it was true, that was not the void, or at least their void contained in their current timeline. Before Orikan had worked his sorceries upon this place, it had been a tall but sealed room, its ceiling closed over with noctilith like everywhere else in the tower. The night sky swirling over their heads now was a practice piece, of voidmancy he'd picked up from Sannet, a literal window of alterdimensional space he had brought over for the sake of open air.

That, and of utmost secrecy, for no smoke nor sound could escape this sanctum to present time. Orikan nigh melted to think of the implications. It was a good thing pre-existing familiarity was involved, for he would've been too appalled to even consider it otherwise. (Scandalous! An outrage! The master of a sanctum, overcome by his guest.) He squirmed on Trazyn's lap, his moans stuttering; the archivist held him close, intent on pleasuring both mouths; his kisses were no longer confined to Orikan's nape, but turned him insistently so that he stole the Diviner's breath at every opportunity, the scent of incense and their mingled perfumes heavy about them. His fingertip circled the small nether lips, delved smoothly into the soaking warmth, stirred Orikan to gushing point.

Panting, the astromancer broke the kiss, a thin trail of saliva joining their lips. "Orikan the Diviner begs your pardon, Lord Trazyn, pray have some mercy upon him."

Trazyn laughed. "Now what's this! Begging so early, and not even on your knees."

Yet he was merciful. He did not truly need Orikan on his knees to still his touch, if not entirely withdraw; instead he folded his palm between the Diviner's legs, protective and possessive of his modesty, and allowed Orikan to claim his breath back. "Forgive me, dear one. You are very beautiful. It's true I find you hard to resist now, but really, I feel that way all the time."

"Nothing to forgive." Orikan found their present position inadequate, and turned more decisively to touch the lord's cheek. At this adjustment Trazyn's hand slipped from between his legs, and instead found its place upon Orikan's hips, his gold-stained fingers glistening in the light. "I find you beautiful, too."

Trazyn smiled more wryly at that, and with greater disbelief. "What, inner beauty?"

"Plenty outside to spare." Orikan said, and kissed him back.

The advantages of sitting on the floor was that they scarce had to move anything to lie down. Only the sitting-table, its significance as a boundary long lost; as the scholars fell upon each other they shoved the table away, bracelets and sleeves tangling as they made room for their bodies, pulling together the cushions beneath them for a soft surface. This was it, then, it was happening. The inside of Orikan's head was all a haze, his only thoughts being the Nihilakh lord underneath him, and the delights he'd subjected Orikan to only a fortnight before.

The last time they'd done this they'd been at Solemnace. Trazyn had taken him to his chambers, in the deepest, most secret parts of his palace, and for two days they'd not seen the sun or the stars or much of anything else. The Diviner did not think they had that long now - until the Nephrekh incense was burned, at best - but he was sworn to making the experience just as memorable. He shed his outer robes. As Trazyn was collecting himself, adjusting his own turquoise robes about his loins, Orikan stood and stepped closer to him. Never mind the void, or the gauss-brazier, or the various bright glitters of his room: he was blushing all the way down to his chest as he drew aside his shendyt, exposing the dewy slit that lay between his legs, and he cared none for if he were seen. "Kiss me, lord." He said.

Trazyn gazed up at him, hazy with longing. He regarded Orikan's swollen lips, then the ones presently closer, and sat up. One of his hands closed around Orikan's thigh, the other his waist, holding him steady for the ministrations to come.

"Nothing would please me more." He whispered, then leaned upwards in worship, his lips parting to taste the other's desire.

------------

(Note: Something else that became longer and longer as I wrote. This one is definitely being fleshed out as a full oneshot, oh yes 🤩

This Orikan is not the same one in Unravel, though the physical similarities have carried over. Following from Orikan's sanctum in TIATD, I was thinking of how cryptek sancta might work in general - how strange and reality-bending these spaces might be, given what crypteks are like, while also likely being an intensely private place for them. Being officially invited into such a space would be a great honour, if not a request for intimacy. I thought about that happening in the Flesh Times, how Orikan might invite Trazyn over with the stipulation to keep his sticky fingers to himself, before the lord lays claim to the most precious thing in that sanctum anyway. 🤣 They are already lovers here, experienced and at their kindliest. Not like their dynamic as necrons at all, admittedly, but I think that's part of the fun of writing necrontyr AUs.)

