thecoffeetragedy:

but literally every time I read a description of Feuilly that goes along the line of ‘has big strong muscles because he’s a worker and working makes you buff’, I think of like. all those skinny kids working at Starbucks getting big strong muscles from operating the espresso machines. The cashiers at the grocery stores and their big strong muscles from putting food in bags. The people working in clothing stores and their big strong muscles from folding clothes and giving customers thumbs-up on their outfits. Me, getting big strong muscles from typing all day. even in canon era – painting tiny little fans, what a show of brute strenght.

Ahh, working, always such great muscle-building work-out.

Advertisements

take-five-take-a-walk-outside:

you see what people just don’t understand is that writing’s demanding it’s mentally challenging and it’s a bore it’s such a chore to sit in a room by yourself oh my god i just hate it and you’re trying to find an opening line or a brillinat idea and you’re pacing the floor and hoping for just a bit of divine intervention that one little nugget that one little spark then Eureka! you’re ready to start so now you can write right? wrong you’re not even close you remember that damnit your play’s gotta be in iambic pentameter so now you write down a word but it’s not the right word so you try a new word but you hate the new word and you need a good word but you can’t find the word where is it what is it what is it where is it 

sonnywortzik:

#this sort of thing is legitimately better than the standard ‘finishing each other’s sentences’  #or just saying it at the same time  #the whole just not speaking words like humans  #just sort of random sentence fragments bc the drift compatibility is doing all the heavy lifting  #[WORDS WITHOUT CONTEXT]  #[OTHER RANDOM WORDS]  #[danny and rusty turn and act as one]  #everyone else: what just happened.  #I live for this sort of dialogue character building malarkey

bootsssss:

Boots’ modern AU headcanon time:

This headcanon started its
life as simply, “How much more meaningful would the gift of the two
candlesticks be if Myriel was a rabbi rather than a bishop?”  (To
celebrate Shabbat, one lights two candles.)  As I developed this
concept more, it evolved into an entire fix-it AU.  Speaking only for
myself, for me the most life-changing distinction between my experience
of Christianity (ok, Catholicism) and
my experience of

Judaism is this:  my experience with Catholicism often glorified
martyrdom and suffering, whereas Jewish culture celebrates surviving and
experiencing life.  I think this distinction would make a world of
difference in the way Valjean responds to many of the situations in his
life; that he would not be so needlessly self-sacrificing and would
instead let himself enjoy happiness when it comes to him.  He would live
out his life in joy and peace with Fantine (who survives in this AU),
Cosette, and Marius.  And every Shabbat, he would light the candles and
remember this warm, kind, and loving man who changed his life.

beardednegro:

Previously, I’d only seen the first two panels and assumed it was the complete comic.

This version is much better.


ADDENDUM: As this approaches 100,000 notes as of this writing (less than three days after it was first posted), there are a couple of things that need to be added, and I prefer to add them to the original post, rather than to a reblog.

FIRST… there are a number of reblogs and replies–mostly from white males who see their precious capitalism threatened–that ignore the point of the comic and go after the fact that the people pictured didn’t pay for a ticket to get into the stadium.

If you need to see the point without the barrier (hah) of this particular comic, imagine this scenario instead. The scene is the maternity ward of a hospital. A joyful father is looking into the nursery window to see his newborn daughter…

  • First panel (equality): The father’s older child–a son–is standing next to him, wanting to see his new little sister. The boy is too short and can’t see into the window, but he and Dad are on equal footing. This is “equality.”
  • Second panel (equity): Dad picks the kid up so he be at an equal height and peer into the window at his sister. This is equity.
  • Third panel (removal of the systemic barrier): Instead of a window, the entire wall is made of transparent glass. The nurse brings the newborn over to show dad, and then squats down to show little brother as well.

Better? Everyone complaining about them watching the game “illegally” can now shut the fuck up.

SECOND… there have been a couple of inquiries about the source. Turns out, the original was indeed the first two panels only. It was an MS Paint image thrown
together by a business professor named Craig Froehle to illustrate the difference between
equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. The three-panel version featuring the removal of the barrier is one of many adaptations.

For the somewhat fascinating story behind the original and how it came to be adapted in myriad ways, see https://medium.com/@CRA1G/the-evolution-of-an-accidental-meme-ddc4e139e0e4

That’s it!

belinsky:

‘staring into the camera like you’re on the office’ is such an interesting cultural phenomenon because it points to one of my very favorite things in pop culture, which is the use of commonly known fictional situations to indicate an emotion or context that is extremely specific and can’t necessarily be communicated with language alone.

why do characters on the office look into the camera?  on the office, the characters are being filmed as part of a documentary; they understand they are being filmed and can acknowledge that fourth wall and those theoretical future viewers.  but because the office is a comedy, that fourth wall acknowledgement is not about explaining motivations or gaining approval for an action, but about sharing an agreement with a group of people who are not actually there.  

characters on the office look into the camera when something ridiculous is happening that no one in the room thinks is ridiculous but the person looking at the camera, were they to say ‘this is so ridiculous’ to the people in the room, their comrades in fiction, they would get serious pushback or anger; to those characters the situation is serious.  the character looking into the camera is a more objective viewer, like the audience, and by looking at us they’re putting themselves on our objective team.  and in the future when this ‘documentary’ would air, they would be vindicated as the person who understood that the situation was ridiculous.

so in real life, when we talk about ‘looking into the camera like we’re on the office’, this very specific emotion is what we’re referring to: that we’re in a situation that any objective viewer would find inherently ridiculous, and are seeking acknowledgement from an invisible but much larger group that would agree with us, even though nobody in the situation would do so.  we’re putting ourselves in an outsider position, a less emotional position, and inherently a more powerful position, because we’re not vulnerable to being laughed at like all the ridiculous people we’re among.  we’re among them, but we’re not with them, and the millions of people watching us on theoretical tv would be on our team, not theirs.  that’s such a specific idea and concept, and one that’s really hard to communicate in pure language.  but we can say ‘looking into the camera like we’re on the office’ and it’s much easier to communicate what we mean.

for me that’s what pop culture is for, and why it’s so important that it’s pop culture.  maybe it feels more special if it’s only you and a grape who know that something exists, but the more people consume something, the more its situations and reactions become common knowledge, a sort of communal well from which we can draw to articulate real life problems.  and ultimately, the easier it is for us to communicate and understand each other.