I'm so glad this man is living in fear now
it is insanely funny that he's so mad with fear and decadence that he's deploying missile defense systems to his golfing
I'd rather be in outer space đž
official daine visual archive

Jimmy Eat World
Today's Document
Monterey Bay Aquarium

romaâ
No title available
The Bright Sessions
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr

#extradirty
untitled
taylor price
đ©” avery cochrane đ©”
sheepfilms
KIROKAZE
noise dept.
hello vonnie
h
No title available
Interview Vampire Daily

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Kazakhstan

seen from India
seen from United States
seen from Argentina

seen from Malaysia
seen from Thailand

seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from United States
seen from Mexico
seen from France

seen from Malaysia

seen from Vietnam
seen from Philippines

seen from Russia

seen from Malaysia
seen from Singapore

seen from Germany
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Vietnam
@fangirlmeetsfilmnerd
I'm so glad this man is living in fear now
it is insanely funny that he's so mad with fear and decadence that he's deploying missile defense systems to his golfing
reading a historical romance novel and reflecting on the way these stories often present woke nobility for the contemporary reader. a big thing is servants. you canât not have servants in those times but many modern readers think âbut I would never have servants. it would be so weird to have servantsâ and in order to make the protagonists of the story more relatable they are actually friends with the servants. but flip your perspective and think of it from the side of the servants. wouldnât it be so awful if your boss was always trying to be friends with you. a really common thing youâll see is the woke baronet having tea in the kitchen with the servants bc heâs not like other baronets. but what if your boss wanted to hang out and talk during your lunch break every day. not so charming when you think about it that way
#okay but now what is the optimal way to be a good boss in this situation i genuinely wanna know#its easy to guess what makes a bad boss or a mid boss. but what is a good boss#specifically in such a highly structured hierarchal situation (via @rainbowroach)
HELLO you are asking questions that literature and poetry THROUGHOUT the middle ages has asked, and it is from this questioning that we derive things like the Codes of Chivalry (which is not "how to treat a noble lady really nice" but is actually "how to be an ethical person when you're rich and you own a horse" and includes such things as "don't run people over with your horse")
In fact I daresay you already know instinctively just from cultural osmosis what a good boss -- a good liege lord -- is and does based on the tropes that have survived to the current day and the kinds of things that get Hugely Praised in things like legends of King Arthur.
A good boss (liege lord) is:
Merciful. He is not having his peasants killed for things like poaching rabbits during a famine. In fact, he is working to mitigate famine. During times of individual hardship, he might negotiate with a peasant for a payment plan on their annual rent.
Patient. He is not impulsive, he does not lose his temper.
Prudent. He makes choices that are thoughtful, considered, conservative (in the sense of not needlessly risky--he's not investing his entire fortune in having everyone plant an unproven crop). He is making sure local infrastructure like roads and public buildings are maintained and kept in good nick.
Gentle. He doesn't haul off and slap a servant or a tenant for breaking a dish or making a mistake. He doesn't abuse animals, his wife or children, or his employees. He doesn't rape the servants.
Generous (both in money and in spirit). He is not extorting the peasants for an amount of rent that is beyond their means, he is not raising taxes every year to cover his own lavish lifestyle. He is paying his servants a living wage (or, if wages are low, he's giving them room/board/clothing to make up the difference). If someone in a tenant's family dies, the lord is sending a gift of condolence, or helping to pay for the funeral, or possibly even ATTENDING the funeral and speaking a few kind words about the deceased, ESPECIALLY if they were a really upstanding and important member of the community. If one of his tenants is gravely sick, the lord is sending a basket of food or paying for a doctor. He is giving charitably (generally this will be, like, a bequest to the church so that they can run a hospital or an orphanage or a school for the local village children).
Pious. This classically means "goes to church, submits with humility to God" but to me this quality is subtextually standing in for "maintaining an ongoing sense of Perspective that HE'S not god, that there are higher powers he is Accountable to, that he too can be Judged, etc, so that he doesn't end up going on a weird fucked up power trip"
Humble. One of the most admiring things you hear about a lord doing in literature and epic poetry is, "He ate off of wooden plates while his followers ate off of gold and silver." Humility isn't about being meek, it's just about not thinking so much of yourself that you turn your nose up and sneer at what "lesser" people do. In other words: Don't be a fucking diva. If your carriage gets stuck in the mud, climb out and help everybody else push, you're not gonna die from getting mud on your shoes.
Condescending. This word has changed wildly in meaning/tone over the last couple centuries -- it's now a rude thing to do (because we've done away with legal social hierarchies, so someone acting like they're lowering themselves to your level IS insulting), but in older times, a high-ranking person "condescending" to a servant was worthy of praise and admiration: it means they were setting aside rank and privilege to speak to them with the easygoing, friendly respect and compassion they'd give a peer. This is things like... Treats those beneath him with courtesy and respect (ie: listens soberly and attentively when one of his servants or tenants comes to complain about a problem). Having a sense of humor and kindness about it when the lord and a servant both come around a corner at the same time and run into each other and the servant gets knocked to the ground and starts babbling apologies--the condescending (positive) lord helps them to their feet with his own hands and cracks a joke to show them that it's ok (as opposed to just walking off without a word or insulting/scolding them). This is also things like trusting a farmer, woodcutter, or artisan to speak with expertise about their own livelihood and taking their advice into consideration if they tell the lord that one of his ideas won't work.
Good boundaries. The ethical liege lord knows that it's normal for the staff to probably be softly bitching about him in private (even with a really good boss, we all grumble from time to time). He's not eavesdropping on them, he's not going into the staff areas where they should reasonably expect to have a degree of privacy, etc.
