Fifi @fififofum67 - Tumblr Blog

Posts

arinatwt

happy pride month for:

• homosexuals

• women with children

• short insomniacs

• teeny tiny bands

• spiky lesbians

• tight-knit families

• lovely and possibly diseased girls

• men in cufflinks

• jewish boys who cannot play baseball

• ex-husband's ex-lovers

• boys with giddy seizures

• men in trousers

Top Mitski songs (unranked):

Stay Soft

I Bet On Losing Dogs

Buffalo Replaced

Lightning

Should’ve been me

And honourable mentions:

Dead Women

Last Words of a Shooting Star

IN MY OPINION

#mitski #music #nothings about to happen to me #Laurel Hell #the land is inhospitable and so are we #puberty 2 #music recs #music review #alternative

lesbianraskolnikov

Not even true. There's 4.

moonlitnightrider

¡Un amor como este, Nástenka, en determinados momentos enfría el corazón y vuelve pesarosa el alma!

Tu mano está fría y la mía arde como el fuego.

¡Qué ciega estás, Nástenka! ¡Oh! ¡Qué insufrible resulta una persona feliz en momentos como este! Pero no puedo enfadarme contigo.

bagofbonesmp3

true....

amaebii

mitski third impact....

I’ve been considering the last year or so to get a very large centipede tattoo across one side of my chest & waist, but apparently it might be a Tokyo ghoul reference?

(From a quick google last night, that is). Would any fans please tell me if that is the case, and would it be seen as a tattoo made IN reference to that anime? I have not watched it (might though!!)

#tokyo ghoul #anime #tattoos

Never seen a fandom with so much yuri depictions of a gay ship than death note lowlight what’s that about

#l lawliet #lawlight #death note #l death note #light yagami #light death note #light x l #l x light

c4m11n

me when I

lesbianraskolnikov

I stumbled upon a seemingly older piece of art for rodya and wanted to see where it came from and one of two sources i got was uh

I am the raskolnikov of jacking off.

fififofum67

clarifying the political leaders added is not because I am a fan of them

Thoughts?

fififofum67

Yes Maggie I’ll have to agree with you there it wasn’t that good

clarifying the political leaders added is not because I am a fan of them

Thoughts?

heart-and-music

william finn rhyming "horses" with "divorces" is so funny to me because he does it not once but TWICE (the games i play, heart and music) like bro really couldn't find anything else to rhyme with divorce

I lowk wanna go into politics but my yaoi digital footprint is so atrocious I fear it will come back to haunt me

#yaoi #politics #kier Starmer

solisesque-deactivated20260419

These are my observations on how Dostoevsky, and classic literature as a whole, are not only morphed into aesthetics and performance, but how purpose is lost in these endeavors.

First, I am of the opinion that not all books are created equal. This is not to judge tastes and preferences, nor is it to diminish books as a whole (as we often hold the opinion of all modern books are of poor quality). However, books of extreme caliber, such as classics and philosophy, are what drive not just the human mind, but the human soul towards greater and greater bounds. Knowledge is meant for all, and we have these pioneers to thank for their addition(s) to the benefit of humanity (and I would not exclude modern books here either).

Second, I believe that all books are open to analysis and criticism. How are we to understand our fellow man if we cannot engage in discussion and thought? From classics to modern books, all must be subject to thought and challenge. That is how we grow.

With the rise of aesthetics and performance, mainly through social media, I have grown wary about how literature is represented. Let me take one of the most infamous examples: Dostoevsky. His works, (usually Crime and Punishment), are bastardized to fit modern aestheticism rather than actually explored as such a work should be. Allow me to expand on Crime and Punishment.

Raskolnikov is a nihilist who seeks to test the laws of nature because he believes he is entitled to do so; in his vision, induced by extreme poverty and isolation, Raskolnikov deems himself one of the few worthy to commit murder. It is not as if society would even think to nurture souls who have been poisoned by the throes of nihilism. Raskolnikov, in my view, is not someone that should be idolized or emulated; he is a wounded soul who has outlawed any idea of reconciliation with life, nature, and common humanity. In the epilogue, we see how many convicts mistrust or even despise Raskolnikov; nihilism has rotted his heart that it no longer bleeds red, but oozes a sickly color. As he learns to accept the common love of humanity and life, his zeal and spirit are uplifted from the dark trenches he once roamed. (This is not me trying to promote any religion or atheism, just a small analysis to aid my argument). Now, let us turn our gaze toward how he is perceived online.

