#...because other people do. but they are wrong.' because clearly we're not supposed to respect mobius' view on loki as he interrogates him

[acourtofthought]

This is physical assault:

This is physical abuse:

And this is what Sarah said about Azriel:

"I'm kinda scared of him"

The torturer.

The guy who hurts unarmed people to get information.

The guy who physically attacks others simply because he didn't like their words.

STOP belittling the side of the fandom who is arguing for the rights of Tamlain shippers. We don't have to care about the ship to understand right or wrong in a place where it clearly doesn't matter what the author said about her characters (since you're pulling the "Sarah hates Tamlin" card) considering she told us she herself would be afraid of Az yet many ship her with someone who dislikes cruelty, a character Sarah said shares her real life energy.

A place where it clearly doesn't matter what Sarah said because she said she wants the men to treat the women like equals (a problem she had with Tamlin and Feyre in the first place) and Azriel absolutely does not do that with Elain. If what Sarah said in the past mattered than everyone would be shipping an Elucien endgame considering she said they'd have tension, healing and growth together. That Elain took both she and Lucien by surprise.

Some continue missing the point, saying we're insensitive for not taking someone's triggers seriously, why it's a valid reason to ban content in a week that was supposed to be welcome to all yet we sit here watching those same people pick and choose who is considered abusive when it's canon that Azriel has physically assaulted multiple others. It's not just "assault against women". Assault against anyone should be something you care about if that's the hill you're standing on in the fandom.

Your argument falls flat when you are being a hypocrite.

Those who argue we're insensitive are the same people liking and creating posts on how Gwyn is secretly evil, how a SA survivor is luring Az, how she can't enjoy kinky sex because of what happened to her.

You want others to respect your triggers yet you have ZERO respect for everyone else's. You want to create non canon content time and again for your ship yet have an issue with Gwynriels, Elucien's, and Tamlains creating non canon content for theirs, where in an alternate world in an appreciation week all should be welcome regardless of what you personally like or are bothered by. You can't remain impartial? Then offer the position up for someone else, I've seen many willing to take up the role of moderator for the week.

If you're allowed to justify the abuse your favorite is guilty of because of nuance then you have no right to demoralize those that do the same.

[severus-snaps]

'Mudblood' and Muggle-borns

back again with some late-to-the-party observations that I want to talk about (ah, the perils of becoming obsessed with snape in 2024)

So, I think by now that most people are aware of this tweet and/or the idea that it wasn't just Muggle-borns, but half-bloods as well, who were called 'Mudbloods' by blood supremacists:

And I don't know about anyone else, but I took this with a grain of salt because JKR is known to... make statements sometimes, some more realistic within her own canon than others.

I know that some people (on Quora especially, but probably elsewhere) outright claim that JKR said this to make Snape's use of 'Mudblood' in SWM 'more acceptable' or less bad or something because the term applied to him, too, and not just Muggle-borns - and literally until today, I thought the same. Now don't get me wrong, I love Snape and will usually jump at any chance to make his backstory and characterisation more complicated and sympathetic. I felt almost that JK was sort of... backtracking, because in the series we only see people use 'Mudblood' against Muggle-borns, with Hermione and Draco the most frequently seen Muggle-born and blood supremacist (respectively) in the series.

So I've rounded up a few examples where Mudblood is arguably used against people who are not Muggle-born.

We're first introduced to the term "Mudblood" in CoS:

The smug look on Malfoy’s face flickered. “No one asked your opinion, you filthy little Mudblood,” he spat.

Ron describes the term shortly afterwards as follows:

"Mudblood's a really foul name for someone who is Muggle-born — you know, non-magic parents"

And that is how we see Draco use it most often, to refer to Muggle-borns (most notably Hermione). But it has been used on others who are probably not Muggleborn.

Exhibit A: Bob Ogden

Over to Potter-Search I go, searching 'Mudblood' - only to find someone called Bob Ogden. Now, having not read the later books in quite some time I had no idea initially who Bob Ogden was, so I head over to the wiki page. For those of you like me who haven't read the later books in a while, Ogden appeared in one of Dumbledore and Harry's trips into the Pensieve:

Bob Ogden (fl. 1925) was a British wizard who worked in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, a department of the Ministry of Magic, and led the Magical Law Enforcement Squad in the 1920s. As part of his duties, he once visited the Gaunt Shack, as the Department believed that Morfin Gaunt had not only performed magic in front of a Muggle but also accosted that Muggle, Tom Riddle Snr, and performed a dark charm on him.

Marvolo Gaunt, Morfin's father, asks him this:

“Are you pure-blood?” [Gaunt] asked, suddenly aggressive. “That’s neither here nor there,” said Ogden coldly, and Harry felt his respect for Ogden rise. Apparently Gaunt felt rather differently. He squinted into Ogden’s face and muttered, in what was clearly supposed to be an offensive tone, “Now I come to think about it, I’ve seen noses like yours down in the village.” “I don’t doubt it, if your son’s been let loose on them,” said Ogden.

Harry I think interprets this interaction as a Pureblood/Half-Blood Ogden rejecting Pureblood/blood supremacist ideology. Personally, I'm more inclined to think he's being cagey because he has definite Muggle ancestry, but we just don't know. I suppose it doesn't really matter. And then:

“So!” said Gaunt triumphantly, as though he had just proved a complicated point beyond all possible dispute. “Don’t you go talking to us as if we’re dirt on your shoes! Generations of purebloods, wizards all — more than you can say, I don’t doubt!” ... “Mr. Gaunt,” said Ogden doggedly, “I am afraid that neither your ancestors nor mine have anything to do with the matter in hand. I am here because of Morfin, Morfin and the Muggle he accosted late last night.

And finally:

“And you think we’re scum, do you?” screamed Gaunt, advancing on Ogden now, with a dirty yellow-nailed finger pointing at his chest. “Scum who’ll come running when the Ministry tells ’em to? Do you know who you’re talking to, you filthy little Mudblood, do you?” “I was under the impression that I was speaking to Mr. Gaunt,” said Ogden, looking wary, but standing his ground.

On the Wiki page, under Ogden's blood status, I find this interesting note:

In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 10 (The House of Gaunt) Ogden is shown wearing "the strange assortment of clothes so often chosen by inexperienced wizards trying to look like Muggles," which indicates that he was not Muggle-born, as a Muggle-born would have at least some experience with putting together a Muggle outfit.

The outfit in question was described as a "frock coat and spats over a striped one-piece bathing costume". I know shit all about clothes, so I had to google a frock coat, and here's some examples (conveniently also featuring spats on the feet in the first image); and also a one-piece bathing suit (vintage, since it was the 1920s and I'm assuming a men's):

[Images from Lily Absinthe, State Library of Victoria and vintag.es]

What a look. Deliberate in its farcicality. So... no, even the most out-of-touch Muggleborn in the 1920s probably wouldn't put that together in combination, because even assuming he was like 100 or something (seeing as he died at some stage before the events of HBP), I don't think a Muggleborn with two Muggle parents could've been that out of the loop on Muggle clothing to confuse swimwear for casual daywear.

Ogden is, obviously then, of magical enough heritage not to have any idea how to dress like a Muggle. And yet here he was, in my 'Mudblood' search. Admittedly, that might only be a generation or so removed; Tonks is also clearly clueless:

“Very clean, aren’t they, these Muggles?” said the witch called Tonks, who was looking around the kitchen with great interest. “My dad’s Muggle-born and he’s a right old slob. I suppose it varies, just like with wizards?”

Marvolo's comment about Ogden's nose also can be taken several ways; a jab/joke about the pus nose curse that Ogden's just had put on him by Morfin, or a real, thinly veiled accusation of Ogden having Muggle heritage (possibly the same as those in the surrounding villages). For his own safety, if Ogden was indeed Pureblood, he probably should've said so (for all the good it might have done him).

At any rate, Ogden obviously, whatever his family history, is 'wizard' enough to not know how to blend with Muggles - he's definitely not Muggleborn himself. If he did have Muggle heritage, which makes him a dubiously-named half-blood (dubious in that "half-blood" more or less refers to anyone who isn't 'Pureblood' or 'Muggleborn' rather than indicating a half-and-half split), it's likely to have been a grandparent or something, if not further removed (do we see Tonks struggle to wear Muggle clothes? I can't remember. I vaguely remember McGonagall wearing a Muggle dress, and she's supposed to be half-blood - but she's not described as looking odd for what she's wearing but I got more of the impression that Harry found it odd to see her out of the ususal robes she wears at Hogwarts).

Anyway, the real point of it is that it doesn't matter how magical Ogden is, because he is marked out as not Muggle-born by his clothes, and yet he still gets called a Mudblood. Gaunt wasn't necessarily suggesting Ogden's parents hadn't been a witch and a wizard, but that overall he had a bit more Muggle in him than a wizard should have (which, according to Gaunt, is none).

It's worth noting that the Gaunts were a family "noted for a vein of instability", possibly as a result of consistently marrying their cousins, so perhaps only their view on 'Mudblood' is anyone who isn't a Pureblood. And, of course, they are the proud, cousin-marrying descendents of Salazar Slytherin, who "started all this pure-blood stuff", and so were likely especially zealous about who 'counted' as Pure:

"They [Hogwarts founders] built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution." (Binns, CoS) "Slytherin wished to be more selective about the students admitted to Hogwarts. He believed that magical learning should be kept within all-magic families. He disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, believing them to be untrustworthy." (Binns, CoS)

Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those Whose ancestry is purest." (Sorting Hat, OotP)

In any case, this is the strongest example of a dedicated blood supremacist calling someone with any suspected (real or otherwise) Muggle heritage a Mudblood.

Exhibit B: Walburga Black

Walburga Black was Sirius Black's mother, a proud pureblood supremacist, and she thought that Voldemort had the 'right idea' about things. Her portrait at Grimmauld Place calls the inhabitants of her house "filth" "creatures of dirt*", "scum", "stains of dishonour", and "mudbloods".

"MUDBLOODS! SCUM! CREATURES OF DIRT*!" “Filth! Scum! By-products of dirt and vileness! Half-breeds, mutants, freaks, begone from this place! How dare you befoul the house of my fathers — ” "Mudbloods, filth, stains of dishonor, taint of shame on the house of my fathers!"

* Creatures of dirt is apparently another word/turn of phrase for Mudblood, according to the wiki.

Obviously the portrait is screaming and overexcited, and not especially prone to nuance, but it does seem to be calling multiple people in the house Mudbloods - when, in theory, only Hermione would fit that description. Walburga is also capable of distinguishing between different people and offering specific insults, such as to Sirius:

“Yoooou!” she howled, her eyes popping at the sight of the man. “Blood traitor, abomination, shame of my flesh!”

Andromeda Tonks (nee Black) was blasted off of the Black family tapestry by Walburga for marrying a Muggleborn:

[Sirius] pointed to another small round burn mark between two names, Bellatrix and Narcissa. “Andromeda’s sisters are still here because they made lovely, respectable pure-blood marriages, but Andromeda married a Muggle-born, Ted Tonks, so — ” Sirius mimed blasting the tapestry with a wand and laughed sourly.

I expect having an actual Muggle in the family (aka an actual half-and-half Half-Blood) would've been seen as just as bad, if not worse, than marrying a Muggleborn to dedicated blood purists.

But in any case, with an Order primarily made up of Pureblood blood traitors (e.g. Weasleys, Sirius, Moody) and Half-Bloods (generally consisting of at least two magical parents like Harry, Tonks, and Dumbledore), and one Muggleborn (Hermione), Walburga just calls them all Mudbloods.

