Was supposed to be a warmup but eh…

One of the things about Obi-Wan and Anakin that makes me the most insane is how much they touch each other when they’re fighting. When compared to other lightsaber duels, we see that it’s obviously not just a staple of Jedi fighting techniques. Like it’s not like we see Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon playing footsie with Darth Maul in TPM. Anakin and Dooku don’t stop to do a quick do-si-do when they fight. It’s a unique feature of Obi-Wan and Anakin’s fights to be so incredibly close to each other. In Mustafar, they’re constantly touching each other—grappling hand to hand in the beginning and then doing so over the lava, Anakin putting his hand around Obi-Wan’s neck and leaning over him. Other fights in the series are just not that intimate. In the Kenobi show, they literally hold hands in their penultimate duel while taking swings at each other. Even in The Clone Wars, Obi-Wan, posing as Rako Hardeen, takes Anakin down through hand-to-hand combat and then cutting off his air by locking his arm around his neck.

When they’re sparring in Anakin’s Padawan years, the interesting thing is they actually don’t touch as much as they do in their later fights when they’re on opposing sides. Instead, they’re constantly revolving around each other, dancing in close and then back again. They don’t get touchy with each other until everything between them, the resentment and tension and love with no discernible place to go, has snapped. Then and only then do they allow themselves to touch and pour out their feelings on each other with the violence. Something about that just makes me so insane.

So excited to share my piece for the @devilsminionrbb!! You can check out some amazing fics until the lights go down by @wormtitty and Be Mine Like That by @fandomfix8 ✨

Been so obsessed with the work that’s already been posted I love these two freaks so much 🩸

it's been dire out here ever since they found out how commercializable the enemies-to-lovers trope is. I am sick of characters who won't shut up about hating each other for petty and contrived reasons, I am sick of silly banters, I am sick of stories that are afraid to let the characters be actual enemies to the full extent without their differences being easily set aside due to the power of horniness. I need my enemies-to-lovers to be high stakes. I want the characters to have principles/ideologies that stand opposite to one another and have serious impact on both their personal narratives and the world they're part of. I want them to be dangerous to each other, to actually engage in external and internal conflict, to swing swords at each other with the intention to cause fatal harm. make this trope mean something again.

I feel like we don't talk enough about the abject horror of Takada's death. She was alone in a church, just stripped naked at gunpoint, probably believing Mello was going to rape her (it's not like he made it clear he wouldn't). Then she had to cut her arm open repeatedly to scrawl names in her own blood to appease her boyfriend, only to be forced to set herself aflame, leaving no traces of her corpse. Like I know she was a dictator's-left-hand serial killer but geez.

I think the asker of this question really doesn't get Jane Austen. I sincerely believe that one of Austen's main points is that the way women are judged as candidates for marriage is ridiculous and unlikely to bring happiness.

How realistic Pride and Prejudice really is? I mean, it's very well written, but I have a hard time taking the love part of the story seriously when I know that in real life, there would be 0.0000000000001% chance of a man of Darcy's calibre in that era proposing to a poor, average looking and unaccomplished young lady like Lizzy.

Let's pretend that does actually describe Elizabeth

Beauty? It failed Mr. Bennet

Wealth? What did that get Mrs. Bennet? She's hardly happy. Can you imagine what kind of marriage Mr. Darcy would have with Anne de Bourgh? Is there a snowball's chance in hell that he'd be happy and fulfilled in that relationship?

Accomplishments? You mean the thing that Caroline Bingley has? That any girl can acquire as long as you throw her in a prestigious enough school? Something that is wielded by most as a mere tool to secure a good marriage but rarely loved in it's own merit? What is that worth?

The value of Elizabeth Bennet is her intellectual compatibility with Mr. Darcy. The value of Fanny Price is her deep morality and sincere affection. The value of Anne Elliot is not her bloom that faded but her cultivated mind and her compassion. The value of Elinor Dashwood is her mental strength in the face of adversity. The value of Marianne Dashwood is her ability to love whole-hardheartedly. The value of Catherine Morland is her honesty, candour, and love. The value of Emma Woodhouse is not in her wealth but her determination to rectify her mistakes and her selfless care of her father.

