getting older and weirder and sexier and more perverted and gluttonous and intelligent and blunt and eloquent and spontaneous and skilled is literally what it's all about

Origami Around
One Nice Bug Per Day
trying on a metaphor
No title available
dirt enthusiast
Sade Olutola
taylor price

Kiana Khansmith
Jules of Nature

⁂

if i look back, i am lost

izzy's playlists!
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
ojovivo
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
cherry valley forever
No title available
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Stranger Things

Discoholic 🪩

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 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
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Venezuela
seen from United States
seen from United States
@thebookewyrm
getting older and weirder and sexier and more perverted and gluttonous and intelligent and blunt and eloquent and spontaneous and skilled is literally what it's all about
making a collection
Wait I have more
My mom likes to say “Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I do know the clowns.”
I wish you would write a fic where Abigail Pent has a crisis of faith, either in a canon setting, a modern AU, a historical AU, whatever! I just trust your handling of both faith and Abigail's character. 😀
The ask has reappeared! And yes, this would be such an interesting area to explore given Abigail and religion...
@faggedoutsocialite had an interesting comment when I thought I'd lost this ask:
Abigail learns some people survived (or 'survived') the bloodbath at Canaan House and proclaims "the King over the River is good" with such fervour that it genuinely triggers Harrow.
One of the most significant details she recalls from her childhood bedroom, after the bed where her little brother slept and the primrose coloured walls, is the picture of the Prince Undying.
She hides behind a pillar from a gun-wielding ghost who has just shot her husband and intends to send all of them to their second death and total spiritual destruction, and prays "Oh, God, please help me."
At least one of her degrees was taken on the Eighth, and she's effectively an ecclesiastical historian.
Her marriage is considered "traitorous to the ideals of the Necrolord Prime" by some religious authorities and the marriage and the Fifth House custom that permits it are described as "grotesque" and "revolting".
And then there's the fascinating moment in chapter 45 where Abigail reveals that:
House religion once believed there was a "River beyond" but hasn't for thousands of years, to the point that this is now considered such a heretical thing to claim that Magnus is genuinely worried about his wife expressing it in public.
That she is also aware of the stratification of the River that John described in chapter 36, that one's passage through the River apparently depends on one's moral behaviour in life and that there is a hell-like place beyond the stoma at its bottom.
That she believes their god is entirely ignorant of the space beyond the River! (and quotes Hamlet while expressing this, which has a tendency to pop up when River shenanigans are afoot...)
That the Houses are aware of the concept of divine omnipotence but that John has never claimed to so be.
That she has spent her whole life thinking that god didn't understand metaphysics and wanting to send him her notes on the subject!
That divine ignorance of metaphysics and the consequent social censure of it has directly contributed to the stagnation of their society.
She's obviously found a way to mentally balance the tension between an inhabited faith which very much does seem to imply an omnipotent and intercessory deity, and an intellectual one which seems to have a very evidence-based approach to John's own claims about himself. And unlike Palamedes, who we see in the clarity of death grimly commenting that "god takes- and takes- and takes" (and then taking a leaf from "occultist" Ianthe's book and reverse-engineering a form of ascension), we never see her articulate anything other than a neutral suggestion that god simply isn't aware of the River beyond. And I'm sure that growing up with stories from your admiral grandad might give you a slightly less deferential perspective on the guy but...she was personally invited by him to eat her husband's soul, and she, her husband, and their foster children were murdered with extreme prejudice by their faith's equivalent of an archangel, which you'd think might make one slightly less equanimous...
Which suggests that either the reckoning for the tension inherent in her beliefs is still to come, or that she's more focused on the things greater than John that she "believes more than ever now that I am dead."
