MAY YOU NEVER LOSE YOUR HYPERFIXATION
i don't do bad sauce passes
Cosimo Galluzzi
No title available
Peter Solarz

No title available
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

No title available
Not today Justin
tumblr dot com

tannertan36

PR's Tumblrdome
AnasAbdin
One Nice Bug Per Day
trying on a metaphor

Origami Around

Love Begins
will byers stan first human second
ojovivo
occasionally subtle

#extradirty

seen from Romania
seen from Türkiye

seen from Canada

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from Egypt
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from China
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

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

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@pffftruby
MAY YOU NEVER LOSE YOUR HYPERFIXATION
What tumblr fails to grasp is that I’m not interested in community groups for the things I like because fans of my favorite things are often very wrong about them
Las serpientes son pajitas grandes
@is-the-snake-video-cute
Very cute! Snakes can drink water in a more normal-looking way - but the cup setup is a little awkward, and anyway lots of snakes like to be a bit silly with it! I have several who like to drink water exclusively with their heads resting on the bottom of their water bowls!
It is curious to watch how every fandom inevitably develops a group, or a person attached to one, that conditions itself into believing in the partial or complete deconstruction of certain characters. Even when the deconstruction is only partial, it almost invariably alters elements so fundamental that the resulting figure no longer operates according to the same character's internal logic.
I call it a condition because most people can't separate the object of their interest from the object of their analysis; not the actual issue, it is just a point. And, eventually, they become so attached to the framework they have constructed that they mistake it for the character itself. The structure may appear superficially tempting to those unfamiliar with the intentions and interpretive framework of the original work, even compelling on paper, but that alone doesn't make it faithful to the character's own logic. And a character's logic often extends beyond the internal and external logic of the narrative they inhabit.
“Fantasy is true, of course. It isn’t factual, but it is true. Children know that. Adults know it, too, and that is precisely why many of them are afraid of fantasy. They know that its truth challenges, even threatens, all that is false, all that is phony, unnecessary, and trivial in the life they have let themselves be forced into living.”
— Ursula K. Le Guin, The Language of the Night
Frankly, I don't see Voldemort as Tom Riddle's insane, highly detached version. I understand those who idealize him as one or the other, but I think he is intrinsically and extrinsically both. More like a paradox, yet still another layer of his own being. Not from his overwhelming ambition and power pursuit, but because Tom spent years breaking, carving, bending everything about him so that he would be the one to control even the death of his humanity. Just as he idealized what Lord Voldemort would symbolize throughout his whole life.
All for his metamorphosis. Not only the future, but also everything Voldemort would represent, even from his past, as Tom put it in that classic moment of his:
“Voldemort,” said Riddle softly, “is my past, present, and future, Harry Potter…”
He pulled Harry’s wand from his pocket and began to trace it through the air, writing three shimmering words:
TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE
Then he waved the wand once, and the letters of his name rearranged themselves:
I AM LORD VOLDEMORT
He wanted to erase the "Tom Marvolo Riddle" (himself) from existence. It wasn't just his name.
Except that Voldemort, contrary to all the machinations, attached even more with this version of himself that he didn't quite accept, the disregarded and disowned part. Voldemort was raw feeling, unrestrained at its peak. That's why his emotions weren't filtered at all, and why he was considered to be as ruthless in his strategy as he was childish in his impulsiveness and desires. He was painfully human.
Tom Riddle's mind was preserved, of course, as they both always had the same self. But only one could maintain control, only one would devour the other completely. And Tom believed himself—to have sacrificed himself for—Lord Voldemort.
It's clear to understand — through Tom's own lens — how Voldemort became inevitable, as well as the years of crafting behind his projection. Yet, I also recognize, with the same intensity, that he never got rid of Tom Riddle.
He had strong narcissistic traits as much as he was his own worst enemy. He hated himself just as much as he was obsessed with becoming himself.
Are you a Slytherin? 🐍
Yes. Are you a slytherin?
Good criticism is not mean, it is accurate. A desire to humiliate will find petty and shallow flaws. A desire to understand will find deep and structural flaws. The latter frankly hurt more, but reaching them demands time, erudition, and diligence on part of the critic.
Eat the Rude: The Psychology of NBC's Hannibal Lecter