#warhammer 40k #wh40k #trazyn the infinite #orikan the diviner #necrons #necron #prompt fill #drabble #this was meant to be a drabbles challenge but all it's making me do are post snippets of fics that become longer and longer #what is happening to me 🙃 #edit: temporarily removed labels to see if this changes visibility. sigh

[alpaca-clouds]

What do historians actually do?

Okay, talking so much about history so much, I will remind you once again: No, I am not a historian, I am mostly just a geek who reads a lot of books and papers about history and have unrestricted access to an university library.

But I do want to talk about what historians actually do - and what the issue with sources in terms of history are. Thanks to school and the way history of taught in school a lot of people have a very strange understanding of what historians actually do.

The issue arises from a lot of people assuming that history is a very certain thing. Again, in most normal schools history is taught like that. In school you are supposed to take whatever you are taught as gospel and without questioning. Just... memorize some "facts" and dates and that is it.

But... that is not what the profession of a historian is about. Because the historian basically has the job to construct and question history and do some analyzing.

See, here is the thing: We do know very little for certain in history. Because so many primary sources have been destroyed over time due to so many things. And those primary sources we have (primary source = something created at the time we are talking about) might in fact be unbiased. And there is also the question of what sources are the main sources that remain.

For example: For the middle ages, a lot of the sources we have are either from nobility or from the church. Because those are the places where a lot of stuff was written down. While as I said before the illiteracy of the normal folks is often exaggerated, they were most certainly less literate than nobility and also had often not easy access to parchment and ink (both of which were fairly expensive). And you have to see that most primary sources have been destroyed over time. Just because it was not preserved.

And just to stick to this example: When you are a historian, part of your job is to question whether the sources you have (which are biased towards nobility and the church) actually do paint an accurate picture of the life at the time - especially when they might talk about the lives of peasants.

And the same can of course be said about all the different eras of history. There are certain sources we have - and others that we do not have.

Additionally we also have to remember that a lot of human history was recorded as oral history rather than being written down. A lot of which is lost - just as the physical sources.

And yes, this is what historians do: Collect sources, translate sources, analyze and interpret those sources. Which is why history is changing constantly, because 1) we will find new sources, and 2) we also start to question sources we have more - and have a different outlook on history.

So, no. Historians are in fact not about memorizing some wanna-be facts and dates - but about actually engaging with historical sources and working with them.

As such, please remember: As long as we do not invent a time machine, history is not a set thing. Sure, it happened one way, but we cannot KNOW how it happened. All we can do is trying to understand what we can from the sources we have. But in the end EVERY SOURCE has a bias - and we need to understand this.

#history #historian #european history #medieval history #ancient history #schools #academia

[thegrapeandthefig]

Do you also feel that "faith" (as per the xtian definition) might be an alien concept to hellenic polytheism on some cases, amiga?

In many ways, the question comes back to the discourse around the orthopraxy of hellenic polytheism in contrast with orthodoxy.

It is alien in the sense that, unlike Christianity, there never was a formal profession of faith in ancient Greek religion and the fragmented nature of modern reconstructions don't allow for one anyway.

This will sound farfetched but I think that, when approaching this question, we need to consider the purpose of the Nicene Creed for Christians. The concept of faith (and of statement of faith) in Christianity is one that served to solve a theological conflict (cf. Arianism). The purpose was unification under a single belief: an orthodoxy.

