#╰ * juliet : meta ⧽

[sleepynegress]

*sigh* Featurism...

So, I woke up to this shit on the Twit app and I've only hit on this issue before, but today I'm digging in. Colorism is something that is not addressed often enough, but intersected within that and even more rarely spoken about, is the issue of featurism. The young actress above just got cast as Juliet in the latest big staged prestige production of Romeo and Juliet, opposite Tom Holland. And as usual the blue-checks, everybody else including "black", and even Black regulars are all-in on the cruelty.

...But I want to breakdown a nuance that is too often skipped over when this happens. The two people named with her, give away the featurism game, here; a particularly nasty form of often internalized racism. I guarantee if the young actress looked like this?

She'd definitely still get racist attacks, but the particularly nasty shit I'm seeing attacking her looks wouldn't come. In fact, I could see some people thinking they are defending her with "but she's pretty!" or more specific... "obviously she's mixed" comments. -Something pretty much every Black woman with features that don't align with a narrow perception of blackness hear often (and we'll get to why I specified women in a minute). And don't get it twisted...

These aren't exclusively nor standard white features either (see: the many ethnic features w/in white ethnic groups that also get hit to a lesser and non-racialized degree such as large "hook" and/or Romanesque noses for example, which is definitely about anti-semitism, anti-Romani sentiment, and other disparaged/discriminated against ethnic minorities in Europe) and yes, blue eyes are naturally occurring within non-mixed and dark-skinned Black people due to a mutation called Waardenburg syndrome. But there is a REASON why fetishizing even certain ethnic features within the African continental diaspora has been a thing for a long time...i.e. "the dopest Ethiopian" from the Tribe Called Quest lyric is pictured as this:

and this:

and not this:

...despite them all being Ethiopians of various tribal ethnicities.

A wide-nose, a tighter curl, coil, or zig-zag pattern of hair, fuller lips and often, but not always (because I've given examples above where features "mitigate" skin color) darker skin. Zendaya is grouped with Tracey and Francesca Amewudah-Rivers, despite being both lighter in skin color and having a Black parent and a white parent because her nose isn't what has become the standard surgical look...that too many celebs have. This includes the ones who got so-called "ethnic" work or just a slight 'refinement'. No, her nose is born w/it, made for that good African air, as I call it. Nostrils prominent, nose bridge wide:

I went make-up free as well, because even make-up practices these days, go for that narrowing highlight technique i.e. just below it's subtle.

Sza is a an example of it taken to extremes, even with the Hollywood standard "ethnic" refinement she did get.

The thing is... I don't blame or attack her for that. Because you see above that is just a taste of what happens. Lil' Kim was relentlessly bullied by the men in her life for her ethnic features for her whole life...and that is why she is off-limits to this day for me when it comes to all the work she's had done.

...And this is where I explain why I specified men being mostly exempt. It's because "Blackness" including all the physical features associated with it, is by default masculinized. ...Which is why Idris Elba is considered one of the most handsome men in the world, w/o the caveats that even Lupita Nyong'o often gets. Nobody calls Samuel L. Jackson ugly. He is even idolized and fetishized by a specifically white male gaze for how culturally "Black" he is perceived to be for all the wrong reasons, his signature "motherfucka" for example (and I could go off on a whole other tangent here, but digressing). All this to say... Featurism sucks. It's not talked about enough. Blackness in all variations is Beautiful. Tracy Chapman looking as young she does?? Hell, mark it down to both her dark skin (a natural UV protector) and not messing with her given features (and being a lesbian, men will age you. lol -I got jokes-):

P.S. THANK GOODNESS for Tems and her rising prominence as a beauty as well:

P.P.S. Even Jay-Z the billionaire rapper has had the comments over the years about his lips and nose, hence that lyric in Beyonce's Formation.

[demontobee]

Nightingales and Romeo and Juliet in Good Omens S2E6

I’ve been thinking about the many symbolisms of the nightingale since the end of S1, but especially since the whole “That’s the point. No nightingales” conversation between Crowley and Aziraphale at the end of S2. Nightingales feature in a lot of literary texts symbolizing a whole bunch of things, but I found this particularly interesting:  

In Romeo and Juliet (you know, the play where two star-crossed lovers from rivalling families try to overcome all boundaries in the name of love), there is a scene (Act 3, Scene 5) where Romeo and Juliet have a conversation (or a little row/misunderstanding) about nightingales and larks. It is the night/morning after their secret marriage (!) and Romeo has to leave before the morning comes. Otherwise he will be in great danger as he might get caught by Juliet’s relatives. Juliet, who does not want him to leave yet, argues that the bird that they hear singing outside the window is a nightingale. Since nightingales sing by night, she hopes that this will convince Romeo that it is still night and thus make him stay a bit longer. Romeo, on the other hand, is convinced that it is a lark, a bird of dawn, that is singing, which would mean that he has to leave soon. When Romeo suddenly states that he does not care if he will be killed or not and that he wants to stay with Juliet, Juliet caves in and explains that the bird they hear is actually a lark and that Romeo has to flee.

So, a few things to point out here:

It is the night after their “secret marriage”

The nightingale is a night bird whose song indicates darkness and a world asleep, which protects forbidden love from being found out

Juliet does not want to face the harsh reality of the day approaching, which is why she tries to convince Romeo that they are hearing a nightingale while, in fact, a lark is singing, indicating danger

When her lover unexpectedly declares that he wants to stay with her, even at the risk of losing his own life, she tells the truth  in an attempt to usher him out to save his life

Okay, back to Good Omens:

