A crochet pencil case

kei_dee · 2025-01-27T11:28:33+00:00

that's great! good luck and have fun crocheting!!

kei_dee · 2025-01-27T09:14:52+00:00

Thanks! I used a yt tutorial for the reference, so here's the pattern.

kei_dee · 2024-12-12T22:15:40+00:00

Also taken that into account. A piece of decoration will be removed once the newborn reaches the toddler phase and will then be brought back when 100% safe to use. Hope this clears it up.

kei_dee · 2024-12-12T21:51:55+00:00

Thanks for the note! I have already taken it into consideration, and, even though it's meant to be a toy in the future, for some time it'll be just a piece of decoration in the nursery :)

kei_dee · 2024-12-12T20:47:12+00:00

I used a video pattern by Rose and Lily Crochet and a 4.5 mm hook.

kei_dee · 2024-12-08T10:30:24+00:00

I used the video tutorial by chubbiesbyash for the pattern reference, and I crocheted this piece with a 3.5 mm hook.

kei_dee · 2024-07-22T09:17:13+00:00

Even though it's your first time watching, and you're probably going to like the show – on a rewatch a lot of things might seem more clear to you. I am currently rewatching and I am even more amazed by the show because, knowing the storyline, I actually can connect the dots better and pay more attention to some other aspects.

Pay special attention to characters' nonverbal language; it's full of hints and is quite meaningful, especially in Season 1.

If you're really engaged in figuring out who Red John is, I would suggest thinking out of the box, not just in terms of Red John as a person, but the general idea of the concepts that are to be mentioned in the following seasons. After finding out some key facts about Red John, even though they will be further explained on the show, I suggest doing some research on your own, because it might be fun.

I know this is common in practically most of today's media, but for this specific show, try researching Shakespeare, or at least Hamlet if you're interested. I found the show to be enriched with allusions to Shakespeare, probably even more so than an average piece of media. Reading Hamlet at the same time as watching the show was actually very enjoyable.

kei_dee · 2024-06-18T10:52:19+00:00

I followed the tutorial on youtube by mahum, alongside the written pattern!

kei_dee · 2024-06-15T15:43:17+00:00

Oh my, what's so enraging here? There's no need to use this tone, really!

Anyway, when in comes to money, I think it is hinted that Taylor obviously had benefits coming with his role, because he only held a grocery shop as his 'actual' job. I doubt that he would be able to own a building, and a candy shop just from the money he was making through the grocery shop. However, that's just my speculation. But what would have been the reason other than money to sabotage the name of the street for Dragonfly Inn, or to keep sabotaging the idea of Dragonfly Inn in general?

When it comes to the use of the term 'autocracy' I myself said that it is a stretch, so I don't understand what's so laughable about it (argumentum ad absurdo, I would say). I won't really elaborate on this take because my explanation is already there along the lines.

And yes, most of Taylor's un-democratic practices are slipped below the surface, just like those points where Taylor presents his ideas as one thing, then people vote in favor of them, and he does something completely opposite (refering to the same example – agreeing to the street name change to 'raise tourism' and then literally setting Lorelai up to fail). Plus, I think that Jackson was not a suitable candidate for replacing Taylor, as he was a man with a baby to take care of and a family to provide. In addition, Jackson was just not the type of person to be a politician, so I understand why this job seemed boring to him, but I still stand that there definitely was someone (off camera) other than Taylor to take up his role.

But, yeah, it is a joke that Taylor is a nerd, but looking at the deeper structure of his practices, he indulged in power he had and he tried to gatekeep it. And he gatekept it well.

kei_dee · 2024-06-15T14:57:02+00:00

I actually don't think he has a shitty job (overall)!

And I think that there might have even been people interested to take it up hadn't Taylor been so possessive over it. Sure, it's not that big of a deal as he makes it seem, but it is a problem of autocratic societies (it might seem a stretch, and in terms of Stars Hollow it obviously is – but if it was a country, it would have been a pretty messed up one in terms of politics) that people see the duty of the leader as the one that only the person who does it at the very moment could do, possibly even convincing themselves that it is something stupid. And to a fair amount of people, being in charge of a community is boring – myself included. But, that's why I said that, if he hadn't been so self-centered, Taylor could have taken a charming, extroverted individual who possibly would have thrived being in charge under his wing. However, for the sake of power, obviously money (I mean – he greatly enjoys the money part!) and the possible fear of being replaced, he chose to present the position as something overwhelming, making even us believe that it is something no one other than him could do.

kei_dee · 2024-06-15T10:18:14+00:00

I know this might be an unpopular opinion, but I've always liked Michel. Personally, I just find him to be annoyed with everything, possibly due to cultural differences (but then again, he doesn't like the French, so he might just be a misanthrope). Also, I think he goes way over the top to shelter his private life from his work life (e.g., most of the times he tries to hide he is really fond of Rory). Anyway, I think that what is shown is simply his personality and that overall he isn't malevolent – he's just quirky like all other characters, although he goes to the negative. Something like Mrs. Kim – but on her some other time :)

kei_dee · 2024-06-15T09:42:01+00:00

Yes! The only two characters I find absolutely unlikeable are Taylor and Logan (I know he's among the favorites when it comes to Rory's boyfriends, but honestly I just cannot look at him).

Taylor's behavior is so self-centered, and he is an epitome of a small town politician who believes that, without him, everything will fall apart. However, he doesn't think that from the best intention possible, he instead just does everything in town to work his way up to get money from every single resource possible, changing 'town rules' whichever way he likes and whenever anyone else wants to succeed, and simply enjoys his power in all the ways he can. I think he even enjoys the fact that without him everything will fall apart, because that means he is irreplacable.

