This post is going to be long and is going to dive into my (non-scientific) thoughts about the Good Omens Series Finale and the subsequent fandom fracture, including thoughts on behaviors of fans and specifically a call to action for fandom community leaders (server owners, event organizers, Tumblr Community creators, etc.). It will touch on some of the more triggering head canons that have come out of the Good Omens fandom regarding the series, but we will not be diving into those.
This is going to be long, and anyone who comments without reading the whole thing with takes about how I'm wrong/condescending/stupid for liking the finale/whatever is going to be blocked on sight. This is mostly me just getting my thoughts out and frankly I'm not interested in debating with the kinds of people who have been crawling into my ask box with hatred. I have better ways to spend my time.
So, I've been thinking thoughts since May 13th, but recently these thoughts have really crystalized for me. I largely have to thank whatever anon(s) keep sending some really fascinating takes plus the sock puppet account screaming on one of my posts, as well as watching folks interact and behave in large Good Omens Discord server spaces.
I think there's currently this thought process that there are really two main GO camps in the fandom: those who loved the finale, and those who did not. And somewhere there is a middle of group of those who are "unsure." I would like to challenge this idea.
And in challenging it, I am specifically going to talk about the death of nuance in how people relate to stories and media.
What I've realized is that a lot of folks seem to think that those of us who like the ending, or have positive feelings towards it, all think it's a happy ending. This is not true. I know this is not true because, frustrated by the state of fandom, I started @gomens-timeaftertime, a Discord Server (TAT) for folks who liked the Series Finale. This is a "small" server of 100 people only because I have put a membership limit on it. Otherwise based on how we've had to kick people who were not active, the number of requests I have to join, and folks who were interested in participating in our Warm Close event but hesitant to join a Discord Server, TAT would be a lot larger if I had the bandwidth to moderate more people. Which I don't. So.
But the point is, in TAT the takes on the Series Finale are wildly varied. There are several people who found the ending to be a happy one (lots of reincarnation, snow globe, multi-verse, sort of head canons there). There are as many people who found the ending to be a sad one (Aziraphale and Crowley as we know them are gone, the world as we knew it is over, and similar head canons).
And these are all people who still enjoyed the ending and are having a great time Slorching about. We are picking apart details, putting together fan events, screaming, analyzing and when we complain, because we do complain, our complaints are largely focused on the loss of 6 full episodes. Because I think no matter what you thought of the ending, we can all agree that that deserved 6 episodes and fuck NG and fuck Amazon for all the shit that took that away from us.
The conclusion that one can draw from such a varied group is that the ending of Good Omens S3 is complicated. It can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways, and it is, in the most Good Omens sense, an ending steeped in shades of grey.
Which I find, personally, to be beautiful.
Anyway, "sad" has not been equated to "bad" within this community. We leave space for those who are mourning, but they still jump on the "Ice Cream Truck Bentley's eyes FOLLOW HER PAPA" excitement train.
Therefore it's my belief that the issue amongst the larger fandom is that there are some people who are of the opinion that sad/uncomfortable = bad. Bad writing, bad production, bad directing, bad. These are the folks who hurl accusations such as S3 being a "bury your gays" ending when the finale explicitly ends with a married queer presenting couple sitting in a house they presumably own and being sweet together. They also are writing break downs of how the ending is an abusers final gotcha, ignoring years of interviews and comments from NG, STP, Rob Wilkins, Rhianna Pratchett, and more all confirming that the ending has existed for a long time, and that it is a collaborative ending between the two writers, and that the goal had always been between NG and the Pratchett Estate, to deliver. Also it ignores that said abuser wrote the ending before his abuse was made public, so he had no reason to write a final "gotcha" when at the time he was still working under the assumption he would not be found out and he would still continue to create more and more series (Sandman comes to mind, but also fuck NG).
Folks are picking and choosing what interviews to include in their defense of "this is clearly a Bad Thing" instead of coming to terms with the fact that the ending was not what they expected, and that is disappointing. They point at the genre labels (a deeply flawed labeling system of stories across media types meant to promote marketing and sales and not actually indicative of the story content itself). They point at specific quotes and ignore full interviews (specifically interviews where the contradictions are addressed as information previously NDA'd or unpromised was intentionally kept under wraps). They invent thoughts on how the entertainment industry works (there is no secret cabal trying to personally victimize you in the writers room, and frankly if this was a cash grab, they would've gone with a less divisive ending). They applaud someone for taking an illegal recording of an unaware actor who is making a glib remark (and let it be known, having worked in the industry: actors know what you're looking for pretty quickly when you ask them questions and will not hesitate to say whatever they think will keep themselves safe, "on your side" and make you go away faster, especially if they are under the impression that they are not be recorded).