It is the morning after The Dance™ (you know, the one Aziraphale organized only to be able to make a move on Crowley and dance with him; the one during which Crowley tried to open Aziraphale’s eyes to the dangerous situation they were in while Aziraphale refused to give up on his little fantasy-bubble of love and romance). Aziraphale tries to convince Crowley to go back to heaven with him. We don’t know exactly what went on in the conversation between him and the Metatron, but there was probably some threat involved, which means Aziraphale thinks that they will both be safe(r) in heaven. In a way, he is the Juliet in the situation, trying to make his Romeo stay/come with him by convincing him that the nightingale is still singing – that they can still be safe that way. Like the night before, he does not (or at least does not seem to) realize the danger they are in and will be in and that heaven will never let them be “an us”. He does not want to part with Crowley. Crowley, on the other hand, knows exactly that going to heaven is not an option for him and he understands that they are in danger. His statement, “that’s the point. No nightingales,” means that the protection of the metaphorical night, the indifference of heaven and hell concerning their situationship, is over, and that they can either flee together or have to part. Aziraphale, judging by his expression, seems to understand what Crowley is implying here. This seems to be where his parallels with Juliet end, since he does not agree with Crowley in the end. However, there is a version of events that would make his actions similar to Juliet’s in the end: Assuming that Aziraphale knows that one of the two options to keep Crowley safe(r) is out since he knows that Crowley will never agree to going back to heaven, his only other option is to ensure Crowley leaves without him (and without the impression that he needs to save Aziraphale and their relationship). He does this by driving him out if the bookshop.

In any case, the nightingale seems to symbolize the temporary safety of their forbidden love, and Crowley’s statement at the end signals the end of this precious period, and that they must part (for now).

[o-wild-west-wind]

y’all out here saying Izzy’s death made no narrative sense because it’s a comedy show clearly haven’t seen the Shakespeare post…I’m sorry I really am but death immunity only applies to the romantic leads the genre has not changed babes

(I don’t mean this to be patronizing, but genuinely: critically analyzing and engaging with art is a skill, and an important one. it’s a tool that will help you in the real world, for real current events. use this as practice not to take everything at face value. sad art does not equal bad art!)

[kimbapisnotsushi]

i LOVE the conversation that hinata, kindaichi, and kunimi have right before they all separate at the end of the training camp because that shit had to be soooo validating for kindaichi. like, it's obvious he spent a long fucking time wondering and aching and doubting his actions — even after he told kageyama not to apologize and he wouldn't either, even after he swore to win and to defeat him and move forward — and i get the feeling it was tearing kindaichi up on the inside more than he let on. had it been the right choice to make? had kageyama actually deserved it? was it something kindaichi was allowed to regret? couldn't there have been any other path than the one that hurt them both?

did they ever stand a chance at being something better?

(and i think, probably, that part of the problem lies in the not knowing. in the what-ifs of it all. in the "maybe this, maybe that". that's the biggest draw of kageyama's, kunimi's, and kindaichi's relationship: how far could they have gone if they had actually understood each other? what would they have looked like if kageyama had grown roots instead of taking to the sky?

anyways. let's keep going.)

the thing is, it isn't easy hurting someone you care for. even if it's just a little bit of hurt and a little bit of care. kindaichi might have claimed the opposite in the beginning, but he makes it so, so clear. he did care. he does care. he wouldn't have asked hinata about kageyama otherwise. but i think maybe he didn't know if he had the right to, not after what he did. he had his own burden to bear just as much as kageyama did.

but then kunimi tells him "you did the best you could at that time" and hinata tells him "it's normal to stand your ground and fight", and that's all kindaichi needs to hear to feel like a storm breaking apart — that he hadn't had a choice, that the odds were up against them, that he had some right and kageyama had some wrong and the only thing they could do now was face each other with their heads held high and be everything to each other they never were, and then, maybe someday, they'll get to play volleyball together again.

[incorrect-star-allies]

Dedede: I can’t go.

Meta Knight: I know how that feels.

Dedede, with his head wedged between a fence: No really, I’m stuck.

[cto10121]

Romeo and Juliet’s Instalove Makes Sense, Actually: A Very Hot Take

So a big chunk of R&J clownery I constantly eat on this blog is the neverending bitching about R&J falling in love at first sight is unrealistic and based on lust because they don’t even know each other and how William Shakespeare totes meant it as satire and blah, blah, blah. Needless to say, love at first sight/instalove was a very popular trope in Shakespeare’s time, and Shakespeare himself used it constantly in his other plays. Occam’s Razor: He liked it. Also, er, it is very much a real-life phenomenon. If perhaps overrepresented in fiction.

But anti whinging aside, it does beg the question: What did attract R&J to each other in the first place? I’ve talked at length about their similarities and their compatibility personally, verbally, and socially, but the bulk of the evidence is largely after they have met. So it makes sense why R&J would stick together and even prefer shuffling off their mortal coil than not be together. But at first sight? Without knowing a thing about each other besides their appearances?

R&J obviously do value physical beauty, but that in and of itself doesn’t explain why they would be attracted to each other. Shakespeare makes it a point to tell us that Capulet invited all the hot women in Verona, including Romeo’s crush, Rosaline. Why didn’t Romeo fall for any of them, or simply pine for Rosaline from afar? Juliet was dancing with a knight when Romeo saw her, and there were at least boys her age and not related to her, including Mercutio and Benvolio. Why didn’t she prefer any of them? And then there is the underrated fact that they met during a masquerade ball at night.

My very hot take? Shakespeare kept the instalove of his source material because his R&J would, in fact, fall 100% in love with each other for reasons other than hotness, and it is plausible that they would do so. And I’ll prove it: through Y/N dynamics.

Romeo’s POV

You’re the son and heir of a lord, living in 15th century Italy. Good news—you got male privilege! You have been given a fine education (for the time) in Latin, Greek, rhetoric, and so forth. You know how to read and write and duel people with pointy sticks. You have been raised to lead, and thus people are predisposed to take you seriously. You can do whatever the fuck you want with whoever the fuck you want, within reason. So long as you conform to this role and not show any unruly womanish traits, you’re good to go.

That said, you live in a macho society that is 100% okay with killing other people with sharp pointy sticks because they said something rude to you. Not only that, but your family has revived a blood feud with another family who hate your guts. Hence, your chance of dying a bloody death is astronomically high. Despite this, you turn out to be a pretty cool and even-tempered guy—you don’t cause trouble in the slightest. Your dad’s enemy even acknowledges your sterling reputation as a “portly gentlemen” and a “well-governed youth.”

