Avatar

Long of memory, short of attention span.

@of-princes-and-savages / of-princes-and-savages.tumblr.com

Avatar
Avatar
kathudsonart

Disney Beastly Family

Did these over a period of about 4 years

I have about 10 billion other things I need to be working on, but the new Beauty and the Beast trailer dropped yesterday so I decided to revisit my series. Man, my style has changed over the years lol.

THIS IS THE CUTEST BELLE/BEAST FAMILY FAN ART I’VE EVER SEEN!!!!

I want this version!

If Disney weren’t cowards.

They simply fear their inner Monster-fuckers. Embrace the nature you cannot deny!!!

Avatar
- Why do you think after all those centuries [Rumple] made the deal specifically for Belle?
- I think that’s a really good question, actually. I’ve often thought that myself. Wondered why he chose Belle. Because he did choose her. 

Bobby and Em at THEC 2017 x

I love this.

I swear these two made OUAT worth it even when it was at its crappiest.

Avatar
jackabelle73

I have a headcanon for this. At some point, Rumple found out that Belle could translate Fairy language. He knew he would need someone to translate the scroll about the Black Fairy, having never learned the language himself due to his hatred of the entire species. His intent, when he bargained for her, was to release her and send her back home after she’d translated the scroll, but we all know what happened next.

Avatar
emospritelet

I love that idea :) I also love Bobby’s headcanon and the way he makes it sound all dirty so it’s all good

Avatar
violetfaust

I actually love Emilie’s follow up to this moment, which I can never find a gif of, in which she says that maybe Belle picked HIM.

‘Cause she does say that, twice: Rumple was her chance to be a hero. I think she did her research and summoned him and made the deal by herself, and Rumple’s scene in the war room was all theater put on for Moe and Gaston’s benefit.

And I LOVE jackabelle’s headcanon for why Rumple took the deal. Belle thinks it’s just because he wants to humiliate a nobleman’s daughter, but actually Rumple saw that one of her books was in Fairy and knew she could translate the scroll.

He picked her for her smarts. Which was also one reason he plummeted into love.

Avatar
Avatar
keydekyie

The creature that wants to kill you will not growl.

The function of a growl is as a warning. It is a communication that violence is available as a tool, but is not preferred. Other outcomes, besides your death, are available and should be considered.

But the creature that wants to kill you will not growl.

If your death is the goal, then growling will only serve as a delay and may result in your escape, which runs counter to the goal. There will be no growl, no warning. There will be no snarl or hiss or bluster. The creature that bares its teeth with the intent to kill only does so to bring closer its fangs to your demise.

The creature that growls does not want to kill you, but will if it must.

I advise you to appreciate the warning. You may not receive another.

Avatar
shyocean

The person giving you boundaries doesn’t want to hurt you.

Avatar
Avatar
newnitz

Ashkenormativity

Ashkenormativity is the assumption that the default Jew is the Ashkenazi one. It is a term coined by Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews to explain our alienation from the rest of the Jewish community, from my lived experience specifically from the Diaspora Jewish community.

I'm half-Ashkenazi, but that half is pretty secular. When it comes to major Jewish holidays, I've always done them with my maternal grandparents, who, despite being secularized, still respect their cantor roots to the point of not wanting to skip on a holiday or even shorten the Seder(until one hilariously bad one). So the only minhag I've known was the Sephardi one.

In Israel, this was a non-issue.

The most I heard about differences is how Sephardim and Mizrahim emphasize table manners because unlike Ashkenazim, they actually eat on the table.

When I left Israel and moved to a place hundreds of kilometers away from the nearest Jewish community, I finally realized how much I need our community. So like everyone on lockdown, I sought it online, where Jewish cultures is bagels and casual use of Yiddish, two things completely foreign to me. I mean we have bagels in Israel, but they're not the meme they are among US Jews. They're nowhere near as popular as a pita. So when I had to look up what "davening", "shul" and "shanda" meant, I first got the sense I don't actually belong.