I'm also curious, as Hagrid wasn't there at 12 Grimmauld Place and a werewolf isn't technically a half-breed (but is sometimes conceptualised as such e.g. by Umbridge and her ilk), whether Walburga calls half-bloods "half-breeds", or whether she was yelling more generally at Lupin. Perhaps Muggles are "a different creature" in her eyes. We know that this line of thinking isn't uncommon:

"We’ve all got to listen to [whichever DE was in charge of Muggle Studies in DH] explain how Muggles are like animals, stupid and dirty..." (Neville, DH)

Exhibit C: Penelope Clearwater

Examples start to get a bit more sparse and interpretive from here on out.

In Chamber of Secrets, Voldemort describes the people petrified as Mudbloods:

“Haven’t you guessed yet, Harry Potter?” said Riddle softly. “Ginny Weasley opened the Chamber of Secrets. She strangled the school roosters and daubed threatening messages on the walls. She set the Serpent of Slytherin on four Mudbloods, and the Squib’s cat.”

The "four Mudbloods" in question were:

Colin Creevy

Justin Finch-Fletchley (with Nearly-Headless Nick as collatoral damage)

Hermione Granger, and

Penelope Clearwater

But we're not certain that they're all Muggleborn. In CoS, Justin is confirmed; he was headed to Eton and was waiting for Harry (the supposed Heir of Slytherin) to attack him in CoS for being Muggleborn. Colin is confirmed; "I never knew all the odd stuff I could do was magic till I got the letter from Hogwarts. My dad’s a milkman...", and Hermione is obvious.

And then there's Penelope. Unlike the other confirmed Muggle-borns, we don't hear much about her, apart from the fact that she's Percy's girlfriend and probably likes Quidditch; but Hermione uses her as her 'cover' when the Trio gets caught by Snatchers in Deathly Hallows:

“Penelope Clearwater,” said Hermione. She sounded terrified, but convincing. “What’s your blood status?” “Half-blood,” said Hermione.

And the note about it on the Wiki says:

However, it is possible that the fourth Muggle-born in addition to Colin, Hermione, and Justin (who are all definitively identified as Muggle-borns at some point) was Nearly-Headless Nick, and that Penelope was simply petrified because she was with Hermione when she encountered the Basilisk. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 23 (Malfoy Manor), Hermione posed as Penelope when under interrogation by Snatchers, and claimed to be half-blood. Although, Hermione may have only lied about Penelope's blood status because mentioning she's Muggle-born would have possibly made things worse.

To me it seems unlikely that Voldemort would set the Basilisk on a ghost. It also seems unlikely that, after Harry has offered up "Vernon Dudley" as his name (more on that in a moment), and Ron has called himself first Stan Shunpike and then Barney Weasley, that Hermione would choose someone who she knew wasn't going to be a safe bet. Snatchers are "gangs trying to earn gold by rounding up Muggle-borns and blood traitors", so why offer a name that's likely to be on their list of Muggle-borns? It's also possible that it was just the first name she thought of, then lied about the blood status; but given that Hermione and Penelope would have woken up in the hospital wing together at the end of the events of CoS, it may well have come up in discussion.

And then there's this:

“You checked their names on the list yet, Scabior?” he roared. “Yeah. There’s no Vernon Dudley on ’ere, Greyback.”

So, the list is being checked by the Snatchers to see if the 'disguised' Trio are "wanted" - aka if they are Muggleborns/blood traitors/truants. I doubt they even checked Ron's name since the Weasleys are well-known blood traitors, but they picked up on Vernon Dudley not being a real name, and their list certainly seems to include Muggleborns, since they say they've captured a "Mudblood (presumably Dean Thomas), a runaway goblin, and three truants (the Trio)". Yet they don't mention Penelope.

So, Penelope was not on their list, and if it hadn't been for the Snatchers recognising Hermione in the paper, they might have gotten away with it. Maybe Penelope was Muggleborn and "presented herself for interrogation", which is something that Ron mentions Hermione hasn't done earlier in the book, and therefore that's why Penelope wasn't on the list - or that Penelope is not Muggleborn, but Half-Blood, and she got called a Mudblood in CoS anyway.

(Yes, JK probably forgot - but I'm sticking in-universe).

Exhibit D: The Muggle-Born Registration Commission

“Will the old hag [Umbridge] be interrogating Mudbloods all day, does anyone know?”

Shortly followed by:

“No, no, I’m half-blood, I’m half-blood, I tell you! My father was a wizard, he was, look him up, Arkie Alderton, he’s a well-known broomstick designer, look him up, I tell you — get your hands off me, get your hands off—” “This is your final warning,” said Umbridge’s soft voice, magically magnified so that it sounded clearly over the man’s desperate screams. “If you struggle, you will be subjected to the Dementor’s Kiss.” The man’s screams subsided, but dry sobs echoed through the corridor. “Take him away,” said Umbridge. Two dementors appeared in the doorway of the courtroom, their rotting, scabbed hands clutching the upper arms of a wizard who appeared to be fainting. They glided away down the corridor with him, and the darkness they trailed behind them swallowed him from sight.

So, the Muggle-Born Registration Commission was supposed to be rounding up, interrogating and imprisoning Muggle-borns, but arguably was also rounding up (and referring to) possible half-bloods, too. The same possibly happened to Dean Thomas, a half-blood (according to his official page) mistaken for a Muggle-born, as he had no record of his wizard father.

“Muggle-born, eh?” asked the first man. “Not sure,” said Dean. “My dad left my mum when I was a kid. I’ve got no proof he was a wizard, though.”

Summary of Exhibits

So, we've seen half-blood-or-more Bob Ogden and potentially half-blood Penelope Clearwater be referred to as Mudbloods by Gaunts/Voldemort. We've seen an entire house of people of different magical heritage between them, all collectively called Mudbloods by Walburga Black. And we've seen some random Ministry witch call a whole collection of (assumed but not confirmed) Muggle-born wizards and witches Mudbloods.

I think what we can gather from this is that the distinction between half-blood and Muggle-born hardly matters to some blood supremacists. If you're a Pureblood supremacist, anyone who isn't Pure is, obviously, impure. Arguably, "Mudblood" wasn't always strictly about being Muggleborn; it's about 'impure' heritage. The stronger examples (Bob Ogden, Walburga Black) are older examples; Voldemort and Walburga's generation (born ~1920s) and even before (Marvolo's generation had an even more ambiguous use). I think it's safe to say that the meaning of the word may have evolved or tightened by the time Harry is in school to primarily refer to Muggleborns, but obviously that's a matter of opinion;

Silent Half-Bloods in the Hierarchy of Pureblood Supremacy

Wizarding society is sort of divided into Pureblood, Half-blood, Muggle-borns, Muggles, and... Squibs, somewhere.

Obviously, in an ideal pureblood society, Purebloods are at the top:

[Sirius' parents] "thought Voldemort had the right idea, they were all for the purification of the Wizarding race, getting rid of Muggle-borns and having purebloods in charge." (Sirius, OotP) "For years [Regulus] talked of the Dark Lord, who was going to bring the wizards out of hiding to rule the Muggles and the Muggle-borns..." (Kreacher, DH)

Setting aside the knowledge for a moment that Voldemort was half-blood, and instead perceiving him as the Pureblood he pretended to be, this is what he touted, and this is what his Pureblood followers from the "ancient and noble" families like the Malfoys and the Blacks aspired to.

So indisputably, here excluding for brevity's sake the complexities of intelligent nonhumans/magical beings and 'half-breeds' (being its own meta that's probably been written somewhere), Muggles are at the bottom of a blood supremacist's list. Muggles and Muggle-borns are seen as a threat to Wizarding society, and as (potentially dangerous) outsiders. We can see it in the explanation given (quoted somewhere way, way above) about Salazar Slytherin's reasonings; it started with mistrust, as Muggles in the early days were persecuting wizards.

This mistrust (and disgust) obviously was kept alive and well in Tom/Voldemort/blood supremacists: "I, keep the name of a foul, common Muggle, who abandoned me even before I was born, just because he found out his wife was a witch?" (Voldemort, CoS).

But it's also an element of exclusionary attitude; Muggle-borns have grown up outside of magical culture, which we can see reflected in the first interaction between Draco and Harry in PS:

“But they were our kind, weren’t they?” “They were a witch and wizard, if that’s what you mean.” “I really don’t think they should let the other sort in, do you? They’re just not the same, they’ve never been brought up to know our ways. Some of them have never even heard of Hogwarts until they get the letter, imagine. I think they should keep it in the old wizarding families. What’s your surname, anyway?”

It'll come as a surprise to literally nobody that the problem as blood supremacists see it is that Muggles, and by extension Muggle-borns, as well as being outsiders, are viewed as dirty/disgusting, and common. In CoS, post slug-heaving, Ron describes "Mudblood" as meaning:

"Dirty blood, see. Common blood".

We see these descriptors a lot in the series. Gaunt describes Merope as a "dirty Squib", "disgusting little Squib" and a "filthy little blood traitor" (and she's a Pureblood witch, albeit struggling with her powers); and in CoS of course Voldemort calls his father "a foul, common Muggle". We also see throughout the books "Mudblood filth", and "filthy little Mudblood" in particular reference to Muggle-borns such as Hermione and Lily (and to Bob Ogden).

[Side note: I have seen some arguments that say 'filthy' is sometimes used in the series instead of the word 'fucking', e.g. "that fucking Mudblood" - but obviously it's a kid's series, so the word was replaced. I think it could work in terms of this replacement in some contexts, but I'm not sure that was the purpose. Filthy just means disgustingly dirty, and has an interesting extra context from the etymology I just found out:

filthy (adj.) late 12c., fulthe, "corrupt, sinful," from filth + -y (2). Meaning "physically unclean, dirty, noisome" is from late 14c. Meaning "morally dirty, obscene" is from 1530s.

You can get a sense of a more 'moral' objection in the later books, e.g. Neville discussing their Muggle Studies during the events of DH:

We’ve all got to listen to her explain how Muggles are like animals, stupid and dirty, and how they drove wizards into hiding by being vicious toward them, and how the natural order is being reestablished.

And especially this, from Voldemort:

"Not content with corrupting and polluting the minds of Wizarding children, last week Professor Burbage wrote an impassioned defense of Mudbloods in the Daily Prophet. Wizards, she says, must accept these thieves of their knowledge and magic. The dwindling of the purebloods is, says Professor Burbage, a most desirable circumstance. … She would have us all mate with Muggles …"

I feel like there's a few points to be made about this quote.

First, obviously Voldemort has the DEs convinced that he's also Pureblood; he's the Heir of Slytherin after all, the Dark Lord, greatest wizard of all time, etc. Even Harry telling Bellatrix that Voldemort was half-blood at the end of OotP hasn't made a difference. (And why would it? Question or defy him and he'll kill your whole family and make you watch, probably).

Second, we can see also in the Muggle-Born Registration Commission chapter, where Umbridge asks Mary Cattermole where she stole her wand from, that Muggle-borns are accused of somehow... stealing magic?

"Nevertheless, unless you can prove that you have at least one close Wizarding relative, you are now deemed to have obtained your magical power illegally and must suffer the punishment."

Anyway, I think there's another point here, one I can't quite reach with my brain. The quote starts with viewing ostensibly only Muggleborns as the issue; as the thieves of knowledge. But Voldemort's point ends up with the disparaging of half-bloods (as they're the wizarding 'type' to arise from Muggle-Magical Mating™️). That's nothing to do with Muggle-borns at all.