In sum, these "fans" are using their personal interpretation (aka: head canon) of an intentionally complicated ending, and justifying the vitriol and disrespect they are spilling on other fans, the cast, the crew, the creators, the Estate, and more, by saying that the ending was, unequivocally "bad" and anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong, stupid, an abuse apologist, and more.
Because why? Because it wasn't a clear cut happy ending? We know that the finale was already adjusted to fit the times (Jesus showing up as a celebrity on a giant plane has very different vibes in 2026 than in 1996.) So we know that this ending was conjured during a different time. And while the time we are currently living in is harder, increasing the desire for more uncomplicated happy endings, that doesn't mean we are entitled to such endings.
So okay, there's all of that.
Let's talk more about the fandom fracture.
Because the thing is, when the finale came out, I was a community leader in some large fandom spaces. And as someone who truly loved the ending (I love how complicated it is, I love that it is both gut wrenching [Michael destroyed their universe, and they decided to accept it to free themselves, and that means they are gone] and uplifting [fuck me am I a slut for soul mates and reincarnation tropes. They found each other again in a different life, a real life, without the movie framing, the found each other and got to make their own choices, and fuck that's what it is to escape a fucked up system and live, truly live, wow, does this mean they keep going and keep finding each other again and again? It must]) it was incredibly difficult for me to sit and watch people not just be sad, but be angry.
And this is where I think as a fandom we fucked up.
In trying to give space to those who were grieving a complicated ending, and the end of an era, and a show that should've gotten 6 hours, not 90 minutes, we legitimized those who decided "sad" and "not what I wanted to see" equals "bad writing/production/directing." In doing so, we gave them the space to come up with conspiracy theories ("not STP's ending", you know, a dead man who can't speak for himself, and I guess we can say fuck you to his living loved ones who fought for this ending?, "NG wants to abuse us all", I cannot even with this one it is so deeply insulting to his actual assault victims. Stop., "NG actually had a different ending in mind, and the six episode script will prove it", ... what.)
In doing this, we harmed the rest of the fandom, both those who enjoyed the ending and fell more towards the bittersweet to happy interpretation of the ending, as well as those who actually needed the space to process and just thought it was a sad ending, without ascribing bad to it.
So when I say things like "you're allowed to just...not like the ending" this is not me saying that the ending was happy, actually, get over it. Nor is it me saying you gotta buck up and smile. Its me saying you should take a step back and look at this ending more objectively. Do you actually hate the ending? Or did it just make you sad? It can be both! You can hate the ending because it made you sad and you wanted to be happy--but then that's on you to grapple with. No one went out to "do" this to you. No one went "You know what, let's make this a sad ending specifically to ruin this person's life." It's just a story, and sometimes stories have sad endings. And frankly, this is why I often tell people I don't "do" in progress media. My anxiety struggles with cliff hangers and I absolutely read the wiki summary before committing to a thing to make sure the ending is going to be what I want it to be. Good story telling can hurt and sometimes I'm into it. And sometimes, I'm not.
And maybe if it just made you sad, you should think about distancing yourself from communities where people are mad. Because it's okay to be sad about an ending meant to be complicated and at least a little sad (if not more). But that doesn't mean you've gotta throw the whole thing, including your fandom community, in the trash too. It does mean that maybe you need to take a more active stance against those who are insisting that their head canon is the only "correct" interpretation of the ending, are throwing around incredibly triggering topics around without care because that's part of their head canon, and are, at the end of the day, disrespecting and hating on the people who made a story.
Frankly, those aren't the kind of people you should want to be in a community with anyway. Misery loves company, and if you're sad, maybe don't hang out with the folks who are mad, they aren't going to help you feel better. And I say that as someone who is mourning the end of some incredible friendships because people who I thought would never have been absolutely engaging in some frankly disturbing behaviors.
