I've reached season 5 on my CSI rewatch and I'm a few episodes past "Swap Meet", where a woman is murdered after attending a swing party with other couples from the neighbourhood. Near the end of the episode there's a moment that made me jump from my seat:
(Grissom walks up to Sara and takes the seat next to her. He's holding two cups. He hands her a cup of tea.)
[INT. POLICE DEPARTMENT - BRASS' OFFICE]
Erin Brady: Everybody fantasizes about other people. (She glances at Grissom.)
Even you, Mr. Grissom. A neighbor, a friend ... girl at the office.
[INT. POLICE DEPARTMENT - HALLWAY]
(The door opens. Paul Brady walks out of the hallway. Erin Brady walks out into the hallway. Sara is sitting in the hallway chair watching them. She watches as they meet and kiss.)
(Grissom walks up to Sara and takes the seat next to her. He's holding two culps. He hands her a cup of tea.)
LIKE!!!!!!!
Right after Erin ends her sentence with 'girl at the office', the first time Sara and Grissom meet again, he brings her tea. This might be an innocent interaction but to me it seemed like a nod to this relationship they have where both are into each other, know about the other's feelings, but can't/won't do anything about it (although Sara has kind of given Grissom an ultimatum). I don't know if it was intentional - I'm guessing it is, because I picked it up immediately. I might or might not have squealed in delight.
19 notes
·
View notes
imagine going somewhere that you know you might not come back from. imagine leaving behind half-formed friendships and the facimile of your old ones, hand in hand with ppl who want you dead, because its the right thing to do. imagine you don't come back, just like you anticipated, except thats not entirely true. you dont survive, but some force stops you from leaving in peace; it leaves your body lifeless because it has no use for you besides the terror your mind can inflict on others, but it just won't let you die. imagine one day, you're free from the mental prison you've been trapped in. you wake up, but you're still not alive. you're cold and empty and no one looks at you the same because they can't stand to look at you. it hurts because you can't do anything but hurt people anymore. imagine you had no choice in this, except you did, didn't you? its all your fault because you were too curious, too naive, too prideful, too stupid. its all your fault, just like you always thought, and now everyone agrees with you. imagine they wish you hadn't woken up, and you can't help but agree with them. and yet, you do everything in your power to save them all, while you still have people left to save. because you're still you, even if your friends see an animated corpse in your place. you hold onto your humanity with white knuckles and gritted teeth because its all you have left of yourself. and you still lose by the end because you were set up to fail since the beginning. because you are jonathan sims, and the world has no sympathy for you
25 notes
·
View notes
Sorry for bothering you but I would like to know ,what is your interpretation of Elizabeth ,Edward and Mary’s relantionship? I heard a lot of stuff and I wanna know your opinion
Also ,the quote about you picking Anne for a girl’s night ,in which book it is ?
Aaah, errrm...again, I might update this in more detail later, because I have a lot of thoughts on this. (He said, before going Full Meta Pretentious)
And you are never bothering me. Sometimes I have spoons, and sometimes I don't.
Broad strokes:
Mary had conditional affection for her siblings so long as she did not see them as a threat, and so long as they were not significantly empowered. So, this is why she seems to have had more tenderness towards Edward while he was Prince rather than King, why she seems to have not had affection for Elizabeth until she was disempowered in 1536 (and then, lost it, once Elizabeth was her own heir and very beloved by the people).
She was also holding, as one of the Acts during her reign makes clear, the belief that they were bastards, and she was not. So she always felt an inherent superiority towards them that's underlying the affection...it's a sort of patronizing affection, really. It's not less authentic for being so, just more complex. There's also the likelihood that this has been nurtured by her faction, who seems to have held a long bitterness towards the memory of AB in the existence of Elizabeth, to the literal death-- among Margaret Pole's last words were an exhortation for those in attendance to her execution to pray for the lives and souls of the King, Prince Edward, and Princess Mary...Elizabeth was omitted. Did she believe she was not the King's daughter, or was this an implication that Edward & Mary were the only 'legitimate' children? Had Fitzroy been alive during this time, we could maybe better understand her intent behind this, had he been omitted as well, unfortunately we don't know.
