#Her masculinity does not imply other girls are lesser

[bijoumikhawal]

NGL I think if you're writing RGU analysis and you call Utena's gender nonconformity sexist you may not be writing good RGU analysis

[mynameisonionhaha]

Matthew Patel Analysis

I would like to say first off, I am not Indian. I am a Mexican kid who just really likes learning about different cultures. If anything in this is incorrect, offensive, or just overall dumb, I would really like to be corrected and would REALLY like to be able to fix it.

I’ve been trying to decipher what the markings on the demon girl’s and Matthew’s foreheads are. The main assumption would be that they are bindis, but that doesn’t sit entirely right with me when you think about what they represent in Indian culture.

For the demon girls, you COULD say that the markings are bindis, and that they are supposed to represent something “marital”, which would then imply that their binding to Matthew is more complicated, but I personally disagree with this for multiple reasons.

Then of course, for Matthew that would be a bit more complicated. Married women aren’t the only ones who use bindi markings of course as they also can have other uses and meanings, such as representing the third eye. Given Matthew’s powers, this would make sense, but it still doesn’t fully fit correctly in my beautiful mind.

The biggest thing that perplexes me is their colors and shape. They aren’t exactly round--they actually seem to be more elongated, like a very thin teardrop. This made me wonder if they were actually supposed to be tilaks instead, which makes slightly more sense to my big brain. This has to do with two main reasons: 1, both men and women can wear it. 2, Shiva and Shakti.

Let’s start with Shakta.

“Shaktas (worshippers of Devi — the feminine manifestation of the Divine) use kumkum to either draw a single red vertical line, or place a red dot, as a symbol of her divine energy and power.”  Source: https://www.hinduamerican.org/blog/5-things-to-know-about-tilak

Shakta is the consort of Shiva, the goddess who is often personified as “Devi”, who acts as the divine feminine to Shiva’s divine masculinity.

“Yoni, (Sanskrit: “abode,” “source,” “womb,” or “vagina”) in Hinduism, the symbol of the goddess Shakti, the feminine generative power and, as a goddess, the consort of Shiva. In Shaivism, the branch of Hinduism devoted to worship of the god Shiva, the yoni is often associated with the lingam, which is Shiva’s symbol. In sculpture and paintings, the lingam is depicted as resting in the yoni as a cylinder in a spouted dish. The two symbols together represent the eternal process of creation and regeneration, the union of the male and female principles, and the totality of all existence. In a myth narrated in several Puranas, the body of Sati, an avatar of Shakti, is dismembered and scattered throughout India. Her yoni falls, and remains, in Assam, regarded as the home of Tantra (esoteric practices).” Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/yoni 

These statements already clear up the shape, color, and meaning behind the girl’s markings. They are the feminine consorts to Matthew Patel and his escapades. Personally I really like this for multiple reasons, the biggest being that it makes their dynamic significantly more wholesome. This article, https://hridaya-yoga.com/blog/yoni-puja/, talks about the yoni tantras and overall adoration and respect for women. While Matthew and his girls don’t interact together much in terms of actual conversation, the general case seems to be that they are protective, uplifting, and devoted to him, while in return we see that they are treated with respect and not once does he ever see them as lesser or treat them as such. (This could be countered with the fact that they do get put in harm's way a lot, but given that they seem to be able to respawn just fine it probably isn’t an issue and something they are willing to do for him anyways.)

With that, let’s talk about Shiva.

“Shiva meaning “The Auspicious One” is one of the three major deities of Hinduism. He is worshiped as the Supreme God within Shaivism, one of the three most influential denominations in contemporary Hinduism and is also called “the Transformer and the Destroyer”.” Source: https://www.templepurohit.com/shiva-worshipped-form-linga-lingam/#google_vignette 

Matthew and Shiva have lots of things going on, which personally I find really freaking cool. He literally summons what appears to be the trishul, which is Shiva’s trident. How dope is that?? 

“The Trishul, also known as the trident, is the primary weapon of Lord Shiva. It is characterized by three sharp blades connected by a long handle. The three blades always point in the upward direction. Shiva is always found to be holding the handle of the Trishul when he is depicted in the saguna linga form. The three blades have various representations in Hindu mythology.” Source: https://servdharm.com/blogs/post/significance-of-shivas-trishul#:~:text=The%20Trishul%2C%20also%20known%20as,in%20the%20saguna%20linga%20form.

When it comes to the actual symbol on his forehead however, that becomes more difficult. I wondered if he was Shaiva (Shaiva meaning “follower of Shiva”), and that was what the symbol meant, but I couldn’t find anything regarding his specifically.

“Shaivites (worshippers of Shiva), for example, smear their foreheads with three horizontal lines of vibhuti, a sacred white ash that acts as a reminder of the temporary nature of the material world. Made of the burnt dried wood from Hindu fire rituals, the three lines of vibhuti are called tripundra, and represent Shiva’s threefold powers of will, knowledge, and action. Tripudra is also frequently worn with a dot made of kumkum (a powdered red turmeric) in the center, symbolizing the creative and energetic force of the Divine known as the Goddess Shakti.” Source: https://www.hinduamerican.org/blog/5-things-to-know-about-tilak 

Interestingly enough, the tripundra does share the teardrop shape that Matthew has. What confuddles me is the lack of the three lines, and the color. I am unsure as to whether or not this has meaning, was on purpose, or was just what they decided to go with.

I did however come to the conclusion that the color might be related to bhasma (calcine ash), more specifically, “Pushpa Kasisa, which is crystalline with bluish green color.” Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530270/ 

“Bhasma is a Sanskrit word that means “bone ash,” “cinder” or “disintegration.” It comes from the root bha, meaning “delusion,” “appearance” or “likeness,” and sma, meaning “ever” or “always.” In Hinduism and yoga, bhasma is sacred ash. In some traditions, it is thought to contain the energy of Shiva.” 

“In the spiritual context, bhasma symbolizes burning the ego to ashes in order to unite with the higher Self or the divine. It represents liberation from the limitations of mortal life and freedom from the cycle of reincarnation. It is also a reminder of the temporary nature of the physical body, which will one day return to ashes.

Also called vibhooti, bhasma is the sacred ash from the fire of a yogi or saint or from the sacrificial fire known as yajna in which special wood, herbs, grains, ghee and other items are offered as part of a worship ritual. Bhasma is thought to destroy sin and consume evil.” Source: https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5934/bhasma#:~:text=In%20the%20spiritual%20context%2C%20bhasma,from%20the%20cycle%20of%20reincarnation. 

Overall it appears that bhasma is applied to protect its wearer from physical harm/illness as well as serving its spiritual purposes which works really well given that it appeared during a fight where Matthew was in fact, getting harmed.

(I do want to mention though that I do think that it is not actual bhasma as that really wouldn’t make sense, but the similarities and “coincidences” are really cool to me.)

Okay, how does this relate to Matthew’s powers?

“According to yogic texts, there exist seven major chakras (discs of subtle concentrated energy) that run along the center of the body, each of which relate to some aspect of a person’s physical, emotional, and psychological make-up. Tilak is placed on the forehead between the eyebrows where the ajna chakra is located. As ajna means to “perceive” or “command,” the ajna chakra is considered to be the “eye of intuition,” through which a person can discern information that cannot otherwise be seen with one’s physical eyes. This “third eye” is a spiritually potent part of one’s being that helps one to focus inward on the Divine. Tilak, therefore, is placed on the ajna chakra to invoke this divine energy, as well as act as a reminder of the ultimate life goal.” Source: https://www.hinduamerican.org/blog/5-things-to-know-about-tilak 

If Matthew is invoking the power of Shiva to aid him through the third eye, or the ajna chakra, this would make the most sense (and would explain why we hadn’t seen it before, probably). I also think it explains his fireballs pretty well, as I’ve noticed a lot of fire and burning practices and metaphors throughout my search for answers.

Oh, also, this: “Shiva's tapas generated so much heat that his body transformed into a pillar of fire - a blazing lingam that threatened to destroy the whole world. The gods did not know how to control Shiva's fire.”

In fact, the whole summary article thingy is really cool to me, so i’ll put it all here.

“Shiva saw no sense in the transitory pleasures of life, so he rejected samsara, smeared his body with ash, closed his eyes and performed austerities.

Shiva's tapas generated so much heat that his body transformed into a pillar of fire - a blazing lingam that threatened to destroy the whole world. The gods did not know how to control Shiva's fire.

Suddenly there appeared a yoni - the divine vessel of the mother-goddess. It caught the fiery lingam and contained its heat, thus saving the cosmos from untimely destruction.

Shiva is often pictured in a pacific mood with his consort Parvati, as the cosmic dancer Nataraja, as a naked ascetic, as a mendicant beggar, as a yogi Dhakshinamurthy, and as the androgynous union of Shiva and Parvati in one body (Ardhanarisvara).

Shiva also takes the form of Ardhanari, his androgynous form. The right side of the sculpture is Shiva and the left side is Parvati. The attributes of each are split directly down the middle.

Another example of Shiva's apparent synthesis of male and female attributes is seen in his earrings. He often wears one earring in the style of a man and the other as a female.” Source: https://www.lotussculpture.com/shiva-hindu-god-lord-destruction-meaning-symbolism.html#:~:text=Shiva's%20tapas%20generated%20so%20much,how%20to%20control%20Shiva's%20fire. 

So yeah, there you have it. Here is every single source I used:

Shiva

https://servdharm.com/blogs/post/significance-of-shivas-trishul#:~:text=The%20Trishul%2C%20also%20known%20as,in%20the%20saguna%20linga%20form. 

https://www.lotussculpture.com/shiva-hindu-god-lord-destruction-meaning-symbolism.html#:~:text=Shiva's%20tapas%20generated%20so%20much,how%20to%20control%20Shiva's%20fire. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trishula 

https://www.templepurohit.com/shiva-worshipped-form-linga-lingam/#google_vignette 

Shakti/Yoni

https://www.britannica.com/topic/yoni 

https://hridaya-yoga.com/blog/yoni-puja/ 

https://kripalu.org/resources/shakti-power-within-you#:~:text=Shakti%20means%20power%2C%20energy%2C%20or,the%20divine%20masculine%20god%20Shiva. 

Tilak

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tilak-ancient-practice-significance-neeta-singhal 

https://www.hinduamerican.org/blog/5-things-to-know-about-tilak 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/tilak 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilaka 

Bindi

https://exametc.com/magazine/details.php?id=900 

https://www.sanskritimagazine.com/bindi-meaning-and-significance-of-the-dot-on-forehead/ 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bindi_(decoration) 

Bhasma

https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5934/bhasma#:~:text=In%20the%20spiritual%20context%2C%20bhasma,from%20the%20cycle%20of%20reincarnation. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24696811/#:~:text=There%20are%20various%20importance%20of,heavy%20metals%20in%20the%20body. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530270/ 

Third Eye

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_eye 

[uncloseted]

why is it always franky was/should've been non binary and never mini or katie or Michelle or effy or cassie or maxxie or tony or chris or jal or anwar or naomi or emily or anyone else

I have a feeling this question wasn’t really asked in good faith, but I’m going to answer it anyway on the off chance that it was. The simplest answer is that people feel that Franky could have/should have been written as non-binary/genderqueer because people in those communities related to her experience in series 5. Franky’s first episode is in part about how uncomfortable it is for her to wear more traditionally feminine clothes to fit in with the girls. And throughout the series 5, she’s kind of reticent to define her gender or sexuality when other people ask about it. Of course, series 6 never really follows through with that, and the costume designer implied that Franky is dressing more feminine in series 6 because ���her head isn’t messed anymore”, but I think people feel like there was an opportunity that was missed to represent a community that doesn’t often see themselves on screen.

For other characters, there just isn’t that ambiguity about their own feelings about their own gender. Mini, Michelle, and Katie (and Effy and Cassie, to a lesser extent) all see femininity as a core part of who they are. Naomi and Emily also have femininity as a core part of who they are because they view themselves as lesbians. For Tony, a very traditional view of masculinity is part of what causes him to act the way he does, and for Maxxie, a big part of his identity is being a gay man.

Could all of those characters have been written as genderqueer? Sure. But they would have been completely different characters to the ones we saw on screen. With Franky, that’s not really the case, at least not in series 5. If in series 6 her arc had been about coming to terms with her gender identity, that would have made sense with what we’ve already seen of her. For those other characters, it would have felt confusing and like a big pivot- the same way that Franky’s hyperfemininity in series 6 does. Of course, that’s not to say that it couldn’t have also worked for Franky to be a cis pansexual woman who presents masc. That would have made sense for her character arc, too. And that’s not to say that there isn’t a way for any of those other characters to be genderqueer or nonbinary in a way that would make sense- gender presentation doesn’t always equal gender identity. But that’s why it’s always Franky as opposed to anyone else.

[algumaideia]

The ableism in the Acotar series

I was thinking about all the problematic aspects of the Acotar books, and I realized that they are pretty ableist. I don’t know if someone have already talked about it, but just in case I’ll do it. But before I start, I need to say some things:

1. I haven’t read the series for a while, and I don’t remember some stuff. So, I might write something that is wrong.

2. I’m not disabled myself. This post is based on my research about disabilities and how disabled people are represented in the media. I have a lot of interest in the subject, and I also researched about it because I’m writing a story with several disabled characters. I also did a school project about assistive technologies.

3. English is not my mother language and I’m still learning it. There are gonna be spelling and grammar mistakes. I’m sorry about it, but it is life.

4. I haven’t read the acosf book, so maybe SJM changed the story or some character in this book and therefore my post will be incorrect.

5. Besides the fact that I consider Emerie to be disabled, I won’t talk about her in the post. Because as I said I didn’t read acosf and I think that her appearance in the acofas has the same purpose that the other female Illyrians (since Idk how to write Illyrians this will be write wrong in the entire post, I’m sorry).

6. I forget the name of some characters and I don’t want to search it, so I’ll just give them new names.

Now let’s begin.

