With full respect to the Professor, if I were to ever work a "subject cannot be killed by any living man" prophecy into one of my stories, I think I'd want to actually play with the 'living' part of the condition instead of 'male' or even 'human.' Imagine the drama if Bob Redshirt, beloved secondary character, looses an arrow at the villain, kicks the bucket himself while it's in flight, and posthumously lands a perfect shot.

i love both equally

"Despair, for I cannot be killed by any living man!" gloats the villain, followed by "AIEEEEEEE" as I shove him off the wall into the polar bear enclosure

I’m sure this has been stated before, but Tolkien had Eowyn and Merry fulfill the prophecy because he himself was disappointed that the phrase “no man born of woman” in Macbeth referred a guy born via c-section and not the more obvious (to him) answer of a woman or not-human killing Macbeth.

So do it, and continue Tolkien’s legacy of finding fun alternative interpretations to this one single prophecy.

The 'living' part of 'no living man' is relevant to the prophecy in Lord of the Rings! A key factor in the Witch King's death is that Merry wounded him with a barrow blade that had belonged to one of the long dead kings of the north - so there was a non-living man in the equation in the form of a dead man's slightly haunted sword.

[ID: a twitter post by handle Flatus47 says, “Thrilling chase underway.” Below is a photo of two trucks, the one behind with a sign that says, “pallets wanted” in all caps, and the one in front with numerous pallets stacked on the trailer.

/end ID]

Things I’ve Learned About Rabies Vaccines (that I think more people should know!):

There's a post somewhere out there about Smaug being a one-hobbit problem and the War of the Ring being a four-hobbit problem, and it is a very good and funny post but I would like to refine it further. No single event in the War of the Ring was so cataclysmic as to require four hobbits. It's just that they had several hobbit-level problems simultaneously, and even the best hobbit can't be everywhere at once.

So, the scale as I understand it:

(Although then of course there's the Scouring of the Shire, which, judging by hobbit involvement, is a whole new category of Problem.)

From @melliabee 's tags:

I would like to point out that the Witch-King was actually a two-hobbit problem, because the Witch-King almost killed Merry and Pippin had to search for him to fix him up.

I would also like to note that the One Ring actually turned out to be a three hobbit problem, considering the involvement of Gollum.

Correct! Which means we have a spectrum!

[Image description: a screenshot of tumblr tags. Text:

#Elrond: I'm sending you with four hobbits. Use them wisely. #Gandalf (who only initially planned for one): this is gonna be bigger than I thought. End description].

something about lotr that I truly appreciate is its love for Bilbo. it is so hard to put this into words... but as someone whose first Tolkien book was The Hobbit and loves Bilbo Baggins, it just! makes me Feel Things. the way Frodo has so many fond memories of Bilbo, and misses him, and wants so badly to see him again. how the hobbits sing songs that were passed on to them by Bilbo. how they casually refer to events in Bilbo's adventure, stories that they heard as children and grew up with. how so many other characters are friends with Bilbo: the elves (who joke with him and listen to his poetry)! the dwarves (who would not betray him to Sauron)! don't forget Gandalf and Elrond! and Aragorn! who can forget Aragorn reciting that bit of poetry Bilbo wrote for him! Sam talking about the tales that really mattered, and wondering if the end of their tale might be like old Mr. Bilbo's. Pippin's last thoughts before getting knocked out at the battle of the black gate suddenly drifting back to Bilbo; the eagles came in his tale, long ago. the good things that happened in The Hobbit aren't undone in lotr: lotr looks at old adventures and tales with reverence and love! and Bilbo himself, though his story is touched with nuanced and bittersweet sorrow, finds peace in the end. something immensely comforting about how the planned ending of his book he lived happily ever after till the end of his days is fulfilled

Adding @katekatharos's tags because they're great:

#I think this hits why I so rarely like sequel works #its so often well everything the characters you loved suffered for didn’t last #didnt matter #also they’ve continued to suffer #their happy ending didnt last #Bilbo’s does #and yes there’s now another worse threat #but the victories won in the hobbit haven’t been negated by it #they help to defeat it #nothing more so then Bilbo’s pity of Gollum #that defining character moment is what saves the world #in another book it would so easily have been that pity was what led to the new disaster #a lesson in the original characters reluctance to commit murder coming back to haunt their successors #but it’s the oppposite

Guy who is quite frankly too short for all of this

no eclipse glasses we are experiencing things allegory of the cave style

tolkien fans be like: I read all of jirt's notes scribbled on the back of a napkin in 1935 so I can properly write fanfic about rich assholes screaming at each other during a family reunion

Stellar Nesting Grounds

Clouds of dust and gas called nebulae speckle our galaxy. Some are ferocious cosmic factories that churn out baby stars by the hundreds of thousands, while others are grave markers of stars long dead. Astronomers study them to learn about how stars and planets form, and how ingredients are recycled in space.

