The Boston Symphony was performing Beethoven’s Ninth. In the piece, there’s a long passage about 20 minutes during which the double basses have nothing to do. Rather than sit around the whole time looking stupid, some bassists decided to sneak offstage and go to the tavern next door for a quick one. After slamming several beers in quick succession (as double bassists are prone to do), one of them looked at his watch. “Hey! We need to get back!”
"No need to panic," said a fellow bassist.
"I thought we might need some extra time, so I tied the last few pages of the conductor’s score together with string. It’ll take him a few minutes to get it untangled."
A few moments later they staggered back to the concert hall and took their places in the orchestra. About this time, a member of the audience noticed the conductor seemed a bit edgy and said as much to her companion.
"Well, of course," said her companion. "Don’t you see?
It’s the bottom of the Ninth, the score is tied, and the bassists are loaded.”
… “You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could’ve called Fawkes to you.” That’s the very first thing Dumbledore thanks and praises Harry for. Not for rescuing Ginny, or saving the school from the basilisk, or for keeping Voldemort from coming back, but for loyalty.
Dumbledore judges the people he works with based first and foremost on how loyal they are to him. Not because he thinks he’s all that, but because, as I said, he views people as game pieces, and you can’t have your game pieces acting up, can you? He values his pieces. He wants to advance and protect them. But he doesn’t want them running off beyond his sphere of influence and doing their own thing. I think there’s something very ambiguous about Dumbledore’s habit of seeking out desperate, socially outcast people and doing them one or two huge favors that leave them bound to him for life. Remus, Hagrid and Snape all fit that pattern, and Trelawney and Firenze appear to join the ranks in OOP. It kind of makes me wonder what Dumbledore has done for Fletcher, Moody and Shacklebolt.
…The problem with Sirius is, he’s not loyal to Dumbledore at all; he’s loyal to Harry. From Dumbledore’s point of view, it’s as if he’s playing wizard chess, and one of the knights suddenly decides that he doesn’t care what happens to the king, he’s just going to take care of that little pawn on the left. So Dumbledore does the only thing he thinks he can do — he sticks his recalcitrant knight into a safe, isolated corner of the board and keeps him from making any moves. Perfectly sensible and strategically sound, as long as you don’t expect your game pieces to have any pesky emotions or psychological issue that need to be taken into account.
…Dumbledore’s actions at Hogwarts are another symptom of his general approach. He doesn’t treat it just as a school, but also as an instrument in his strategy. People like Snape, Hagrid and Trelawny — all lousy teachers, in very different ways — are given their jobs as perks, because of their past of future usefulness to the Order, and because it strengthens their bonds of loyalty to Dumbledore.
OTOH, look at Lupin, who is a talented teacher. Why wasn’t he hired before Harry’s third year, especially given the difficulty of finding qualified DADA professors? My theory is that Dumbledore didn’t consider it necessary. As far as he knew, Lupin was already totally loyal simply because Dumbledore had allowed him to attend Hogwarts. There was no need to bribe him with a job. He was hired only when his familiarity with Sirius became an important factor. Once Sirius proved not to be a threat, Lupin was allowed to resign…
if you don’t think mushrooms are the coolest shit then just get out of my face.
what happened in roughly 1870 though
why was there temporary internet
with a few people searching for pokemon?
It’s a search of Google books, but the question still stands, what the Fuck happened in 1870
I CAN ANSWER THIS!!
In the Cornish dialect of English, Pokemon meant ‘clumsy’ (pure coincidence).
In the mid 1800s there was a surge of writing about the Cornish language and dialect in an attempt to preserve them with glossaries and dictionaries being written. I wrote about it HERE.
I just love that this post happened to find the ONE HUMAN ON THE INTERNET who had the answer to this question
"Fuck You, Old People" — Group Piece at CUPSI 2014
"By the way, you can’t actually pick yourself up by your own bootstraps. That’s now how physics works."
this gives me life….
"Act your fucking age" god damn, this has a good message here.
39 seconds in and I reblogged it
“L’Àngel exterminador”, Josep Llimona i Bruguera; Cemetery of Comillas, Spain. (x)
SINCE there is talk of french in the air, these are the pronouns i like to use as a french version of my pronouns!!
- os (as in elle n’est pas comfortable dans la siege = os n’est pas comfortable dans la siege)
- lo (elle est la plus gentil = os est lo plus gentil)
- sol (lequelle a vu ton soeur?? elle? lui? eux? sol? WAIT I EXPLAIN IT WELL HERE)
- se and leur stays the same
- cel/cels (qui porte jaune? celle, avec la radio. = qui porte jaune? cel avec la radio)
- end things with “il” (elle est courageuse = os est courageuil)
There used to be a rule in fandom: don’t cross the streams. Meaning, don’t show the actors the fanfic, and ESPECIALLY don’t show them the RPF. The actors’ job is to create the characters; their job is not to acknowledge/endorse the fans’ fantasies about those characters, sexual or otherwise. I have as many thoughts about Peter Capaldi’s/Benedict Cumberbatch’s/Jeremy Brett’s/… hands as the next seven fans, but there’s a difference between bonding with other people over bone structure and making personal comments to a guy who doesn’t know me from Eve.
If I walked up to an unknown woman on the streetcorner and said “Wow, I really love your hands”, she’d be freaked out. If I told her how sexy she was, she’d be creeped out. It is yucky when sexuality comes uninvited into your space. If you do it to somebody who isn’t famous, it’s harassment.
It is still harassment when you do it to somebody famous.
In the particular case of Peter Capaldi, the issue of his attractiveness was raised in a Sydney Morning Herald interview, and he recoiled.
"But Capaldi has his own sex appeal. This idea makes him laugh, even feel a little embarrassed.
"Well, with Doctor Who, it’s a magical part," he says. "If people decide that because I’m Doctor Who … I think it’s the part that makes you … if people think I’m … well, let’s put it this way: I’ve never been asked to take my shirt off in my entire career. I’m not really a leading man in that sort of way. A romantic lead. I’ve never been in heart-throb territory. So I think it’s the Doctor they might find attractive."
But people felt Malcolm Tucker had fetching qualities. “Well, it’s very nice of them. I’m very complimented. It’s very sweet of them to feel that way but, well, I’m married.”
(italics mine) That is not a man who wants to know what lusty thoughts are being projected on to him. That is a man who prefers not to think about people being attracted to him, and wants them to know that he’s not available.
I’m going to keep thinking, and occasionally writing, about Malcolm Tucker and Randall Brown and the Nth Doctor. But I won’t cross the streams, and if you take my advice, you won’t either.
Wow, OK, I had kind of conceptualized that Joss Whedon post along the lines of “here are some random thoughts that I’m gonna store behind a cut in case a few people are interested,” not expecting so many people to reblog it. But since there was so much interest, I ended up thinking about it more. And the direction my thinking took me in was this: what is it that women find attractive in male and female characters, and to what extent does this match up with what men assume that women find attractive in these characters?