Whereas the Greeks recognized their religion through practice. The dissonances in theology didn't matter that much. Which can very easily be seen through the many versions of myth or the different parentages gods can have from a place to another. The Greeks seem to have been very accepting of theological diversity. Pausanias is a great example of that, he will sometimes express surprise at local beliefs that he encountered but he won't consider them to be outside of the realm of "greek religion" because the rites are ones he recognizes.

I feel that maybe, we, as moderns, have simplified the term "faith" in such a way that the theological question is set aside. I think this is mostly a protestant thing, where the statement of faith is "we believe in God" (regardless of denomiation) and, unconsciously, for greek pagans: "we believe in the Theoi". Under this definition, then yes, surely there is an element of faith, in that there is a common red thread, or a trial at a sense of togetherness in an otherwise very fragmented and diverse community.

But this also begs the question of how orthopraxic is modern greek paganism, really? I don't know if I recognize my practice in the practice of someone who is, for example, a wiccan witch who worships Aphrodite. We just haven't defined anything, both in practice and in faith.

I hope this makes sense, because admitedly this is a very complex topic with many possible angles of interpretation.

#hellenic polytheism

[2willowlane]

i'm genuinely very neurodivergent over harvey, and i'm very new to stardew. i just want to share my rants/rambles about harv here, just because i adore him. <3

at first, i actually didn't recognize him as a bachelor, even? i thought he was just like, purely an npc like pierre or whatever. i remember being on call with a friend of mine, and i asked who was the easiest character to romance—and my friend mentioned that harvey loved coffee. and... yeah, that's where it all started.

i love him, genuinely, and even though i may joke around with how goofy he can be at times, there's multiple things that make me grab onto him and want to just appreciate. in general, i love stardew's character diversity! harvey isn't the only one that's a victim to my affection (mainly emily, but i LOVE elliott too).

i think it's mainly how he reminds me way too much of myself. how he speaks matter-of-factly often, and with a bit of a mellow hint to it due to his age and occupation; i can relate to that. him being a doctor also reminds me of my more empathetic nature, and how i want to take care of others, and i've seen and been through various different experiences throughout my life due to that endeavor. him dreaming to be a pilot reminds me of how i want to indulge in other interests, but i have set limitations.

i don't romanticise him being a doctor; it's a genuine hard profession, and even if i do nor have any professional education on it, i do like his attitude on it. iirc, in one of his dialogues, he talks about how it makes such a difference in someone's day by just talking to them. i do wonder what a younger harvey would be like; considering with how he talks, it's obvious that he's been through different situations that have then built onto his maturity.

him being busy and all, i feel like harvey does love his work, and i also like (actually, i don't. he should take care of himself, but y'know what i mean) how he is TERRIBLE at following his own advice. harvey talks about using vegetables in a healthy diet, but he often eats microwave meals/convenience food. i LOVE how he finds life on the farm whenever he moves in with the player to be much more rewarding, considering he's able to actually use fresh produce (well, there's pierre's), have the time to do it all, and have someone to cook for.

i do like to believe that living up in the lil apartment in his clinic does get to him from time to time. i like how he doesn't talk about his loneliness a lot, and he opens up more about his vulnerable side on that whenever you do get closer/begin to date him. i think, to some people, it makes him sounds a bit needy—but i like to imagine it as if he has a relationship with everyone in the town, sure, but never got to the point of having a close friend. either it's just due to his more anxious nature, schedule, interests, etc.—he is simply the pelican town doctor, after all. i think he'd appreciate a little small talk now and then.

i do beleive he is anxious, but not outright shy or anything. i'm probably sure he was whenever he started out in his career, but i think he enjoys pelican town, since he knows what to expect from the townsfolk. i think with that predictability, he does seek a bit of comfort in just due to him liking a solid schedule (hc, but feel free to put your own interpretation on it). i think he can get very caught off guard by things he doesn't expect, like how everyone does, but it takes him a moment to get on track again if he's distracted.

i love his interest in planes so much. one of my favourite lines of dialogue from harv over here has to be whenever you're married to him, he talks about he's had a good day so far—he fiddled with his radio, worked on his model plane... i've forgotten the exact words (he only talks to me about daydreaming about the circulatory system anymore, but it's okay), but i think it's just me projecting—but i like to believe he simply likes to show affection by chatting about his interests!

