#he manifestly DOES NOT | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thesherrinfordfacility · 8 months

Text

i did not break my own heart last night thinking about the missing 1941 scene and have it sat in my brain all of today spinning around like a fucking microwave in order to not make you lot suffer with me. and i somehow feel i may be right about this so buckle up and lets break it down.

so yes, following on from this post, i think that there is going to be a third 1941 scene. twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. it's been literally set up like that by even bringing back 1941 into s2 in the first place. but we're missing a crucial detail because it does not - at all, really - explain how they went from evading danger from hell and having a cosy candlelit bottle of red to celebrate, to the bastard 1967 scene. we all know this, this is nothing new.

the symbolism of nightingales is probably going to cast a shadow on this. these two excellent analyses look at the meaning of nightingales in the context of R&J, and the relation that the song has to this point in time, respectively. in summary; it's a song that should be around in 1941 courtesy of vera lynn and others, and the nightingale itself carries the meaning of love being hidden and forbidden by way of it singing under the cover of darkness, before being replaced with reality and soberness - represented by the lark. the Dinner of '41 scene is set in the bookshop at night; this would parallel - that they are safe and concealed, and truths can be shared, but the writing is on the wall that stepping outside would be to shatter the illusion, so to speak. it might be that the song itself gets miracled up onto the record player, or a wireless lying about - whatever. note: i don't think they'll dance though, not given crowley in ep5, "you don't dance"... but then again, if there ISNT a kiss in s3-1941, an aborted dance seems like the next best option... the cowardly one, but i'll take it

this would also track with aziraphale having his epiphany after the church in s1-1941; specifically, in my eyes, that he doesn't necessarily just realise he loves crowley, but that crowley by way of saving his books loves him too. this is only supported by the whole of the s2-1941 scene of trusting in each other as the only way to pull off the trick, the subterfuge. this is then, again, also important in the context of what i think happens in s3-1941.

i do think aziraphale is going to bring the books up again, and what crowley did, because it needs to be addressed. the Nazis/furfur confrontation has scared him, regardless of whether he saved them both, more than he realised. its put things into startling perspective. i think he's going to bring up the books, and actually question crowley a little more as to why he did it. the repeated use of, and subsequent weird reaction crowley has to, the use of the term "friend" in s2-1941 would indicate that this is going to be a focal point in s3-1941. are they just friends? is crowley disappointed that aziraphale is still referring to him as that, after what he did? 'saving' aziraphale in the church, and then saving his books? or is aziraphale just saying 'friends' so hesitantly in both instances because he's not completely sure where crowley stands?

we as the audience know the answer to this, but they obviously do not. if one of the crucial themes of s3 is going to be resolving miscommunication, it makes sense for this scene to be the first, and last, time they communicate properly... at least, until they sort out the issues that culminated in the Final Fifteen.

so let's say they start getting into a very roundabout way of discussing what they mean to each other. there will need to be the sobering, ice-water-over-the-head realisation however, as s2-1941 demonstrated, that they cannot belong to each other, because they manifestly belong to heaven and hell respectively. crowley is still being spied on, and it firmly places aziraphale in their line of sight too. it's going to bring up the holy water discussion; why crowley asked for it - to protect himself, whether by taking out demons or taking out himself, as long as it means he - and most importantly, aziraphale - does not get hurt.

they actively confess that they want to be together, in a way that is more than they are now. aziraphale wants to, but says that they can't, because it's too dangerous. crowley suggests that no one ever has to know, they can hide it (there, in the bookshop, whilst the nightingale is singing), and even if they are found out, they can run. "hell won't just be angry; they'll destroy you..." // "no one ever has to know".

aziraphale doesn't want to have to hide it, doesn't want a halfway measure- is still thinking in black and white. crowley however thinks that something is better than nothing - thinking in the grey. but ultimately, as long as they are still shackled, they cannot do what they want, and it puts the other in danger. "surely the great thing about being a demon is that you can do whatever you want" // "you sound jealous, angel...". instead, aziraphale promises that the day that they are no longer tied to heaven or hell, they can be together; crowley scoffs, thinking that that will never happen, so they will never happen, "you're so clever! how can someone as clever as you be so stupid?!"

the reason they can't right now is because they could be caught. they would have to skulk around, be ashamed, feel guilty - and aziraphale is tired of feeling like that. because only having crowley in secret would hurt more. not being able hold his hand, or dance with him, or kiss him, unless it was in the bookshop. if hell were to find out, crowley would be killed, true, but if heaven were to find out, aziraphale could be cast out. and if crowley survived hell long enough to see aziraphale fall - he'd never forgive himself, and in a way, i don't think he'd ever forgive aziraphale either.

it's tearing them to pieces, but they have to stop whatever is happening between them in its tracks. it's acknowledged, but it's not named. this gives them plausible deniability; if they called it 'love', it would be undeniable. so, aziraphale asks for crowley to go; asks him to leave before they do something they can't come back from. crowley doesn't listen - crowds him, gets in close, and aziraphale is powerless to stop it. doesn't want to stop it. he's selfish by nature, a selfless kind of selfishness, but he wants this with all his being. and then - "this is too fast, crowley, please don't..." // "im sorry, angel. please... please, forgive me". aziraphale never gets to answer, to grant him that, because boom - the actual first kiss.

so. now that i've had to make you read that, i'm going in for the kill. let's look at everything that follows - and look at how the above might recontextualise it.