In fact, you’re so chill that your biggest problem is that this hot girl you like doesn’t like you back. Even worse, she refuses to have sex, period. Which means she won’t have sex with you. You are a teenage boy, and this is indeed the worst thing that has ever happened to you. Fuck your life.

That said…you are not really doing much to get Hot Chick Who Won’t Have Sex With You to change her mind about you sex, are you? All you’ve been doing so far is 1) sneaking off to weep beneath sycamore trees in the early morning and 2) bitching to the Friar about HCWWHS, and 3) bitching to your cousin about how HCWWHS won’t spread her thighs to receive your that sweet golden cum (yes, that is verbatim). And when you find out that HCWWHS is going to this party at your enemy’s house, you don’t exactly jump at the chance to see her, do you? Your cousin literally has to convince you to go. Your response? “Fine, but I won’t Like(tm) it.”

Sure enough, you don’t. In fact, halfway through, you tell your friends you want to turn around and go back home. Nah, you say. It’s not worth it. You had a dream/premonition and now the party has bad vibes. (HCWWHS who? Ngl, you kind of just forget about her). Your cool friend mocks you for taking a ~dream seriously, ffs, but honestly you don’t pay much attention to him. You decide to go anyway, not because of HCWWHS or your cool friend, but because you march to the beat of your own drum. Que será será.

So what do you really want out of romance? Clearly, you are interested in HCWWHS’s thighs, but not much else about her. Why are you so emo about her, then? Certainly, she’s smart and hot, per you. Possibly older. Perhaps you feel that being with a hot older chick who can smell horny teenage guy BS a mile away is exactly what you want, actually. Or what you think you want.

Because here’s the deal: You’re obviously an odd duck in this hateful medieval town. You’re too chill for this feud life, too smart to get into needless fights, too young to work (don’t have to), and too old for school (you had private tutors, but that was ages ago). You’re too young to shoulder the responsibilities of an heir, but too old to be kept at home. So what tf do you do? See a play???? Do archery???? Falconry???? Hang out with friends????

As you can see, it’s a little lonely. Your parents are the type to let you do whatever the fuck you want because you’re a ~man now, and you need your ~space. No rules or structure. And despite what pop culture adaptations of your story have told millions, you are actually a smart and fairly mature guy for your age. You love your independence, of course, you won’t ever complain about that. But independence alone does not equate to true freedom.

What you need (but you don’t know you do) is a girl who would, actually, ask things from you. Demand them, even. Someone who is not shy about telling you what she thinks and what she wants. Someone who is open to the idea of love and not be obsessed with either chaste perfection or violence. Someone whom you can relate the struggles of living this isolated, feud-stricken life to. Someone who is mature but closer to your own age. Someone who is about as ambivalent as you are about the status quo.

And then you see this beautiful, mature, sad-looking girl dancing with this random knight. Oh, you think. Oh, indeed.

Juliet’s POV

You are a young teenage girl living in 15th century Italy. Bad news—you’re fucked. So much so it’s honestly too depressing to relate here in its entirety. You yourself know it, very deep down. Some light in this darkness? You are the only daughter to a very rich and noble family. Does that make you better? It should, a little.

For one thing, you are protected from your very violent macho culture’s obsession with killing people with pointy sticks. You are a girl, and you don’t do that. Your only jobs are to learn to read, sew, and marry rich. Your parents are not what you’d call the progressive types. Your relationship with your mother is very formal and awkward; needless to say, she is not the warm, motherly type. That would be your Nurse, who was actually the one to raise you. Your father is fine until you contradict him even slightly. Then he turns red and shouty and blustery, and suddenly you are a saucy girl and his fingers start to itch.

Fortunately for you, you’re a good girl. Not only that, but you are a smart one. From a very early age, you have learned how to survive in this very dysfunctional family. You learn how to say the right things in the right way. You equivocate better than any lawyer. Through trial and error, you become an excellent liar. (Either that or your family is just too dumb to believe you could ever lie to them). But even this sucks, because plot twist: You dislike lying. So much so that most of your “lies” are really just truths cleverly edited into the PR speak your family will accept.

At the same time, though, your Nurse indulges you and has no filter. So you learn a lot from her, especially about sex and men. Perhaps you even listen in on your cousins’ gossip. Also, you’re a 13-year-old with a growing libido. Not that you think you will ever get laid, lol. Your cousins will literally kill any man who tried. Your cousin Tybalt in particular loves a chance to fight. It’s not just your virtue that you need to protect, it’s the poor guy too.

But you are still 13, so when your mother and Nurse start talking about this Count Paris who wants to marry you, your instinct is to shut down entirely. You keep your mouth shut and tell them what they want to hear to appease them. It works—now you can go back to your teen girl life in relative peace.

Except no. You actually do have to meet and most likely dance with Count Paris at your family’s party. Do you want to go? Not particularly, but you are the Heir of Capulet(tm), so refusing is not an option. Do you like dancing? Maybe, but it’s hard to let loose and shake that thang with your family and cousins around. Are you interested in marriage? Nah. Your parents are proof número uno that it is not something to look forward to. Nothing against marriage, but you feel it’s something for the very distant future.

So there you are, inwardly seething inside, perhaps having to dance with Count Paris and other men way older than you, surrounded by your family. At this point, you’re exhausted and want the night to be over already. All you what to do is sulk against the wall next to some torches, looking bored/pissed/depressed. And not dance.

And then you see a beautiful boy leaning against the wall next to some torches, looking bored/pissed/depressed. And not dancing. Oh, you think. Oh, indeed.

In Sum

So yeah. Dramatic necessity aside, R&J being instantly attracted to each other makes sense, actually. They’re both introverted/in a blah mood/reluctant to attend this party, both have ambivalent feelings towards their supposed love interests (Rosaline, Paris), and both just don’t seem to fit into Verona’s feud life as neatly as outward appearances would suggest.

