hey give birds antlers
But what if they get stuck in the trees
alright but they could also use it as camouflage and blend in with the tree
What if they landed on each other’s antlers
i keep presenting you with cursed concepts and you keep drawing them in friendly, pleasant ways, this is blasphemy
Imagine if you picked one up from its antlers, like some birb-on-a-stick
Birds with antlers you say? Have a class doodle
the ones on top are its babies
Here’s some art by Munwie on Deviantart:
Meanwhile, this is an obvious reason why Viking helmets didn’t have horns.
Going into battle wearing handlebars for the opponent to play with is a Bad Idea. That didn’t stop other cultures (Indo-Persian, Japanese) from doing so, but Vikings? NO.
The origin of the Nordic Horned Helmet is actually known: they first appeared in C.E. Doepler’s costume designs for Wagner’s “Ring Cycle” operas.
Incidentally, calling mail armour “chain-mail” first happened in the novel “The Fortunes of Nigel” by Sir Walter Scott.
Something similar has happened with the word “longsword”, which only came into general HEMA use for what had previously been “hand-and-a-half” or “bastard” swords about 20 years ago; even then the first time I saw it (in “Medieval Swordsmanship” © 1998 by John Clements) it was two words with a hyphen: “long-sword”.
As a single word it’s been part of the fantasy fiction arsenal since the mid-1970s, for example in C.J. Cherryh’s “Gate of Ivrel” © 1977, I used it in “The Horse Lord” © 1983, and I’m sure a search through very early D&D manual could place it even earlier.
Longsword is certainly a handier term than the alternatives, but IIRC even “hand-and-a-half sword” is no older than Victorian. In the Middle Ages a sword was usually just “a sword”; it was very inconsiderate of them not to think of later generations who might like to label things with a bit more exactitude…
Not all Munwie’s Deviantart birds are corvids, and not all are sinister…
…though you might have second thoughts about that if you know anything about the lifestyle of the European Robin.
They’re ferociously territorial, their usual song translates as “Get Off My Lawn Or I Will Kill You With Death”, and we’re grateful the two pairs in our garden are the size they are and not as big as e.g. tyrannosaur turkeys.
Which having written it is a mental image I really didn’t need…
LONGSWORDS ARE CALLED BASTARD SWORDS PASS IT ON
I really, really enjoy a post that starts out with a novel and amusing idea, gets some pretty artwork added on, takes a brief educational detour into the origin of various misnomers like horned viking helmets and a history of sword-related language, and then swings back around to the whimsical pretty art again. What a Good Post.
We’re experiencing an influx of spam comments—that is, comments advertising porn or consisting only of a random series of letters. If you notice comments like this on your works, please help us train our spam catcher by pressing the “Spam” button instead of “Delete.”
There’s also a follow up tweet explaining how to turn off comments on your fic if you’re receiving a lot of spam.
Tweets are from Aug. 28, 2020
The only version of a Princess Bride remake I would maybe kind of accept (aside from a Muppet version): the framing story is this extremely meta exploration of the fact that they’re remaking The Princess Bride.
Like, it’s a bunch of actors at the table read, and the main story would be the “movie footage” of those actors in the remade film, but the film would periodically cut back to those actors during the table read, who are skeptical of certain points, or fangirling over moments in the movie, or wondering how they could ever live up to the original version. Everyone has different opinions about the movie and the characters and the other actors and it’s about seven different levels of chaotic meta and character dynamics. For extra fun,these different opinions about the movie and the characters are reflected in the “movie footage”. Like, say, Buttercup’s actress objects to the fact that she’s less than useless during the fire swamp scene, so they play the scene with Buttercup walloping ROUSes with previously unseen martial arts skills. But then someone else objects to how stupid that is, and the next scene has her going back to exaggerated uselessness. Or one actor thinks Humperdinck should be played with mustache-twirling villainy, and another one thinks he should have complex layers of emotional turmoil, so the “footage” pingpongs randomly between those two interpretations.
