and is your shame helpful? is it inspiring goodness and change? or is it keeping you frozen in time unable to move on and be everything you have expanded to be?

10 cool rocks you probably didn’t know about

1) lepidolite

lepidolite is a variety of mica and is typically pink or lavender colored. when tumbled it is extremely glittery – pictures don’t do it justice!

2) ulexite

ulexite is also called “tv rock” and has a super unique optical effect – when placed over something it displays that image onto the top of the rock. it’s not merely opaque – the fibers within the mineral literally project an image onto the surface of the stone.

3) pietersite

pietersite has chatoyancy – much like tiger’s eye – that creates movement and shine through the surface of the stone. however, unlike tiger’s eye, pietersite’s chatoyancy is in swirls instead of straight lines. it’s incredible to behold – i recommend looking up pietersite on youtube and checking out videos of it under good lighting.

4) optical calcite/iceland spar

this type of calcite is actually completely clear, but refracts the light going through it in ways that create rainbows and other neat optical effects. isaac newton himself actually studied this rock to help better understand the nature of light itself & the phenomenon of optical illusions.

5) alexandrite

alexandrite is a variety of chrysoberyl that exhibits a color change! it changes from a greenish hue to a brilliant red depending on the type of light and the source. the color changes in alexandrite are phenomenal and rarely seen in other stones.

6) spectrolite

don’t let the image fool you – this stone is actually pure black. the brilliant colors it exhibits are just a flash (it’s actually called labradorescence, which is what the stone labradorite is named for). spectrolite is an uncommon form of labradorite mined only from finland. some varieties of high quality labradorite from madagascar can show a spectrolite play, but nothing is as dark with as brilliant a flash as spectrolite.

7) specular hematite

specular hematite is a variety of hematite that has a beautiful, glimmering surface especially when polished. much like lepidolite, the shimmer of specular hematite is caused by mica.

8) boulder opal

boulder opal is ironstone with cracks of brilliant natural opal running through it. these formations are entirely natural. opal has the most brilliant and vibrantly colored flash of any other stone.

9) enhydro quartz

enhydro quartz is a variety of quartz that was formed with naturally occuring water & air bubbles within them! in some specimens the water bubbles will actually move underneath the surface of the crystal.

10) fire agate

fire agate is actually a form of chalcedony, and is well known for having a beautiful rainbow effect caused by schiller, rather than flash or labradorescence. 

we were the liminal kids. alive before the internet, just long enough we remember when things really were different.

when i work in preschools, the hand signal kids make for phone is a flat palm, their fingers like brackets. i still make the pinky-and-thumb octave stretch when i "pick up" to respond to them.

the symbol to save a file is a floppy disc. the other day while cleaning out my parents' house, i found a collection of over a hundred CDs, my mom's handwriting on each of them. first day of kindergarten. playlist for beach trip '94. i don't have a device that can play any of these anymore - none of my electronics are compatible. there are pieces of my childhood buried under these, and i cannot access them. but they do exist, which feels special.

my siblings and i recently spent hours digitizing our family's photos as a present for my mom's birthday. there's a year where the pictures just. stop. cameras on phones got to be too good. it didn't make sense to keep getting them developed. and there are a quite a few years that are lost to us. when we were younger, mementos were lost to floods. and again, while i was in middle school, google drive wasn't "a thing". somewhere out there, there are lost memories on dead laptops. which is to say - i lost it to the flood twice, kind of.

when i teach undergrad, i always feel kind of slapped-in-the-face. they're over 18, and they don't remember a classroom without laptops. i remember when my school put in the first smartboard, and how it was a huge privilege. i used the word walkman once, and had to explain myself. we are only separated by a decade. it feels like we are separated by so much more than that.

and something about ... being half-in half-out of the world after. it marks you. i don't know why. but "real adults" see us as lost children, even though many of us are old enough to have a mortgage. my little sister grew up with more access to the internet than i did - and she's only got 4 years of difference. i know how to write cursive, and i actually think it's good practice for kids to learn too - it helps their motor development. but i also know they have to be able to touch-type way faster than was ever required from me.

in between, i guess. i still like to hand-write most things, even though typing is way faster and more accessible for me. i still wear a pj shirt from when i was like 18. i don't really understand how to operate my parents' smart tv. the other day when i got seriously injured, i used hey siri to call my brother. but if you asked me - honestly, i prefer calling to texting. a life in anachronisms. in being a little out-of-phase. never quite in synchronicity.

