#extradirty
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Kiana Khansmith
ojovivo
almost home
Mike Driver
todays bird
Today's Document
No title available
ellievsbear
No title available
Love Begins
Cosmic Funnies
h
Sweet Seals For You, Always
pixel skylines
shark vs the universe
Origami Around
Noah Kahan
The Stonewall Inn
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Brazil
seen from Bulgaria
seen from Iraq
seen from Canada
seen from Georgia
seen from Argentina
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from Morocco
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Colombia
seen from Iraq
seen from Kenya
seen from France
seen from United Kingdom
@illydiac
How come the English translation of Dante’s ‘The Divine Comedy’ hasn’t maintained the poem’s distinctive rhyme? Is that not one of the most important parts? How can you attempt to translate Dante and not deliver the phenomenally flawless structure exactly as it is?
Couldn’t help but notice how Geto’s argument is entirely Nietzschean. A direct derivation of the very theory Nietzsche had articulated regarding the two most vital extremities that constantly shift the world’s axis with their interactions—the weak and the strong.
Nietzsche argued that only the values of the strong were truly worthy in this world, values that one ought to possess in order to achieve success and reach the highest peaks of human potential. Yet the highest you climb, the more maggots you ought to take with you, for they yearn to steal your glory, they yearn to sink you down.
“But wherever ye would ascend with me, O my brethren, take care lest a parasite ascend with you!
“A parasite: that is a reptile, a creeping, cringing reptile, that trieth to fatten on your infirm and sore places…”
“What is the highest of all species of being, and what is the lowest? The parasite is the lowest species; he, however, who is of the highest species feedeth most parasites.”
The weak’s unconscious resentment of their own worthlessness united them against the strong, aspiring to keep them in the same mud they thrive in, for they cannot reach the peaks the strong can—they lack power, force, desire, durability, discipline. But they want to survive, so they bring to light one of their parasitic abilities—inversion of roles, gathering against the good, to frame them as the bad.
I strongly believe Geto’s true philosophy is that of Nietzsche’s, and that lunatic, hollow, consumed cult-leader Geto is truly what Geto Suguru was always meant to be. Although Geto’s persona was certainly the tender flesh the corrupted society’s knife mercilessly butchered, his own bare ideology is undoubtedly that of one who believes the weak do not, truly, deserve the life they have, for they dishonour it by being so spiteful and unwilling. He also thrived in the idea that the strong’s duty (chore) to protect the weak was simply another form of idolising the said strong’s ability to tend to others, because only those who yield capacity and authority could have the privilege (disadvantage) of keeping lower ranks in check.
Would not be surprised if his favorite book when he was a teen was ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’.
On this Geto and Nietzsche parallelism, as well as my previous mention of lunatic adult Geto, I shall laconically bring forward this, too, formulated by (yes you guessed it) Nietzsche in 1881 in his book ‘Daybreak’
“All superior men who were irresistibly drawn to throw off the yoke of any kind of morality and to frame new laws had, if they were not actually mad, no alternative but to make themselves or pretend to be mad.”
Thank god I had not consumed any other form of Dracula-related media before I finished Bram Stoker’s book, because what do you mean they invented a whole Dracula & Mina romance plot in the movie? Foolish! Disgrace! A derogatory stain on the bond between Jonathan and Mina—a blemish on the bond between every character of the book, for that matter.
Either stay true to the points which the author has so clearly put a strong emphasis on, or leave the work alone altogether.
Writing Gojo and Geto fanfic is an overall heart-wrenching experience, no matter the nature of the scene. I always have this grim feeling over me as I write, their destined fate and actual endings echoing around in my unconsciousness.
Wearing all long sleeve in 40°C is not for the weak
the tomarry fandom is getting increasingly annoying and moralistic; let's go back to being an eight-person fandom. someone close the doors to tiktok.
"i don't like harrymort, only tomarry" GO FUCK YOURSELF, THEN; IT'S THE SAME SHIT. there are other ships you can move on to. they just want to clean up that ship.
It’s becoming more and more exhausting —in every sense—to deal with these performatively-righteous fans. It might come across as a shock, but it’s optional to engage with such a ship, it’s optional to like it, it’s optional to post hate against it.
“What a disgusting ship, there’s so much wrong with it!”