But we hear next to nothing about half-bloods, despite their having Muggle and/or Muggle-born heritage; the same heritage described so often as dirty, disgusting, and filthy. We hear more outrage about blood traitors, Pureblood families who sympathise with Muggles or Muggle-borns: "blood traitors are as bad as the Mudbloods", "Blood traitor is next to Mudblood in my book", and wizards/witches who are tolerant of Muggles are called "Muggle-lovers". (I hesitate even to say that 'Muggle-tolerant wizards' like, support, or even accept Muggles - because even Muggle 'tolerant' wizards (e.g. like Hagrid and the Weasleys), the Order and the like, the allies to the "champion of commoners, of Mudbloods and Muggles, Albus Dumbledore", also look down on Muggles to an extent, but I digress again).

The only disparaging references I could find to half-bloods were Bellatrix to Harry:

"You dare speak his name with your unworthy lips, you dare besmirch it with your half-blood’s tongue, you dare -" " — He stands there — filthy half-blood —"

And one about Mundungus:

“That mangy old half-blood has been stealing Black heirlooms?” said Phineas Nigellus, incensed.

In the few examples we see, they're subject to the same dehumanising, dirty/disgusting and animal comparisons as "Mudbloods" and Squibs.

But there are few examples. The lack of attention paid to half-bloods is probably, in part because of the dwindling population of Purebloods:

"Most wizards these days are half-blood anyway. If we hadn’t married Muggles we’d’ve died out." (Ron, CoS) “If you’re only going to let your sons and daughters marry purebloods your choice is very limited, there are hardly any of us left.” (Sirius, OotP)

Half-bloods are accepted purely by necessity, because unlike Muggle-borns they do have magical lineage to draw on, and because there aren't enough Purebloods left. It's for the same reason that blood traitors are allowed to keep on being traitors but aren't punished to the same degree as Muggle-borns, per this note from the wiki:

"They don’t want to spill too much pure blood, so they’ll torture us a bit if we’re mouthy but they won’t actually kill us.” Given this statement, as well as the fact that the Weasleys were only in direct danger after Ron Weasley's help of Harry Potter was revealed to the Death Eaters, it seems that they were hesitant to kill blood traitors unless they were very rebellious.

Half-bloods sort of escape the Pureblood rhetoric entirely, between these reasons and being the most common type of witch or wizard. The term “half-blood” is ambiguous, and practically meaningless, after all; it refers to anyone with one Muggle parent (like Seamus Finnegan; Severus Snape), or anyone with one Muggle-born parent (like Harry, Tonks), and (I'm not sure if we learn this in the books, but) it also applies if you have a Muggle or Muggle-born grandparent, and presumably any recent traceable Muggle or Muggle-born lineage.

While half-bloods do have 'impure' Muggle ancestry, they are often viewed through the lens of their magical parentage, which can sometimes afford them a degree of acceptance or a different (almost nonexistant) level of scrutiny. In the hierarchy of blood purity, they are less offensive to purists compared to Muggle-borns, but not as esteemed as pure-bloods.

Sort of absent but for different reasons are Squibs. In broad terms, Squibs are generally more likely to be straight up ignored or disregarded, in contrast to the outright hatred and contempt directed toward Muggleborns and Muggles - the issue is a relation to non-magical Muggles, rather than magical skill itself. Because Squibs have magical ancestry, perhaps they fare slightly 'better' within this belief system. Of course, I expect it's all interrelated and decidedly more nuanced (as are all systems of prejudice/oppression), but as I say - in broad terms. Filch liked to help Umbridge, after all - like so many others in wizarding society (and wider, real-life society), his acceptance was conditional, and arguably based on either pity or what he could bring to the table.

In a similar way, being half-blood is only 'advantageous' when magical heritage can be proven and played upon - like Voldemort; like Umbridge:

“That’s — that’s pretty, Dolores,” she said, pointing at the pendant gleaming in the ruffled folds of Umbridge’s blouse. “What?” snapped Umbridge, glancing down. “Oh yes — an old family heirloom,” she said, patting the locket lying on her large bosom. “The S stands for Selwyn. … I am related to the Selwyns. … Indeed, there are few pure-blood families to whom I am not related...”

"It was Umbridge's lie that brought the blood surging into Harry's brain and obliterated his sense of caution; that [Slytherin's/Voldemort's] locket she had taken as a bribe from a petty criminal [Mundungus] was being used to bolster her own pure-blood credentials."

... and even like some Death Eaters probably do:

"The Death Eaters can’t all be pure-blood, there aren’t enough pure-blood wizards left," said Hermione stubbornly. "I expect most of them are half-bloods pretending to be pure." "I got this one," [Neville] indicated another slash to his face, "for asking [Carrow] how much Muggle blood she and her brother have got."

... and unlike the son of Arkie Alderton, the well-known broomstick designer, who got carted away by Dementors. Purebloods could and would just as easily turn on half-bloods.

"First they came for the Socialists…" as the poem goes. Muggles and Muggle-borns will be the first witches and wizards targeted, face the worst discrimination, but half-bloods too are only safe so long as they can prove themselves as 'magical enough', dedicated enough, or useful enough; and they'll never be magical enough for the likes of true believers.

Severus Snape: Mudblood?

I don't think it's a stretch, then, to say that some Purebloods did use the term "Mudblood" for people other than Muggle-borns. Unlike most of the half-bloods we see in the series, with two magical parents, Snape was actually the son of Tobias Snape, a Muggle, with a clearly Muggle name that sets him apart from the well-known and interconnected Pureblood families. As a student, and sometimes as an adult, Snape to some extent 'fit' the stereotypes of Muggles in that he would be perceived as common, dirty, and disgusting; throughout the series he's described as "greasy", with "yellow, uneven teeth"; he hails from Cokeworth, likely from a two-up-two-down house, described as though set in a Northern industrial area; he is scrawny, skinny, as a child wears mismatched clothes, and is likely neglected and grew up in poverty. (Contrast with Purebloods Sirius, who is regularly described as handsome, James, who had the "indefinable air of having been well cared for and even adored that Snape so conspicuously lacked", and the Malfoy family, who are also regularly described as being attractive).

If we use Draco as a benchmark for Slytherin Pureblood behaviour, then imagine how much worse Snape would be received; he's poorer than a Weasley, more Muggle than Harry Potter (and absolutely not the chosen one), and at least half as Muggle as Hermione. It's questionable whether Eileen Prince/Snape was herself even a Pureblood; whilst I was traversing for all the quotes here, Hermione talks about reading through Nature’s Nobility: A Wizarding Genealogy, that "lists the pure-blood families that are now extinct in the male line" - which, if Prince was a Pureblood name, might have crept up in passing conversation since Hermione seemed to struggle to find anything out about the HBP in the previous book.

During a war in which Voldemort rose to power, with an identifiably Muggle name and not one of the vastly interconnected and still-powerful Pureblood families, Snape would be noticed for being different. He was about a year apart from Regulus after all, who had a whole collage on his wall of Voldemort's press cuttings, favoured son of enthusiastic blood supremacist Walburga Black - so I find it hard to believe that Slytherins were... fully accepting.

In CoS, when a basilisk was going around attempting to kill Muggle-borns on behalf of the Heir of Slytherin, the Slytherin common room password was pureblood. I feel like there's a whole point there, but it's nearly 4am here, so I can't brain it right now. (But like... did Snape set the passwords? Did the entrance do it magically?? Did a Head Boy/Prefect do it?? Either way, there's a strong sense of pureblood supremacy communicated in that password that's only strengthened by the timing, echoing the Heir's agenda). In any case, it speaks to the entrenched nature of pure-blood ideology of Slytherin as a house.

"my parents, with their pure-blood mania, convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal . . . my idiot brother, soft enough to believe them" (Sirius, OotP) "as far as [Marvolo] was concerned, having pure blood made you practically royal" (Harry, DH)

The Purebloods of Slytherin house in any generation - who considered themselves "practically royal" in their superiority - would surely ridicule a self-styled, half-blood Prince.

[salarta]

Polaris/Lorna Dane, Original Intent, and Marvel's Refusal to Set Things Right

I wrote this elsewhere. I felt it was worth sharing here too. It was in response to a discussion about original creator intent vs later writers, and how to view treatment in official works.

As the original creator, they knew best who the character is meant to be. They're the ones who put tons of thought into traits they should have, who undoubtedly thought of things influencing the character or important history for them that never hit the page. It's the original creator who visioned up what this character is meant to represent and offer to the narrative and readers. Without the original creator, the character wouldn't even exist.

That does not mean every single thing from the creator should be taken as gospel truth never to be changed or questioned. Lovecraft, for example, was horribly racist. There's no reason to keep his racism intact for the sake of "being faithful." However, the core concepts like what the elder gods are and represent are a thing where looking back at that work makes the most sense if you're trying to do something new with it.

So for Lorna, I look to the original creator and what they clearly intended when they created her. What we see out of that is: Lorna is SUPPOSED to be a powerhouse character who even the X-Men dread the prospect of having to fight, but who they're pleased to have on their side when she's with them. She's supposed to be more progressive and feminist, she's supposed to have a struggle between Xavier and Magneto philosophies, and at least some mutants are supposed to think of her as mutant royalty due to her lineage from Magneto.

Most nostalgia-based depictions of Lorna have none of these elements. The closest they come to it recently is HALF of the last point, where she's of Magneto's lineage but not seen as mutant royalty. And even that one, Brevoort was fighting against it a decade ago. I think the reason for him being so opposed to it comes from how nostalgia-based depictions violate all the other core elements of who she's supposed to be, so he thinks Lorna shouldn't have any of it.

We've talked before about how Claremont toward the end of his run had tried to turn Lorna into a completely different character, down to even changing her powers and plans to change her codename. We say he didn't pull it off, but if we're being real blunt and honest about it, he actually succeeded in his goal. He ripped apart every single thing she's supposed to be, and decades later, it's still a struggle to get even one of those elements to be recognized and respected.

She's supposed to be a powerhouse that the X-Men dread fighting, but she's regularly depicted as a punching bag who may talk and look tough but gets bested easily. "I'm a big gun" she's written saying in 2020s X-Factor, right before getting mind controlled and called stupid because the story decided she had to be depicted acting stupid to benefit others. She's supposed to be someone the X-Men want on their side, but she's completely excluded from most major X-Men activity. She's supposed to be progressive and feminist, but she's instead made out to have her entire identity revolve around supporting other characters, mostly men, mainly Havok. She's supposed to struggle between Xavier and Magneto philosophies, but instead she's most often depicted as towing the Xavier line. She's supposed to be seen as mutant royalty, but most characters act like she's a nobody, with even Exodus getting to be on the Quiet Council instead of her.

This is a character who's been deeply wronged, and decades later, people like Brevoort refuse to set things right because they'd rather be nostalgic for sexism that Marvel got away with decades ago.

[pythagoras180]

Why I Hate Adrien

So a few people have asked me why I hate Adrien so much. I've given it some thought, and I've realized that my hatred comes from 3 sources:

1. Adrien is a passive, useless character and a waste of screentime.

Adrien is a very passive character. He doesn't really have goals that he works towards outside of romance. He doesn't feel like a real person with a real life. He's just an object for the actual main characters to fight over. And to be clear, not every character needs to be active or well developed, but thei screentime should correspond to this. Adrien takes up a massive amount of screentime in the show. And since he ended up being worthless, I feel like he personally wasted my time by appearing so much. His screentime could have instead been used to develop the other characters.