But all that dust is difficult to see through, and nebulae are often so large that today’s most powerful space telescopes can only realistically study tiny patches of them. That’s where our soon-to-launch Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope comes in.

frodo getting criticized for decades for not doing much / not being a hero compared to sam is fitting when you consider mental health and strength is often trivialized. frodo carried the most dangerous and insidious item in middle earth for YEARS. ancient beings (elves, gandalf, etc) were taunted and tempted by it. boromir was corrupted within weeks without even touching it. men and hobbits turned against their brethren for it. killed for it. and frodo, with a wound from a morgul knife, bore it’s weight when no one else could. had it been anyone else, middle earth would have fallen.

no, he couldn’t have done it without his samwise. but isn’t that a lesson in itself?

Banging on the table because YES. That is the whole, entire, painfully beautiful point because YOU CANNOT WITHSTAND THE RING FOREVER, nobody can, nobody is virtuous or good or kind enough to NOT get corrupted, NOT EVEN SAM, that is the ENTIRE POINT of this bloody piece of jewellery that we can see as a metaphor for A LOT of things but I personally think it´s most applicable to trauma. The Ring digs into each character´s trauma and promises them ways to either end it or have it never happen again.

And THE POINT is that you cannot withstand trauma alone forever. You can carry it alone for a while. Some for years, some for their whole lives. Some never ask for help, because they´ve been taught not to, and it KILLS THEM. We cannot carry our burdens alone. We all need a Sam. If we try to carry our struggles alone, we break.

(Any yes, I say applicable. Tolkien didn´t write an allegory, he wrote a story that is informed out of his love for mythology and linguistics but ALSO his experiences in war. And thus, it becomes applicable for many. We all ARE Frodo. We all carry our burdens, and at some point, when they become too much, we´re all going to need a Sam.)

*guy who doesn't know anything about sports and has never cared about sports in his life* hey did you know womens professional baseball is returning after 70 years and the games are going to be streamed for free on youtube and the season starts august 1st

youtube link

website

I think this is so cool and it's awesome they're streaming games for free! I also think it's incredible that this picture is the one they used to advertise the opening day. It's like those videos where someone threatens the camera while their partner shows off their collection of rocks they found.

Concept study for Elvish Fashion featuring the Original™ FinBrothers and their Mini Me

Click for better quality 😉

Fëanor & Curufin: Splendor. They are wearing Noldor informal daywear inspired by Baroque/Rococo European Aristocracy (17th–18th century), especially the Sun King and the extravagant courts of Versailles. Opulent, luxurious robes with theatrical flair and shimmering footwear. Fëanor is wearing the dramatic gemstones that once belonged to Míriel. Fingolfin & Turgon: Discipline. They are dressed in Vanyarin court fashion inspired by late Ming Dynasty China (17th century). I tried to portray the restrained elegance of high-ranking Ming officials and princes. Layered hanfu, structured silhouette, and minimal jewelry. Refined nobility rather than ostentatious wealth. Finarfin & Finrod: Harmony. They are the most timeless here in my opinion. They are wearing Telerin outdoor fashion inspired by Ancient Mediterranean clothing (particularly Minoan and Classical Greece) mixed with Art Nouveau. Lots of drape and movement, sandals (because the Teleri love walking by the sea), gold jewelry, olive greens, laurel-style headpieces, wrapped waists. I tried to go 'less' historical noble and 'more' idealized gods.

Close-ups of my favorite details I'm forcing upon y'all

For @tolkiengenweek day 5: Culture, diversity, traditions. Sorry, but Gollum will NOT be embracing the elven love of lembas. (Might he interest you in some nice raw fishies instead?)

On AO3

"Guy" and "man" have different connotations with adjectival nouns. Like "tree guy" = arborist but "tree man" = he lives in a tree, or maybe he is a tree.

"I know a guy" = "I have a useful contact."

"I know a man" = "I am about to tell you a story."

“He’s a great guy” = he is pleasant and fun and well-intentioned

“He’s a great man” = he has saved countless lives and changed the world irrevocably

Different words in English have different connotations; in this case, it's tied to formality and assumed depth. Guy has assumptions of casualness and familiarity to it, while Man is formal and unfamiliar. A Guy is someone you personally know and are relaxed about, while a Man is someone you don't know and/or someone you deem important. But of course, these are also often used ironically, such as the Tree Man example, or how some American accents will call someone "guy" when insulting them.

Gandalf during the Hobbit: good god I wish Bilbo was more naturally in tune with his Took side I feel like I have to force it out of him

Gandalf during Lord of the Rings: TOO MUCH TOOK FUCK FUCK FUCK WHAT IS WRONG WITH PIPPIN

I read etiquette and homemaking guides from the 1800s mostly because they're a FASCINATING insight into cultural norms that we often don't think about. I honestly really recommend people crack one of these open at least once--it goes way beyond, like, "what to wear to a ball!!!"

The best ones have advice on decor, how to select high-quality furniture, childrearing, fashion, etc--from a contemporary perspective, and the things the authors feel the need to clarify vs the wild shit that will just casually mention like it's something everyone knows and agrees on is REALLY revealing of the culture and how it's shifted.

