Moody Assassins Club

Does this jacket make me look like I have daddy issues?

saw someone say that they block "ageless blogs" and for a moment i imagined, like, cthulhu having a tumblr

DNI if you have lain for aeons, deathless and half-sleeping, watching the stars churn and roil overhead as their short lives flicker against the canvas of night, or if you watch st*ven un*verse

Jack Kirby's wild reimagining of the San Francisco 49ers and Green Bay Packers, commissioned by the NFL in the early 1970s.

Yeah, I can see this ad running in the pages of a 23rd Century mens' magazine.

people on this website be like “it’s actually school’s fault that i don’t know how to read because i wanted to write my essay on the divergent trilogy and that BITCH mrs. clarkson made us study 1984 instead. anyway here’s a 10 tweet thread of easily disproven misinformation about a 3 year old news story and btw, who is toni morrison?”

i KNOW most of y’all are lying about being in the gifted program as children because none of you could pass the basic reading comprehension assessment they give third graders today

this post is mean and I never read divergent or whatever the fuck but 1984 sucks and is rape apologism so if somebody wanted to write about divergent or whatever good for them

this reply is like literally exactly what op is talking about lol. like firstly ops point isn’t “1984 is good”, ops point is that analysing complex stories teaches you how to form opinions and think for yourself. and like secondly in 1984 you’re supposed to think damn it’s fucked up that he’s thinking that way about her, i wonder if this ties in with the central theme of “a society like this will fuck you in the head”? (this is the thinking for yourself part). like do you think orwell just put that in for fun? do you think that just because winston is the protagonist you’re supposed to agree with everything he does?

You know I feel like this post just gave me an epiphany for what is wrong with how Tumblr Fandom/Internet Fandom responds to media-or not *wrong* but makes it very hard to respond to anything but a morally correct, and heroic protagonist. 

When an English teacher, or reader, taught or picked up 1984, it wasn’t with the intention they were going to love the protagonist. They picked it up with the intention of reading a whole story and trying to grasp the theme or catharsis from the story. If the protagonist was a *shitty* person it played into the the themes or the story, because it wasn’t about morally judging the book or *liking* or feeling attachment to the protagonist. Sometimes and often times, books were just about gaining another perspective. 

No one read Lolita expecting to endear, or like, or be inspired by Humbert. You are supposed to be upset by his behavior, you don’t read Lolita with the intention of being inspired. You read it to learn more about what the fuck is going on inside someone’s head when they behave like that. How children get sucked into abusive situations. Or read “The Great Gatsby” not because they want to fall in love with Gatsby or Nick, but to better understand and analyze the experience of the 1920s or destitution of the American Dream. 

A lot of internet and fandom culture has changed that though. When we say something like “I love the Great Gatsby” it comes with the idea or association that means you must *love* or relate to one of the characters. And maybe you do, but the first assumption is not longer about the quality of the work or themes, or cathartic impact-it’s about character admiration. And with that character admiration, in tumblr stan culture, or kin culture, or exalting characters with fanart/romance/so on you don’t just ‘admire’ or find that character ‘compelling’ it now translates to ‘you LOVE that character’ or you ‘DIRECTLY relate to that character.’ 

You can’t say “I love how Humbert is written, it’s so fascinating and dark”, without it directly translating you somehow relate to a child abuser or condone his actions. Taking in media has become an act of worship and connection. We no longer watch meant to just see the story as a whole, we watch expecting to connect to a character and if we offer them our “worship” as it’s become, as opposed to just attention or interest study as it traditionally was, it means we are condoning the character or saying we directly empathize with all their actions. 

I think that’s why there is often now so much fuss over *toxic* characters or not. Or whether that classical novel is showing good or bad things anymore. We’re treating the characters as people we should love or want to draw or write about. Sometimes a story is just about getting the the theme or catharsis or learning another perspective. We don’t NEED to like the character. Or we don’t HAVE to like a character to be impressed by how they’re written or intrigued by their behavior. 

I think if internet culture could learn to view stories as small insights into other lives or single takes of one perspective instead of purposeful moral inspirations we’d be a lot less worried about how toxic or not toxic they are. 