Oh great Heavens, oh dear almighty Lord, forgive us for sinning under your hand! Bring us your light that shall cleanse us fans of such a blasphemous ship and guide us towards exiting the route of offence and immorality! Purify our soul! Show us the path of virtue! What are the ships of ethicalness? We shall worship them!
People need to learn to close their mouths.
I watched Leviticus, and I was not prepared to review it negatively—yet such a thing happened. It is a bitter conclusion, for I was quite hyped by the reviews of the people who had watched it.
Perhaps I could be expecting much from a movie whose sole aim is to please through action rather than explanations, but I felt that there was an immense lack of emotional depth to it. I only liked the last interaction of Naim and his mum and the end scene on the bus, but everything else felt extremely rushed with no vital culmination . No particular scene held any unique emphasis, or significance. Everything was linear. Everytime there was potential for a scene to escalate in emotional tension, it abruptly ended and another begun. It felt more like sequences sewn together.
It is a rather saddening result, for the concept was good and so were the actors’ performances—the execution could have been better.
I understand people who prefer fanfiction that remains as close as possible to the original narrative; stories that rearrange existing events and reinterpret key moments— I love them too, undeniably so. What I do not understand are those who appropriate that very premise and turn it into a mark of superiority; those who seem convinced that their preferred approach occupies some uniquely legitimate position among fanworks, as though the performance of canonicity somehow grants greater legitimacy to their interpretation. It feels like a new breed of guilty fanfiction; one that refuses to admit it is fanfiction at all.
I see this attitude most often among het shippers, who regard their preferences as somehow automatically legitimized simply by virtue of being heterosexual. And, regrettably, that mindset lends itself rather well to hetslop. Your fanfics do not become inherently more meaningful because they exist within superficially recognizable canonical scenery, not least when so many of them depend upon altering fundamental elements of the narrative in order to arrive at their preferred conclusions and fantasies. Presenting a lack of creative ambition, or perhaps creative inertia, as fidelity to canon doesn't make an interpretation more reasonable. Nor does a refusal to explore alternative settings somehow produce a deeper understanding of the characters.
In fact, you are not all that different from the fans who build entire interpretations from fanon alone, despite imagining yourselves as the antidote to that sort of fandom behavior. The difference is not that one group transforms the source material while the other preserves it. Both do. But only one group openly acknowledges the transformation, while the other remains attached to the curious premise that its interpretation derives a special legitimacy from canon, when no such legitimacy exists beyond the belief itself.
And some people would have you think Harry understood and even empathised with Voldemort :')
To think that posting such paragraphs would serve as solid, authentic evidence against the undeniable potential of Tomarrymort only shows that you, in fact, do not understand it.
A shallow analysis you made over the provided text, undoubtedly. Yet, what you believe is an unarguable testimony that shatters Tomarrymort’s fundamentals is, actually, the fundamental itself.
“He did not want to approach it. Nevertheless…”
Look at the figure of speech used to create the argument you use against the ship. A paradox—the feeling against the action, the conscious against the unconscious. The desire, the fear, but which is which? What does Harry want to do, and what does he do? Can you dare say you know what he wants? You do not always do what you want, and you do not always want the thing that you do.
“He could not bring himself to do it. He felt like a coward. He ought to comfort it, but it repulsed him.”
Why would you label yourself a coward if you supposedly are not doing something you do not actually want to do? The connotation of the word is negative, almost always belittling—you loathe yourself for not having the courage to seek what your boldest self desires.
The truest interpretations of Tomarrymort almost never claim the existence of principled empathy, ‘concealed’ feelings, or straightforward romance/understanding/humanity between Harry and Voldemort—unlike some. The essence of the ship lies precisely where you tend to believe you have found an error; vocalised loathing. Two beings that are destined to ruin each other through hatred, yet to be destined is to be tied—in that space between what you physically do and what you spiritually desire, you find out human beings long for what should disgust them.
Harry and Voldemort are supposed to be antithetical. To the naked eye, they are; the juvenile representation of good and bad—until you find out they are wholly intertwined through something labelled as the truest component of a human; their soul. Tomarrymort’s principle is contradiction, is internalised antipathy, is the exploration of human primitive, perhaps irrational obsession.