And then you could add to the meta by having some of the original cast among the remake cast’s actors–like, they were brought in for nostalgia cameos, but then they have opinions about how the story is supposed to go and start coaching the remake actors. Which leads to things like, suddenly Cary Elwes is in black and “playing the part” of Westley for a scene or two in the “movie footage” with no acknowledgement of the change.
I’m just saying that, from the first publication of the original book, The Princess Bride has been all about the adaptation process. So if we have to have a remake, let’s live up to that legacy and make it a remake about remakes.
best take on anything I’ve seen all year
Fiction doesn’t manifest brand new experiences out of thin air, fiction doesn’t infect people with never before thought about evil ideas. When we say ‘fiction affects reality’ we’re coming at it like those things never existed before that we interacted with ficiton. Assault, murder, death, queer romance, kink, whatever, and all other commonly censored topics existed before fiction had the audacity to immortalize them.
Fiction amplifies reality. Jaws didn’t manifest a never before seen fear of sharks, it played on existing misconceptions and existing fears, and amplified them. The fear of sharks already existed. With or without Jaws we feared sharks, then a scary movie came out and those fears became amplified.
But amplification isn’t exclusively bad.
- Nabokov’s Lolita, aka the most famous pedophilic story of all time and heavily censored for being “pornographic”, amplified our understanding of pedophilia, the kinds of people who commit it (charming, well educated, attractive people), and brought that conversation from hushed rooms to national attention.
- Fifty Shades of Gray should have caused an uptick of relationship abuse and misuse of BDSM (and maybe it did), but it also caused a nationwide conversation on abuse, stalking, cult behavior, controlling relationships, and healthy BDSM.
- A lot of young girls first encountered female masturbation through Judy Blume’s Deenie (one of the ALA’s top 100 banned books of all time and a 40 year old woman writing about teen masturbation, a big tumblr no-no). Deenie’s impact was so important that it’s often cited as an invaluable validation for women and queer women who felt that their exploration was somehow immoral. There’s an entire book full of letters from readers to Blume about how important that book was to them.
Take a scroll through some ‘top banned books’ lists and count to yourself how many of them were banned for specifically exploring sexual content in a liberating way. Or how many were banned for questioning the system.
Every single censorship movement and every single banned book has an army of people insisting that “fiction [only negatively] affects reality”. Books like Perks of Being a Wallflower for daring to talk about child sexual assault by a woman and depiction of a gay teenager. Or Speak for exploring the sexual assault and suicide attempts of a teenage girl.
In reality, these books amplified reality and gave voices to the voiceless–those who felt purposefully stifled by society. Visually represented by this comic.
Tl;dr: Fiction doesn’t change reality, fiction takes what’s already there and has the possibility of amplifying it–and of course you can pretend “bad fiction” only has “bad results”, but you have to be willing to silence the silenced while you support the people who aim to make fiction 1950s idyllic, oppressive silence.
I remember being a young teen and watching The Famous Jett Jackson. There was an episode about Farenheit 451 being banned and the fight to be allowed to read it.
I also remember my church talking about how “that’s why it’s banned! It teaches rebellion! It teaches you to question authority!” I nodded along and assumed that those were bad things.
And then I read the book. I read it and I realised something.
The thing that that book taught me the most? Was to wonder WHY a book had been banned. Because once I read it I realized it wasn’t JUST about questioning authority, it was about questioning a system that enforces ignorance and conformity. Something that requires censorship to begin, control, and spread.
I’ve had moments in my life where I saw a piece of media and cringed. Where I was sick just knowing it exists. There are books and shows that I feel strongly against and have had passing thoughts about how they should be banned.
And then I remember reading Farenheit 451. And I remember to ask, “why do I want to ban it?” and “Who does banning this benefit and who does it harm?” as well as “If this is banned, what comes next? What else can be classified this way but is vital to society and the vulnerable people in it?”
Because fiction? Is an important exploration of humanity, good and bad. And it might amplify what’s already there in a bad way sometimes, but it also shines a light on the dark places that we can actually do something about. And if you take away that light, it doesn’t make the bad things go away, it just makes bad people able to hide in the dark.