That's not her only post-mortem belief statement. She also says "I firmly believe that the Kindly Emperor knows nothing of that undiscovered country", which is such an interesting sentiment, and not just for its reference to Hamlet! The idea of a divine but extremely limited entity who does not understand the spiritual complexities beyond him is a pretty specific one, and combined with her River heresies, makes me wonder to what extent Abigail is already looking at a greater reality beyond John. Especially as her appearance as a Hecate-like figure, assisting Harrow's Persephone, already places her in the context of another mystery revelation cult, the Eleusinian Mysteries.
We've already seen Dulcie's apparent transcendence of the River: in TUG, she tells Palamedes she "gambled on the truth" and that she's "really not allowed to tell" him what happened, but that it was "something awful...in the old sense of the world", and then in reply to him saying he'll find her on the shore of the River, she says "which shore?... It's a River. There are two shores. If this ends well, you'll find that out." (immediately after this, she is compared to a Biblical angel). We know that Abigail intends to cross the River. But unlike Dulcie, she has some unfinished business which may bring her more sharply up against the terrible realities of what John has done (which, incidentally, I have written a fic about, if you want Alecto's perspective on Abigail's brother responding to the truth about her death by rather turning on the Emperor...). Though I suppose it's also possible that an obviation of the crisis could come from her focus being on the bigger picture. Though I'm not sure that metaphysical clarity Abigail Pent would be any less scary than her having a crisis of faith...
(There's a whole digression to be had here about Abigail's apparent religious experience when summoning Nonius, and her "ancestral state of primaeval ghost worship"; or about the gnostic Gaia and anima mundi, and Alecto as the Sophia to John's Demiurge; and Abigail as psychopomp for crossing the waters; and whether she might play a Virgil like role to Harrow's Dante in Hell...but at this point we get into stuff like Jung, and probably also hermeticism, and I'm afraid my brain rather turns off...)
But I think there are a lot of AU concepts where this lands a lot more sharply (Psalms 107:1 by @badgerjaw is a fantastic example of this with Abigail as a Lyctor). Lyctor!Abigail is an AU concept that continues to haunt me both for the prospect of Abigail meeting the reality of her 'god' up close (John feels like the sort of guy who, for all he likes to use the trappings of poetry and history to make himself look better, would still joke about the humanities being 'underwater basket weaving') and for the implications of Lyctorhood for her own theology: "I am not even certain where they go. Do Lyctors enter the River? Do they pass as we pass? I don't know where they wait" - would a Lyctor!Abigail fear herself and Magnus fundamentally unable to cross the River in death, having committed that indelible sin?
whats sexier
horns
tails
no nuance. fight about it
fuck it. round 2
whats sexier
halo
wings
halo considering any affix above the head not directly attached
i have a third one
whats sexier
teeth
claws
PLEASE REBLOG THE THIRD ONE TOO I NEED TO KNOW
maybe i like my tech a little bit inconvenient
maybe i like pulling out my debit card instead of using apple pay. maybe i like untangling my wired headphones. maybe i like typing something into the search bar instead of using siri or whatever. maybe i like curating my own social media feeds over an algorithm. i just don’t think everything has to be perfectly streamlined and efficient i like it when things feel tethered to the real world.
If they advanced too much further technologically, those advances would inevitably intrude on their humanity. People wanted to walk. They wanted to take the bus that smells like cigarettes. They wanted those precious three minutes between asking a question and knowing the answer. [...] They found that they needed things to be just a little bit difficult once in a while. They needed to stub their toe and wait in line and see that Check Engine light. They decided to leave their existence just a little short of perfect, because they wanted to want.
— 17776 (aka the story that fundamentally altered my understanding of the human condition)
"Now I've shot so many Nazis, Daddy will have to buy me a sable coat." (From his Wikipedia article).
Neil Munro "Bunny" Roger
June 9, 1911-April 27, 1997.
Bunny Roger killed a bunch of Nazis and then invented Capri pants.
He was expelled from Oxford for his indiscrete gayness (discrete gayness being perfectly fine at Oxford and part of the curriculum until...today probably, at least like 1992?). Then, having been sent down to London, he started his own fashion business, and his first client was Vivien Leigh.