About… I want to say 20, 25-ish years ago?… the Big Fashion in writing advice became that you had to make your characters “relateable”, which many writers took to mean “as identical as possible to the target audience in terms of personality, morality and reason”. So making characters who the audience could agree with or at the very least sympathise with became practically mandatory in mainstream writing. I think a lot of people who started reading those sorts of stories exclusively started to assume that that particular choice is like, a mandatory part of writing, and if the main character isn’t Like You (or different for excusable and sympathetic reasons) then either they are badly written, or the author is trying to convince you of something. Humbert is a pedophile, and of course he’s supposed to be Relateable, so that must mean his morals are supposed to be your morals and the authors morals, so the author is a pedophile and the book “promotes pedophilia”! If you like the character, you find him Relateable (just like you), so you’re a pedophile, or at the very least sympathise/apologise for pedophilia. So we have this weird perspective that all stories must be direct morality tales where something being depicted means it’s being glorified/normalised (why else would you put it in, if you don’t want your audience to enjoy it and therefore think it’s a good thing?), and the protagonist must be Morally Pure or become that way over the story so that the audience can properly Relate to them and not become morally confused (because books are magical devices where the wrong fictional depiction in one of them can brainwash the audience into bigotry, and All Readers Except Me Are Stupid).

This isn’t *new*. When novels became popular among women in England, there was a lot of concern that they would corrupt their poor feeble minds and confuse them with their daring tales and illegal and improper acts. Humbert got this flak for Lolita, which was published in 1955. There have always been a crowd out there terrified that somebody might see something bad depicted and that means that the depiction itself is evil and the only way to stay Pure And Good is to avoid such literature and decry its very existence. Book burners aren’t new, and nor are moral crusade book haters. But I think this weird “all main characters are clearly intended to be Just Like Me, so if we disagree then their existence is morally wrong because why else would they be like that” perspective contributes a lot to the current trend.

happy bday cary grant 🖤(jan 18, 1904)

MedeaMedium: lithography

This will always be my favorite gifset. Ever.

im morally obligated to reblog this every time i see it

Certain words can change your brain forever and ever so you do have to be very careful about it.

Because if there’s a bear, why not ride it?

Haven’t read this book yet but I’m guessing Ursa Major probably remembers the asskicking that Bucky gave him XD

I told my mom that I was dressing up as Spock for our Halloween outing so she decided to dress up as the Final Frontier to match

evanescence bring me to life and britney spears toxic are sisters to me

do you see

well yes and no

#no thats amy lee lead singer of evanescence#the main character of my immortal is ebony darkness dementia raven way who looks a lot like amy lee#(AN if you dont kno who dat is get da hell out!)

sad about bucky barnes 2k14

sad about bucky barnes 2k15

sad about bucky barnes 2k16

sad about bucky barnes 2k17

sad about bucky barnes 2k18

Sad about bucky barnes 2k19

sad about bucky barnes 2k20 

sad about bucky barnes 2k21

sad about bucky barnes 2k22

sad about bucky barnes 2k23

sad about bucky barnes 2k24

yet Brutus says he was problematic, and Brutus is an honorable man…

I thrice presented him a kingly crown,

Which he did thrice refuse: was this problematic?

Yet Brutus says he was problematic;

And, sure, he is an honourable man

I come to cancel Caesar, not to stan him

He was my mutual, faithful and just to me

But Brutus says he was problematic;

And Brutus is an honourable man.

He hath brought many hot takes to my dash

Whose notifs did the general discourse fill:

Did this in Caesar seem problematic?

Friends, mutuals, countrymen, do not scroll past

@if-you-come-a-knockin

Friends, mutuals, countrymen, do not scroll past;

I come to cancel Caesar, not to stan him.

The cringe posts that men make live after them;

The nuance oft interred with their bones;

So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus

Hath told you Caesar was problematic:

If it were so, it was a grievous fault,

And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.

Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–

For Brutus is an honourable man;

So are they all, all honourable men–

Come I to comment on Caesar’s call-out post.

He was my mutual, faithful and just to me:

But Brutus says he was problematic;

And Brutus is an honourable man.

He hath brought many hot takes to my dash

Whose notifs did the general discourse fill:

Did this in Caesar seem problematic?

When that anons have cried, Caesar hath wept:

Toxicity should be made of sterner stuff:

Yet Brutus says he was problematic;

And Brutus is an honourable man.

You all did see that on the Tumblr Blaze

I thrice presented him a kingly crown,

Which he did thrice refuse: was this problematic?

Yet Brutus says he was problematic;

And, sure, he is an honourable man.

I speak not to start discourse with Brutus,

But just to provide some context on his call-out post.

You all did stan him once, not without cause:

What cause withholds you then, to follow him?