u guys dovis biography is just an ode to his friends and what it means to experience life together in a community 😔
"the joys of returning home again and again" "i would feel more comfortable wearing a suit if there was mud on the starched shirt" "i wish motogp was about connection" "my friends, partner and daughter are a triangle of serenity" "friends are the mirror i look into to feel normal again" "i find even my relationship with my mom is affected by my fame, which is embarrassing" "life is for the time we spend together and going grocery shopping for the meals we cook" (<- this one got me so bad bc ive noticed he Loves doing that but i thought i was reading into itttt) "what would I have become if I surrounded myself with a court of jesters who are always telling me how good and handsome i am". says that the social atmosphere of the paddock is a "mine field". "starting from universes apart, we found ourselves here [note: being motogp riders together], different but similar: shall we talk about it? listen to each other? exchange experiences?"
mentions he doesn't consider any of the other riders his friends (which he regrets! hed like that connection) but then specifically talks about marc and how what they have is also special (profound is the adjective he uses) because its a relationship you can only have with another athlete. even compares marc to his dad (huge compliment)
SAYS SOMETHING SOOOO INSANE ABOUT HIM HERE first of all this paragraph starts with "A me Marc piace. E i nostri famosi duelli del 2017 li ho interpretati anche come un modo per conoscerci meglio." ("I like Marc. And I interpreted our famous duels in 2017 as a way of getting to know each other better.") and then THIS:
the following may contain inaccuracies: "Deep down, however, he isn't crazy either, although he tries two maneuvers [on their last lap battle in Austria 2017!] that are neither in heaven nor on earth. Theoretically, and even practically, they have no logic. Yet I don't get pissed off, [unsure what this says]. I'm rather surprised to see what he tried to do to win, a kind of "I don't believe it," an astonished curiosity at how he tried to go into unfamiliar terrain where, as a consequence, I followed. It's amazing. As if together we had dug the new seam of a mine: the gold we won't share, of course, because I will take it, however, we dig the earth together as if we were pioneers. And that can't help but create a bond, whatever it may be."
(source is his autobio "Asfalto" for all of this!)
64 notes
·
View notes
I finally got why I love so much the "dragons are gone" ending in the books while I hate it in the movies:
The books set the dragons free.
The movies simply sent them away.
That's basically the idea but I had a vision yesterday at 3am so I will be getting into detail below the cut.
The books have a very strong message about slavery. Some would say that it is a concept that is only important within the context of the last five or four books, but the ones that have been paying attention to the saga as a whole knows that there are things happening in the background. You know, stuff like
People eating dragons
People stealing dragons from their families so
The dragons can serve the vikings
And they're expected to obey because
People threaten to turn them into bags.
That's mostly the first book.
Dragons are constantly showed as unsatisfied with the status quo trough out the books, some more annoyed with the vikings than others. We have complete monologues from different dragons before the war is even a possibility. Sincerely, when it happens, it feels natural.
The idea of freeing the dragons is not one that comes up in the last book, not even close. The first time it is considered an option is in book 9 (I think), and, by the time being, we've already stablish lots of concepts as slavery within human beings, the dangers of a war, how this could lead to the end of all and freeing the dragons is the only option.
It is fatalist to say the least, but it's not going out of nowhere. There is a lot of worldbuilding (more on that later), but it is also the right thing to do. By the time Hiccup is presenting the option, Cowell has made us root for the dragons to be free and wild and do whatever they want, even if what they want is to hide under sea for thousands of years. Or if they don't want, or if the want to but just not in that moment, they can do it.
Oh, yes, because they leave GRADUALLY.
It is a sad ending, but still manages to get as satisfactory because, yet again, we know this happens and the books remind us this will happen eventually every time they can. “There were dragons when I was a boy” is literally the first phrase in the saga.
And then we got the movies.
The movies never followed the books. Like, not very much. The writers decided that they wanted to tell a story of a broken relationship between a father and a son while using dragons, the heroic and prophetic aspects of the books were getting on the way of that and they scrapped the idea. So, no, you can't tell me the movies actually follow the books.
However, if you're very technical, you know the Hiccup we see in the movies resembles Hiccup I, the one that stopped the war between vikings and dragons in the books, stablishing an equal relation between the two races. And this idea of the movies being a prequel can work for the second and specially the first movie, disregarding the fact that there are no prophetic or magical elements at all.
