Much To Think About...... - Blog Posts
what's your literary archetype? — tagged by @lustraveil for kogami
the mentor.
you're a natural leader, you've got a specific aura about you that draws people to you. you're smart, not just academically, but worldly smart. people tend to go to you for help and advice, and you're more than happy to help. of course, that also means that you feel like you're a therapist rather than a friend, family, or lover. it can make you feel isolated from everyone else, and i hope that people realize you are human before a teacher.
tagging: @psielapki @limel1ghts @burntpa1ace @sukareo @cymerae @yeonban
Ever just sit and stare out a window trying to think of how a shrimp would see you?
That's how it could have started for us, but it took some time to turn our fantasies into reality…
What she's actually been doing recently with her friends is one thing. A friend or someone from my circle of friends or close acquaintances is a huge next level and definitely playing with fire, which, as we all know, you can't keep your hands off…
bringing your buddy from work home was obvious when your wife only agreed to cuckold you the week before. But so was her surprised arousal for him. They both got along so well but when they got to the bedroom, she made sure you know your place and wanted no hovering cuck interfering with this. She made you go to the spare bedroom. She's going to rock your coworker's world.
can you believe DC has graced us with wonder woman, the Bulletproof Bisexual™,
"So much of the book’s cruelty (in the main characters, I wouldn’t really count like… Straike) is driven by deep shame at what they perceive as the “dark” elements of themselves, reflected outwards…” This is actually genius, and I never would’ve thought of it if you hadn’t mentioned it! Thank you! I wonder if it can be seen with even Mr. Straike: I think a huge part of displaying Straike's cruelty and hypocrisy in the book was done by nothing other than simply contrasting him with the conscientious objectors in hospital and he made it a point to be very insulting about them when Laurie is at home (but this may just be because everyone disliked them at the time).
Re Andrew’s letter though: I think he’s referencing punching Bunny. The thing he wants to kill is both his feelings for Laurie (which are, in that moment, an extension of his feelings of learning about Laurie/Ralph) and also his anger at being suddenly confronted with the truth of his emotions in quite possibly the worst way known to mankind. And I think he says he can never say what he wants to now because even if he establishes regular contact with Laurie through letters (which we aren’t even sure he does), he probably really will never allow himself to speak openly about the things he feels; he believes it’s wrong to feel this way, he might see it as temptation if Laurie looks on it favourably, etc.
‘I hope he finds a kindred spirit at the Quaker house in London.’ This is actually the perfect happy ending for him! It would be very lovely.
It's only been a little bit of time since I reread the book (maybe 2-3 weeks) but since then Andrew's letter is the one part I keep randomly thinking about. Specifically:
"The thing you want to kill is really in yourself. That is why people become cruel in war, because they are doing what I did...there is much more I should like to say, but now I shall never be able to say it. You know I shall remember you all my life.
Love,
Andrew."
I have this idea that Laurie keeps Andrew's letter in his pocket the way he kept the Phaedrus with him at all times; at the end of the book, we see it's still there and I don't think Laurie would get rid of it.
there’s a popular post on tumblr that says INTJs have two “modes”: one that has no qualms using social masks to achieve goals and one that doesn’t see a reason to be anything but honest.
1. how does having a social mask that goes against their true values affect low Fi types?
2. these “modes” are present for all types, aren’t they?
Sounds like “This INTJ is an Enneagram 3″ vs “every other INTJ.” ;)
Healthy TJs typically have strong beliefs based in a few areas (things of personal importance to them that they work hard toward) but high Te knows you get more flies with honey than vinegar. To succeed in business, for example, being likable, presenting oneself as competent, and proving self worth through reliability and the ability to work with people is how you earn their respect and cooperation. That is earnest, sincere, pragmatic, and not a “mask.”
3s on the other hand can “adapt” to be whatever the situation requires of them – for example, keeping their mouth shut on something when they know to bring it up in their current group would cause unnecessary friction and prevent them from accomplishing a goal, or that it might prevent them from GETTING the job they want. (IE, not supporting 100% everything a business, individual, church, group, etc represents, but being able to “appear” in such a form that they assume you are “one of them” without being one of them.) But even 3-core INTJs do have something they believe in and are working toward.
So… yeah, on this issue I’d say 3-core/fixed vs. not-3-core/fixed (non-adaptable) is the factor. And yeah, the same goes for every other type.
- ENFP Mod
BLUE VELVET (1986) dir. David Lynch TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME (1992) dir. David Lynch
É fácil julgar o outro pela sua própria perspectiva de vida. Difícil é calçar seus sapatos e viver suas dores. A gente se perde tanto, um pouco a cada dia, confundimos intromissão com empatia. Reclamamos de tudo e todos, da escolha do outro e esquecemos de nós. Somos reis da hiprocrisia, mas odiamos quem a faz.