Of course, you are not obliged to view Harry and Voldemort’s relationship through this perspective. But as somebody who tends to read between the lines to defend their own interests, it is only natural you perform the same method towards other matters, too.
Shallow, you say? My point was exactly what the text states plainly and clearly, which is that Harry feels physical revulsion toward the fragment of Voldemort's soul. You call it shallow because you mistake mental gymnastics for depth lol.
A paradox—the feeling against the action, the conscious against the unconscious.
That is not, strictly speaking, what a paradox is.
Harry believes, as a matter of moral principle, that suffering babies deserve compassion, which compels him to approach the baby Voldemort. However, he feels revulsion towards him, so he cannot continue. His true feelings are indeed at odds with what he thinks he ought to feel, but not in the way you think. What he feels for Voldemort, at his core, is revulsion, despite the moral obligation compelling him to approach the helpless baby. Conscious morality against the unconscious revulsion, indeed!
Voldemort disgusts Harry. There is no longing in him to approach him. Recoiling from him is an unconscious action driven by his innermost self, because it's completely at odds with Voldemort's.
This is a moral conundrum lol, similar to Hermione's unwillingness to hurt the baby-headed Death Eater in OOTP.
Where in this passage do you find desire or longing? Quote it. Show me the sentence. You cannot, because it exists exclusively in your imagination and your fanfics!
Perhaps my highlights would help you understand this passage better.
Why would you label yourself a coward if you supposedly are not doing something you do not actually want to do?
Because that is precisely how moral obligations work! Harry calls himself a coward because he fails to meet his own ethical standard, which says all suffering creatures deserve compassion regardless of how repulsive they appear. Every day, ordinary people call themselves cowards for failing to act on principle. A man who walks past a homeless person and feels guilty did so because he thinks he should have helped. He hardly did so because he was suppressing some secret romantic yearning for the homeless person lol.
The truest interpretations of Tomarrymort almost never claim the existence of principled empathy, 'concealed' feelings, or straightforward romance/understanding/humanity between Harry and Voldemort—unlike some.
How wonderfully convenient! The moment your specific reading of this passage crumbles under scrutiny, you retreat to vague gestures about 'the truest interpretations' of the ship. Address the passage you claimed to be analysing or admit you cannot defend your reading of it.
Two beings that are destined to ruin each other through hatred, yet to be destined is to be tied—in that space between what you physically do and what you spiritually desire, you find out human beings long for what should disgust them.
How poetic. How utterly hollow! The prophecy states, rather bluntly, that they cannot co-exist. Why is your ship built on the reversal of canon? And how is this relevant to this passage anyway?
All that you mention was entirely against their will, which is the point.
They do not have the same soul. Harry contains a piece of Voldemort's soul, but they exist entirely separately, and their incompatibility is demonstrated a hundred times in the books. Maybe read them sometimes, if you can catch a break from your silly fanfiction.
But as somebody who tends to read between the lines to defend their own interests, it is only natural you perform the same method towards other matters, too.
You can hardly equate my close reading of the text to your eisegesis. My analyses aren't actually based on reading between the lines, but on close reading. I don't mind the former when the occasion demands it, but my preferred methodology is close reading, which is about paying deep attention to what's actually there in the text. It's a very technical skill that dissects how the author's choices shape meaning in text, while your (mis)reading is based entirely on vibes and contradicts the text.
See, there is quite a lot of material we can work with here. A lot of arguments that you have presented, and a lot of superficially complex analysis and parallelisms that you truly believe shall seal such an interaction—each to their own, then. I ought to leave you to your viewpoints.
What seizes my attention, though, what is the fundamental of practically all your posts regarding Tomarrymort, the pattern which is easily recognisable because it is born from spite—is your attitude towards the ship itself, always backed up with the same argument:
Show me proof!