They see what they actually need in each other, which is balance: Juliet has too little freedom and Romeo too much. And considering how much we find out they are alike personally, there is even a sense of recognition in their first meeting. Beyond the “bewitchèd by the charm of looks,” R&J had reasons for them falling in love.

[worrynoodle]

I was thinking about "No nightingales." again.

I believe someone's made a post about this before, if you have it please share it with me I'd love to read it again!

When Crowley says there are no nightingales, he's saying their evening is over. The four years they've had together; peaceful, precious, and fragile; are now coming to an end. The nightingales have stopped singing, and Heaven's watchful eye is back on them. That it was Aziraphale's decision and their privacy, their evening romance, has to be over.

Maybe that's why the kiss is so powerful. Because he kisses him even though the nightingales have stopped singing. Risking everything.

And maybe that's why 'I forgive you' hurts that much more. Because Aziraphale is rejecting him (or at least that's how it seems).

[rapha-reads]

I tried to resist the urge but at the end of the day ranting about Romeo and Juliet is my most favourite thing to do, and ranting about vampires is also in my top 10 regular hobbies, so...

Louis, Lestat, Armand and Balthasar, or, a R&J x IWTV unplanned rant.

Under the "read more" because it got long.

Balthasar is introduced in the play as "Romeo's man", often modernised in various adaptations as his valet or his page. The footnote in The Arden Shakespeare 2012 edition states that:

"Shakespeare introduced the name for the part in the play, though it is not, of course, his invention. The name, which is also found in Comedy Of Errors, Merchant of Venice and Much Ado, occurs only once in the text of R&J, even though the character speaks nearly 30 lines in the final act."

Three things from that only: it's a common enough name, at least in Shakespearian texts, that the character could be switched for another one; he's so inconsequential that he barely even managed to make his name known ; yet despite his apparent unimportance, his role at the end is extremely crucial in closing in the tragedy.

What lines does Balthasar speaks and whom does he speak to throughout the play?

Man waits until Act III scene 1 to make his entrance. Given his function as Romeo's man, you'd think he'd be a bit more present before that point, but no, Balthy waits until everything's gone bad to arrive like "Grandma, it's me".

Romeo asks him "How doth my Juliet? That I ask again, / For nothing can be ill if she is well." The beginning of his answer could lead you to think that he's about to lie so that Romeo can still be "all well", but, naaaah, sike, he's here to deliver news and he's going to do his job. And the way he does it doesn't leave any details to the imagination:

"Then she is well and nothing can be ill. Her body sleeps in Capel's monument, And her immortal soul part with angels lives. I saw her laid low in her kindred's vault, And presently took post to tell it to you. O, pardon me for bringing these ill news, Since you did leave it for my office, sir."

"Her immortal soul"... We'll come back to that point when we'll get to the vampires. Interesting to note that he says he saw with his own eyes Jules' laid down in the Capulet's tomb, but there's no indication in the text prior to that line that he really did. Some stage adaptations have Balthasar lurking around as Capulet and Cie put her in it, most movies totally ignore Balthasar's entire role - which I will come back to in the second part too. In a way, one could think that Balthy didn't see anything, he just heard the news like any other Veronese people, and didn't wait for more information or even actual confirmation and hurried on ("took post") to tell his master. Which, he does say it himself, that's his job, to keep Romeo informed of the going-ons of Verona in general and Juliet in particular. But, man, what are your sources, actually? Whose your informant? What authenticity does your information have, except from "source: myself"?

And then homeboy has the audacity to tell a desperate and ready to commit all kinds of violence Romeo to "have patience. / Your looks are pale and wild, and do import / Some misadventure." You think?? After this we lose track of Balthy while Romeo goes soliloquising looking for his cuppa poison. ... I don't want to tell you how to do your job, Balthy, but aren't you supposed to always follow your master closely...? How are you losing him so easily? Well, to be fair to him, Romeo does send him to "hire those horses", but that's a really thin excuse.

Balthasar reappears then in the Comedy of Situations that is "everybody and their mothers come visit Juliet's body" (you know, Warm Bodies did have a point; the zombies and necrophilia jokes do write themselves). First he enters with Romeo, and then for once shows some working brain cells when Romeo tells him to peace out and he tells himself "For all the same, I'll hide me hereabout. / His looks I fear, and his intents I doubt." Yes, thank you Balthy, maybe stay inside the crypt itself... Nope, okay, I don't know where he hid but Paris "14yo is perfectly acceptable to marry when I'm 30" Escalus makes his own appearance unbothered and unstopped. Great scouting skills there. Granted, he was the first on the scene actually, but if Balthy really hid close by, he should have witnessed the altercation and maaaaybe stop it. But no. I think he's having a drink with Paris' page. Current body count: 3 (yeah, Juliet's not dead yet, for those following).

Then Friar Laurence arrives on the scene. Oh, hello, Friar My-Ideas-Will-Definitely-Work-Trust-Me-Bro. Balthy emerges from the shadows (from where? Who knows, not me and certainly not Willie the Bard himself; homeboy was lurking, planning the best moment to reappear to create maximum chaos I guess). Their discussion goes something like this:

Laurie: who're you? Balthy: come on bro, you know me. Laurie: oh, hey Balth, so nice to see you? But what the heck are you doing here? Balthy: yeah I'm here with Romeo that fail emo lord lol. Laurie: Romeo? Whaaaat? How long has he been here? Balthy: eeh, 30 minutes? Maybe 45? Dunno but it's been a while. Laurie: Jesus fucking H Christ, okay, let's get into the fucking crypt. Balthy: no thanks, without me. I told Romeo I was leaving and if he sees me still here he's going to break my neck. Laurie: ugh, fine, you coward. I'll go alone and I'm not even afraid. Actually I lied I'm scared out of my mind but I'm better than you so nah! I'm going in. Balthy, walking away: oh yeah, another thing, I was napping, ahem, keeping watch, and I think I dreamed, I mean, hallucinated Romeo killing another dude. But I don't think that's real. Anyway, hasta la vista, losers! [Exit] (sadly not pursued by a bear)

I paraphrased, naturally. And... That's Balthasar's last lines. So to recap: he's supposedly Romeo's man, hence, by his job's function, supposed to always be with him and protect him; he only appears at the end of the story to make sure that no one else can get to Romeo first and maybe tell him about Laurence's plot. He always says he's going to keep an eye on Romeo, or tries to get him to stop, but actually never does anything. Literally, by his own admission, while he's supposed to make sure Romeo doesn't do anything drastic visiting Juliet's tomb, he took a nap: "As I did sleep under this yew tree here"! And the only two people he speaks to are Romeo, whose sole purpose at this point is to die, and Friar Laurence, whose role is to fake-kill Juliet, which leads to both of them dying.