There are any number of “objectionable” works that have changed society for the better. And we always need to ask ourselves, “is it banning this book I don’t like worth risking preventing someone else taking future generations to a better place because of it?” We don’t get to decide which piece of fiction does that because that isn’t how it works.
Thank you so much, I could not, for the life of me, find the original source.
(Just so you know, that’s a US thing. Never heard of that anywhere else in western countries, except for Germany banning Nazi literature.)
Banned literature happens everywhere in the world. The UK bans things on the basis of violence not sexual things, usually. There are hosts of things that ere banned or heavily doctored to be released in Europe. Just because it doesn’t look the same in Europe, doesn’t mean it’s non-existent.
Hope you don’t mind if I add local perspective. Lady Chatterly’s Lover is the most famous example of a book banned in the UK- for obscenity reasons- that comes to mind right now. It was banned 1928-1960ish. Lord Horror was apparently the last book banned in the UK- again, for obscenity- in 1991. And since it was mentioned, Lolita was banned for a while, too.
We aren’t clean of wanting to keep the “sexy” books off the shelf, I’m afraid.
Also I would like to point out that the government doesn’t ban books in America, most banned or “challenged” books go through the outlet of local libraries and schools in conservative areas or, most often, in individual English classes.
That’s why banned books come up a lot more in America than other countries. America doesn’t change or censor books top down, books get banned in a school by school county by county, bottom up type of way.
Yes, banning books is very American, but it’s only because the federal government doesn’t regulate Karen in Watanooga County, Wyoming screaming her head off at the local English teacher for daring to study a book with a single black person in it.
The more I see comparison gifs like these, the more I think - you don’t carve out the person and leave the skills - that is not what they did at all. They kept everything of the person (even gave him some more skills) and took the memories. What you have left is a being who is a hunter, who is a killer, who is loyal, who is protective, who is sassy and talks back, etc, and who is up for grabs. Without the memories to inform WHO to protect, WHO to be loyal to, WHO (and what) it is worth killing for, they can manipulate the character traits into being protective of them, of being loyal to them, of killing for them.
In some respects, that may be even worse, when he regains his memories. Because everything he did as Winter Soldier is still him. He can not look at those events and say - that was not me - because it was. He was not a robot acting on programming - he was him, acting on false information.
WHO TOLD YOU THAT THIS WAS OKAY
Isn’t this rather out of character?
No. No it’s not. Because of this:
Do you see that?^
Because the rivalry wasn’t always there.
Because she was little once.
Because there was a time when she wasn’t a strategic genius and a firebending prodigy.
Because he didn’t always have to live under her shadow just ‘cause their scumbag of a father said so.
Because once they were just kids.
So no, dear, it’s not out of character. Not at all.
This is why I always, always appreciate how their final agni kai was framed. It wasn’t a big hero moment for Zuko, it wasn’t an action spectacular.
It was a tragedy.
The sins of the parents–and Ursa is not blameless in this–played out in their children. So much damage done.
In another time, with a different upbringing, they could’ve been like Sokka and Katara.
I saw this and was weak. I reblog.
not to imply disney has any creative value but wheres the muppet avengers movie. just like a watchable avengers
and before you ask yes kermit is bruce banner in this scenario
loki is still loki and kermit beats the shit out of him
does him hulking out involve him turning into Animal?
no the only visible change kermit goes through is that he sticks angry felt eyebrows over his eyes
that first bottle dead ass looks like it’s gonna make you shoot crows out of your hands
the first bottle was also full of liquidized cocaine
So it will make me feel like I can shoot crows out of my hands
Would you be interested in buying a coloring book with my arts? (I don’t intend to publish anything now, I’m just asking out of curiosity)
Você teria interesse em comprar um livro de colorir com minhas artes? (não pretendo publicar nada agora, é só uma pergunta de curiosidade)
1 - Yes / Sim
2 - No / Não
3 - Maybe / Talvez
american accented dinner guest: mm, oh my god. that was incredible
stereotypical swedish accented host 1: oh, stop it, you’re too kind
guest: the mushrooms. de-licious
host 1: actually, we picked them ourselves.