2. Adrien is a creator's pet.

While Adrien doesn't really do anything in the show, I think I still may have felt bad for the character if I felt like this was because the writers didn't like him or something. Thing is, Adrien is the complete opposite, as the writers are clearly biases *for* him at every turn. He's almost always portrayed as right, even in situations where he clearly isn't. "Chameleon" clearly portrayed his "advice" about Lila as good, even though anyone with basic respect for their peers wouldn't be okay with letting them be lied to. There's episodes like "Kuro Neko", where Adrien is very clearly in the wrong amd being unreasonable, yet he's still clearly framed like we're supposed to feel bad for him. Part of the reason he has so much screentime is because the writers love to insert him in every situation they can. Even his status as a passive character can be considered as the writers favoring him. They think he shouldn't have to do anything because he's such a precious boy, so everyone should just do everything for him. I'm not inclined to like a character that I feel is getting special treatment just because of who they are.

3. Adrien does horrible things.

Those last 2 points definitely provide potential for me to dislike a character, but I don't think it's possible for me to actually do so if that character hasn't done anything wrong. Well, despite what the writers want you to believe, Adrien has absolutely done a lot of horrendous things. There's the fact that he continued being friends with Chloé despite her remorseless bullying of Adrien's "friends". He keeps trying to date Ladybug despite her repeatedly rejecting him, to the point where it's straight up harassment. This culminates in "Kuro Neko", where he quits his job of protecting the city because he keeps getting rejected (again, this is portrayed as sympathetic). Like I mentioned before, he tells Marinette to let Lila continue lying to everyone else. And why does he do this? I honestly don't know, and neither does anybody else. There's no rationalization for this moment. But the point is, Adrien put Lila above everyone else for some reason. He also emotionally cheated on Kagami, hurt her feelings, and barely cared afterward. He didn't have to do anything to make up with her, that just worked out on its own. He tried to Cataclysm multiple people despite knowing that it can be fatal, and the only time he displays real remorse over it is when Monarch is on the receiving end. Oh, but he only feels bad for like a minute, then he's fine (I believe that that was just to make Ladybug's exposition about not being able to fix it fee more natural, he wouldn't have shown any remorse if that wasn't necessary). Oh, and then there's that one moment in "Passion" where he pretends not to know what the consequences of making a wish is and tried to convince Ladybug to let him make one. If she said yes, he would have sacrificed somebody else to heal Nathalie. The show has made it clear that this is morally wrong. To me, this is the moment where Adrien became irredeemable. Also, in the Paris Special we find out that Adrien became a mass murdering supervillain in an alternate universe because he's sad that his mom died. He didn't have any grander plan, not scheme to bring her back like Gabriel did. Nope, he just killed people because he was sad, that's how they presented it. I know that this is technically a different person, but the alternate characters from tbe special are meant to be pretty close to the originals, just with different circumstances. So I think this shows who Adrien really is deep down. So yeah, I think Adrien is one of the most despicable "good guy" characters ever.

So that's the reason I hate Adrien, in 3 parts. I wouldn't hate him nearly as much if it wasn't for all 3 components. Kind of a perfect storm really, and I don't think I'll ever hate another character this much, for this reason.

[the-cat-and-the-birdie]

I had coffee my thoughts are all over the place it's not gonna make sense and I'm probably gonna change my mind about some of the things I said later but here's my ramble.

I'm so mad right now. There's so many things that piss me off with Peter B. I keep thinking about all the mess he keeps pulling throughout the first and the second movie. The fact that he betrayed Miles not once but twice BUT THREE TIMES (typing Miles up in ITSV, not telling him about the Spider Society or that he was an anomaly, CALLING HQ ON HIM BECAUSE HE WANTED TO SAVE HIS FATHER. Technically that's 4 but moving on.)

He refuses to acknowledge Miles as a fellow spider(which is probably why he didn't feel bad about finding Miles was an anomaly now he has a reason to not take Miles seriously.) And he keeps trying to insert himself into a mentor role when he's yet to do a whole lot of mentoring. What also throws me here is how he had the audacity to say the trauma builds character while being a mentor to help guide Miles into becoming Spiderman so Miles' could avoid the mistakes that Peter made.

I WILL NEVER BE OVER THAT CHAIR SCENE IN ITSV. How is it you as a grown man. A grown white man no less took a black teenage boy who you viewed as so much of a liability that you had to tie him up. And I know multiple people have talked about everything that's wrong with this scene but there's still something so haunting about watching him just nonchalantly be tied up kicking and screaming about how he wants to be let go that bothers me so much. And I find it hard to believe that this was just a scene we're supposed to just move on from. Did they do this on purpose? Was this supposed to showcase something about Peter's character that I'm not picking up on? Because I find it so hard to believe that the writers who made sure to explicitly show how Gwen's Peter is Christian because he later turns into a lizard wouldn't understand the implications of this scene.

I also don't think he's a strategic as he thinks he is. What do you think was going to happen when you forcefully tied this boy to a chair? You thought he was going to sit still? Also would you think the boy who's trying to save his father was going to do? Actually listen to your words? Sit back and be like, oh you're right I should just let my father die. (This is me going off my reasoning that he didn't plan out that one scene in ATSV. I think that he thought that because he's Miles' "mentor" he could get through to him in a way others can't. Which pretentious much?) His actions do more harm than good and it just works out for him somehow. (For instance Miles saving them in ITSV because he came late.)

These are my thoughts do with this what you will. All the stars decided to align today ig because I haven't been able to come up with coherent thoughts like this in a minute.

(I really need to rewatch itsv. So if there's anything here that I'm wrong about regarding itsv it's been like 5 years since I've seen it.)

I GET THISS SOOO HARD (I waited until I had coffee to answer this lol)

BUT YESSSSS Because like I can understanding giving Peter the benefit of the doubt, it makes plausible sense for a movie to have a certain amount of wiggle room plot wise.

But with writers who clearly understood punk enough to accurately show it in Hobie's arc, repeatedly put in the work to respect Cockney and Puerto Rican culture, who wrote every one of Hobie's lines with PERCISION - would just overlook the glaring hole in their story that is Peter.

Because we as a viewer are continually told we SHOULD look up to him and we SHOULD trust him - but in doing so they accidentally make him the exact opposite. Like.. It doesn't make sense to me.

The Focus on Jess & The Absence of Peter:

aka GODDAMN I hate Peter B. Parker [yet another rant about 'bad' writing, plotholes, and Peter not showing up for Miles or Gwen.

For example,

Jess is Gwen's mentor, and we see her mentor style is extremely different from Peter's and that's suppose to be a contrasting dynamic between them and the relationship between Miles and Peter. Okay, makes sense.

But by NOT having Peter be Gwen's mentor, the writers are implying that he didn't step up as an emotional mentor when all this given - HE SHOULD. Because he's the only adult that she knows, and she a freshly homeless teen who needs to be around people she trusts, rather than working at a society with an auditorium of adults.

But by trying to show off how much we should judge Jess, the writers have inadvertently given us a Peter who just..didn't take responsibility. That's what they're implying - that Hobie and Jess were the ones who came to get aid. And we're suppose to look the other way. I... can't do that, sir.

"Look at how mean Jess is, why not blame her-" Jess is doing her job. Where's the adult she actually knows and trusts. Can we get some dialogue about what he did for her? Or did he just do nothing?

Did they just forget to include that, or did Peter just forget to help?

For me, that's two points in the bucket. Not housing Gwen, and not being her mentor. He could've done one, the other or both.

But because he didn't, we're left asking "What WAS he doing in the Society?"

Missions, I assume. Cause he wasn't mentoring her, so he must have been off putting in legit work for Miguel, I assume.

If we're looking at the characters as full-rounded - which I would hope they are considering the depth of Gwen, Miles and Hobie, it's not a large jump to ask 'How involved was Peter in Gwen's time at the Society? Why is he not her mentor, or why is she not living with him?"

Gwen..should be staying with him. If you're an adult who knows a teen and they become homeless, and it is within your means - yeah, I do think it's a moral obligation to open your home to them, at least temporarily. If you care about them. But that aside, let's extend the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Gwen didn't want to see him.

But then the ratting Miles out thing. This, I can't get around-

Some may say that it was simply for plot development and that Lyla spoke suddenly as a mistake on her part.

And I gotta call bullshit.

Firstly, because this is the same movie where we're shown Hobie stealing parts prior to learning what the parts are for. The same film that literally animated a fight accurately to Bushwick down to the very street. Let's cut it some slack here.

And moreso - I could understand the justification that it was a mistake on Lyla's part.

If Lyla was human. She's not.

She's an AI, and a very sophisticated one at that. Lyla runs on protocol, because that's AI's do. She's made to do things the way that is mathematically most effective, based on her analysis and her code.

It's easy to see Lyla as just an avatar, and a comedic one at that - but Lyla is literally one of - if not the - smartest 'person' in the multiverse. She's the only one who can track Spot in real time. If Jess and Miguel need aid on a mission or with Spot, they call Lyla. And she's handled every Society mission prior to the chase.

Her speaking out of turn suddenly and giving Peter away is an understandable plot mistake, if she was subjected to human mistakes.

So far, Lyla isn't. It doesn't make sense, based on what Lyla is.

I think Lyla would know better than to give Peter away suddenly by detecting Miles' presence and still speaking out loud.

A lot ask 'What motive does Peter have for ratting Miles out?', but we also should also ask "What motive does Lyla have for ratting herself out?'

It's her goal to find Miles no matter what. She doesn't care, she kinda can't - she's an AI. She just has to find him and send Miles' location to Miguel. Her objective.

So her locating Peter without his knowledge and then giving herself away to him doesn't make sense - especially if Lyla knew Miles was that close, from a human standpoint and definitely from the standpoint of the most sophisticated AI in existence.

So I was under the assumption that - like you mentioned now, that before when he gets Miles alone, he may genuinely be trying to convince him still, but by the time they get into that space, I think that's around the time that it becomes a 'Okay, let's just get Miles back to HQ and talk about this' situation.

He genuinely ratted Miles out. In my eyes.

Because at this point, Miguel hasn't assaulted Miles. That comes later. So realistically speaking, his goal was probably to calm Miles down, and get him back to HQ however he could, and talk to him there.

Peter could've helped WAYYYY earlier.

People give Peter credit like 'Oh but he came over to Miles' side at the end-'

NO. YOU DO NOT GET A COOKIE.

Peter could've helped SO much earlier, and if anything, he was THE ONLY ONE in a position of helping.

Gwen can't do anything, like they physically restrain her when she tries to. And there's no point after they come to HQ that Gwen has the chance to turn around and help Peter.

Gwen doesn't get that chance. Peter DOES.

Had Peter helped Miles HERE, IMMEDIATELY, Miles would've gotten away without being assaulted by Peter.

If Peter had turned around and changed course in this moment, Miles would have been better off.

Fuck Peter B. Fuckkkkk hiiiimmmmm. NAWWWWWW

If Peter had let him go here, or helped him escape - Miles wouldn't have been taking hits up on that train. That's crazzzy.

But he wasn't trying to help Miles escape. If he wanted to, he would've. He could've just said "Matter of fact Miles, I think setting the WHOLE Society on you is a bizarre move and you should probably get out of here until Miguel can calm down and I can talk to him."

But he was like 'Nah, hold my baby. Matter of fact lemme tell you story in this pivotal moment when you're actively in danger. Here, look at me. What do you mean - I'm not stalling? I didn't rat him out on purpose.

Like either you did. And even if you didn't you didn't help him when you were literally the only person in the universe who could. In fact, he got away slower because of you. Lovely.

Peter is a grown man. He's not an idiot.

