Shall we call it, conveniently, 'love'?

Caroline Kuali'i. 23. Orange County born and raised. Hawaiian/Kanaka Maoli. Uni grad. UVU. Writer.

[tolerateit]

SO GOOD, HALSEY

[h-f-k-deactivated20230406]

[halzune]

I touch your hand for the first time I see it on your face, then Another lifetime’s flashin’ by

SO GOOD (2022) HALSEY

[atesan]

Gokushufudō: The Way of the Househusband (2020)

Subtitles by Blitz Fansub

[kendallroy-deactivated20210425]

idk who needs to hear this but when your english teacher asks you to explain why an author chose to use a specific metaphor or literary device, it’s not because you won’t be able to function in real-world society without the essential knowledge of gatsby’s green light or whatever, it’s because that process develops your abilities to parse a text for meaning and fill in gaps in information by yourself, and if you’re wondering what happens when you DON’T develop an adult level of reading comprehension, look no further than the dizzying array of examples right here on tumblr dot com

[kendallroy-deactivated20210425]

this post went from 600 to 2400 notes in the time it took me to write 3 emails. i’m already terrified for what’s going to happen in there

[kendallroy-deactivated20210425]

k but also, as an addendum, the reason we study literary analysis is because everything an author writes has meaning, whether it was intentional or not, and their biases and agendas are often reflected in their choice of language and literary devices and so forth! and that ties directly into being able to identify, for example, the racist and antisemitic dogwhistles often employed by the right wing, or the subconscious word choices that can unintentionally illustrate someone’s bias or blind spot. LANGUAGE HAS WEIGHT AND MEANING! the way we communicate is a reflection of our inner selves, and that’s true regardless of whether it’s a short story or a novel or a blog post or a tweet. instead of taking a piece of writing at face value and stopping there, assuming that there is no deeper meaning or thought behind the words on the page, ask yourself these two questions instead:

1. what is the author trying to say? 2. what does the author maybe not realize they’re saying?

because the most interesting reading of any piece of literature, imho, usually occupies the space in between those questions.

[icescrabblerjerky]

Analyzing text is literally a life skill, y’all.

[golvio]

Also:

3. What are you, personally, bringing to your analysis of the art?

Art is, fundamentally, a dialogue between artist and audience. You’re going to have a very different take on the work if:

You have an intense emotional reaction to the work because it hits a bit too close to home/there’s other stuff going on in your life that you somehow connect to this work.

Your own personal context either lets you in on a shared experience with an author who has something in common with you/gives you a totally different perspective because the writer’s identity is totally different from yours. Did the author get certain things wrong? Is the author writing about something you’ve never personally experienced before?

A couple of things you should ask yourself before dropping that hot take:

Are there particular biases or beliefs that are blocking your ability to analyze the work accurately? Is your interpretation based more on your initial gut reaction to the story and characters than what’s actually in the text? Can you collect and provide evidence from within the text to back up your own interpretation beyond just how it made you feel in that particular moment?

Is this your own opinion of the text, or are you unwittingly mirroring the opinion of someone else whose analysis you saw before getting into the text yourself?

Do you recognize your own interpretation is unique to you and that others might see the same artwork differently? If other people disagree with you, do you understand why they disagree with you?

Analyzing the work, trying to guess the author’s intent, and backing up your arguments with evidence from the text are essential skills. However, recognizing your own role as audience and that you’re not necessarily a passive, unbiased observer is important if you want to take the next step towards more nuanced analysis and criticism.

Something a lot of the half-baked takes that everyone makes fun of have in common is that they say a lot more about the critic than the work itself, so that self-awareness can help you avoid falling into that trap. There’s no such thing as a totally objective critic, but recognizing and owning that your experience is subjective can lead to much more meaningful critiques of art because you can more clearly explain why a piece made you feel the way it did without pretending your take is The One True Take.

[carolinekualii]

@hakuxmele

[liberalsarecool]

#LateStageCapitalism

[princessrhcenyra]

I luv him…..

[whitepeopletwitter]

[whitepeopletwitter]

[theglowpt2-deactivated20200101]

every word out of guillermo del toro’s mouth is the most hardcore thing i’ve ever heard and he says it all so casually like he doesn’t even realize how much of a gothic visionary he is 

[theglowpt2-deactivated20200101]

“Since childhood, I’ve been faithful to monsters. I have been saved and absolved by them, because monsters, I believe, are patron saints of our blissful imperfection, and they allow and embody the possibility of failing”

I STILL THINK ABOUT THIS EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE

[stuck-in-jelly]

Yo okie Guillermo has some of the best quotes and lines I’ve ever heard, here are just a few of his quotes that have me questioning life:

“What is a ghost? A tragedy condemned to repeat itself time and again? A moment of pain, perhaps. Something dead which still seems to be alive. An emotion suspended in time. Like a blurred photograph. Like an insect trapped in amber.”

“I knew that monsters were far more gentle and more desirable than the monsters living inside ‘nice people.’ Accepting that you are a monster gives you the leeway to not behave like one. When you deny being a monster, you behave like one.”