1967: the offer of the picnic, the Ritz? ie. the literal lyrics of berkeley square? aziraphale has caved in the interest of giving crowley a weapon to use if all else fails, to protect him, but that's as far as he's willing to progress. everything else is still too painful; he's on the brink of tears, promising that one day they'll be able to do what they want, to be open about how they feel, but not yet. they can't. crowley tries to push, "ill give you a lift, anywhere you want to go..." (him offering again to run away? a second chance to leg it?), and aziraphale reminding him that they can't, he can't... don't make him go too fast again, it's not fair. it also sets up perfectly that aziraphale and crowley don't speak for the next 40 or so years (as far as we're aware) until armageddon is threatened.

bandstand: mostly this is still centred around the apocalypse contextually, but i think with the above hypothetical scene in mind (the offer to hide, to run away, to be together), aziraphale is sent back to remembering their mutual confession that they've nonverbally agreed not to bring up, because it's not safe, and it's too painful. they've skirted around it, and returned instead to a tentative kind of friendship at the beginning of s1, but they're still not safe to address why seeing each other again, being so close to each other and not being able to touch is so painful. anyway - aziraphale refuses their side, but the above scene would re-view this as 'our side can't exist yet, you know this! you know why it can't!', and crowley leaves, again after pushing a bit more than aziraphale can stand.

alpha centauri: basically a facsimile of the above; same steps, same dance. but this time, crowley harks back to aziraphale's foolish (?) hope that they will be together, without having to run away, when the day comes that they don't have to answer to heaven or hell. and aziraphale smacks him right back, echoing crowley asking for aziraphale's forgiveness in kissing him, "i forgive you." crowley knows exactly what aziraphale is getting at, there - he's answering crowley's whispered plea to forgive him for pushing, for trying to force him, for acting in desperation. but he's also not answering that - he's skirting around that very thing, forgiving him like a knife would, slicing back at crowley for not only insulting aziraphale on something that is likely a genuine insecurity of his, but also putting him back in his place, for their safeties, because them being together just cannot happen. not yet.

and "please forgive me" in 1941 might seem out of character, but idk if it is; crowley knows that doing what he's about to do will hurt aziraphale, aziraphale has (hypothetically) told him as much, but he needs to do it - and seeks not benevolence or forgiveness as crowley-the-demon, but actually seems aziraphale's forgiveness, as crowley-the-person. the echo would certainly match the tone given here, in multiple ways:

the ritz: i mean, what is there to say? yes, their song is literally playing on the piano, and heralds the shift in their being out from heaven and hell, the day has finally come where they can - again, going by this entirely hypothetical scene that ive concocted - actually be together as they want to. and the nightingale literally singing outside, but as @shoemakerobstetrician beautifully pointed out, god remarks that it's covered up by traffic. so actually, if we again refer back to R&J interpretation of the nightingale, the love is still hidden, still somewhat under wraps, but can only just about be heard over the noise of the streets outside. the prohibition of them being together, of loving each other, is dwindling. and one day, it'll stop singing altogether. that day is coming, it will come, and then they can do what they please. so whilst the ritz scene may well be a mark of them starting the next chapter, it's slow to take hold, there's still hesitancy - which absolutely makes sense when we see that they are still very tentative with each other come the beginning of s2.

s2 general: aziraphale realises their freedom first; he gets excited by the dance, and being able to show his love to crowley, completely and without barriers, in the form of the ball - what he has read to be the best way to do so. he touches crowley more. he shares his bookshop with him, gifts it to crowley as being his as well as aziraphale's, this safe space that is so wholly theirs that crowley has the power to grant entry. the same with the bentley - aziraphale sees it as theirs, and crowley silently agrees, granting aziraphale the same power. crowley is comfortable in the bookshop to remove his glasses, has a place for them. the bookshop becomes tidier, more minimalist, to make crowley more comfortable in it (it is more cluttered in s1, im certain of it). it might just be the grading between s1 and s2, and lack of clutter, but the yellow is more prominent - his literal favourite colour. everything just screams that aziraphale is ready to make good on his promise from s3-1941.

crowley... for once, is the one not quite catching up. not realising the little dates here and there are literally poses them as a couple (although yes, the coffee shop one is to prep crowley for the goob jumpscare), that aziraphale has granted him the power to grant entry. aziraphale literally asking, practically begging, crowley to help him hide goob. the mf colour of the walls. the colour of the bentley. it's not until nina outright asks him if they are together that he realises how careless they've been - but wait, is it careless if they have nothing to be careful of? well, arguably crowley does, hell are still hanging around him like a bad smell... but this is what he wanted! this is what he was pushing aziraphale for! so, does he risk it? he's not sure, but he's certainly realising that aziraphale is ready, if nothing else. and by the time the ladies stage their little intervention, crowley finally realises that the confession he started in 1941 now can be fully aired, can come out into the open.

the Feral Domestic: *fingers at temples* i know i have been fairly vocal about my interpretation of this scene, and frankly - until we get this hypothetical s3-1941 scene, i stand by it - but let's say this speculation about the scene is true, and re-examine the key points in the Final Fifteen that would completely turn on their heads in terms of meaning:

literally, harking back full circle to what aziraphale promised in 1967 as what they would do when they could fully acknowledge their love, and what they did as soon as - on paper - they were free at the end of s1. this is however before he's spoken to by nina and maggie, so maybe this is what crowley was planning in terms of confessing fully to aziraphale, but after their meddling he realised that yes, they need to actually talk about it again. he doesn't understand why they're telling him what they are - because he's existed so long in gestures and gifts and not talking, literally dismissed it now as a viable option, that it doesn't even occur to him to try talking again.

which is why he does something brave, and tries to tell aziraphale instead (say it out loud, make it undeniable, put a name to it, "i love you", something that i think was crowley's actual intention before aziraphale interrupts him) when he comes back to the shop... he's so nervous, because it's vulnerable, and because the last time he did, they ended up hiding for 50-ish years.

next up:

now, im reluctant to think that aziraphale lied in the Feral Domestic, because i do think the key thing at work is his paramount need to do the Right Thing (ie. make a difference in heaven). whilst metatron obviously manipulates him, im not entirely convinced that aziraphale wholly sees through it. i don't think he knew that metatron was up to something, i think the shaking off of this naivety is going to be part of his s3 character development. but this sentence - again, especially in context of the hypothetical s3-1941 scene - must on some level frighten him. especially if you take this meta into account, aziraphale must realise at least that they were never safe, even when they were denying what they were and how they felt, it didn't make a bit of difference. now, metatron could have just been talking about the arrangement, not referring to any romantic elements of any kind, but the threat of it? no wonder he pushes for crowley to join him in heaven; he could keep crowley safe there. they could be together, and heaven - in his eyes - would be able to say a word against it.