Pensando em como é difícil não nos cobrarmos tanto. É até engraçado pensar que sabemos que essa é a nossa única vida e mesmo assim, a desperdiçamos sempre. Eu sinto a minha vida passar a cada momento e eu a perder pouco a pouco. Me perdendo de mim, do que eu sonhei, deixando de viver por medo. A cada dia que passa eu continuo só tendo o hoje e mesmo assim eu ainda o desperdiço. A verdade é que eu queria tanto, mas o que eu faço pra ter? Quero me sentir viva.
Time is hard for dreamers.
This shit isn't for the weak minded 🗣️💯
Sometimes I still think of my ex. Not my recent one tho he was an asshole but of the guy I broke things off with bc I was getting nervous about being intimate with another person and asking him to wait until we can meet each other in person. I didn't know how long he would have to wait and I thought it was too much to ask. I wish him well but at the same time I wonder if he ever thinks about me as I think about him. I want him to miss me but I am too cowardly to text him after all It's been months and he must have moved on. I know he still looks at my posts online but I doubt he does it on purpose and is just clicking through feeds.
These are three separate moments in the ep, the shots before this are from the normal angle and they are sitting their normal distance apart with no indication that they are touching, they talk a lot about how their knees were always touching under the original card table because it was so small but it makes me wonder how often their legs are touching under the current desk and we just have no idea because it's normal???
Rhett and link learn to transcend the norms of platonic male friendship
something funny and highly specific to consider about feyd-rautha from a meta perspective is that all of the actors who have played him either are musicians or have played a musician.
in lynch's dune, feyd is played by Sting, lead vocalist and songwriter for The Police.
in jodorowsky's planned adaptation of dune, feyd was planned to be played by (and his design highly based on) Mick Jagger.
in villeneuve's dune, feyd is played by Austin Butler, who shot to fame for his portrayal of Elvis.
also worth noting: all three of these musicians have — to a certain degree — an element of rebelliousness and sex appeal that characterises their 'on-stage' persona.
i mean, just take a look at this quote about Mick Jagger from Philip Norman's symphony for the devil: the rolling stones story:
"[...] his conflicting and colliding sexuality: the swan's neck and smeared harlot eyes allied to an overstuffed and straining codpiece."
Rereading Dickens Christmas Carol for the first time in a long time. And the more I reread, the more it strikes me how seamlessly a queer reading could slip within these pages. Not an especially twee reading, wherein all Scrooge's troubles start and end with grief over Jacob Marley's death. For we know that Scrooge was a "Tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner!" And we know that he and Marley were "two kindred spirits"
And perhaps that very fact makes the similarities to queer life, unintended as they most likely were by Mr. Dickens, achingly poignant to me. Scrooge is, we're told, "secret and self-contained and solitary as an oyster." How much that resonates, for so many of us who shield our innermost selves but from a select group of friends. And we know that Scrooge and Marley were, at the very least, certainly that for one another. Scrooge is Marley's sole mourner; his sole executor and beneficiary; and even Dickens notes, "friend." How reminiscent is that of queer couples across history, estranged from their families?
Scrooge lives in a set of chambers that once belonged to Marley—clearly Dickens wanted us to believe Scrooge gave up his own dwellings after Marley's death to economize. But with only a flicker of change, those chambers become _their chambers, rented by Marley as the senior member of the couple. The place is so desolate Dickens notes "one could scarcely help fancying it must have run there when it was a young house, playing at hide-and-seek with other houses, and have forgotten the way out again." The perfect abode for two queer misers who wanted no one prying into their business.
Marley's name is still above the door of Scrooge's counting-house: a mark by which, no doubt, Dickens meant to convey Scrooge such a penny-pincher he couldn't bother to have it changed. But a thing can be both! mark of frugality to ludicrous excess and! mark of mourning. "sometimes," Dickens opines, "People new to the
business called Scrooge Scrooge, and sometimes Marley, but he answered to both names. It was all the same to him."
This is why "death of the author" matters so much, in expanding our interpretations of texts. It is vastly far from the lens Dickens would have intended. But, the idea of a ghost of queerness, so taboo in the society it could barely be glanced at sidewise in this tale that is all about the inexplicable and yet that lingers over everything becomes an astonishing lens through which to read this book. Thinking of Scrooge as a queer man, his "melancholy dinner at his usual melancholy tavern" becomes a eerie prefiguring of the hollowness of days spent by Isherwood's A Single Man. In this universe, little wonder Scrooge doubly hates mention of time with family, marriage, etc. when the precise nature of his grief is both unacknowledged and unacknowledgable.
And readings like this are vital, because the uncomfortable truth is, discrimination doesn't "discriminate between sinners and saints", to borrow a Miranda phrase. It is easy, in my liberal circles, to fight for queer people who hold "the good sorts of politics". But what about men like Michael Hess, culpable for supporting Reagan even as his contemptuous homophobia let the aids epidemic run rampant? How much harder is it to remember Michael had a partner? That he deserves empathy and compassion for being practically tarred and feathered out of the party upon his own aids diagnosis?
Expanding our imaginative universes to include queerness, not as redemptive panacea, but merely as one aspect of identity, personality, often in vicious conflict with others. Even! as we consider those stories equally worthy of being told feels vital if we're ever to truly express the complexity of what queer humanity looks like.
