the marquis de Carabas
21 January 2014 @ 10:18 pm
text, day one of port

[Text, because sound can be a quick recipe for disaster in a place like this; sent out as soon as the thrumming in his bones tells him where they've come. This is profitable, he thinks, but does not advertise this line of thought as blatantly as he once might have.]

This has been my home for hundreds of years, and I know how to survive.

[That's all. He'll let people come to him, or he'll go to them - or let it stand as a boast.]

spam, throughout port & wibbly time

[There isn't time to touch every part of London Below as he wants to. He must skim everything, getting a blurry view of what he's known for so long without the ability to zoom in.]

[He stays at Market from start to finish, trying to ascertain whether or not he is a stranger in this Below (and he is, which stings in a way that a lost connection to a person never has), and then blending in terrifically well. He trades for Knacks and nightmares, notable as the man walking around Regents Park with a sack of sweaters slung over his shoulder. If there are alliances to make, he makes them, because time is obviously of the essence.]

[Then he hops trains, one after another after another for a full day. The sound of their movement makes him smile in a way that almost isn't mean, but not quite,]

[Other than that, he can be found in the light places and the dark, from the perpetual twilight under Mornington Crescent to the bright animal dim of Oxford Circus to the dimmest and most familiar sewer; he acquaints himself with everyone he can from the Barge who now think they belong here. He learns who they would have been if circumstances had been different, and likes them better as a result of this possibility.]
 
 
the marquis de Carabas
17 April 2013 @ 05:38 pm
Consider this a disclaimer: what you are about to hear is not a question regarding the Admiral's motives. If I might be blunt, I don't actually care what his motives are, or indeed if he has any at all. Thank you so much for your time.

What purpose does it serve to assign legitimacy to one moral code over another? People subscribe to a moral code because it's what they've been taught, or because it allows them to survive, or because they enjoy it. Some give credence to their own code and consider it better than all others, while some aspire to a code they consider to be superior to theirs.

If one's moral code indicates one's ability to lead and make the "right" choices - the absurdity of which statement I'm not about to delve into, it's far too easy - where do people with elaborate designs on world peace by means of violence fit in, or, conversely, those who would kill to eliminate violent crime, or those who relish crime but would view assisting others as an equally worthy adventure? Of course, there are also hypocrites who betray their own code, or those golden, selfish few who exist alone and codeless.

I would like a definition of right, please. I would like all of them. Maybe I'll make a collage.

spam | merlin

[In a way, he's surprised he wasn't saddled with baggage sooner. Surprise and curiosity don't mean that he wants to be approached or even approach himself, however, so he has been steadfastly ignoring any and all messages from Merlin. They're excruciatingly unimportant.]

[Instead he takes a seat in the gardens - an unusual place of rest for him, which is part of the point. Besides, there's something enjoyable enough about plant life. It doesn't ask annoying questions.]