then:

the fear sets in; crowley was too late in telling him, acknowledging that they could be together, realising what aziraphale was saying to him without words, and now heaven has come for him. plonked them right back where they were in s2-1941, but perversely mirrored; instead of hell coming for crowley with violence, heaven came for aziraphale with kindness. crowley doesn't have a magic trick he can just do on the fly, perform it perfectly when the need for it is greatest, and has to cling to the hope that aziraphale still sees them as the barrier to them, the reason they can't be together. and in true miscommunication fashion, i think aziraphale does see it, but what metatron said lingers, and in addition to being inside the institution, changing it from the inside out, in order to make a difference... he knows that whilst it's exactly the opposite of what they wanted, he needs to make them safe. better to be inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.

but aziraphale doesn't tell crowley what metatron said, because instead he either deliberately tries to deny the implications of it (cognitive dissonance king behaviour), or he doesn't want to panic crowley and is trying to convey to crowley that he can't speak his concerns, not when the metatron could still be watching, and instead just needs crowley to trust him, take his hand, and join him in heaven where they can be safe. doesn't tell crowley that heaven hasn't captured him in shackles again, but he's willingly held out his wrists because it's the safest thing for him, and them, to do.

so it's one thing to look at what crowley's saying, but aziraphale's reaction? before, i just found it to be out of confusion, him not really understanding what crowley was saying, but tbh i never paid much attention to it (david stole this bit of the scene - not to put down my beloved michael here, but he did). and i know others have remarked here that aziraphale is flitting his eyes to the window and looks scared and stressed, but i don't completely think that its because he's scared that metatron is watching (although, now, i will accept with the rug thing and hypothetical s3-1941 in context it is definitely playing a part), but also because he's just starting to recognise that this is a repeat of the s3-1941 scene, "this sounds familiar, we've been here before... oh, we've definitely been here before... oh shit. i still can't do this, not unless he comes with me. we still can't be together, not in the way crowley wants. the way he's trying again, now, to ask for."

but the issue is: crowley wants to run away together. again. and i totally get why, but once again, going back to 1941: it's exactly the solution that will not work. they cannot run from this. heaven, and hell, will find them. they will come for them. it wasn't an option in 1941, it wasn't an option in 2019, and it isn't an option in 2023. aziraphale begins shaking his head - crowley is confessing, but a) aziraphale doesn't run from things, it isnt in his character, and b) it's just putting them back where they started - something that they have to hide. it defeats the purpose.

and this? yeah, im sure on neither side it was meant the way im about to interpret it, more of an unspoken thing, idk... but if the bookshop is indeed their place of safety, and is where they (as far as crowley sees it) can speak and keep their love, it makes sense that crowley is telling aziraphale he needs to stay. the bookshop can be interpreted so many ways - it represents their relationship, or that crowley means him, himself - but what if we looked at it like crowley is trying now to covet it, because it's protecting them? what if he's saying, "well, if you won't run away with me, we can't be free to have our relationship as we wanted it, not unless we stay here... heaven has come for you, has come for us, and whilst they're here we can't move. so what other option is left remain in this bookshop? to never leave it, and what we have inside it, because there's no other option in which we can be together if you won't run with me."

and what if aziraphale is saying, "no, i have an option, and that's to be together in heaven! they won't be able to do anything, not when im in the position the metatron has offered me, that can be our new bookshop... nothing lasts forever - this bookshop won't last forever, it's compromised, and we can't continue to secret away what we feel inside it, it's time to move forward."

welcome to the line that breaks my heart the most in this whole goddamn scene - and tbh i think is fairly self-explanatory in the hypothetical s3-1941 context. that aziraphale is trying, once again, to tell crowley that he is offering himself, letting them be an 'us', as crowley says shortly after - that before he couldnt do it, and these arent the best of circumstances, but they can finally do it and not have to hide in the bookshop. but crowley reminds him, "hey, i was in your shoes, remember. i wanted us to be together then, and you told me you couldn't, didn't want a halfway measure - well, now i don't either. and this will be a halfway measure, because i don't think us being together in heaven is going to go the way you hope it will. i understand a whole lot better than you do." in any case, it would explain why aziraphale choses this moment to look so devastated. this is what he promised crowley, but now crowley - to his mind, in the things left Unsaid - doesn't want it... him.

and then... back to the nightingales. they're not singing at all, not even under the rumble of traffic, like they were at the Ritz. they're completely absent - day has broken, the things unspoken have now been said, and there's no denying them anymore. from crowley's point of view, there was nothing to stop them this time, but if aziraphale won't run with him, then they have to go separate ways, because there is no other way. aziraphale knows there's the possibility that the only place they could actually be safe is heaven itself, that the bookshop was never as safe as they hoped it had been, but that crowley might actually come to see that. but the fact that crowley is resigned to just... returning to 'reality', to a world that's still turning where they aren't together? despite everything they've just said? "we could've been... us." well, that hurts.

and then... the kiss. now. im still of the mind that the kiss was an Issue. i definitely think it was meant out of love and desperation, and out of possibly being a goodbye. this would echo the hypothetical s3-1941 kiss... but it was hurtful. it was abrupt, and harsh, and not at all romantic (imo). it was possessive, and almost cruel. i do think still it was a last ditch attempt, a temptation, to get aziraphale to change his mind, before crowley leaves the shop and returns to the 'real world'. but it hurts aziraphale in many different ways - but with 1941 put in there, too? crowley is just testing his resolve, trying to push him, come around to giving in. crowley asked him to forgive him the last time he kissed aziraphale, and this time - this time, aziraphale is giving him what he asked for.