And while a lot of the advice is WILDLY bigoted or just outright funny, you'd be surprised how much of it is...just genuinely timeless, and shockingly compassionate.

They ALSO, as a writer, have INVALUABLE resources--because, again, they're talking about things that are so MUNDANE that a lot of the time nobody really sat down to formally document what normal, everyday people thought or cared about--because that's boring! But a book written to provide advice and information to, say, a young woman who's never run her own home before? You can fully expect an entire chapter dedicated to The Types Of Oven, and which features are useful and worth spending money on, and which features are a huge hassle to clean and a waste of space, and what to spend that money on instead.

And like. As a writer who frequently works in the 1800s? Fuck inflation calculators, this is the kind of thing I need. This is absolutely priceless.

Now that being said.

My current favorite 'etiquette guide' in the world is actually like....70% purely practical advice, written by a gentleman the groupchat has affectionately dubbed History's Most Autistic Man In The World, and thank god they didn't have Aderall back then

Because the AuDHD is strong in this one and as a result, in addition to the deeply practical and useful everyday reference points, we also have:

AWWW

Thomas Edie Hill… thank u for your contribution

I would actually go as far as to say that MOST abuse is unintentional. I think most people will go through their lives without ever experiencing intentional abuse. People are abusive because they're selfish, because they're stressed, because they care more about what society thinks they should do than the impacts of their actions on their children and partners, because they think what they're doing is correct, because they've made it make sense in their own heads, because they think they can fix their victims, they think they can fix their relationships, they think they can stop you from leaving, they think they can make you a better partner to them, they think that means you need to do what they want. We've sort of constructed mental illness in a way that doing this shit to other people counts as a form of mental illness because it is anti social behavior in the literal sense— it is behavior that causes social harm.

I don't say any of this to excuse it. I think everyone needs to be more aware of this because if you think abuse has to be intentional you will never realize you are capable of abusive behavior. You will never realize you are being shitty to the people you love, because YOU know what you mean, YOU know you don't mean any harm. But you're doing harm. You need to pay attention to the impact you have on other people, and you need to do it all the time, Especially when you feel least capable of doing so. Sorry! You live in a society. Get your head out of your ass.

I can understand the sentiment and the point you're getting at, however I would argue that most of those actions are, in fact, intentional. Being selfish is a choice, being nearsighted and apathetic is a choice, etc. Which then makes it... intentional. Even if the abuser is unaware they're abusive, the choices they are making are actively causing harm. So even if the abuser does not categorize their actions as abusive, it doesnt make it unintentional.

I have gotten this response A Lot, and I understand it, but it kind of feels like it's missing the point I'm making in favor of picking apart my wording. What I am saying is that most abuse is committed without the intention to commit abuse, that abusers do not think of themselves as abusers, that they are not villains sitting in their big dark throne room waiting for a chance to hurt people. I am saying that abusers are indistinguishable from your friends and relatives, they are not another Class Of Person that you can learn to identify to keep yourself safe, or keep yourself from doing harm.

I am saying that the knife wound that is inflicted by someone being clumsy with a knife is indistinguishable from the one committed by someone trying to stab you. I am saying it does not MATTER what your abusers intentions are, or were, that the wound is still there. I am saying that a lot of us have been clumsy with knives at some points in our lives and committed harm we did not mean to, and our intentions did not matter either, and we need to be accountable for the harm we cause.

A lot of people seem to want to read this as me saying it isn't an abuser's FAULT that they did the things they did, and that is not what I am saying. YES, they could do better and chose not to, yes, being selfish is a choice, not looking after the people under your care is a choice. But when we construct the narrative that abusers are always consciously constructing Evil Plans to hurt people out of their Bad Intentions we create a situation where people who are being abused go "oh, well, my mother loves me and wants what's best for me, so clearly I'm not being abused" and people who are doing the abusing go "I love my partner and at the end of the day I just want to preserve our relationship, so I can't be an abuser" or "I'm just drawing boundaries, that's my right" and if you contort yourself into this shape where if you justify your actions well enough you can argue your way out of it, if you can justify your abuser's actions well enough everything is fine, because Half The Time An Abuser's Most Ardent Defender Is Their Victim. It is not uncommon when the police are called in domestic violence cases for the victim to defend their abuser from the police!

Every single person I have ever tried to talk out of an abusive situation has used "they didn't mean it" to defend the situation. THAT is why I am saying this. Because "didn't mean it" doesn't matter. Because even if they didn't mean it it's still abuse. Because if someone says you're hurting them you need to let go of the instinct to immediately defend your own ego and take a hard look at the facts of the situation before you jump to the conclusion that you're innocent because you're a Good Person.

Because it doesn't matter if someone you love is a Good Person if they're hurting you, or they're hurting someone else. We are all fallible and we can all do harm and we can all make excuses for people we shouldn't.