I imagine that the last generation to really feel this way, to really feel a before-and-after kind of world, was at the last turn of the century, which had 3 huge, life-changing inventions happen all at once.

In 1890, everybody rode horses, used candles to see at night, and communicated through letters.

By the 1920s (only 30 years later!), everybody had automobiles (or access to another form of 'self-driving' transportation like busses or trams) and nobody had horses. Nearly everyone had electricity in their houses. Nearly everyone had a telephone, or access to one.

Can you imagine? Can you imagine growing up, being taught by your parents all about how to ride horses and care for them and hitch them to a wagon, only to...not ever use that knowledge as an adult, because you have a car? Can you imagine learning how to make candles, finally getting good enough at it to be useful to your family as a teenager, only to flick a switch to turn on a light bulb as an adult?

I feel like that last huge change in technology is the same thing we are going through. I know how to read a paper map. I will never need to use this knowledge. But it's still in there; including the many patient hours my mother spent teaching me, and a lot of fond memories I have of her doing it. I know how to research a topic in a paper library, with actual books. Pretty sure I will never do that again. I memorize phone numbers, 'just in case'. In case what? The automobile (smartphone) gets un-invented? But I hold that knowledge in my head. It's there. It's part of me.

I wish I could speak to my great-great-grandmother, who had her first baby in 1900. To ask her, if what Millennials now are going through is what it was like for her Centennial generation. The absolute whiplash, from one way of life to another.

Kids born in 1890 knew how to make candles, and kids born in 1920 could not fathom why you would need to know this.

Let's talk about Thor

I’ve let my thoughts on Loki run tl;dr a few times, but let’s not actually talk about Loki in this post. Let’s talk about Thor for a minute. Specifically, let’s talk about Thor’s first appearance on Earth in The Avengers.

Thor’s first scene is clearly meant to establish that Thor is a super-cool, bad-ass, butt-kicking sort of guy. He’s strong. He’s mad. He’s strongmad. He’s pissed off and looking to share the pain.  He’s here to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and he’s all out of fucks to give! And also bubblegum. So, let’s ignore for the moment the entire first Thor movie wherein Thor started out as a bloodthirsty, hairtrigger-temper bully but was supposed to grow into a better, more mature man - an actual hero - by the end.  Let’s actually examine Thor’s actions in his establishing scene.

People have already pointed out, multiple times, the cognitive dissonance of Thor’s fight against Iron Man and Captain America. See, Thor had absolutely no way of knowing that Steve’s adamantium shield would protect him from Mjolnir. Had absolutely no way of knowing that Steve is enhanced by the super-soldier serum and can survive things that would kill an ordinary man. As far as Thor knows, he just brought the entire might of Mjolnir down on an ordinary mortal man with an ordinary metal shield. Which would have killed almost anybody else on Midgard. Okay, but Thor is in the heat of battle here. He’s raging, his blood is high, he’s not thinking clearly. Steve just attacked him (sort of) and made himself a target. If someone’s pointing a weapon at you, you’re allowed to hit back, right? Busting into someone else’s home dimension, breaking into restricted paramilitary property and then attacking their security when they come after you is a completely reasonable response, right?

Of course right.

Thor probably felt really bad about it later, when he calmed down a bit and realized he just tried to straight-up murder a respected soldier on an alien realm that he’s trespassing on without invitation. Gee, it’s almost as if Thor didn’t learn anything at all from his last movie. But let’s back up a bit before that.