#did i just do a whole ass meta based off of a completely hypothetical non-existent hc of the third part of 1941?#yes - yes i did #but the Implications would not leave my brain #make of this what you will if you even got to the end and if you did frankly congratulations #good omens

236 notes · View notes

kyouka-supremacy · 7 months

Note

Could you elaborate more on akutagawa bringing out atsushi's cruel side and atsushi bringing out akutagawa's kinder side? Despite everything i do think there were moments where atsushi held akutagawa's strength in high regard and felt inferior to him but denies this by constantly mocking akutagawa and reminding him that he lost in their first fight. Ngl i really love how atsushi can be himself around akutagwa, he doesn't need to be the atsushi that everyone loves, he can be the atsushi that only he can love 😭

Okay I've talked about this plenty so you might want to check out these posts (1) (2) (3) (4); on Akutagawa's good nature (1) (2); on Atsushi's mean nature (1) (2) (3)

My final take is: it's true, Atsushi brings out Akutagawa's kind side and Akutagawa brings out Atsushi's cruel side. But it shouldn't be left at that, risking of running into the error of reducing their relationship to an oversimplifying formula. It's true, Atsushi is mean around Akutagawa and Akutagawa is kind around Atsushi; but what we should really focus on is the fact that they manage to bring out a side of each other that other characters don't. Which is a good thing! It means that they can be their true selves, letting go of the fear of judgement and abandonment, because they know they're okay with each other. And I'm positive that yes, although it initially manifested with Atsushi being straight up a jerk to Akutagawa, it's not going to stop at that; because if it's true that Akutagawa brings to light facets of Atsushi's nature that don't usually emerge, it's also true that Atsushi's true nature isn't all evil and nothing else. First off, Atsushi is also manifestly more confident around Akutagawa, he's more brave and cool. He's sassy and sharp, he's blunt and stops overthinking things. Who knows if, once he's grown more affectionate of Akutagawa, once he's changed his mind about him, that will also translate in him being more open about how much he admires Akutagawa? Personally, I like to believe it will (Atsushi's love language being words of affirmation which is exactly what Akutagawa needs, eheh). After all, the “If you asked me, I'd say Dazai-san has already recognized you long ago” (which I've said, probably made Akutagawa fall right then and there) likely didn't come from a place of high esteem as much as it was just Atsushi honestly expressing his thoughts, unfiltered in front of Akutagawa. Then, just think of what he could tell him once his feelings for Akutagawa have morphed from simple animosity to something positive!

To me sskk really is:

It's unpealing each layer till they're completely naked in front of each other, but God knows if having someone they can be utterly vulnerable with isn't exactly what they need. And yes, that started off as Atsushi being extremely rude to Akutagawa, but I'm sure it's not going to stop at that. It's going to develop in Atsushi being comforted by Akutagawa saying “do we need any more?” because having each other is truly all they need, and it's going to develop in Atsushi softly smiling at Akutagawa because no one else could make him feel safe and serene as he does.

#I feel like Atsushi's being mean is especially impactful because it's strikingly different from how he usually behaves #but it's not like he ever did Akutagawa something worse than everything Akutagawa has done to him you know...#atsushi nakajima #ryūnosuke akutagawa #sskk #shin soukoku #bsd #bungou stray dogs #bsd analysis #my analysis #mine #people asks me stuff #I'm sorry if this isn't my best answer #The answer I had come up under the shower a few days ago was a lot better but unfortunately I don't remember anything about it #It's just. I have a lot of thoughts about sskk and they're not always coherent

152 notes · View notes

whetstonefires · 1 year

Text

oh hang on so Oliver Twist as a book is largely about child labor, right.

like the commonality between the workhouse, the abusive apprenticeship, and the pickpocket gang is that Oliver is being exploited. for his labor. and Fagin's gang while crossing the line into illegality and therefore in some ways the most dangerous is also the most pleasant of the three.

and ofc which i have underconsidered until now, child labor was fully legal at the time and a major political issue--the 1833 Factory Act had only just recently outlawed employing under-nines on the factory floor, or working 9-13 year olds more than 9 hours a day, and 13-18 year olds more than 12.

it was a struggle to enforce and it was controversial.

so. Fagin's gang replicates that factory owner-child laborer relationship on a tiny, illicit scale, where the kids are taking all the risks and doing all the work and he's getting most of the profit, and it's not fair, but oh he's giving them food and a place to sleep and wouldn't they be worse off without him? (they would is the thing. but does that make it okay?)

with the goal of this being that next time Dickens' milquetoast middle-class readers encountered an argument for the benevolence of a guy employing child labor to maximize his profits they might go, hey! that's not true, he's just like that crook Fagin!

but of course this kind of political messaging works best when it can't be too readily clocked as such--if Fagin was obviously a stand-in for a respectable capitalist, a lot more of the readers would be comfortable excusing him.

which is why he's Jewish, and why the text belabors that point so obsessively--antisemitism is being used as a lever to discourage the public from identifying with Child Labor Exploiting Guy and to characterize his desire to accumulate wealth at the expense of others as greedy, selfish, and illegitimate.

i could never quite figure what the point of using that stock character in that context and so emphatically was. especially after learning that, having had it extensively explained that it was harmful to actual Jewish people to go so hard on this in such a popular novel, Dickens was like 'oh my bad' and walked it back a bit.

because in that case the antisemitism obviously wasn't an end in itself? but if it was incidental flavor, why so much?

but as a screen for his political agenda, it makes sense. using judaism to code an antagonist's profit motive as illegitimate had a long literary history already, but in this case Fagin was already manifestly a criminal so it was like. why.

anyway this isn't about justifying charles dickens' artistic choices that even he somewhat regretted. it's a bit about how easy it can be to fail to put together context even when you have all the pieces, especially at a remove from our own lived experience.

and a bit more about how the tools we use for political ends should be carefully inspected. no matter how ordinary and unremarkable they seem when we pick them up. because we might be missing different historical context due to being embedded in it.

#hoc est meum #antisemitism #writing #charles dickens #oliver twist #child labor #factory act of 1833 a watershed event in labor history #i did not really consider how much in 1837 Normal People #did not necessarily think that child labor was bad #so i failed to recognize propaganda to that end lol #seinfeld is unfunny etc #fagin #the alienated minority #literature

1K notes · View notes

vickyvicarious · 9 months

Text

I did not sleep well, though my bed was comfortable enough, for I had all sorts of queer dreams. There was a dog howling all night under my window, which may have had something to do with it; or it may have been the paprika, for I had to drink up all the water in my carafe, and was still thirsty.