In sum: there are so many ways to interpret the Good Omens ending, whether you're looking at the Television Series ending or the Book ending (I mean come on the book ends with them discussing the "big one" and it is not clear which side Crowley thinks they are on, humans or not humans). This kind of shades of grey, wait 20 years and come back again and see how it's changed, ending is precisely the kind of story telling I'd expect out of either STP (GNU) or NG (rot).
And if we're going to preserve the community that has become so important to us, then yes. We need to stop letting the loudest (not the majority, just the loudest) people trample the joy of our community. We need to hold them up to better fandom etiquette: no yucking other people's yum, kink-tomato, all that doesn't just apply to NSFW works, it also applies to "My head canon is different than yours, and you gotta stop shoving your deeply triggering take down my throat without a content warning." We've got to be more firm in that the very existence of Asa and Anthony is not, actually, something that should be spoilered because they are the result of suicide because that is a head canon, not a fact.
And frankly, if you want your communities, your big servers, your whatever, to live on, you've got to take this seriously. Your mod teams have to agree that, personal feelings about the ending aside, the ending is open to a multitude of interpretations, there is no space for conspiracy theories that are harmful or disrespectful to cast, crew, actual NG victims, etc, in these spaces, and that these spaces are meant to come together in celebration of the story, not to complain about how much something sucked. If you want your spaces to survive, to not become cesspools of the worse kind of feedback loops, you've got to make sure there's more joy than hate.
And if you're "in the middle" maybe take a step back from the loud voices and ask yourself: Are you in the middle? Or did something make you sad and the loud voices are trying to convince you that means that thing must not be any good at all?
A nuanced meditation on season 3 of Good Omens by @hkblack. I quite agree with her—some of the responses and theories that have been made are disheartening, particularly because I liked the ending. It made me sad, but felt quite fitting & full of love.
I don’t have much to add except this: the loss of immortality can seem like the most awful thing but at the same time I find it rather beautiful. We have our “one wild and precious life” (thank you Mary Oliver) and is it not rather poignant that Asa & Anthony now get to treasure that finitude? I imagine forever gets a bit tiring. I like the idea of reincarnation, of them finding each other in every time and every world.
Sometimes, when I am in a Particular Mood, I look at a piece of media that is not working for me and I'm like, "Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm distracted. Maybe I'm disconnected. Maybe I'm nitpicking and just not giving this a chance to prove itself. Maybe watching stupid video essays at increased speeds has permanently ruined my patience. Maybe I'm a pretentious killjoy hack who hates fun and lacks compassion and doesn't understand art."
And then, quite often, I turn toward a piece of media that is Actually Very Good and go, "Oh, never mind. That other thing was just kind of crap and I was right and tasteful all along. Thank fuck. Okay. Alright."
Some things about this post since getting quite a few notes:
1. If you see this post, highly recommend taking it as an opportunity to set a timer for 15 minutes and switch over to ACTIVITY YOU ENJOY. if after those 15 minutes, you want to go back to scrolling, that's okay!
2. Huge shout out to this popping up in my notifs often, bc I do go back to activity.
3. I think there are times where scrolling is fine. Right now, for example, I'm being connected to a machine for two hours to donate plasma and platelets. Yes this is a brag but it is also a time where scrolling is one of the few things I can do. (Though I will probably also read or watch something on phone lol)
In the time I have spent consuming media that involves popular bad™ male characters and/or M/F ships where the male character is morally gray or outright evil or conflicted or basically anyone who isn't completely safe and defanged, I have often comes across this statement and its countless other variations.
"Stuff like this is made to brainwash young girls into thinking that they can 'fix' dangerous men. Such girls usually end up in abusive relationships and their parents are right to worry."
It is rather strange to come across such a gross generalization, operating on an assumption that girls are blank slates whom anyone can manipulate and who can't distinguish between real and make believe on top of it.
In my entire "career"(if you can call it that) of engaging with fiction , the girls and women that I have run into in fandoms happened to be some of the most intelligent, talented, cool, witty and insightful people I have ever met. I've devoured the fics they have written. I have delighted in the arts and edits they've made. Their perspectives and interpretations about the characters and their relationships are genuinely fascinating to read about regardless of whether I agree with it or not. They are the ones who are most often at the receiving end of the antis' ire for no valid reason but they just keep deriving joy and inspiration from their favourite characters and ships and keep sharing it with others through stories, art and thoughts. They are not just smart but incredibly resilient, sensitive and aware not just about the media they consume but about the world around them and its issues.