In Thor’s first scene, he lands on the plane that the Avengers are using to transport Loki from Germany to the US. He enters the cabin, grabs Loki by the throat, and pulls them both out of the plane. They hit the ground below, Loki on his back and Thor on his feet, and Thor starts threatening him. This scene actually got me curious as to how high, exactly, they are off the ground at this point. The movie doesn’t indicate it at all. So I went to everybody’s trusty source, Wikipedia, to research common flight altitudes. Apparently, most commercial aircraft fly at altitudes between 20,000 and 40,000 feet above ground. (Military flights are higher, going up to 60k or even 80k feet.) The shorter the flight, the lower the airplane is able to fly; long flights take higher altitudes to avoid crossing paths with shorter flights. Transatlantic flights usually fly at about 35,000 feet. If they’re traveling between Germany and America, they’re probably at least 30,000 feet up, unless they’re blatantly ignoring air safety laws (which we sure hope they’re not, since they’re outside of the US and in a country where SHIELD has no jurisdiction.) So, they’re pretty high up. At an absolute minimum they have to be at least 10,000 feet up (the minimum safe distance for avoiding terrain variation,) and since the terminal velocity for a human-shaped object is achieved after only 2,000 feet, the difference between 10 and 30 thousand is pretty irrelevant.

So, to recap: Thor breaks into the plane and immediately puts Loki in a painful, dangerous hold. Note that at this point, Loki has surrendered to SHIELD and is not resisting in any way. In fact, not only is he not resisting, he’s actually in restraints. His ability to fight back or defend himself in any way — even if he wasn’t perfectly aware how much stronger than him Thor is — is effectively nil. Then he threw him out of a very high drop onto solid ground — let’s remember that Thor can fly, while Loki in this universe has shown no indication that he’s able to do so. Wow, Thor, is that how people roll in Asgard? Beating up unresisting prisoners? Super classy. Can you imagine the public reaction if, say, a member of the NYPD was caught on tape grabbing a restrained, nonviolent suspect, lifting them by the throat and throwing them out of a second-story window?

But when Thor does it it’s okay, because he’s a hero. Besides, they’re Asgardians. They’re practically physical gods. A little thing like a drop from a plane isn’t going to hurt them. Well, apart from the fact that it obviously did hurt Loki, since we see that he’s limping and in pain throughout the next scene. But overall they’re fine, just a little bruised. Clearly this scene is meant to show us that Thor and Loki are especially tough and can’t be harmed by something as minor as a….

….thirty thousand feet straight down drop from a plane?

Oh. So, putting this sequence of events side by side, what Loki does to Thor in this scene is the exact same thing that Thor already did to him half an hour ago in this very movie. It’s different because the movie says it’s different, that’s all. When Loki does it, it’s a blatant murder attempt meant to show how far Loki has descended into villainy. When Thor does it, it’s just to show how darn awesome he is. And then never mentioned again.

Because it’s okay for heroes to do these things, as long as you do them to villains, who deserve it. You know, it’s kind of impressive that Joss Whedon, who deconstructed the idea of the might-makes-right bully hero in the character of Captain Hammer in Doctor Horrible’s Sing-a-long Blog would manage to play the same trope so unironically straight in The Avengers.

I’d say this is pretty much like reality. A story is usually told from one angle (and it’s usually the victors’ POV). 

The problem is the infamous greater good, which always seems to make all arguments for ethical behaviour invalid. Thor is doing this for the greater good, while Loki has… other reasons. Which he really doesn’t, because he believes it’s for the greater good too, it’s just the WRONG kind of greater good. That said, I’m not particularly tickled by the idea to have Thanos stomping all over us. I’m not particularly happy with Asgard either though. They can take their supremacy bs and shove it.

Marvel has long ago decided that Asgard is the - you know what I was going to say here so I’m not because I sound like a broken record soon - which apparently excuses a lot of a hero’s behaviour. It doesn’t, but let’s not get complicated here… or something. The double standards are rather glaring. Odin seems to reach new heights in his arrogance in the coming film, which isn’t illogical, but should call for a more moderated view on what Asgard is and their reasons for what any of them do, Loki included. He got his shit from some place after all. His ideas didn’t just pop out of thin air, and it’s clear that even though Thor have a wish to be good and kind (in general) he is a charming bastard. He’s not unaffected of 1000 years of living in the shadow of his dad.

I have no problems with heroes with flaws, it’s just that you can’t make excuses for those flaws. Certainly not if said faults are shared by the so called villains in the stories.