3 May

Then a dog began to howl somewhere in a farmhouse far down the road—a long, agonised wailing, as if from fear. The sound was taken up by another dog, and then another and another, till, borne on the wind which now sighed softly through the Pass, a wild howling began, which seemed to come from all over the country, as far as the imagination could grasp it through the gloom of the night. At the first howl the horses began to strain and rear, but the driver spoke to them soothingly, and they quieted down, but shivered and sweated as though after a runaway from sudden fright. Then, far off in the distance, from the mountains on each side of us began a louder and a sharper howling—that of wolves—which affected both the horses and myself in the same way—for I was minded to jump from the calèche and run, whilst they reared again and plunged madly, so that the driver had to use all his great strength to keep them from bolting. ... The keen wind still carried the howling of the dogs, though this grew fainter as we went on our way. The baying of the wolves sounded nearer and nearer, as though they were closing round on us from every side.

5 May

Something made me start up, a low, piteous howling of dogs somewhere far below in the valley, which was hidden from my sight.

24 June

A good deal of interest was abroad concerning the dog which landed when the ship struck, and more than a few of the members of the S. P. C. A., which is very strong in Whitby, have tried to befriend the animal. To the general disappointment, however, it was not to be found; it seems to have disappeared entirely from the town. It may be that it was frightened and made its way on to the moors, where it is still hiding in terror. There are some who look with dread on such a possibility, lest later on it should in itself become a danger, for it is evidently a fierce brute. Early this morning a large dog, a half-bred mastiff belonging to a coal merchant close to Tate Hill Pier, was found dead in the roadway opposite to its master's yard. It had been fighting, and manifestly had had a savage opponent, for its throat was torn away, and its belly was slit open as if with a savage claw.

9 August

As funny as the entire 'Whitby residents want to adopt Dracudog' bit is, there's a darker side to it as well. First of all, in the irony of their love being based on a complete misunderstanding of his true nature - down even to the basics. Dracula is almost certainly not transformed into a dog, but a wolf. However, there are no wild wolves in England, and so the locals don't recognize him. This sums up the entire reason he's come here, quite succinctly. Seen as dog (human), really a wolf (vampire). No wolves there (no vampires, no belief in/knowledge of them) and so they don't recognize him (can't defend against them). They want to adopt him - obviously, he has no interest in being adopted as a literal pet, but he does want to be 'adopted' in a more general sense by English society. He spent many long hours reading books and talking to Jonathan to ensure that he'd be able to fit in more easily; if Whitby is any indication, his plans seem to be paying off.

There's also something else going on with dog vs wolf here, though. I pulled a few quotes above about upset dogs. And that's because dogs aren't fooled like the people of Whitby. They seem to instinctively see through/oppose supernatural forces. While the howling on 3 May is from before Jonathan meets Dracula, it happens at the same time as he experiences a night full of 'queer dreams' and shortly after he has "[left] the West and [entered] the East" - in other words, after he has passed out of the modern natural world and entered the domain of older supernatural powers. It's a simplified and kind of racist idea, yes, but symbolically at least, this transition is something emphasized in the text. And the first night in that land, his rest is disturbed partially due to a symbol of civilization voicing its distress.

The dogs get increasingly clearer about this opposition to the supernatural and Dracula specifically. The howling on 5 May happens at midnight on St. George's day, a time when 'all the evil things in the world have full sway', on the night when Dracula collects his treasures from the ground where men have died. This also marks a transition point where Jonathan is fully under the Count's power, fully separated from civilization. And this is even embodied by the dogs' howls soon being drowned out by their wild/supernatural equivalent when the wolves howl louder and sharper. They end up surrounding Jonathan that night, while the dogs sound farther and farther away and eventually are heard no more. And another difference: the dogs howl in fear. The wolves howl "as though the moonlight had had some peculiar effect on them" - a reference to werewolves perhaps, but also, they do this while surrounding and menacing Jonathan and the horses, while hunting them.

The distant dog howling on 24 June marks the time when Dracula is kidnapping a child from the town. Their protest does some amount of good - it helps Jonathan to begin breaking free of the hypnotic trance the vampire ladies have him in - but it doesn't manage to save the child.

And finally, today's dog seems to have tried to defend its home, based on where its body was found. Who knows, maybe Dracula had a passing interest in killing someone there and it managed to dissuade him. More likely the dog just instinctively recognized him for the threat he is as he was passing by and attacked, leading him to kill it in order to be left alone. Perhaps the fact that the English dog is the only one which actually is shown to do more than cry out a fearful protest is representative of the English main characters being the humans who will eventually stand against Dracula rather than be so fully dominated by him. After all, they aren't surrounded by wolves here; it's just the one. But if so, the fact that the dog who tries him is brutally slain by Dracula cannot bode well either. After all, they have no experience with wolves here; they don't know how to fight them.

#dracula daily #count dracula #keep an eye out for future dogs is all i'm saying. dogs and wolves are important #dracula meta #my meta #dracula dogs

103 notes · View notes

astrangergivingthestrangewelcome · 1 year

Text

Kills me when people(directors of mainstream adaptations of Dracula) say that Jonathan gets useless outside of the castle because it is manifestly not true! I think the reason people think this is bc Bram Stoker does fixate a little too hard on paperwork defeating Count Dracula but if you look at the plot as written Jonathan finds the location of literally every single box. He does ALL the legwork and bribing and detective work, the others just take the leads he finds and go with them. I suppose I can understand directors being like no I'm not including this this is uninteresting to watch but like! Like! If you look at what is on the page he is perhaps from start to finish the most useful character in the entire novel.

#dracula #jonathan harker #also what the fuck were quincey and arthur doing before Oct 3rd #stoker shows Seward working and Van Helsing going over things and thinking #but like are those two just sucking eachother off like hello why is jonathan the only one doing the legwork

311 notes · View notes

chalkrevelations · 7 months

Text

ok, wow, Dangerous Romance. WOW.

