bitches say they're fine and then scream the "I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all" in bohemian rhapsody louder than everyone else
taylor price

oozey mess
sheepfilms
Keni
we're not kids anymore.
will byers stan first human second
𩵠avery cochrane š©µ
occasionally subtle
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
d e v o n

ā
official daine visual archive

ellievsbear

PR's Tumblrdome
Aqua Utopiaļ½ęµ·ć®åŗć§čØę¶ćē“”ć

Discoholic šŖ©
Game of Thrones Daily
todays bird
RMH
noise dept.

seen from France

seen from Germany

seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Singapore

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from Tanzania

seen from Spain

seen from United States
@ineffablebastards
bitches say they're fine and then scream the "I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all" in bohemian rhapsody louder than everyone else
Boat or ship
Disclaimer here
Not responsible for my creative brain cell index
Probably the semi-popular GO fandom take that most grinds my gears is how many people eat up the C&A mentor-protƩgƩ dynamic that S2 introduces and S3 really commits to. It's just so insidious. Even in relatively benign posts, people's delight in the idea that Crowley is teaching Aziraphale how to live in and see the world, with rarely any acknowledgement of reciprocal influence, is very upsetting to me.
And, now that we have the full show canon, it's apparent that this is what the primary show writer intended to convey. So I can't get mad at people for seeing that.
Tbf, I'm sure plenty of people who liked this note in S2 draw the line at how it played out in S3. Even if it's not my favorite way of looking at the story in total, it's a valid interpretive lens on S2 that Crowley, who has been forcibly ejected by heaven, is showing Aziraphale, who is still somewhat (and increasingly reluctantly) affiliated with heaven, another perspective.
But this is a far cry from S3's message that a) Crowley is solely responsible for any courage, understanding, or growth on Aziraphale's part; and b) it is fitting for Aziraphale to cede control over his own fate, even to the point of death, to Crowley.
And it has been heartening for me to see that even people who have a more critical take on Aziraphale than I do think the S3 message is bonkers.
I hear you thinking "but S2 does show that Aziraphale has influenced Crowley!" And I agree that the joint magic trick theme shows that Aziraphale has helped Crowley learn to trust. But that, to me, is outweighed by moments like Crowley introducing Aziraphale to food, Crowley playing Socrates in Edinburgh, and Crowley scolding Aziraphale for hosting the ball.
I see tiny indications of what was to come in S1, but overall it feels like the S1 narrative actually respects Aziraphale as a subject, an individual in his own right, rather than Crowley's puppet, and shows a more mutually beneficial partnership between them. While S3 turns Aziraphale into an object through which Crowley realizes his One True Heroic Purpose.
And to the extent that S3 does prove Aziraphale right (via some terribly written dialogue) by confirming that Crowley is good and that it would be wrong to run off to Alpha Centauri while humanity suffered, it never feels like victory or vindication for Aziraphale. Instead his correctness on these points merely confirms that Crowley is the new Messiah.
Maybe I'm just annoyed with myself for expecting S3 to recontextualize this stuff, to clearly show that Aziraphale has influenced Crowley, too. To bring them back into balance, shades of grey, different but equal.
Ah, those heady post-S2 days when I would think, "it's television, and scenes are cut. Perhaps we lost them that way." And yes, I always thought it would balance out.
Interestingly, I always thought that the thing that Aziraphale taught Crowley (or tried to) was very much like the quieter way he protected Crowley (the bookshop) and saved him (sleight-of-hand, pedantry).
He tried to teach Crowley to find and fully feel joy in everything despite all they were up against, and not to give in to cynicism*.
And that is indeed a wisdom, but again, very subtle. I'm not sure the writers noted it. *this isn't the word I need, but I don't feel like "despair" really is either, "world-weariness"?- anyway, rather than sit on it till I find the proper word, I'll let you clever people find it yourself.
You bring up some examples that I had deleted from a previous draft! I do agree with you about these other ways that Aziraphale contributes to the relationship.
I think it's strongly implied that Aziraphale's capacity for joy has positive effects on Crowley. Aziraphale makes him smile, makes him laugh, makes him stop and enjoy life.
I also think Aziraphale made the bookshop a home for Crowley. Obviously, he's the only demon allowed in (prior to the FF morning), and the statue for his glasses, the scotch (I doubt Aziraphale drinks scotch on his own), and the sofa all seem like homey touches meant for Crowley's use.
The weaponized pedantry is definitely a strength of Aziraphale's, and I think it's possible Crowley learned that from him. The order of operations at the airbase is that Aziraphale starts the rules lawyering, asking about the difference between the great and ineffable plan, and then Crowley joins in. Later, in S2, Crowley makes up the rule to keep the demons out of the bookshop. But the connection is a bit tenuous.
We also never get confirmation of Aziraphale's big special power like we see Crowley's time/matter power. My hc is that it's healing, and the war opening hints at this, but it would have been nice to have seen him really use his power. And @masnadies I know you have a (very logical) hc that Aziraphale is good at wards and protection spells.
It makes me so sad that Aziraphale's strengths and the times when he is in the right are either left to founder in the subtext or, as in bookshop Eden, are used as a launching pad for Crowley to attain new levels of Big Pointless Heroics.
And, let me be clear, I think book/S1 Crowley would not approve of any of this!
They wrote their own story.
āØļøsome thoughts under the cut, feel free to ignore it and just enjoy the pictureāØļø
Wholeheartedly agree. And to those who want to keep making excuses for GO3, here goes my rant.
