Annilahilator - Lizard - Tumblr Blog

so i finished "Gleanings" and to be honest, "Perchance to glean" gives me the same warm and nice vibes as "Felix the shark" from Fazbear Frights. Those stories are just very... Nice. And i love them. That's all i wanted to say, thank you.

I just finished "The Toll'

And this is the first time i cried reading a book. Best part? It's the second time i'm reading it. And i didn't cry the first time. I don't know what changed but i am shaking.

oh! I didn't get there yet, i'm on thw third one i think, but it's such a cool detail! I honestly could talk about this for HOURSS

so basically

I'm rereading the whole arc of a scythe trylogy, because i got the "Gleanings" book and wanted a little reminder. I'm currently on "The Toll" and realised that the last time i read it, i skipped all of testaments of the toll and their interpretations and i am so dissappointed in myself. I literally went on a rant with myself about it and wanted to share it here too because why not.

So. This is so amazing. I love it. Every time in books i've read, when someone made a logical assumption from some evidence, it was most likely correct, and i've always wanted to see someone be at least kinda wrong. And Neal Shusterman presented in these short interludes exactly that. It's interpretations of somewhat ancient texts, glorifying a certain person, by "modern" people. The same way we try to figure out ancient mythologies from limited sources and scripts, they try to understand the toll and things surrounding him. Considering most information about Earth was most likely lost, and they have little to no sources as the Thunderhead was left behind from what i understand, of course they are going to make wrong assumptions. In their time, death is back on track i think, and i don't think murderers are a thing, naturally, scythes will be looked upon as demons for taking lifes. And because everything about the testaments is solely picturing the toll as a deity, a divine being, they are going to look at him that way. I know i probably stated the obvious, but i am just amazed by it and needed to walk myself through it.

Thanks for listening to my ted talk

so basically

I'm rereading the whole arc of a scythe trylogy, because i got the "Gleanings" book and wanted a little reminder. I'm currently on "The Toll" and realised that the last time i read it, i skipped all of testaments of the toll and their interpretations and i am so dissappointed in myself. I literally went on a rant with myself about it and wanted to share it here too because why not.

So. This is so amazing. I love it. Every time in books i've read, when someone made a logical assumption from some evidence, it was most likely correct, and i've always wanted to see someone be at least kinda wrong. And Neal Shusterman presented in these short interludes exactly that. It's interpretations of somewhat ancient texts, glorifying a certain person, by "modern" people. The same way we try to figure out ancient mythologies from limited sources and scripts, they try to understand the toll and things surrounding him. Considering most information about Earth was most likely lost, and they have little to no sources as the Thunderhead was left behind from what i understand, of course they are going to make wrong assumptions. In their time, death is back on track i think, and i don't think murderers are a thing, naturally, scythes will be looked upon as demons for taking lifes. And because everything about the testaments is solely picturing the toll as a deity, a divine being, they are going to look at him that way. I know i probably stated the obvious, but i am just amazed by it and needed to walk myself through it.

Thanks for listening to my ted talk

Ooooh!! That kinda makes sense. I think i didn't pay attention much at that part. Thank you! It was bugging me for the longest time

Okay so like

If there were two people. One of which has drank the milk, and the other has not. There is a satyr with them. Now, one of them sees a satyr and tge other, a goat (not the same shape). So, if the person who hasn't drank the milk pet the goat that they see, would the other person see it as partially petting the air? HOW DOES IT WORK. HELP ME.

Okay so like

If there were two people. One of which has drank the milk, and the other has not. There is a satyr with them. Now, one of them sees a satyr and tge other, a goat (not the same shape). So, if the person who hasn't drank the milk pet the goat that they see, would the other person see it as partially petting the air? HOW DOES IT WORK. HELP ME.

Happy pride month!

And here's a pretty badly made PRIDE MOTH for all my spelling errors out there!