I’ll analyze the following characters in this post: Papa Acheron, Lucien, Cassian and Ianthe, the woman from the library and the female Illyrians, the female creature from the forest, the Illyrian soldiers that came back from the war and the girl who couldn’t fly. I think I forgot someone, but patience. In the end of the post I’ll talk about disabilities, ableism and worldbuilding.

I also would like to say that almost all her characters got their disability as a punishment, and the problem with this is that it always links disability with something bad.

Papa Acheron:

As I said Papa Acheron got his disability as a punishment, since he didn’t pay his debts, some people went in this house and broke his leg. I might be wrong, but I think that it didn’t healed well and because of that he has chronic pain. So, to better analyze him I’ll compare him to two other characters with chronic pain, Kaz Brekker and Melissa, one of my main characters.

Papa Acheron became useless after he became disabled. He thought he was useless and by extension Feyre thought it too. I’m not saying that internalized ableism doesn’t exist, but the narrative never calls it out. Feyre accepts this excuse, it is kind of implied that if he weren’t disabled, he would be able to help his family and get money. Now let’s look to Kaz (I haven’t read the second book of the duology, please no spoilers). He accepts his disability, not only that but he uses his cane as one of his symbols. He goes against the idea that a disabled person is stuck with a cane or a wheelchair or whatever. He feels free with his cane. Now, this doesn’t mean that every disabled character needs to feel okay with his disability. My character, Melissa, feels a lot of anger because of her chronic pain. It hurts her, it disrupts her plans, it makes her suffer. However, it didn’t stop her to live her life and she also is not seeking anyone’s pity, which is very different from the Papa Acheron situation. Mel has friends, a social life, she studies, she will have a job, she will date, get married and have children. She doesn’t feel mad because she is disabled, she is also autistic, and she loves that part of herself. What bothers her is that her disability makes her feels a lot of pain. Papa Acheron is just someone to you feel bad and angry about. He doesn’t do anything because he is disabled and believes that this makes his useless and the narrative kind of agrees with him.

Lucien:

Lucien doesn’t have one eye, and that’s what makes him disabled. He became disabled as a punishment for falling in love with a lesser fae and not only that, but he is only without his mechanic/magic eye when he is on his worse. He was without his eye when his family was torturing and banishing him. And then when he was UTM. Again, disability being connected with bad things. Now about his mechanic eye. The first time that Feyre describes his eye she says it is creepy. Which is bad. But also, why it had to be magic and give him the ability to see spells or something like that (this was never brought back btw)? Why can’t he have a normal mechanical eye? Why he needs a mechanical eye? Why does his mechanical eye need to compensate the fact he is disabled? He is as much complete with and without his eye.

Cassin and Ianthe:

I put this two together for one reason, their disabilities were cured. I’ll talk about Cassian first. When they invaded Hybrein (I also don’t know how to write the name of the country) they hurt his wings badly. And considering that to Illyrians the wings are as much a limb as an arm or a leg, he was disabled for a while. (I’m aware that to something be considered a disability it needs to be long lasting. But I think that the fact that it was cured is ableist, if I’m not wrong the text said it was a miracle he was healed.)Then we had Cassian in the floor with his wings all damaged, suffering a lot, what a horrible scene. But don’t worry! The next time he’ll appear completely cured, because being disabled is such a horrible thing and SJM never used deus ex machina to save her characters. So, this injured made him disabled for a while, and it could be interesting. The wings are the Illyrian symbol, the symbol of their toxic masculinity and their sexism. Cassian being disabled because of his wings would make him revalue his culture and his own idea of masculinity and it would be so amazing. But he was cured. I think that this makes Cassian falls in the disabled for one day trope. Just like Ianthe. First the way she became disabled was disgusting. Feyre invading her mind was such a horrible thing to do. I’m not denying that Ianthe is a terrible person/fae but that doesn’t change the fact that it was a horrible scene. I really dislike characters with telepathic powers, because for me their powers are crossing a line. They invade and control someone’s mind. They take off the person free will. They basically turn the person in a robot. If I remember correctly when Feyre made Ianthe broke her hand it was with the purpose to make it useless. And when she appeared again in all her glory she was, surprise, surprise, cured.

The woman from the library and the female Illyrians:

I put they together because their disabilities are used for the same two purposes. The first is that they became disabled as a punishment for being female, and the second it to show how FEMINIST Rhysand is. He isn’t feminist, so all these women suffered for nothing. Again, disability being linked with bad things. The symbol of the female Illyrians suffering is they becoming disabled. NOT GOOD AT ALL. About the woman from the library, she was there to also show how good Feyre is. She is there so we can feel pity of her. She didn’t deserve it.

The female creature who couldn’t see:

My problem with her is that it is implied/said that she has better senses because she is blind. And that’s not how it works?? People just pay more attention in what they hear, touch or smell when they are blind/visually impaired.

The girl who couldn’t fly:

I'm gonna call her Anna. First Anna is like the only character who just have a disability. No trauma, no war, no punishment. She just has. Then she is a great disabled character, right? Wrong. She has inspirational porn written all over her story. She is there to make Feyre feel better about herself and make other abled people/fae feel inspired. She is there so we can say: ohhh poor thing, but at least she overcame her disability and now can fly. So ableist. Anna is also only valued after proving herself useful. That is wrong. Disabled people should be valued because they are people. They don’t need to be amazing in anything to be treated with respect.

The Illyrian soldiers:

My problem with them is how their disability is used to reinforce sexism and make Cassian and Rhysand feel bad. But what about the Illyrian soldiers? How are they feeling? It seems this is not important. They also bother me because of worldbuilding questions.

Disabilities, ableism and worldbuilding:

First, why humans and fae feel the same about disabled people? Feyre has the same opinion the IC have. And the humans and fae were separated for 500 years. This doesn’t make sense. Every court think the same thing about disabled fae? Does something change if the disabled fae is a lesser or a higher fae? It should make a difference. A real world example of how social class affects the way disabled people are treated: the first school for deaf people created only taught children of the nobles.

And why the way people look to disabled fae didn’t change after the war? What about the assistive technology? You know what, it is unrealistic the fact that we don’t have any assistive technology in this world. But this happen in the antient times, how could there be any assistive technology? First, assistive technology is everything that helps a disabled person, a cane, a screen reader, a scooter. Everything can be an assistive technology. Second, assistive technologies exist since the antiente times. One of the oldest prothesis were found in a mummy. There is a painting of Hephaestus using a wheelchair. And considering that this series happens in what was supposed to be the Middle ages, it was supposed to have assistive technologies. Wheelchairs during this time were heavy and the user couldn’t use it by himself, but they existed. There are records of a king using a wheelchair during the middle ages. And I mean with the war something was supposed to change. The first place to blind people in the France was created because 300 soldiers came back from the crusades without their eyes. It was in the century 20 that disabled people started to be more included in the society. And one of the reasons were the soldiers that came back from WW1 and WW2 disabled. Not only that but in war times the technology improves, so a lot of new assistive technologies and materials were created during this time. The first record of guide dogs comes from 1819 in school in Vienna, but it didn’t work. Only after WW1 that guide dogs appeared again. And you know with what purpose? Help veterans that were blind due to the war. Braille was a system used for the French army during battles. Louis Braille only made it simpler. The war should change something.

Why is the world ableist?  The excuse that this is an antient society doesn’t work my friend. The Egypt was a very including country. Blind people could be part of any social class. Dwarfs were part of the society since they had a dwarf god. In antient Japan blind people were expected to be independent. They could work with music, religion, telling stories etc. And the work of telling stories was very important since it made the Japanese tradition to continue. The excuse that this is an antient society is just this, an excuse. Now she could have used to say something. Leigh Bardugo used the ableism of her world to criticize the ableism of our world. I’m doing the same thing with my story. SJM made an ableist world just because.

That was my analysis. I’m sorry this was very long. I know this was a little confusing, but it was very difficult to put all the stuff that was in my mind in text. In my mind everythig made sense, but when I was writing it I realized I wasn’t following a logical argument. If that makes sense. Anyway, thank you for reading it.

If you read the books and realized I wrote something wrong, please tell me. If you are disabled and think I said something offensive, I’d love to hear you. If you are non-disabled and want to comment and give your opinion, feel free. And if you don’t want to comment, don’t do it. You can do whatever you want.

Best regards,

Me.

Ps. This is my first post in Tumblr, so I don’t know if I tagged it right, if you want to help, I would be really grateful.

[shortnotsweet]

The Allegory of the Tin Man, the Dictator, and the Knight: a Dissection of Ironqrow and a Character Arc of Failure

“There lived in the Land of Oz two queerly made men who were best of friends. They were so much happier when together that they were seldom apart.”

— L. Frank Baum

A brief Ironqrow meta and character analysis of James Ironwood, the ultimate screw up, in three parts.

I. Qrow and Ironwood’s Homoeroticism in Canon Source Material and its Translation

II. Ironwood’s Repressed Characterization and the Inherent Chivalry of the Dictatorship

III. Ironwood, Alone

Qrow and Ironwood’s Homoeroticism in Canon Source Material and its Translation

Within the Oz series, the Tin Man and the Scarecrow are layered within homoerotic subtext, even if it is included unintentionally. Tison Pugh’s analysis Queer Utopianism and Antisocial Eroticism in L. Frank Baum's Oz Series posits that the land of Oz as portrayed within the series is a largely asexual environment of suspended adolescence that involves the deviation of binary gender norms, and of performative heterosexuality. Pugh refers to it later as a “queer utopia”. Men are portrayed as a lesser military force to women, and heterosexuality is a flimsy presence at best; all signs of procreation within Oz are stifled. While this could be chalked down to Baum not wanting to get into the subject of sex and exploration in a children’s series, it does contribute to a particular tone with real-life critiques of capitalism and a particular deconstruction of gender norms. Ozma, who will become the ruler of Oz after the Wizard and the Scarecrow respectively, for example, is originally a boy named Tip (the name itself holds phallic implications) who is “transformed” into a girl. The strongest military force is one of all-women led by a rebellious female general. Pugh observes, “At the same time that Baum satirizes...women as leaders…he consistently depicts women as more successful soldiers than men, and female troops appear better capable of serving militarily than male troops…[the] male army comprises of twenty-six officers and one private, and they are all cowards…” and cites the Frogman’s declaration that “Girls are the fiercest soldiers of all...they are more brave than men, and they have better nerves”.

RWBY itself isn’t opposed to this kind of subversion, either in its characters or its relationships. There’s an obvious effort to include LGBTQ+ representation (albeit primarily in the background), strong female characters are prevalent and make up most of the main and supporting cast, a character’s gender is not strictly reliant on its source material, and BlackSun, while cute and a valid ship in its own right, is treated as a heterosexual red herring to Bumbleby. Additionally, there have been a lot of hints by the voice actors, writers, and creators on social media that Qrow himself is queer, the infamous Ironqrow embrace included.

Admittedly, if I wanted to write an essay about the likelihood of Qrow being LGBTQ+ or having some kind of queer identity, I would probably focus more on his relationship with Clover, which had a lot more overt and probably canonically intentional Gay Vibes, and despite having known Qrow nowhere near as long as Ironwood has, it has just as much, if not more, to extrapolate. Unfortunately, that’s not the main point of this essay, although it remains relevant. While I personally don’t doubt that Qrow has had sex with women or experiences valid sexual attraction to them, I get the feeling that it is, to a degree, a performative act and a masculine assertation of enjoyment intended as a coping mechanism. It plays into the trope of the handsome, tortured alcoholic (best exemplified, perhaps, in the MCU’s Tony Stark, Dean Winchester in Supernatural, and critiqued in the superhero episode of Rick and Morty) who sleeps around just to recall the feeling of intimacy, or because he associates sexual ‘degradation’ as a reflection of his worth. Real self-deprecating, slightly misogynistic stuff. Qrow’s recall of short skirts, as well as his brief exchange with the waitress in an earlier volume, reminds me of one specific interaction between the Scarecrow and his own love interest. Within the series, the Qrow’s source-material counterpart, the Scarecrow, has one canonical love interest, the Patchwork Girl:

“Forgive me for staring so rudely,” said the Scarecrow, “but you are the most beautiful sight my eyes have ever beheld.”

“That is a high compliment from one who is himself so beautiful,” murmured Scraps, casting down her suspender-button eyes by lowering her head.

Pugh points out that the two of them never develop this relationship further than flirtation, and heterosexuality is reduced to a “spectral presence” lacking the “erotic energy [driving] these queer narratives in their presence”. Specifically, Qrow never reveals a serious or long running heterosexual love interest - he is not the father! [of Ruby] (despite much speculation that he and Summer Rose were involved) and he and Winter never really moved past the stage of ‘hostility with just a hint of sexual tension’ - and there is no debunking of potential queerness. His interactions with Clover (deserving of an entire essay on its own) seem to support this interpretation, and is more or less a confirmation of some kind of queer inclination or identity. Again, the “queer utopia” of Oz comes at the cost of the expulsion of the sexual or the mere mention of reproduction - still, through this device, same-sex relationships gain a new kind of significance with the diminishing nature of heterosexuality. Speaking of queer narratives, the Scarecrow and the Tin Man have the most tender and prolonged relationship of perhaps all the characters in the series, exchanging a lifelong commitment:

“I shall return with my friend the Tin Woodman,” said the stuffed one seriously. “We have decided never to be parted in the future.”