I look up to their brilliance. I marvel at their passion. I admire them. I adore them.
This is - legitimately - my favourite delivery of Shakespeare I have EVER seen (and I have seen some good-ass productions yo, in the Globe Theatre itself even). Like seriously, even though the words are unchanged, he’s stripped away ALL of the archaic pretense and assumed grandeur of ~presenting the bard~ that makes even the most wildly talented of actors and innovative of productions inherently inaccessible to a modern audience. Like, they’re still great, they can still communicate the message and (some) of the nuance, but they’re still always a step removed from being identifiable to any viewer’s lived experience. They’re still always reciting 15th century poetry. But this guy? This guy is like, screw iambic pentameter, to hell with being precious about the material, HOW WOULD AN ACTUAL PERSON SAY THIS SHIT?
Like this. And it’s beautiful. It’s beautiful to hear a soliloquy I loved so much already, and have it come to life in a way it never, ever, did before. I feel like I grasp his motivations, his twists and turns, no longer on an academic level but on a visceral, instinctive one. Because he’s presenting his mental and emotional journey in a way that speaks honestly, like a real person.
So yeah, this shit post? I love it. Deeply and sincerely.
kind of weird how parts of your soul are left in various locations without any warning… like yes i’m always at the top of that hill, sitting at the bus stop, in the cool light of the Japanese restaurant, standing at the pier etc etc
and EVEN WHEN things were more muted/neutral, the neutrality was OFFSET by ACCENT COLORS and HIGH CONTRAST between the wood tones and everything ELSE
ALSO AMERICAN COLONIAL INTERIORS POPPED OFF, Y'ALL (IN TERMS OF COLOR/COZINESS)
PEOPLE USED WHITEWASH AND COLORFUL TRIM OR EVEN JUST COLORFUL FURNITURE IF THEY COULD AFFORD TO DO SO
AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON FRENCH AND BRITISH AND AMERICAN WALLPAPERS
"ELIZABETH" YOU CRY, "WHY ARE YOU BEING SO EXTRA THIS MORNING?! IT'S MONDAY"
Because, my friend, my war on GREIGE will NEVER end.
Historic interiors were filled with LIFE and LIGHT and COLOR. ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.
Part of the reason we don't see a lot of textile art is because, frankly, textiles tend to degrade over time - especially ones that had utility! And yes, pigments and weaving and dying all boosted the expense of things, when we were finally reliably block-printing fabrics and broad reams of paper, it was no longer just the wealthy who could afford pretty patterns!
In the Americas, a far wider variety of pigments also became available because of the abundance of... well, a shitton of flora and minerals, some of which weren't as common in Europe.
WHY THE HIGHLIGHTER COLORS? you ask.
CANDLES.
Those colors reflect candlelight and natural sunlight REALLY WELL.
Humans LOVE bright colors, it's NOT just a thing for kids. We live in a brilliant, vibrant, multifaceted world. We ALWAYS have.
(STOP MAKING YOUR HISTORIC SIMS 4 BUILDS BE BLAND. STOP IT.)
It occurred to me today that you can use Miyazaki films as a really quick way to explain the difference between urban/modern fantasy and magical realism.
Kiki’s Delivery Service: takes place in the regular world— albeit at some nebulous point in time— but also magic is real and witches are a thing. Witches exist in this world because it’s fun and we like them. It’s fantasy elements in a familiar setting— essentially urban or modern fantasy.
Porco Rosso: takes place in an extremely specific place and time and contains exactly one fantastical element— Marco’s pig head— which is never given an explanation and is never questioned as a biological impossibility. It’s clearly a metaphor and commentary on a real world issue but it’s also very much literal. This dude 100% has a pig head. No other mentions of magic are made. This is magical realism.
This story brought to you by the fact that I’ve never seen a fanfic on ao3 tagged magical realism that wasn’t actually modern fantasy.
people will say “they’re only friends” and then show me two people who would crawl through broken glass to hear the other laugh once. two people who have memorized each other’s coffee orders, fears, childhood stories, and emergency contacts. two people who would haunt each other’s houses as ghosts. be serious.
Just an FYI—the original intention of this post was to challenge the way people say only friends, as though friendship is somehow lesser than other forms of love. As if being deeply known, cherished, and chosen by another person could ever be a small thing. Normalize profound platonic love. Some of the most fulfilling, transformative, and enduring relationships we will ever have are friendships. 🫶🏼
Sure! I took some more photos for you, and blopped them in below. I made this as part of an online workshop held by Karen Ruane. Her work is beautiful, and her workshops are magical if you ever want to explore this kind of thing more.