Malekith’s story seems to be one similar to Laufey, and if that’s not addressed in the coming film either - Asgard’s actions in the past - I’m going to be disappointed. At some point you have to address the elephant in the room, aka the greater good, and whose greater good we’re talking about. You can’t gloss over that in the long run, and you have to deal with the consequences. Not just beat the so called villain to kingdom come and think that solved “the problem”. Asgard is part of the problem and they have a lot to work on.

*places the soapbox in the corner and slips out*

You are our son, Loki

*looks at Frigga in disappointment*

Also, Frigga literally blames Loki for having emotions. While being in the middle of a nasty mental breakdown thanks to an identity crisis she and Odin caused (in Thor 1) and while being in solitary confinement for 18 months and probably doesn’t know if the sun is up (in TDW).

“He kept the truth from you,” as if she wasn’t doing the exact same thing

“so that you would never feel different,” as if he wasn’t alienated and disrespected anyway

“You are our son, Loki,” as if that wasn’t exactly what he just found out is not true

“and we, your family,” as if everything else you just said didn’t invalidate his hurt enough 

“Your father,” as if gaslighting him will change the fact that Odin threw Loki into isolation for the next 4000 or so years and make clear he doesn’t care 

“Then am I not your mother,” as if it it’s not an emotional bribe which just proves her love is conditional 

“Always so perceptive about everyone but yourself,” as if Loki isn’t right and should doubt his own perceptive ability to correctly interpret things for himself.

ALLLLLLLLL of this

LOKI has been alone all his life and he only just learned it on the left… and had it reconfirmed on the right

even though thor wasn’t part of the deception, thor doesn’t understand LOKI, and LOKI knows it.

His speed and quick thinking in this scene are marvelous. He has one sec to decide how to counter Heimdall's attack. A physical fight wouldn't have stopped Heimdall long enough. So he uses the newest weapon he's gotten his hands on. He has not even used or fought with any of his Jotun powers yet. But he manages to cover Heimdall in ice in a way that doesn't kill him. And that speaks of great skill and restraint on his powers.

Then there's the fact that he could easily kill Heimdall as a self-defense. He chose not to. He could easily use gungnir and disintegrate Heimdall, just like what he did with Laufey. But Loki didn't want to kill Heimdall. It could be both because of Heimdall's abilities or loyalty to Asgard. And maybe some sort of sentiment? I mean he has grown up seeing this man as a protector so he probably doesn't want to kill him.

What is heartbreaking though is that Heimdall's first and instant descion is to kill Loki on the account of suspicion. And the way Loki looks down as the blade stops near his neck in third picture, it's like he's surprised at this, and then resigned very fast. Like he's thinking of course he should expect every Asgardian to want to kill the jotun.

That first one - how he goes from a look of disdain to ‘we both know what’s going on here but I guess I have to play my part. Now how can I be as insulting as possible without crossing the line’.

This ^^^

This scene is a perfect example of how brilliant and sly Loki was and should be.

He’s just returned from speaking with Laufey on Jotunheim. The movie audience thinks he’s evil at this point, and that he means to double-cross and kill Odin. But (spoiler) it’s a triple-cross: Loki is actually luring Laufey to Asgard with the promise of letting him kill Odin. This would stop the pending war with Jotunheim before a single Asgardian loses their life.

And it worked, actually. It’s easy to miss the importance of this, because two seconds after Loki kills Laufey, Thor comes barging in, acting like he’s going to save Asgard from Loki.

Thor couldn’t have returned, if not for Heimdall. Heimdall didn’t like that Loki could cloak himself from his all-seeing eyes. Ostensibly, he suspects Loki of treachery, but he has absolutely no proof, even though he’s supposedly all-seeing.

In this scene (giffed above), Loki senses Heimdall’s distrust, and he knows what that could mean: if Heimdall were to betray Loki he could ruin the entire plan, throwing Asgard, and potentially the 9 realms, into chaos and war.

So, Loki makes the best possible move to keep Heimdall in line: he reminds Heimdall of his duty. He doesn’t waste time trying to buddy up to Heimdall, or reassure him of his good intentions (as if he owes Heimdall an explanation). He knows Heimdall. He knows Heimdall wouldn’t respond to flattery, reassurance, or false promises. Loki doesn’t even lie to Heimdall here. He goes straight for the thing that is most important to the man who has stood guard to protect Asgard for thousands of years: his duty.