guest: oh really?
host 1: yeah, yeah
the music falls silent as do the people. a person chokes on their drink. everyone but the guest stare blankly into their food.
guest: i’m sorry did I say something inappropriate?
host 1: oh no, it’s nothing, it’s nothing
host 2: don’t worry about it, yeah, don’t worry
guest: ah okay, thank god, yeah no i was just wondering where you picked the mushrooms
the party falls silent again
host 2: han var jävligt nyfiken, var han [somebody’s being fucking nosy]
guest: i don’t understand, what’s going on? have i said something inappropriate? i’m just wondering if you have a “spot” like where you pick your mushrooms, like your “mushroom spot”?
host 1, throws utensils down, raises voice and stands up: okay now you’re crossing the line, now you have- nu får du- i have to ask you to leave, please
guest: guys, i–
Why is it inappropriate?
good mushroom spots are so few and far between. if too many people know of it, someone else will get to it before you do! finding a good spot is kept as a secret within a family so that you can ensure you manage to get some tasty chantarelles during mushroom season :) ASKING for someone’s spots is a social faux pas because you’re asking them to give up their mushrooms for you. lots of people in sweden take mushroom season really seriously!!!
I did not know that
i cant believe its real life fae rules
From this article:
Cutting off the letter is also bad form clickbait people, but I’ll get it placed in proper order as it goes
People I like can be divided into two groups: a) those who enjoy and get Charles M. Schulz’s wonderful Peanuts comic strip; b) those fools who don’t. All of human life is in the artist and writer’s 17,897 comic strips.
In 1968 Schulz noticed the Civil Rights movement, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., and read a letter from Los Angeles schoolteacher Harriet Glickman. She had a question for Schulz: would he include a black child in the Peanuts gang?
To which Schultz responded with the letter above, in what reads like an incredibly respectful and progressive manner.
He isn’t black and doesn’t want to offend the black community by doing them wrong in his portrayal, that would even work today as a reason.
Mrs. Glickman responded:Dear Mr. Schulz,I appreciate your taking the time to answer my letter about Negro children in Peanuts.You present an interesting dilemma. I would like your permission to use your letter to show some Negro friends. Their responses as parents may prove useful to you in your thinking on this subject.Sincerely,Harriet Glickman
True to her word, Mrs Glickman showed the letter to others. Kenneth C. Kelly, one of Mrs. Glickman’s ‘Negro friends’, saw the missive and wrote to the artist:
Dear Mr. Schulz:With regards to your correspondence with Mrs. Glickman on the subject of including Negro kids in the fabric of Peanuts, I’d like to express an opinion as a Negro father of two young boys. You mention a fear of being patronizing. Though I doubt that any Negro would view your efforts that way, I’d like to suggest that an accusation of being patronizing would be a small price to pay for the positive results that would accrue!We have a situation in America in which racial enmity is constantly portrayed. The inclusion of a Negro supernumerary in some of the group scenes in Peanuts would do two important things. Firstly, it would ease my problem of having my kids seeing themselves pictured in the overall American scene. Secondly, it would suggest racial amity in a casual day-to-day sense.I deliberately suggest a supernumerary role for a Negro character. The inclusion of a Negro in your occasional group scenes would quietly and unobtrusively set the stage for a principal character at a later date, should the basis for such a principal develop.We have too long used Negro supernumeraries in such unhappy situations as a movie prison scene, while excluding Negro supernumeraries in quiet and normal scenes of people just living, loving, worrying, entering a hotel, the lobby of an office building, a downtown New York City street scene. There are insidious negative effects in these practices of the movie industry, TV industry, magazine publishing, and syndicated cartoons.Sincerely,KCK
Schulz sent Mrs. Glickman a personal note:
Franklin was in the gang.