But THW exist and... Exist.
Suddenly the writers and producers decide that they want to follow the books and want to get rid of the dragons, something that is completely against the message of the other two movies.
(I am just talking about the movies, the shows-books relationship is very different and I will someday make a post ranting about it)
The movies do NOT talk about the dangers of dragons being with vikings or how the vikings mistreat the dragons or how bad is slavery or anything like that. The second movie does, yes, but the second movie also sends a message about how people benefit of being with dragons. They have their dragons and they're strong because of that friendship. Being at war with one another only brings loss and suffering for both bands while being together promises an actual future. A bright future that no one imagined before the first movie and that now they cling to.
Dragons and vikings are friends and together cand do basically anything.
That's a very strong message, you know?
And you know what? The third movie decided that such a strong and important message about friendship should leave the franchise completely.
“Free the dragons” it's a concept that doesn't fit with the movies. They're not slaved, they're not away from wildness and, most importantly, they CHOOSE to be with the vikings in the first place. They are already equals, they can do what they want and, you know, they are with the vikings because they want to.
But no, let's do a movie about letting friends go as if it could actually fit in the saga.
(I know it could actually fit but the execution was terrible).
As I said before, the movies resembles Hiccup I befriending dragons and we know how it ends. And someone who has never read the books will go and say "well, it was bound to end that way, why are you mad?” I tell you the difference right now: there's 1000 years of difference between the befriending and the parting in the book, 1000 years in wich we witness the deterioration of said friendship (from being friends and equals to being slaves). That's no what happens in the movies. The films give us 6 years and the only deterioration is within Toothless' character and how they made him a horny dog.
The dragons shouldn't have leave. This was a whim from the writers that thought that ending both stories the same way would be cool. It isn't. At all.
Long story short, it doesn't fit thematically. The movies and the books have different themes with different concepts and different characterizations of the dragons. While the books got story building and present the theme's since the beginning, the movies get it out of no where ignoring the themes in previous works.
Anyways, go read the books they're jewels and the ending isn't as shitty as thw make it look
371 notes
·
View notes
Disco Elysium & Language
Okay okay so a bit ago I (foolishly) decided to (poorly) translate all 200-something pages of A Sacred and Terrible Air, despite having zero experience with Estonian whatsoever (so, you know, take what I’m saying here with a huge grain of salt).
There’s a small thing that gets lost in the translation from Estonian to English, the object of my obsession: The Pale
Its original Estonian counterpart is ”halli” (which essentially functions as “the gray” [a part of a whole], as opposed to “hall”, which is just “gray” [a color]). Hall and Pale are both used to describe the color of skin due to No Blood. They have similar connotations & uses.
Easy-peasy. Let’s look at the Chapter 15 title “Hallitus”. Hey, that looks kinda familiar, I see a “halli” in there.
First we gotta backtrack. Hallitus is just a noun derived from the verb hallitama.
Hallitama is built from “hall” (”gray”) plus -tama (suffix for making a noun in to a verb, generally means “to make”). So, hallitama would (should?) literally mean “to make gray” or “graying”. BUT! It actually means “to mold”. Like an apple being coated in a gray fuzz, hallitama is “to mold / to go moldy”. Oooh!
So “hallitus” means “moldy”. But it also, sorta, means “grayed thing”/”pale’d thing”.
So, we have this word that’s used to describe all sorts of manner of withering, decaying, frail, or dead things.
I don’t know, it tickles the brain.
623 notes
·
View notes
One thing that always bothered me in high school (and still does, years after!) was touring a college and the tour guides went, "as a college freshman, you'll probably be susceptible to the Freshman Fifteen, so be careful!" as my tour group passed the college's gym complex (it was actually a pretty impressive gym, though, but that's beside the point).
Like, that just bothers me because... I wonder what is so different between American high school and American college that might contribute to weight gain (sarcasm intended)! Even taking 101 classes is very different from the classes you might take in high school, I don't think it's fair to hold your body to the standards you had in high school.
Absolutely, I think it's important to prioritize health for your body, but weight gain associated with major lifestyle changes are normal and why I remember this so clearly is because the threat of weight gain was treated as something that ought to scare us straight. If you gain weight in college, there's a reason why, and it isn't a horrific ordeal that you ought to feel ashamed of.
69 notes
·
View notes