He knows Miles is in active danger. Why would an adult turn the conversation in that direction - about his baby - KNOWING Miles has no time.

As soon as Miles got his hands on MayDay, Peter is trying to change the conversation. Suddenly he's joking and laughing.

Even though Miles is freaking out. Why is Peter joking? He knows this isn't a joking situation. But here he is wasting Miles time, either accidentally or intentionally.

Because that'd be some good ass stalling.

There was nothing stopping Peter from helping him leave. But Peter was still on The Society's side, so he didn't. If he was on Miles' side, he would've helped him. He should've, but he was still for Miguel, because at this point Miguel hadn't assaulted Peter yet.

Congrats, Peter. Big L. Humbling Reality Spider-man everyone.

Like combine all this. AND THEN THE SCENE IN ITSV.

LITERALLY AND PHYSICALLY PETER IS ALWAYS HOLDING MILES BACK.

You cannot expect me to believe that the writers of a movie I can write 10k+ words about, just so happened to leave these two glaring plot holes for ONE character.

That I'm just suppose to ignore that Peter restrained Miles, a black boy, in ITSV. That he betrayed Miles for months, wasn't very active in Gwen's time at the Society, and he actively hinders Miles escape - if not actively ratting him out.

It baffles my mind.

It doesn't make sense, that these writers can write Hobie, Jessica, Miguel, Officer Stacy, Rio, and Jeff as fully rounded, well-thought characters. But for some reason, when it comes SPECIFICALLY to Peter B. - they just forget how to write. They just stop thinking about him the second they don't look at him.

IN BOTH MOVIES?

I don't buy it.

To have every other character be thoroughly thought through but have one of, if not these most iconic character full of plot holes...

I think the likely answer is they wrote him that way on purpose and he's just a bad person.

I'm sorry, and I'm laughing while writing this but like.

Either Peter is the ONE singular character who has a series of emotional plotholes - or he's just a bad mentor. It's one or the other. And it's open to interpretation.

But I wanna cut the writers some slack and say, No - they thought it through. And No, Lyla did not just randomly speak out of turn, he contacted her first off-screen before she replied to him.

And by waiting till the very end to come around, waiting until the person who looks up to you is deeply wounded to finally turn around - that's the same arc Officer Stacy goes through.

And we're not supposed to clap for him. It's lovely, but he doesn't get an award. And neither does Peter, not at all.

Maybe if had helped Miles escape in that moment. Maybe if he was Gwen's mentor or he housed her.

But as far as we know he spent those months of Gwen in the Society doing fuck all. We've seen no sign of his contribution anywhere.

And in a story about mentorship, that says something.

Anyway. This is long. Again fiosfgihrgirturetuier I'm SORRY

Once again, Fuck Peter B. All my Hobies hate Peter B. (not a typo)

He's worse than Jess.

And he's not worse than Miguel but I like Miguel more and it's not because of the ass that's just a bonus Miguel is cool (but also very wrong. but like personality wise we're cool).

Ummm I feel like I got off track here. Oh well!!

Damn he be doing Miles dirty. SMH

Bye.

[hatereadings]

Throne of Glass

So I first found out about this series because these ACoTaR recaps I was reading mentioned that Sarah J Maas had a previous fantasy series that came out, and the protagonist was an assassin who didn't even kill anyone in the first book. You can check out the recaps here, if you're interested in other people's hate-reads.

The author of those recaps was so appalled by ACoTaR that she's probably never going to read another SJM book, which means that the burden of recapping them has sadly fallen to... well, people who enjoyed the recaps in general, but I think I'm the only one actually willing to do this to myself.

So, here goes! I'm going to start with Throne of Glass, because it was published first, but actually mainly because it's the most readily available at my library (If I have to return it, I might switch to The Assassin's Blade for a bit).

The dedication page is

To all my readers from FictionPress--for being with me at the beginning and staying long after the end. Thank you for everything.

This honestly made me curious enough to look things up, and, whaddya know, this book was originally a story on FictionPress! In 2012, peak fandom, so... credit where it's due, clearly some of us who were on FictionPress back then felt catered to.

That reminds me - I know these books are intended for teenage girls, and I'm going to do my best to respect that and view them from that lens. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that audience or what they need or want to be reading at that time in their lives.

That said, even WITH that caveat, there's going to be a lot of shit to talk about, so buckle up.

Chapter 1

RIGHT AWAY, I have issues with the worldbuilding.

After a year of slavery in the Salt Mines of Endovier, Celaena Sardothien was accustomed to being escorted everywhere in shackles and at sword-point. Most of the thousands of slaves in Endovier received similar treatment--though an extra half-dozen guards always walked Celaena to and from the mines.

How on EARTH is this economical?! If someone is genuinely SO DANGEROUS that they need SIX GUARDS to accompany them everywhere -- how does it make ANY sense to put them to work in a mine?!?!?!

I'm going to ignore the fact that a white author is writing about slavery, because... it was 2012; a lot of us are guilty of Spartacus fanfic. We know better now, is the important part.

That was to be expected by Adarlan's most notorious assassin.

Okay. Some people have pointed out in the past that it doesn't make sense for assassins to be famous. I think that's something that's safe to gloss over in this sort of YA, though. I mean, what teenage girl hasn't wanted to be some kind of universally feared physical badass, whether that's an assassin or a mercenary or a serial killer? It's fine.

Still, if she's really so dangerous and such a Big Deal, then... again, why is she in the mines??? Why isn't she in an impenetrable cell somewhere??? You're literally paying SIX EXTRA full-time workers just to stand around watching her when they could be used to do, idk, anything else? Guarding the royal family, guarding the treasury, going to war against your enemies? This is like... Kingsguard level of security. Not something you'd want to spend on a prisoner.

There's a "hooded man in black" walking next to her. Does this sound like an executioner, or is that just me?

Apparently they take an unnecessarily circuitous route, going around and around in circles because the guy in charge... idk, wants to disorient Celaena? Even though she's been living there for a year? I really hope the people guarding her are supposed to be idiots, so she can seem like a badass genius in comparison; if this is the level of intelligence we're working with throughout the book, I don't know what's going to sustain me through this read.

The guy in the hood apparently introduced himself as Chaol Westfall, Captain of the Royal Guard, and she overheard that when she first saw him. Which might've been nice to include when we, the readers, first see him, but whatever. Apparently he's hiding his face from her to try and intimidate her, which has "five-year-old-boy-tries-to-scare-you-by-donning-a-frankenstein-mask" energy.

Celaena doesn't know why he's come to get her. She notices that her clothes are nearly rags and that her skin is dirty, and reflects that she used to be beautiful. Again, this feels more like YA convention than an actual, realistic response someone would have to being forced to mine salt for a year. Like, I can get having that response to suddenly seeing a bunch of non-miners and feeling the contrast between their clean clothes and your filthy rags, but having that just pop up idly while you're walking around your prison? It's a very hamfisted way of trying to stick in a bit of physical description at the beginning. And we get a full physical description later on, so why even bother?

"You're a long way from Rifthold, Captain," she said, clearing her throat. "Did you come with the army I heard thumping around earlier?" She peered into the darkness beneath his hood but saw nothing. Still, she felt his eyes upon her face, judging, weighing, testing. She stared right back. The Captain of the Royal Guard would be an interesting opponent. Maybe even worthy of some effort on her part.

Personally I would have added a line break after that quote, but that might just be a stylistic choice. I don't really have any bones to pick with the writing here; it seems like this is serving the wish fulfillment that a lot of the target audience really wants - a protagonist so deadly that no one is any match for them. Maybe for a more jaded audience, they'd think, "Mary Sue," and toss the book aside, but we embrace earnest enthusiasm here.

Oh, it'd be nice to see his blood spill across the marble.

Please don't tease. I know there isn't going to be any murder in this book. I can't take the false hope.

She'd lost her temper once before--once, when her first overseer chose the wrong day to push her too hard. She still remembered the feeling of embedding the pickax into his gut, and the stickiness of his blood on her hands and face. She could disarm two of these guards in a heartbeat. Would the captain fare better than her late overseer? Contemplating the potential outcomes, she grinned at him again. "Don't you look at me like that," he warned, and his hand drifted back toward his sword.

Wait, what? The killer -- actually kills someone?! Okay, offscreen, but still. This is... not quite the clusterfuck I was warned about!

Still, I'm 2% into this book. It has a lot of room to decay.

They passed a series of wooden doors that she'd seen a few minutes ago. If she wanted to escape, she simply had to turn left at the next hallway and take the stairs down three flights. The only thing all the intended disorientation had accomplished was to familiarize her with the building. Idiots.

Celaena gets annoyed when Chaol won't talk to her, which is... kind of dumb? I mean, did you expect him to? You guys are enemies. Just keep up a one-sided banter like a normal prisoner and stop complaining.

She contemplates escape some more, then decides that it'd be too much trouble, so she'll wait. It's very convenient that all the guards are idiots; they've been walking so long that Celaena has the opportunity to infodump some worldbuilding on us. We learn that the kingdom they're in is called Adarlan, and it sends poor people, criminals, and "latest conquests" into the salt mines of Endovier, which looks something like the jail in Les Mis, with misery and whips cracking and all the stereotypical nonsense. Again, this is from over a decade ago; this shit would not fly today. That's not how you handle a discussion of slavery in this country.

Adarlan has banned magic, and anyone accused of practicing gets sent to Endovier.

Eyllwe is apparently a country that's at war with Adarlan, still resisting its rule, and any captured Eyllwe folks also get sent to Endovier. Okay, so... I know Rome did this too, but this is sounding less like Rome and more like Nazi Germany, with the work camps for prisoners. Maas is apparently of Jewish descent, so I'm not going to weigh in on whether that's a problem.

Celaena mentions that she was "betrayed and captured" one night and sent to this place, and then pivots to thinking about whether she's finally going to be executed. I mean, it would make sense; those 6 guards' paychecks have probably cost the crown a tidy amount over the past year.

At last, they stopped before a set of red-and-gold glass doors so thick that she couldn't see through them.

That is a ridiculously fancy door for a mine. Why.

They try to pull Celaena through, she's convinced they're here to kill her and resists, but they pull her in anyway. Uhhhh... what happened to

She could disarm two of these guards in a heartbeat.

?

I remember the inconsistency in ACoTaR. Wasn't expecting it to show up so early here, though.

A glass chandelier shaped like a grapevine occupied most of the ceiling, spitting seeds of diamond fire onto the windows along the far side of the room.

Okay, that's actually a really pretty description. I'd go as far as to say that 'spitting seeds of diamond fire' is genuinely a good turn of phrase. That said...

WHY IS THIS IN A SALT MINE?!?!?!?!

Compared to the bleakness outside those windows, the opulence felt like a slap to the face. A reminder of how much they profited from her labor.

Ah. For symbolism.

In case you were wondering, no, that's not a good enough reason. It makes no sense with the worldbuilding. Why on earth would ANYONE choose to build something so fancy here. Nobody just spends their time thinking, "I'm feeling very evil today. What exceptionally evil project can I spend a great deal of money on to show off just how evil I am? I know! I'll build an opulent room next to a slave pit!"

Also? Nobody is profiting from your labor, Celaena. I don't know how much salt costs, but every day you work costs your overseers a day's wages for each of SIX GUARDS. I don't think there's much profit being turned here.

The captain shoves her in, there's more guards, and then

On an ornate redwood throne sat a handsome young man. Her heart stopped as everyone bowed.

Ah. The love interest.

She was standing in front of the Crown Prince of Adarlan.

And that's the chapter hook!