Bunny served in WWII, killing fascists in North Africa and Italy, and often wearing a mauve scarf in the field. Roger claimed that he had gone into a battle brandishing a rolled-up copy of VOGUE and commanding: "When in doubt, powder heavily!"
Roger was known in high society for his themed soirées; Diamond, Amethyst, and Flame Balls were held to celebrate his 60th, 70th, and 80th birthdays. He wore a curious plum colored catsuit with a feathered headdress at his 70th birthday ball in 1981. At his 80th, he made his entrance in a catsuit of scarlet sequins with a cape of orange organza, greeting his guests from behind a wall of fire. His parties were covered by the newspapers, including a New Year's Eve Fetish Ball where the proper upper class mixed with young guests in rubber S/M gear.
From an obituary: "Beneath his mauve mannerisms, Bunny was stalwart, frank, dependable and undeceived; to onlookers a passing peacock, to intimates, a life enhancer and exemplary friend."
From another obituary:
He served valiantly in every way.
It really is 2003 again Jesus Tapdancing Christ.
Like, all Republicans did was replace Iraq and gay people with Iran and trans people.
Being someone old enough to be fully conscious and forming memories in both 2003 and 2025 feels like this
Michael A Davenport, 3,090 Degrees Fahrenheit (Oil on canvas, 2025)
30in x 48in
From the artist’s Inprnt:
“3,090 degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature at which sand becomes glass, in a process known as the Pilkington Process. This is not the temperature of burning; this is the temperature of becoming something.”
“Love is a sacrament that should be taken kneeling”
—Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde WAS gay and he DID suck dicks but “love is a sacrament that should be taken kneeling” is not about oral sex. It is not even erotic.
Here’s the rest of the quote. It’s from De Profundis:
“Most people live for love and admiration. But it is by love and admiration that we should live. If any love is shown us we should recognise that we are quite unworthy of it. Nobody is worthy to be loved. The fact that God loves man shows us that in the divine order of ideal things it is written that eternal love is to be given to what is eternally unworthy. Or if that phrase seems to be a bitter one to bear, let us say that everyone is worthy of love, except him who thinks that he is. Love is a sacrament that should be taken kneeling, and Domine, non sum dignus should be on the lips and in the hearts of those who receive it.”
It's so, SO important to share success stories like this. I know an actual JPL engineer who doesn't believe in climate change because, "you never hear about acid rain anymore."
He thinks climate change can be lumped in with acid rain and the ozone layer of "things that were overblown and not really important because no one talks about it anymore."
It didn't even occur to him that we actively fixed the problem. Here's the EPA page on acid rainfall.
From the page:
It's also important to talk about success stories tonfuel hope that we can overcome current and future conservation and environmental issues.
We fixed the hole in the Ozone layer too.
Jesus Didn’t Ask for Worship - He Showed Us How to Awaken
Invoking the Holy Spirit for what would seem like to most a supernatural ability to call on greater forces for help, is as simple as explicitly asking it for help. Holy Spirit, please heal my mind, my consciousness, my spirit, my body which I welcome you to reside in eternally. And forgive me, Father, for any missteps I’ve made along the way. On my path forward, please continue to guide my mind, my thoughts, my actions. Lead me on the way consistent with your plan and purpose for me. Amen
Despite what appears to be supernatural, is in fact completely natural. An ability we've always had access to as members of the universe. This natural ability has long been neglected by most since they're either skeptics of religion in general or their churches either neglected to emphasize this is what Jesus was teaching us how to access. Many of these churches are instead directing all worship to him instead despite his teachings. This is a great litmus test to see which churches are actually consistent with the teachings of Jesus.
Any church that neglects to teach or emphasize the invocation of the Holy Spirit and explicitly asking to replace our will with its divine guidance—is ultimately derailing its followers. It’s not complicated. To invoke the Holy Spirit is to activate something innate within us—a divine switch waiting to be turned on. It's like shifting from first gear to third; without this shift, our spiritual journey stalls. Focusing exclusively on Jesus, without turning inward to the Spirit he pointed us toward, misses the mark.
