#snails can write

[snail-speed-6]

Operation: REAPER

https://archiveofourown.org/works/55750048/chapters/141526537

After Rookie's near-execution on Draco III, Alpha-Nine are assigned to the top secret mission Operation: REAPER to recover something stolen from the UNSC by a Covenant splinter group called the Frantics.

But ONI, in their usual way, aren't telling them everything about what they've been sent to retrieve...

Their grim reaper is supposed to be dead, after all.

[snails-in-spaceships]

Hey. Hey are you hungry? Cause i got some fish and chips right here: https://archiveofourown.org/works/36179563

You frighten me (because I love you)

Chip and Gillion are both scared of what their feelings for other means. Will Gillion have to put aside his destiny? Will Chip have to admit he actually has feelings in the first place and isn't a stone-hearted asshole?

Out on the deck of the Albatros after helping Tastrius' crew find peace, Gillion and Chip look for a little peace of their own, and they might just find it in each other.

(No spoilers, takes place after episode 55)

please reblog, it helps spread my work!

[snail-speed-6]

Feeling Blue

https://archiveofourown.org/works/54057319

"You're my problem! You've always been my problem! Each and every one of you is just a problem that I have to deal with on a daily basis!"

The last of Chruch's words echo and die and Tucker looks down at the floor. He can't- he didn't think Church really-

Well. Whatever Tucker thought, the reality of what Church sees in all of them, red and blues alike, is out in the open.

And Tucker is the first to walk away.

-< ♦ >-

Or, a rewrite of one of my favourite parts of season 10 of Red versus Blue

[snail-speed-6]

Hey! I Finally Finished The Fic

An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works

After Rookie's near-execution on Draco III, Alpha-Nine are assigned to the top secret mission Operation: REAPER to recover something stolen from the UNSC by a Covenant splinter group called the Frantics.

But ONI, in their usual way, aren't telling them everything about what they've been sent to retrieve...

Their grim reaper is supposed to be dead, after all.

---

Completed Fic: 10 chapters/20,613 words

[snail-speed-6]

Hamlet's Motivations (and lack thereof)

Hello Tumblr I want to share with you some of my Hamlet musings. This one's about why Hamlet acts the way he does. This is analysis not fanfiction! 

Hamlet wishes “be all my sins remembered”, because to him, as long as he is remembered that will be enough, regardless of how he is remembered. He develops a fear of being forgotten through watching everyone forget his father. 

As he dies, Hamlet’s last request is for Horatio to share his story. He freely gives a foreign ruler his blessing without conflict and seemingly no particular interest about preserving the Danish future of his country, but just asks that his personal story be told. 

This longing for remembrance shapes Hamlet’s actions throughout the play, and could be the reason as to why the ghost’s instruction “remember me” has such a profound effect on the character. In this ghost’s command Hamlet sees himself and his desire, and perhaps he thinks that if he can keep the ghost’s - and therefore Old Hamlet’s - memory alive, then perhaps there is a chance for him to be remembered too. 

As John Kerrigan put it in his article ‘Memory and Remembrance in Hamlet’, Hamlet is haunted by a past that is begging to be remembered, which drives him to a madness and provokes further speculation about the fate of his own memory. 

This fear could also play a role in Hamlet’s ‘procrastination’ of his revenge, as he knows that as soon as the deed is done, he will likely meet an unfortunate fate himself and no longer have a chance to influence and interact with the world he so dearly wishes to be remembered by. Influenced by how the people around him treat memory, Hamlet acts accordingly, vowing to remember his father as long as he can and to somewhat keep him alive by prolonging the ghost’s wishes. Once that is fulfilled, as Hamlet fears, “the rest is silence.”

Hamlet’s tendency of self-criticism could also be the factor that determines his actions in the play, because it is at moments of self-criticism in his soliloquies that Hamlet resolves to take action and effectively move the plot forward. 

In act 2 scene 2, Hamlet cries “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” calling himself a cheat and a coward for all he has not done, then goes on to craft a plan to catch Claudius with the play. And as he leaves for England, Hamlet sees the soldiers going to fight for land and feels useless, but then resolves that “from this time forth, let my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth”. However, it can also be seen in the play that these moments of self-loathing and criticism come from Hamlet reflecting on the actions of others and comparing them to himself, which could mean that Hamlet is only basing his action and worth on others, and what he feel the expectation of his should be, not what he feels is right. 