Every Fannibal knows that NBC Hannibal has adopted “eat the rude” as a motto, not only for the show itself, but also for its titular character. Hannibal makes plenty of references to this unspoken motto throughout the show - “It was a particularly chatty lamb,” he says of one dish (which we have to assume is human). “That was rude, Miss Lounds,” he’s told Freddie on more than one occasion. “We evolved the ability to communicate disappointment to teach those around us good manners.”
I have a theory about Hannibal’s obsession with politeness, and I’ve never seen anyone write this out before. Analysis below the cut.
”Eat the rude.”
Let’s get one thing straight: Hannibal Lecter does not understand normal human morality.
Morality, granted, is arbitrary (at least from an an atheist point of view - and as far as I can tell, Hannibal is working from an atheist point of view). Without a higher power to pull the strings, without the final moral judgment of heaven and hell, there is no real advantage to morality. The Western world runs on capitalism, on appearances and shallow charisma, on money and privilege. Sociopathy is, in our society, an advantage.
But the appearance of sociopathy is not.
Humans, scientifically speaking, are social creatures. We evolved to survive in packs. From a mercilessly scientific point of view, humans are only programmed to love because it gives us the greatest advantage over our environment, over our prey, and over those animals who might have been our predators. It’s scientifically proven: Take a human away from human society, and he goes insane.
Hannibal Lecter, then, is what happens when the pure, cold, amoral logic of survival collides with the ingrained need for companionship. Hannibal has three main traits, three main sides to his character, all of which conflict with one another to create an engine for both charisma and self-destruction.
One: Hannibal cares deeply for his own well-being.
Two: Hannibal is resourceful in the extreme.
Three: Hannibal, like almost all humans, is a social creature.
These traits sound useful, even moral, on the surface. We’d all like to be socially capable, resourceful and clever; we’d all like to love ourselves. But Hannibal’s specific problem is that his traits are extreme. Hannibal’s self-love is greater than his love for anyone else, so great that he (like Narcissus, like Lucifer) cannot see past it or even consider compromising. Hannibal’s resourcefulness equates to complete ruthlessness - nothing gets between Hannibal and what he wants, especially not pesky human morals. Hannibal’s social nature manifests as extreme curiosity about others.
But traits one and three are necessarily incompatible. Hannibal loves himself completely, but cannot truly love anyone else. He is so devoted to his own interests, his own way of life, that he cannot sacrifice even minor details of his own aesthetic for anyone else. He would rather give up other people’s lives, even the lives of those he wants to consider “friends,” to continue being himself. He considers being himself, being true to himself, to be of the utmost importance.
But here’s the kicker: He does consider certain people his friends.
He does consider himself to be a moral being.
Hannibal Lecter is human, and like all humans, he wants to believe that he is in the right.
“Eat the rude” isn’t Hannibal’s badass catchphrase; it isn’t his supreme dark lord tagline. “Eat the rude” is, to Hannibal, what passes for a moral code.
See, Hannibal may not be moral in a typical sense, but he grew up in a society with other humans. He knows that people have these things called morals, he knows what most people consider to be moral actions - rudeness is immoral, politeness is moral, more on that later - and he knows that as a human, he’s expected to live by a set of rules himself. But there’s a gap or two in his understanding of this phenomenon called morality. Namely, he’s shallow, as sociopaths tend to be. He sees the surface of things, but not what’s underneath. He sees what other people find moral, what other people look for in a friend or an employee or a lover, but he doesn’t see why. Most of us will agree with the statement that “what you do - within reason - isn’t as important as why you do it.” (Killing a guy for money is wrong, but killing him to keep him from burning down an orphanage is right.) Hannibal doesn’t understand this at all - to him, what you do on the surface is more important than the underlying reasons.
Rudeness - an aesthetic grotesquery, a social blemish - is therefore a terrible sin in Hannibal’s book. It doesn’t matter that Marissa Shore was being rude because she was emotional and her mother was in the wrong; it matters that she was being rude. It doesn’t matter that Freddie isn’t all bad, that she saved Chilton’s life and warned Jack about the condition of Bev’s body; it matters that she takes rude photographs.
Hannibal is incapable of seeing beyond the surface; he’s incapable of maintaining more than a superficial relationship with another person, or of adhering to anything more than the pretty facsimile of a moral code. Hold Hannibal Lecter’s soul up to the light, and you’ll find that it’s paper-thin, translucent, insubstantial. Hannibal Lecter has no substance. He has only his polite smile.
But, being a social creature, he wants more.
He wants to understand why others do the things they do. He wants to be the kind of person Will Graham would truly consider a friend. He wants to have a soul, to be a part of society, to be truly human. This is why he pokes around in Will’s psychology - not because he’s a sadist, not because he’s bored, but because he wants to understand. Will Graham is not only an intellectual experiment to Hannibal Lecter, but an experiment in moral substance. Will Graham is Hannibal Lecter’s ultimate question mark: How does Man’s mind work?
