thescarletlibrarian

thescarletlibrarian

Sartorial Misconduct

People have been making bad decisions about their clothing since, I fear, the first fig leaf..  I judge them for it.  Snarkily.  If you came for the armor post, it's been updated several times since the version that usually gets reblogged, and you can see the updated version at why the hell can't I post a link?  Fine.  Search "Scarlet Librarian" + "My lungs are up here."

Explore Tagged Posts
Last Seen Blogs
Statistics

We looked inside some of the posts by thescarletlibrarian and here's what we found interesting.

Inside last 20 posts
Time between posts
18 hours
Number of posts by type
Photo
8
Video
2
Audio
0
Text
9
Chat
0
Answer
0
Link
1
Quote
0
Fun Fact

In an interview with inc.com, David Karp (Tumblr's founder) admitted, "Being on computers all the time makes me feel gross."

thescarletlibrarian·a day agoText

sprachgefuehle:

spookijam:

barukabawaba:

me, every time i come across a post listing the symptoms of adhd:

@everyone who identifies with the last picture: there is literally nothing wrong with suspecting you might have adhd. Best case scenario? You go to your doctor, say “I think I might have ADHD”, get tested and get a diagnosis and appropriate care for whatever condition you have. Honestly, most people with ADHD I know who got diagnosed when they were older did so by speaking for themselves and saying “I think I do have ADHD”. And honestly? What’s the worst consequences? You do so because of real problems you struggle with and when you e.g. join a server for people with adhd and learn how to cope with your problems, what harm has been done if it turns out it wasn’t adhd? You still learned some useful strategies? And not all mental health professionals are experts on every condition, and that especially rings true for adhd. So learning about it and having your own voice is important no matter what. Don’t self medicate of course, but get to know the condition you might have, speak with other people about it and try to find professional help if you need to. Saying “I think i might have ADHD” is an important step there.

I have ADHD, and knowing and treating that (hell yeah, adderall) has been legitimately life changing. I wasn’t diagnosed until 30, six months after I’d self-diagnosed based on a lot of reading.

I started reading because I kept saying “but I do that!” to Tumblr posts.

Official/medical/the vast majority of information on ADHD and its “symptoms” are what neuro-t’s see causing disruption around ADHD people.

They are a horrible indicator of what it’s like to actually HAVE ADHD, or the mental CAUSES of that observable behavior. It can be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the inside, and affecting behavior not commonly listed. There’s a lot of other cognitive funkery often associated with ADHD, and your custom combination may not “look like” ADHD from the outside.

ADHD is also not a problem with focus, memory, time, organization, or attention to detail. It is a difficulty REGULATING those things, specifically according to neuro-t standards. It tends towards extremes instead of medians.

So common ADHD indicators not mentioned include the exact opposite of all of those—being able to focus for long periods of time on a single thing and remembering copious details are the biggest (I think). Because an ADHD brain can’t NOT focus on something it finds engaging or stimulating (positively or negatively), it can’t NOT notice details it tags as relevant because of interest, curiosity, or I honestly have no idea sometimes.

But because of wiring differences, what an ADHD brain tags as engaging, relevant, important, etc. is not the same as a neuro-t. Same with organization—my brain organizes according to its own set of tags, I often how things should be arranged or ordered or how ideas are connected in MY head. It all makes sense to ME. Common structures or tools for organizing (remembering, etc) don’t work for me, they tell me how to arrange something by size or shape when all I can see is the color. Or by colors—only I can’t see THOSE colors, I see THESE colors, or even if I do see the same colors, I call them different things. Is this more orange or yellow, green or blue, etc. It really doesn’t help that an ADHD brain can often see multiple interpretations or ways of classifying things at once, and has no way to know which one (if any) somebody else is using.

ADHD brains are fantastic about prioritizing—they prioritize everything around them by how engaging it is, for starters. They can come up with all kinds of ways to prioritize a list of items, but if it doesn’t choose ones identical to neuro-t priorities, they “can’t focus on important things, get lost in small ones,” “miss or forget important details,” “have trouble making decisions,” or, my favorite, “can’t prioritize.”