harvey's grown comfortable with you to talk about something rather niche, and it just shows he thinks your safe to talk about the small things that make him happy. especially with how he does talk about everything, and wants the player to look at some of his work on models and the such. i dunno. i just live for the fact he views a "good day" to be indulging in his interests. literally me.

i don't believe he outright HATES his job as a doctor, however. i think it does make him feel important that he's able to provide for the people that he's able to feel at home with here in the valley, but what i've said earlier, i think it just kinda eats at him with the whole clinic business. i think him going up to his apartment with no one to really talk to about his day; no one to look forward to seeing—it's just something that's been at the back of his mind. i feel like it'd break his heart if he's learnt that someone wouldn't want to ever bother him due to his work. he'd want someone to understand that due to him being a doctor, he does get stressed easy, but he'd always try to find some time in-between all of those appointments for a chat.

i'll talk more, but i'm tired, and i don't know about what to exactly go on about. anyways, live laugh love harv. please tell me if i'm just silly and feeding too much into my headcanons, and i'm actually deluding myself from canon harv.

#💙 #stardew #stardew valley #stv #sdv #harvey sdv #sdv harvey #harvey stv #stv harvey #stardew valley harvey #harvey stardew valley

[30fishmen]

Unknown / Nth analysis

My post got some notes so now you must all read my Hozier lecture. You have no choice.

SOME DISCLAIMERS: I am currently in the process of reading Dante’s The Inferno so most of the information about it is pulled from the internet/prior knowledge that might be completely wrong. Feel free to correct me/add to the post with more information that I left out because I am sure I will leave out something. Also, most of this is my own personal feelings on the matter, art is subjective!! And if you disagree, I would love to hear it, discussion is what makes art and music and fandom fun. With that, onto the lecture.

BACKGROUND: As Hozier himself says in this interview, the song is about Treachery, the ninth circle of hell as Dante describes it in his Inferno. It depicts feelings of betrayal, loneliness, and longing as told from the perspective of God freshly betrayed by the one he most trusted, Lucifer. This is where most of the imagery in the song comes from. (I think that is super cool). I’m also gonna talk about my own interpretation of the song from when I first listened to it, since even without the background knowledge it’s such a powerful song. For convenience, the person singing the song is gonna be called “the speaker” and the person they’re singing to is gonna be called “the betrayer.”

You know the distance never made a difference to me – right off the bat Hozier is crushing our souls. This first line establishes so much love and longing its almost painful- feelings that have persevered despite past obstacles and will continue to persevere for the foreseeable future. The speaker has been separated from the betrayer before (past tense MADE implies this is not a new struggle to them), and the betrayer knows that.

I swam a lake of fire, I’d have walked across the floor of any sea – again, the speaker is proving their devotion by professing the things they have done, and what they are willing to do in the future (I SWAM a lake of fire, I’D HAVE WALKED across the floor of any sea; past tense to future). What I realized after Hozier talked about the inspiration for the song is: this line is referencing how Lucifer got into hell. The “lake of fire” refers to the punishment/imprisonment he received for his betrayal and what he has already endured by being separated from God, the literal and metaphorical hell that he had to go through in order to be in the position he is in. The “floor of any sea” refers to the frozen ocean he is trapped in, the one he is constantly trying to escape. God created this prison, and yet he would have been willing to traverse it.

Ignore the vastness between all that can be seen/and all that we believe/so I thought you were like an angel to me – This line is talking about the reality of the situation versus the image the speaker has in their mind of the betrayer. If they ignore what is actually happening (all that can be seen), they can still remember the betrayer as an angel (all that we believe). Incorporating the divine a little bit, this line could also be talking about the distance between heaven, the mortal realm/earth, and hell.