But the people using those terms as a day to day weren't the ones who actively made me feel unwelcome. In fact, those were more likely to acknowledge my confusion and explain. The ones who alienated me are the antizionist Jews from the Anglosphere, who ignore and revise non-Ashkenazi history and even history of Ashkenazim outside the Global North, who blame modern Hebrew for the decline of Yiddish which they frame as the traditional Jewish language, ignoring how that pushes down communities that traditionally spoke Ladino, Juddeo-Arabic, Amharic and more, and overall infantilize and dismiss families like mine who built a good life for ourselves in Israel and rose to the position to actively combat Ashkenazi hegemony, and remove the agency of my former classmates who take a stand against it, all in favor of superimposing the race politics of the Anglosphere onto Israel.

So the Columbia university definition of singling out "white Jews" is quite inaccurate. Under ashkenormativity, an Ashkenazi JoC would find themselves better represented than the white-presenting members of my Sephardi(or raised according to that half) family. It's another reductivist attempt to superimpose European guilt onto Jews by erasing half of us. Specifically, the half that lives in Israel.

Goyim, ashkenormativity doesn't belong to you. Stop using it as a shield to be antisemitic. Stop using it as anything regarding inter-community issues, it's our term to use within our community.

Avatar
aqlstar

This ^^

Also, the idea that Ashkenazi Jews in the US have some sort of inherent, ingrained power over other minhags is especially frustrating because it essentially treats non-Ashkenazi Jews like victims with minimal agency. It ignores entirely that the founding population of Jewish people in the United States was Sephardi.

Ashkenazi Jews in the US owe so much to the Sephardi Jews that fought tooth and nail to allow Jewish immigration and to create communities here for us. (See Emma Lazarus)

The American Sephardim could have chosen to turn their backs on their Ashkenazi siblings in Eastern Europe; it might have helped them assimilate into American society and avoid violent antisemitism, but they did not.

American Sephardim are not hapless victims; they are the heroes who rescued the Jews suffering in Eastern Europe.

Two things are true:

Sephardim are powerful and badass, and

All Jews make up one Jewish people.

Some goyim just can’t cope with either of these ideas.

Avatar

I need people to stop blaming the death of movies on “quips”. A quip is just a funny line of dialogue. That’s all. Like I just saw a post talking about quips and the death of movies and brought up Pirates of the Caribbean as an example of a better movie and yes it is but also that movie is FULL OF QUIPS. I just rewatched The Princess Bride. It’s all quips. Every single line. And it’s a masterpiece.

Movies suck when people don’t care about the art they’re making. That includes them not caring about their quips. Which is why a lot of comic relief dialogue ALSO sucks now. But the problem isn’t that funny dialogue exists.

The Princess Bride is almost all quips, but it’s all sincerity. Every aspect of the plot is ridiculous and yet no movie dialogue has ever gone as hard as “I want my father back, you son of a bitch”

Avatar
comicaurora

people recognize the problem contained within Whedon-style quippyness without knowing the term for the actual issue so they say “quips” when they mean “bathos”

Avatar
roach-works

another problem with quips that’s a little harder to analyze and explain is the quips are all in the author’s voice, NOT the characters’.

steve rogers, natalia romanoff, james barnes, tony stark, pepper potts, and bruce banner are people from radically different walks of life, and should therefore have extremely different styles of communication, despite all off them nominally speaking the same language (english). they should have different senses of humor, different senses of where the boundary lies between irreverence and insult, different boundaries, different sore spots, different goals as well as different methods of communication.

the fact that all these characters banter the exact same way, i.e how joss whedon thinks is funny, is incredibly shallow and grating.

steve grew up as a challenging little shit, who was also very small and poor, and he did it in 1920′s-30′s brooklyn new york. he regularly got his ass kicked. tony stark is also challenging and provocative, he’s a shit stirrer, but he grew up rich as all fuck. no one was beating the piss out of him in a dirty alley. tony has grown up surrounded by sycophants, rich enough to get away with whatever amount of bad behavior he wants to pull; steve grew up poor and disabled in a society that openly advocated for the death and degradation of the weak and unfit. why the fuck would they enter a conversation the same way? why would they deliver a snappy retort the same way? natasha romanoff is a spy, she’s manipulative, she’s always watching to see how a joke lands, she’s always conscientiously tuning herself this way and that to get results. she doesn’t have the luxury of casual defiance, or unthinking obnoxiousness, or even standing by her principles and pissing off someone she hates. again, why would she be tossing off little asides the same as tony, or even the same as steve?

the princess bride is sincere, and the characters still banter in their own voices. fezzik is cautious and methodical, inigo is weary and incredulous, vizzini is desperate to impress everyone with his own intelligence and in so doing often sounds like a complete twerp, buttercup is so incredibly pissed off she doesn’t have any brain cells to spare for joking around, and westley is here to ruin everyone’s day. and it works! the characters have great banter because they’re striking sparks off each other, not meshing like identical cogs in a machine.

humor is about subverting expectations, about breaking up patterns, about confrontation and absurdity. you can’t get that from a blandly uniform pulp.