Righteous and protective of "the weak". The "weak" here doesn't necessarily mean physically weak, this is often used in the sense of someone politically or socially weak, aka The Marginalized -- the poor, the disabled, women, children, the elderly, etc. If a lord sees someone like this being mistreated or abused, he's supposed to step in and put a stop to that.
Committed to reciprocity. In a highly hierarchical system like feudalism, every person (from the lowest peasant all the way up to the crown prince) legally OWES their liege lord certain things (taxes, labor, service, loyalty, etc). A good liege remembers and takes very seriously the idea that this should be a balanced and reciprocal relationship -- in other words, he owes something BACK. Feudalism is modeled very strongly on the family system: If children owe their parents obedience and service, then parents owe their children care and protection. This still applies when the "child" is a farmer and the "parent" is a local baron. Or when the "child" is a duke and the "parent" is the king.
Basically, we get so caught up in the aesthetics of nobility that we forget that it literally is a managerial position that comes with responsibilities that were... very similar back in the day to the same ones we have now. Humans have not changed all that much. At the end of the day, a really good boss in the 1400s versus in one from the 2020s displays most of the same qualities of personality, even if the details of execution are different.
The next question is, of course, "well, but this theoretical liege lord is HIGHLY idealized -- how often did that actually HAPPEN? Wasn't it more likely that everyone was exploited all the time?" and to that I say: Well, maybe. But again, I don't think humans have changed all that much. Just like the bosses of today, there's a SPECTRUM: A really really good boss is rare and precious and one that you tell stories about for years after you've left that job, but a truly, genuinely, homicidally nightmarish boss is also pretty rare. Most bosses are sort of meh -- they have their good moments, they have their shitty moments, but they're tolerable and you can get along with them well enough to do your job, and then you roll your eyes at them behind their back. Generally, humans don't take outright exploitation lying down. Being a bad boss in the historical period is how you get peasant uprisings and revolts, and you know that to be true because your parents raised you with that knowledge, so unless you are very stupid or inbred or an egomaniac, there is literal personal incentive to at minimum be a Tolerable liege lord. And that means hitting at least SOME of the above bullet points.
TL;DR: In the words of Honore de Balzac, "Everything I have just told you can be summarized by an old word: noblesse oblige!"
(for more discussions of the ethics of fealty and what it means to be a good boss when you are an exquisitely beautiful twink of a prince with a hot beefy bodyguard.... [fingerguns] read A Taste of Gold and Iron)
Cat paw prints in the medieval floor tiles of the 12th century CE St Peter Church in Wormleighton, England.
ao3 is not gonna start censoring fanfics just because the thought crimes people are throwing a hissy fit
ao3 has no algorithm so if youâre seeing works you do not want to read then my guy. what are you doing at the devils sacrament?
No, no, you don't get it. Frank took that shot to protect Peter. He thought that Jean had frozen Peter too and that there was nothing else he could do to stop her taking over the entire city and doing who knew what to everyone! And, notably, he waited until it really did look, from the outside, that Jean had won and that she wasn't listening to Peter. He gave Peter time to talk her down! No wonder he was devastated when Peter took the bullet instead. That's the kid he was trying to save!
is tesco feeling okÂ
This is like a lazily rendered level from a ps1 game.
every hoohoohahah hahahoo
and every time we kiss I swear I could fly
I keep seeing people saying that peter and frank have a "father/son dynamic" or a "uncle/nephew dynamic" but you are all wrong. They have the dynamic of the older coworker that you are way to close with when you're in your 20s. We've all had that coworker. Thats your best friend kinda. But it only works in a work setting
I loved their dynamic in the movie
This phrase has already entered my vocabulary re: media criticism where like. The viewer has a concrete view of what they expect a story to be based on the tropes and cliches they're used to seeing together, and when that doesn't happen, they judge it as a failed depiction of what they assumed it was going to be instead of judging it as what it actually is.
"This show is problematic because the hero didn't kill the villain at the end": When does he steal the bread?
"These two characters who were close friends throughout the series don't kiss at the end! What the fuck?": When does he steal the bread?
"This feels like it's missing a conclusion! Like, the protagonist does bad stuff and because of a critical decision he makes as a result of his major character flaws, meets tragedy in the end! Where's the part where he learns better and brings is love back from the dead and becomes a good guy and gets a happy ending?": When does he steal the fucking bread??
I heard this out as "When criticizing something, you must judge it for what it is, not what it isn't"
#this is why so many of us urge people to get a wider diet of stories
the version that stuck in my head was something like "is it actually bad, or are you trying to buy a milkshake at home depot?"
Anyone who cleans public restrooms should automatically make $100/hr
I need people to learn what death of the author actually is. It isnât âjkr who? Harry Potter was written by Daniel Radcliffeâ or whatever the fuck. It means âI donât care what jkr says she intended or not, the Harry Potter books are riddled with misogyny and ableism and racism.â It means âI donât give a fuck that Andy Weir claims to not put politics in his books, Project Hail Mary has a shit ton of political statements in it. Stratt being a woman is a political/social statement. Which countries are involved with the petrova task force is political. The fact they get funding is political.â
Death of the author just means that youâre focusing on the readerâs interpretation of the work, not the authorâs intention. It can also ignore the authorâs history/beliefs, yes, and you can absolutely critique that, but that is why it is a literary theory and just ONE way to interact with literature, not the end-all-be-all of literary criticism
and they're BOTH the wife.
crazy how your only options for romance these days are to redownload hinge or to give up on love and become a lighthouse keeper. ah well.
the unimaginable power of saying "huh, guess that's not for me" and moving on with your life