Funny how true colors shine in darkness and in secrecy – Pretty straightforward as far as the verses in this song go; a slightly ironic tone that acknowledges a betrayer’s tendency to never fully reveal themselves until it’s too late.

If there were scarlet flags, they washed out in the mind of me – Though again ironic and slightly self-deprecating, the message is heart-wrenchingly simple. The speaker loved the betrayer so much they couldn’t see the warning signs of their deceit/ chose to ignore it in favor of looking at all of their goodness. This line begins a phenomenon that I like to call “the Humanization of God.” God is supposed to be all knowing/all-powerful/whatever else you attribute him with. Yet he didn’t see the warning signs of betrayal from his closest friend, something painfully human.

Where a blinding light shone on you every night/and either side of my sleep/where you were held frozen like an angel to me – The “blinding light” this is referring to could mean three things (or all of those things at the same time): 1)it represents a pedestal/spotlight that the betrayer was put upon by the speaker, which is why red flags were so easily ignored. The speaker looked up to the betrayer so much they couldn’t fathom them possibly being anything other than perfect. OR 2) In the third installment of the Divine Comedy, Dante is enveloped by a “blinding light” that raises him up to heaven and allows him to see God. Therefore, the blinding light could reference the divinity Lucifer held before his betrayal, something that God thought would mean he was stuck as (FROZEN, even) an angel, and therefore unable to betray him. OR 3) this verse is talking about Lucifer after he’s already been trapped in hell, with the “blinding light” being the surface he’s trying to escape to. This interpretation would be especially sad because of the line “you were held frozen like an angel to me”, implying that even after his betrayal, God still sees Lucifer as an angel, not as a sinner or a demon. Even without the biblical context, the speaker still holds good memories of the betrayer after all is said and done, choosing to remember them as an “angel” rather than reflect on their horrible acts.

CHORUS TIME- there’s a quote that I always think about when I listen to this chorus: “To be loved but not known is comforting but superficial. To be known and not loved is our greatest fear. But to be fully known and truly loved is, well, a lot like being loved by God.”

 It ain’t the being alone/It ain’t the empty home baby/You know I’m good on my own -  the speaker has very clearly been alone before, which is sad because it implies that the betrayer is the one who alleviated this loneliness, providing company where there previously was none. Now that they’re gone, they’re back to being alone. Also the implication that the speaker confided in the betrayer about this past loneliness (YOU know I’m good on my own) makes their abandonment so much more heartbreaking.

Sha-la-la, baby, you know, it’s more the being unknown – Something new to the speaker, though, is the feeling of being unknown. God has always been placed on a pedestal, with no one to keep him company except his angels. Lucifer was the first angel, known as the angel of Light, and was someone God trusted and confided in. God thought he knew Lucifer, just as Lucifer knew him, and now with his closest friend gone, he must return to that lonely position of power, unknown to any other angel or worshipper as anyone other than God- distant, all powerful, unapproachable God. And maybe this betrayal is what forced God up into heaven in the first place, doomed to never again be known as he was by Lucifer. In a way, that’s almost exactly like the punishment he’s given to his betrayer.

So much of the living, love, is the being unknown – This line reads surprisingly hopeful to me. It’s an acknowledgement of the situation, sort of saying “oh well, that’s life” to the most famous betrayal of all time. The most important part about this line is the tone; there’s no bitterness, no resentment of the circumstances or the people that have led them to this situation.

You called me angel for the first time, my heart leapt from me – This line is talking about the first time the betrayer and the speaker met, and how that interaction affected the speaker. It also speaks to how much one person can be changed by another’s affection. As soon as the speaker was called angel, their heart was no longer their own, trusted entirely to the betrayer to use as they will. It also seems the decision was at least a little bit unwilling on the speaker’s part (the phrase “leapt FROM ME” implies unwillingness; the speaker didn’t GIVE their heart away, it jumped from their grasp). Point is, the speaker was definitely in denial about how close they were to the betrayer. Another instance of humanizing God in the context of the story, for though he is often depicted as loving, you never really think of him as having a heart to be broken or to be given away to his most trusted.