Given all of those elements, one could then consider Balthasar's role in the play as an agent of Death. Death being a character in Her own right in the play, according to some readings (I admit, the idea of Death being the one pulling the strings as Fate would do is something I very much like but is very much inspired by the French musical).

So. Balthasar, agent of Death, purposefully or accidentally, but undeniably, leading the main character to his own death and carefully not stopping nor even interacting with characters who could stop the final act.

And that's who Louis-as-Lestat compares HIMSELF to. Yeah, Louis calls himself Balthasar, let that sink in. So, spoiler alert for those like me who haven't read the books, but Armand later on is going to lie and tell Louis that Lestat died in the fire that burned down the theatre, lie that Louis will totally believe and that will certainly influence the decades of his relationship with Armand. We know Louis is absolutely not over Lestat, we know Lestat is weak at this point, and wants to scare Louis but also get him back, and we know Armand is a lying liar who lies and twist the truth to better serves him. And we know Armand was jilted by Lestat and while he (genuinely?) loves Louis, he's also bitter that Louis got what he himself couldn't get. We also know that Louis is extremely conflicted by his vampiric nature, that he's a stone cold killer but he's also constantly trying to get away from it, that he hates himself and all vampires but also hates humans and all of humanity. We know Louis feels immense guilt at what he thinks is Lestat's murder, and that this guilt is weighing on him enought hat he conjures up a mental Lestat to follow him around and sass, bitch, moan, comment and critique for him.

So, why is it interesting that Dreamstat calls Louis a Balthasar?

Let's go back to two points already evoked earlier. Balthasar makes a point of mentioning Juliet's immortal soul - in the text, it's evident enough, they're Catholics, Heaven, Hell, bla bla bla. Transposed to the idea of vampires, it does lead one to question first if vampires have souls, secondly, what are the limits of immortality. It links to Louis' questioning of his faith, the morals that he fiercely defends but abandons rather quickly when they don't suit him anymore, and his survivor's guilt vis-à-vis his brother first and Lestat secondly.

The second thing is the way Balthasar is generally erased from the known Romeo and Juliet narrative. From an intradiegetic POV, Louis could mean it as "I'm Balthasar because this story is not my story, I barely even appear, only at the very end, and even then, I'm not important, and I certainly do not want to be the focus of attention" (which could also be linked to the coven complaining that Louis hunts sloppily and will expose them all, and that's actually a point in the Death's emissary column, huh). From an extradiegetic POV, the writers might have chosen to compare Louis to Balthasar because in most screen adaptations, the first part of his role is given to Benvolio (announcing Juliet's death) and the second part (talking with Laurie) is totally erased. Which means that people who haven't read the play (or have but aren't totally obsessed with it *cough cough*) and only know the story through the movies or the musical, would have NO idea who Balthasar is. And that's what Louis tries to be: a nobody, a Monsieur-Tout-Le-Monde, unimportant, invisible, unknown. The way Balthasar is for everybody. Quasi inexisting.

And the final part of the parallel, and that one is definitely extradiegetic, is that Louis brings Death wherever he goes (although maybe in a way, after Lestat and the woman vampire in Romania, Louis thinks that of himself too, but let's not go there just yet). His arrival in Paris is what disturbs the equilibrium of the coven, makes Armand questions what he's doing here and how long he can keep going like this, drives Claudia even more away from him, and intensifies the resentment and inner conflicts of the coven. Which will all lead to the theatre burning dow, the coven dying, Claudia dying, Lestat presumed dead and 70 years of toxic married Loumand. Unintentionally, the way Balthasar seemingly unintentionally too, doesn't protect Romeo, which leads to not only his and Juliet's but also Tybalt and Mercutio's deaths (and Paris too). Unintenionally, but who's pulling Balthasar's strings, Death, Fate itself? Who's pulling Louis' strings? Armand? Lestat? Or is he such an unreliable narrator that he's passing himself as a victim of circumstances while the reality is that he's fully aware of what he's doing...? To be determined.

If you've made it to here, thank you so much and don't hesitate to tell me what you think! You can find my Tybalt/Mercutio fic here, and my essay on adaptations of Tybalt and Mercutio on screen here.

[sleazyjanet]

one thing i find so funny in the lost fandom is all the people going like "why did this character not remember this time travelling other character?" likely because you usually don't expect someone to time travel, for one. and also because memory is not a kind mistress

like, ben is likely not going to remember juliet (except subconsciously, if anything) because 24 years passed between when he was 12 and seeing a 30+ years old juliet, and when he was 36 meeting a... also 30+ years old juliet, and while she stayed more or less the same, admittedly, it's been 24 years for him. very likely for him to have forgotten

it's the same with danielle meeting jin in the present timeline of s1/2 etc. like no! she's not going to remember a man she saw for like thirty consecutive minutes and who then disappeared before her eyes. arguably, given her lack of sanity, it's likely she even thought she hallucinated him

and on a similar note, yeah, likely danielle didn't remember BEN from the night he stole alex because, well, it was dark, she was half-asleep and it was a traumatising enough event that she likely repressed it, while simultaneously clinging to it

[willgrahams-dog]

i'm not reblogging this directly so as not to derail, but i think this line gets misinterpreted pretty regularly within the fandom and i wanted to go over that + offer my interpretation :3

the original line it's referencing comes from act 3, scene 1 of romeo and juliet, after romeo kills tybalt to avenge mercutio:

tybalt falls benvolio: romeo, away, begone! the citizens are up, and tybalt slain. sound not amazed. the prince will doom thee death if thou art taken. hence, be gone, away. romeo: o, i am fortune's fool!