It has become a trend to emulate a Dostoevsky character without actual understanding the make-up of the very character a person would claim to be kindred spirits with. Many bolster Raskolnikov's arrogance and romanticize his suffering and mindset; they do not see Raskolnikov as a warning to the perpetually suffering, but as an ikon that is somehow above the common masses. (I can point how some who read classic literature will automatically deem those who don't as stupid or anti-intellectual, but more on that later). These emulators avoid acknowledging why Raskolnikov was written. I believe that many can relate to Raskolnikov, there are many aspects that the modern reader would connect even a few centuries later, but to ignore what a character symbolizes or their arc that demands deep attention to detail is to ignore the character altogether. If we only pick and choose which aspects we wish to idolize, we cannot claim to understand a character at all. Reading classic literature is not some badge to pin on one's chest. Idealization often is the mask of ignorance; one must always be cautious even if we adore a character. There is all too much to learn when we open our minds to both perfection and flaws.

Another point of frustration is that many misinterpret the author's intentions. Allow me to harp on those who romanticize and diminish Dostoevsky's works. Often, one will find online that Dostoevsky is some how dark and extremely depressing, one is only to suffer for suffering's sake. This cannot be further than the truth. Dostoevsky preached not only infinite light, even in the darkest of hearts (see Raskolnikov), but that through suffering, one achieves the means to overcome it. While many characters remain in the domains of excessive rationalism, to be human is to reject the darkness that threatens to overwhelm, to endure until the brightest of dawn expels hatred and nihilism. The characters that suffer the worst are those who have succumbed to nihilism, and in my opinion, those are the characters to be most pitied. Yes, Dostoevsky often wrote about the ills and plagues of society, but not merely to indulgence in mindless fantasy of somehow being enlightened through suffering. No, enlightenment is achieved by the embrace of love and humanity. Look at Alyosha, Sonya, Myshkin, even Mitya! The search for light may be a dark path, but the endurance of love and charity is what lightens our hearts.

Overall, the warping of message and intent seem prevalent these days in classic literature. Those who succumb to this do not seek to engage thoughtfully, but seek almost to be a status symbol. The rampant idealization of characters like Raskolnikov, Ivan Karmazov, Yozo, etc, (to expand from just Dostoevsky), does not show thoughtfulness but imitation. These characters are not created so that we may emulate them and lament how stupid the 99% are, they are breathing images that demand us to seek for something more. It is true that we emulate our favorite characters to an extent, but I do not seek to end that. Instead, I wish to point to the rising idealization as something that defeats the purpose of the literature we consume. (I can go on about how Yozo from No Longer Human is a character in which we should explicitly take as a warning in how suffering destroys its host, but I shall move on).

Literature does not exist as an outlet to boast with a puffed up chest that one is more intellectual than the majority or a status symbol of being in an "intellectual" ingroup. Literature is the written language of the human soul. When we diminish the purpose of literature that these authors have left behind, we create a pale imitation of what these ideas should mean. We ignore not only the beauty, but the terror in which these writers have experimented and its warnings. Classic literature begs us to engage, it begs us to feel the written word in our very core. By diminishing intent, purpose, and analytic thought, we diminish why stories are created. If one imitates a character without proper understanding, then have we truly experienced the written word? If we seek to have a shallow interpretation of the written word in order to bolster pride, then has literature impacted us?

There is nothing wrong with engaging with literature, it is crucial. However, I have noticed that through the boom of social media, we have begun to lose the connections to those of our past. Aesthetics thrive on the shallow; they are meant to tickle artistic fancy, not nurture it. Performance means nothing to knowledge. Wisdom need not deliver a monologue to permeate our minds and hearts.