Looking at the preview for next week, dare I hope that someone has heard my mutterings about has realized how badly Bad Buddy dealt with bullying and its fallout and is actually going to do some of the cleanup and reconciliation work that BB almost completely leapfrogged over?

Hold on, I might need to sit down.

Because, listen. I love BB as much as anyone, it was probably my real gateway into Thai bl, but it's always bugged me how much that show and this writing team - the same team responsible for Dangerous Romance - allowed the execrable behavior by Pat and the Engineering Backup Hobbits to disappear down the memory hole once the romance storyline kicked into gear, and how much the show was allowed to get away with that, to the point that Wai's concern over Pat's apparently - from the outside - sudden obsessive interest in Pran was seen as intrusive and inappropriate and the rest of the Architecture Backup Hobbits were seen as trash friends for being unhappy to suddenly learn that Pran was dating someone who was responsible for repeated physical assaults on them, rather than Pran's consorting with Pat being seen - at. all. - as the friendship betrayal that it was.

Y'all. I saw someone recently making the argument that Pat was better than Kanghan because sweetheart Pat would never really punch down, and I was like, "I don't think I can even deal with this right now" and just kept scrolling. Because I've posted before about how Pat and the rest of Engineering essentially are Kanghan and Nawa and Third Backup Hobbit, what is this J's character's name that I can't remember right now, gdi? Pat and the Engineering Backup Hobbits are manifestly responsible for starting 95% of the physical altercations that we see in BB, and the other 5%, the bus stop altercation - although we know Wai was pissed about the video uploaded to the Internet, I don't remember that we're ever actually told who threw the first punch. Pat's reputation at the school - ALREADY, and how long has he even been there? - is that he's the guy who makes life miserable for Architecture students. Pat is responsible for siccing the other three on Wai in the first place, including an attempt at aggravated assault that they end up accidentally committing on Pran instead, and wanting to get humiliating video of Wai to upload to the Internet, just as Kanghan attempts to do to Sailom in DR. Pat sits back in the booth at the bar, fuming over a rebuff from Pran and lording it over Wai's humiliation - at his job - which is presented by Korn as a night's "entertainment" for Pat, in much the same way Kanghan sits on his trash-panda throne in an unused room of the school and lords it over his schoolmate subjects while Nawa and Third Backup Hobbit lock Guy in a closet and work over Auto, as well as attempting to get Sailom fired from one job and poisoning his ability to do another job.

And it's extremely subtexutally suggestive that Pat is, in fact, punching down when he goes after Wai, who's a scholarship student and, while not the only character we see working at a job, isn't working at a family business as Pa and Pran do. We learn that he needs to be able to balance his extracurriculars and his studies because he needs to keep his scholarship, and all of that is suggestive that he's not as well-off as the rest of the students, and that he can't retaliate or protect himself in any meaningful way when he's harassed on the job because he likely needs the job in the first place because he needs the money for things his scholarship doesn't pay for. If Pat and the rest of Engineering get him fired with their stunt at his workplace, he could potentially not be able to afford school, which could change the entire path of his life. So yeah, Pat punches down, along with Korn and Chang and Mo, just like Kanghan does, along with Nawa and Third Backup Hobbit, gdi, hold on ... Max, that's his name. Just because Architecture in BB generally do a better job of physically hitting back than Sailom's crew doesn't mean that Engineering aren't just as much bullies as Kanghan and his lackeys.

And I'm pretty excited to see that Sailom is going to attempt to make Kaghan not just behave about it but do some work to make reparations and build better relationships. This is why I'm always a little baffled at people who cite the pacing as why they're giving up on the show - we've gotten plenty of hints that none of the real issues are solved yet. That possessiveness that has Kanghan pulling Sailom away from everyone else by the wrist is going to come back and be an issue. The fact that Sailom basically indentured himself to Kanghan's family to pay off his own family's debt - that has the potential to come back and be an issue. No, everything's not solved yet - we're only halfway through.

#kanghan krittin #sailom homchan #pat napat jindapat #bad buddy #dangerous romance #loveblogging ep 6 #kind of?

65 notes · View notes

celticcrossanon · 3 months

Note

Hello Celta,

You and Mad World Tarot are the only two tarot readers that describe and pick up on Haz brattish energy. She did a reading on January 24th, that looked at the political fallout from the Jamaica pop up visit. Right away she picked up Haz energy, RX KOW, the ruckus fire starter. It was the last stand, the BRF and Haz, 9 of Wands. Granny PROMISED me I’ll be King of the Commonwealth. As an aside, is this why Charles asked his mom specifically if she can declare him head of the commonwealth?

Anyway in answer to the question, Will Haz face any consequences, he emerges as the Prince of Wands, facing away from the situation and leaving the tarot spread. So he faces some loss, and is reduced in rank since he enters as the RX King of Wands and leaves as the Prince of Wands.

I think the Foreign Office and the British government are spitting bullets, particularly Rishi Sunak. They cannot be happy with this. When William was sounding the alarm during and after the Caribbean tour, the other BRF family members were mocking of him. Now they know the malicious Sussex squad is a reality, and were behind those attacks. I honestly hope the government does take action, even if Charles doesn’t. And what a time to do this, when the king and the POW are out of commission on medical leave.

Hi Anonymous Retired,

I think that Jamacia stunt has quite a few political implications. I hope the government does take some sort of action on it. As to what they do, I will leave that up to them.

I think the timing was deliberate. I think it was a clumsy PR attempt to show how loved the Harkles are by the Commonwealth Realms and therefore they should immediately be back in the BRF, especially in the current time of need. Too 'pushy' for me, and manifestly untrue, as if the Harkles were that loved and that important they wouldn't be in the 6th row in the movie theatre. The photo with the Prime Minister is another case of PR spin, I think, although it has been somewhat effective imo.

The Head of the Commonwealth of Nations is a symbolic position that is voted on by all the Commonwealth Nations. It is not something like a patronage that King Charles can hand over to Harry.