Coupled with this, Hamlet believing that his thoughts must be “bloody or be nothing worth” could be Shakespeare exposing the way that men were expected to act ‘brave’ and ‘strong’ to be considered “worthy”, and uses Hamlet as an example of how constant influence, and expectation of rash action making the ‘better man’, can corrupt otherwise kind people into those who believe in nothing but violence. For someone like Hamlet, who is chiefly a person of thought and not action, adopting this ideology would have completely changed him. 

In fact, Laertes almost completely mirrors Hamlet in this way; after his father is killed, he goes straight to action, resorting to violence almost immediately, whereas Hamlet (despite his previous sentiment) still hesitates. 

Laertes’ thoughts are “bloody”, and it is this that allows Claudius to manipulate and corrupt him through his desire to take revenge. As a foil to Hamlet, Laertes shows how easily corruption could have taken hold had Hamlet succumbed to his self-criticisms borne from a heavily patriarchal world that couples strength with violence. 

Shakespeare, therefore, attacks the idea that a man must be willing to kill for honour and perhaps dissuades from the idea of taking revenge at all by the tragic fate almost all the characters end up in in Hamlet and Laertes' pursuit of revenge. This could also be Shakespeare praising a lifestyle of thought and not action, as most direct action taken in the play leads to some sort of tragedy.

If you made it to the end I'd love to hear some opposition!! What do y’all think?

[snail-speed-6]

Recommendation

https://archiveofourown.org/works/55196761/chapters/139989316

If even one got away knowing it was a third party that instigated the violence he'd have failed, at least partially. Should he wait? Was there enough time?

Crompton stepped forward with his hand out for Hammond to shake.

One-man kill box it was, but first things first: the Spartan raised his DMR and put Crompton's head in the centre of the firing reticle.

“Up there!”

Shit.

---

Or, a peek into what some of Noble Six's assignments would have looked like around the time he'd started working as a black-ops agent for ONI.

(All three chapters complete!)

[snail-speed-6]

Is Hamlet's Behaviour Inexcusable?

Hamlet analysis again yay!!! This time focused on responsibility, accountability, and partially exploring the truthfulness of Hamlet's "antic disposition".

Hamlet is used as a medium to explore accountability and justification of actions. While Hamlet undoubtedly causes harm to many other characters throughout the play in his pursuit of revenge, his sanity is vague enough to encourage the audience to question for themselves whether Hamlet can truly be blamed for the harm he causes, or whether his insanity - a product of his situation - forces him to act in unpleasant and sinful ways.

Shakespeare writes Hamlet in a way that, through his deeply personal soliloquies and generous amount of lines, invites each viewer to personally judge his character and hopefully reflect on how far their own behaviour towards others can be seen as inexcusable, or not. Perhaps this was Shakespeare’s attempt to advance critical thinking and self reflection in his audience and in wider Jacobean and Elizabethan society, as during these eras plays were often used as a way to communicate moral lessons to the viewer.

But anyway, back to the prince himself; at the beginning of the play, Hamlet’s behaviour towards others is entirely excusable as he attempts to navigate a new world of grief in which no one seems to share, or understand, his emotions. Even before Hamlet embarks on his quest for revenge, the death of his father and remarriage of his mother drives him to suicidal ideation, wishing that his “flesh could melt and resolve itself into a dew”. There is very little violence or intentional bad behaviour towards others, as his melancholy mood is a product of his grief and is turned inward toward himself. Hamlet also laments that god has “fixed his canon 'gainst self slaughter”, displaying the proper Jacobsen Christian view of suicide as a sin and protraying Hamlet as a relatively moral character to the heavily Christian audience.

As the play continues, Hamlet repeatedly berates himself over his procrastination and calls himself a “rogue and peasant slave…unpregnant of my cause”. He seems to forget that his theory of the ghost being sent from hell could be true, and acts as though he has all the opportunity in the world to kill Claudius, but for someone in such a fragile state of mental health such as Hamlet, even day to day life might have been hard for him to wade through. And it is not only the ghost that haunts him; Hamlet has the weight of an impending war and the turmoil of Denmark behind him, and each action he takes to, or further from, his revenge could ripple throughout the country. Many criticise Hamlet's tendency to overanalyze and procrastinate his every action, but they seem to forget that Hamlet would understand one wrong move within the court could bring about chaos much worse than his own death; as we see with Fortinbras' conquest at the end of the play.