I have never heard anyone summarize Westley’s character so perfectly in a single line

Avatar

Using the bathroom in general is a human right and should be enshrined as such and I'm not joking. Too many groups of people are denied bathroom breaks or the use of bathrooms entirely--disabled people, blue-collar workers, children, homeless people, prisoners, students, the elderly. I'm surely missing other groups. Not using the bathroom when needed can cause serious, long-term damage, not to mention death. Free, clean, accessible bathrooms should be available everywhere. It's fucking cruel to deny someone the use of the bathroom, regardless of the reasoning. I'd rather every student in the world goof off and every homeless person make a mess and every worker "steal company time" than let one person suffer because they're denied the right to fucking pee in peace.

Avatar
fawndlyvenus

As someone who once had a school who tried to restrict bathroom breaks – due to apparent goofing off during classes – all it took for them to immediately change course was one super pissed off mom. Yes, my mom heard that, and charged right into the office to “have a word” with the principal, even going so far as asking to speak to the superintendent.

And let me tell you, it honestly takes that. People getting pissed and upset enough that people realize it’s not “just a small issue.” That it’s a human right and basic need that everyone should be able to do, with no stupid restrictions or paywall. If you think people shouldn’t be allowed to have free access and accommodations to bathrooms (making more bathrooms disabled friendly for example), then idk what to say besides please honestly rethink that mindset.

Everyone uses the bathroom, and everyone should have a bathroom to use.

Avatar

As a kid, when your parents are poor, you're poor. If they don't have money, that means none of you have money. But if someone's parents are rich, that doesn't necessarily mean the kid is. Sometimes rich peoples' kids aren't rich kids, they're just some rich freak's exotic pets that can talk but aren't allowed to.

That’s… not how class works

OK, so- my partner was adopted by a rich woman when he was a baby. She's from a prominent family, practically royalty where we're from. She certainly had the means to send him to fancy private school, give him good food, nice clothes/toys, premium healthcare... she chose not to. According to her he was lucky to be "adopted out of poverty" at all and should have been content with what she deigned to give him. And she reminded him of this constantly, all through his childhood.

She dangled the promise of uni in exchange for good behavior and good grades- with terms and conditions, of course. And filling her laundry list of demands was something like pulling teeth whilst jumping through hoops. In the end, did he get to go to uni? Of course not. (And certainly being queer/trans on top of it all did not help things whatsoever).

He cut her off after high school, and when I met him a year ago he had been working as (the equivalent of) an UberEats driver for a living for the last few years, including through the pandemic. (Sixteen hours a day for the equivalent of $6 (six) USD, not including the gas for his shitty rundown scooter; caught COVID twice, suffers from chronic fatigue to this day).

And to this day he still has to be selective about which of our ~leftist anarcho-commie~ friends he divulges this part of his background to- cos all they hear is "raised rich" and then suddenly he's not One of Them because "well teeeeechncially :^) you're from the oppressing class...". Like.... shit, man!

Social rules don't mean shit when it comes to abusive parents. Even rich ones.

Probably especially rich ones.

Avatar
roach-works

people are totally on board with the concept of "sufficiently rich people are above the law, and this is bad" but refuse to connect that to the concept of "this also includes laws that protect children from abuse and exploitation"

like we understand "the ruling classes get and maintain their wealth through cruel exploitation of those less powerful" and we can't wrap our heads around "a lifetime of this cruel and merciless behavior being valorized by your peers probably doesn't predispose you to suddenly changing gears once you have a helplessly dependent child that's totally under your control."

like yeah the rich are our enemies in this ongoing class war, absolutely, it's an Us or Them situation to save the planet. but if you don't give a shit about saving the enemy's children too, i don't think very highly of your motivation or your methods.