Within the source material, the Tin Man and the Scarecrow voluntarily live together, and are life partners in nearly every sense of the word. The second book in the Oz series is The Tin Woodman of Oz. In summary, the Tin Woodman recalls that he had a fiancée before the events of the first book, forgot all about her, and now must search her out so that they can get married. Who does he ask to accompany him in this pursuit? None other than his no-homo life partner, the Scarecrow. Although this sounds like a stereotypical heteronormative storyline, “this utopian wonderland...rejects heterosexual procreation...First, the Tin Woodman does not desire...Nimmie Amee...” and even acknowledges that due to the ‘nature’ of the heart that the Wizard had given him, he is literally incapable of romantically or passionately loving or desiring Nimmie, and by extent, women in general - to me, that works perfectly as an allegory for a gay man who is literally incapable of experiencing legitimate heterosexual urges, but ‘soldiers on’ out of obligation and societally enforced chivalry. “The Tin Woodman excuses himself from the heteronormative imperative...Only his sense of masculine honor, rather than a heteronomratively masculine sex drive, impels the Tin Woodman on his quest to marry his long-lost fiancée.” Again, Ironwood’s character follows the lines of propriety within the sphere of the wealthy elite, and his persona as a high-ranking military man and politician, as well as the conservative values instilled within Atlas, prioritize duty and obligation. This kind of culture is stifling and in a lot of ways aloof, as the upper class deludes itself into believing that it is objectively better and more advanced than its neighboring territories. *ahem the myth of American exceptionalism ahem*

“There lived in the Land of Oz two queerly made men who were best of friends. They were so much happier when together that they were seldom apart.”

I think it’s funny that the characters that Ironwood and Qrow are based off of are canonically the closest of friends, who coexist almost as a unit. In contrast, the first introduction we get of Ironwood and Qrow is a hostile exchange where they’re at each other’s throats, never on the same page, and never in sync, not when it matters. Indeed, Qrow snaps at Ironwood for his lack of communication, which is a recurring issue between the two of them on notable occasions. If the source material is anything to go by, there should be a significant relationship between the two of them, or at least some kind of connection, even if it goes unspoken or unacknowledged. To be fair, in RWBY’s canon, I think there is.

I’ve seen this joke that while Qrow hates the Atlas military, the only people he really seems to flirt with is Atlas military personnel. “Ice Queen” is something I interpreted to be partially hostile, partially mocking, and partially flirtatious, in equal spades - the voice actors and creators have indicated that it was flirtatious, and there was a whole Chibi episode dedicated to the concept of Qrow and Winter’s extrapolated sexual tension, albeit in jest. I might argue that his use of abbreviates aren’t reserved for people he dislikes, but for people who bring out his playful side. “Brat”, “Pipsqueak”, “Firecracker”, and “Kiddos” are all drawn from a place of affection, however short or mocking it may seem, because that’s what crows do: they mock others.

Qrow has little nicknames for people; while it’s not exclusively a sign of affection, I do get the feeling that ‘Jimmy’ is an informality that irks Ironwood, but can also be interpreted as Qrow giving James what he needs, rather than what he wants.

Glynda is by no means a pushover, but in assuring him that while he does questionable things, he’s still a good person, she’s softening the blow and probably further enabling deeply rooted and pre-existing traits, many of which contribute to his problematic control complex. It is established early on that Qrow resents the military (as he should), and it is implied that he’s spent a fair amount of encounters harassing and provoking military personnel (Winter being the most evident example of this), and has insulted the military numerous times to Ironwood’s face. He lectures Ironwood about the way he conducts his operations, his inability to communicate, and basically what a complete, inconsiderate asshole he really is.

What Ironwood needs is someone who operates outside of the pretense that he works, breathes, and lives under, and just tells it like it is. Jimmy isn’t all that - he’s a person, just like the rest of us, and he can flaunt all the titles that he wants, but James stripped down is still just Jimmy.

Qrow also is the kind of person who pries, who is insistent, and not particularly sensitive. For someone like Ironwood who has a lot of (physical and emotional) barriers, logically, in order for him to receive genuine understanding, Qrow fits the profile of someone who is invasive but not exploitive, who sees past the cracks in his armor and takes him for what he is. What is just important is that whoever Ironwood is with is someone who makes him want to try not only to be better, but to be real; thematically, General Ironwood seems to have a great respect for but a deep struggle with authenticity. He clearly resents the ignorance and frivolity of Atlas’s wealthy elite, as evidenced by his support for Weiss at the dinner party in announcing that “she’s one of the only people making any sense around here”, while struggling to project the facade that he’s carefully created.

See, we don’t have evidence that there is something going on between Ironqood and Qrow so much as we have enough evidence to inconclusively say that there’s not not something going on. I think there’s enough evidence to support the idea that something could be going on, or was going on.

When Qrow saves Ironwood at the Battle of Beacon, who is under the false impression that Qrow believes him to be the culprit of the attacks, his eyes follow Qrow and we get a closer shot of his awed expression; we the viewer can only imagine what he sees as Qrow arcs through the air and slices down a Grimm from behind his back. The focus on Ironwood’s expression portrays something like shock (so Qrow wasn’t trying to attack me after all, but then what the hell is he doing?), maybe wonder (I can’t take my eyes off of him, I can’t look away), maybe respect (I know he’s a good Hunter, but I’ve rarely seen him in action), but it is unfiltered nonetheless. In a show where fight scenes are vital to the progression of the story itself, the dynamics of these fights are at their best when they are character driven, whether it is revealing or reinforcing something about the characters and their relationships, or it is deciding their fates. There’s something to be said about characters being given moments together in battles, and what that says about the significance of their relationship. The best example of this might be the battle between Blake and Yang vs Adam; it served to give Adam what he deserved, help Blake and Yang reach closure in certain aspects of their own trauma, and solidify the bond between the girls. Similarly, Qrow and Ironwood’s moment is meant to reveal a theme that will later be revisited in volume 7; trust. Ironwood is startled but not shocked when he believes that Qrow distrusts him to the degree of attacking him, and is ready to attack or defend as needed.

Qrow tells him what he needs to hear, more or less: YOU’RE A DUMBASS. Ironwood is, indeed, a dumbass. While he does extend the olive branch of trust and good will to CRWBY and co. this trust is highly conditional and proves to be, while from a place of desperation and sincerity, at least partially performative.

When Ironwood snaps, he snaps hard.

Amber’s voice actress tweeted early on, joking that Qrow has two Atlas boyfriends, and Arryn has made comments, too. It’s one of the older ships, and the crew is certainly aware of it (“...extended chest bump...”).

Kerry has stated that he finds the Ironqrow relationship interesting, and wishes it had been explored more (additionally, allegedly lobbying that Ironwood’s arm in the Ironqrow hug scene be slightly lower). I’m not saying that they’re going to both make it out alive, or canon, or even that romantic subtext was intentionally woven into the script. All I’m saying is that I think their relationship is interesting too, especially when the subtext of their source material relationship is taken into context, and the way their characters are positioned is suggestive of some sort of compatibility, even if it is a hit or miss kind of opportunity, and I have the sinking suspicion that it was missed on both accounts.

The Tin Woodman of Oz concludes,

“All this having been happily arranged, the Tin Woodman returned to his tin castle, and his chosen comrade, the Scarecrow, accompanied him on the way. The two friends were sure to pass many pleasant hours together in talking over their recent adventures, for as they neither ate nor slept they found their greatest amusement in conversation.”

Ironwood’s Repressed Characterization and the Inherent Chivalry of the Dictatorship

“I don’t give a damn about Jacque Schnee...what about the other two? Do not return to this office until you have Qrow Branwen in custody.”

“And that’s not all we’ve lost...I had Qrow in my hands, and I didn’t do what needed to be done.”

Observe: Ironwood, at this point, does not care about politics. I doubt he’s ever wanted to, or ever liked it (if his tired outburst at the dinner party is any indication) but his Knightly qualities (we’ll get to that) have, up till this point, prompted him to adhere to them for both power and etiquette. James surrounds himself in a world that he understands and despises; more than anything, he’d like to be a general, a commander, and the Knight in Shining Armor archetype, because warfare is something he understands. It is a testament to his (superhuman) willpower that he forces himself to become fluent in the language of politics, and to live and breathe in it. To clarify, Ironwood sees himself as a man who does what needs to be done; if he wants to change and control Atlas, he will have to involve himself in its politics.

Likely, his resilience has contributed to the way he views himself and what he deserves, as someone long-suffering and almost martyr-like, a silent hero doing what needs to be done. But at the moment, he’s lost his goddamn mind coming undone. He’s murdered and jailed his political dissent (and might have considered executing prisoners), but at this point, that’s all that Jacque and Robyn are to him. First he dismisses Jacque, narrows it down to the two escaped prisoners, and finally reveals what’s really on the forefront of his mind: Qrow, free and out of his hands.

[ When recalling this dialogue, please do so while imagining a bad recorder cover of the Titanic music playing over the background. Here is a sample. ]

In the most recent episode, Ironwood seems to have gone off the rails even further. The fact that Winter, his most faithful lieutenant, is losing her unshakable faith in him, says a lot about how hard he’s fallen off the deep end. In Winter’s mind, I think that she sees him almost as a surrogate father figure, or at least a patriarch who can be positively compared to Jacques in every way. The previous volumes go to lengths to compare the two as adversaries and showing James in a favorable light; Winter is in her own personal horror right now, because she is beginning to understand that Ironwood is a man who may not be her father but is just as susceptible to corruption, and may have been that kind of person all along. Skipping over the...ah, genocidal tendencies, and the fact that he’s proposing to kidnap Penny’s friends to force her to obey him and likely is starting to realize that Winter is the perfect bait (let’s just say that “Ironwood is not good with kids” is the understatement of the year) Ironwood wants Qrow back (in captivity), I think that it’s significant that while Ironwood registers that Robyn is gone as well, his first priority is Qrow, probably for two reasons. On one hand, he still refers to Qrow by his first name, instead of the formal Branwen. Of course, that doesn’t have to mean anything at all. They’re colleagues within the same age range, both members of the same secret brotherhood and similiar skill sets.

On the other hand, it reminds me of the moment when Qrow and the kids first fly into Atlas, and they see the heightened security, and Qrow mutters, “James...what have you been doing,” under his breath, sounding concerned, apprehensive. He’s not addressing the kids, he’s talking to himself; he regards James much more seriously both as a potential threat and a friend than he’d rather the other know, and I think that James’ focus on Qrow at this point is similiar, only not only is this a sign of them knowing each other well, but of Ironwood’s slipping control. He offered Qrow his trust and camaraderie, his last attempt to keep a handle on his humanity (or, his heart). Qrow, in return, withheld vital information, got close with another operative instead, then allegedly killed him and and escaped ‘rightful’ imprisonment.

The Tin Man is offering Qrow his heart, at least proof of it, and the Scarecrow [and co.] steps back to observe the situation, and assesses that no, what you are going to do is wrong, and I cannot agree with it.

Ironwood is not an objective person, as much as he wants to be. He’s angry, desperate, scared, and humiliated. Worst of all, he’s rebuffed, and he’s taking Qrow’s escape personally. First, he understands that Qrow is a threat. He’s Ozpin’s best agent, he has years of field experience, and he knows too much, probably more than James knows. Second, they have history.

My personal interpretation of Ironwood is something this:

He’s a sad, sad, lonely bitch. What Ironwood longs for, just like his source material counterpart, is a heart. He will go to any lengths to achieve this, because he believes that he has self awareness and therefore is able to check and balance himself. He treats his subordinates well, is diplomatic, skilled in a variety of trades, fighting the good fight, and longs for the affirmation that yes, he is a good person, and yes, he’s had a heart all along. He just strays from the path, and loses his way.

This is symbolically represented by his partially mechanic exoskeleton; we have no idea how far the cyborg extremities extend, or how deep, but we do get the visual notion of humanity in conflict, or a man’s soul deconstructed and split between the cold efficiency of machinery and the very real warmth of a human body. Ironwood wants to appear human, and benevolent, and genuine, and in return, loved; he is human, and he could be all of these things. If my reliance on the source material holds any merit (although I highly doubt it), then there is also a potential struggle with sexuality, (Glynda herself even explicitly and exasperatedly references a testosterone battle between Ironwood and Qrow, suggesting a regular overassertation of masculinity) and a further incentive to achieve love and subsequent acceptance.

To clarify, I do believe that there were less-than-subtle allusions to Ironwood and Glynda having a vaguely flirtatious history, taking their shared scenes and background dancing into account, but this, again, does not “debunk” the presence of queerness within a narrative; it could be an assumption of heterosexuality, or performative itself, or just not an exclusive interest. Besides, Ironwitch isn’t what this essay is about. I’m not trying to persuade or dissuade someone of the notion that Jimmy is gay, or straight, or something else, only that the potential ambiguity exists. What I do think is most important is that James doesn’t openly ward people away, not when those people aren’t under his command and are technically outside of his jurisdiction. He’s friendly with Glynda, tries to extend trust to Qrow, is kind to people in the aftermath of battle, and overall clings to diplomacy as his first weapon. He wants to be accepted, to be liked, and to be welcomed. This is not an outrageous want, nor is it uncommon. Unfortunately, Ironwood’s understanding of love and acceptance is entangled within the concept of control, and he associates unquestioned compliance with this Want.

Ironwood’s introduction into the series shows him being openly cordial, and very considerate, especially his interactions with Glynda and Ozpin. He’s a gentleman, he’s apologetic, and, as Glynda assures him, he’s a “good man”. She doesn’t really elaborate on what a “good man” is, exactly, but we might presume that a “good man” is a person with good intentions, who strives to do what’s right, regardless of his options.

Here’s the thing - one similarity between Ironwood and the Tin Man is that they both have the capacity to love, but they fool themselves into thinking that they don’t; before the Wizard gives him a ‘heart’, the Tin Man suggests that he is only kind and considerate to everyone in Oz because he believes he needs to overcompensate for what he lacks, and is therefore doubly aware of how he treats others. However, the Wizard knows no real magic, only tricks and illusions, and what he gives the Tin Man is essentially a placebo that enables the Tin Man to act towards and feel about others the exact same as he always had, only with the validation that what he feels is authentic. Similarly, Ironwood has always had the option to be empathetic and not fucking crazy open to collaboration, which he’s very aware of, until his own paranoia cuts into his rationality and compels him to cut himself off from all allies and alternative perspectives. He then uses his difficult position and responsibilities to justify unjustifiable actions, to rationalize irrational urges, and to gaslight and brainwash his subordinates into compliance.

The Tin Woodman knew very well he had no heart, and therefore he took great care never to be cruel or unkind to anything.