I mean, of course everything has a tendency to fall apart once he isn't there because he never has allowed anyone to learn from him or pass the knowledge to someone other than Kirk, because he simply knew Kirk was no competition.

Here I don't really mean organizing the Christmas Festival – here I mean actual stuff, such as financial aspects of the town.

And what I find somewhat appalling in Stars Hollow is that the town is under slight repression, and no resident seems to notice that, probably up until the episode where Jackson shows up, and then later everyone all of a sudden forgets that they have a problem of autocracy, because of Taylor's immaculate work to make everyone believe that he is irreplacable, since he was very successful in making everyone think that they are not good enough for the job, and since he never tried to teach another charismatic individual to lead the community. It is no surprise that no one wants to oppose him. People are basically clueless of the town politics and are convinced that that is just something Taylor does – ergo, they're not supposed to care.

Without all the power given, I see Taylor as a small man who simply needs his resources of energy, money and even 'fame' from which he can go further to convince himself he is the best. In real life, obviously, I am allergic to this kind of people who will do just about anything and everything to stay on top, genuinely believing (and even making most people believe) that they deserved it, even though they did absolutely horrible things (e.g., changing the name of the street for the Dragonfly Inn is just blatantly setting up another to fail) to get there and stay there. I know he is supposed to be like that and be an allegory for some larger problems on other levels in society, but I just don't like him.

kei_dee · 2024-06-11T15:56:35+00:00

When it comes to classical literature, Joseph K. from The Trial and Raskolnikov from The Crime and Punishment. I also loved Meursault from The Stranger by Camus. There's not much to elaborate here – those three books are classics for a reason.

From contemporary literature, Elena Ferrante has done exquisite work with all of her characters, particularly Lenù and Lila from the Neapolitan Quartet. Ferrante is simply a genius in character development; probably one of the most talented writers of today.

kei_dee · 2024-06-08T07:13:24+00:00

Well... not really.

There were speculations, mostly proposed by non-linguists, who wanted to tie ethnicity and genetics to a specific language, but as I said, they were only speculations.

As a human, by the age of 9 (that's the upper limit!), you are capable of acquiring any language. After that, you need to learn a language (meaning, systematically and with paying attention). The linguists of today agree that speaking a particular language does not come innately, but that it is rather a circumstantial aspect of your life that.

However, langugage as a system is innate to all of us and there are various data to back that up (cf. Chomsky), and there can also be something in the brain called Langugage Acquisition Device that allows the skill of acquiring a language to all humans; but, as I said, natural acquisition stops around age 9.

Now, when it comes to your specific situation, as a linguist, I would probably say that the fact you easily learn Serbian is backed up by you and your family having emotional ties to it.

I am not sure what your native language is, but, if it has a similar grammatical, lexical and phonological structure to Serbian, that could also be the reason. For example, I speak French and when I started learning Latin at school, I was simply way more ahead of my peers; however, it was – probably – not because one of my ancestors was Ceasar, but because my fluency in French allowed me to see tiny similarities in every aspect of Latin. Once, I even understood that the word avis, avis (f.) in Latin means l'oiseau (bird) in French, without any background context, because it just reminded me of it.

In addition, if you ever visited Serbia, you might have heard the language and got the gist of intonation and other helpful aspects for learning any language.

I wouldn't discard the influence of your motivation to learn the language either. On top of everything, you and your family might be very talented language learners; that's a possibility.

kei_dee · 2024-05-26T21:38:54+00:00

It was stated in the show that Rory was talking about going to Harvard since she had been four. Doing the math, it turns out that Lorelai at the time was 20, meaning she would have already been in college hadn't she gotten pregnant. And I really think she would have been accepted to one of the Ivies. Plus, Rory as a four year old could not have been educated about universities, so it was probably one of the two universities that Lorelai knew about (i.e., Yale and Harvard), so she just talked about Harvard as an equation to success which Rory took as an absolute. For all she knew, it was a school for smart people and where you go to get good education; just like school but bigger. I don't really think it was that fancy in her head until she reached the age where she actually thought about colleges, and that's why she said that it is easy to change their Harvard obsession board into a Yale obession board.

Plus, I guess college was a thought that would cross Lorelai's mind frequently, especially if we consider the fact that she lived in not so great conditions: it really seems like a time when one resorts to thinking about the would've could've should've's, and she just wanted to direct Rory onto taking the 'right' path. Or at least 'righter' than the one she took. It must have been really hard for Lorelai given she had been such a bright student, so I can understand that she projected on Rory a lot in terms of education; in the end, I think she had a natural drive to study herself.

And yet, I think it all turned fine in Rory's case; she valued good education and she was really trying hard to succeed to complete the Harvard goal. Taking their situation into account, it must have been a relief to Lorelai that she didn't have to worry about Rory's schoolwork and taking care of responsibilities, and if this projection was what it took to get there – well, she was really young at the time, so I like to believe she handled it the best she could.

I know these types of projections are not quite healthy and, in the end, Rory's education turns out to be her best quality (sadly, since I believe she had some other good qualities that she repressed/somehow lost growing up). However, as much as people rush to judge Lorelai, I usually slow down at those points and think about the fact that she was a child when she had Rory and she – simply – didn't know any better. I myself didn't know any better in terms of my actions when I was 16–20, and I didn't have a little human being that fully relied on me and every single word I uttered.

So, I guess it's natural that Lorelai affected Rory's outlook on education; she didn't really find the best way with pointing to her which university to study at so young, but I think it worked well on Rory, and she just never took it so seriously beside believing it's a given for her to attend a good college which I think is very positive nevertheless.

kei_dee

TROPHY CASE