A counterargument to the chiastic structure "catch all" of GO3
This isĀ a response to this essay, which some of you may find soothing. I hope you do.
The essay is beautifully written, it exhudes hope and, very much like humanity and GO3, isĀ fundamentally flawed. The essay may be less a critique of the finale than a grief-processing machine, turning disappointment into meaning because the alternative is too painful. And I'm okay with that. I truly am. But since the author invites intelligent criticism and exchange, here we go.
Let there be light.
(TLDR: If Good Omens is about loving the world enough to save it, then ending by deleting the world and replacing Aziraphale and Crowley with gentler echoes is not the ultimate fulfilment of its humanism.Ā It is the betrayal of it. The problem with the ātheir souls find each other again and againā reading is that it smuggles religion back into a universe supposedly liberated from religious control. Souls are not just a romantic metaphor here; they are the mechanism by which the essay avoids admitting that Crowley and Aziraphale have been erased. But if the new world has no God, no Heaven, no Hell, no Book of Life, and no divine machinery, then what exactly is a soul? What preserves it? What recognises it? What lets it pass from one reality into another? Remove the theological architecture and the reincarnation reading collapses. Asa and Anthony may echo Crowley and Aziraphale, but echoes are not survival. They are what remains after the original voice has stopped.)
The essayās central move is: yes, the finale is rushed and structurally damaged, but the brokenness reveals a deeper thematic design. Thatās emotionally generous, but also very vulnerable. The essay seems to mistake production damage for textual intention. It builds an elegant reading around absences, dropped threads, and emotional gaps, but those may simply be the scars of a six-episode story crushed into a feature-length compromise.
The essay claims Good Omens is āchained to a chiastic structureā, a literary palindrome in which events mirror each other in a divinely stacked deck. That is a beautiful argument, but it needs much more proof. In its current form, it's a catch-all: any repeated image, reversal, echo, or callback becomes evidence of structure. Mirroring is not the same as chiasmus. A show can contain callbacks, reversals, visual rhymes, the Eden imagery, and repeated moral dilemmas without being governed by a rigorous ABCCBA architecture. This essay asserts a totalising structure, then uses that structure to excuse or dignify almost every (bad) narrative choice.
The essay argues that, because the story is a macro-level creation myth, queer love could not have ended in a conventional happy ending āinside of this macro-level creation story.ā A story about free will should not defend its ending by saying the characters had no narratively satisfying alternative. The finale could have given them free will as themselves. It could have broken the cosmic game without erasing the existing universe. It could have let them retain memory, identity, continuity, and a South Downs future. The essay says ācreation would have always required a destructionā, but that is not demonstrated. It is imported from the essayās own mythic framework. It's self-soothing, and that's valid, but it's not true. It could've ended in a conventional happy ending.
The essay frames the new universe as hope: their souls transcend reality, they meet again, the old structure breaks, and love survives. A beautiful sentiment. But Aziraphale and Crowley do not get freedom. They cease to exist, and two adjacent, softened variants inherit their aesthetic. That matters. The emotional investment of the series is not merely āsome version of them will always find each otherā. It is these beings: the angel who gave away the sword, the demon who made the stars, the two who survived Heaven, Hell, Armageddon, loneliness, denial, and the final fifteen. If the coda gives us Asa and Anthony, that may be romantic as reincarnation myth, but it is also a dodge: the actual characters are gone. If the thematic goal was freedom, why could they not choose freedom, memory, love, embodiment, and continuity?
GO3 wants the new universe to be secular enough to free Crowley and Aziraphale from God, Hell, Heaven, judgement, prophecy, and cosmic authorship, but religious enough to preserve the idea of immortal souls finding each other across time. That is a contradiction. If the new universe truly has no God, no Heaven, no Hell, no divine Book, and no supernatural architecture, then there is no obvious mechanism by which āsoulsā persist, reincarnate, remember, recognise, or return. Aziraphale and Crowley never meet again because they've ceased to exist.
There is also a central ethical issue here with the erasure of the universe: who consented? Aziraphale and Crowley. Nobody else. The original Good Omens is fiercely anti-apocalyptic because the world is precious in its messy specificity. Destroying that world to create a cleaner one arguably betrays the novelās central humanist instinct.
The finale was, as The Guardian puts it, āabbreviated to the point of incoherenceā and its central storylines become ānon-startersā. It did not earn a cosmic reset of that magnitude. Absence can be meaningful, but not every absence is an artistic choice. Sometimes the cupboard is bare. And that's the case for this finale. We were short-changed, there's no two ways about it.
The finale does not actually dramatise what free will means in the new universe. It simply has divine or semi-divine beings declare that this version will be freer. That is a problem because Good Omens traditionally proves its ethics through human mess: Adam refusing his role, Agnes being inconveniently right, Anathema rejecting inherited prophecy, Shadwell and Madame Tracy bumbling into usefulness, people choosing badly and kindly and absurdly. A metaphysical reset is much more abstract.
A finale about free will, humanity, and the Second Coming cannot sideline Jesus and humanity and then claim thematic success.
If the ending removes the messy old world and replaces it with a universe allegedly free from narrative control, the viewer has to take that on trust. And we'd be very silly indeed to trust Good Omens now.
