#Book of Discourses

[apenitentialprayer]

Huh, apparently at least some Mormons believed that Adam was polygynous, and that Lilith may have been the name of the second wife. Although not considered canonical, the Journal of Discourses preserves sermons from members of the early Latter-Day Saints movement, including an 1885 "discourse" by Henry William Naisbitt. In the relevant paragraph:

The Scriptures give an account simply of the woman Eve; declaring that this name was given to her by Adam, because she was "the mother of all living," but outside of biblical record there has been handed down from time immemorial the idea that Adam had two wives; the narrators go so far, or rather so near perfecting the tradition, so as to give their names, Lilith being said to be the name of one as Eve was the name of the other, and while it might be difficult to harmonize all the Rabbinical and Talmudic versions of this matter, it is said that Joseph Smith the Prophet taught that Adam had two wives. Without, however, assuming or basing anything on this theory, or upon this tradition —which may be mythical in its character— it is nevertheless very evident that marriage was ordained of God; and when we take into our hands the record of the Holy Scriptures that have been handed down to us by our fathers, that have been cherished in parts by the ancient people of God, and in latter times consolidated […] we find throughout the pages thereof that marriage everywhere for four thousand years, at all events, was recognized as of divine origin.

This is very fascinating for many reasons. First, I didn't realize it may have been that Joseph Smith believed Adam had multiple wives, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that. I am surprised by the level of familiarity this Mormon guy had with Jewish texts, though. Maybe I shouldn't be?

[shyjusticewarrior]

At some point "fanfic can be as good as professional writing" became "fanfic should be as good as professional writing" and that's caused major damage to fandom spaces.

[watchingwisteria]

listen there really was just something about how in the book, snow’s 3-page descent from hesitant lover boy to deluded mfer happens entirely in his mind. lucy gray gives him no indication whatsoever that she suspects him, that she’s going to leave or betray him. he’s just sitting quietly in the cabin waiting for her to return when that seed of calculated suspicion, which he has needed to survive the capitol, takes a hold of him and chokes the life out of any goodness left inside him. it really drives home your terror as a reader that “oh my god did he kill her? did she escape? what happened to her? why would he even think that?” in a way that when the movie had to adjust for visualization it lost some of that holy shit this guy has lost it emphasis.

[kcrabb88]

It's truly wild to me how many people out there don't understand that the Star Wars prequels are a tragedy or how tragedies work.

Posts like "these are the Jedi failed movies" truly just make me shake my head. They're actually the "fascism wears a smile until it strikes you down and then it's too late" movies. They're the "the senate became corrupt and clapped in the face of genocide" movies. They're the "make people scared enough of war until they accept authoritarianism" movies. They're the "fear and possessiveness will tear you up on the inside" movies. The Jedi were the heroes of lore, people loved and looked up to them, looked to them for safety, and then too much got put on their shoulders on purpose by Palpatine, and also by a senate that didn't want to act (not you Padme and Bail and Mon, you're perfect). They were drafted and used and scapegoated, which is, you know, a tenet of the vast majority of authoritarian governments (Hitler and Stalin, for instance, might be on different ends of the political spectrum, but they sure both did scapegoat specific groups and commit mass murder, just differently).

When some people say "these movies are about the fall of the Jedi" what they mean is "the Jedi failed" but that's not what "the fall of the Jedi means." It means they were wiped the fuck OUT. Like, Jesus, in Rogue One Tarkin is talking about burning out the final MEMORY of the Jedi by blowing up the holy city in Jedha. Palpatine had to get rid of the Jedi because to get rid of the Jedi was to get rid of the final people standing in his way after he had already worn them out. His intention was not only to kill them, but to alter the galaxy's entire perception of them. To rip away hope. People are always looking for the Jedi to be Bad or nitpick their mistakes (because while other people are allowed to make mistakes, the Jedi never are). Palpatine made himself look like a benevolent grandpa who would keep everyone safe. And that, more than anything, is what gave him SO much power. He stole the narrative.

It's just like. Of course WE know what was going to happen! We know from watching the OT that the PT can only end in tragedy. But the characters don't know that! They don't have all the info! That's how a tragic story structure works. We see it coming and they can't.