“You people with hearts,” he said, “have something to guide you, and need never do wrong; but I have no heart, and so I must be very careful. When Oz gives me a heart of course I needn’t mind so much.”

Qrow sees through this, however, and not only seems incapable of following orders himself, but disrupts the decorum that Ironwood is used to. In return, I think we see a little more of James that he’d like to reveal.

“If you were one of my men, I’d have you shot!”

“If I was one of your men, I’d shoot myself!”

In case this entire ass essay doesn’t make it obvious, I do really ship Ironqrow. I’m open to other pairings, definitely, but this one in particular is just more interesting to me. It feels more revealing, more subtle. I have more questions.

In hindsight, maybe the dialogue example above ^ didn’t age well, considering where they’re at, but I do like how their professional animosity is flavored with a kind of camaraderie, and understanding. This exchange isn’t exactly playful, but they’re taking each other seriously - and, like repressed schoolboys, taking the piss at each other in a childish way, and isn’t that part of the fun of banter, when they’re so focused on each other that they forget to act their age? In a lot of ways, this is a really fun dynamic to watch. They’re opposite-kind-of-people, which I like, at least on a superficial level, and I can easily imagine them tempering each other in ways that would make them ultimately happier people.

They even look well-coordinated, with similar color schemes that lean on the opposite sides of the shared spectrum (white, grays, reds and black); I think the decorative design on Qrow’s new sleeves are supposed to be more ornate simply to communicate that Qrow is committed, and willing to be sentimental, but some viewers have suggested that it resembles the pattern on James’ weapon, Due Process (the revolver is based off of the Tin Man’s pistol, although, curiously, in The Wizard of Oz, the Scarecrow was the only character to carry a pistol, and the commentaries suggest that the 2007 Tin Man miniseries was the “basis of the allusion”. Does that mean anything? I don’t know. Probably not.). Still, it raises the questions: who was in charge of designing the team’s new clothes and gear? How much input did Atlas get, and was this intentional? Personally, I think that the vine-like pattern on Qrow’s sleeves also bear a resemblance to Ozpin’s staff, a subtle reaffirmation and foreshadowing of his allegiance in contrast to Ironwood, but I digress.

They can also deliver that UST kind of banter that takes up their attention, and get up really close to each other, in each other’s faces, and just be pissed, which I think is very sexy of them, mhm. Enemies to Colleagues to Reluctant Friends to Lovers is a trope that I very much appreciate. Gaining some sort of common ground at the Battle of Beacon only to reunite, tired and battered, after the shit has already hit the fan? Slow burn kinda vibes.

That hug between them was something genuinely vulnerable and a sign of Ironwood letting his guard down because he is tired as fuck. It also was uh...kinda fruity.

Ironwood approaches closer, and Qrow scratches the back of his head, a characteristically nervous gesture that he’s made before; it’s a nervous twitch, manufactured nonchalance. He has no idea what Ironwood wants, but he does know that Ironwood wants something. James is the one to initiate the hug, and Qrow startles and even freezes up before relaxing into it. He seems suprised, but gives the bisexual eye roll of grudging fondness. This is out of character for James - Jimmy - but Qrow doesn’t think that Ironwood is a bad person. He leans into the hug, and the camera cuts out before they separate, suggesting that they probably end up standing there for a long ass time. You can also see from the side shots that it’s a close hug; their torsos are pressed up against each other, front to front, and there’s not a lot of wiggle room. James must be really goddamn depressed. It’s a long, manly, intensley heterosexual hug. Like I said, kinda fruity.

Other people have analyzed the hug shot for shot, so I won’t get too into it, but I think that it was intentionally left as a double red herring; some people thought that maybe he bugged Qrow, and after finding out that he didn’t, we were forced to conclude that this is a genuine olive branch. To find out that Ironwood is sincere but was still susceptible to corruption is that second subversion that I didn’t really expect. I hadn’t prepared myself for it, at least, and neither did Qrow. I wouldn’t go as far to say that Ironwood’s descent into fucking craziness paranoia is triggered by Qrow not ‘reciprocating’ or something, but I do think it’s interesting how the volume opens up with a signifigant interaction between Ironwood and Qrow, only for Qrow to spend the rest of the volume homosexually bonding with Clover, while Ironwood basically has no one as emotional support (again, his subordinates do not have the power or the place to be viewed as equals and the veil of formality is one of isolation). Qrow initiates nothing further, and nothing further happens.

Ironwood’s downfall, in a thematic sense, is that what he Needs is a heart, and when he gets that chance to demonstrate tolerance and empathy, James ultimately rejects his Need (a heart) and his arc reverts into one of villainy. To be specific, Ironwood is essentially a fascist dick, and that is not very sexy. (Speaking of dicks, the thought of Ironwood’s dick makes me laugh. I bet in the RWBY universe, people have made memes about that. I do not accept criticism because I am correct. Anyway,).

Dictators are charming, charismatic, and one of the pillars of their method is absorbing potential political opponents into their own administration to reduce the threat of rebellion, to appear openly tolerant to their supporters, and to further consolidate power. A good example of this would be Mean Girls, which runs on a comedic commentary of dictatorships as a political structure of power. I hate to compare James Ironwood to Regina George, but Regina’s posse includes Karen and Gretchen, two of the only girls who might take away from the authority she holds over the rest of their school, both in their wealth and attractiveness, and Cady’s interesting backstory and conventional attractiveness is the main reason Regina draws her into her own sphere - because she detects a potential threat. Much in the same way, while Ironwood likely has good intentions, his efforts to win over team RWBY and co. - including Qrow himself - is a logical way to consolidate resources. His willingness, at first, to cooperate with political opponents (ie Robyn) is because he’s not inherently evil, and he has nothing to lose. It’s when he is openly opposed and diplomatic gestures no longer hold the necessary weight that he snaps.

In one really interesting meta about Ironqrow’s archetypes (that I reread occasionally just because I really love it), @onewomancitadel posits that Ironwood is framed within the archetype of the Knight in Shining Armor, which should inform us of the moral consistency of his character. The meta was written around the beginning of volume 7, I think, and obviously we have a lot more character development and information to go off of now, but I think she makes a really interesting point about the nature of parallels and how that might help drive Ironwood as a character. I love her analysis of the visual of Ironwood stepping out of an airship wreckage, onto the street, the smoke billowing around him to reveal his cyborg prosthetics, and of the intentional framing. Once his uniform is stripped back, we see a man who is literally half-armor, which could be indicative of a lot of things. He’s emotionally guarded, he’s used as a human weapon, and he wants to be a line of defense. In her words, “The symbolism is really obviously put into perspective of his actions in trying to do the right thing: in the flesh (his true physical self) he is literally a knight in shining armour. From the ground up. Even if it's unseen or distorted by his uniform, his nature is still true.”

While Ironwood clearly has gone down a darker path in the most recent volume, I think this analysis holds true in a crucial way. “Ironwood is working with different information, and he’s doing exactly what he knows: stick to his knightly virtues, even disgraced.” Disgraced, indeed. Ironwood is holding onto his knightly values, and doing what he believes is right. If not right, he believes that it is necessary. The problem is that these values are manifested within Atlas’s sociopolitical-military culture in an inherently toxic way - his response is, at this point, neither rational nor empathetic, but it can be explained partially due to his cultural (flawed) understanding of justice, and because of the extenuating circumstances. The harsher the conditions become, the more difficult it is for anyone to project a facade that is not sincere at its core. If James is to uphold his Knightly virtues, he needs to be a protector, a leader, and a servant all at once while operating under limited intel with dwindling trust. All he has left are the few key players still in his grasp, and the control of the people he is responsible for.

To digress: generally, knights take an oath. It could be to a King, or Lord, or some noble, but Knights are supposed to operate on a code of honor, and chivalry, and to uphold these values throughout the land as an extension of whoever they have pledged themselves to. The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a really good example of the way that, back in the day, chivalry and honor was supposed to place knights on a moral high ground compared to the common people.

In the middle of a celebration in Camelot, an obligatory tradition that has since lost real value but is rehearsed because Camelot fears that failure to uphold traditions that once had meaning is disrespectful, a Green Knight interrupts the celebrations and offers a strange challenge that boils down to a fight to the death. Gawain volunteers because accepting this challenge is what is expected of him, and Arthur would be humiliated if his knights, supposedly the best in the world, would not rise to the challenge. Gawain - and to a certain extent, the rest of Arthur’s knights - are fickle, in a sense, because their adherence to this code is performative, and it allows them to delude themselves into moral superiority and lie both to the commoners and amongst themselves; their identity as knights is based on a falsehood. Gawain is offered the first blow, and after beheading the Green newcomer, is horrified to see him become reanimated and immune to mortal blows. He invites Gawain to receive his own - likely fatal - blow, and gives him a time in which to meet, before promptly leaving.

Throughout the story, Gawain is tested in a variety of ways - in his final test, he fails, and allows his greed for self preservation and the fear of death to lead him to lie to his hosts and proceed to his meeting with the Green Knight under dishonest pretenses. While he is spared at the last second and becomes a better person (after it is revealed that Morgan le Fay orchestrated the ordeal to spook Queen Guinevere) - and by extent, a truer Knight, by the end of the story, the superficial and hypocritical nature of Arthur’s court is still in question, and still unanswered.

See, the entirety of Gawain’s trials was a test, not necessarily for him, but for Arthur and his court as a whole. Morgan wanted to prove the fickle nature of Arthur’s knights. The Knights of the Round Table were considered the best in the land, and to discredit one was to discredit all. What use is tradition if the meaning is empty, what use is chivalry if it is performed for reward instead of merit, and what use is loyalty if it is blind and unearned? Returning to Oz, the Tin Woodman, or Tin Man, grew to be made of tin because his axe became enchanted by the Wicked Witch of the East to sever his own body parts instead of the lumber he tried to cut down. A nearby tinsmith replaced each amputated limb with one of metal, until his entire body became tin and his meat body had been entirely discarded. Something to note is that Nick Chopper’s, (General Ironwood’s) wounds are technically self-inflicted. Each time he swung his axe, he made the decision to continue, knowing of the end result each time. In losing his bodily functions, the Tin Man believed that he had lost his humanity and ability to love.

The tragedy of his origin story draws a pointed correlation to Ironwood’s current dilemma; his unwillingness to stop, his self-imposed isolation, playing into the hands of the witch, and finally, the decision to let go of his ability to love remain consistent throughout both stories.

Watts even refers to Ironwood as a “Tin Solider”; a reference to the Tin (Woods)Man, no doubt, but could also evoke a soldier clanking around in metal armor. Ironwood is a Knight in Shining Armor, through and through. He wants to save the world, but at the terrible cost of civilian autonomy and possibly life. The problem is that he’s pledged himself to a discriminatory and hypocritical system, and his code is something that can easily be misconstrued by fear ( @disregardcanon ), much as Gawain’s own values. The Tin Man is, after all, still a man, and if we’ve learned anything from real fairytales, it is that men are fallible, whether or not they are made of metal.

Ironwood, Alone

he’s a lonely bitch

I know I f- up, I'm just a loser

Shouldn't be with ya, guess I'm a quitter

While you're out there drinkin', I'm just here thinkin'

'Bout where I should've been

I've been lonely, mm, ah, yeah

— Benee, Supalonely (2019)

You do get the sense that Ironwood is riddled with self-loathing conflicting with pride, with self-doubt clashing with competence, and that he is the kind of person who longs for things without verbalizing. Maybe his dad never paid enough attention to him as a kid. Maybe he suffered some terrible physical and emotional trauma, which might as well be assumed, given the extensive nature of his cybernetic limbs. Maybe (probably) he’d be more well-adjusted and would’ve made better decisions if the people around him trusted him and were a little more open. To be fair, though, he is the one at the wheel, and he is making the calls; no one else is to blame for his mistakes, and to pretend otherwise is to deny him accountability. I think we do enough of that in everyday life, in excusing powerful men of their responsibilities. To his credit, I do think he wants to help people. I think James also wants to project the personality of a leader who is stoic, controlled, and measured. He is charming when he wants to be, sympathetic when it suits him, and influential in just the right areas. He is not a sociopath, but he is a politician, and in a lot of ways, those are the same thing. We see in his brief flashes of temper, often prompted by Qrow, or most notably by Oscar, that this is not a calm, stable person. This is someone is on the verge of exploding, who is so fucking angry that he is not in control that it’s killing him, and so he is going to lash out and kill the things that are not within his grip. If the people beneath him will not reciprocate the heart that he offers, then he has no real use of it. James Ironwood does not begin this story as a bad person. This is a tragedy, in however many parts it takes.

I read, in one very smart and very put-together analysis that I cannot find and properly credit at the moment, that part of Ironwood’s (many) failures can be seen in Winter, and how, like Ozpin, he has appointed a woman as his talented, no-nonsense, second chain in command at his right hand. In this way, Winter is an intentional parallel to Glynda, who is, without question, a bad bitch. In theory, surrounding yourself with strong individuals is a demonstration of self restraint, in implementing your own checks and balances. James wants to project that he is powerful, yes, but he is reasonable.

I take this to mean that, to some degree, even if it’s unintentional or subconscious, Winter serves to boost Ironwood’s ego.

The issue with this is that within the inherently hierarchical structure of the military, Winter cannot question, undermine, or challenge Ironwood in a way that is particularly meaningful and their relationship is one of commander and subordinate before colleagues or equals (link to a fantastic post about Winter’s role as the Good, Conscientious Soldier by @fishyfod). Whereas Glynda is free to argue with, converse, and be as combative as she needs to be with Ozpin (although their power dynamic is arguably one of commander and subordinate albeit informally), Winter cannot temper Ironwood effectively, and through the illusion of equality, Ironwood is further isolated.

His head and arms and legs were jointed upon his body, but he stood perfectly motionless, as if he could not stir at all.

Dorothy looked at him in amazement, and so did the Scarecrow, while Toto barked sharply and made a snap at the tin legs, which hurt his teeth.