The reading of Aziraphale lying to Crowley for Crowleyās own good is emotionally potent, but also feeble. We have just spent two seasons watching secrecy, paternalism, miscommunication, institutional loyalty, and āI know bestā logic hurt them. Having Aziraphale lie again and framing it as love risks repeating the problem rather than resolving it. Aziraphaleās growth should arguably involve trusting Crowley with the truth, not manipulating him into the ārightā outcome. If Crowleyās deepest desire is real choice, then denying him full information undermines the moral claim of the ending.
Then we have Crowleyās arc flattened into sainthood. Crowleyās love of humanity has always been tangled with selfishness, irritation, pleasure, aesthetics, wine, music, plants, stars, the Bentley, and Aziraphale. Turning him into the one who simply wants āpeople to have a chanceā over-sanitises him. Crowley is not just a fallen angel with a buried divine vocation. He's a demon who likes the world because it is ridiculous and alive. The essayās reading is grand, but it turns him into a theological instrument of redemption, which is precisely the kind of symbolic imprisonment the essay claims the ending escapes.
And the absence of the kiss is unforgivable. It's queer withholding. After years of coded intimacy, denial, separation, and one traumatic kiss, refusing a final mutually joyful kiss reads less like restraint and more like another instance of queer desire being made metaphysical, tragic, deferred, or displaced. We have enough of that, thank you.
The ending does not resolve Aziraphale and Crowleyās relationship. It replaces it with an alternate-universe meet-cute. That is not inherently bad, but it changes the genre of the payoff. Instead of āthey finally get to be together after 6,000 yearsā, it becomes āsome echo of them gets a softer beginning.ā For some viewers, that's not fulfilment. And that's valid.
The Guardian review makes a related point when it says the coda suggests Tennant and Sheen would be brilliant as a married couple in an ordinary romantic drama, āas different characters created by different writersā. But that is not Good Omens. It never was, and it never will be.
oh hey itās august 20 happy birthday to adam young, warlock dowling, and greasy johnson!
wait lmao that means itās antichristmas
Merry Antichristmas everyone !
Is theĀ āfluffy one shotā pig doing whip its with those cans?Ā Cause that feels accurate.
@skyholdherbalist Yup! XD
@frozensnares
Then⦠where do I go? Iām just at home muttering
into the void of an open word document.
@valkyrien Oh but thereās more to this party than sugar and sweets~ ā„ļø
Fluff Fest on RedBubble: https://www.redbubble.com/people/kitten-kin/works/36582633
Dark Side on RedBubble: https://www.redbubble.com/people/kitten-kin/works/36634358
THE PIG IS EATING PINE TREES IN THE PINING I CAN NOT DEAL.
IT GOT BETTER
Whereās the lemon buffet
Third Comic, featuring the citrus-themed juice bar~ @alltheusernameiwantistaken
Available on RedBubble at https://www.redbubble.com/people/kitten-kin/works/37192337.
This has me in stitches !!!!! LOL ah mon dieu, woo, I needed that :-) Thanks @lodessa
@ashensanity
Literal FANFIC art. Art of FANFIC. I love this so much!
This could use another go round.
Always reblog
The āProteinā shot on the juice bar poster always makes me giggle.
another classic post I always want to reblog! :D
A little bit of knowledge, free for the taking, prompted by something in my entirely offline life:
When a therapist, psychologist, psychiatrist, or any other competent mental health practitioner tells you in a mild or observational tone that you are "very good at compartmentalizing" in your first session, that's not actually a good thing.
Like it's not inherently a bad thing either, to be clear: we generally develop intense compartmentalization skills because we needed them! They have a purpose!
But what they mean is not "gosh, look at you with your high level elite skill that everyone should aspire to, you barely need any help from me at all!"
What they mean is " . . . ah. You . . . have been through a lot of shit. Hmm."
What they mean is that your compartmentalization capacity is obvious even in this very brief first conversation and that means that you are compartmentalized to a point where you probably don't actually know how you feel about things and have entire rooms of Psychological Wounds you not only aren't actually attending to but don't know or admit are there.
I say this as someone who generally gets this, assuming I have not already myself said, "so as a result of bullshit I am great at compartmentalizing myself all the way to a breakdown/ruining my own life!" and thus we have shared the Dark Laughter of Serious Mental Health Work. It's not a bad thing, AS SUCH.
It's just not "look at you and your totally healthy self! A+ in mental health, a thing that is possible to achieve and healthy to want!"
This has popped up around again this week and I want to offer a little bit of an elaboration of the idea here:
The thing is that compartmentalization is a coping strategy and it's a skill that does often turn out to be quite necessary to function in the world. And the more stressful your world is, the more necessary it is to function.
Compartmentalization means that when you're in a hella stressful situation (whatever that happens to be for you), you can sort of close off or move back from the front or the driver's seat, all the things that don't help with that situation - and that can be not only really useful but absolutely necessary for survival.
A fairly innocuous example of compartmentalizing is that when you've had a shitty day at work, but you're a parent, you still have to go home and do all the Parent Responsibilities; you have to compartmentalize your anger at your boss or at some part of your job, or whatever, from the space where you look after your kids, and vice versa.
Almost all of us will learn to compartmentalize a little, and we'll learn it because we have to.
. . . but.
Compartmentalization is not as clean as it sounds, because the human brain doesn't work like that.
Because all of the shit you experience is still there. It still exists, in your brain and your body and your memory and often the former two even if your memory of it is fuzzy.