here, romeo is remarking on his bad luck after being effectively doomed by fate (and more broadly, the narrative). to atone for tybalt's murder, romeo has to leave verona on pain of death, pretty much because he found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

the line can also apply to his relationship with juliet. had circumstances been different, she and romeo could have had a happy life together. it was fate that kept them apart, not a lack of love. fortune would have them on opposite sides.

will's arc, however, was set into motion because of hannibal. he was manipulated into killing gjh and then eventually randall tier, although tier's murder was more by will's volition than hannibal's. then in season 3b, after will has found stability with molly, hannibal returns and gets will to kill again.

i think that if will hadn't met hannibal, he would have had a chance at a happy, normal life, or as close to one as he could get. will's relationship with molly was an attempt to reclaim that life from hannibal- to save himself from hannibal's perception of him. but hannibal ultimately came between will and molly, just as fate prevented romeo from finding a sense of stability in juliet.

so is this line romantic? yeah, if you want it to be! hannibal's manipulation of will did come from a place of love ("no one can be fully aware of another human being unless we love them. by that love, we see potential in our beloved. through that love, we allow our beloved to see their potential. expressing that love, our beloved's potential comes true") but it also deprived will of the normalcy that i think on some level, he craved almost as much as he did understanding.

but i don't think this line is a proclamation of love from will as much as it is an announcement of blame. will blames hannibal for the loss of the life he could have had before hannibal or with molly (which parallels romeo's banishment from verona) and it's not until the finale that we actually see him choose hannibal.

tldr: will is saying that he's not a victim of fate, he's a victim of hannibal. here's the original post (op is cool, go check em out!!)

[greenqueenhightower]

Ok but Juliet’s quotation in Romeo & Juliet:

“My only love sprung from my only hate/ Too early seen unknown, and known too late!”

is so Alicent-coded

[stuckasmain]

Hadestown and cyclical stories stuck in the brain after watching West side story the other night and thinking about how Romeo and Juliet have a similar story. Not only of doomed lovers but of being told a thousand times, names and body’s change but the love remains.

It’s been asked before but do you think, just maybe they’re a little tired? Or is it enough to replay the sweet, private moments knowing you’ll get them again?

Anyway- They get a double date out of the fucking narrative with Orpheus and Eurydice. No retellings for two years they’re at the beach!!!👏

[elinordash]

Michael Sheen and Kate Beckinsale narrating the 'no nightingale' scene from Romeo and Juliet

[from this audiobook | inspired by this facebook post]

complete scene text below the cut:

JULIET. Wilt thou be gone? It is not yet near day. It was the nightingale, and not the lark, That pierc’d the fearful hollow of thine ear; Nightly she sings on yond pomegranate tree. Believe me, love, it was the nightingale.

ROMEO. It was the lark, the herald of the morn, No nightingale. Look, love, what envious streaks Do lace the severing clouds in yonder east. Night’s candles are burnt out, and jocund day Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain tops. I must be gone and live, or stay and die.

JULIET. Yond light is not daylight, I know it, I. It is some meteor that the sun exhales To be to thee this night a torchbearer And light thee on thy way to Mantua. Therefore stay yet, thou need’st not to be gone.

ROMEO. Let me be ta’en, let me be put to death, I am content, so thou wilt have it so. I’ll say yon grey is not the morning’s eye, ’Tis but the pale reflex of Cynthia’s brow. Nor that is not the lark whose notes do beat The vaulty heaven so high above our heads. I have more care to stay than will to go. Come, death, and welcome. Juliet wills it so. How is’t, my soul? Let’s talk. It is not day.

JULIET. It is, it is! Hie hence, be gone, away. It is the lark that sings so out of tune, Straining harsh discords and unpleasing sharps. Some say the lark makes sweet division; This doth not so, for she divideth us. Some say the lark and loathed toad change eyes. O, now I would they had chang’d voices too, Since arm from arm that voice doth us affray, Hunting thee hence with hunt’s-up to the day. O now be gone, more light and light it grows.

ROMEO. More light and light, more dark and dark our woes.

[e-rated-beardo]

I had ✨A Thought✨ (about forgiveness)

I can't be the first one to connect these clips like this, but here goes...

Crowley doesn't like that he's a demon. He makes the best of it; our boy (gender neutral) is nothing if not able to adapt. But he resents having to be Evil(tm) by definition, seems to only just accept his snake side (under sufferance), has taken a more human name, distances himself from Hell any chance he gets, etc. And we all remember how he reacted to "you're the bad guys".

At the bandstand, he calls himself unforgivable. Aziraphale has just said "may you be forgiven" and snek's like "lol no did you forget i'm your eViL hEreDiTarY eNeMy" (poking in his own wounds again like he does it for a living); he puts himself down with references to his demonic nature as a sort of challenge to the angel and he's expecting to be rejected for what he is because he hates that part of himself. (And Aziraphale certainly has a habit of bringing that shit up, too; it's a self-defence mechanism, for sure, and Crowley isn't stupid, but I bet it still stings.)

But we know Aziraphale doesn't actually think Crowley is bad. (Right? Nobody believes he thinks that. RIGHT?? Please tell me no-one actually believes he thinks that)

He knew already by Job that Crowley is more "properly good" than most angels. He also knows Crowley has nothing but disdain for Heaven (if he hadn't picked that up by now he'd be very stupid, and it's underlined so many times in the show and the book that Aziraphale is not stupid). So what if when he says,

he's actually saying "you're not unforgivable, it doesn't matter what you are, you're better than all of them"?

He knows by this point that he has to leave, and Metatrash is most likely watching through the window so Aziraphale knows he can't say much or they'll be in trouble. Maybe this is all he could think of to communicate that Crowley is the best being he knows in all of Creation and that had he any choice, he'd pick him every time?