Two questions:

How did they get the throne in there? I can't tell if it's more ridiculous if they literally had to build a new fancy room with a throne when they heard the prince was coming, or if the prince's entourage carries a giant throne with him wherever he goes so he can sit in it, OR if every single building in Adarlan has to have a Throne Room of sufficient grandeur just in case the Crown Prince decides to stop by. There's just no good explanation for this. (Although from a different perspective, there are only good explanations for this)

We literally just heard an infodump about how Adarlan is a toxic power. Are they really trying to make it believable that one of the leaders of this country is a decent enough dude to be a love interest?

So far, this feels like even more of a mess than ACoTaR was. I'm curious to know if that gets any better over the course of this book, or if it's somehow all downhill from here.

[kitkatopinions]

The rwby writers have this style of writing that I find somewhat hard to describe, that's like... They'll write a couple of moments where the characters all but turn to the camera and announce 'this is what you're supposed to think' but then they don't actually bother with writing the characters to actually be that way. Like the rwby writers writing Yang and Blake to announce that they are protecting each other, but instead of trying to write a relationship where neither one of them is overly protective and neither one of them needs protecting, they write Blake to constantly act like she needs protecting and they write Yang to be overly protective of her. Or, the rwby writers have the cast of characters announce how much they care about each other, but do things like have some of their mains barely talk to each other in nine seasons, or have their characters not react with much care when Ruby is having a breakdown and say nothing when a like forty year old man screams in her face that she's responsible for all bad things. Or announce that Cinder is Bad at Teamwork and Needs to Learn to Play Well With Others despite the fact that she worked with a team like a well oiled machine without breaking a sweat in the first three volumes, and then the writers announce that she has Now Learned Teamwork By Watching Ruby while they have Cinder demonstrate the opposite by killing Watts and trying to kill Neo right after they'd only just teamed up for no reason outside of her massive ego.

Then when people point out 'but that thing they said doesn't reflect in the rest of the story, it's not well executed so it just feels out of nowhere and kind of like the characters are just wrong and/or delusional" fans will then point to the billboard moments where it's announced what we're supposed to think and be like "are you ignoring the canon moment where it was announced to us what we're supposed to think? Seriously, do you guys even watch the same show!"

It's like the writing equivalent of a boss having a couple 'employee appreciation days' a year where they act super generous and friendly and grateful for everyone's hard work, but for the rest of the year they're not a good boss and don't treat their employees with respect. But then you tell your coworker "our boss sucks and doesn't treat us well" and they point to the employee appreciation days and are like "what do you mean, he said he does right here." The rwby writers will often have big moments where they write the characters to announce 'this is how I am' or 'this is how our relationships are' or 'this is something that happened in my past' or 'this is how I feel now' - or they have big moments that are essentially the equivalent of that - without doing the work to make that part of their actual character, character dynamics, or influence their choices, or anything. It really leaves the show feeling contradictory because the thing that they're showing you on screen might be directly contradicted by the characters or the narrative of the story just seeming to announce the opposite. You can't actually trust that natural consequences for things will occur, or that what we're told in one scene will ever matter again, or that the way characters behave outside of these big billboard moments is going to matter at all, or that the characters with good relationships will be treated like they had good relationships and vice versa for what feels like clearly bad relationships, or any of that. You can't trust anything in rwby because at any moment you'll see a banner that says 'Sike! What we wrote into the story that you've been seeing with your own two eyes actually is going to be contradicted with this random statement we're going to have a character say, or this random out of character thing they'll do, or we'll just have the characters take a scene to act like what we've just established isn't what we just established. Team RWBY saved Haven (ignore the part where the school closed, all the hunters in the city and the headmaster are dead, and the kingdom is left almost entirely open to the Grimm.) Yang hates lying and secret keeping (ignore the part where she lied about Raven and then kept secrets purposefully.) Blake feels like she needs to be a bridge between the human and the faunus (ignore the part where that has never once been a spoken or even imo implied motivation behind anything she does.) Penny isn't allowed friends (ignore the part where she attends parties with her friends and is put on jobs with her friends and Ironwood constantly let her be around her friends and how she literally calls the Ace Ops friends and how she's literally speaking to her best friend Ruby when she announces that she isn't allowed to have friends.) Penny's first real choice was to ask Jaune to kill her (ignore that she was constantly making choices herself right from her first appearance, like specifically running away from the guards watching her repeatedly, confiding in Ruby, throwing her in a dumpster, explicitly saying she asked to be able to join the Vytal Tournament, telling Ruby she had decided she wanted to stay at Beacon...)

Dang it, this post is already kind of longish but I was going to make this post about Taiyang! Aw heck, okay, I'm gonna post this and then make a different post about Tai while linking this one. Basically to summarize my point here, rwby is an incredibly inconsistent show with the habit of having big moments that supposedly contradict the rest of what we see, but what really actually happens is that it leaves their characters feeling tbh like they the characters are just wrong a lot.

[heretherebedork]

Genuinely asking for your opinion and thoughts, no judgement on any side, just curious :}

What is the difference to you between Mut and Ming as characters re: no means no?

I have the feeling that "breaks into Rak's room" translated differently to me than it did to others. Of course Mut has a spare set of keys, even outside of the ones that were meant for Rak. He's the house keeper/tour guide/island native/butler and was directly told by his temp boss to take care of Rak, which assumes things like tidying the room, providing meals, and giving him experiences that he can only get in that specific place. Rak is a Mess and everyone loves him despite it, including the trash on the floor that someone has to clean, because it surely isn't going to be him. He's begging for love he doesn't believe he deserves, but he doesn't know how to ask for it without cutting the other person. Mut is begging to love someone but doesn't know how to do it and is so used to being cut it feels normal.

Ming also has and continues to ignore every time Joe says "I don't want to do that" but pushes because he knows that Joe is his and his alone, despite what Joe actually says with his mouth. Ming is begging for love he doesn't believe he deserves, but he doesn't know how to ask for it without cutting the other person. Joe is begging to love someone but doesn't know how to do it and is so used to being cut it feels normal.

Tbf, I have not watched ep3 of Love Sea yet, so I haven't seen the "ok I respect your boundary now, wait- actually, no I don't" moment, but that does seem to be the same beat between Ming and Joe during the last episode during the crosswalk scene.

The answer to that is how the show treats them!

My Stand in fully embraces that Ming is being toxic and doing negative things and hurting Joe and being a very bad example who has to make up and change his choices. My Stand In is clear that Ming is not being romantic when he does it but rather deeply fucked up. The show says 'hey, this guy is damaged and in love and hurt and he is going to hurt Joe and he is going to do things wrong and people are going to die because of him and his growth is spiky and hard and rough' and I love that.

I have been clear, so many times, that I don't mind toxic characters/relationships as long as the show is clear that they are toxic!

You can say that Mut was supposed to clean up after Rak the whole time but he deliberately did not give him the key that he obviously planned to give him in order to break into the room when he was there and do what he did. This was his duty but it was also meant to be a prank and to be annoy him and the show is clear that this is all romantic.

Mut made a fucking no means no joke. Rak said "I don't want to go, no!" and even had to go into serious insults in the hopes of getting listened to and then got completely ignored and the show said 'this is so romantic!!!! ignoring his no is romantic!"

Every time Ming ignores Joe's no... the show almost invariably says 'this is fucked up, do you see that!?' or has Joe, very clearly, outline how he is hurt by Ming's choices and how much he is suffering. Joe's suffering is never questioned. We know that what Ming is going to Joe is wrong and painful and that it comes from a place of being deeply fucked up.

Everything Mut does is painted as romantic. I mean, for fuck's sake, Rak apologizes to him at the beach and Mut never has to apologize for ignoring his no or even consider that maybe it's not a good choice.

Again, a literal joke about no means no.

Are they similar? Sure. But the show itself has painted Mut has basically a perfect character, this hero of the island and the ocean who is actually just SO big hearted and SO sweet and SO loving that he just can't let Rak say no to him ;.; oh no! he's TOO PERFECT to say no to. Ming? We're all CHEERING when Joe says no and pushes him away because we know that Ming is fucked up and we know he loves Joe but we also know that he's damaged and going to keep hurting him and it's so hard to watch even knowing how much he loves him and how much he wants this because we know that he's struggling with his own inner demons.

Anyway, there ya go. I had this same thing with KP and SCOY once and I stand by the same logic. The show's approach to what they do is what matters the most to me and My Stand In shows that Ming is toxic but trying to grow while Love Sea says that Mut is already perfect and Rak is the one who needs to stop saying no. Very, very different.

[feyres-divorce-lawyer]

Ugh I'm so sorry that people can't take criticism. You 👏 are 👏 right 👏 and 👏 you 👏 should 👏 say 👏 it👏

I like Rhysand and Feyre. I do. But I would respect them a lot more if there was any acknowledgement on their part about what they are - which is morally grey characters. SJM has written them in this way where they do shitty things, regardless of their reasons, and they're still painted out to be holier-than-thou. If they would just turn around and say "We're not good people" and maybe suffer some consequences, I would actually respect them more. You can't write morally grey characters but then have them on a pedestal. It doesn't work.

i stopped hoping for any sort of consequences to their actions when tarquin redacted the blood ruby. i’m only reading on for feyre, nesta, and lucien at this point. and you’re right. morally grey characters are supposed to challenge the readers morals, but when they do something that’s clearly wrong, they’re supposed to be called out on it by the narrative and other characters. damon salvatore is the best example i can think of. rhys and feyre are not disliked because they’re morally grey, it’s that there are no consequences to that moral greyness and that any characters that defy them are vilified.

[lulu2992]

Hi again! Your answer to my ask about Joey got me thinking more about the "sermon" where John can be heard torturing her. I talked to my friend about it and I wanted to know your thoughts too, if you had the time. So John's four step plan to induct members into the cult are Marking, Cleansing, Confession, and Atonement (listed in this order from a note in Dutch's bunker). And from what we've seen/heard about Joey she's considered tough. John spends extra time with her because she just won't break, and npcs on both sides make comments about this. The timing of both her TV spot with John and the sermon where she can be heard are spotty at best. We don't know exactly when they were shot (though the TV spot is easier to guess) or how far apart they are from one another. But what we do know is John is torturing her (though the method by which isn't clear) and the sermon ends with her saying Yes in order to get him to stop whatever he's doing. I could be wrong, seeing as how John sometimes deviates from the steps listed and sometimes does them out of order (like making Nick atone without cleansing or confession) but this should mean Joey is a member now. That to reach the stage where John is trying to get a confession she's already been marked and cleansed, so all that would be left is John taking her sin. But... Joey never got a sin. Sure, it could be somewhere else on her body and covered by clothes, but nothing actually suggests that she ever got one. There's nothing to suggest that she was ever Cleansed like the Deputy or some other npcs either. Of course, whether or not she fully became a member (like Staci for passing the trials or Burke for walking the path) is irrelevant because she would have been rescued by the deputy regardless. So it seems like she says Yes and... that's it. She's not actually a peggie. We don't hear anything to suggest that she "broke" outside of this moment. And any amount of torture is too much, of course. No one would fault her for wanting the pain to stop. But it all feels like an inconsistency when we're left to imagine the worst, get told by Joey herself what a nightmare it all was, and then see her in her final bunker scene and she only looks slightly bruised, clearly changed but not broken. Despite her saying Yes she isn't considered a member by John or anyone else in his flock. Staci and Burke, to use them as an example again, are considered members. Staci gets to walk around and is tasked with different chores and can be heard conversing with peggies in some voicelines. Jacob calls him a Judas when he "betrays them" to help the deputy escape. Faith is mad that the player rescues Burke because "you made someone leave who didn't want to go." Obviously neither are willing members, but other peggies and their respective heralds seem to consider them such. And it seems unlikely that John would just keep her as his personal punching bag with how closely he adhere's to Eden's Gate doctrine (or tries to). That's the only other explanation I can think of for why her Yes didn't lead to her membership. I do think he has something personal against Joey, probably for resisting him and coming to arrest his brother, but his end goal is still to get her to join like everyone else. So... inconsistency? More than anything it's probably just that the game wants you to go after John first (despite being able to go in any order) so they made him as exaggerated as possible and made Joey seem like someone you'd want to save. Just kinda seems to fall apart under the magnifying glass, yk? Again I would love to hear your thoughts. Hope I got all my lore straight <3

Hi :) Considering it took several years to develop Far Cry 5, that there were more than 20 people on the writing team, and that the story and characters went through several changes, I suppose inconsistencies were inevitable, and that probably explains why John seems to sometimes deviate from the well-established Marking/Cleansing/Confession/Atonement ritual.