All metaphors are flawed, you understand - none of this is actually putting anything in a box, or sweeping it under the rug, or under the bed. But for the purposes of an easy image that's useful to imagine this, compartmentalization is like sweeping stuff under the rug, or under the bed, or putting it in a box - you've got it out of sight, but it's still there. It still exists, and crucially, it's still having some affect on you.
And also - letting the "sweeping it under the rug" metaphor go, because it's only a metaphor, and using another one - it can become so habitual and complete that you're closing doors in yourself before you even really know what's behind them, and given that all these solutions will "leak" you can (almost certainly will) end up in a situation where your thinking brain, the part that is reading this post and thinking "this applies to me" or "this doesn't", has no fucking idea what you've got in all those boxes, or under the rug, or whatever, because you habitually shut doors on the whole thing before you were even aware of it.
Those of us who learned how to compartmentalize the hard way, and do it as a habit, will often be like yes, see, I am excellent at this coping skill. And we're not wrong.
But the compartments are all artificial. Fundamentally it's all you - fundamentally every part of your experience is part of you, is acting on how your brain works, how your body experiences the world, and if you don't learn how to un-compartmentalize and integrate and deal with all of that, then you get increasingly fucked up by the very thing that lets you function.
And if you are so good at compartmentalizing that in your first session your mental health practitioner (who you are almost certainly seeing because shit is starting to go wrong and you're not sure how to fix it) is like ah, this person is very good at compartmentalization and says so. . . .
That probably means that this habit is so advanced, and so automatic, and so inflexible, that it's harming you. That part of the reason you're struggling with depression, or anxiety, or rage, or hopelessness, or hypervigilance, or whatever (I could go through a lot of pathology here) is because there is shit behind doors that you have not dealt with or processed through, stuff under rugs that's decomposing, or in fact you've just got so many locked doors that parts of your psyche don't really function anymore, even if nothing behind them (so to speak) is that catastrophic - they're still closed and locked and that's part of you that you can't access.
But is still there and is still influencing what you do, how things feel, all of it, because you don't actually get rid of things by compartmentalizing. Sometimes the influence is like having a hidden bomb or button that makes things explode that you don't even know is there; sometimes it's just something that makes everything a bit more sharp, more pointy; and sometimes it's more just like . . . . part of being human, the flexibility and imagination and change and capacity for growth, isn't there; there's a rigidity or a touchiness instead. Sometimes it just makes you literally physically ill.
A lot of the time it's a mix of all the above and even more things.
A lot of the time we're pretty resistant to decompartmentalizing because the blunt truth is, it's probably going to hurt and going to be messy. The longer we've been Very Good at Compartmentalizing and haven't learned how to deliberately then stop, open the various things and lift the lids and process shit, the more it's likely to hurt. And to be totally honest the more likely that hurt is to impact multiple areas in our lives.
And because compartmentalizing often makes it so we don't have to feel Bad Shit with any immediacy, we are often convinced that we've "handled" the emotions, when really we've just hidden them even from ourselves. And since bringing them back out and integrating them means, you know, feeling shit and that shit is bad it really doesn't sound like a lot of fun.
Masking is a kind of compartmentalization - masking in the psychological terminology for things like ASD or ADHD or mood disorders. Masking often means that we take all the things that we feel or think that don't match what we want to show on the mask and we shove them away under the rug and pretend they're not there. We compartmentalize.
Unmasking is a kind of decompartmentalizing; that's why suddenly it feels like you've constantly got less Cope, that things that "never used" to bug you are now a massive screaming problem. You're opening those doors and now you have to deal with what you used to just deny, and at the very least if you're still shoving it behind a door you're now aware there's something there.
But let's be real: you didn't get a diagnosis because everything in your life was fine, did you? You didn't start wondering and start looking at things and so on because you were actually "fine". You did it because you were exhausted or horrifically depressed or just not functioning, you were coming to the end of your rope and something was wrong and you started looking for explanations and some kind of solution.
And you had to do that because all of the shit in the compartments doesn't stay there neatly. It always leaks. It is always still part of the body and the brain that you live in.
That's just one example, though. People also compartmentalize grief; they compartmentalize around relationships, especially ones that come from very strong bonds (like parents) but are also in some way toxic (like . . . parents, often) or hard to deal with, or cause cognitive dissonance in some way. We absolutely compartmentalize around cognitive dissonances that arise from conflicting beliefs, or needs that conflict with our belief, or anything else like that.
You compartmentalize around a horrible hateful job so you don't "bring it home with you" and that's admirable and noble and maybe even necessary - but if you don't have somewhere to decompartmentalize, integrate and deal with the shit that the work is leaving you with, you will still start spilling it on your home.
Compartmentalization is a very useful skill but it's a skill that ideally you use temporarily and briefly, and one that you do have to know and learn how to turn off. Because everything you experience is a part of you and keeping it rigidly compartmentalized just means you now don't know how it's influencing you, or what fault-lines or residue or rot is building up, because you've got it over there in a box you're not looking at. Sometimes you gotta, to get through the day; but it's risky to leave it there too long and the longer it stays the higher the risk.
I compartmentalize really well. A lot of shit happened to me in 2020-2021 that I literally looked a lot of people who were worried about me in the eye about and said, "I'm not dealing with it right now. If I try to deal with it right now I will drop something important that will have horrific consequences that I don't want to deal with. It's POSSIBLE that it will creep up on me and make me fall over before I get a chance to deal with it in controlled circumstances, but it's GUARANTEED that if I do so now, it will be bad. So I am very deliberately choosing to take 'possibly getting away with it' over 'definitely fucking everything up'."