[kaleb-is-definitely-sane]

Shakespeare: Juliet had no pulse no breath

Clowns: Why didn't Romeo just check for a pulse?!?!?!?!?!

Shakespeare: T-T

[the-moral-of-the-rose]

Yesterday Road, Today Road, Tomorrow Road...

Perhaps it's just another manifestation of my overthinking, but it seems to me that the three paths in Long John's Bush might have been written as a metaphor for Emily's life. Each path seemed to be somehow linked to a person who was important to Emily.

The paths were named by Emily and her friends, because: "The To-day Road is by the brook and we call it that because it is lovely now. The Yesterday Road is out in the stumps where Lofty John cut some trees down and we call it that because it used to be lovely. The To-morrow Road is just a tiny path in the maple clearing and we call it that because it is going to be lovely some day, when the maples grow bigger." (Emily of New Moon).

TO-MORROW'S ROAD (EMILY'S AMBITIONS AND DREAMS. TEDDY KENT):

The metaphor of Tomorrow Road was most clearly outlined. On the one hand, of course, it symbolized Emily's passion for writing and her ascent to the Alpine Path of glory and fame. As for the character with whom Tomorrow Road was most closely associated, it was Teddy Kent.

First of all, To-morrow Road never changed its name, even though by the time Emily reached her early teenage years, the maples grew big. In Emily Climbs, Tomorrow Road became the place of Teddy and Emily's meetings, where they shared their dreams and hopes for the future: "Then Teddy came for me and we walked together up the field and through the To-morrow Road. It is really a To-day Road now, for the trees along it are above our heads, but we still call it the To-morrow Road—partly out of habit and partly because we talk so much on it of our to-morrows and what we hope to do in them. Somehow, Teddy is the only person I like to talk to about my to-morrows and my ambitions. There is no one else." (Emily Climbs).

To-morrow Road was a place that marked the milestones for both Teddy and Emily (Teddy especially). Here he told Emily that his mother decided to allow him to attend Shrewsbury High School; here he told her that he had received an art scholarship and was going to the college in Montreal. Here he proposed. Here she was waiting for him with Dean's letter.

It seemed to me that Teddy and Emily's relationship was all about the future. Thorough Emily Climbs they seemed to think that they couldn't be each other's "today", because they both had their own separate dreams ("to-morrows") to conquer before they would be free to set on their rainbow quest together. (Side note: Montgomery skillfully mentioned that To-morrow Road was in fact - already To-day Road).

By the end of Emily Climbs, as their romance started to blossom, Emily's initial reaction was fear. Early on, she realised that she served a jealous goddess. We didn't get a glimpse into Teddy's feelings, but it was obvious from the start how ambitious and passionate he had been for his art. Perhaps it was something more than just a fear of Emily's refusal that drove him to silence when he had meant to ask her to wait for him? The scene itself happened on To-morrow Road (another symbol that it wasn't their time yet, perhaps?). During this scene, they both experienced a clash of two extremely strong passions: on the one hand, the desire to improve their art and fulfill their ambitions and dreams, and on the other - an awakening love. Teddy, before leaving for Montreal told Emily that there were two things in life that he had wanted "tremendously", but never told her that having her as his wife was one of these things.

I wonder if Juliet and Douglas Starr's tragic story might have forced Teddy's silence. Douglas Starr had once been young and ambitious too, but wouldn't have been accepted by Murrays because of his poverty. The result of this love was tragic; Juliet's elopement broke her family's heart and both she and Douglas died early, leaving Emily all alone. Perhaps Teddy felt that he might have been tolerated as Emily's friend, but not as her suitor. Since he seemed to doubt in his own success (especially since his chosen profession rarely resulted in a fortune), he might have been more likely to keep silent.

One quote of this scene between Teddy and Emily has always intrigued me:

"We walked along the To-morrow Road—[...]—until we reached the fence of the pond-pasture and stood there under the grey-green gloom of the firs. I felt suddenly very happy and in those few minutes part of me planted a garden and laid out beautiful closets and bought a dozen solid silver teaspoons and arranged my attic and hemstitched a double damask table-cloth—and the other part of me just waited." (Emily Climbs).

Because... was it possible that she had seen herself from the future? This was the exact spot where Teddy reconciled with Emily by the end of Emily's Quest. Where he had finally confessed his love [1]. But, most importantly, this was also a spot of the very last scene of the trilogy: Emily, waiting for Teddy to tell him that Dean had gave them a Disappointed House as a wedding gift [2]. There was a certain symbolism in Teddy coming to her - the exact opposite of To-morrow Road's scene that took place in Emily's Climbs, where it was Emily who went away, leaving him alone: "Teddy was looking at the dim gold of Blair Water and scowling. Again I had a feeling that night air was not good for me. I shivered, said a few polite commonplaces, and left him there scowling." (Emily Climbs).

In a way, their story came into full circle. They both achieved success and overcame their own biggest faults (pride, insecurities, selfishness, vanity). Unlike their seventeen year old selves, they got to know what loneliness meant - they found out that their ambitions were not enough to fulfill their heart's desires.

By the end of trilogy, Emily and Teddy still had their own "Alpine Paths" to climb, but from this time, they would have each other's help and support. They also had the dreams of future they share: of home, fireplace, toast and bacon and marmalade.

YESTERDAY ROAD. THE PAST AND FAMILY TRADITIONS. LOST DREAMS. JULIET MURRAY, DOUGLAS STARR, DEAN PRIEST.

Yesterday Road symbolized the past, for it used to be lovely once. Perhaps it might have been a place where Douglas and Juliet used to meet (their own "To-day Road"). For each member of the Murray family, Yesterday Road might have had a different meaning. For Elizabeth, it could have symbolized either her youth, either a period when Juliet was a child; for Laura - her former love for Dr. Burnley; for Jimmy - his lost potential; for Juliet - her childhood, family, first love.