Opening bit till it gets to the letters is mine, most of the rest comes from this article
Excuse me is this shitty clickbait ad trying to sully the good name of Charles Schulz
When Charles Schultz listened to the opinion of a person of color and put Franklin in his comic strip as good representation and somebody still wants to try to cancel him anyway.Schulz recounted some further negative reactions in an interview with Michael Barrier in 1988. Schulz said, “I finally put Franklin in, and there was one strip where Charlie Brown and Franklin had been playing on the beach, and Franklin said, ‘Well, it’s been nice being with you, come on over to my house some time.’ Again, they didn’t like that.” Schulz also recalled a discussion with Larry Rutman, who at the time ran King Features Syndicate (which distributed Peanuts to newspapers). Schulz said, “I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin—he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, “Well, Larry, let’s put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How’s that?”
Vampire Ben, looking positively feral, eyes monstrous with the intensity of his hunger and desire, fangs on display, his lower face smeared with blood.
He’d finally abandoned her neck. She had no idea when he’d set her down on the bed, but he had: he held his weight on his forearms, the mattress dipping near her ears. She’d stopped clinging to him; her arms were flopped in an undignified sprawl above her head. Wiggling her fingers, she realized she’d unconsciously reached for the rungs of the headboard.
“Rey,” he nudged again, but she was speechless because his mouth.
Red. Not pink, not a smudge that disappeared between one blink and the next. It was a dark, deep color that reminded her of wine. His chin, his nose, even the smoothness of his cheeks—all of it was stained.
With your blood, her mind helpfully supplied. That’s your blood.
A fat bead of it lingered at the corner of his lips. Dazed, she watched as he tongued it away.
“Uh,” she said intelligently.
“You said you need.”
from “9 Pints” by tigbit
Ok. So. I haven’t been coherent enough to leave a comment on this fic yet, but this image grabbed me and wouldn’t let go. I spent the afternoon making this, which I guess is kind of like a comment? A bit? I promise, I’ll go leave words, now that I’ve gotten the image out of my head and onto a page.
This is based on a portrait study I did earlier this year, in case it looks familiar. You know, under all the blood.
cursed biology cows? 🐄
all domestic cattle are all descended from the Aurochs, an enormous ice-age megafauna bovid that ranged from Europe to Asia to North Africa!
Aurochs were actually domesticated at LEAST twice in different areas more than 10,000 years ago, which is why Indian Zebu-type cattle look so different from European cattle!
they share a common ancestor but different roots.
more importantly though, it means that at least two separate groups of neolithic humans looked at a six-foot-tall jet black bovine rage machine and thought “gonna make friends with that”, and then they did it. those wild sons of bitches, they did it.
I’m a relatively old Star Wars fan (43) but I was only a year old when Star Wars: A New Hope came out. Though I did see it in the theaters … or slept through it. Anyway, this means that the first Star Wars film I got to see in the theaters and remember was Return of the Jedi. I was almost 7 at the time and absolutely adored it.
It wasn’t until I got older that I found out a segment of fandom had really disliked it. I’ve tried to put myself in their shoes, but I thought it was so perfect that I was never able to (except for the gold bikini and I’m pretty sure that same segment was just fine with that sartorial choice).
Now, here I sit, absolutely loathing the third installment of the sequel trilogy and I keep wondering if it’s just my perspective. Did I just miss that Star Wars was a soulless man fantasy of pew pew pew all this time? Have I been hoodwinked by Marcia Lucas’s deft editing?
And then I realized that The Rise of Skywalker has done something I never imagined possible for me. It has redeemed the prequels. Because even though they were … not good, they were thematically consistent. They could be remade with the same story and it would work.
There does not exist any universe where TRoS could be remade and work without HUGE changes. It’s just a fundamentally bad film, a fundamentally bad story, regardless of doing Ben Solo/Kylo Ren so damned dirty. It’s … it’s just … bad.
I could have handled Ben’s death if the film had been good. If it had been an epic tragic romance for the ages, or even just him facing his abusers and vanquishing them. But it wasn’t. And it showed its ass when it comes to feminism. I’m sure they still don’t get why we’re so mad. “But she was a Strong Female Character TM!”
Demand that women be 50% of the writing room and 50% of the characters. Just like in real life. We’re here and they really don’t want us to just fuck off to an island and ignore them.
And apparently we write men better, too.