“Did you groan?” asked Dorothy.

“Yes,” answered the tin man, “I did. I’ve been groaning for more than a year, and no one has ever heard me before or come to help me.”

The Tin Man needs oil to lubricate his joints; without it, he cannot move, and he is rendered helpless and inanimate. When Dorothy and the group find him, he is entirely isolated with no one in sight, and he has been there for such a long time that he has begun to rust. Similarly, Ironwood needs valued voices of dissent to keep him in check. His colleagues were able to serve that purpose in the beginning, and out of them, Qrow is the best example of someone who doesn't take his shit, openly questions him, and looks down on the performative decorum of the military culture that Ironwood is surrounded by. What Ironwood needs is to be flexible and adaptable; his Semblance, Mettle (heh, metal, very nice pun, RoosterTeeth), is a double edged sword in that it gives him supernatural focus and willpower - enough, perhaps, to flay/chop off your own limbs - but it blindsides him, and is only further prolonging his pain.

There is a lot of sympathy to Ironwood’s character, as much as I’ve ragged on him for being an authoritarian, kind of a dick, and bad with kids. There are moments, such as the previously mentioned dinner party, where he shows his colors a bit, and when he assures the students at the Vytal Festival that there’s no shame in leaving before the battle begins, and in giving Yang a prosthetic arm before her father even has to ask. As far as Generals go, it seems that he’s seen soldiers come and go and understands, at least in his best moments, that not everyone is the same, and not everyone has power of unflinching determination to rely on. Ironwood performs his best when he tempers himself because he understands himself, and others. It’s when he fails to self-reflect that his hypocrisy shows through. Glynda points it out, too, as does Qrow; Ironwood advocates for trust but often fails to give it himself, going behind Ozpin’s back, being absolutely shit at field communication, and now the whole fascist, borderline-genocidal keruffle he’s gotten himself into.

I think that Ironwood reaching out to Qrow was his ethical last stand, his last chance and conscious effort to choose the right path. Qrow is unequivocally an equal, not like how Ozpin is the Big Boss, the authority that James becomes disillusioned with and tries to overthrow. He wants someone to trust, desperately so, and Qrow wants that too, but narrative subversion has hands. The Scarecrow and the Tin Man have no brain and heart respectively, and are in need of them. As it turns out, Qrow is actually a pragmatic guy with solid principles angled against authoritarianism, and Ironwood is a dick who would rather enforce martial law than to empathize and tame his military-shaped boner for one second.

I might conclude that someone like Qrow might be best for Ironwood, but that does not mean that someone like Ironwood would be the best for Qrow. Qrow has a brain after all, but Ironwood does not choose his heart when it matters, case in point. Even the intro of the current season features Salem and Ironwood on a chessboard; his white pieces are disappearing, dissolving into dust, as hers transform into Grimm. Ironwood is isolating himself by depleting himself of allies. As this post by @hadesisqueer points out, Ironwood isn’t even positioned as King, the supposed commander, but the Queen, the most versatile player on the board that is so far underused, since he hasn’t moved from his spot. Ironwood’s refusal to unify against Salem is his failure to strategically utilize the best resources that were available to him; soon, the pieces will be swallowed by the dark.

James is guilty of something that a lot of us are guilty of: doing a Bad Thing for what we have convinced ourselves is a Good Reason, when in reality, it is actually a lot of Very Bad Reasons. James Ironwood is a Knight archetype, through and through, and he is charging forward to do the right thing. He is afraid, he is lying to himself, and he will never surrender.

“All the same,” said the Scarecrow, “I shall ask for brains instead of a heart; for a fool would not know what to do with a heart if he had one.”

“I shall take the heart,” returned the Tin Woodman; “for brains do not make one happy, and happiness is the best thing in the world.”

Dorothy did not say anything, for she was puzzled to know which of her two friends was right, and she decided if she could only get back to Kansas and Aunt Em, it did not matter so much whether the Woodman had no brains and the Scarecrow no heart, or each got what he wanted.

The lesson of James Ironwood is a lesson of failure, and of the way that we succumb to fear, because that is Salem’s agenda, really, in the end: fear. It’s the negative emotions, fear being first and foremost, that draw in and empower the Grimm, and it’s fear and uncertainty that causes chaos. It is when Dorothy’s friends give into their fear that they are truly defeated. FDR’s assertion that “The only thing to fear is fear itself” holds true here; it’s not so much that these characters are afraid of losing their lives, their loved ones, and of the dark, but that they do not have the love or the resources to be brave for themselves or for others.

Qrow as a character is introduced as one who is already defeated, in a sense. Half of his team is gone, dead or estranged, he’s forced into the shadows of espionage to protect a world he knows is darker than it should be, and he’s fighting a losing battle with alcoholism. As charismatic as he’s written, he’s referred to as a “dusty old crow”, a hunter of renowned skill but past the prime of his life.

Dorothy’s three titular companions are defined by what they lack; in the same vein of the Disney I Want song (a main character’s main monologue song in which their wants and desires that motivate them throughout the rest of the film is laid out in song; ie Part of Your World, Reflections, How Far I’ll Go), the Lion, Tin Man, and the Scarecrow want bravery, a heart, and a brain respectively. RWBY relies on flipping the script of its characters based on what the audience might expect from the source material; Ruby is not just a helpless little girl - her introduction is a badass with a scythe. The Scarecrow is a chronic alchoholic. Cinderella is a victim of abuse, and is also a villain who wants to set the world aflame. Subversion, subversion, subversion.

There are obviously parallels between the characters in RWBY and in their own fairytales to keep them in character, and part of the fun is spotting those clues and occasionally connecting the dots to anticipate the direction of the narrative and certain connections between characters and the significance of their arcs. While I’m not aware of Dorothy Gale’s RWBY counterpart, if she has already been established or is yet to be introduced, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that Ruby has adopted a Dorothy-eque persona and can act as a surrogate in a way. She begins as a sweet, naive child eager to join a world of color and excitement, who initially believes that she has “normal knees” and is thrust into a political scheme full of powerful and older players. She even has a small dog as a companion, Toto Zwei, who seems like an odd addition, since he’s usually sidelined and basically forgotten about except in a few spare moments, unless he’s there to draw further comparisons to Dorothy. She may not be from Kansas, but she is first helped by Glynda (the Good Witch), and later expects assistance from Ozpin, Qrow, and the later Ozian counterparts. I find it a peculiar detail that for Ruby to be Little Red Riding Hood alone, she is surrounded specifically by Dorothy’s companions. This, of course, only increases the importance of the relevance of the Oz series in particular and the characters that are borrowed.

In the case of Ozpin’s inner circle, Dorothy’s closest comrades (sans Toto) differ in crucial ways to their source material. (After finishing this essay, I found a much better, condensed explanation by @neopoliitan )

Disillusioned by the Ozpin, the Wizard (who has been projecting an illusion of a failsafe) and overwhelmed by the rise of the Wicked Witch of the West, Lionhart (the Lion), gives into his cowardice and ultimately forgoes the arc and redemption of his character from the source material; as such, he is by all definitions, a failure and a premonition, as Ironwood eventually follows. If RWBY is a dark take on classic fairytales, then it is only fitting that these characters are charred husks of their fairytale selves - these are people, and some people are selfish, scared, and cowardly, and they do not overcome these traits.

This is all opinion based, pure speculation. I have no idea what will happen in the next episode, and whatever goes down will be...shit will hit the fan. I’m under no delusions that Ironqrow is going to be canon in a healthy, tender, endgame sense. They’re both kind of losing their minds, and Ironwood is shitting absolute bricks. No, they’re going to try to kill each other, and I personally cannot wait for Qrow to cleave this man in two. (Not sexually, just, literally. Like, with a scythe.)

On that note, I think that the RWBY writers are good at callbacks, at drawing attention to their own connections, and if Ironwood and Qrow’s inevitable confrontation is scheduled, then it will include visual callbacks to Qrow saving James at Beacon, maybe shot for shot. Their visuals have only gotten better as time goes on, and I imagine Ironwood’s eyes widening as Qrow leaps through the air, scythe drawn, in recal of a moment so long ago when they weren’t on the same page, but they were at least on the same side. When Qrow brings the blade down, there will be no enemy behind him. Only Jimmy James. The difference between the two of them will be that Qrow isn’t fighting out of fear, but out of love, for what happened to Clover, and to what could happen to his girls.

Qrow’s reliance on alcohol, as well as his (mostly) feigned nonchalance is meant to fit with the motif that the Scarecrow has no brain, and, had he a mind to desire anything, would desire it most of all. His role is, also, notably, gathering intelligence for Ozpin (his character is also based on Munnin from Norse mythology). There is so much about Qrow that is an act and so much that is not, and I think that this act is born both from this motif and from his own cynicism, and the alcohol contributes to this act. However, he eventually gets sober after Ruby expresses legitimate frustration, and he understands that he’s putting their lives at risk. While one could say that he gave up drinking for the kids, I would argue that the kids - Ruby in particular - made him want to give up drinking for himself, to better himself.

While Lionhart and Ironwood betray the people depending on them, Qrow’s love for his nieces (and for the kids) allows him to deviate from this pattern. The answer to fear is perhaps not merely bravery - Qrow’s triumph is love.

Ironwood knows triumph in the context of a military state, but he’s backed himself into a corner. Soon he will find himself alone and friendless. Hopefully, his last stand will not be in vain.

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

How do you think the Grima and Saruman plot in Rohan would have gone down if Theodwyn had still been alive? Or Eomund? Or Edhild?

An interesting question! Though I think it’s one that’s almost impossible to answer simply because we know so little of the women.

Theodwyn, as a woman in Rohan already would have had limited access to direct political power. And, as a widow tending to her husband’s estate on behalf of her son, would likely not have been very present at court in Edoras. I suspect she would not have left Aldburg that often as she had the Marshallate to oversee and her children to raise. 

The tl;dr is: I suspect her being alive would not have been relevant to the success or failure of Grima and Saruman. 

-

Longer musings on Theodwyn, Elfhild and Eomund: 

We know very little about Theodwyn save that she was Theoden’s sister and died of heartbreak after Eomund went and got himself killed. Indeed, we know basically nothing about her that is useful in determining how she might have intervened had she become aware of Saruman’s plans. 

Personally, I don’t get badass powerhouse vibes from her, honestly. Which is totally fair and I don’t think every woman needs to be Eowyn-I-Am-Not-Like-The-Other-Girls Strong Female Character to be worthy of being considered interesting and dynamic. But yeah, I get a very passive vibe from Theodwyn. But that’s just my read on her. 

Theodwyn and Elfhild suffer the way almost all women do in Tolkien’s world of having almost no story and zero characterisation. Lothiriel, Arwen to a lesser degree but still, Finduilas etc. are really nothing more than names. Which is frustrating! and it drives me batty. 

For both Theodwyn and Elfhild all we know are names, who their male relatives are, and that they were able to make heirs for their husbands. All the important things, clearly. 

Based on Eowyn’s position at court (and her deep frustration and anger about it), I think it can be safely argued that women don’t play a strong role in the political world of Rohan. Eowyn describes her life as being in a gilded cage - no real power, limited agency. I think that’s very telling of the role Theodwyn and Elfhild would have occupied.

Not to say that they wouldn’t have been able to influence and inform decisions made by their spouses, but they would not have been privy to war councils or the daily Politicking that Theoden and Eomund got up to. Men are clearly the dominant leaders in Rohan and the gender roles and expectations in this country run along a strict binary that favours a militarized hyper-masculinity. 

While Elfhild and Theodwyn would have defended their homes when the men went to war (as Eowyn does in the books), it would have been only if no other “appropriate” man was present to taken on this role (again, as happens in the books. Though props to Hama, real MVP, and member of the Eowyn fanclub). 

Any influence Elfhild or Theodwyn had over the decisions of Theoden or Eomund would have been behind the scenes and very much a “soft power” approach. And this is assuming their spouses were open to listening to them. 

I know we all wish this wasn’t the case, and we want an Elfhild and Theodwyn who were super active and influential in the politics and manoeuvrings of their country -  but based on the text, that probably wasn’t the case. It’s a fandom head-canon. 

-

Now, all of this said, Elfhild being alive may have caused a bit of a hiccup or challenge for Grima exerting control over Theoden. However, Grima is very good at manipulating people and situations, so could possibly have undermined their relationship. We don’t know enough about Theoden and Elfhild as a couple to really determine how that would have gone. 

Also, remember, no one really knew of Grima’s treason. When Gandalf went to warn Theoden in October of 3018 it was about the incursions and plans of Saruman. It’s unclear if he made any mention of Grima’s role in it. It can be interpreted that Eomer knew, or at the very least had suspicions, but otherwise I think we can safely assume, based on the text, no one else knew. 

(Eomer can also be read as not having known at all; he was under house arrest because he threatened Grima with death in the king’s hall which is against the law. And that, it’s implied, was over Grima ogling Eowyn.)

Grima was seen as a trusted advisor to the king - if anything, Eilfhild may have leaned on him as her husband started “ailing” and become more and more unable to fulfill his duties as king. Theodred seems to have been fairly absent as heir so I don’t know how much of the day to day duties he was able, or willing, to undertake. 

So, the dynamics of the court during Theoden’s witchcraft-imposed infirmity, may have been really interesting and not as black/white as it might come across at first blush. 

As noted at the top, Theodwyn would have been managing the Third Marshalate until Eomer was of age, so she wouldn’t have been very present at court. And after he came of age, she would probably remain in Aldburg to help manage things while he was off seeing to his other duties and working to try and slow Saruman’s steady creep into Rohan. So, I don’t see her having lived after Eomund’s death heavily impacting anything. Also, like with Elfhild, we don’t know what the relationship was between Theodwyn and her brother. 

So if just the two women had survived, not Eomund, I can see Elfhild more than Theodwyn posing a potential roadblock for Grima and Saruman. But, that’s only if: 

a) she knew about, or suspected, Grima’s treason;

b) she and Theoden were close and they had a relationship that could weather whatever wrenches Grima would throw into the mix; and 

c) she were the kind of person to take a very active political role to fill the void left by Theoden’s absence. 