——-

Loki: You have great power, Heimdall. Did Odin ever fear you?

Heimdall: No.

Loki: And why is that?

Heimdall: Because he is my king and I am sworn to obey him.

Loki: He was your king. And you are sworn to obey me now. Yes?

Heimdall: (pause) Yes.

Loki: Then you will open the Bifrost to no one until I have repaired the damage that my brother has done.

——-

Because the audience has been “tricked” into thinking Loki is evil at this point, they sympathize with Heimdall. They don’t realize that Loki has actually just revealed what has been his true motive all along: to prevent a war with Jotunheim and keep his dumbassed, volatile brother out of the way until things are under control.

And it would have all worked out if Heimdall hadn’t done the unthinkable and betrayed his duty. Sif and the Warriors Three might have still made trouble for Loki, but they couldn’t have retrieved Thor without Heimdall’s collusion. They all betrayed their duty to Asgard and their lawful king, out of favoritism for their buddy, Thor. Essentially, it was s military coup.

In the Avengers, Loki says, “I was a king! Betrayed.” And in the same conversation Thor calls Loki’s complaints “imagined slights.” Were they?

In any case, this scene—in very few words—captures the multilayered complexity of Loki’s character and his motives, which you can only fully grasp upon a second viewing, after learning Loki meant to stop Laufey all along.

Loki is cool and calculating in this scene. He’s confident. He’s several steps ahead of everyone else, including the audience. He’s perceptive enough to see Heimdall’s silent resistance. He immediately strikes at the heart of Heimdall’s values to shore up his position, simultaneously throwing in a reminder that he is king. He follows up with a reminder that bonehead Thor got them into this mess. (No actual hate for Thor here—we all know he was supposed to be an asshat at the beginning.)

“I could have done it, father. For you! For all of us!”

“No, Loki.”

Loki Odinson: silvertongue, liesmith, manipulator, genius, scapegoat, betrayed.

Why Loki Let People Believe He Was Dead in TDW

This is the part two of my post in which I explained that Loki never faked his death and as @iamanartichoke​ beautifully states in her post, Loki only ever faked the “idea” of his death:

“Plotting to fake one’s own death is not the same thing as taking advantage of a fatal blow turning out to not be fatal. And the trickery comes in because Loki didn’t make any effort to tell Thor he survived, because he took Odin’s place, because he let everyone keep on thinking he was dead when he wasn’t. So, what Loki really faked was the “idea” of his death. But the injury, the sacrifice, the intent to die - that was all real.”

So in this post I’m going to explain why what Loki did was actually logical and it wasn’t done out of malice.

What could possibly happen if he didn’t use the situation to his advantage?

Worst case scenario: he would be executed.

In Loki’s trial Odin tells him that the only reason Loki won’t be executed is because of Frigga.

“Frigga is the only reason you’re still alive and you will never see her again.”

So now Frigga was dead and Loki not only had escaped by the help of people who committed treason against Odin, he had helped them with it. And the fact that Thor had to commit treason in the first place because Odin wasn’t thinking rationally, shows that he would be more furious and it was a high possibility that he would turn his anger on Loki. Loki has no reason to believe otherwise after the way Odin treated him in the trial and straight out told him that his birthright was to die.

Best case scenario: he would be returned to his cell.

That was Thor’s promise to him.

“I will grant it to you. Vengeance. And afterward this cell.”

Or more accurately he would be returned to his torture. Because Odin had sentenced Loki to solitary confinement for life. And solitary confinement is torture, pure and simple. Loki’s imprisonment condition completely resembles with the description of solitary confinement:

“What’s emerged from the reports and testimonies reads like a mix of medieval cruelty and sci-fi dystopia. For 23 hours or more per day, in what’s euphemistically called “administrative segregation” or “special housing,” prisoners are kept in bathroom-sized cells, under fluorescent lights that never shut off. Video surveillance is constant. Social contact is restricted to rare glimpses of other prisoners, encounters with guards, and brief video conferences with friends or family. For stimulation, prisoners might have a few books; often they don’t have television, or even a radio.” [X]

Loki was kept in a small cell-bathroom-sized is an acute description actually- that was continuously illuminated with an artificial light. He didn’t have permission to ever access fresh air and sunlight. The cells were under constant surveillance of the guards and his social encounter was limited to glimpses of other prisoners and encounters with guards and talking with Frigga’s illusions. And even Frigga had to conceal those illusions from the guards because Odin forbade Loki to have visitors and even see his mother and Frigga was in fact disobeying Odin to see her son. And Loki’s only form of stimulation was the few books his mother sent him.

