— Catherynne M. Valente, In the Night Garden

(Source: durendals)

Reblogged from rinburevolution
21
Sep
To fight monsters, we created monsters of our own.

Pacific Rim, 2013


One of the greatest things about this quote (and this movie) is that it had all the potential in the world to spread the dark and terrible (and often truthful) idea that in order to fight the darkness, one must absorb some of that darkness. It was very prominent in The Dark Knight trilogy, especially as articulated by Harvey Dent: “You die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” 

Pacific Rim doesn’t do this. Mankind bands together for a true world war. There are already enough monsters coming for them; they do not need to become monstrous themselves. The monsters they create are not beasts but guards and armor to protect, not universally destroy. The jaegers rarely deliberately destroy massive structures (remember Gipsy Danger carefully stepping over a large walkway and nimbly navigating between buildings during the fight in Hong Kong). The pilots in the jaegers are very human and imperfect but are still heroes. They may have created monsters, but they did not become them.

Everyone and their mother has lauded this, but it bears repeating: in Pacific Rim, mankind’s power is not in its capacity for destruction or power or control or harnessing its deepest instincts but instead in its humanity—its ability to rebuild, to persevere, to empathize and to understand. 

(via mymarysunshine)

Reblogged from seananmcguire
21
Sep
I’m really tired of people using and misusing the terms “PC,” “PC police,” and “political correctness.” If you think that saying abusing your wife or child is bad is turning the NFL “PC” or telling an artist not to draw women with their ass in the air on a book you’re trying to sell to women is playing the “PC police” or that the world would be a better place if only whine whine we didn’t have to deal with so much “political correctness” in entertainment then you’re either a dinosaur or a bigot. The term political correctness is used by people who have primarily been considered “standard” (as in white, male, straight, etc etc) to complain that they have to consider the viewpoints of people who aren’t like them. I’m not saying you have to agree with inclusiveness if you really want to stamp your feet over people being equal to one another as human beings, but you don’t get to run the show anymore. You don’t get to refer to the words “transgender” and “cisgender” as being PC or to women asking not to be shown as objects as PC or to people saying that Redskins is a racist team name as PC. These things are all matters of treating people who aren’t straight white dudes like they are just as important as those straight white dudes. It’s not “politically correct.” It’s just correct. Using a term like “PC” just puts a spotlight on you as an intolerant crybaby.
Your voice has been the only voice that matters for so long that it’s frustrating to hear that it’s not the only one that matters anymore, I know. Learn to be a human who has to listen to others.
Reblogged from obscuruslupa
19
Sep
When people say ‘This is my baby,’ they don’t always mean a baby. Sometimes they mean a dog.
A Somali student, on what has surprised her most about the United States (via 391705)

(Source: africandogontheprairie)

Reblogged from cyclopette
16
Sep
Everyone thinks of [fairy tales] in terms of poisoned apples and glass coffins, and forgets that they represent girls who walked into dark forests and remade them into their own reflections.
Reblogged from seananmcguire
16
Sep

"It’s a really rich period in history, where this giant opposition we had going for 10 years with the Nazis is gone, and we’re not completely positive what the rules are anymore," Markus said. "Who gets the scientists? Who gets the secrets? It’s all on the table. Everyone developed these skills in World War II. People became spies, people became murderers. And suddenly the war was over, and they came back, and it’s like, ‘Wow, I know how to do some shit. Now, what do I do with this?’ It’s nice to play with that assortment of characters. An office, basically full of people who just came back from the war. There’s no telling what any of them experienced last year."

"We have a tendency to think of history as this fixed thing," McFeely added. “‘Oh, that’s right. Good guys won, 1945. Then it was the ’50s.’ It’s just not the case. Everything was up for grabs for quite a while, and murky. We didn’t know we really won."

Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely on Agent Carter [x] (via omnicat)
Reblogged from asofterbucky
16
Sep

(Source: cindymayweather)

Reblogged from lackofa
15
Sep
I would much rather be the ‘obnoxious feminist girl’ than be complicit in my own dehumanization.
Kathleen Hanna (via camewiththeframe)
Reblogged from seananmcguire
14
Sep
And the old women told them about how a girl would come and she would be a magic girl, she would twist the world we think we know and knot it into a bow, she would stop time and peer into your heart, she would take on your troubles—and yours, and yours—and they would pass through her and into the earth. The old women told them about how the girl would eat salt to stay pure and unharmed, to keep her magic sharp and crystal, and about how you would know the girl as a baby who craved salt, who ate it like sugar, enough to poison a normal child to death.
Michelle Tea, Mermaid in Chelsea Creek (via witchkisser)
Reblogged from valvala
14
Sep
I want to do a rom-com with Melissa McCarthy. I even told her that at an awards show, and she said ‘Yes, Let’s do it!’

Idris Elba, on his dream role, to US Weekly (via camewiththeframe)

omg i’m actually shaking with excitement just at the idea

(via curliestofcrowns)

Reblogged from cyclopette
13
Sep

Okay, okay, I’m going to tell you what Hermione sees in Ron.

A trio is a balancing act, right? They’re equalizers of each other. Harry’s like the action, Hermione’s the brains, Ron’s the heart. Hermione has been assassinated in these movies, and I mean that genuinely—by giving her every single positive character trait that Ron has, they have assassinated her character in the movies. She’s been harmed by being made to be less human, because everything good Ron has, she’s been given.

