originallutece: WRONG O'CLOCK (Default)
Rosalind Lutece ([personal profile] originallutece) wrote2017-04-24 02:04 am
Entry tags:

(no subject)

Rosalind Lutece
Doctor of physics, professor at Recollé University.


VOICE | TEXT | VIDEO | ACTION


daemonized: (73)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-11 07:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes. Very much so.
daemonized: (15)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-11 07:13 pm (UTC)(link)
I

[Hilariously sent before he can finish his statement, a slip of the finger. Because he's taken the time to think, and it hits him.

Damn. She's right.]


...Yes, actually.
daemonized: (104)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-11 08:36 pm (UTC)(link)
[A moment passes, because he's trying to remember, but nothing comes to him. Only the sensation of something being there.]

I cannot. Something... larger, though, I think. Likely of more important than a few pens.
daemonized: (88)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-11 08:50 pm (UTC)(link)
[She says that as if he hasn't already been thinking rather hard on it. For days, even.]

Well, I've little choice left but to try. And try again.

I might ask someone else for their opinion, as well. There's a student of mine who possesses the ability to do something similar.
daemonized: (48)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-11 08:55 pm (UTC)(link)
Dante Rantanen. I watched him summon a sword out of nothingness, once.
daemonized: (112)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-11 08:57 pm (UTC)(link)
No, he meant to do it. To fend off a giant spider down in the subway. When we were all very small.
daemonized: (19)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-11 09:06 pm (UTC)(link)
[Sorry, Ros, maybe he should've mentioned that earlier.]

Interested in watching things disappear in a flash of light? It's not as exciting as you might think.

But I'll let you know. If I can figure out how to make this work properly, whatever /properly/ is, I'll even provide a show for you to gawk at.
daemonized: (07)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-13 05:22 pm (UTC)(link)
From a scientific perspective, yes, I can understand how you would be intrigued. /I'm/ intrigued, and I'm little more than a layman.

But at least admit to one thing, Rosalind: You /would/ gawk. If even just a little.
daemonized: (98)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-15 06:33 am (UTC)(link)
You gawked a little.
daemonized: (79)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-17 01:49 am (UTC)(link)
I'm the one who saw your face as I healed you. Not the other way around.
daemonized: (35)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-18 04:21 pm (UTC)(link)
You were ogling. Or maybe you'd just prefer a plainer word: staring.

[Which are synonyms of... gawking.]
daemonized: (16)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-20 12:56 am (UTC)(link)
No, leering has negative connotations. You were definitely gawking in a positive way.
daemonized: (109)

[personal profile] daemonized 2017-07-20 04:03 pm (UTC)(link)
Very well, so then we've settled it. You were gawking. Agreed?

(no subject)

[personal profile] daemonized - 2017-07-21 17:53 (UTC) - Expand