This is, if you have not noticed, a fanon ship. As in, not canon. As in, Rowling did not write, in any page, that Voldemort and Harry had a secret relationship, or that they professed their love for each other during the final battle, or that they ran away together under a secret identity. The Tomarrymort ship is based on the canon potential it has—for which, I shall note, you have the right not to ask proof, for everybody you have ever argued with has endlessly provided you with such, and the tomarrymort spaces you regularly frequent have it all explained and analysed—which is infinitely stronger, more solid, and closer to the actual psychology of a real human being, whose obsession are almost never explained, or rational, or rigid, than your own ship, which had the (mis)fortune of falling in the hands of fanfiction writers with resources, backed up by an author’s desire to bring to light new ideas (and more exposure, and more relevance to her work. Which, she already had, but it is never quite enough.) New ideas that entirely contradict whatever she has said about Voldemort’s character, and his arc, and his persona. But, yay, Bella and Voldemort! A man who views power as the ultimate weapon reduced to the level of a woman who has no problem worshipping another. Why would Voldemort keep by his side a human who has let herself be commanded, (even if that person is him, because it’s not about who it is but about the route Bella takes, as a follower. Voldemort wants followers to use, not followers to be his equal.) But then, again, each to their own. Getting back to the word rigid I used earlier—Rigid, as in, the bad guy of the story has to end up with the equally bad girl, because this is a kid’s show and we have to present the ordinary notion of bad&bad vs. good&good. (Even My Little Pony disregarded such juvenile routes, Fluttershy loved Discord.)
You provided a passage of the book, and I gave a possible interpretation of it—because, you know, not everything must mean what is physically printed, for to do such a thing would quite literally erase the entirety of literature and professionals’ work over analysing books. You cannot attempt to shatter my interpretation of a thing which can take any form, by saying to provide proof, to give clear citations, because I am not claiming something which needs to be canon, or confirmed by the author. I mean, you’d have to sue Freud and quite possibly all of the psychoanalysts.
Despite all, you still manage to contradict yourself immediately after.
Harry calls himself a coward because he fails to meet his own ethical standard, which says all suffering creatures deserve compassion regardless of how repulsive they appear.
Shall we, inspired by your tendencies, repeat your own words? Quote it. Show me the sentence. Where does it say that this is Harry’s ethical standard? Where does it say this is the ethical standard? Show it to me! What you have said is nowhere cited in the book, because it is your interpretation of a certain situation. Therefore, I do not consider it a valid argument, therefore Harry’s ethical standard is not this, but something completely different—because the author did not explicitly state everything.
The things that are not stated, are up to fanon interpretation, which gives life to fanon ships, and headcanons, et cetera, et cetera. If you are against those, you might want to delete your blog, because this is what fandom spaces are for. You cannot diminish their core by asking for ‘proof’—you can only give arguments against the interpretations themselves. Which you never do, ‘cause you don’t analyse beyond shallow thoughts and delusional claims.
A man who walks past a homeless person and feels guilty did so because he thinks he should have helped. He hardly did so because he was suppressing some secret romantic yearning for the homeless person lol
I did say I wasn’t going to scrutinise your arguments because you’ll simply reply to them again, since your backup is always ‘Quote it! Show me where Rowling said that V and Harry secretly planned to commit genocide, or burn in hell!’ but this parallelism was so silly I couldn’t help myself. An irrelevant example—the guilt of the man against the homeless person is the hollowest of guilts, for he has no relation, whatsoever, to that person. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that Voldemort and Harry shared a piece of Voldemort’s soul (since you like to put emphasis on that, which you don’t realise just reinforces Tomarrymort’s potential, for its intimacy is brutal) and Voldemort was not ‘a man Harry saw as he was walking down the street’.
As for, “Their incompatibility is demonstrated a hundred times in the books”—yes, you’re correct. A single incompatibility of theirs is infinitely more impactful than all the (nonexistent) compatibilities between Voldemort and Bellatrix.
https://www.tumblr.com/fugamalefica/819861012021952512/shallow-you-say-my-point-was-exactly-what-the?source=share
Yes, yes, I saw it. Such a burdensome chore to argue with those who have their mind set on certain opinions and refuse to expand them beyond their delusional beliefs, purely out of spite. Will reply soon.
“Tips for beginner writers, mistakes writers do that you should avoid, how to make your writing appealing and interesting—”
You are not meant to satisfy the masses through your work. You are not meant to raise the numbers of books published, you’re not meant to join the growing piles of indistinguishable writers, you are not meant to fracture and break your work so it can fit within the dusty frame of society’s pleasures.
To write, to create, to produce art—it’s one’s way of physically shaping what their soul consists of. If your soul demands you write unrestrictedly, and thoroughly, and intensely, it’s because your soul is unrestricted, and thorough, and intense. If you strip your work of that, what are you even creating, then?