Anyway. The Jedi are laser-sword wielding monks with psychic powers who just wanted to do what they could to help. The world would be better if more folks remembered that.

[riddlerosehearts]

okay but. in trey's dream, leona says he feels sorry for riddle because his two underlings are both dreaming of changing who the boss is. and then idia agrees and says that people like cater and trey are scary because they smile and hide their true feelings while secretly being dissatisfied with riddle and wishing someone else was the dorm leader. and i'm guessing, as i haven't ventured into the tags yet, that while i waited to be able to watch an english translation the rest of the fandom spent the last few days taking leona and idia's words at face value and hating on trey and having discourse over this!

but my first thought? was that those two couldn't be more wrong, and that cater and trey were subconsciously being so kind to riddle. seriously. they can't imagine the trauma his mother caused him being entirely gone, that's just too far off from reality and what they know, but they can imagine it being softened a little. they can imagine him being allowed to start healing instead of spending his first year at school getting worse and worse. they can dream of a world where riddle doesn't have the stressful responsibility of being dorm leader, a responsibility that contributed to keeping him under his mother's thumb by allowing him to tyrannize the dorm and force his obsession with rules on everyone else. cater dreamt that he was dorm leader and riddle was not only a normal card soldier, but a DJ for cater's parties, and having a fun time! trey dreamt that chenya not only went to NRC with them but became the dorm leader--that the happy trio of their childhood was reunited and riddle would be known as a great student who others could always ask for help, who lets himself feel free to eat what he wants instead of continuing to follow his mother's rules. both cater and trey's perfect dream worlds took away riddle's role as dorm leader, something that for his whole first year at NRC had served to prolong his trauma, and replaced it with him remaining a normal student so heartslabyul could be a safe place where he was free from his mother's influence instead. that's just so sweet it makes me want to cry.

[ckret2]

this is how tbob went i think

[catofoldstones]

we already have people bitching about how “i can’t stand Chani, she’s so annoying 🙄” and “Paul chose Chani to be the mother of his children, Irulan is just at the sidelines eating dust as she should”, like brothers we cannot do this again. We can’t Chani v Irulan our way out of this one because the problem is Paul and the Empire. Gosh, we truly are never getting out of the patriarchy.

[balrogballs]

god's strongest soldiers are lotr fans who live near the british coastline because every single time the books or films romanticise the 🥹❤️✨ cry of the gulls ✨❤️🥹 i assume you're meant to picture something like

while personally I get war flashbacks of

[screamingfrenchfries]

anyways i cant belive ford CANONICALLY was in a Love Triangle with fiddleford and....... ironically.... a Triangle

[tmichelleotter]

Want to see my pretty dick cum 🍆💦

[zephrunsimperium]

Ford is a jerk to Fiddleford McGucket in Journal 3. Let's talk about that.

First I want to preface this post by saying that I adore Ford. He is a wonderful character who has influenced my life in countless ways for the better. All of the things he does in this list a) stem from his own insecurities that he's projecting b) are symptoms of Ford's narcissistic defense mechanisms c) or come from Bill's influence on him. However, just because there are reasons for his actions doesn't excuse them, especially considering just how many there are.

Here's the list of things he does, I'll analyze at the end of the post.

Let's get the petty things out of the way first.

The cubic's cube: I think it is just straight up an absolute jerk move to scramble this thing that's clearly a comfort to him and think it's funny.

Being in shape: It's obvious his comments here are from his own insecurity but on a deeper level it just speaks to how Ford sees him, I think.

Not telling Fidds about Bill: Obviously Bill was feeding him a lot of paranoia but it's the reasoning that he writes down that gets me. It's so condescending.

The Gremloblin & The Shapeshifter

Something I think that's worth taking note of is the way Ford illustrates both of these instances. He brushes off Fiddleford's concerns multiple times and then Fiddleford pays the price and Ford sees himself as some kind of hero and Fiddleford this helpless victim. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And then afterwards the way he handles not just Fiddleford's anxiety but the genuine trauma he went through. I know he's an old man, I know that's how he was treated, but Fiddleford is supposed to be his friend.