You smile now, I can see its pieces still stuck in your teeth – the imagery in this line is insane; the speaker’s heart was literally chewed up and spit out by the betrayer by their act. The fact that literal scraps are seen in a SMILE shows the betrayer still deceiving, trying to placate/make friends with the speaker even as their heart is in literal pieces because of their mouth. This is also another reference to the Inferno- Lucifer is described as a three-headed demon, with each of his mouths chewing on the bible’s/history’s greatest betrayers: Brutus, Longinus, and Judas. Brutus and Longinus are being punished for their role in Julius Caesar’s assassination by being stuck feet-first in Lucifer’s mouth. Judas receives the worst punishment of the three; his head is being chewed on while his back gets scraped up by Lucifer’s claws.

And what’s left of it, I listen to it tick/every tedious beat/going unknown as any angel to me – This. Line. Oh my god. Even in the teeth of their betrayer, torn to shreds, the speaker’s heart is still beating and alive, just as their love for the betrayer is. And after thinking it over (“listening to their heart”), they realize that maybe they don’t know their own heart as well as they thought. Because what heart would love a betrayer? (A HUMAN ONE, PROBABLY. HUMANIZATION OF GOD.) Also, the use of angel, not as a term of endearment as it was previously, but in reference to a group (unknown as ANY angel, rather than MY angel or THE angel) indicates both God’s realization that he didn’t know Lucifer as well as he thought and a resolution to never trust or hold another angel as close ever again.

AND NOW FOR MY FAVORITE PART!!!!!!!! BY FAR THE BEST PART OF THE WHOLE SONG IN MY OPINION. Setting aside the lyrics and the meaning of the song, just the pure power of Hozier’s voice in this section gets me every time. So much of a change from the easygoing guitar that’s made up the rest of the song- there’s like a heavenly chorus behind him, he’s singing at the top of his lungs louder and higher than any other part, it’s just so…. I don’t even know how to explain it. It’s so good.

Do you know I could break beneath the weight?/Of the goodness, love, I still carry for you – Personally, I think the “goodness” that is being described here is the speaker’s hope that the betrayer is still a good person, deep down inside. It’s a hope that is futile and slowly “breaking” the speaker, because the deed has already been done, yet the speaker still carries it. In addition to that, I like to think that the responsibility of heaven was shared between God and Lucifer before his betrayal, and now without him, God is forced to carry the weight and pressure of being the divine creator of the universe all alone.

That I’d walk so far just to take/The injury of finally knowing you – Referencing the line earlier in song (I’d have walked across the floor of any sea) and again stressing the lengths the speaker is willing to go for the betrayer. The best part about this line is, again, the acknowledgement of pain by the speaker. They specifically say “the INJURY of finally knowing you”, meaning that fully, truly knowing the betrayer as they want to would cause lasting harm. Also, the realization that, as things currently stand, the speaker DOESN’T know the betrayer (hence the use of the word finally, implying future), and to know them completely would mean to know the reasons WHY they betrayed the speaker, which would certainly cause “injury.” Yet the speaker DOESN’T CARE. They don’t CARE how hurt they are by the betrayer, how much it WILL HURT in the future, they just want to be with them and if that isn’t the saddest thing-

The closing chorus is mostly the same as it was before (it ain’t the being alone/it ain’t the empty home baby/you know I’m good on my own/sha-la-la, baby, you know, it’s more the being unknown) except for the final line.