"Head of the Commonwealth

His Majesty King Charles III is Head of the Commonwealth.

The role:

is an important symbolic one

has no maximum fixed term

is not hereditary, and future Heads will be chosen by Commonwealth leaders."

from https://thecommonwealth.org/about-us

As for 'King of the Commonwealth', no such position exists or will ever exist. The King of the UK is the Head of State of the Commonwealth Realms, but that position goes with being the monarch of the UK. It is not something that The King can peel off and give to whoever he likes. That is like saying that The King could make Harry the Defender of the Faith or any other position that is tied to being the monarch of the UK.

If the other members of the BRF are just now waking up to the Harkle malice and their use of their extreme fans to manipulate the media, then all I can say is that it has taken them a while. I was appalled by the lack of support from the BRF for Prince William and Princess Catherine during their Caribbean Tour, and I hope it comes back to bite them hard in the future.

34 notes · View notes

the-cunt-of-montecristo · 7 months

Text

October 15th 2023

The major Italian newspapers are flat out lying about the peaceful pro-Palestine march that happened yesterday in Milan.

They describe it as attended by relatively few Palestinians, and the bulk of the protesters being "Arabs from North Africa" and "radical leftist fringes". The interviewed protesters - all brownTM - characterized as "Tunisian raised in Milan" and "resident of [italian town] from Egypt".

All of this to avoid saying the word "Italian".

The march was full of Italians. We were all Italians, regardless of the other nationalities some people might also hold.

The press focused on the "veiled girls" which are one of the scariest thing to ever happened to the west. They completely ignored the sheer amount of FAMILIES with CHILDREN, both white and brown Italians, marching peacefully.

They claimed we "insulted Netanyahu" and "shouted anti-semitic slogans". Bibi was called a murderer, which is not an insult but an adjective that describes someone who does what he does. Israel was called criminal, fascist and genocidal, all things it manifestly is. Not a word was said against the Jews; it was often remarked by the organizers how this was not a matter of religion, how Palestinians ARE semites, and how Judaism =/= Zionism.

The press pretended there were no "true" italians at the march, all the while openly comparing Hamas to alQuaeda and Daesh (always Isis on their papers), criticizing the choice of holding the march "on Shabbat" as if that was an intentional choice and not an organizational necessity, and publishing interviews to the Israeli ambassador about how "other democratic countries banned these protest in favor of terrorism, why doesn't Italy?" with heavy implications that it's because italy is antisemitic. All the while equating Jew and Israeli, and claiming that Israelis feel unsafe in Europe because of the widespread pro-Palestine sentiment.

The march was criticized for the absence of peace flags and lack of "focus on the part of the organizers on the matter of peace."

Peace WAS discussed. The first day of peace will be the last day of the occupation.

As the organizers spoke, they received news that in that very moment a hospital in Gaza had been flattened. People were dying as we marched. An organizer, a girl named Filastin, lost her voice from crying out her people's pain and anger and commitment to justice, until someone else had to take over to lead a "free Palestine" chant.

As Filastin said, people in revolt are those whp write history. Intifada until victory.

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

#palestine #italy #milan #latest installment of this ridiculous misinformation campaign by the press

25 notes · View notes

mydaroga · 3 months

Text

Tune In and sourcing--a caveat

I want to say something that I think has been missing from the recent discussion surrounding Mark Lewisohn here on tumblr, specifically. I know we have a well-founded contention about his bias and of late, great work has been done tracking down and dissecting the way he reshapes quotes out of context to support what appears to be his own narrative. @anotherkindofmindpod did a brilliant and necessary job of this with their Fine Tuning.

But note, they called it "fine tuning," a deliberate choice of words which indicates a nuanced and subtle critique of a work that still has its qualities. I think the whole point of this discussion is that Beatles history is still a growing field, and Lewisohn has been instrumental in moving it away from the Rolling Stone rock bro camp and into something better sourced and with greater care taken for the story it tells. It's manifestly not perfect, but their work (and others) is important in that it helps provide tools for understanding a work that is flawed, but has contributed massively to Beatles scholarship.

But lately, I've been seeing a trend around here where folks just assume he's making shit up out of whole cloth. Which is, as far as I can tell, extreme. First of all, he has a reputation that is extremely important to him, both as someone who uses sources scrupulously and as someone who wants to present himself as unbiased. We know that's not true (neither am I) but it's patently illogical to assume the guy is willfully throwing away his credibility with both hands when it's how he makes a living.

But of course he could be, so more than that, the thing we're missing here is that we don't have access to the sources he does. You can see us wrestling with this here: https://www.tumblr.com/mydaroga/739095948188368896/paul-would-claim-i-wasnt-brilliant-at-school-i. And it's well known in other corners of Beatles fandom that the audio of "Lennon Remembers" is different from the book. The David Sheff interview is known to be riddled with inaccuracies, transcription errors, and alterations. Yes, you can go look up the published version of the "Interview by David Sheff for Playboy, 1980." But we do not have the tapes of the interview, conducted over *weeks*, and altered considerably by the time they reached print.

I'm all for the sleuthing we've been doing of late and I think it needs to be part of the discussion around the way Tune In has, for the past ten years, been taken as gospel. I think Lewisohn's removal of context, smooshing together, and blatant cutting up on quotes is shameful and renders his work hugely biased. But it's a far, far different thing to immediately leap to the conclusion that he's risking his life's work to put words in John Lennon's mouth that weren't there. I'm just asking for us to consider all the possibilities before we dismiss everything the guy's ever done as made up drivel.

Because then we're no better than we think he is.

#the beatles #beatles historiography #mark lewisohn #tune in #beatles fandom #kris talks a lot

11 notes · View notes

turtle-paced · 10 months

Note

Did Theon rape Kyra? Some say yes some say no can you clear that up a bit?

Under a cut for discussion of rape.