It’s essential to recognize that Jesus, empowered by divine influence through the Holy Spirit, came not to redirect worship to himself but to show us how to access and embody the Spirit. Worshiping Jesus instead of listening to what he taught—namely, to praise our Source and walk with the Holy Spirit—is a misstep. That form of worship veers dangerously close to idolatry, directly contradicting his own message. One of the greatest distortions of his teachings was the posthumous insertion of dogma requiring his worship—something he never instructed. He was clear about where to direct praise: to the Father, to the Source, and to the ever-present Spirit. Forming countless sects and splintered identities within Christianity is yet another betrayal of his call for unity. At last count, there has been 45,000 denominations of Christianity, which is sufficient evidence that there has been 2000 years of human ego trying to maintain the spirit of division in the human species. Attempting to keep us as separate as possible in a faith that explicitly instructs us to embrace and advocate for unity as humanity and unity with our source. The constant desire for people to create their own customized version of the faith when it has always been incredibly clear and direct influence of human egos. It's critically important to abandon all the superfluous and unfaithful aspects of what Jesus taught and be faithful to the very clear set of instructions that Jesus taught that frankly could fit on a pamphlet.
Whether or not these distortions were part of an intentional sabotage of his message, the truth remains: the human ego has a tendency to manipulate divine teachings to fit its preferred worldview. And that egoic influence has been at work for centuries.
To restore Jesus’ teachings to their intended power, we must strip away the additions layered on by tradition and dogma. Many have left Christianity not because of Jesus’ message, but because of how thoroughly it’s been misrepresented. This must be acknowledged. Refusing to worship Jesus may upset those deeply attached to tradition, but this attachment is not faithfulness—it’s resistance to truth. It means adhering strictly to the teachings of Jesus. If Jesus had sought praise, it would have been an enormous red flag of his intentions and revealed an egoic impulse fundamentally at odds with everything he embodied. True spiritual teachers do not demand worship; they guide others toward awakening.
At most, Jesus deserves profound respect for the immense price he paid in his mission to awaken others. But worship was never what he sought. Instead, we should emphasize invoking the Holy Spirit and directing our praise toward the Father—the Source of all.
Christians must begin asking the Holy Spirit for guidance, healing, and spiritual awakening. Without this shift, Christianity becomes dominated by loud, self-righteous voices who claim to represent Jesus while perpetuating hatred and exclusion—exactly what he stood against. These individuals believe they are upholding his message, but in truth, they are distorting it.
A true follower of Jesus proclaims to the universe and to the divine within that we are all One. We extend love and blessings to others as expressions of the same divine essence we ourselves carry.
The death of Jesus made was not intended to be an act that earns us salvation through belief alone. Despite what many have been taught, his death is not a spiritual transaction that guarantees heaven. The bliss of awakening—the euphoria of enlightenment Jesus called Heaven is within and available to all of us now—can only be found by living what he taught, not by merely shouting his name and declaring out loud how much you believe or love him.
Invoking the holy spirit for all guidance, forgiving others, helping the poor and suffering, helping the strangers in our lands, loving our divine father and source, etc is what guarantees you the results that Jesus taught.
Remarkably, this awakening can be realized without ever stepping foot inside a church, though many may naturally be drawn to community once they experience the profound clarity and peace that comes with spiritual enlightenment.
For those who feel challenged or even offended by the central thesis here—that our love and worship should be directed to the Father, as Jesus himself instructed, rather than to Jesus the man—it’s crucial to examine the roots of that resistance. Often, it stems from attachment to long-held traditions rather than fidelity to what Jesus actually taught. Letting go of these misdirected customs allows us to embrace the deeper spiritual truths he came to reveal.
