side blog

Earthly Glitter Gradient


Earthly Glitter Gradient

1 day ago 232 notes ©
Remember those posters that said, “Today is the first day of the rest of your life”? Well, that’s true of every day but one - the day you die.

6 days ago 2,555 notes ©

Sera Park by Zoo Younggyun for W Korea Mar 2012


Sera Park by Zoo Younggyun for W Korea Mar 2012

6 days ago 3,541 notes ©
1 week ago 8,242 notes ©
140717 - Twitter - Dongwoo is back on Twitter !


Dongwoo’s new Twitter account is : @inspiritddww

정말 미안해요 ㅠ 너무 오랜만에 계정을 만들어서… 나름 메일 등록하고 했는데 이제야 되었네요!~.~ 이제 대화의 장을 열어봅시다 냐하 흐흐 힘내라는 여러분모습이 유난히 더 귀여워 보이는 오늘입니다 캬캬 왜 더 귀엽지!?!?

I’m really sorryㅠ I’ve taken so much time to create a new account… I did register with my email address but it…


time for some jewelry meta!! for ninon, a wealthy woman, jewelry is a form of expression. but to the audience, her jewelry choices are also important to her character and storyline. 

the very first time we meet ninon, she explains the meaning of her wren necklace: that it symbolizes freedom. she’s also wearing a choker that seems to be made of freeform designs; it’s a simple, personal piece. interestingly, she isn’t wearing that choker when she visits the palace only an hour or so later (pic 2). i’ll come back to that later. 

when milady dresses ninon later (pic 3), that choker is swapped out for a new one that ninon wears for most of the rest of the episode. it’s a dazzling piece that features a cross — obviously, a symbol of the church. most importantly, milady puts the choker on ninon. milady is collaring ninon with the symbol of the cardinal (pic 5). 

throughout this private scene with milady and ninon, the wren pendant is deliberately hidden. the pendant appears again in full view when ninon is on trial, and then when milady confronts ninon in jail after betraying her (pic 4).

in the critical scene when milady returns to ninon’s cell and proposes the cardinal’s deal, the pendant is seen in only one shot, when ninon is accusing milady of treachery and refusing anything the cardinal says. once milady threatens ninon’s students, however, ninon accepts the deal and all glimpses of the pendant disappear (pic 6). as ninon becomes fully at the mercy of the cardinal, we can only see the cross choker that milady put on ninon, and aramis’ necklace.  

ah, yes, aramis’ cross. ninon wears the necklace from her trial scene (3) all the way to her execution (7). after she accepts milady’s deal, she takes off milady’s choker and leaves only aramis’ necklace.

however, if only the choker symbolizes the church, then she would have kept the choker on until the end. the cardinal’s influence over ninon was stronger than ever at the time of her execution. 

aramis may have good intentions, but symbolically, his gift displays the control he has over her. ninon is only saved by the musketeers solving a mystery (one that has to do with church politics, i might add), which gives them the leverage to strike a deal with the cardinal and stop ninon’s execution. as men, the musketeers have more bargaining ability than ninon. as men, they have more control over her life than she does. how many times have women tried to protest a lie or advocate for a cause, only for a man to pick up the rallying cry and be heard and believed by other men? that’s what’s happening to ninon. although aramis’ necklace was a kind gift, it only highlighted how ninon’s life was decided by men, good or bad. 

it’s true that aramis gave it to ninon as a gift, a sign of his support; and the necklace originally came from the queen, who later supports ninon and advocates for her to be freed. nevertheless, the cross is mainly the symbol of the cardinal — more accurately, it is the symbol of the church. the repeated scenes of the cardinal touching his cross pendant, and the episode’s sub-plot of church politics, convince me that ninon wearing the cross is another way of showing the church’s control over her fate. 

ninon returns aramis’ necklace after her stopped execution. when the cardinal gives her a sentence of exile (pic 8), she’s wearing no jewelry at all. for the remainder of the episode (pic 9), her cloak and the camera angles again leave the possibility of her wearing her wren pendant in ambiguity. however, it’s unlikely that she is wearing the wren. she has nothing; all she had has been taken by the church. (in pic 9 she seems to be wearing a simple leather thong, similar to that of aramis’ necklace, but its pendant is not revealed.) 

that brings me back to ninon’s visit to the palace (pic 2). ninon takes off her choker, the one with a simple design that must have been her own choosing and which she wears in the comfort of her home/school, and wears only the wren. at first i thought she was showing off her wren in a kind of defiance, but then i considered ninon’s lack of jewelry at the end of the episode. at that point, the cardinal has taken all from her. in the palace, the monarchy and its existing social rules (i.e. the patriarchy and sexism which she fights) rule over her. she wears no personal chokers because in their audience, she is no more than their subject. a chess piece, with no individual traits, to be disposed of if necessary. ninon’s wren, the symbol of her rejection of social norms, is the only thing that defines her in their presence. later, even that is taken from her, and she leaves paris with no outward sign of rebellion.

"my voice will never be silenced… but i promise, you will never hear it." 

1 week ago 9,507 notes ©
1 week ago 4,507 notes ©

G. Kero - Bowie Shirt
G. Kero - Bowie Shirt
1 week ago 9,406 notes ©



More Bookshelves Hiding Secret Rooms


1 week ago 67,149 notes ©

the perfect pour: a citizen’s guide

1 week ago 1,715 notes ©
"racism against white people"


let me break down why this is a fallacy. and why, even if we take the hypothetical route and say that it ISN’T a fallacy, why whatever white people experience and designate as “racism” isn’t actually enough to live up to the word.

most of what i’ve seen that white folks claim as racism include:

  • snide, unflattering comments about white people made by PoC
  • being ganged up on (whether real or imagined) by PoC
  • being excluded/ousted from PoC conversations that are meant to be cathartic or otherwise don’t require white input
  • being hurt on a single or very few occasions
  • being called “cracker”, a word which has never been used in tandem with atrocious acts of widespread violence
  • being told they are racist

now, let’s compare this to what PoC, especially Black people, have claimed as acts of racism:

  • being killed by authority figures without retribution
  • being killed by white laypeople without retribution
  • laws and social practices that prevent PoC from working or living certain places
  • being considered nonhuman (i.e., having their struggles compared to animal rights, being seen as solely sexual objects, being used as “passes” into other cultures, etc)
  • being called various racial slurs that have long been used in tandem with atrocious acts of violence (physical, emotional, psychological)
  • having their experiences with racism relegated to baseless claims by “the SJ community”, in which “SJ community” is used as an insult. 
  • having their accomplishments downplayed solely on the basis of their race
  • being incarcerated at a greater rate than their white counterparts for the exact same crimes, despite disparities in the rate that each groupp commits said crimes. 

and that’s just a short list. 

do you see the dissonance here?

or do you just wanna keep crying and throwing around words to make yourself feel better when you get called out on your shit or decide you wanna comment on some shit that wasn’t fucking meant for you?

1 week ago 2,171 notes ©