Edward believed himself superior to both his sisters, but seems to have been more patronizing towards Mary, despite being the younger, even before becoming King. There's not an equivalent letter about Elizabeth to the one he wrote about Mary, where he's scolding her for dancing so much and such. But, he's in-waiting to becoming the most important man in the kingdom (arguably, he is that, as his father is the past, and he's the future), and has been told that it's his place to be the moral standard and instruct his future subjects. This is all part and parcel of that, although one wonders if there's some insecurity underlying all this, because Edward was very intelligent, and he wouldn't have been unaware that much of Catholic Europe believed Mary was legitimate.
Elizabeth he's closer to in age, Elizabeth he's brought up with, Elizabeth he's educated alongside. Elizabeth was always more conformable than Mary, and seems to have genuinely revered him both as Prince and as King. So, Edward's affection for Elizabeth was probably less complex than his for Mary (which turned mainly to resentment). On the other hand, he did eventually write her out of the succession, which is where the superiority comes in (although we don't know if he would have done so in any context...had Elizabeth married a Protestant, had Elizabeth had a/ child/ren by 1553-- specifically and 'better', a son-- I think it's entirely plausible he would have made her, at the least, regent to her child in his will).
Onto Elizabeth...Elizabeth believed herself Mary's superior insofar as intellect, and perhaps even her equal or better, insofar as birth. She might have believed that by the terms of her father's Succession Act (one condition of which was, Mary would maintain the Henrician settlement insofar as the Anglican Church-- something Mary reversed), she was entitled to the throne. Mary was both her persecutor and savior: she arrested her, but she also released her. She then tried to place many conditions upon her freedom, including marriage to men of Mary and Philip's choice, not Elizabeth's. Ultimately, she did not disinherit her, and Elizabeth's transfer to power was as smooth as it was, in large part, because Mary relented and maintained her as heir.
They were also all (although not equally) bonded through being motherless, and being completely orphaned at the same time, also, although at very different stages in their lives. Mary is the only one that truly had any memory of her own mother, was this something they envied? Edward was the only one that truly had the memory of his mother openly honored and revered, was this something his sisters envied? For Elizabeth and Edward, it's another bonding point, although probably not ever one made explicit, or actually discussed: they're off-center, they are only half of what they 'should' or 'would' have been, because half of what made them is no longer there. Did they have this sense that neither could escape, of an absent filial imprint, of the palimpsest of what was there before, desperately searching fresh ink? Of absent or unfulfilled identity, of absent maternal protection?
What do you do when your father is your god? How do you comprehend your world when he's not there anymore?
|
That's from an interview of both Julia Fox & John Guy, about their dually authored book, Hunting the Falcon. The quote is about AB, although personally if I said it, it would apply to Anne of Cleves, as well.
5 notes
·
View notes
The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas really is a stunningly Christian story without ever recognizing it and thinking about it makes me so unhinged. I don’t know who all has read it, but if you haven’t, it’s four and a half pages and you can read all it here.
Just. The idea that the suffering of an innocent is necessary in order to produce true human joy and flourishing. That we intuitively know that humans cannot produce a utopia on our own, so when presented with a perfectly joyful utopia we must ask, “what innocent was sacrificed to obtain this?” We cannot believe that Omelas exists without the child in the basement.
One thing I know there is none of in Omelas is guilt.
It is the existence of the child, and their knowledge of its existence, that makes possible the nobility of their architecture, the poignancy of their music, the profundity of their science.
Now do you believe them? Are they not more credible?
Even through a secular lens, humans cannot believe in true, perfect joy unless Christ (or a figure of Christ) bears our guilt. Our hearts are hard-wired for God’s love, yes, but also for His justice. To understand the need for Christ’s sacrifice.
36 notes
·
View notes