This little book is part sample book and part processing my grandmother's passing. The book incorporates some of her cloth. The cover is made from pieces of her night gown, and I've incorporated small pieces of her handkerchiefs throughout. Also, I didn't discover until very late in life that she also stitched. When I saw her beautiful embroidery, I was taken by how often she used these little double bullion knots as petals, so I stitched like that at time in the samples too. Anyway, there are some deep personal feelings/layers in here.
Also - there is an old 2min video I made some years ago, where I flip through it and talk about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUMO5D-x6qE
current state of the internet is a FUCKING EMBARASSMENT. was chatting with my grandma bout the history of crochet and knitting (and the comparative ages of those respective technologies) and i was like "oh YEAH and also that ancient greek fiber art we partly figured out from chemically testing the scoured bleached pigments of stolen statuary (tumblr knows what im talking about)—gimme 30 seconds to look up the name."
5 minutes and 3 search-engines later i am crying tears of blood screaming spitting blubbering in despair as my grandma attempts to digitally pat me consolingly on the back. the library of alexandria didn't burn it was "restructured" to "increase shareholder profits"
i am scouring the internet like the victorians scoured and destroyed all trace of joy and color from stolen relics for the LOST NAME OF THE ANCIENT PROCESS of textile-creation akin to knitting/crocheting/nålebinding that at least one academic/crafter used to recreate the leggings on this Glorious Motherfucker:
the google execs erased it. they bleached my bestie AGAIN from history...
Archer statue from the Temple of Aphaia (ca. 480 BC) next to a reconstruction of its original paint job:
The leggings and sleeves would have created using a method called SPRANG which predates knitting and is over 3,000 years old. What's even sexier is modern artisans managed to recreate the entire outfit using the original method!
Mmm-HMM, love me a shapely thigh in harlequin hosiery. Put👏men👏in👏clingy-ass👏clothing👏again👏👏👏
Unfortunately english sources are hard to find, partly because Google's a shithole, but also because this textile project comes from a German museum, in Germany, where people tend to speak (and publish) in German. That said, the original link is to a short-but-sweet article I would have had no problem finding in 30 seconds a mere few years ago. fortunately i have clever beautiful insane people following me, but alas not everyone has such luxury. thanks to everyone in the notes who shoved themselves down this rabbithole with me!
in conclusion let us take a moment to sincerely wish Google a very burn in hell🙏
so what you're gonna do is you're gonna trim the top off a bulb of garlic, using the knife's edge to take off the tip of every individual clove, that's important. you're gonna place the garlic face-up in a square of tinfoil, drizzle with olive oil, wrap completely in foil, place in baking tray, repeat with a copious amount of garlic bulbs. you're gonna put that baking tray in an oven set to 375-400°F, for 30-50 minutes, until soft and browned. you're gonna toast some good bread, slather generously with butter and honey, maybe a tiny lil bit o' salt. and then. you're gonna SQUEEZE. OUT. THAT. ROASTED GARLIC. onto the butter honey toast. and you're gonna eat it. food stolen directly from the plate of the gods. that's what you're gonna do.
The way that most of Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories’ most horrible villains are rich dudes that are abusive to women, in a time such as the 1880’s, compels me.
Yup, there’s a huge number of times where Sherlock Holmes is the ONLY person to take a young woman’s complaint or worry seriously and finds out someone is up to some serious evil. Holmes also shows a lot of compassion and empathy with the victims over and over again. (This is why I find “Secretly a woman” or “Trans” Holmes headcanons much more convincing than “sociopath” Holmes.)
I am never going to shut up about how much I specifically love The Adventure of The Copper Beeches because it is literally Sherlock Holmes listening to a young lady he does not know except as a potential client, agreeing with her that a potential job she has interviewed for that she thinks is SUPER SKETCHY is, indeed, sketchy as fuck and when she says she’s probably gonna take the job anyways because the money is good and she needs it going “OKAY I GUESS but for the love of god please write to us so we know you’re okay we will literally drop everything and jump on a train if you want us to”.
The job turns out to indeed be sketchy as fuck, she writes to them, Holmes and Watson drop everything and jump on a train when she asks them to. I read this story for the first time when I was twelve and it made a HUGE impression.