For Emily, Yesterday Road symbolized family traditions (the chapter in which Cousin Jimmy told her family stories was titled "The Book Of Yesterday") as well as her parents' love story. All that shaped her as a woman and a writer, but also nearly became an obstacle to fulfilling her dreams. Due to Juliet's elopement, Aunt Elizabeth almost kept Emily from receiving an education. The whole family tried to marry Emily off to cousin Andrew, so that Juliet's story wouldn't repeat itself. During Emily's later years, Yesterday Road might have symbolized Emily's lost hopes and dreams.

The person who directly referred to Yesterday Road was Dean Priest: "I shall carry pictures of you wherever I go, Star," Dean was saying [...] "pacing up and down in this old garden—wandering in the Yesterday Road—looking out to sea." (Emily's Quest).

In the second part of the trilogy, Dean Priest directly admitted that he was aware that Emily's future would not be his future: 'I hate to hear of your to-morrows—they cannot be my tomorrows.' (Emily Climbs).

During the year that he and Emily had been engaged, Emily rarely thought about the future, and felt anxious about it: "Always to be afraid of to-morrow? Content—even happy with to-day—but always afraid of tomorrow. Was this to be her life? And why that fear of to-morrow?" (Emily's Quest). In the rare moments that Emily thought of her future, she saw Teddy, instead of Dean in those visions. "She saw herself there in the future—flitting through the little rooms—laughing under the firs—sitting hand in hand with Teddy at the fireplace—Emily came to herself with a shock. With Dean, of course, with Dean. A mere trick of the memory." (Emily's Quest).

Perhaps Emily didn't understand what Dean subconsciously realized: that he would never be able to fulfill Emily's future: "to let myself dream something that couldn't come true—that I knew ought not to come true—" (Emily's Quest). During the year they spent together, he allowed himself to dream, but was left with nothing more than memories and ashes. And so, for Dean a Yesterday Road symbolized the one golden year of his engagement; the only glimpse into real happiness he had ever had. Emily became his yesterday. It is interesting how he worded his letter, containing his wedding gift: "And some day I will come to see you in it. I claim my old corner in your house of friendship now and then." (Emily's Quest). Again, he doesn't refer to her future, but her past ("my old corner").

TODAY'S ROAD: CHILDHOOD. FRIENDSHIP. ILSE BURNLEY.

Today's Road symbolized Emily's happy childhood and her friendships. It is the one path that never seems to be stained with bitterness or regrets. As for a character that simply screams "TODAY" - it is obviously Ilse Burnley, who never seemed to care about the past or think of the future:

"As far as Ilse was concerned it seemed as if no quarrel had ever taken place. “Why, that was yesterday,” she said in amazement, when Emily, rather distantly, referred to it. Yesterday and to-day were two entirely different things in Ilse’s philosophy." (Emily of New Moon).

"Ilse was growing, too, blossoming out into strange beauty and brilliance, knowing no law but her own pleasure, recognizing no authority but her own whim." (Emily of New Moon).

"Ilse had always been a merry, irresponsible creature." (Emily's Quest). "All her life she had done exactly as she wanted to do whenever the whim took her. No sense of responsibility whatever." (Emily's Quest).

Besides, Ilse seemed to be the contant "today" of Emily's childhood and youth. She couldn't be Emily's "to-morrow", though, for both girls would have to carve their own separate futures, build their own homes in which the other one would be a cherished guest: "we'll visit each other, you and I—and compare our children—call your first girl Ilse, won't you, friend of my heart—" (Emily's Quest). Emily didn't seem to mind visiting the house Ilse was going to build with her imaginary husband; but she did mind being a guest at Teddy's house, few years later when Ilse repeats her invitation: "When Teddy and I come back and set up house in Montreal you must spend every winter with us, darling. New Moon is a dear place in summer, but in winter you must be absolutely buried alive." Emily made no promises. She did not see herself as a guest in Teddy's home." (Emily's Quest).

That's perhaps the difference: Ilse would be a vital part of Emily's future and vice versa, but it would be their husbands who'd be a part of their to-morrows. Even when Ilse got married to Perry and the three friends reunited, Emily's life wasn't complete. Perhaps it couldn't be, because Ilse - dear as she was - couldn't fill a certain longing in Emily's heart and soul - the voice that needed Teddy's love and presence.

Headcanons for the Long John's paths:

Juliet and Douglas used to walk through Yesterday Road. He asked her to marry him there. Before she eloped, Juliet had a good cry there. She was thinking of her half-sibling and her father - she loved them fiercely, despite everything.

Teddy and Emily said their wedding vows in Long John's Bush, under the firs where they used to meet and where they reunited. (Both Aunts were absolutely mortified by this idea). Or, if it wasn't an official ceremony, at least they had repeated the vows there. (Let's be real, Emily would definitely repeat her vows after the ceremony, changing "Frederick" into "Teddy").

The future generations liked playing on To-day Road.

The names of the paths were never changed, even if the paths themselves did.

The children of four friends invented their own names for the paths, though.

The quotes [1]-[3]:

[1] "Suddenly I heard Teddy's signal whistle in the old orchard. [...] We walked along the To-morrow Road—it has grown so beautiful that one wonders if any to-morrow can make it more beautiful—until we reached the fence of the pond-pasture and stood there under the grey-green gloom of the firs. [...] I'm going to work hard—I'm going to get everything possible out of those two years,' Teddy said at last,[...] '"And when I come back—' he repeated—stopped again. "'Yes?' I said. I don't deny to this my journal that I said it a trifle expectantly. "'I'll make the name of Frederick Kent mean something in Canada!' said Teddy." (Emily Climbs).

[2] "It came clearly and suddenly on the air of a June evening. An old, old call—two higher notes and one long and soft and low. [...] It came again. And Emily knew that Teddy was there, waiting for her in Lofty John's bush—calling to her across the years. She went down slowly—out—across the garden. Of course Teddy was there—under the firs. [..] He put out his hands and drew her to him, with no conventional greeting." (Emily's Quest).

[3] "How very—dear—of Dean. And I am so glad—he is not hurt any longer." She was standing where the To-morrow Road opened out on the Blair Water valley. Behind her she heard Teddy's eager footsteps coming to her." (Emily's Quest).