(In the end, of course, this curiosity will ruin him. His slow dissection of Will Graham’s mind brings Will close to him, tips Will off, allows Will to set pieces in motion to bring about Hannibal’s downfall. Hannibal is the proverbial cat whom curiosity kills. His commitment to his own curiosity, to his own aesthetic, to his own need for understanding, is what will put him away. This is his tragedy: He loves his own mind too much.)
All his life, Hannibal has been on the outside looking in. This is not to say that he deserves sympathy, that he should be pitied, that there is anything good in him. There is not. There are few shreds of humanity inside Hannibal Lecter, and those shreds are tentative and only half formed. Like the Adversary of Milton’s Paradise Lost, Hannibal is a combination of the desire to understand and the absolute inability to understand.
And this is how Hannibal Lecter reconciles himself with himself.
He eats the rude.
tried to pray in the chapel for a normal day and immediately got sent on a dangerous journey i don't think the gods like me
“you should be at the club” i should be by the sea. i should be in the mountains. i should be awestruck and rendered speechless by the majesty of the natural world. if you even care
So sick of the "Neville's boggart" argument, like, GUYS, it's obviously meant to represent Neville's fear of disappointing stern figures of authority, he also said he didn't want it to turn into his grandma either. It's clear that, to him, they're on the same level and replacing one with the other wouldn't help.
McGonagall was Hermione's boggart and she obviously represented her fear of failure.
And Lupin's boggart was just a full moon, c'mon guys, think, do you really believe Remus Lupin is afraid of the moon? They're all meant to be symbolic, it's about what it symbolizes!!
Here is how to break their argument literally:
At that time of PoA, Neville hasn't met Bellatrix. He meets her a few years later. He was a baby when it happened to remember what she looked like, just like Harry with Voldemort. And boggart is not someone's "biggest" fear. Boggart definition: a shapeshifter that can take the shape of whatever it thinks will frighten us most.
The boggart is whatever’s on your mind, not your true deepest, darkest fear (unless Ron is a monster for fearing spiders when just last year he nearly lost Ginny, or Harry for having dementors when just a year ago he met the man who is after him face to face). PoA already introduces a creature that actually makes you relive your worst moments, which aredementors. Introducing two creatures that do essentially the same thing is redundant and doesn't make sense.
Neville defeats his Snape boggart on his first attempt because it’s a trivial fear (Snape is listed among the meaningless boggarts the kids defeated with ease). Remember, in OotP Molly couldn't defeat her boggart because there was nothing light about her losing her family. If Snape had been abusive, other students would not have found this funny and Neville would not have smiled, nor would Remus have joked about it. If the fear had been overwhelming, Neville would not have defeated the boggart on his first try. Harry, who is canonically a bit smarter than him, especially in DADA, couldn’t defeat his boggart. He mentions his grandmother too here, by the way. She was a possible boggart for him.
Snape boggart doesn’t necessarily mean Neville fears Snape himself; rather, Snape represents an authority figure and Neville’s fear of not measuring up. Snape never coddles him and openly highlights his mistakes. This is especially clear as Neville talks about his grandmother, another someone whose expectations already weigh heavily on him. His fear in itself would be not measuring up.
Just like Minerva appearing in Hermione's boggart saying she failed (I mean, it could have literally been just a piece of paper on a desk with failed results) doesn't inherently mean she fears Minerva, but the fear of failure as judged by authority.
For Hermione, it manifests as being told she has failed by Minerva, and for Neville, who is naturally timid and lacks confidence, it manifests as Snape, an authority figure who consistently criticizes him. I don't think it's going to be easier to fight it off when you constantly see him; in that case, it would have been harder, especially for someone in nature like Neville (then it's like seeing your worst fear every day), even when someone like Harry, who is much better in DADA than him, nor Molly could fight theirs off, showing if it was that serious, it wouldn't be easy to fight off.
Half of these people cry over this bs because these are the only sh*t they can cling onto defend the horrendous acts of their favourites. If they actually gave af about kids, they should be hating Minerva too.
Oh, I love this! The McGonagall//Hermione comparison is often brought up because of its clear similarities, but I love the focus on the severity of the fear and the timing!
Harry has a LOT more to fear than Dementors literally put in the school to help keep him safe. They are there FOR him. They are bad for him, yes, but they DO keep the serial killer away, so that's... good.