I explained it here before:

“Long-term solitary confinement has harmful psychological effects and the symptoms include:

The effects are specially magnified for people with mental health issues.  A simple search will reveal what it does to the mind. Loki already was mentally ill, he’d committed suicide before. He had fell through the void and was deprived of any form of stimuli and we don’t know how long it took. We don’t know what tortures he went through when he was with Thanos. Then he came back and he was sentenced to more torture by his father that would worsen his already unstable state of mind. He would probably lose his mind if Frigga hadn’t find a way to visit him. Just look at his appearance after he removed all the illusions. It’s obvious from the state of his torn and old shirt that he had wore a glamor in front of Frigga to hide how he was affected by the situation.”

During all that year Loki was also deprived of any kind of human touch which results in skin-hunger:

“Neuroscientist Huda Akil identifies a lack of touch—alongside other factors—as potential factors that might lead the brain to rewire itself and cause psychological problems[in solitary confinement].” [X]

Also Look at his reaction when he is out in the fresh air and natural light:

And compare it to his expression in Avengers when he was in the sunlight:

They are basically the same. Which further proves that he was tortured during his time with Thanos and perhaps that’s the first time he sees sunlight after such a long time.

So if he would go back he was condemned to endure the same torture for the rest of his 4000 years. This time without visits from Frigga or books. Loki also had no reason to believe that Thor would visit him since he didn’t bother to do it before. Loki’s punishment wasn’t fair, specially in comparison to Thor’s punishment for a similar crime. It wasn’t redeeming and its only purpose was torture and its only result would be a Loki with a worst state of mind than before. So probably it’s better to say that this is the worst case scenario and execution in comparison was the better option!

Still think what Loki did to Odin was horrible? No, Odin had it coming. He lied to Loki his entire life, made him feel unloved and unworthy, raised him to hate his own race, had plans to use Loki as a political tool, denied him when he was on the verge of falling to an abyss literally and metaphorically, was unnecessarily cruel to Loki in the trial and intentionally hurt him with his words and never once asked Loki what had happened to him after his fall, prevented Loki to see his mother and have any visitors, didn’t let Loki to be in his mother’s funeral and sentenced him to a fate worse than death. Loki’s revenge wasn’t even sth cruel in comparison. He locked Odin’s power and took his memories-sth that made Odin forget his grief-and left him in a retirement home to be taken care of. And no, Odin’s death wasn’t Loki’s fault. Also by taking the throne, Loki made sure to separate two infinity stones and also prevented Thor and his friends to be punished for their treason.

“But Thor mourned and cried for Loki who was alive the entire time.”

Thor didn’t give Loki enough reason that he wouldn’t be alright without Loki. He had thought Loki died after his fall from the Bifrost and his first question upon seeing Loki was:

“Where is the Tesseract?”

And that’s one of the reasons Loki questioned his mourning in Avengers. And sure, Thor was upset both times when he thought he lost Loki but he had given up on Loki once. Who could say he wouldn’t do it again? What if Thor thought Loki had betrayed him this time and he had promised Loki death for his betrayal. Also Thor never visited Loki in his cell, refused to mourn Frigga’s death with Loki even when Loki showed him how devastated he was, and never asked Loki what had happened to him after his fall. He was completely fine with letting Loki rot in his cell and never seeing him again. And Loki preferred to be remembered as someone who died with honor by Thor than going back to be a disappointment.

And probably the most important reason that Loki faked the idea of his death was to hide from Thanos. And what better way to do it plain sight and be safe in the most protected place. Loki had logical and legitimate reasons for letting people believe he was dead. He didn’t do it to hurt Thor or for power or because he’s a trickster and can’t help himself. He did it because that was the best option he had in that situation.

why don't people in zombie apocalypse stories ever just wear suits of armor? you think any zombie is gonna get their shitty rotting jaws through this?