I got about a year out of that, before shit caught up with me, but by the time that year was over yeah, I was in a place where I had a lot more leeway to crash and burn for a bit than I had at the time.
But you want to make those choices on purpose; you don't want to leave yourself armed mines in your psyche ready to blow the fuck up, and you can't rely on compartmentalization to save you long term. You gotta be aware that it itself can start being a pathology that means you just don't know what you're feeling (but what you're feeling is still affecting how you act and how you interpret how other people act).
That's why it's not "oh look at this very mentally healthy person!" when a mental health professional says that, especially on your very first appointment.
(Could I wish that some of them were better at explaining all the above? Yeah but that's true across the board of just about everything. Que sera sera.)
tags: #not quite the same thing#but i get told a lot that I'm like#good at verbalising/describing shit thats happened to me and what i feel#but i wonder if thats a good thing sometimes#like yes you are getting a version of my problems that i have carefully boiled down and distilled for you#the messy shit is somewhere else. its somewhere else#the more i think about going back the more i dont want to. that messy shit is mine Mine#I'm not talking about it until i have distilled control of it#which is not good maybe. but whatever
Indeed that is quite a similar mechanism, and has a similar "there is a reason we develop this and a utility to it but also it will fuck us up if we don't recognize it's got hard limitations" quotient.
The "messy shit" is everything that won't go nicely into the verbalized/intellectualized/described part. It's the raw feeling in the body; it's the shit that doesn't actually make sense; it's the emotional experience that then goes twisted around in a totally Stupid and Fucking Useless way but stays there.
I 100% sympathise with the "not sharing it with anyone else until I have control of it" part, and I wish I could now pass on to you the magic technique that makes it possible to sort it out all on your own, but tbh, we don't really have one.
Humans are hypersocial mammals; none of our psychological shit exists in a nice, siloed control-area separate from other humans. We exist in relation to other humans in general, and as a result most of our Bullshit does, in fact, have to be solved relationally, even if we can at least choose to do it in controlled relational contexts.
Please understand that I FUCKING HATE THIS. I am not saying this as an hah hah silly people, not understanding they ~*need others*~. I am saying this as someone who has dug into the genuine cutting edge research on trauma and toxic stress and how to heal it and how to deal with it and how social-interaction-and-relation-with-other-humans is a sanity-requirement that's wired into our fucking brains (yes even us Autistics yes I promise no that Lone Hermit wasn't actually Well and if you look at the records we have from such people that becomes super obvious super quickly especially that they were desperately lonely actually) and wanted to scream and pull out her hair because fuck that shit.
I really hate it.
So with that in mind: alas, yes, that "oh you're really good at describing/explaining/intellectualizing/verbalizing what happened to you" is another one of those phrases that from a half-competent mental health professional means "whooooo boy there's a coping mechanism that has been stretched beyond its furthest functional edge!"
As with compartmentalizing, like . . . you can, theoretically, if you're lucky, continue more or less indefinitely while still being able to, say, get up, do whatever thing gets you your economic security in the world, keep your life going sort of way - if you're lucky and nothing ever trips the landmine or sleeping slip fault in your brain?
But much like that'll mean you're sort of . . . . existing in a cramped and smaller version of your own psyche, leaving "the messy stuff" untouched/hidden by yourself until you feel it's sufficiently cleaned up and orderly to show the world in general tends to mean "the messy stuff" leaks out from under the container or sets up the metaphorical equivalent of a pervasive stink/whatever and fucks up bits of your life (like friendships, or relationships, or your ability to make art, or just your ability to feel basic contentment or safety) and does it in ways that aren't even necessarily clear . . . which actually decreases one's control over whether or not you can mitigate them, y'know?
My unsolicited advice in the sense of, this has worked for me, is that if you want to start trying to get a handle on that, find a mental health professional who a. has experience with very specifically the need of clients to be allowed to create their own sense of safety, and b. has literally nothing to do with the rest of your life (including maybe finding a new one if you've gone to a different one).
The latter is relevant because one of the most important parts, for me, of the counsellor who did help is that it didn't matter what she knew (or didn't know) about me, because she was 100% irrelevant to the rest of my life and had no chance to interact with me. Our circles did not cross in any way.
It was still hard, but that was a crucial element in creating the space *I* needed for the Truly Messy Shit: I did still need that relational piece, the part my stupid hypersocial mammal brain insisted on of involving another breathing human, but its context was controlled and removed from any of the other places it could be threatening.
(This is, of course, First Step - the overall point is to be able to lessen the threat those Messy Parts represent to our entire everything, so that we can figure out how to integrate their elements into our self overall and all the rest of our relationships, but everything is multipart, so.)
I think if there's one thing I think is important for this, like, thread/post/whatever overall to convey is: everything you've lived through is part of you and it is still there and mixed up in who you are right now. Existence is hard, and sometimes yeah absolutely we have to put shit in boxes or behind doors, or have to weave words around shit to make it safe for Right Now and our ability to do that is crucial to being the species that can handle the stresses and demands of eg being in an airplane for whole eight hours without anyone actually killing anyone else! With STRANGERS! Total complete STRANGERS! (our nearest relatives could not do this, to be clear).
And none of this was ever like, planned. Nobody ever sat down and went "hrm what is the most useful and efficient way for humans to handle all this shit" - we are stuck with the kludge-brain of millions of years of layers of shit that our evolution has left us which is way, way weirder and more complicated than any pat "this is why we are how we are" thing (human babies can literally have every other need provided but simply wither and die if not held enough - who the FUCK thought that was a good idea? too long alone and our brains get so desperate for company that they will make it up and hijack our senses into it! etc).