This is also the basis for a lot of speculation about Holmes’ family life. The idea that he has been a victim of abuse, or his mother was abused (or even murdered by his father.) There’s definitely SOMETHING that makes him very aware of how dangerous isolated families can be, and the dark things that can happen behind closed doors. Plus, of course, the motivation to devote himself to stopping crime. And yes, so much of it is of the personal type.
dude see this is one aspect of the original books i NEVER understand why modern remakes (cough cough) don’t go all in on. Like, in the 21th c we HAVE all the dumb forensic shit that made Victorian Holmes stand out, but we STILL DON’T HAVE uh….you know, compassion for women and minorities, or the willingness to believe them, adequate community support for domestic violence or hate crimes, etc. etc. which you’d think is exactly where a renegade consulting detective would come in handy. A good modern day Sherlock Holmes remake, instead of trying to convince us that Holmes is some super genius for being better than fingerprint analysis or whatever, could have him just be…a good person who helps out people the police can’t and won’t help. There you go. That’s how to write a relevant modern Holmes.
One thing that annoys me is how much the BBC version of Sherlock (and the fandom around it) focus on police cases or cold cases. In the stories, Holmes’ bread and butter cases had fuck-all to do with the police and in a few stories, he actively works around/against them, or outright lies to them. Of the many, many things I wish that show had done differently, this is one is particularly obnoxious since it’s such a gimme.
There were very few actual murder cases in the Canon, and Holmes handled them either one of two ways:
Option one: The murder victim was innocent while the killer was an abusive bastard, see Speckled Band. Conclusion, arrest and have the killer charged (Or in the case of Speckled Band, indirectly murder him yourself then shrug and go home)
Option two: The victim was murdered to protect someone that the victim was abusing, or for vengeance, see Boscombe Valley, Devil’s Foot, Abbey Grange. Conclusion, Oops, I don’t know who the killer is, I am suddenly incompetent, oh look a pheasant.
#my favorite murder in holmes canon#is when they straight up witness a lady murder her blackmailer#do nothing except destroy his other blackmail material#and then straight up lie to lestrade about it#sherlock holmes#more of this in modern adaptations pls (via @cactusspatz )
Let’s not forget the time Holmes helps a young woman who’s being catfished by her own stepfather to steal her inheritance, and when the villain sneers that the law can’t touch him, Holmes grabs a horsewhip out of sheerest chivalry.
I think it’s also important to note, and complicates our ideas about what the highly patriarchal/misogynistic society of 19th century England looked like, that these stories SOLD
they were POPULAR
the Victorians LIKED reading about women who won out over shitty men in their lives, even when that plotline reaffirmed a woman’s power and agency or put an active sexist in his place (ie Irene Adler besting Holmes)
which is fascinating in light of. you know. [gestures broadly at all of Victorian gender dynamics, laws, etc.]
So while doing some pirate research for the play I’m writing I stumbled upon one of the most amazing things I’ve ever read. In the 5th century A.D. there was a Scandinavian princess called Alwilda who’s father tried to set her up to marry Alf, the Prince of Denmark. Alwilda wasn’t cool with this so she and some female companions dressed as men, stole a ship, and sailed away. Eventually they met a company of pirates who were in need of a new captain and they were so captivated by her that they elected her as their new leader. Her crew became so infamous that Prince Alf was sent out to stop them. When their ships met he took Alwilda prisoner and she was so impressed by Alf’s skill that she agreed to marry him after all and eventually became the Queen of Denmark.
Medievalist here for triumphant fact-checking: this story is, if not true, at least true according to the history of the Danes (Gesta Danorum) written in the 12th century by Saxo Grammaticus. You can read his account of Alwilda’s story in the original Latin here, or in English translation here. Highlights include:
She exchanged woman’s for man’s attire, and, no longer the most modest of maidens, began the life of a warlike rover. Enrolling in her service many maidens who were of the same mind, she happened to come to a spot where a band of rovers were lamenting the death of their captain, who had been lost in war; they made her their rover captain.
I love the implication that there were lots of Danish maidens just WAITING for the opportunity of a life of piracy…
kianamaiart
germansingergirl
gracieabrams
stormborns
andulkaphoto
2087
dailybridgerton
ellievsbear
snowghoul
yousharknotpass
baratheonpilled