I'm gonna rip and tear my way through the zombie apocalypse completely unharmed because none of the undead hoards will be able to get through my plate mail

everyone else is like "oh we gotta stay inside the most secure places possible and never leave" and I'll be storming through the wastelands in my bloodstained suit of armor, blasting the Doom (2016) OST and plowing my way through waves of the undead. one of them tries to bite me but his shitty rotting teeth don't even leave a dent in my armor before I turn his head into paste. I'll be unstoppable until I die of dehydration or something like an idiot

this goes along with my other pet peeve about zombie apocalypse stories, namely: why does no one ever think to ride a bike? 

bikes are quiet- if the zombies react to loud noises, they won’t hear you on a bike the way they might hear you in a car. bikes don’t need gas, meaning you won’t be stranded if you run out. bikes are much, much easier to maintain than a car- there’s no computer that can short out, no fiddly engine bits that could kill you if you mess with them wrong. you can learn how to maintain a bike with a couple weeks’ worth of classes. almost every adult knows how to ride a bike, and without cars on the road, it’d be much safer to do. 

what i’m saying is

American author Mark Twain (b. 1835) lurches from his grave only to give you a massive thumbs up and die again

Mark Twain essentially invented the genre of a bystander sent into a time-travel sci-fi plot just to get someone to draw this image for him. And today we can simply search for such a picture. It is a time of wonders

#this post has everything. zombies. knights. bicycles. knights on bicycles. mark twain.

it's actually really weird to me that a lot of adults don't seem to remember the worst bits of being a child. were you not horribly aware of when adults were talking down to you as a child? don't you remember how little autonomy you were allowed, even when it came to things that seemed pretty harmless? don't you remember the times when adults would seemingly be assholes to you for no reason? even if you had nice and reasonable parents, didn't you ever have teachers or other adults in power who treated you disrespectfully? didn't it sting no matter how people justified it?

especially when I was a teenager, it seemed obvious to me & to most of my peers when an adult wasn't treating us with respect. you could almost smell it, in certain classrooms. there would be this palpable, shifting undercurrent of teenage dissatisfaction whenever some teachers started talking. and it made a lot of the kids act out! which of course made the teachers try to exert their power, which never worked because nobody respected them, which made them get more draconian, etc.

as a teen, I didn't really get why my peers and I seemingly had a superhuman sense for when an adult was on a power trip. but now I think I get it. kids are systematically denied autonomy, respect, and consistently have the validity of their experiences denied. like, flat-out. they're a vulnerable class of people made even more vulnerable by their lack of societal rights. being disrespected as a kid is so frequent that I would say it's a defining experience for most children. is it any wonder they tend to pick up on when an adult doesn't see them as worth listening to?

so yeah, of course a ton of kids want to be treated "like an adult." to them, that's synonymous with being treated like a human being worth listening to. it's up to you, as an adult, to understand that wish for what it is, and behave accordingly. you don't gotta be a child psychologist. you don't gotta be perfect at it. all you have to do is remember how painful adult disrespect could be when you were a kid & do your best to act with some compassion.

Please tell me you’re going to appeal to my humanity.

I’m just going to stare at his swagger for the next hour or two. And his hands.

“how would you feel if someone blocked you just because they found you annoying?” then i wouldn’t have to interact with someone who thinks i’m annoying? i don’t see a problem

When director of that Thor movie that (for some reason) most people consider the weakest, understands the characters the most.

I don't trust anyone who hasn't acknowledged their capacity for evil.

"I'm just a smol bean uwu" No sir, what you are is someone who is so habituated to thinking of yourself as innocent that you will continue to do so even when you're guilty.