So we . . . have to figure it out. And since we started figuring it out systematically, one of the things that keeps being true over and over is that everything you've experienced is part of you, and there are costs to anything that attempts to make that less so. Sometimes, in order to survive, we just have to pay those costs - sometimes there's a war on, sometimes there isn't the possibility of creating a context safe enough to sort shit out and figure out how to process it. That's how it be sometimes.
Though I will caution that as a result, sometimes people just die/fall apart/break. Like the idea that "sometimes you just CAN'T stop and deal with things the right way" often seems to carry the implicit claim that thus if you try hard and really mean it, you can be guaranteed that you will get through, that it'll hurt but -
And that's . . . not true.
It's a lot more like driving a car that's giving you an engine warning but you don't have time to get out and fix it. If you stop you know you're gonna die (or whatever) so you keep driving and you hope that the car will hold off dying until you're safe. And sometimes that is the only thing you can do!
. . . but that car might not. That engine might die. This isn't a bargain with the universe that if you endure pain or are committed enough or whatever, you will get through this necessarily harmful period - it's a dice-roll with a bad engine on a long drive.
People who say "well I had to do it, I had no other choice" and did manage to get to the other side ignore their survivorship bias, because there is always another choice and that is everything breaks. We all have actual hard, abrupt, "this human and its body are just no longer functioning, good night" limits and none of us get to know what they are before we hit them.
If you really have no choice but to just keep going, that's legit. But if you are noticing shit is starting to break down and you're having problems and this kind of shit, this whole thread, is relevant to you, it's maybe worth it to take a second to see if you really do have to roll out onto the highway in a storm with that shitty engine, or maybe if the consequences of starting to get it fixed are less than the fear of feeling shit makes them.
Because everything you've been through is still part of you. It is there. It is leaking. It is affecting you. And on the other hand we can figure out how to start the process of figuring out how to open the doors and still keep it from ruining our lives and in fact get better at that, because now we know, and aren't pretending shit that's leaking isn't there.
All this rests upon the assumption that the circumstances that forced you to adopt those supposedly harmful coping mechanisms are ever really going to get better. For many, probably most people that's not going to happen. There's always another shitty life event waiting to come kick you in the tits, usually around the time you let yourself think things are getting better.
If I ever go back to therapy, I'm going to ask them to show me how to burn out the part of myself that's still able to care.
That's certainly a strategy. It doesn't actually appear to make the people who embrace it any happier, and mostly appears to make them self-destruct (and destruct those around them) sooner and in an uglier mess of anger and pain, because that's not how human brains work, but it is certainly a strategy.
It's one that most of the worst, meanest, etc etc people around us all the time are usually pursuing vigorously and it doesn't tend to work for them very well either (that's why they're so fuckin' angry all the time), but yeah, sure. That's something you can try.
As noted above: sometimes you just have to throw the dice on the engine and hope you get out the other side, whether that "other side" is in a few years or at the end of your life.
And some people will, and some people will die (or break, or otherwise suffer the ugliest of consequences). I am, trust me, extremely aware of this; I have seen both the survival and a lot of the fucking breakage, and that is a heartbreaking aspect of reality. It sucks.
However, there are ways that you can learn skills that let you handle shit better even within moments of intensive toxic stress; there are things you can do to lessen the ongoing toxic effects, and things you can do to give yourself a better chance of psychological repair, even when the circumstances still fucking suck. You can literally get beneficial improvement in some of the worst external life circumstances on the planet - these kinds of things have demonstrated effectiveness in those whose circumstances are among the worst on the planet.
Those are balanced by our internal life circs, our extant mental illness and everything else; I'm not even saying "well people in war zones can do this, so can you", because that's also bullshit, but what I'm saying is that there is no single shitty circumstance that categorically makes this knowledge useless or inapplicable.
There are also a lot of ways in which the damage we do to ourselves by the instinctive coping mechanisms convinces us that any improvement is impossible, and that opening the doors and boxes and learning those skills is impossible or the worst idea ever, and that it could only possibly be done in an imaginary (and impossible) state of Perfect Safeness. The skills aren't intuitive in the same way.
The only person who can judge which of these is available to any given person is them - but given that skill-building programs to increase resilience have literally been studied and found to have some impact in even the poorest and most desperate communities and circumstances on earth, I guess what I'm suggesting is stopping and asking yourself if it's really impossible to reassess things and start doing some work to handle shit in a less poisonous way even if it's ongoing; if there is really nothing that can be done except to continue to just drive on that engine hoping it won't break.
And what I'm saying is that rather than being a rigid either-or where All Compartmentalization/Intellectualization is Bad or Actually It's Fine I Need It Fuck Off, it's a lot more that it's a thing we do and it's really useful to figure out how to use it in the way that's least likely to be a bomb that blows up and fucks everything up worse later, as opposed to maybe learning some new skills - ones that aren't intuitive and can be kinda terrifying to try out - and seeing if that decreases the unexploded minefields in your own head.
It's not easy, and it's not fair, and again: sometimes you just can't, and you have to roll your dice about whether or not you'll get to be someone with a survivorship bias in five years or whether you'll be . . . the other case study. That is absolutely a true thing.