For example, the ADHD signs generally listed are prioritized by what neuro-ts notice as causing disruption in a neuro-t environment, making them symptoms.

The ADHD-things YOU notice, which may be causing problems or driving successes (or both), are not.

So if you think “but I do that!” thanks for not wanting to invalidate our diagnoses, but read or listen to ADHD people about how THEY see it. If it keeps clicking, find someone if at all possible who SPECIALIZES in ADHD for your age group. They’re less likely to blow you off for not matching the standard checklist, especially if you’re a LADyHD who really need their own. (And if things don’t click, keep reading about other neuro and psych stuff—maybe it’s something else.)

Also read this, https://www.additudemag.com/symptoms-of-add-hyperarousal-rejection-sensitivity/, I have so far never seen an ADHD not go YES, THAT. And quite a few undiagnosed people I’ve flagged have gone “oh, shit, there it is.”

And finally, Leonardo da Vinci was very probably and Sherlock Holmes DEFINITELY (I will die on this hill) ADHD. So just think on that for a bit.

3 Defining Features of ADHD That Everyone Overlooks

91K notes · See All
thescarletlibrarian·3 days agoPhoto

annaofcleves:

Mary’s first encounter with embroidery and needlework was as a child in France. When she returned to Scotland to rule, she would embroider at her council’s meetings whilst listening and learning the Scottish ways. This period of her life was soon taken up by her duties as Queen, such as trying to please her people and dealing with the various feuds around her, for her to spend much time with the needle. During her imprisonment at Lochleven, she had the time to create, but lacked the materials which were grudgingly and parsimoniously sent to her. Therefore, it was not until her captivity in England that her major works were created.

Wait wait wait I need a citation! I know about her as an embroiderer, but I never heard about stitching during meetings!

thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
154 notes · See All
thescarletlibrarian·4 days agoPhoto

themerrycourtier:

early20thcenturynerd:

Queen Mary and George V, 1918

“The King lives and works side by side with a strong willed, independent woman, and he adores her. He is immensely proud of Queen Mary’s contribution to the war effort and time and time again reminds her that without her at his side, he would not be able to manage all that is asked of him. […] he never holds her back from any aspect of war work she chooses to carry out, including a visit to the front, to the extent that he was perfectly happy to see her wield a machine gun.

On a visit to a rifle range in 1915, Their Majesties were watching men practice their gunnery when the King was invited to fire the weapon himself. He did so with dignity and politely. Then it is set up again for Queen Mary and she is invited to to take a turn. When the first few rounds go off she draws back and giggles, but then instantly resumes her grip on the trigger and empties the entire magazine with glee. His Majesty sees the accurate results of his wife’s shooting and smiles broadly.”

- In the Eye of the Storm: George V and the Great War

Like grandmother, like granddaughter.

I KNEW Queen Mary was my favorite, but this is such a fun confirmation.

thescarletlibrarian
79 notes · See All
thescarletlibrarian·5 days agoText

beatrice-otter:

raisedbylibrarians:

qthewetsprocket:

bert-and-ernie-are-gay:

cerulean-beekeeper:

labelleizzy:

the-real-seebs:

zetablarian:

mashmoments:

writerofthought:

To all the young Millenials about to watch M*A*S*H for the first time, do not be turned off by Max Klinger being a guy in a dress.

For those of you unaware, the character tries several schemes to get out of the army on the grounds of being mentally unfit for service, most notably being a man who wears a dress, which no one buys. It’s played off as a joke but everyone loves him and treats him very respectfully unless it’s a character you’re not supposed to sympathise with.

You might want to call bull on the fact that they’re getting a cheap joke at a man in a dress. But, this man in a dress had a gender identity crisis ON SCREEN (although they couldn’t call it that) and also helped pave the way to allow transgender people into the armed forces.

No, seriously. A congressman who was a fan of the show brought up how Max Klinger cross dressing never was an issue at this M*A*S*H unit and it allowed transgender people to serve in the armed forces!

I’m a trans(masc) millenial and the biggest thing I feel was made fun of was how much some people were bothered by Klinger’s clothes, not the fact that he’s wearing them.