Like Theodwyn, we don’t really know who Elfhild was as a person. Was she the sort to try and take control of a situation? or was she more likely to have simply seen to her own duties and tended her husband without really getting involved (In the way that Eowyn tended her uncle as he “ailed” but didn’t get involved politically at court. But a wife has privileges a niece does not). 

-

However, if Eomund had been alive that might have influenced events in a different way. Maybe. It would mean another member of the House of Eorl to contend with and neutralize, on Grima’s side. However, Eomund was hot headed and prone to doing really stupid shit without thinking and I suspect Grima could easily manipulate him into either a compromising situation or to ride to his death. 

Eomund being alive would have freed Eomer up to focus more on his efforts against Saruman, which he wasn’t able to do to the degree he wanted to as Third Marshal (he laments about this to Aragorn when the four three hunters first arrive in Rohan). 

Having the full family alive would also have provided an additional barrier/more people for Theoden to lean on making it more difficult for Grima to wheedle his way into Theoden’s head. It also may have changed the dynamic at court and kept Theoden himself more hopeful about the future which may have, in turn, informed Grima’s own decisions about how to approach the war with Sauron and its potential outcomes. 

Grima gave into Reasonable Despair, which I suspect was partially fuelled by Theoden’s own personal misery about his aging, his perceived inability to rise to the occasion, his own despair at the future. That’s a contagious mindset. Despair is easy to fall into and it breeds more despair. Hope is hard. But, if you have a lot of people around who are relying on you, who are supporting you, who are helping you - that changes things entirely. 

-

I suppose the long and short is: WhO kNoWs??? hahaha

I’m very sorry about the novel this became but thank you so much for the ask! I really enjoyed gaming things out and I hope it somewhat answered your question <3 <3 

[autumnblogs]

Day 32: Through the Looking Glass

https://homestuck.com/story/4116

So right out of the gate, we learn a few things about the Scratched version of the universe, aside from the obvious fact that the new heroes are the previous guardians. Everyone is a little more mature, and identities are a little more fully-formed.

Jane’s name is already set in stone. Notably, the definition between the audience and Jane is also a little clearer here than usual - the Narration implies a distinction between us and Jane. Could be because we’re not controlling her yet - but as we get into Act 6, we will find a lot of cases where audience participation happens as part of the mechanic of narration, and this distinction will be called to a lot more.

More after the break.

https://homestuck.com/story/4117

So let’s unpack Jane’s interests and relation to pre-established parts of the Homestuck Universe, and see if we can’t start making guesses about Jane.

First thing’s first is that while we could read Jane’s affinity for these mustachio’d funnymen as being purely an attraction, she roleplays like John does - as a bit of a prankstress herself, and one who dons a fake mustache for one of her disguises, Jane roleplays as these men immediately suggesting to us that she looks up to them, and wants to be like them, rather than that she’s attracted to them.

(Though she certainly could be.)

Second thing is that Jane’s position as the Heirress parallels her not to John, but to Feferi. Like Feferi, Jane is a sweet girl who is the heir to a position of abominable power, and because she is beholden to the shape of that power, as long as she remains wedded to that shape, she will not only struggle to do anything productive with it, but in the course of the story, be subverted into a villain, at least for a little while, and it’s clear from the way that Crockertier Jane’s situation is communicated to us that she is an accomplice to her own brainwashing, and that the actions she takes in that form are meaningfully hers.

On another note, I think it’s interesting that on this side of the scratch, the Condesce has reimagined her empire as a megacorporation.

https://homestuck.com/story/4120

What do we learn about Jake right out of the gate? He likes movies - adventure movies. Jake, like Tavros, the other page, loves to bluster about subjects that he actually has relatively little affinity for - and in both cases, their lack of affinity can largely be described as performing their culture’s ideal of public personhood - warrior virtue. While Jake has all of the outward signifiers of masculinity, and is actually a pretty brave and technically skillful fighter by the standards of the real world, up until the Hopesplosion, he is outclassed by a lot of his friends, and ultimately, the cases where he most embodies warrior-manhood, Jake is being forced into it by someone who wants to take advantage of him.

We benefit from most of this knowledge with hindsight. It’s not actually there in this opening section, but the main thrust of Jake’s interests is his love of adventure and his love of wrestling, and I’m principally interested in Jake’s physicality in addressing his interests - he’s a very physical kid.

https://homestuck.com/story/4121

We’re hot off the heels of Terezi’s fake choice, and a lot of conversation about free will and fake choices in Act 5 - and here we’re presented with one almost immediately. We can pick either option, but the outcome will be the same whatever we do.

https://homestuck.com/story/4124

I’ve always thought the Condescension’s relationship with Jane is deeply fascinating. There is something about the prospect of cultivating an heiress, someone to take over her legacy, that brings out something tender and maternal in her, I think, even if it only manifests in a twisted way. She’s a bit of an enigma to me.

https://homestuck.com/story/4126

Well, Jane is certainly interested in Foxworthy, so I rescind my earlier comment.

We’ve barely been introduced to her and she pretty much immediately starts showing off her paternalistic disdain for rural and vulgar people through the narrative’s language, and her nostalgia for Problem Sleuth characterizes her enjoyment of its sequel.

Jane has an aristocratic mentality, and conservative leanings in the media she appreciates, and the way that she appreciates it. If Andrew’s commentary that he continued to examine the themes he started with Feferi in Jane, I think what we should take away is that Feferi’s concern for the lowly comes with a heaping helping of...

Wait for it.

Wait for it...

Condescension.

B)

https://homestuck.com/story/4127

Jane’s disdain for the vulgar - low culture, low classes - also shows itself pretty quickly. In stark contrast to the other two leaders - John and Karkat - Jane isn’t much of a movie watcher at all (Jake gets that attribute in his session) and her attitude toward’s Jake’s movies is one of snobbery. Both of the other two movie watchers have a playfully self-deprecating attitude toward their own bad tastes in movies, but they still enjoy those movies sincerely.

Her relationship of passive-aggressive one-upsmanship also distinctly recalls Rose’s relationship with her mother, suggesting that Jane shares some of the underlying pessimism and mild hostility that Rose struggles with.

Also, as a symbol Swanson is a representative of the sort of anti-government animus that characterizes the politics of Trans-Mississippi America outside of the heavily populated West Coast, where the wedding of big business and state planning have created a lot of disaffection toward the distant and disinterested corporate landlords and bureaucratic apparatuses that govern huge tracts of federal land and private property in the west. Pawnee Indiana may not actually be on the other side of the Mississippi from Washington, but having grown up in Montana for at least a part of my childhood, Swanson’s politics are immediately recognizable.

Unfortunately, this anti-state animus has manifested not in the form of a renewed commitment to emancipation, but to the uniquely American, get-off-my-lawn form of Right-Wing populism practiced by the short-lived Tea Party, and smug “It’s just basic economics” Reagan-worshipping conservatives.

What I’m trying to say is, Jane would probably be a Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder fan in the modern day.

https://homestuck.com/story/4136

Jane’s skepticism prevents her from listening to her friends when they tell her about the extraordinary things that they do, but it’s also not exactly a kind of scientific skepticism, and more of a dogmatic realism - she has a narrow vision of what the world is like, and is dismissive of ideas that are outside of her bubble.

Quick Note that while Jake makes only an off-handed remark about it here, he is sensitive to the hostile, toxic relationship between the AR and Dirk in a way that neither of the girls really is, and while that may seem uncharacteristically emotionally intelligent of Jake, I think he’s a lot more aware of his surroundings than he lets on.

https://homestuck.com/story/4142

Now as long as we’re talking about Right Wing Populism and comparing Jane to John there is an extremely potent assertion.

The USPS, and the idea of privatizing it, is as much a symbol of the war of corporatists and authoritarians against social democracy as anything is, and because of the way John is associated with Mail in general as a Hero of Breath, Jane is almost immediately setting herself up as a foil to John.

https://homestuck.com/story/4144

Calliope is so cheery that it’s easy to take everything she says in stride, and yet, with all the horrors Sburb has to offer, in terms of the way it destroys planets, and traumatizes its players, her optimism toward the game is at least disquieting.

Sure, the Null Session isn’t going to destroy the kids’ session, but her language is contrasted against both Kanaya’s and Karkat’s when they berated Aradia and Jade respectively. Both Karkat and Kanaya rue the effects of the narrative on their lives, but Calliope is a superfan.

https://homestuck.com/story/4156

I know I’m spending a lot of time ragging on her here, but like, as long as I am; Jane is sure openly hostile to her best friend, in a way that comes as kind of surprising even given the precedent that we have to work with.

https://homestuck.com/story/4160

Poirot is from Belgium.

I wonder if Andrew or Jane is the one committing that error?

https://homestuck.com/story/4168

Jake is full of little contradictions like this. Likes Adventure, terrified of monsters. Not even ambivalent about them, certainly not excited by them. It’s like the opposite of how little kids are usually super into Dinosaurs.

https://homestuck.com/story/4171

So what is the deal with Jake and his fascination with Blue Women? Aside from the metaphysical connection with Vriska and Aranea (and to a lesser extent, Jake), like... what’s the meaning of it?

I think a possible answer to the question lies in the process of the initial portraits becoming blue - leaving them out in the sun to fade - and the relationship between that, and the way in which he likes mummies and suits of armor, and so on and so forth - and even his stuffed trophies.

Maybe this suggests that Jake is, on principle, far more comfortable with the idea of a thing, than with the thing itself. Jake’s Blue Women are comfortably static. They have ceased to change a long time ago, and now exist, preserved in perpetuity, without the need to worry about adapting to suit them.

https://homestuck.com/story/4175

While a lot of Jake’s guesses are incorrect, he’s still clearly spending a lot of time pondering over the mysterious time shenanigans - he just hasn’t quite put it all together.

https://homestuck.com/story/4177

The same way that Dirk’s fastidious organization is equated to his complicated and demanding modus, and the way that John being a big impulsive himbo is equated with his inability to manage his fetch modus, constantly getting distracted from his goal by the card on the surface, Jake’s Modus has an enormous capacity, but most of it is preoccupied inefficiently.

https://homestuck.com/story/4184

The Autoresponder continues the conversation that Andrew has with the audience about the distribution of the self - Dirk does this more generally, but the particular thread the AR tugs on is the question of where a person’s self really stops - just as the question lingers in the air because of John’s disposition toward Davesprite, the question of whether the AR is really a separate person from Dirk, or a part of him, is posed continuously just by the fact that it exists.

https://homestuck.com/story/4192

To be fair to Dirk, who I will have a lot of kind-of-sympathetic-antipathy for, I had forgotten that it is, in fact, the Autoresponder who sets up this particular challenge for Dirk.

The parallels between Dirk and English are nevertheless being set up through this conversation nevertheless - by sending him the parts and getting him to assemble the robot, Dirk makes Jake complicit in his own humiliation, even as he attempts to build Jake up into an ideal partner.

https://homestuck.com/story/4196

Already we’re seeing indications that this segment of Homestuck will deal with different themes of growing up than the first half. Which is already kind of obvious, but we’ve moved decisively out of Part 1: Problems, and into Part 2: Feelings. The second half has moved out of the territory of other humans and their emotional situations as somewhat idealized problems (somewhat) and into this situation where everyone is a moving body, complicated and the characters are each others’ biggest obstacles, and their own biggest obstacles. That’s a bit of a reductive way of describing it, but I think it rings true.

https://homestuck.com/story/4256

While I am willing to concede that Dirk is not literally responsible for siccing the Brobot on Jake today, he more or less assents to AR’s sexual harassment and physical abuse of Jake.

In addition to his vicarious physical abuse, Dirk’s persona as the Prince of Heart calls him to suppress the uniqueness of the people who are around him, moulding them like clay into shapes that better resemble him. Jake and Jane need to be more like each other in his eyes - which is to say, they both need to be more like Dirk.

We also get some insight into Dirk’s sense of humor here - it’s not just about the irony. I think there is an extent to which at the base of the thing, Dirk’s sense of humor is about simultaneously denying and affirming a thing’s meaning - making fun of it while cherishing it. Having a thing be incredibly silly - while also being incredibly serious business. He cherishes the absurd.

I wonder if he’d like Kojima’s stuff.

https://homestuck.com/story/4257

The way that Dirk identifies with logic and reason recalls the sort of “enlightened by my own intelligence” New Atheist jerks who were known to prowl the internet in the early half of the decade, and to some extent, still do. Like Libertarians, these folks have often in the present day gotten caught up in Right Wing Populism. Maybe it’s something about the way that Right Wing movements increasingly identify as a part of counter-culture even though they advocate reactionary policies.

https://homestuck.com/story/4273

This is extremely silly, but Jake is in mortal peril all the time, and I expect even at the best of times he might be uncomfortable being touched.

https://homestuck.com/story/4284

Here we shall pause.

Sorry for the late post. Early work was quite busy, and once the rush was over, it was already quite late.

So the first Act of Act 6 has been very informative! Compared to the first Act of Homestuck, we’ve been introduced already to all our Dramatis Personae!

Tune back in tomorrow to here Cam Say,

Some variation on Alive and Not Alone.

[nowhereclosetoit]

Why “The Goldfinch” by Donna Tartt is Gay.

(Or: Why Theo is dealing with some fucking heavy internalised homophobia - that man is not straight lemme tell you that off the bat)

John Crowley and Cliffsnotes pissed me off when they said The Goldfinch wasn’t gay so I wrote a fucking long ass essay on Theo’s internalised homophobia...and I got carried away and it’s around 4,500 words so...have a read if you like!

+ I read some Goldfinch essays/analysis on here before and really enjoyed them so I thought I’d have a go!!

Be warned - it is absolute trash, I wrote it at 2am.

For context: I’m a big lesbian and have/still am dealing with internalised homophobia - so I know the motherfucker when I see it! Don’t test me, bitches!