The Portal Test

Specifically their interaction at the diner and Ford's reaction to Fiddleford quitting the project. Fiddleford SELFLESSLY spends untold hours on this thesis for Ford because he cares about him and sees him burning out, even though Ford hasn't been great to him and Fidds has been going through his own hard things - not just with the gremloblin and the Shapeshifter, but things with his family as well. Ford does not match that selfless devotion at all. In fact, he sees it as an insult.

Analysis

The reason I've been thinking about this is because of Book of Bill and how that's influenced the shipping atmosphere. There's this weird notion that FiddAuthor is a less toxic ship but I think that's absurd. Besides their hug at Weirdmageddon, these journal entries are pretty much all we see of Ford's relationship with Fiddleford and it doesn't paint a pretty picture. Yes Ford is excited to have Fiddleford come to see him, yes Ford has that sweet conversation with him under the stars, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that all the above evidence outweighs hat. At the very least it shouldn't be ignored.

That doesn't mean Ford is a terrible person and we should hate him. I believe strongly in nuance and Ford is a character that requires nuance. I don't think he's an evil person, but I also don't think he should be babied as this perfect wittle guy who can do no wrong either. Both readings do a disservice to him.

Ford clearly had a hard childhood. He's isolated himself his whole life and he's been severely traumatized by Bill. But that doesn't mean that he deserves Fiddleford's forgiveness - Ford wasn't really that kind to him and his actions inadvertently led to the memory gun/Fidds' exposure to Bill. Ultimately it's Fiddleford's choice to make; I wouldn't fault him if he didn't want to ever see Ford again, but I think it's a testament to his goodness that he still cares for Ford as much as he does.

So what do I personally think? Man. I'm just sad we don't know more about Fiddleford McGucket than we do. He's so essential to Bill's defeat and to Ford's past and he's such a cool character but we know so little about him. I want to know what his childhood was like, I want to know how he ended up in Backupsmore, I want to know why he cares about Ford as much as he does, I want to know why things ended so poorly with EmmaMay. But we may never know those things for certain. So with the things we're left... Yeah, I think FiddAuthor is a compelling reading, one that I certainly enjoy. I just worry about the fandom babying Ford.

[tsmaddie1356]

do u think I look fuckable? 😇

[silasbirchtree]

"billford is abusive" yeah. fucking obviously

here's the thing: literally no one is making content w the inherent idea that billford is a healthy relationship, or that they Should be together. but it is a genuinely interesting dynamic with tropes that have been enjoyed since literally forever: power imbalances, mortal/god, enemies/lovers etc. and part of the appeal of why their relationship is so interesting is delving into the underlying care/love between them. abusive relationships aren't constantly threatening or scary 24/7 - part of what makes them so easy to fall into is that you really do love and trust this person - which is a realistic portrayal!! the tragedy of it is an idea that has been loved for ages: watching a relationship grow and evolve, even knowing that it still ends badly!! it's interesting and heartbreaking and it is literally just basic antithesis.

this is like basic media literacy can we pleaaase be serious lmfao. it's fine if you don't fw the ship/dynamic but you don't have to come up with a moral high ground for it - and having a dynamic that is explicitly abusive, while also showing the victim to be able to heal with support, in mainstream kids media facilitates further recognition and discussion on abuse which is a good thing.

[darnmand]

Historical notes on Armand’s cultural background in the show

In the interest of not playing fast and loose with South Asian history and geopolitics, I have, to the best of my ability, compiled this guide on Armand as a character in the historical context of the regions and periods he is associated with. I am not an expert on these things, so anyone more educated than me is welcome to suggest edits. Probably the most complex topic here is language, and so that is the section in which I most likely made errors.

While I do have some formal academic training in this area, I must emphasize again that I am not an expert, nor am I native to any of the countries listed here, so I am functioning mostly on outsider knowledge. In the interest of making this accessible, most of this information can also be found on Wikipedia with a quick google search. This is not definitive or exhaustive, but it is meant to encourage people to be conscientious about not slipping into Orientalist thought or discourse when discussing the character (or ever, obviously). Also please remember not to conflate the character and the actor. This may also serve as a tool for fic writers.