Klinger learns a lot about fashion and sewing and seems to develop a genuine passion for it over time.

There’s even one time when he develops a psychosomantic (spelling?) rash during a short time when he has to wear his uniform. Even after it is clear that he’s not gonna get to go home by wearing dresses, he continues - suggesting either a persistent act of defiance to make him feel better, or a real appreciation of the clothes… or both!

He’s clearly coded as straight, is accepted by his peers, and his character arc and development is barely focused on his clothes (rather it focuses on what he wants to do with his life; his dream future).

For a show made in the 70’s depicting the 50’s, M*A*S*H was a show before its time - with feminist messages and anti-war messages, as well as speking out against homophobia and racism - and Klinger was a groundbreaking character.

This is especially true, I think, if you watch the episodes sans the laugh track. Without the canned laughter, Klinger’s costuming comes off as especially sincere.

Klinger is a good man and a great character and everyone in the camp respects him (and if they don’t, it’s not because of his attire).

The discovery that you can select “English Without Laugh Track” as an audio track has made the DVDs wonderful.

YOU CAN TURN OFF THE LAFF TRACK?? YES PLEASE!!

Klinger is the best!

When I was a little girl I legit loved Klinger and his gorgeous dresses and skirts, and nothing about him seemed strange or abnormal to me; I understood that he’d wanted a section 8 initially but it also seemed really clear to me that in that process he’d found himself, in whatever sense was important to him, and everyone accepted him in the unit. To me growing up in a completely queerphobic household/culture, he was a figure of great love and joy and positivity, and I embraced him unquestioningly and gratefully.

Bonus: Klinger also comes from a family of immigrants. 

Like the cross-dressing, the jokes about it are sometimes a little borderline for today’s audiences. But Klinger’s cultural identity was mentioned constantly, and consistently shown as something that he was very proud of.

There was even an episode where all the M*A*S*H peoples’ families were planning a get-together in the states, and everyone worked especially hard to make sure that Klinger’s parents - who didn’t speak any English - were welcomed and included.

image

(Including this picture again for the caption over at Imgur - ‘M*A*S*H is owned by Fox. Fox is now owned by Disney. Klinger is now a Disney princess.’)

KLINGER IS A DISNEY PRINCESS

If Klinger were only doing this for the hope of getting a discharge, he would NOT have spent so much time coordinating his outfits.

Because if you watch him, and listen to what he talks about, he clearly spends a lot of time not only finding women’s clothes in a war zone in a foreign country, he manages to make sure all the accessories match. That he’s got the right jewelry and shoes and hats and purses to match.

That takes care and attention even in civilian life. In the middle of a war zone? It meant something to him.

Imagine Klinger finding out he’s a Disney Princess.


And insisting on wearing a tiara every day, so proud and so joyful.

34K notes · See All
thescarletlibrarian·5 days agoPhoto

bethwoodvilles:

“victorian equivalent”

image

Besides the Victorian thing, which I’m just not engaging because see above gif…

Can we please be real about how the majority of historical moms were working moms, with more responsibilities and demands on their time than just their children (however many children they might have had, to boot), and often responsible for their early education (and the education/training of others, depending on social position) and training younger women, especially daughters?  And how “domestic tasks” for lack of a better term were a HELL of a lot more work before fridges, dishwashers, and the supermarket? 

That in many parts of the world, it is still completely NORMAL to do domestic, agricultural, hand trades, or small businesses/vendoring work with a baby strapped to a mom’s back and kids helping work, doing schoolwork, or minding younger ones around?  

The concept of “working mom” reflects the idea of “mom who doesn’t have to work, but chooses to,” or “mom who would/should choose not to work if it were an option for her, but circumstances require her rather than another to financially support her family.” The idea of working as “leaving the house or domestic sphere in order to collect a paycheck.”  