I’m assuming we all know what internalised homophobia is so we’ll jump straight in.

The Cases of Internalised Homophobia Throughout the Novel

• Throughout the novel, Theo is subject to his own internalised homophobia and whilst it could be considered as fairly difficult to spot, it is, nonetheless, there.

• The way internalised homophobia is depicted is often in very short, brushed-over extracts which are presented sparsely throughout the entirety of the novel - this in itself is an example of internalised homophobia. Theo brushing-over any topic that is remotely gay, essentially avoiding the subject, in order to remove any link to the possibilities of homosexuality (leading towards Theo himself and the rest of the world in general) is a clear depiction of a fear to be associated or even draw near the subject that is The Gays(TM).

• This is different to straight (HA!) up homophobia as Theo is not homophobic to anyone other than himself, even though internalised homophobia can lead to homophobic behaviour towards others as well as oneself.

Theo’s Acceptance of Homosexuality - Not Regarding Himself.

Throughout the novel we broach the subject of homosexuality many a time, and the only times Theo becomes uncomfortable with dealing with it, is when it regards him. He presents a clear need to withdraw from any behaviour that could contribute towards “being gay” (as shown in Chapter 5 - Badr al-Dine: “I was going to miss them, but it seemed gay to come out and say so”) that could be seen by the outside world and does react extremely, in some cases, when confronted with having to deal with his sexuality. Otherwise, he is accepting.

(He is accepting of others but he does have a general sense of discomfort when regarding The Gays(TM) incase suspicion lays on him - this is another example of internalised homophobia, he is constantly paranoid whenever the subject is broached. Paranoid of what is not exactly clear, but then again internalised homophobia is not fuelled with logic, it is fuelled with fear, which can be the most illogical feeling to deal with).

A significant example of Theo accepting the idea of homosexuality, as long as it remains abstract and far away from him, is:

Hobie, and Theo’s relationship to him:

Theo accepts the idea that Hobie and Welty (Hobie’s “business partner”) raised Pippa together and whilst Hobie and Welty’s relationship is never explicitly depicted, we are aware of its status as a romantic relationship - Hobie and Welty lived and raised Pippa, Welty’s niece, together and Pippa also refers to Hobie as her uncle (Chapter 4 - Morphine Lollypop: “Hobie can’t do anything - he isn’t my real uncle. My pretend uncle, [her Aunt Margaret] calls him”.

Theo becomes uncomfortable when the idea is suggested to him by Boris that Hobie could be gay. (However, he eventually comes around to the idea and not caring once he ends up living with Hobie after his father dies.)

Theo’s discomfort here clearly depicts his own internalised homophobia. This is illustrated by the language he uses to describe his reactions and personal responses to the revelation as well as his responses to Boris.

Theo describing feeling “taken aback” suggests his sudden fear at homosexuality being bought up between him and Boris. This illustrates his need to get away from the topic as quick as possible, which is reinforced by the use of the adverb “swiftly”. Theo wants to “swiftly” move on from the subject regarding Hobie’s sexuality as it could, in some roundabout way that is made logical by internalised homophobia, be related to him and paint him as being gay. He then claims “I don’t know” as the swift “No” could have also implied him and Hobie could have had a conversation regarding sexuality before which also could “incriminate” him. After Boris’ response, which depicts his acceptance of homosexuality, Theo is firm in the idea of Hobie not being gay as for Hobie to be gay would be a “bad” thing in the heteronormative society we live in. The use of the adverb “uncertainly” reinforces the idea that Theo does not want Boris to perceive him or people he affiliates with as gay, despite Boris’ accepting response.

The fact Theo begins to ignore Hobie because of “Boris’ casual speculation” is another example of his internalised homophobia. Another example is also the fact the he “felt bad; [he] felt awful” – this shows how he knows that ignoring Hobie is the wrong thing to be doing, but he can’t help it because he is riddled with the feeling of fear – he can’t possibly be associated with someone else gay, he’s not sure as to why this is, but to the reader, it is clear that it is because it could paint him as being gay by association.

*Theo also accepts homosexuality in passing too, when he doesn’t have to think about it too much, e.g: “(know-it-all decorator? New Jersey housewife? self-conscious gay man?)” – C. 9, “while you were all in there, two guys, we thought we were in the shit but was only two gays, French guys, looking for restaurant—” – Gyuri, Boris’ driver, mentions this and Theo does not respond or have an internal monologue about The Gays™, it completely flies over his internalised homophobic head as he is shell-shocked from having The Goldfinch back showing that as long as it remains in the abstract and away from him, he does not care.

Theo’s relationship with homosexuality when it regards himself:

Theo does not like to be linked with anything that could possibly paint him as gay. This is a form/manifestation of internalised homophobia as this depicts behaviour that believes to be gay is “other”, not “the norm”, and a bad thing to be in our heteronormative society.

He is worried that people will perceive him as gay or lesser for having Popper with him (I think he’s a Maltese or something).

He wishes he had a dog that was more “masculine” – (less “gay”).

The fact that he says he “felt embarrassed to walk on the street” with his “completely gay” dog is another example of internalised homophobia – wanting to move away from anything that can remotely constitute to him being part of something “other” than the “norm”.

The language Theo uses to describe men flirting with him is extreme to say the least. He says that men flirting with him was “freaking [him] out thoroughly” and that he “dreaded” the “older, British” guy “always hitting on [him]”. Now, this could be perceived as just plain old homophobia, however, due to its extreme nature, it led me to believe that it is internalised. The adverb “thoroughly” depicts how disturbed Theo is by being hit on by this guy. This subsequently shows that the sense of discomfort he feels comes from a place of fear. He doesn’t want to have to respond to this guy as that would be acknowledging homosexuality regarding himself and linking himself to homosexuality.

One of the ways he justifies himself and his (none existent lmao) heterosexuality is by attempting to remove a link between himself and homosexuality. He does this by reinforcing the fact that he was slept with women in the sentence right after. He reminds the audience at the first possible instance that he can, that he is in fact not gay and sleeps with women (e.g: “one of the girls I slept with”)s

Theo’s Romantic Relationships with Women and How They Depict a Lack of Enthusiasm:

Kitsey

Theo’s descriptions of her in the book remain cold. He never seems to truly love her. We only really ever see Kitsey in cool coloured clothing (Ah! In the sky-blue?” – Theo and Kitsey’s engagement party, Chapter 10 – The Idiot), even Boris refers to her as “a bit icy to look at, no?...She – she is a lily, a snowflake! Less frosty in private, I hope?” (Chapter 10 – The Idiot).

The semantic field created by the use of “icy” and “frosty” from Boris, an outsider to Theo and Kitsey’s relationship, manages to clearly demonstrate to the audience, or anyone really looking at their relationship, that is a passionless one.

The significance of Boris referring to Kitsey as a “lily”, the traditional flower symbolic with death, is astounding as it reinforces that Theo and Kitsey’s relationship is passionless, cold, and dead.

Additionally: “Boris laughed. “And you love her, yes. But not too much.” / “Why do you say that?” / “Because you are not mad, or wild, or grieving!” (Chapter 10 – The Idiot).

“To my astonishment, she was blushing” – Kitsey is depicted as reserved emotionally by Theo throughout the novel, this contributes to his perception of her as “cold”. His “astonishment” here is at the fact that 1) She is showing emotion, an emotion that is linked to a considerable amount of vulnerability, and 2) The act of “blushing” is also linked to heat and warmth, which, Kitsey, apparently, is not.

“ruthless” – Theo also tries to portray Kitsey as “ruthless” despite the fact that in this scene, he is the crueller, colder party.

There is also another semantic field of coldness here, but this time it is Theo who wants to remain cold to Kitsey. This is symbolic of his passionless feelings for her and their relationship, removing himself from any sort of intimacy with her.

Pippa

Theo believes that he is in love with Pippa and whilst he definitely does love her platonically, he is not in love with her. He is obsessed with her. He is obsessed with Pippa in the same way he is to The Goldfinch – it’s one of the only things he has left that is able to link him to his mother, it’s one of the only things he has that can comfort him like his mother could. In short, it is something he feels vulnerable around due to it’s connection to the museum bombing, as well as his mother’s own fondness and bond with the painting. Pippa is to him as The Goldfinch was to his mother – a piece of artwork with astounding beauty. Pippa is merely something that he feels connected to, because of his mother – hence why he holds onto Pippa, as well as The Goldfinch, so tightly.

He does not love Pippa, he commodifies her. He describes her to the reader as he does The Goldfinch – (I mean the parts where he’s like UWU Her Limp! UWU Her Hair! UWU I’m Taking Her Hair Out Of The Trash! But alas, I couldn’t find them, forgive me). His love for her is obsession and Theo is even, minutely, aware of this himself.

He also feels a bond with Pippa, which is reciprocated by her, as they both lost their parental figure the day of the bombing. They were both left devastated by the loss of their parental figure – only their grief manifested in different ways. (For Pippa hers way through the physical injuries she received and having to spend time at the school for “troubled” girls in Switzerland, whereas Theo’s grief is shown through him not eating and sleeping whilst at the Barbour’s and then his drug and alcohol abuse in Vegas with Boris)

The great love he feels and shares with Pippa is clearly platonic however, he could be mistaking this love they have for romantic as a result of compulsory heterosexuality – (I’m using compulsory heterosexuality in this case as an LGBTQ+ individual feeling that they have to have romantic feelings/relations to people of the opposite gender/sex, and subconsciously forcing themselves to do so - due to the heteronormative society we live in) – but idk I’d have to look into that more.

Manifestations of Internalised Homophobia in Theo’s Behaviour/Lifestyle:

Denial/failure to acknowledge The Gay™ - see Vegas Boris relationship,

Attempts to pass as het/marrying for social approval – see marrying Kitsey, not loving her, marrying her for social approval from the Barbour’s (Mrs Barbour happy),

*Dropping out of school – see Vegas era – no work, on drugs and drunk at school, NY – works to get into early college program but doesn’t excel once he’s there, doesn’t try, takes 6 years to finish,

*Self-monitoring – the pills addiction, e.g: bit at the end where he obsessively monitors the amounts of shit he takes, his obsession with what he wears/how he appears socially,

*Substance Abuse babey! – see, the entire fucking novel,

*Suicide attempts babey! – see the end of the novel (Amsterdam) + after Amsterdam when he reveals that he’s tried before.

(All the bullets with a * I think have other reasons contributing to why Theo has those behaviours – I don’t think they’re solely because of internalised homophobia, e.g: substance abuse – a way of him going through his grief for his mother that he never really gets over because it’s a shit coping mechanism tbh)

Theo and Boris’ Relationship:

I think Theo and Boris’ relationship is the best example in “The Goldfinch” of Theo’s internalised homophobia as it covers an entire ass range of shit. For example:

Theo’s descriptions of Boris – This motherfucker goes on and fucking on about the way Boris looks like, bro we get it – he’s cute. Does he do this for literally anyone else in the novel? No (apart from his mother really but that’s on obsession not homo) – I would provide quotes, but quite frankly, this essay has gone on way longer than I anticipated and I cannot be bothered because there’s far too many for me to find.

The Moon Metaphor:

The moon represents home for Theo due to the story his mother told him. Boris is intrinsically linked to the moon. Theo couldn’t think about Pippa because “the moon was so large and clear”, cased closed.

How much Theo hates Kotku for no reason – and that’s on jealousy!

Theo and Boris literally fucking – Theo can only deal with this when he’s drunk (as that’s when they did it??). We also know that it actually meant something to him due to his incessant fucking assurance to us that it didn’t mean anything.

Like the entire few pages the excerpt below comes from, you know the ones:

The last time he sees Boris in Vegas – The entire “which was, of course, I love you” spiel he gives - change my mind, that is the gayest shit I’ve ever fucking read.

This entire fucking part:

Boris is trying to lighten the mood since Theo’s freaking the fuck out about losing The Goldfinch. When he realised Theo’s freaked out by The Gay™ (“No, no!” he said quickly, shaking his head, when he saw the look on my face”) he tries to comfort him because he knows Theo’s freaking the fuck out and that does not help the current situation (“I think it happens at that age sometimes”).

Theo is fucking really disturbed by the fact he’s being confronted with The Gay Shit™ he did in his youth (“My laugh spluttered out angrily, as if I’d coughed or choked on something”) and that’s on internalised homophobia.

+ You know that part somewhere in Chapter 10 where they’re in a diner or something Boris says something like “girlfriend or boyfriend” and Theo like literally gets up to leave? HAHA? What’s that about? – I couldn’t find it so sorry about that lol but here you go anyways.

In conclusion: it’s gay.

+ All that analysis is great, but why does this happen? Why does he experience this internalised homophobia?

In short, idk, it’s a question I’ve asked myself when suffering the same thing and thing only reason I can think as to why internalised homophobia is experienced - when you’re not part of a religion that says no (apparently) or an inherently homophobic environment - is simply because society is heteronormative. Because of this, you don’t see yourself represented in media or in the world (especially if you don’t know of/meet LGBTQ+ relatives/friends/role models when your young – or at all for that matter). It becomes really hard to see yourself in the world and whenever you do it feels really alien? It feels either like the greatest gift you’ve ever fucking had or a strange, unsettling event that you weren’t prepared for. Because there’s so little representation it feels like a fucking revelation whenever it is there – it’s a reminder that you are allowed to be a person, you have a place in this world as an LGBTQ+ person, you are right – you are not wrong or a fuck up, y’know? But then, it’s gone again too soon and you still feel not quite right?

TLDR – Theo (most likely) experiences internalised homophobia because of society being icky and also because I said so.

[angryhausfrau-writes]

I Travel Troubled Oceans: Chapter 13 - In Which Charles Vane Wanders Towards Domesticity Via Bareknuckle Boxing And Jack Feels Feelings

Charles has been... not ignoring Jack – he's never cold or brusque – brusquer than usual, anyway. But he is giving Jack space that he's never really given him before. Space that they've never really had, living in doorless squalid squats always in arms reach of each other and often closer. But it's fairly easy to stay out of each other's way in a house this big.