“When you see something or experience something extraordinary, you can’t go back to normal… I think that that’s the way I see the supernatural-as happening in mundane circumstances or to people who are unprepared”

“To learn what we fear is to learn who we are. Horror defines our boundaries and illuminates our souls”

“Any legend, any creature, any symbol we ever stumble on, already exists in a vast cosmic reservoir where archetypes wait. Shapes looming outside our Platonic cave. We naturally believe ourselves clever and wise, so advanced, and those who came before us so naïve and simple…when all we truly do is echo the order of the universe, as it guides us…”

And the last but certainly not the least:

“In fairy tales, monsters exist to be a manifestation of something that we need to understand, not only a problem we need to overcome, but also they need to represent, much like angels represent the beautiful, pure, eternal side of the human spirit, monsters need to represent a more tangible, more mortal side of being human: aging, decay, darkness and so forth. And I believe that monsters originally, when we were cavemen and you know, sitting around a fire, we needed to explain the birth of the sun and the death of the moon and the phases of the moon and rain and thunder. And we invented creatures that made sense of the world: a serpent that ate the sun, a creature that ate the moon, a man in the moon living there, things like that. And as we became more and more sophisticated and created sort of a social structure, the real enigmas started not to be outside. The rain and the thunder were logical now. But the real enigmas became social. All those impulses that we were repressing: cannibalism, murder, these things needed an explanation. The sex drive, the need to hunt, the need to kill, these things then became personified in monsters. Werewolves, vampires, ogres, this and that. I feel that monsters are here in our world to help us understand it. They are an essential part of a fable.”

[gogomrbrown]

I learned in a Latin Studies class (with a chill white dude professor) that when the Europeans first saw Aztec cities they were stunned by the grid. The Aztecs had city planning and that there was no rational lay out to European cities at the time. No organization.

[punkrockradio]

When the Spanish first arrived in Tenochtitlan (now downtown mexico city) they thought they were dreaming. They had arrived from incredibly unsanitary medieval Europe to a city five times the size of that century’s london with a working sewage system, artificial “floating gardens” (chinampas), a grid system, and aqueducts providing fresh water. Which wasn’t even for drinking! Water from the aqueducts was used for washing and bathing- they preferred using nearby mountain springs for drinking. Hygiene was a huge part if their culture, most people bathed twice a day while the king bathed at least four times a day. Located on an island in the middle of a lake, they used advanced causeways to allow access to the mainland that could be cut off to let canoes through or to defend the city. The Spanish saw their buildings and towers and thought they were rising out of the water. The city was one of the most advanced societies at the time.

Anyone who thinks that Native Americans were the savages instead of the filthy, disease ridden colonizers who appeared on their land is a damn fool.

[robotsandfrippary]

They’ve also recently discovered a lost Native American city in Kansas called Etzanoa It rivals the size of Cahokia, which was very large as well.

[biggest-gaudiest-poltergeist]

here are some reconstructions of Tenochtitlan 

[biggest-gaudiest-poltergeist]

just a note, we don’t think of old european cities as ruins, because those civilizations continued and kept building over the old–there are no abandoned ruins for us to visit & photograph. when we picture those old cities, we have only mental images drawn from our own assumptions & prejudices–images that tend to glorify ‘civilized’ europe.

since victors write history, our image of native american cities was created by colonizers motivated to uphold the ‘native savage’ myth. when we think of these civilizations now, we think of ‘uncivilized’ (rough, broken, abandoned) ruins, because that’s what remains. ruins are the only thing left. because of the destruction wrought by western invaders, these civilizations never had a chance to continue building. they were destroyed, and all we have left is an unimaginative shadow of their former glory. 

[baby-yodas-mom]

went to peru and visited some of their museums and learned inca history that american schools don’t teach you. basically you know why they were beaten out by the spanish invaders? because incas were mostly scientists and not warriors. they had advanced medicine, farming and science technology. THATS what they were good at - tech - not building weapons to most efficiently kill people. the spanish were good at that. so they won. basically the real savages and thugs won and murdered a bunch of scientists, and their technology and advancements are lost forever. it took into the 20th century for colonizer technology to advance in the field of medicine and agriculture to the level of the incas. colonizers literally set human knowledge back like 500 years. 

[molothoo]

It’s crazy to me that, literally everyone in the world was doing just fine until Europeans showed up flipped the script

[homoquartz]

i mean all of this yes but if you are nonnative please make sure you are not internalizing this idea that somehow our cultures are more “worthy” of preservation or w/e bc we were “advanced” by european standards

let’s please bust the myth that western europe was somehow this bastion of technology and knowledge (bc it is absolutely untrue) WITHOUT devaluing indigenous cultures that didn’t create long-standing monuments or what have you

[runcibility]

“People often use the word "crime" as though it's synonymous with "harm." That's not what crime means. "Crime" is a set of behaviors the state has decided are punishable by law, regardless of whether they cause harm.”

https://twitter.com/MissLoreleiLee/status/1260228794331381764

[ryneshi]

🖤

[llatimeria]

Please buy this game bundle. It’s $5 (or more if you want) for literally 700 video games, tabletop games, not to mention game engines and assets. All proceeds are going to the NAACP and Community Bail Fund, split 50/50.

Night in the Woods and Oneshot are both in it, not to mention literally hundreds of other cool indie games I haven’t played yet that look really cool and promising. 

Also I’d like to reiterate it is $5 minimum for over $3,400 worth of content, which is just fucking insane.

[carolinekualii]

Please buy this game bundle. It’s $5 (or more if you want) for literally 700 games!!!!

[gaycism]

i'm obsessed w this

[pathfind]

i thought you guys would find this thread i wrote interesting

[bearfeathers]

[iliveinmyblanket]

Every time I read an adhd post I keep wondering whether I have undiagnosed adhd.

[highladyofstoriesandmusic]

^^^same.

[imbasicallyshakespear-deactivat]

^^^^^^

[swearengen]

taika waititi accepts the BAFTA for best adapted screenplay