Women have ALWAYS fulfilled multiple roles and responsibilities IN ADDITION to childcare.  Moms (and dads!) have ALWAYS worked. 

thescarletlibrarian
422 notes · See All
thescarletlibrarian·7 days agoPhoto

space-trash-princess:

neil-gaiman:

feyariel:

petrichormeraki:

hematite2:

whatpunkin:

porcelainandgold:

tripster-and-the-mad-hatter:

glossynympheteyes:

this movie is so fucking creepy jesus fuck

It’s by Tim Burton, what did you honestly expect?

Actually, it’s Henry Selick, who was the director of The Nightmare Before Christmas. The book was written by Neil Gaiman, though, and is far…far….worse.

Sorry, I’m about to geek the hell out.

The movie is captivating, but the book is twenty kinds of terrifying, even now, ten years after I first read it. As disturbing as the movie may have been to some, the things Selick added really serve to cushion just how horrific the story really is.

First of all, the character of Wybie does not exist in the book. Coraline is facing all of this nearly alone, with her only help coming from the sly comments of the cat, a warning from the circus mice, and the stone given to her by her neighbor, presented with no comment but that it “makes the unseen seen.”

Second, the Other Parents are never quite as warm (and, dare I say, normal) as they are in the gifs above. They’re described as having paper-white skin and the Other Mother’s hair is said to move on its own, and her long, red, claw-like nails don’t ease any uncertainty that she is absolutely, positively up to no good. The first time Coraline meets them, they (and the rest of the Others) seem to be playing roles (for whatever reason, Coraline does not seem to pick up on this), like they all know what to say and what to do and are simply waiting for Coraline to make her move in their terrifying play world. This is shown to be partly true when the Other Parents tell her they know she’ll be back soon after she refuses the buttons - this time, to stay.

Third, the Other Mother commits atrocities that really should not have been in a book for anyone not fully grown up. She physically deforms the world around Coraline to slow her progress in their game beyond any mild traps the movie portrays, and, instead of turning the Other Father into the wandering pumpkin-thing seen in the film, she simply ceases to use him and throws his body away in the cellar, leaving him to rot with whatever bit of sentience he has left. She begins to lose her touch, as Coraline gains the upper hand. Her world doesn’t just become a nightmare - it falls apart completely. No creepy but oddly cool bug furniture here, just the house that now appears to be a child’s drawing. Whatever the Other Mother is (a beldame, but something tells me she’s much more ancient and powerful than that), she does not give half a hump about what she has to do to ensnare Coraline. Destroy the supporting characters of her twisted creation? Done. Allow herself to be dismembered to ruin Coraline’s life in the normal world? Not even gonna bat an eyelash.

On a final, personal note, imagine eight year-old me, ignored by my parents, absorbed in the story and identifying with Coraline from the start. Imagine me finishing this bloodcurdling book and immediately thinking of my basement, where there is still a locked door that my grandmother swears up and down is nothing more than a storage room, but has not once in my (or my mother’s) lifetime unlocked.

Can you see why this book still scares me?

Fun fact I learned from seeing neil gaiman speak: when he first wanted the book published, his editor said it was too scary. He suggested she read it to her young daughter, and then decide. So she did, and her daughter wasn’t afraid, and it was published. Years later, Gaiman was sitting next to that daughter at an event and told her this story, and she said “oh I was terrified I just didn’t want to tell my mom”.

Coraline WAS too scary to be published, but exists anyway because a girl lied to her mother.

@neil-gaiman, is this true about the publisher’s daughter?

It was my literary agent, Merrilee Heifetz who read it and said “you can’t seriously expect this to be published as a children’s book.” So I suggested she read it to her daughters. And she called me back a week later and said “They love it and they weren’t scared at all. I’ll take it to Harper Children’s.”

A decade later, at the Opening Night of the Coraline musical, I was sitting next to Morgan, Merilee’s youngest daughter, and told her how her not being scared had made the book happen. And she said “I was terrified. But I needed to find out what happened next. So nobody knew.”

So, yes.

This website can be toxic at times, but the fact that people can just tag Neil Gaiman to get his input, like a sorcerer invoking a benevolent spirit, is definitely a bright spot.

Going to toss in here that in one of the early seasons of Lucifer, based on Gaiman’s characters, Chloe reads it to her 7-8 year old. Who asks her to immediately start reading it again.