He's met Voldemort - twice - both times almost died. He saw his friend turned to stone, his friends little sister almost die, two teachers turn on him violently, an Acromantula calmly say it will let its children eat them, the dread of going back to the Dursleys every summer (or if he gets expelled)... And is being haunted by a Grim and being hunted by a serial killer.
I'd say that it's not just Dementors themselves that are making Harry scared, it's the fact hearing his parents death again makes him feel funny - he both hates it and wants to hear it more - and thats awful.
But then... once again, it's a Boggart more complicated than just 'appears as his worst fear'. It's not his worst fear. It's whats bothering him most right now - and isn't even that bad. Though it's worse than Neville, as pointed out: Neville can deal with his Boggart while Harry struggles.
Neville attends every Potions class. He attempts his potion. He makes stupid decisions like bringing his Toad. It's awful for him, yes - but it's also manageable. He does it weekly.
Could Ron attend a class taught by a spider? Especially after almost being eaten by them? He could barely handle Barty torturing and killing spiders in fourth year. Could Harry attend a class where a dementor was present?
Boggarts can be crippling if the fear they take form of is crippling. That's the very reason why Remus didn't let Harry deal with it in class, right? Because for him - it could have been Voldemort. Probably why its a good idea to teach how to deal with them when kids are young and their fears are less likely to be too serious. Like... a fear of snakes. Or mummies. Or your mean teacher.
Molly has a crippling Boggart. Her loved ones dead? When she survived the first war, with young children, while losing her brothers? Jesus christ.
refuse to portray teenage Severus as a perfect, utterly helpless victim who was left not knowing what to do against four repulsive bullies, because no, Severus Snape was not a perfect victim. Severus Snape was half-muggle and had grown up surrounded by violence and poverty in a working-class neighbourhood where he had probably seen horrible things, and he had far more street sense than people like to admit. He knew —because this is something you learn in those environments— that if someone hits you, you hit back, and if they try to push you around, you’re allowed to push back six times harder.
He was resentful, and he was violent, and he defended himself the way any working-class kid would have. The problem was not that he didn’t fight back; the problem was that his bullies outnumbered him and had money, social capital, and the approval of the adults in charge. And that is what made it impossible for him to truly defend himself, because you can use your fists, but they are useless when the establishment is against you.
So for me, Severus is never going to be a perfect victim. He is a victim, because he didn’t just suffer bullying, he also suffered classism, marginalisation, and social injustice. That makes him a victim. But he fought back. He fought back with nails, teeth, and knives if necessary, because defending yourself does not stop you from being a victim.
Thank you for this. People being angry he didn't just lay down and take it is very disturbing because it translates to other types of violence and our perspectives on them. Hell, it affects me, because i push back when I'm emotionally wounded and because of this, it limits others' idea that i am suffering. No, i became mean to protect myself from something. Where there's smoke there's a fire, and Severus was burning from the start.
Okay, I have a headcanon, that Severus is actually one of the few (or only) professors that can tell Fred and George apart. They don’t realise this for a long time, because he just calls both of them ‘Mr. Weasley’. Until one time George comes to sit Fred’s detention for him, due to whatever reasons. Severus barely looks at him, and just goes ‘Get out of my classroom, and get your brother here right now.’
This is how I write Severus: His scowl a mask to hide his attention to detail and how much he cares. He was bullied as a kid and had a bad home life, he would be observant, he would know how to read people. It is evident how much he cares in those brief moments he does show his emotions.
I fully believe he would be a lot less prickly of a character if he wasn’t under so much stress, having his arm twisted by both sides of the war, and constantly surrounded by mini-spies for both sides.
DUDE YES WE ON THE SAME LEVEL! HE SEES ALMOST ALL THE LITTLE THINGS!!! Severus might actually be a "super sensor," very very tuned to people's micro-expressions and tonalities. This is often referred to as "traumatic intelligence," something one learns from unsafe households as a child. Now, he doesn't openly show that he's as sensitive as he is emotionally, but i think he's numbed himself to it. But the reality is he is excruciatingly precise in everything he does and says and picks his conversations carefully, for the most part, and is actually shockingly emotionally sensitive. Easily offended and insulted when it comes to his appearance, quick to temper when overlooked and/or dismissed, etc. He's just had to mask and bury so many elements of himself to save face and guard his heart, but the tenderness of that heart is never more visible than in the memories he leaves Harry. God i adore him...