In Theon IV ACoK, we've got good reason to question how valid Kyra's consent was (if she gave it). Theon's just taken over the castle and describes himself as "sending for" Kyra. And although Theon thinks of Kyra's "gasps and giggles" as distracting, we're also in the PoV of someone who just Does Not Care about how he treats his sexual partners. That's manifestly apparent from Theon I. I would not treat Theon's remembrances of his partner having a good time as a solid indication that they were actually having a good time and definitely wanted to be there.

In Theon V ACoK, Theon definitely rapes Kyra.

He sent for Kyra, kicked shut the door, climbed on top of her, and fucked the wench with a fury he'd never known was in him. By the time he finished, she was sobbing, her neck and breasts covered with bruises and bite marks. Theon shoved her from the bed and threw her a blanket. "Get out."

While Kyra's lack of consent here is not spelled out (again, because the PoV character doesn't care about it)... does it really need to be, in this case?

#asoiaf #valyrianscrolls #cw: rape #theon greyjoy #a clash of kings

46 notes · View notes

hedonistbyheart · 10 months

Text

I have a lot of feelings about the contrast in Hobie’s expressions here:

He looks manifestly worried once Miles has gone on ahead.

There’s definitely a level of just keeping an eye on Miguel in the way Hobie stays in the back while Gwen and Miles talk to Miguel as well, he’s demonstrative enough that Miguel gets annoyed too, even though he says nothing and is greyed out the whole time. He’s expecting things to blow up and he’s watching in case they need him. Miles does, as it turns out.

#atsv #atsv spoilers #spider man: across the spiderverse spoilers #across the spiderverse spoilers #atsv meta #hobie brown #he knows as much as there is to know probably #and even if the authority is wearing a spider-face he won't trust him as far as he can throw him clearly #i love characters like hobie: rough around the edges (literally) but so so good

23 notes · View notes

thesherrinfordfacility · 8 months

Note

(1/3) Coming off anon to thank you for clarifying the nicknames! I can’t believe “Every” is unrelated to “Every Day”; that’s quite the coincidence. More importantly—I read the linked post where you coined the Feral Domestic (iconic of you), and god, your early sleep-deprived impressions still resonate so hard. (ctd.)

oh. my. word. @nimpseudo!!!✨💕 hello, hi!!! thank you so much for this lovely, lovely ask!!! god, where do i start-

first of all, thank you so much for the kind words!!! this fandom is chock full of intelligent, insightful, and observant people; it's incredibly easy to stoke the imposter syndrome when writing your own meta or analysis, especially when you anticipate it might be quite controversial. everyone sees things differently, and everyone sees things differently over time, but to have a view that might just be a bit of an outlier is doubly scary. but to know that - if even only a handful of people - resonate with my ramblings truly is what makes me keep doing it. so thank you, thank you, thank you!!!✨

im certainly not the only one who feels like this about the Feral Domestic and the kiss in general. now i will admit that in this scene, i do have some aziraphale prejudice, and i can come across as quite biased towards his view of what happened. i think it might be because in the same situation, i think id do the same thing, or view it the same as i perceive aziraphale to do. but over time, my empathy towards crowley has definitely increased, certainly more than my first reaction suggested at the time i posted it; i get his perspective, his terror and fear and vehemence towards aziraphale's offer, and in his shoes id also refuse to join aziraphale.

i think what truly made me recoil tho, as i said in the post and you said in your ask, is the kiss itself. i get why he did it, i get why he was desperate and overwhelmed, but all i can see in response to that is aziraphale's reaction. whilst i see the purely emotional side of crowley kissing him - and god do i sympathise - logically it didn't prove much. aziraphale knows crowley wants to be with him, and crowley knows the vice versa (they literally said as much! that's probably one of the only points in this dialogue that they actually communicate!). the issue on both sides is the caveats - aziraphale doesn't want to run, crowley doesn't want to return. and both are completely understandable.

imo; if the kiss was meant to prove to aziraphale that crowley wanted him, wanted him to stay - well, it wasn't needed, aziraphale heard crowley all but beg him to stay. alternatively, if the kiss was meant as a "this is what you'll be missing", or "this is my goodbye", or - as i personally think - "this will make you stay"... well, these are all pretty shitty.

i do have to wonder if aziraphale has even imagined a kiss with crowley (jane austen, iirc, didn't write romantic kisses in her stories - although she did imply them - and therefore arguably a kiss wouldn't fit into his view of ideal romance... he's likely read other romance stories, but it's specifically austen's he refers to in a romantic capacity in ep2). he likely hasnt, imo, and so with this in mind, when crowley kisses him, how could he possibly see it as anything other than possession, carnal and rough, and as manipulation?

that isn't to say aziraphale isn't open to it - the ox scene and the 40s minisode certainly suggest it, as does him briefly reciprocating during the kiss itself - but it was sudden and fast and unexpected... arguably all the things that scare aziraphale. he reciprocates, but does he even see his own action as willing, or the result of a temptation? because crowley tempted him? it wasn't consensual, it wasn't discussed or eased into, and to my mind it wasnt emotionally romantic.

regardless of the extenuating emotion behind it, it was not a good move on crowley's part. manifestly, it might have even pitted aziraphale against him - aziraphale has always seen crowley as a good person, that's the whole reason behind the restoration offer in the first place... but this? this will have potentially shown to aziraphale that crowley might not be wholly who he thought he was. bad news bears.

anyway sorry, accidental analysis!!!✨ but regardless - thank you so much for being so kind to say what you have, it truly is lovely and very much appreciated. please keep sharing your own meta and analysis, regardless of reach you do or do not have; ive added on multiple posts a tag that reads "#in this house every opinion is valid if you can argue it well enough", and whilst jokey, i do hold that stance. ive rb'd and liked plenty of meta/analysis that are different to or at odds with my own, because i definitely don't think im 100% correct, and actually we all might - between us - have reached the right interpretation together, collectively. as long as it isn't outright offensive, and basically doesn't point-blank ignore the canon or narrative, i truly don't think any interpretation is cancellable if it can be backed up!!!✨💕

#LOVELY LOVELY PEOPLE #MWAH💕#good omens #ask

16 notes · View notes