Bet Trixie and Maze read it together OVER and OVER again.

thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
565K notes · See All
thescarletlibrarian·10 days agoVideo

raychleadele:

thetattedstoner:

Everybody || Backstreet Boys

Just occurred to me that some of you may have never seen this music video. They had absolutely no reason to make it the way it is but damn they went hard.

I had NOT seen this, and it is the weirdest whiplashing between “okay, that’s ridiculous, but more interesting than I would have expected in a messed-up way” and then snap to THE NINETIES CALLED, you thought you’d forgotten frosted tips and these dance moves people busted out like we weren’t nine years old on the school bus.

I refuse to engage with the overalls, though, just no.

87K notes · See All
thescarletlibrarian·10 days agoPhoto

joel-miller:

You dreamt of me?
No. I thought of you.

Portrait of a Lady on Fire (2019) dir. Céline Sciamma

As much as the thought of wet hems, and especially wet WOOL (with added sea spray stickiness, ugh), I do feel a distinct need to walk on a beach with a cloak or the skirts of a long, dramatic coat whipping around me.

I’ll bring a change of clothes, I guess. And wellies because wet feet are the worst.

thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
thescarletlibrarian
5K notes · See All
thescarletlibrarian·11 days agoText

j-lyn:

his best quality: his wiggles

That is some epic butt wiggle action right there.

42K notes · See All
thescarletlibrarian·13 days agoPhoto

imperial-russia:

Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna and her spouse Prince Alfred in a vintage illustration depicting them in a mood more romantic than they probably ever lived through.

I mean, her face suggests she’s considering how hard it would be to shove him through the ice without going under herself, and he’s definitely hanging on to her to prevent her from trying it, but define romantic as you will.

thescarletlibrarian
125 notes · See All
thescarletlibrarian·14 days agoVideo

bears-official:

gigi-tastic:

typhoidmeri:

why-animals-do-the-thing:

n-a-blue-box:

11213372:

docwithtardisfez:

wildlifewednesdays:

A porcupine’s Halloween present (+ original sound effects)

I had no idea giant porcupines made fucking precious sounds

THAT’S THE SOUND IT MAKES!?!?!?

UN-BE-FUCKING-LIEVABLE 

We got asked if this is cute and okay. I can very happily say yes, this is stupid cute and those are happy porcupine noises. 

One of my favorite things about doing zoo work was all the noises you never realize the animals make when they’re excited or interested in a new thing. Coatimundis squeak and snuffle, and giant porcupines make that sound. 

Omgggg the sounds.

Teddy is back on my dash and all is right with the world

WE ALMOST TO OCTOBRE POST OF PUNKINBEARS

What cartoon universe did this delight fall from.

834K notes · See All
thescarletlibrarian·15 days agoText

So Netflix will be dumping Bridgerton in December, which by the link’s description has nothing to set it apart from every other regency romance ever except my god, this.

If 2020 were a print, I’m not sure it would look EXACTLY like that sick green mess, but it’s definitely related.

Bloody Christ.

Look, I would love to see more colorful costuming in regency-era pieces. The new Emma did a pretty respectable job of this; regency fashion was not a pastel wasteland for women and strictly somber-with-a-side-of-hessians for men, they got into some loud shit. (They were also rowdy and emotive AF, which the Romola Garoi/Johnny Lee Miller Emma does quite well, many of those dances are supposed to be fast and lively and stoic Real Men Have No Emotions hadn’t been reinvented yet; formal manners and emotional restraint are not equivalent, damn it. They WERE some loud shit.)

But I could have lived without the Barbie and Friends Jane Austen Dream Collection thing going on in the second image, and whatever the hell home dec challenge nightmare the fabric from the first crawled out of.

Bright colors and patterns, to the point of obnoxious LOUDness to many contemporary eyes, are historically accurate for basically the entire 19th century. By all means, let’s liven up the sartorial playing field, but there is no excuse for this technicolor nonsense.

REGENCY BARBIE, lord have mercy.

43 notes · See All
Next Page