To quote Chris Fleming

"You know that thing where the most toxic person you've ever met over-relates to woodland creatures on social media? I call it Vibe Dysphoria. She'll put up a picture of a mouse in a jean jacket with 'It's me.' That is not you. I don't know how you got under the impression that you are a mouse in a jean jacket. You are an eel with a gun.She posts a toad with a basket of mushrooms like 'Me doing my little things.' Oh madam, there is nothing little about your things. You gave me psychosexual issues I'll carry to my watery grave. You are not a toad in the forest...You are a cruel woman who just happens to be small."--Chris Fleming

WHERE NOW THE HORSE AND THE RIDER-Aka how I just had a Tolkien related freak out on the train

I can't believe what just happened to me. As in, it's such a weird chain of events that it has left me a little dizzy.

I was reading "Les Nourritures Terrestres" by Gide, and I got to a point he cites parts of a poem which I liked very much. The notes informed me that it's a French translation of "an 8th century saxon elegy called 'The Wanderer' "

That intrigued me, and, being on a train with a lot of time to pass (plus being a little tired of reading in French), I took out my phone and searched for the poem.

I found it here. It's the lament of a warrior in exile who has lost his lord and mourns the joy and glory of a world that has now disappeared. I was enjoying it a lot.

And then I got to this point:

And my mouth actually dropped open, because what?

Are you telling me that the Lament for the Rohirrim, one of my favourite poems in LOTR, which I learnt by heart at 13 and later took care to learn in the original English, which I sing when I do the dishes and which routinely makes me cry, is Tolkien's translation of an 8th century Saxon elegy?

Well, the notes at the end of the page confirmed it:

"Tolkien's rendition is hard to resist" I bet it is. I love that professional philologists add notes to their work saying "yeah, by the way, this bit here? It's in your favourite fantasy novel, and I am kinda jealous of how well it was translated, but it's Tolkien, the man spoke Old English, what can you do? Carry on, xoxo"

I mean, I had gathered that the Tolkien poem played on themes used in medieval literature, but I had no idea it was based on an actual, specific text. That makes it a hundred times cooler!

Maybe it's common knowledge, but it was a delicious tidbit of good news to me. Especially since I wasn't expecting it in the least, so I was blindsided by it.

Cherry on top? I had ignored the Old English text, since I don't understand it, but at the end I gave it a cursory read , and the line "Alas for the splendor of the prince"? "Eala þeodnes þrym!"

Now, I have never studied Old English, but I know roughly how to pronounce it (what kind of Silmarillion fan would I be if I didn’t recognize the thorn?). þeodnes has to be where "Theoden" comes from, right?

Apparently yes. I googled the "Lament for the Rohirrim", and Tolkien Gathaway has a nice little parapraph in which they explain all this. I don't know why I had never read it before, but it was a lot more fun learning it as an unexpected detour from my French practice, not gonna lie.

Bottom line: Tolkien was a both a nerd and a genius and continues to make my life brighter, and this is one of those moments in which I am very happy I have spent years of my life learning languages.

Thanks for coming to my impromptu TedTalk.

OK GO OFF

so i have a phd in middle english lit and dabble in old english and read it pretty well and obviously am aware of the 'ubi sunt' poetic formula [literally 'where are...' which is, you know, the 'alas look at all these things that we have lost' structure used here]

and when teaching classes have always triangulated between two examples: 'hey look, tolkien used this formula in a way derived directly from old english poetry' and 'hey look chaucer used this in an apostrophe in Troilus and Criseyde to make a cunt joke[1]'

and i never once realised this is a direct translation of a specific poem rather than just him writing in that style using that formula and do you know what this reminds me of

my sister saying 'well, now you've reached the peak of your career, go home I guess' when I found the exact letter in Froissart's account of the opening years of the 100 year war that must surely have been the direct inspiration for Peter's challenge letter to Miraz in Prince Caspian.

(don't forget to spell 'abhominable' with an 'h', doctor.)

[1] troilus addressing criseyde's house after she's left, approximately: 'oh house! oh house where is the etc etc, oh house of which queynte [quenched/cunt] is the light'

maybe monsterfucker erotica doesn't need a plot but it certainly gives the whole thing a bit more substance

me being fascinated by the complex political caste system in the getting-rawed-by-two-dragons book

why write a story if no one's going to read it?

Sometimes you don't want to share a story with others. Sometimes you do want to share it, but no one clicks on the title. So why bother writing it down if the only person you can guarantee will read it is you?