A fun fact: my mom was in the upper middle class as a teen/child. She moved out the day she turned eighteen bc her father was horribly abusive. she had NO ACCESS to the income her parents had.

But her parents' income was still counted when she tried to get help from the government for her college classes.

Financial abuse is a thing. Financial abuse is a thing people use against their KIDS TOO. like, someone can be the spouse of a rich person and not have ANY real access to that money bc their name isn't on anything and they're not given a card or money.

Avatar

So I've seen conflicting stories about the colour black in history.

Some say it's very expensive and hard to maintain, so that's why rich merchants wore black. Evidence in portraits.

Some say that for dyes it's on the cheaper side actually.

Some say the expensive black doesn't come from dye but rather the colour of the animal, so black fabric comes from black fibre which comes from black sheep. How exactly would black sheep be more expensive than regular white sheep?

Which one is right? I know this is probably influenced by which century it's set in, like maybe some eras have an easier time getting black dye

Avatar

I found a well-sourced blog post about this, luckily, because I'm a 19th-century focused researcher and I've heard conflicting things about black in earlier periods. It seems to be that high-quality black-dyed fabric was difficult to obtain in the west from the Middle Ages potentially through the 18th century because it required massive amounts of dye to get the color very deep ("true black"). Lesser black shades were quite common, though, so black, period, doesn't seem to be more expensive than any other color. Possibly the intensively dyed, deep blacks might have been? But not black in general.

Rich merchants did wear black- but so did other people. They just usually didn't have portraits.

The black sheep thing I've never heard before. And anyway, that could only apply to wool- not cotton, linen, silk, leather, etc.

Avatar
Avatar
motsimages

Oh I have info about the black sheep thing!

Have you heard of merino wool? It's a very reputed type of wool, the one that made Spain's wool industry famous up until the Industrial Revolution.

Merino sheep are originally black. Like these ones my parents have (recently sheared in those pictures):

They look brown-ish because the sun and the dust make it so that the outer part gets lighter coloured, the inner part or the wool in babies (lambs?) is actually of a quite dark and uniform black that turns more brown as they get older (again, the sun). If you notice, the skin in the head and legs is very dark black.

Those white sheep are also merino sheep but: that is the mutation.

Other than being very well adapted to the weather and space in Spain, they produce wool of good quality (about 2 kilos of wool per sheep), so the white sheep were chosen over the centuries because well, you can dye white wool easily. In recent years, some shepherds are trying to get back the original black merino sheep and they often work with artisans like these (where you can see what black wool looks like): https://dehesalana.com/

Now, I agree that the wool itself is more dark brown than black, but I guess with certain shearing (either shearing sooner than needed, or separating fibers?) or with certain dyes or chemicals, it can easily be dark black or dark colours.

When reading about local history (Extremadura, Spain) in the end of the 18th Century, many villages had "industry" (not a real factory per se, but many people making a living of this) of "paños pardos", that is "dark wool fabric" (paño is a type of work for the wool, where you spin it and weave it, and then felt it; pardo means dark brown). This is because, these sheep were frequent and the easiest way to dress.

Also, in Catholic countries, mourning for years was a very frequent thing (an aunt of my father spent over 10 years of her youth wearing mourning clothes, that is black, because different family members died), so obtaining black colours to dye all of your belongings was probably frequent and not that expensive.

But, in short, if the wool you have comes from black sheep, half of your clothing will be dark, if not black.

And to end, a nod to the Spanish speakers in the room. The idiom "no confundir churras con merinas" is in reference to two different type of sheep that are very common in Spain but not the same, it's used when something looks a certain way but don't be fool, it's actually a different thing.

So cool! That actually points to black/dark wool being MORE common in some times and places, then

Avatar
Avatar
epiphanies

Knives Out hints at the self-righteous Thrombeys’ racist views of Latino people and immigrants in general well before they target Marta and threaten to have her mother detained. In the film’s early flashbacks, the Thrombeys each referred to Marta’s country of origin as a different place. To one, she was a lovely young woman from Ecuador; to another, Marta hailed from Paraguay. Their cluelessness is played for comedic relief as the film’s tension builds, and Johnson’s message is clear: The Thrombeys’ ignorance is the joke, not Marta’s heritage.

Source: The Atlantic
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.