Audiences often fall into the trap of taking Hamlet’s word for truth, but from Hamlet we only see a self-critical view drenched in unrealistically high standards from a person dealing with probable depression in a time where the words ‘psychology’ and ‘mental health’ meant nothing. As Critic Ryan states, because ‘The time is out of joint’, there’s no way [Hamlet] could ‘set it right’ just by killing Claudius.” But this is the pressure that Hamlet puts upon himself anyway. In a modern setting, Hamlet as a character would probably receive much less blame for the events his procrastination causes, because the audience would recognise the extent to Hamlet’s troubles better than from watching the play through the unknowing lens of the 16th century. How can Hamlet’s actions be inexcusable, when he bears witness to his own father’s ghost (whom he is still in mourning for) and is commanded to kill his uncle, the king? Who wouldn’t flounder under the same pressure?

As the play continues, Hamlet’s actions become more and more questionable, leading to much controversy over the morality of his character and behaviour. His treatment of Ophelia is brutal, frightening, and deeply misogynistic. Although Claudius is one of the least trusted characters (for killing his own brother and marrying his sister-in-law) the audience may agree with him that Hamlet's words in this scene are not driven by madness, and even as an outburst of grief or anger it is severely misdirected; starting Ophelia’s journey to her own madness and eventually death. Additionally when he kills Polonius, Hamlet discards the old man as an “intruding fool”, expressing no guilt whatsoever for his actions, and seemingly having no cause for the murder other than the expectation he was being spied on by Claudius.

These scenes make it difficult to justify Hamlet’s excusability and are often the focal point of arguments criticising the prince. As the protagonist of a tragedy, he is genre-bound to play a role in his demise, and by acting as a tragic hero in these scenes his hamartia and descent from morality is highlighted. Hamlet may have suspected Polonius was working closely with Claudius, but Hamlet himself had already shown that speculation is not grounds for murder, and so this cannot be justified.

When Hamlet returns from England he seems excited to tell Horatio about his plot to kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, repeatedly asking Horatio to prompt him with “But wilt thou hear now how I did proceed?” and “Wilt thou know th’effect to what I wrote?” He appears proud and almost boasting, treating the affair like a game he has cleverly won. When Horatio summises “So Rosencrantz and Guildenstern go to’t”, Hamet is quick to justify their deaths and announce his lack of guilt for the murder of two which were once his good friends. Where Frued argues Hamlet thinks he could be “no better than the sinner [Claudius] whom he is to punish”, I believe instead he has literally become more like the ‘sinner’, as his recounting of Rosencratnz and Guildestnern’s upcoming demise sounds incredibly reminiscent of Claudius when he says “Till I know tis done, howe’er my haps, my joys were ne’er begun.” The excitement and joy of the deed draws the line between a product of situation, and an inexcusable action.

However, Hamlet’s supposed joy could be yet another sign of his disconnect with reality and how his “antic disposition” is no longer an act. Although Hamlet appears more sane and clear headed after his return, his constant theatrical allusions such as “they had begun the play” and “a prologue to my brains”, and a semantic field of imagery with “For the image of my cause I see the portraiture of his.” tell a different story. As Critic Woods suggests, Hamlet’s “way of understanding and dealing with his situation is pointedly theatrical”. His excitement could be a way to distance himself from the pain of reality: his treatment of this like a game is nothing more than a coping mechanism. Shakespeare himself enforces the game-like nature of the play by having it end in tragedy during what was masked as a friendly competition.

Here is the climax of Hamlet’s madness; the death of his family, Laertes, and himself shown to the audience as a poorly ended game. Almost as if by watching and learning through Hamlet’s perspective the audience is drawn into his madness too.

Truly, a large part of Hamlet’s tragedy is how many critics and audiences still agree with the self-loathing Hamlet of Act 1, and fail to see how he is still the same character at the end of the play, only forced to act out the consequences of falling to other means of perceiving the word around him.

If you made it to the end, thanks for reading! Feel free to argue/debate anything I've said or add something I might've missed?

Any additions or contradictions/criticism is welcome!!

[snail-speed-6]

The Littletide Pirates

Chapter 1 of ? - https://archiveofourown.org/works/39703689/chapters/99397476

An Au where the Riptide Pirates met at a much younger age over very different circumstances. What will happen as they embark on the run from the Navy? Try to survive the harsh seas? And will their differences drive them apart or will they come together to find peace once and for all?

Whatever happens... they'll just have to roll with it!

(Some events may coincide with those from the actual campaign, so minor spoiler warning. Tags are updated as the story progresses.)

Please reblog if you enjoy, it helps my work reach more people!