I believe that in time, the Holy Spirit will no longer be seen solely as a concept rooted in the spiritual or religious realm. It will eventually be recognized within the domain of quantum physics—empirically observable and demonstrably real. In many ways, this shift has already begun through the growing understanding of the quantum field, a fundamental force that permeates all of existence. What Christianity calls the Holy Spirit, other traditions have described in their own ways: Hinduism speaks of the Supreme Soul (Paramatma), Buddhism refers to Adhiṣṭhāna, and mystical traditions often use the term Universal Consciousness—a particularly fitting name, as it echoes Jesus’ teaching that we are all intrinsically connected as parts of a greater whole.
I also believe that a broader cultural evolution may lead us to refer to “God” more commonly as “the Universe,” a term that speaks universally and inclusively. After all, no atheist or agnostic can deny the existence of the Universe. And I suspect that when Jesus, a poetic and deeply intuitive teacher, spoke of “our Father,” he may well have been referring to this very source—the Universe itself, the origin from which we all come and with which we are ultimately one.
In my own prayers and reflections, I offer deep gratitude and reverence to Jesus—not as the object of worship, but as the vessel through which the divine message of our father was delivered via the direction and guidance of the holy spirit which we also have access to. He was fully guided by the Holy Spirit, and his mission was to awaken those around him to that same divine presence within themselves. The results of his teachings are real and replicable, available to anyone willing to walk the path he illuminated.
Source: Jesus Didn’t Ask for Worship - He Showed Us How to Awaken
No, seriously, do NOT.
Feeling dirty and grimy for extended periods of time is extremely draining on the mental well-being of humans. Psychological studies prove it is detrimental to our self-esteem and contentment. And no wonder; we are animals--homo sapiens, a kind of ape--that instinctively places high importance on personal grooming. Like monkeys and cats and birds in a zoo, one of the best ways to make us feel sad ... is to make us feel gross to ourselves.
So here's an easy saying from my therapist/zookeeper:
"If you feel like you hate the world, eat something.
If you feel like the world hates you, get some sleep.
If you feel like you hate yourself, take a shower.
You will probably feel much better."
Do all three at once to become the perfect life form
Women in Shakespeare
Also like to point out that when her mother says “I was your mother much upon these years that you are now a maid,” (translation: I had you when I was your age) you have to remember her father’s words: “earth hath swallowed all my hopes but she,” (translation: all the other children died.) The whole plot point of Juliet being an only child is explained by her mother being a Margaret Beaufort type who had her first child too young and it damaged her past the point of being able to bear more children.
Margaret Beaufort died in 1509. She was a major player in the Wars of the Roses, the swirling on-again-off-again civil wars that consumed England from 1455-1487. Romeo and Juliet was written and first performed in the early 1590s. Your average English person of Shakespeare’s day would probably have had at least a vague understanding of who she was and what happened to her, because she was a key figure in recent history and was still getting passed around as a cautionary tale.
There are two great problems with what happened to Margaret (and that her parents are trying to do to Juliet). One is easy for modern people to spot (but was also a common response back in her own day). And that’s the moral implications of what was done to her. She was too young to be married, and it was horrifying that she was forced into it so young. Every one of the adults around her either acted immorally or failed to protect her. They were wrong. This is what modern people see, and it’s important to remember that people back in her day mostly agreed with it. You’re supposed to think it’s fucked up! When girls were married that young (and it didn’t happen often!) it was a formality 99% of the time. It was for dynastic or financial reasons (the girl has lots of money and/or land and/or a title that her husband wants), but the “couple” don’t consummate their marriage for years. And it’s not just that they would have separate bedrooms. They might not even live in the same country until the girl was in her late teens and physically and mentally mature enough to bear and raise kids. Hell, a lot of times they didn’t even meet until the girl was older! They had this thing called “proxy marriage” where you would have two separate ceremonies, in two separate places, with each party saying their vows separately, one in one city and the other in a different one. So, yeah, sure, the girl was technically married at 12, but she didn’t actually meet her “husband” in person until she was 17 and they didn’t start sleeping together until she was 20. That was a thing they did.