I don’t think Joey talks about ever being Cleansed, which is indeed strange. What she says even suggests she was taken directly to John’s Gate:

When they pulled me out of the chopper I thought I was dead. I could barely move. I saw flames, saw the peggies go wild, and thought y'all were toast… I tried to fight, but there were just too many of them… I was helpless. When they grabbed me... this person holding my right hand had a tattoo on her wrist that was exactly the same as the one my mother had on her shoulder. Funny what details burn in your brain when shit goes sideways. I screamed, they knocked me out... and I woke up in the bunker.

That said, they use bliss during Cleansings, so I guess it’s possible she simply doesn’t remember getting baptized. It’s probably just an inconsistency, to be honest, but that’s how I would rationalize it.

From what I understand, John usually tattoos people after hearing their Confession. It’s confusing because they sometimes use the word “mark” to talk about tattoos, but getting Marked simply means being designated. People receive a video and are “invited” to join the Project. And although saying “yes” is required and an important step, you only properly Atone when your tattoo is cut off.

But as you pointed out, Hudson never mentions a tattoo and doesn’t seem to have one. Maybe John never actually heard her Confession because what he primarily wanted from her was to sound in danger so he could use the recording to attract the Deputy, and maybe he stopped torturing her the moment she said “yes”. It’s also possible he couldn’t figure out what her main sin was and needed more time to think about it (and as “special” as she was, he had other converts to take care of), or maybe he was planning on tattooing her and making her Atone later but was killed before he could do it, I don’t know...

I’ve always thought her face was bruised because of the helicopter crash and not because of what happened in John’s Gate, but we can’t be sure. What’s certain is that she was in better shape than Pratt and Burke, so either she was stronger and more resilient than them, or what she experienced, albeit traumatizing, wasn’t as bad as what John wanted the Deputy to believe. He threatened to hurt her a lot but, in the end, yeah, he needed her alive and their goal is still to save people. She was “a challenge” but I don’t think he particularly hated her.

So she probably never Atoned, but if she had, from what I understand, she would technically have become part of the Family, yes (at least from the cult’s point of view; she didn’t want that). And because John made Nick Atone, I suppose that makes him a member of the Project too! By the way, since he, Mary May, and Jerome were supposed to Atone in the church in Fall’s End, that theoretically means the three of them were Cleansed and had to Confess at some point. The “Note to Joseph” (Seed Ranch) implies they were tattooed when Fall’s End fell under Eden’s Gate’s control, but you’re right, as far as I remember, Nick doesn’t talk about getting baptized or Confessing, which is strange. Jerome says he was captured and that John managed to make him “say things” before the Deputy arrived, so maybe that counts as a Confession. As for Mary May, a note in the clinic confirms she got a tattoo, and in the game (or at least in the files), she says:

Heard Pastor Jerome had you saving people from being kidnapped. John Seed did that to me. The fucker made me think he was going to torture me, too. Had me wait in a room for half a day thinking he was going to do it. All that fucker did was give me one of those ink jobs. It was messed up. You spared all those people a lot of anguish.

That’s pretty much what happens to her in Far Cry: Absolution. It’s weird John didn’t hurt her since Eden’s Gate believes “Confession without pain isn’t Confession”, though, but in the book, he explains she can be saved and join the Family if her sin is removed. Even though I don’t consider Absolution canon because of the discrepancies between the novel and the game, I suppose it’s still true that people only become part of the Project when they Atone, so when their tattoo is cut out. For whatever reason, it doesn’t look like Joey reached that step, so I guess she never really became a cultist.

[luxlightly]

Seriously though can we talk about how well that episode of Bob's Burgers handled the issue of Teddy's hording?

It's never portrayed as dirty, disgusting, or shameful. While pushy and somewhat judgemental, we never see Linda, Bob, or even the kids looking down on Teddy because of his hording. The kids rib him but they do that about everything. His house isn't dirty. He keeps it in good shape. He's not shown as being a slob or out of control. Teddy is gross but the show clearly goes out of its way to make sure his hording is not seen as being one of his gross traits or habits. As Linda says later, he's not hurting anyone with his hording. He has it mostly under control in terms of the amount of space it takes up in his house. He doesn't have a dining room, but he never hosts so he's never needed it for something other than storage. It's okay that, for him, that's what that room is for. It also clearly goes out of its way to show that, while the Belchers clearly really do want to help, what they are doing is not helping. It's causing Teddy undue distress and discomfort. It's portrayed pretty clearly that they are going about this the wrong way. We're never supposed to feel as though Teddy is the one in the wrong or being unreasonable. His distress is not trivialized nor is Linda's attempts to force him to get rid of his things all at once glorified. Linda truly does want to help him, she just misunderstands what his issue is. She thinks he hordes things because he thinks they could later be useful so she tries to help by forcing him to get rid of things that are clearly broken beyond the point of reasonable repair. She realizes later that he keeps them because they are broken. Because he wants to feel he can fix them. Because he believes broken things, such as himself, deserve to have a chance to be fixed. To be cared for and loved and not discarded just because they're damaged. I appreciate so much that the moral of the episode wasn't Teddy realizing he just needed to throw away his things. It was Linda realizing she'd handled the situation entirely wrong. That this would not help and would in fact hurt Teddy. These issues need to be worked through slowly and carefully and with support, not a feeling of judgement. The growth of the episode is not in tossing away his things, but in bringing them back in and how they do that. Teddy panics, when his "storage room" of a dining room is discovered and all the things inside taken out because it was all "put away and now it's out and it's everywhere". Clearly this reflects his feelings about his own issues. He was ashamed and hid them away, then had someone he trusted violate his privacy and his trust to reveal them all at once and try to force him to discard all of his emotional coping methods. He wants to put his issues away so that people don't see him as a broken thing they want to be rid of and trying to force him to deal with all of his deep seated issues at once like that caused him, quite understandably, to panic. The end of the episode shows Teddy's growth not in the discarding of his horded items, but instead in the fact that he keeps some of them outside of the storage rooms, in clear view of his friends who understand and don't judge him for it. If hiding his horded items represents his desire to hide away his own issues and never deal with them, then we can see at the end of the episode how he feels safe to have those issues seen by his friends. He trusts them with his emotional baggage and he's accepting it in himself. It shows him moving forward in his journey of dealing with the issues that cause the hording. Someday he may be able to let go of the horded items but for right now they're not hurting him or anyone else and we are shown that he is making progress. Not through shame or sacrifice. But through acceptance. And that's...a surprisingly wholesome and respectful depiction of a compulsive disorder in mainstream media.

[septembersghost]

What do you think is the actual deal between Harry and Taylor? Because they seem to be each other's muses- and with the lyrical back and forth that's been going on, EVEN AFTER A DECADE- it can't be nothing. They give off major soulmates vibes (musical-wise) and even relationship-wise (although they could also be star-crossed lovers) with such shitty timing everytime 😂 i've supported joe and taylor for years, but I've got this inkling in my mind like someway and somehow, H and T might still find their way back to each other. Joe just seems meh :/ tbh.

i almost feel like i shouldn't answer this because it's a bit loaded, but it's 3:30 am so why not 😅💕

i'm going to first defer to my friend @cowboylikedean who said:

"they can be soulmates, but not romantically. Consider: their whole relationship has been leading to a friendship which was always destined, but needed a contextual foundation that only an ill defined on again off again/only communicating through sex then song could create. Consider that. Joe is Taylor's forever person. doesn't mean Harry has to be nobody."

we don't know if they've forged a friendship behind closed doors or not, and whether we ever know anything about that is up to them. their interaction at the grammys was warm and familiar, which at the very least speaks to their feelings of respect and kindness towards one another as artists and people. taylor's support for him was clearly genuine (though you could say that of her support for basically everyone in that room). i think it's really important and meaningful to acknowledge that there are a vast array of dynamics that can be considered a soul connection - not only romantic, but familial, platonic/friendship, artistic, those can all be transcendent and vibrant relationships too. i personally feel there's a soul element and connection within their music that needed to exist as a spark to get them where they are today. (had they not been what they were to each other, what would their careers even look like? what would 1989 be? what would hs1 be? etc) and they were also, in many ways, peers when they were together, and in unique positions of fame at a young age that most other people couldn't understand. their timing was consistently wrong/off, but that connection in their hearts and art still came through clearly. to me, it's part of the invisible string - they had to meet and have that complicated on/off thing and have love for one another to be on the paths where they were supposed to go, in different ways, and to be able to stand in a room together where they're both succeeding and both feeling gratitude for what all of that meant.

i think it's a disservice to joe to...not pay attention to what taylor has explicitly said about him, and why that relationship is so different and profound for her. i've seen a LOT of commentary lately about him being boring and not "getting" their connection, and it strikes me as somewhat unfair because we don't see it, we're not privy to it, and we shouldn't be, that is very much by their design. (she did say romance isn't dead if you keep it just yours!) but because someone like h is sparkly and charismatic and a musician, and joe is somewhat more reserved and less obviously visible and an actor, there's this sense that we "know" him less, which can easily seem less interesting, but keep in mind that how any fan sees him and how taylor herself sees and describes him are totally different. he's home to her, he's that gorgeous dream to her, he's the daylight to her, and that's what matters. he's who she's built her life with and found her peace with for many years now, and vice versa. h hasn't found that yet, but i hope he does. but that doesn't necessarily mean harry has to be nothing to her. whether that's fondness and recognition of their influences on one another and gentle nods to the past, or whether that comes in actual friendship, i think it's really important and valuable to acknowledge that the soul connection can happen and NOT be romantic, or initially be romantic/sexual and then transform into something else later, and it's no less of a cosmic pull. in one way or another, they'll always be connected, even if it remains in lyric and melody - and that's also always going to keep having a life of its own.

[drbased]

Another Takedown: We're with the big boys, now!

So I happened to spy a copy of the International Socialism journal, issue 157 published in Winter 2018. On the front cover there is a rainbow trans symbol and the title of one of the chapters: Marxism, feminism and transgender politics by Sue Caldwell. I thought wow, this is it, this a defense of genderism within a socialist framework. This'll be my undoing, finally I'll be able to recognise that my terfism is wrong. This isn't randos on tumblr anymore. So, I buy it, turn to page 25, and begin my journey.

And gyns, if you've read those randos on tumblr, I can assure you that there is nothing new here. I'm going to take apart this whole thing. So this is gonna be a long one, folks.