And there are some people, love, who are better unknown – my initial reaction to this line was that it sounded surprisingly hopeful considering the rest of the song, much like the line in the first appearance of the chorus. I took it to mean that the speaker accepted the fact that the betrayer was bad for them, and maybe it’s better off that they don’t know them. But looking back at all the analysis about how far the speaker would go, all the injury they are willing to put themselves through, that just doesn’t make much sense (Plus the fact that the speaker still says “love”). No, that wouldn’t be the Hozier way. Instead, I think this line is the speaker blaming themselves. Saying that THEY are the ones who are better unknown, because they’ve tried the whole love and trust thing and look how that turned out. Consider the character of the speaker that’s been built throughout the entire song: someone who gone through hell and is still willing to go farther for someone who clearly won’t do the same, someone who ignored red flags in favor of focusing on the good, someone who trusted their heart to a person who chewed it up without a second thought. This is definitely a person to take betrayal personally, to turn on and blame themselves rather than get angry at the betrayer, the actual person at fault. The rest of the chorus and previous analysis supports this too (speaker is ok with being alone/on their own, but they are NOT ok with being unknown. So, to inflict that on themselves is a fitting punishment). Also, the speaker being the self-blaming person they are, this line could be read as sort of an apology; if they hadn’t let themselves be known, let themselves open up to the betrayer, maybe neither of them would be hurting this much in the first place. It might’ve been better if the speaker had STAYED unknown and alone as they were before knowing the betrayer.

This whole analysis is a cumulation of all the thoughts that have been fermenting in my brain for the past month, so if it’s a bit nonsensical I do apologize. Also, huge shoutout to my friend for listening to my insane ramblings and also helping me edit this, she doesn’t have a tumblr but I appreciate her immensely.

That’s all I got for now, if this gets some traction maybe I’ll post my thoughts about some other Hozier songs (because holy shit are his songs amazing). If you got this far down thank you so much for reading! It feels really good to put all the words down and actually organize them, and knowing that there are people who actually want to read it is so cool.

people who asked to be tagged: @freddykicksasses @allegedlyunmagical @iwillgotoheavenforyou

#unknown / nth #hozier #andrew hozier byrne #unreal unearth #francesca #dante #the inferno #music #lyrics #lyric analysis #music analysis #song #song analysis

[no-where-new-hero]

@gogandmagog gifted me with this incredible essay by Mary Rubio and I haven't quite finished it yet but I need to screech about this very provocative passage:

When Emily finally accepts the jilted Teddy, no idyllic atmosphere is restored. In fact, the tone is almost elegiac against the backdrop of a dark hill and a sunset, as Teddy and Emily prepare to move into their grey house which, significantly, has always been called "The Disappointed House." Montgomery tells the reader that the "grey house will be disappointed no longer," but the reader knows that Emily's creativity will sink into grey domesticity within. The vivacious outspoken Emily-heroine with the accomplished and witty pen is dead, and the trilogy can end: she is no longer interesting or full of promise as a writer. She is ready to be a supportive wife whose husband's profession comes first. (30)

I once read a blog post (or perhaps a more scholarly article, it was a long time ago) that stated similarly that Emily would likely not continue writing after marrying Teddy. This insulted me greatly at the time because writing seemed so linked to Emily's nature that it seemed impossible that she should ever give it up. And it contradicted what I found to be the fundamental reason for Teddy being the better match: he would have loved and encouraged her own artistry (we assume) where Dean belittled and gaslit. Yet if the outcome would have been the same--then the difference between them grows narrower.

I can't believe Rubio the Montgomery Scholar could have fundamentally interpreted the end of the series so differently from how I've always thought LMM suggested it: that Teddy, and Emily's love for him, will be always kind of eternal wellspring of inspiration for her, made even stronger by their marriage. But there ARE suggestions that perhaps Emily wouldn't be able to write--one, which I noticed only recently, was that her writing life is so intensely linked to New Moon and PEI that going off to live in Montreal might fundamentally change her own relationship to her creativity. And LMM also makes sure she shows Emily's literary success before Teddy returns with his declaration, as though to assure us that Emily *did* make a decent career of it before her "retirement."

So I'm very curious to know other people's thoughts about this. Also, the article might interest the blue castle book club too, since Rubio analyzes The Blue Castle's subversiveness in addition to that in the Emily series!

#lmm lockdown #lm montgomery #emily of new moon #the blue castle #blue castle book club