u/Randver_Silvertongue

He makes it no secret how much he loathes the festival and sees it as a bad excuse for people to get drunk, but has no choice to attend because of his position as minister of justice. Why is that? And why aren't other ministers or members of the Paris elite attending?

Furthermore, why does he even allow the festival to be held considering it's hosted and organized by gypsies, who are outlaws?

Or even Silver Age. I know Zatanna's been around for a long time.

Or was she always just a guest star until Paul Dini's run?

Are his bombastic antics a way to shield himself from depression stemming from the fact that he's a slave?

I really want to like Zatanna more. I like the character and I like the idea of a superhero who is also a Houdini-esque entertainer with actual sorcery involved. I also think it's refreshing to have a female trickster hero.

But I find the way she speaks backwards to cast spells to be rather corny and kills the immersion for me a bit and I'm hoping if you could tell me the lore reason why her magic works that way and if this method has any intricate in-universe lore? I mean, why don't Constantine and Dr. Fate use magic the same way?

I'm trying to get into Doctor Strange lore, so I bought two Epic Collections.

I notice Strange keeps saying things like "by the omnipotent Oshtur," "Eye of Agamotto, "power of Vishanti," "hoary Hoggoth" etc.

Who are those guys? Are they some sort of gods? What role do they serve in Marvel's cosmology?

Also, is Cyttorak the same character who gave Juggernaut his powers?

Look, I get that suffering is intertwined with life and that the only way to end it is to let go of craving and reach Nirvana.

And I know there is no "I" or any self and that to reach Nirvana is to realize this. Here I'm only using "I" for simplicity's sake.

But what troubles me is that parinirvana, or death after being liberated from conditions, doesn't sound any functionally different from atheistic annihilation upon death.

Yes, I know there is a difference. That being that annihilation suggests that there is a self that ceases to exist upon death while liberation is when you realize there was no self to begin with. But I can't help but feel that functionally, it's a distinction without a difference.

I like being alive and I hope that my actions in this life will cause my mind to be reborn into a satisfying life after I die.

The person I'm reborn as might be able to reach Nirvana, but I feel like I'm not ready for it in this lifetime because the thought of parinirvana being an eternal absence of awareness and consciousness scares me too much and I think I'm too weak to overcome that fear.

So is it wrong to choose life over parinirvana?

In book 1 Naga and Korra‘s relationship felt very deep. Not only that, but Naga felt incredibly intelligent for an animal and her bond with Korra was so strong that they could sense each other's feelings and intentions. For example, before Korra went to confront Tarrlok, Naga could sense her intentions and was worried about her. She was always there for Korra when she was upset and was always ready to cheer her up however she could, even if all she could was lick her face.

I feel like this bond and personality was missing for the rest of the show, where Naga just felt like a regular, albeit bear-sized, dog.

I dunno, I just get the vibe that Tenzin is the show's narrator, and not just because he narrates the intro. The show is mainly about legacy and change, and it's embodied in Tenzin and Korra’s relationship.

Tenzin is at first a stickler for traditions but his attitude gradually changes as he observes Korra’s progress. He sort of conveys how the audience felt about the show's change in aesthetics and Aang's legacy going forward.

Personally I would think Sokka, since he has the biggest desire to prove himself. The ring was made to assert control and it would make Sokka think he could end the war through his leadership.

I think Toph would be the most resistant to it because there isn't much that she'd want that the ring could tempt her with. She's also incredibly stubborn.

The music score of the first two movies feels like a perfect mix of childlike whimsy, mystery and danger.

And in the third movie, it shows that Williams' music would've evolved with Harry, had he composed for the entire series, as in that movie the score becomes more gothic and horror-like as Voldemort's return draws nearer.

Just imagine if Williams had composed all the movies. And if Chris Colombus had directed them all.

Originally Snape was just a red herring for the first book; he was a hateful jerk who gave students a hard time for trivial reasons and he looked like Nosferatu. This would make young readers think he's after the Philosopher's Stone. But then Dumbledore reveals that Snape actually was looking out for Harry all year to honour his debt to his father.

I don't know if Rowling had some sort of contract that ensured that she would get to finish the series regardless of how many sales were made, but I can't help but feel that she didn't have the full Snape arc laid out.

The reason is because I notice that Snape becomes somewhat like the movie version after the fourth book; he's calmer, his treatment of students is toned down and he becomes somewhat more sympathetic/tragic.

Korra sacrificing herself to save the New Air Nation in LoK was treated as a monumental event that Tenzin said would be remembered for generations. I just hope the writers remembered that too.

Preferably one where the Sanskrit words are Latinized as well.