And some people would have you think Harry understood and even empathised with Voldemort :')
To think that posting such paragraphs would serve as solid, authentic evidence against the undeniable potential of Tomarrymort only shows that you, in fact, do not understand it.
A shallow analysis you made over the provided text, undoubtedly. Yet, what you believe is an unarguable testimony that shatters Tomarrymort’s fundamentals is, actually, the fundamental itself.
“He did not want to approach it. Nevertheless…”
Look at the figure of speech used to create the argument you use against the ship. A paradox—the feeling against the action, the conscious against the unconscious. The desire, the fear, but which is which? What does Harry want to do, and what does he do? Can you dare say you know what he wants? You do not always do what you want, and you do not always want the thing that you do.
“He could not bring himself to do it. He felt like a coward. He ought to comfort it, but it repulsed him.”
Why would you label yourself a coward if you supposedly are not doing something you do not actually want to do? The connotation of the word is negative, almost always belittling—you loathe yourself for not having the courage to seek what your boldest self desires.
The truest interpretations of Tomarrymort almost never claim the existence of principled empathy, ‘concealed’ feelings, or straightforward romance/understanding/humanity between Harry and Voldemort—unlike some. The essence of the ship lies precisely where you tend to believe you have found an error; vocalised loathing. Two beings that are destined to ruin each other through hatred, yet to be destined is to be tied—in that space between what you physically do and what you spiritually desire, you find out human beings long for what should disgust them.
Harry and Voldemort are supposed to be antithetical. To the naked eye, they are; the juvenile representation of good and bad—until you find out they are wholly intertwined through something labelled as the truest component of a human; their soul. Tomarrymort’s principle is contradiction, is internalised antipathy, is the exploration of human primitive, perhaps irrational obsession.
Of course, you are not obliged to view Harry and Voldemort’s relationship through this perspective. But as somebody who tends to read between the lines to defend their own interests, it is only natural you perform the same method towards other matters, too.
Trying to determine which Homelander is the most pathetic, comic or TV series version—challenge impossible.
Could not bear to reduce the experience of reading this solely to a digitally downloaded version—it was crucial that I had it in my hands.
An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works
Among such a sea of pitiful ants, stands an angel, a fawn freshly brought into this world, dancing and swaying around with a misty stranger, a shadow, a nonentity — Voldemort’s psyche does not, could not, take in anything else but the silhouette of that mystic creature emitting a persuasion so passionate that it has grasped Voldemort’s vision with an innocence of complete blamelessness, unaware of its impact.
Voldemort’s tongue could not hold itself back any longer.
“That boy.”
The previous, undoubtedly valueless conversation his servants had lost themselves in comes to a stop, heads turning towards the direction their Lord’s gaze is fixed upon.
“Who is he?”
Several wordless, puzzled moments pass, the uninterrupted music their only companion.
“…That shall be the Potter heir, my Lord.”
During an evening assembly of the British aristocracy, the light of chastity brightens Lord Voldemort to oblivion. A man born from the darkest shadows, he now sets on dragging that virgin innocence into the depths of his abyss.
The eyes of sin find the soul of virtue.
The beginning of the end.
“Are you profic proship problematic nc dc enjoyer or no”
Perhaps I am all, perhaps none. I allow the winds of my soul to direct me towards the song of the birds that sounds the sweetest. Could it, by any chance, be the croak of a raven? The wild, eerie screech of an owl? Yes, no, it does not matter. It soothes my mind, harmonises with the melody of my heart—isn’t that all we yearn for? Do not give my interests a name, do not cut the wings of the dove I let roam free across the sky of my passions, let it fly to its heart’s contents.
I hear the whispers of my desires call from deep within myself—I do not question them, I am their servant.
“You do not understand The Boys unless you’ve read the comics, the series is shite, they nerfed everyone, they dishonour the comics, read the comics, the comics are the only way."
Naturally, you start reading the comics, and could not be more tremendously surprised to agree that, yes, the series has nerfed one element (perhaps among many others) to extremity, because never in a million episodes would an encounter (let alone their first visible-to-the-audience one) between Butcher and Homelander be so erotic.
Homelander, I saw those sad, woeful eyes. Does it bring you comfort to be Butcher’s only object of worthy interest?