But a lot of the time figuring out the better way is more possible than it looks, and if that's the case, I recommend it, not because everything will get better and be easier but because handling All The Shit with fewer minefields has better risk rates than handling it with more, so you might as well make sure you're doing what you can.
(No, I haven't gone into pragmatic detail about exactly what the tools/etc are, in part because they are going to vary some, and what "processing" looks like is going to vary a lot, and so that's a much more involved conversation that I'm not necessarily able to give usefully in this venue. This venue was talking about why this matters, and what contextually that kind of thing means when talking mental health, because tools are useless if you don't know you need them, or that they exist.)
Good thing I don't want this strategy to make me happier, then. It's not just the negative emotional responses I want to repress until it becomes so instinctive that they never even get a chance to manifest.
My endgame objective is to just not feel much of anything anymore, good or bad.
Again, general observation shows that this is not actually available to the human brain; all it does is guarantee that the emotional responses will be overwhelmingly negative and destructive.
Carefully practiced dissociation will get you there for a while, but it tends to decompensate after a few years and just wind up with severe depression interspersed with anxiety-attacks; similarly, certain substance-use patterns can maintain this desire for a while, but again, it then declines into persistent and extremely exaggerated negative feelings and expressions of feelings.
Meanwhile in both cases the capacity to do things like "not end up chronically unhoused" or "maintain access to food" usually take significant hits, often to the point of destruction.
Because, again: everything you go through is still part of you, and "emotion" is part of the mechanisms that actually underpin all human choices, including "bothering to get something to eat." There isn't actually an ability to remove all need to "feel", while still remaining a functioning human being; attempts to do so largely end up with simply feeling negative things very loudly (and acting out on them on other people, and causing harm in the world thereby). Human brains don't work like that; everything is literally entangled in everything else, so that very basic functions are unfortunately tangled up with the things we call "feelings".
You can certainly try it out for yourself. That is a path available to you as someone with free will and the right to your own choices. When I note that it doesn't work well, that doesn't mean it's bad, or stupid, or whatever: I mean you cannot achieve a lack of feeling things; you cannot achieve a lack of emotional response. You can achieve self-deception; you can achieve the alexithymic state of not knowing what the emotion is that you're acting out under, and thus being unable to control it or mediate it or choose your behaviour appropriately; and you can pursue lack of feeling until what you have destroyed is your ability to do anything but rocket from emotional reaction to emotional reaction; and so on.
But your brain will register emotional responses and those will impact how you behave, especially toward others, and the more detached and suppressed you try to make them, what you will mostly lose is actually self-control and the insight that allows self-awareness.
This is, I know, very boring and very very obnoxious. But it is what it is. There is no path available to a human being to the unfeeling intelligence unaffected by all others. Believe me, many people have tried for a very long time, and remained actually scared, and mad, and lonely, and upset, and angry, and paranoid, and acting like it.
I'm making this last reply because I think it's potentially useful to others to be clear about that, but then I'm cutting it short; the vibe I get from yourself is that it's not going to feel useful to you, and that further interaction is just going to be escalation on this point, and I'm not super interested in that for a number of reasons. It sucks a lot to be in a space where that freedom from all feeling is the only thing you want. I hope some way to work your way out of it comes along for you.
āaverage person eats 3 spiders a yearā factoid actualy just statistical error. average person eats 0 spiders per year. Spiders Georg, who lives in cave & eats over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted
There was an interesting thread on Bluesky dissecting Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's relationship
TL:DR - It seems like Gaiman has been exaggerating the level of closeness between them for YEARS
Hi, I'm the OP of this thread on Bluesky. I thought I'd come on here and upload some of the analysis I've done in later-additions to this thread, which weren't online when Tumblr-OP @carucath made this post, as well as a recent interaction with Rhianna Pratchett, all of which I think are useful bits of contextual info/expansion. I've seen a few people in the notes/reblogs saying things about the fan-desire to rush to defend their faves etc., and kind of discounting my analysis because of that. While I agree that fandom spaces absolutely do have a huge problem with that, and that retrospectively reading Neil Gaiman's work looking for 'signs' that he was a piece of shit the whole time isn't actually constructive/doesn't really add anything useful to the discourse, my intent with this thread wasn't to try to absolve PTerry or put distance between him and Gaiman (though I can see how it reads that way). I'm more interested in looking at how 'known' people like Gaiman move within fandom spaces, as well as how our parasocial relationships with public figures, and the cult of personality which some people build up around them, can often help to protect them or even enable their behaviour (worth remembering that a number of the women Gaiman assaulted/abused have talked about being fans of his work, or meeting him through fandom spaces, or, even when not fans of his work as in the case of Scarlett, still being a bit over-awed by his fame and reputation). I suspect that Gaiman's embellishment of his relationship with PTerry helped to build up his persona in SF/Fantasy fandom spaces after Pratchett's death, contributing to his personal Cult of Personality and fandom parasocial relationships with him. Over the last 5 years especially, Gaiman has had a pretty meteoric rise in the public eye outside of online SF/Fantasy fandom spaces & conventions. In particular a number of his works have been adapted for TV across various large streaming-platforms following the success of Good Omens, with high-profile names attached to them, and large marketing campaigns. By positioning his Good Omens adaptation as 'Terry's dying wish' of him, Gaiman has gained a lot of attention for it and for his other work, increased his own public standing, and thus directly profited off of Pratchett's legacy and the public perception that the two were close friends. (Obviously GO was adapted with the support of Rhianna & Rob, but, as you'll see in these other threads, we probably should think of it as being primarily a PTerry novel, with some minor input from Gaiman). Some personal context: I hold two degrees in English literature (both with Firsts, or a 3.7-4.0 GPA for the Americans on this thread), as well as a research-Masters degree in Creative Writing (with a high 2.1, because I developed a chronic illness which made me bedbound for 6 months of that degree lmao). I have a long-standing personal and academic interest in both Gaiman and Pratchett's work, and have written multiple essays on Terry Pratchett's style & his approach to genre, including some for my Masters degree. I generally stay out of fandom spaces these days, and these threads have sprung out of my own prior research and academic work. While I'm yet to seek a PhD, I have previously been employed by the English Literature department of the main university in my city, where I was the tutor for one of their undergraduate courses (this means I was responsible for organising and running the weekly group tutorials/workshops which make up the other contact-hours for students outside of lectures, providing one-on-one support and feedback for students who asked for extra guidance but didn't feel it was complex enough to go to the head lecturer, and for marking student-essays). I do eventually hope to go in to academia/lecturing, but right now am taking a few years off from studying since finishing my Masters to pay off some of my student loan debt, get my health back on track, and to focus on my creative practice and writing career.