Lady Middleton's pianoforte sits untouched since her accomplishments secured her a baronet; Willoughby finds wealth cannot fully compensate for the lack of love; and beauty is ephemeral. Those were never good criteria for securing lasting happiness and Jane Austen knew it and said it!

It ain't a good birthday without some angst, no?

Stop Treating Greek Mythology Like Just Another Fictional Franchise

I am honestly tired of seeing people lump Greek mythology into the same category as DC Comics, anime, or any other modern fictional universe. There’s this frustrating trend where people discuss figures like Odysseus or Achilles in the same breath as Batman or Goku, as if they’re just characters in a long-running franchise rather than deeply rooted cultural and literary icons from one of the most influential civilizations in history.

Yes, myths contain fantastical elements—gods turning into animals, heroes slaying monsters, mortals being punished or rewarded in ways that defy logic. But that does not mean Greek mythology is the same as a modern fantasy novel. These myths were part of an entire civilization’s identity. The ancient Greeks didn’t just tell these stories for entertainment; they used them to explain the world, explore human nature, justify traditions, and even shape their religious practices. The Odyssey isn’t just an adventurous tale about a guy struggling to get home—it’s a reflection of Greek values, an exploration of heroism, fate, and the gods' role in human life. When people treat it as nothing more than “fiction,” they erase the cultural weight it carried for the people who created it.

Greek mythology functioned in antiquity—these were their sacred stories, their way of making sense of the universe. And yet, people will still argue that the Odyssey is no different from a DC Elseworlds story, as if it was just an early attempt at serialized storytelling rather than a cornerstone of Western literature.

Part of the problem comes from how myths have been adapted in modern media. Hollywood and pop culture have turned Greek mythology into a shallow aesthetic, cherry-picking elements for the sake of spectacle while stripping away any historical or cultural depth. Movies like Clash of the Titans or games like God of War reimagine the myths in ways that make them feel like superhero stories—cool battles, flashy gods, exaggerated personalities. And while those adaptations can be fun, they’ve also contributed to this weird idea that Greek myths are just another IP (intellectual property) that anyone can rewrite however they want, without considering their original context.

This becomes especially frustrating when people defend radical reinterpretations of Greek mythology under the “it’s just fiction” excuse. No, Greek mythology is not just fiction! It’s cultural heritage. It’s part of history. It’s literature. It’s philosophy. If someone drastically rewrote a Shakespearean play and justified it by saying, “Well, it’s just an old story,” people would push back. If someone did the same to the Mahabharata or The Tale of Genji , there would be outrage. But when it happens to Greek myths? Suddenly, it’s “just fiction,” and any criticism is dismissed as overreacting.

I am not saying mythology should be untouchable. Reinterpretation and adaptation have always been a part of how these stories survive—Euripides retold myths differently from Homer, and Ovid gave his own spin on Greek legends in his Metamorphoses. The difference is that those ancient reinterpretations still respected the source material as cultural history, rather than treating it as some creative sandbox where anything goes. When people defend blatant inaccuracies in modern adaptations by saying, “It’s just a story, why does it matter?” they are ignoring the fact that these myths are a major link to an ancient civilization that shaped so much of what we call Western culture today.

super late for this but i finally watched this movie, book is up next! lmk if i should read it??

🏺🧥✅

greek amphora cardi

i hope my obsession with daniel and armand isn't too obvious

I need to keep these tags with this bc THIS is the correct take from this movie. I’m sick of people missing that it’s not about her being a “broken girl” crying at the end. It’s about power and the lack of it. It’s about the humiliation of being made to feel small in the face of those who have wealth.

bro, yes.

paint me a picture and make his mediocrity vivid.

seeing straight men be disgusted by booktok smut recommenders has actually radicalized me to the side of booktok smut recommenders. girls your taste may be atrocious but i will never disparage you for exposing mainstream discourse to the concept of soaking through your underwear. spent my whole life listening to men talk about penises it’s about time they get jumpscared by women talking about pussy in crude detail on social media. go forth and goon my warriors

I work at a bookstore and hearing one of my male coworkers call smutty romantasy "the downfall of society" because it's "literally just porn" radicalized me

Men have an entire industry. Entire industries dedicated to their sexualities. Let women have fantasy sex. there's not even a camera crew involved.

Left this in the notes