In August 2017 Donald Trump tweeted that transgender people1 were no longer welcome in the military because they are a “burden” due to “tremendous medical costs and disruption”.2 This was the latest in a series of attacks on transgender people which include attempts to overturn legislation that allows people to use the toilet for their preferred gender. Transgender people face the threat of violent attack; 2017 is on course to see the highest recorded number of killings of transgender people in the United States.3 In the UK transphobic hate crime has tripled in the last five years, while prosecution rates have dropped and transgender people report lack of trust in the police. More than a third of transgender employees say they had to leave their job due to discrimination in 2016.4 A survey released by Stonewall reports that eight out of ten trans school and college pupils had self-harmed and 45 percent had tried to take their own lives.5

1 I am using trans or transgender as an umbrella term to denote people whose gender identity does not match their birth sex, and this includes non-binary and gender fluid identities. When I use trans man or trans woman I am referring to people who have transitioned from female to male (ftm) or male to female (mtf) respectively, regardless of whether they have had any medical intervention. I am aware that these terms are contested and that meanings may change over time. 2 Thanks to Alex Callinicos, Joseph Choonara, Gareth Jenkins, Laura Miles, Sheila McGregor, Judith Orr and Camilla Royle for their comments on this article in draft. 3 Human Rights Campaign, 2017. 4 Yeung, 2016. 5 Weale, 2017.

Hmm. So, right off the back, I think it's a bit of a reach to describe 'banning from military' as an 'attack' on transgender people. I mean, first of all, you're a socialist journal. You're supposed to be materialists, right? Not being made to fight in a war is saving someone from an attack. I know this is a nitpick, but this is what we do, here: we deconstruct narratives and analyse how rhetoric is employed to achieve an affect. A socialist journal uncritically parroting liberal, egalitarian rhetoric? Love to see it.

Now, the '2017 is on course to see the highest reorded number of killings of transgender people in the United States'. So, first of all, kinda curious there's no number used here, right? Why not use it? This is clearly, off the bat, a persuasive piece, so really go for it. The statistics and facts are on your side, right? So what's that really hard-hitting number? 29. Up from 23.

'Some of these cases involve clear anti-transgender bias. In others, the victim’s transgender status may have put them at risk in other ways, such as forcing them into homelessness.'

Hmm. Look, I'm not going to belabour this point, because it's been done by better people elsewhere. Statistically, that's not a significantly high number, even for the transgender population. And it's nothing compared to the murder of women and girls in the same year. But let's talk about what's not being said, here:

Considering how little it takes for a person to ID as trans, there's no reason to assume these people were presenting in any way that makes them a target.

To belabour that point, you guys know we still live in a homophobic society, right? You guys know that homophobic violence still exists? How can you be sure that the motivations have anything to do with gender and not sexuality, considering how often those two things end up being linked?

As better women than me have pointed out, black transgender women in prostitution have the highest murder rate. That's a lot of overlapping risk factors. And in this statistic, a good number of these are people of colour, specifically black people.

Including killings of transgender men is really, really icky, considering how we already have an epidemic of violence against women. But it makes up the numbers. Because, for all the supposed compassion for trans people, this is more of a numbers game than anything else; a desperation to prove the unprovable. And even then, when you make the bar to entry this low, the numbers still aren't particularly powerful enough, so instead they're obfuscated with a really lazy 'highest recorded number of killings'.

A similar rhetorical tactic is used with 'In the UK transphobic hate crime has tripled in the last five years'. So, I couldn't find the source for this one, but you know what I did find?

The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of: Race Religion  Disability Sexual orientation  Transgender identity

HOLY

SHIT

BATMAN

MISOGYNY ISN'T EVEN CONSIDERED A HATE CRIME IN MY COUNTRY???????? Transgender people have only been in the public eye for less than a decade whereas FIFTY PERCENT OF THE POPULATION, A POPULATION KNOWN TO BE VIEWED AS PROPERTY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY, DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF HATE CRIMES AGAINST US IN THIS COUNTRY?

ARE

YOU

FUCKING KIDDING ME????

OK, WE NEED TO STOP RIGHT HERE, I'M DONE BEING COY.

Is there anything we can do about this? Is there anyone in the UK who knows anything about the law who can help get misogyny recognised as a hate crime?

[lycocarpum]

okay i kind of floated the idea of aromantic laudna in the heat of the moment as a bit of a not-so-serious joke but i'm still thinking about it. so im gonna just... think aloud for a second. since character retrospectives are A Thing we're all doing, i suppose.

and let me be very very clear, im not against wlw laudna or imogen/laudna at ALL, and i don't think this is in any way, shape or form going to actually HAPPEN, it's just an interesting path my mind took me down wrt her character and how she could grow. no serious headcanons here, no predictions. pick up the legos and play with me.

thing is-- we don't really see a lot of aspec relationships In Fiction deal with aromanticism as a legitimate thing worthy of respecting, and not... a minor inconvenience, or something to compromise on, let alone and god forbid the 'fix-it' narrative.

i can very clearly see a scene where one of the other two BH members sits laudna down and explains that imogen is IN love with her, and laudna just has this '.... oh, that's. that's going to be a bit. hm.' reaction. bc tbh that's something i've gone through a lot, and it's something that friends of mine have been on the OPPOSITE end of, as well.

and tbh i would really love to see conflict between the two stemming from the whole thing. Not because its any one person's fault and not because anyone is in the wrong, but simply for the... lack of compatibility of it all. trying to piece together some way to hold onto this relationship when you need different things from it. whether that works out or not, i think it's a good rp concept and could even be cathartic in a way very similar to how imogen/laudna endgame would be.

this kind of revelation from laudna could be freeing in some sense-- she knows more about herself, things start to make *sense* finally-- but it could also act as the catalyst for finally addressing their codependency and mutual self-esteem issues. it opens up room for a conversation about BEING frustrated that your feelings aren't returned, feeling guilty for things you can't help, finding your identity even when it's in conflict to what your closest and dearest friends want.

And it gives imogen even more to kind of... fret over, which is when i think she's at her best, character wise. I like imogen a lot, but i want to see her grow. i kinda think shes being... idk if naive is the right word here, but shes being a bit short-sighted on this imaginary future shes created with laudna. and while i think laudna would love to DO those things with her, in this hypothetical, if shes not IN love with her... That stings, that hurts, even for the most saintly of people.

Idk idk i just think this would be an interesting avenue to go down. i 100% get why people WOULDN'T, its a very raw wound and it's extremely topical in a time when there's so much conflict regarding queer relationships and media and etc. etc. you all get this, we're adults here. I don't like them hurting for the sake of hurting ofc but i like the messiness of this bc it is very real.

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

it is interesting. the thing about christianity that christians most often tout as the reason why christianity is superior is the exact same thing that i always struggled with the most.

that "thing" is the concept of salvation. specifically, salvation from sin (especially original sin).

and i think one of the reasons why paganism appealed is precisely because it didn't have this thing. at least not in the same way.

it just always seems so convoluted to me. it seemed like a solution to a problem they invented. and it doesn't even make any sense.

one specific thing that always confused me was the immaculate conception. it's just strange to me. if god can make it so mary is immaculately conceived and born without original sin....why can't he do that for everyone? yeah i know it's mostly a catholic thing but still.

also, another thing is, i've never understood the significance of jesus' "sacrifice". like....he is god. how is that a sacrifice? he endures a day of suffering and then wakes up in heaven as the ruler of the universe? that suffering must be like stepping on a lego in the grand scheme of things. lmao. his suffering wasn't even unique either. romans crucified people all the time. there were literally two other guys suffering the same fate right next to him.\

also if it's essentially god sacrificing himself to himself....why all the melodrama? why do you have to go through all that to "wash away" everyone's sin? no one else seems to be involved in the transaction. couldn't you do it all without the suffering and the crucifixion.

also, most christians don't even understand how jesus dying is supposed to "save" us in the first place. there are all kinds of theories of atonement. but even among "scholarly" circles there's no real consensus. different churches will tend to one or another. but no one is really sure. ask yourself. how does jesus dying wash away your sins? is his death the devil's ransom? or was it to satisfy god's righteous fury? was it just a moral example? penal substitution? most people have never even really thought about it and took the "jesus died for our sins" refrain for granted.

and the questions continue. why is there sin at all? free will? okay well how can we have free will if god is all knowing? but sure let's grant free will. then why did he put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of eden? why even insert that kind of temptation? was it a test? why? it's like i tell a child to not eat a donut i placed on a table and then holding a lifelong grudge against them when they inevitably do. it seems so petty and stupid and kind of fucked up and irresponsible. also, like why can't he just show up to everyone and perform miracles and outline the rules clearly to people? if the choice is between salvation and eternal damnation i feel like he should be a bit more clear and direct. why gamble with people's souls? more petty testing? is it all just a game or something?

and i can keep going. but you get the idea. this is so central to christianity and one of the biggest points christians bring up when we discuss religion but it's so convoluted. and it just reads like someone make it up as they go along. and that's fine btw. that's literally what i believe about all religions, even my own. no religion is static and they're all constantly changing and adapting and evolving. and that's fine! but christianity always pretends to be different and superior for that difference. if they were just like "yeah idk it's all just myth and tradition and we're doing our best to interpret it and its mystery ultimately escapes us" or something like that i could respect that. but most christians are like "no. this is the absolute revealed truth and it's why christianity is superior and if you don't believe it you're wrong and going to hell."

lmao.

[unknownteapot]

Added opinion:

Some of the "proofs" posted by s&c shouldn't even be up for discussion. It's like delving into intrusive territory sometimes, even then. All I am saying is if you have to analyze and cross-reference walls and decor, you are going into weird stalker behavior.

They clearly don't want this public, and I wish people would treat it a bit more chill and lay off the whole "proof" thing.

Being correct just makes it worse. Because if you are not correct about your tinhatting it is at worst kinda awkward for the people involved. If you are correct, you are activity shedding light onto something that the involved people want to hide or at least keep low.

Let's just enjoy their dynamic and even "ship" them, but be cool about it.

I don't even get why people are so keen on wanting to prove this. What are you getting out of it?

(not directed at you, but a more general statement)

ooof this is a loaded one, anon, thank you for sharing!!

yep i completely see how looking for minuscule details and proofs can lean into stalker-ish territory, especially when c has so openly spoken about keeping relationships out of the public sphere and previous stalkers. that's some scary shit and i do believe our role as fans is to remain as respectful as we can of those boundaries. i've seen many comments in yt videos talking about proofs of them dating or just blatantly stating they are (which i do think too) i just don't know if comments on public smosh videos are the place to discuss them.

whenever talk arises about proofs, similar to you i tend to pose the question 'why?' like we love them, yep. we ship them. that's all completely fine, read/write all the fics your heart can take, rant about them and their cuteness, but we're not really entitled to know the ins and outs of their actual private lives, just like with any celebrity/online personality. i think when we begin to think we deserve to know things/hold moral superiority over the fact that 'we know the truth' (which i've seen floating around) that's when things get a little too parasocial and we should be a little careful.

i don't know how i feel about the word 'tinhatting' though, maybe its because i have such a negative association of it from other fandoms i've been in, but oftentimes its used to describe fan behaviour in general, at least from what i have experienced. specifically, fan behaviour of younger female fans by the older male section of society, which in my experience has been demeaning and patronising. so reading it in this ask and specifically about shourtney feels a little like shipping them/thinking they're together is crazy fan behaviour, which it is not. that's just what fandom is and there's nothing wrong with that. however, if you mean the stalking/intense proof-seeking, i suppose i understand your use of the word a little more.

sorry this is so incredibly long, anon, but yea, thank you for sharing and apart from the previously mentioned point- i do echo your thoughts about privacy and boundaries with regards to shipping culture <3