This is interesting! I had sort of assumed that GO was more Pterry than Gaiman because of the style, but I'd also figured that it was a less dramatic majority of the work.
Having cowritten with people myself, I know that after a while styles do sort of drift together at least for the duration of the project, and so I'd assumed it was a combination of that plus Pterry's editing pass making the story sound so much more like Pratchett than Gaiman.
And to be fair, the analysis can't definitively give us the proportions of work contributed by each of them. However, seeing that Gaiman's MO for decades has apparently been making claims to things and demands of people with no right to either, on the assumption that no one will go to the trouble of calling him on it, the conclusion seems pretty plausible.
It is also worth mentioning for @thinkingaboutbees: this is apparently not the first time Rhianna Pratchett pointed this out about Good Omens.
Here's the video proof!
so you think you can stone miette and spit in mietteās eye?? so you think you can love miette and leave miette to DIE?? oh mother!! canāt do this to me mother!!!
All memes left on tumblr for more than about a fortnight metamorphose into Queen
a helpful tutorial
I was taking with my friend about good omens and we were wondering how the hell aziraphale-as-crowley managed to get into that bath without getting his socks wet and so I drew thisĀ āhelpfulā guide.
I like to imagine that all the demons had to just awkwardly stand around watching him clamber around getting into this bathtub⦠@neil-gaiman can you confirm?
This is even better than the people trying to get Good Omens cancelled on Netflix. I might confirm it when I stop laughing.
I have been thinking about this scene a lot and while I appreciate the OPās version as well as the very fine illustration, I canāt help but slightly disagree.Ā I have always seen Crowley stand at the foot edge of the tub, raise his arms dramatically, falling backward in slow motion with an evil grin on his face, making a massive splash like the dramatic bitch that he is.Ā It took a minor miracle to not get his socks wet, but it was worth it.Ā Now I need an illustration of the entry I described for comparisonā¦. for science of course.
a comparison! (for science, of course)
ā¦okay, but can we consider this option? for arguments sake?
ignore that i ordered it backwards
I imagined a lot of things while we were making Good Omens. I never ever once imagined this thread.
This. Is. Pure. Fucking. GOLD.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAHHHHHHH Love.
Oh this fandom. I do love us lol.
Good Omens Heritage Post
Still legendary š¤£
Reblogging because people need it.
For all the logistics lovers out thereā¦. š
Hello Neil,
I have a question. Why Aziraphale didnāt smite Crowley in the Garden of Eden or smth?
I'm pretty sure he did smth when Crowley turned up in the Garden of Eden. He talked to him. It's like smiting, only with less risk of someone smiting you back.
Are you frustrated you can't leave second kudos on AO3? or third kudos? or whatever-who's-counting kudos?
Well, have I got the html for you!
Plop any of these in a comment (by copy&pasting the code) to make an author's day and show your appreciation!
Second kudos: <img src="https://i.ibb.co/tHMjbb6/second-kudos.png" alt="second kudos">
Third kudos: <img src="https://i.ibb.co/52bggQH/third-kudos.png" alt="third kudos">
nth kudos: <img src="https://i.ibb.co/6y7qGtC/nth-kudos.png" alt="nth kudos">
yet another kudos: <img src="https://i.ibb.co/wKtcj0s/yet-another-kudos.png" alt="yet another kudos">
It will look something like this (and will be transparent with white outline on dark backgrounds):
Feel free to spread and use these as much as you like! (and if you have ideas for other variations, let me know āļø)
So happy to see people enjoying these and spreading the love š
UPDATE with some suggestions from the replies!
From requests: cookie kudos ā you've already left kudos here ā should be sleeping kudos
HTML codes under the cut.
After S2 David Tennant and Michael Sheen discuss driving the Bentley :)
Michael: Series One David spent his whole time moaning about how hard it was to drive that Bentley.
David: And cursing. Cursing.
Michael: This series, I get to drive it.
David: Yes. How are you finding it?
Michael: Awful.
David: Yeah.
Michael: Absolutely awful. I understand everything youāve-
David: It's terrible. Itās beautiful. It's a thing of great beauty, but you don't want to have to actually drive the blooming thing.
Michael: Just turning the wheel...
David: Yeah.
Michael: It's like The World's Strongest Man event.
David: Yes.
how to wash ur hands properly (inspired by @macaulaytwins)