The other problem, the one that modern people don’t notice, is dynastic. See, marriage wasn’t generally because you loved someone. It was because you had the resources to support a family, and you or your family wanted to pool those resources with someone. It’s about “our family has these resources, and we want that to continue.” It’s about continuity across generations. It’s about making sure that your children and grandchildren have the best possible resources to survive and thrive, whether those resources are land or a trade or a title or money or whatever. In order for this to work, you have to have kids! The family and the family’s resources depend on the married couple having children. If the couple doesn’t have children, the marriage is a failure. And that failure affects not only the couple, but both families. This is a really big problem. And you can’t have just one kid to pass on the family name, because half of all kids die in early childhood. If you want to be safe, you need several kids, to be sure at least one will survive to adulthood (when they can marry and pass on the family name and resources.
You know what happens when a girl has her first pregnancy too young? She is very likely to either die in childbirth, or have complications that destroy her future fertility. Just like Margaret Beaufort. Just like Juliet’s mother. In other words, the marriage is a failure, not just for her, but also for her family, and her husband (who can’t divorce her, it’s not allowed except in extremely rare circumstances), and her husband’s family. So even the people who didn’t have a moral problem with adult men having sex with pubescent girls had a practical problem with girls married too young because you are very likely to destroy the entire purpose of the marriage by doing it. As Shakespeare reminds us in the play through Juliet’s mother having been married too young and only having one child.
Shakespeare is telling us “yeah, this is fucked up. but even if you’re the kind of awful person who doesn’t think girls marrying too young is morally wrong, it’s also a problem for practical and dynastic reasons, don’t forget that by doing this wrong thing you are very likely to destroy what you most want out of it.”
Interesting
It bears repeating:
don’t forget that by doing this wrong thing you are very likely to destroy what you most want out of it.”
yes, excellent discussion!
another thing i noticed, the year my local community shakespeare theater did r&j, and i made the costumes so i got to watch the show every night: part of why capulet is telling paris, take your time, get to know each other, no rush, is that he still has his nephew tybalt as his heir. as long as tybalt is in the picture, there is no pressure on juliet to go further with paris, than get acquainted. once tybalt is killed, then suddenly capulet needs an heir, he needs a husband for juliet, now, this week. (the role of capulet is best given to the actor in the company that can do over the top apoplexy, you need to believe his urgency comes at least in part by how clearly he could drop dead any moment from giving himself a stroke)
i feel like this play is often taught in middle schools as if it was somehow relevant to, or about, teen hormone storms. really it's got more to do with the social structures around family and inheritance. leaving that context out makes it confusing, why is capulet suddenly flipping from nice dad to evil dad?
art history matters.
Imagine a bee rn in a hive muttering "the beekeeper is not real because he is not intervening or helping me at all with this disastrous relationship I have with another bee". now imagine that's you talking about the good lord. now imagine a dog with a propeller hat on
Filing this in my memory right next to this thread:
okay but if you ever see a male creative who had a string of great work and then everything else he did was dogshit, go to the "personal life" part of his wikipedia and look at his relationships. you'll either find a major tragedy he didn't recover from (completely understandable) or, more likely, there was a woman in his life doing uncredited shit editing his stuff or contributing generally and she's not there anymore.
I told a friend about this phenomenon in literature and he called me weeks later like, I remembered what you said about women doing uncredited work when tim burton came up. he made a string of bangers then everything else just was nowhere near as good. the timeline matches perfectly to when he was with this german visual artist (lena gieseke). he's done some good work in collaboration, but if things were dug into I suspect we would find she did a lot more than people realise.
so yeah whenever you look around like wow women didn't work in history, or, women aren't auteurs, or, there just aren't as many great female writers - societal reasons for that aside, half the time they absolutely did.
Hell yeah
Reblog to make it die faster
Like to charge, reblog to cast.