Content warning: discussion of slavery/slave trade

(Main content below the cut)

Period and Region

India

Armand tells Daniel in s1e7 that he is 514 in 2022, meaning he was either born or made around the year 1508. He tells both Louis and Daniel that he is from Delhi, or was at least in Delhi when he was abducted. Delhi is a city in Northwestern India that sits on the border between the states of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. (There is an Old Delhi and a New Delhi. These two cities abut and overlap one another. Armand refers to Old Delhi.) Therefore, Armand would have been living in Delhi during the latter years of the Delhi Sultanate, which was an empire of Islamic dynasties that ruled Northwestern India from the late 12th century until the Mughal conquest in 1526. (The Delhi Sultanate also pushed expansion into the south and the east during various periods throughout its reign. Its main opponents were other Muslim kingdoms along with Hindu kingdoms, especially in the south.)

Italy

Armand would have been living in the Republic of Venice during the height of the Venetian Renaissance. Like the Delhi Sultanate, the Republic of Venice was also in its later years during this time, but, although the Republic did face economic and political unrest during this period, they remained the richest city-state in Italy. Marius was a Venetian painter, a contemporary of Tintoretto, according to Armand in season 1. Tintoretto lived from 1518 to 1594. Whether the painting Daniel is examining in the episode was painted before or after Armand’s arrival in Venice is unclear, but we can assume that he was living in Venice as Amadeo in the early decades of the 16th century. The Republic entered its full fledged decline in the 18th century, by which time Armand would have been in Paris.

Language

In India

Armand most likely spoke an early version of Hindustani (likely Hindavi) while living in Delhi, although, according to the books, Armand has mostly forgotten his native language by the time Marius buys him. Hindustani first developed under the Delhi Sultanate, and is still spoken today. Its two main branches today are Hindi and Urdu. (Many other languages are also spoken in India today, including English, Punjabi, Tamil, Bengali, and many more. Sadly, not all of these languages enjoy legal status.)

Armand may have also spoken a dialect of Western Hindi, which was commonly spoken in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, and is an ancestor of Hindustani.

Hindavi and Persian were the official languages of the sultanate.

Hindavi is the most likely due to his region, period, and his Sanskrit name, Arun. Sanskrit is an Old Indo-Aryan language from which many later Indo-Aryan languages are derived. (Sanskrit names are still common in South Asia.)

In Italy and France

However, as mentioned previously, Armand forgets his native language early in life. Therefore, it is unclear whether he counts it among the languages he speaks when he tells Daniel that French was his fifth language.

While in Venice in the books, Armand is trained in classical Latin and Greek, and often communicates in Greek, which was also the canonical language of Eastern Orthodox which he practiced in the books before his abduction. Italian and Venetian were also spoken in Venice at the time, so it is likely that Armand picked up both of those while living there. Even if he only picked up Venetian, he would have learned Italian while living with the Children of Darkness in Rome. Venetian, Italian, and Latin were the official languages of the Republic of Venice.

He tells Daniel that he learned both French and English while living in Paris (making English his sixth language).

Religion

In Dehli

The Sanskrit name Arun also suggests that Armand was from a Hindu family living in Delhi. While having a Sanskrit name does not necessarily preclude his being Muslim, it is just more likely that he was Hindu. The majority religion in Delhi during the sultanate was Hinduism, while Islam was practiced mainly by the elite, although conversion was common. The state religion of the sultanate was Sunni Islam. Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, and Zoroastrianism were also practiced in the sultanate.

Sanskrit is the canonical language of both Hinduism and Buddhism, but Buddhism was facing persecution during this period, and therefore becoming increasingly rarer in the north.

We can assume that Armand was devoted most likely to Hinduism, or possibly one of the others listed, as Armand is deeply religious in the books.

In Dubai, Venice, and Paris

We do see Armand praying according to Islamic practice in season 1. Even more confusingly, Daniel points out that the phrase “asr namozi” is not Arabic, but perhaps Kazakh. “Asr namozi” is actually an Uzbek phrase referring to the asr prayer, or “afternoon prayer,” in Islam. Why Armand would be speaking Uzbek is lost on me, as nothing else in his history necessarily suggests ties to the region. It could be part of his Rashid disguise to somehow misdirect Daniel. Whatever the case, as a highly intelligent five hundred year old vampire, I’m sure Armand could learn any language he wanted.