So, for instance: “If you want to kill Harry, you’re going to have to kill me too”—RON, leg is broken, he’s in pain, gets up and stands in front of Harry and says this. Who gets that line in the movie? Hermione.

“Fear of a name increases the fear of the thing itself.” Hermione doesn’t say Voldemort’s name until well into the books—that’s Dumbledore’s line. When does Hermione say it in the movies? Beginning of Movie 2.

When the Devil’s Snare is curling itself around everybody, Hermione panics, and Ron is the one who keeps his head and says “Are you a witch or not?” In the movie, everybody else panics and Hermione keeps her head and does the biggest, brightest flare of sunlight spell there ever was.

So, Hermione—all her flaws were shaved away in the films. And that sounds like you’re making a kick-ass, amazing character, and what you’re doing is dehumanizing her. And it pisses me off. It really does.

In the books, they balance each other out, because where Hermione gets frazzled and maybe her rationality overtakes some of her instinct, Ron has that to back it up; Ron has a kind of emotional grounding that can keep Hermione’s hyper-rationalness in check. Sometimes Hermione’s super-logical nature grates Harry and bothers him, and isn’t the thing he needs even if it’s the right thing, like when she says “You have a saving people thing.” That is the thing that Harry needed to hear, she’s a hundred percent right, but the way she does it is wrong. That’s the classic “she’s super logical, she’s super brilliant, but she doesn’t know how to handle people emotionally,” at least Harry.

So in the books they are this balanced group, and in the movies, in the movies—hell, not even Harry is good enough for Hermione in the movies. No one’s good enough for Hermione in the movies—God isn’t good enough for Hermione in the movies! Hermione is everybody’s everything in the movies.

Harry’s idea to jump on the dragon in the books, who gets it in the movies? Hermione, who hates to fly. Hermione, who overcomes her withering fear of flying to take over Harry’s big idea to get out of the—like, why does Hermione get all these moments?

[John: Because we need to market the movie to girls.]

I think girls like the books, period. And like the Hermione in the books, and like the Hermione in the books just fine before Hollywood made her idealized and perfect. And if they would have trusted that, they would have been just fine.

Would the movies have been bad if she was as awesome as she was in the books, and as human as she was in the books? Would the movies get worse?

She IS a strong girl character. This is the thing that pisses me off. They are equating “strong” with superhuman. To me, the Hermione in the book is twelve times stronger than the completely unreachable ideal of Hermione in the movies. Give me the Hermione in the book who’s human and has flaws any single day of the week.

Here’s a classic example: When Snape in the first book yells at Hermione for being an insufferable know-it-all, do you want to know what Ron says in the book? “Well, you’re asking the questions, and she has to answer. Why ask if you don’t want to be told?” What does he say in the movie? “He’s got a point, you know.” Ron? Would never do that. Would NEVER do that, even before he liked Hermione. Ron would never do that.

Melissa Anelli THROWS IT DOWN about the way Ron and Hermione have been adapted in the movies on the latest episode of PotterCast. Listen here. This glorious rant starts at about 49:00. (via cyclopette)

(Source: karakamos)

Reblogged from cyclopette
12
Sep
…the older I get, the more I see how women are described as having gone mad, when what they’ve actually become is knowledgeable and powerful and fucking furious.
Reblogged from seananmcguire
11
Sep
sometimes being a friend means mastering the art of timing. there is a time for silence. a time to let go and allow people to hurl themselves into their own destiny. and a time to prepare to pick up the pieces when it’s all over
octavia butler (via inquilabipoet)
Reblogged from mooncalfe
10
Sep

When Van Gogh was a young man in his early twenties, he was in London studying to be a clergyman. He had no thought of being an artist at all. he sat in his cheap little room writing a letter to his younger brother in Holland, whom he loved very much. He looked out his window at a watery twilight, a thin lamppost, a star, and he said in his letter something like this: “it is so beautiful I must show you how it looks.” And then on his cheap ruled note paper, he made the most beautiful, tender, little drawing of it.

When I read this letter of Van Gogh’s it comforted me very much and seemed to throw a clear light on the whole road of Art. Before, I thought that to produce a work of painting or literature, you scowled and thought long and ponderously and weighed everything solemnly and learned everything that all artists had ever done aforetime, and what their influences and schools were, and you were extremely careful about *design* and *balance* and getting *interesting planes* into your painting, and avoided, with the most astringent severity, showing the faintest *academical* tendency, and were strictly modern. And so on and so on.

But the moment I read Van Gogh’s letter I knew what art was, and the creative impulse. It is a feeling of love and enthusiasm for something, and in a direct, simple, passionate and true way, you try to show this beauty in things to others, by drawing it.

And Van Gogh’s little drawing on the cheap note paper was a work of art because he loved the sky and the frail lamppost against it so seriously that he made the drawing with the most exquisite conscientiousness and care.

Brenda UelandIf You Want to Write: A Book about Art, Independence and Spirit (via raggedybearcat)

(Source: nyctaeus)

Reblogged from seananmcguire
10
Sep

thesnicketfile:

"I finally understood that great works don’t begin as great works. They begin as rough ideas. I realized that creation is a process. I thought if I can understand the first step I can learn the next step. I was fully aware that I had much to learn, but I was confident that I could learn it.

Here’s a rough sketch of my own. This is the sketch that later became the cover for The Bad Beginning

Brett Helquist

Reblogged from thesnicketfile
8
Sep