While Armand may not have practiced Islam during his life in Delhi, it is entirely possible he later converted. If Armand was Hindu, it would also make sense that he lapsed out of practice in Venice, as, in the books, Armand loses almost all ties to his native culture while in Venice (his name, his language, his religion, etc.) at least partially due to Marius’s influence. Marius’s beliefs are closely aligned with western humanism, and so he discourages Armand from complete devotion to religion. The state religion of the Republic was Roman Catholicism, but Eastern Orthodox, Protestantism, and Judaism were also practiced. There was also a small Muslim population, mainly Ottoman merchants.

The “Children of Darkness,” the vampire cult which kidnaps Armand in Venice and which he later leads in Paris, follows Catholic teachings. In the book and in the show, the cult’s obsession with Satan is explicitly Catholic. Satan is also an adversarial figure in Islam (called “Iblis” or “Shaitan”), so if Armand was a practitioner of Islam before, he likely would have been able to syncretize those beliefs and practices with those of the Children or Darkness. However, by the time Lestat finds Armand, he has lost faith (if he ever had it) in the teachings of the Children of Darkness. The last is true of both the show and the novels.

In the novels, Armand alternates between periods of religious fanaticism and zealotry and total atheism, so it would make sense that, along these oscillations, he would also move between different religions, trying to find the right one. In the books, after Armand meets Lestat, he enters a period of atheism that lasts well into the twentieth century. If the show is following this sequence, then it is likely that Armand’s praying in front of Daniel is just part of his disguise. However, the show clearly is not following the novels’ timeline to a T, so it is also entirely possible Armand is genuinely praying in this scene.

Slave Trade

(Disclaimer: Slavery is, unfortunately, ubiquitous across cultures and time periods. While slavery is deplorable in any context, the intent of this post is not to make moral judgements about any one culture. It is simply to discuss the possible historical context of a fictional character. We ought to condemn slavery wherever we see it, but we ought not to view it as pathological to one culture or another. Slavery is still practiced in various forms today (wage slavery, convict leasing, illegal human trafficking, etc.) Slavery serves a capitalist market, but it can create revenue in other systems as well.)

Slave trade was a major economic practice under the Delhi Sultanate, with the enslaved most commonly being of Turkic or Hindu origin.

(From the Wikipedia page on “Slavery in India.”)

Enslavement of Muslims was far less common under the Delhi Sultanate (although many enslaved people converted to Islam), and so this, again, suggests Armand was most likely a Hindu.

Slave trade was highly regulated under the sultanate, and private slave trade was essentially banned. The exporting of enslaved people on the international market was an important source of revenue for the sultanate, especially during military campaigns. (Slavery continued in the Mughal period, but in somewhat different contexts.)

Therefore, Armand was likely a young Hindu who was abducted in Delhi with sanction from the state and sent overseas to be sold on the international market, landing him in Venice.

However, it is also possible that Armand was abducted by Venetians, as the Republic often sent merchant ships to foreign countries, including India, during this period. The Republic also had many trade outposts and territories in various central and west Asian cities. I am unsure whether this type of trade would have been considered legal or permissible under the sultanate.

In the books, Armand is abducted by the Ottomans and taken to Constantinople/Istanbul to be sold. This is a less likely possibility for the show, given the shift in region.

//

If you’ve stayed with me this long, thanks for reading. All bolded terms have corresponding Wikipedia articles. This post may be edited according to new information or outside corrections.

[soracities]

Roland Barthes, A Lover's Discourse: Fragments (trans. Richard Howard) [ID in ALT]

[tavina-writes]

so deeply deeply tired of the discourse where if an artist/creative gets revealed to have been a vile and shitty person irl we just start throwing their art out wholesale to the tune of "omg well I KNEW they were a BAD person!!! look at how AWFUL AND BAD and SUCKY their art was!! it was CLEAR it was never ANY good. Anyway I never bought the hype about them because their art was BAD!"

like, I'm not arguing for continuing to hold onto art that you now dislike because the creator was a vile person. you don't need to do that.

but this "oh I can tell if a person is good or bad if their art is good or bad bc bad people make bad art" is just such a reductive and honestly tiring approach? Good people make bad art. Good people make good art. Bad people make bad art. Bad people make good art. there's no correlation, stop trying to say there is.

we must learn to separate the morality and value of art from the morality and value of the creator.