And Jack has been exerting plenty of effort to stay out of Charles's way. Unfortunately, Charles has noticed – how could he not, when Jack routinely followed him like a particularly persistent shadow. And damn Anne for pointing that fact out, for now Jack can't help but acknowledge the truth of his long infatuation – there, that's a good word for it – infatuation, not crush, no matter what Anne says.

Anyway, Jack's is pretty sure Charles thinks he's is mad at him when in fact the problem is that entirely the opposite is true – Jack is lovestruck and giddy in Charles's mere presence. Practically doodling little hearts with his and Charles's names written inside them in pink glitter gel pen like it's still the nineties and he's just discovered the magic of perfectly coiffed boy bands. Which Chaz would tease Jack mercilessly about if he ever found out – tease him for both his teenage taste in music and for his feelings for Charles.

So Jack has continued to cloister himself in his workroom with Christine to work on his next fashion show. An activity that isn't quite as much of a safe harbor after the conversation Anne had with her. Something about managing Jack when he gets in a “mood” - as if Jack has moods! And if he does, as a rich eccentric creative genius type person, he's more than entitled to whatever moods he cares to have. So there!

Charles has been out of the house more often than not over the past few weeks. Partly because Jack's been holed up with Christine, putting together another fashion show. And every time Charles has tried to butt in – to remind Jack to eat something, damn it, or to just take a break – he's been very summarily excused by Jack. And ok fine Jack's in a tizzy, what else is new? But it's not like he really wants to be around for that shit.

And. And. And he's got that itch under his skin that means he needs either a fight or a fuck.

Fucking's off the table, cuz he's Jack's pretend boyfriend and they're supposed to be monogamous. Not that he couldn't find someone reasonably discrete and reasonably removed from the world they're moving in now. The world of rich marks who think a night of slumming it means going to clubs that only have twenty pound cocktails on the menu rather than fifty. So he could find someone who'd never have a chance of encountering one of the rick fucks who'd know him as Jack's boy toy and not as a scourge of the streets.

Hell, he could go find a lower class prostitute who doesn't give half a fuck about anything about him other than that he's got cash to pay for their services. Christine may even have been amenable before Jack had driven her crazy with all his ridiculous demands. But he had and now she flees the house at the end of every day, desperate to be away from his shit. Or maybe she's got something to rush too, rather than away from – Charles doesn't know or really care to. Regardless, that's that plan scuppered.

Of course, there's always other fish in the sea. Or corner boys and girls looking for a John. Christine is just the most available. But there's another reason he doesn't go seek someone else out – another prostitute or even just someone looking for a casual fuck after a long day of being a boring corporate drone.

It's because Charles knows now, after months of collecting information and blackmail on various rich shitstains, just how far some of them are willing to go to see their enemies brought low. Hell, Flint's boyfriend – or husband or whatever their actual relationship is with one another – Thomas Hamilton's own father had him exiled. Left him homeless and destitute and unacknowledged simply because his relationship with Flint might someday be a liability to his business.

All the so-called civilized motherfuckers are so ready to toss aside anyone they think of as lesser and then climb the pile of corpses to even more wealth and power. And Charles refuses to hand any one of those sorry fucks any leverage against him or Jack or any one of their crew. Refuses to see their plans, everything they've worked for, thrown away for a quick fuck.

So Charles keeps himself company. And starts looking for a fight.

He's not so far separated from his days on the streets that he doesn't still remember how to find the underground bare knuckle boxing ring that floats through London's abandoned warehouses and highrises. The place where all the flotsam and jetsam of the criminal underbelly congregate to see a little blood spilt. Or to spill it.

And Charles is not so far separated from his days on the streets that the guy watching the door – some big hulking bearded fucker who dwarfs Charles – doesn't gape and stare but still let him in. In to the derelict parking garage that was meant to serve a set of luxury condominiums that were never built and so the land remained solely as a tax dodge for an absentee landlord to launder his actual business's shady money through.

Charles descends into the dank depths of the service corridors underneath the garage. And he stands face to face with a ghost.

Some fucking idiot, with more money than taste – not that Charles himself is a paragon of that, but some of Jack's obsessive rants about good design sense had to have rubbed off on him – some stupid fuck has installed a huge black door, mirror shiny, at the entrance to the illegal fighting ring. And it reflects his face from endless murky depths.

He looks like a dead man.

He looks like he did before. Before prison and before Jack taking over the crew and before Max and before playing pretend. Before dressing like a rich fuck almost too stupid and self obsessed to notice anything beyond his own reflection in the mirror.

He looks strong. He looks casually cruel – looks like a man whose only goal is to gather strength about himself and to crush out weakness. He looks ready to spill blood and have his own spilled.

Charles pushes open the stupid, ugly, ostentatious door.

His reflection may not look changed, but everyone there, all the hard fuckers, all the street trash, they know what happened to him. They know where he's been and what – who – he's been doing. So he gets a lot of shit on first walking in, shit for being a poof and a dandy. For moving out of the streets and into a house – a big posh house and not a crumbling council estate. But mostly he takes shit for him and Jack being bum buddies.

Cuz news like that's always going to travel right down to the lightless, scummy depths of the lowest places in London. Especially when it's about someone like him. Someone strong, since they see that as a weakness. Someone masculine, since they see that as inherently emasculating.

No one had been surprised about Jack swinging both ways, for instance. He looks like a poof and acts like a poof, no big mystery there. And him so unapologetically larger than life like he is, it's not like he kept it quiet. Although the street's acceptance of him might have had something to do with Anne always lurking at his shoulder, ready to slit an adversary's throat before they even knew it had been cut. And with Charles too backing Jack when he'd been in charge of the crew, making it known that if anyone fucked with him they'd have Charles Vane to deal with.

Charles himself, though. That is a surprise. One that ripples around the ring of fighters like the wave that pulls back before a tsunami is unleashed.

Charles steps into the center of the ring. A dare. A challenge.

And once he's knocked a few dozen heads together, knocks a few dozen teeth in. Once he's standing bloody and bruised but unbowed, with his vanquished enemies at his feet. Well, they all leave it alone after that.

Cuz he's still Charles fucking Vane.

And he feels that more clearly here than in the posh streets of Camden or the West End they now frequent. Feels it in the brutality of the fight for his place here, his life. Feels it in the friendlier sparring that replaces it once he's proved he's worthy to stand among them – sparring no less brutal than his earlier fights, but much more full of camaraderie and less full of a genuine desire to kill one another. And it's nice to feel like his old self, to know he's still him even after everything that's changed.

But that doesn't mean it's not nice to go home at the end of the night, bruised and bloody and with his blood finally cooled and settled under his skin. Nice to emerge from the dank underground into the grey miserable filthy dawn of London streets and know he's got a home to go to.

Jack... Well, he's not waiting up for Charles, because that would imply that he's anxious about where he's gone. And Charles is a grown man, more than capable of going wherever he'd like at whatever hour he'd like.

But he may admit to waking up a bit earlier than usual and, when he passes by Charles's room and finds his bed empty and unslept in, drinking his morning coffee in the sitting room that faces the street so that he can see Charles first thing when he arrives.

Not to be a nag or a mother hen or anything. But simply because he finds he's rather missed having Charles around – barging into his space and interrupting his work and generally making a nuisance of himself. And it's Jack's own fault Charles has started going out more. It's Jack who's been driving him away. But Jack misses him.

And Jack's going to nut up and tell Charles he's missed him. Because he doesn't want to keep going on this way. And his feelings aren't Charles's problem and Jack never should have made them be.

So he's going to fix this, he is...

And then he sees Charles coming up the street. At first, Jack thinks he's just drunk – or fucked up. He's moving a little strangely, like his legs won't quite carry him in a straight line. But as Charles gets closer, Jack can see that he's dead sober – and that he's been beaten to a pulp. His hair is stuck to his face with blood from the cut on his forehead and he's got one hell of a bruise blooming on his cheek and his knuckles are split all to hell.

He looks wrecked. He looks almost as bad as he had after he'd killed Albinus.

Jack runs out to him, where he's standing looking lost and alone out on the pavement.

Charles smiles at Jack as he approaches - Jack who must make a ridiculous figure, rushing outside in nothing but a silk robe and fuzzy slippers - and his teeth are stained red with blood and the smile is really more of a baring of teeth.

“Chaz.” And there Jack stops, because he's really not certain how to go on.

“Jack.” And Charles's voice is steady, even if his footsteps aren't.

Jack places an arm under Charles's and helps him towards the house, towards the hanging open front door and the warmth and safety beyond. “Charles, what the fuck happened?”

Charles slumps against the hallway wall while Jack turns to close the door. “Got in a fight.” And he's grinning up at Jack, looking absolutely fucking unrepentant.

Jack throws his hands up in exasperation. “Really Chaz? You got in a fight? I never would have guessed.”

Charles's grin just gets even more smug.

“Who, pray tell, were you fighting? And why?”

Charles moves further into the house, to the hallway bathroom, where he starts dabbing at his cuts with a delicate hand towel. And yeah, that stain's probably never coming out. But it wasn't his decision to buy white towels, Jack. “Just some street toughs. And as for why...” He shrugs. “Sometimes a man just wants a fight. You know how it is.”

Jack certainly does not know how it is. He's always had the philosophy that fights are to be avoided at all costs – he would never seek out a, a recreational skirmish.

And Charles seems to realize that, because he turns away from Jack and begins dabbing in earnest at the cut on his forehead with a now dampened – and frighteningly bloody - hand towel.

Jack purses his lips but squeezes into the bathroom alongside him. “Here, Charles. You'd better let me do that.”

[kingjinxii]

Ren’s Ryoma Rewatch: Episode 1

In Which I Fall in Love with Soft Tennis Goro Akechi

Introduction

So, I’ll be honest. Ryoma is the reason I started watching Stars Align in the first place, because he looks like one of my other favorite characters, Goro Akechi from Persona 5 (the similarities end at appearance). I basically came into the show already attached, and the more I think about him, the more I believe that understanding him could be key to understanding Toma and possibly Maki’s character arcs.

The setup of these posts are simple: I mark down anything I feel may be key to understanding Ryoma, along with bits of Toma and Maki’s characterization that may help. Explicit canon and information are marked in bold, whereas my own speculation and inferences are marked in italics.

I hope people can use these posts to help understand Ryoma and the Shinjo/Katsuragi family dynamics!

7:28 - Middle school team hasn't won a match in 4 years

9:22-9:36 - First Ryoma appearance

Ryoma seems to wake up later than Toma. Figures, considering he’s a college student.

Ryoma is closer to Maki than Toma is to Maki in the beginning. They're close enough that Ryoma knows Maki moved back while Toma doesn't.

Ryoma calls Maki just “Maki” with no honorific. This is called “yobisute”, and denotes that Maki is an incredibly close, almost familial friend. However, Maki is also younger than Ryoma, so while the no honorific thing is important, it’s common for older Japanese people to refer to younger people by their first name, especially if they’re kids.

Ryoma also knows Maki likes astronomy.

Flower motif - white lilies. In Japanese flower language, white lilies are associated with purity. They’re also associated with girls who love girls, but I doubt that’s a meaning they’re implying here lol

10:49 - Flashback to little Toma from Maki’s POV. It’s done in pastel tones. Lucky 4-leaf clover!

11:05 - Book was a surprise gift from Ryoma. It appears to be brand new, in a bookstore shopping bag. It seems like Ryoma knew clearly in advance that Maki was coming, if he knew to buy a “welcome back” gift, and what day Maki would be at school.

Maki addresses Ryoma by his first name with no honorific, whereas Toma is referred to by his last name, with no honorifc. Maki referring to Ryoma in this way would usually be highly disrespectful (since Ryoma is 5-7 years older than Maki), unless they are just that close. Considering what I said about Ryoma referring to Maki in the same way, it’s pretty safe to assume they’re basically like best friends. Maki deosn’t seem as close to Toma, despite them being the same age. Still, even though he refers to Toma by his last name, he still uses no honorific, so they’re still friends(ish), even if Maki isn’t as close to Toma.

The book is the Astronomical Almanac, a star calendar and map.

Toma doesn't answer when Yuta asks if Maki is a friend. Toma doesn’t consider Maki a friend at this point in the story? However, he does smile, so they must still be friendly. It’s probably just evident of how long it’s been since they’ve seen each other last.

13:30 - Astronomical Almanac appears again

13:50 - Toma refers to Maki by his last name with no honorific, mirroring Maki doing the same.

14:55-15:53 - Ryoma appearance, in Ryoma's room.

Ryoma's room: Lots of leafy houseplants, green and brown earth tones. People have established that Toma is usually associated with green. Looks like Ryoma is similar!

15:10 - Magazines on Ryoma's bed: Both about sports. The top one features a soft tennis team, the bottom one is explicitly a soft tennis magazine. Might belong to Toma, as they are next to him rather than near Ryoma.

Ryoma notes that Maki just transferred so he might not have many friends. He believes this is the original reason Toma wants to invite him to the soft tennis team

15:18 - Ryoma is surprised the soft tennis team maybe get disbanded, and seems conflicted, but has a lukewarm reaction.

Nature photography on his corkboard. Right to left, an orca, two forest scenes, a fox, and a giraffe. While the riverbank is an important location in the show, you don’t see really anyone associated with water. So the orca is an interesting choice.

15:22 - Ryoma is a club alumni, who went to nationals.

Ryoma appears to understand what his brother is thinking well, practically finishing his train of thought (of Toma thinking Ryoma would want him to keep the club alive) before he could.

Ryoma believes in whatever the team decides. He doesn't think he should have a say, whereas Toma expected him to be upset.

15:45 - Ryoma has an iPad. (lol)

Toma assumes Ryoma thinks lesser of him. He appears to have low self-esteem.

Ryoma doesn't appear to chase after Toma to explain himself.

16:00-16:36 - Ryoma appearance with his mom.

Ryoma has a smartphone. I can’t tell the model but I’m going to assume it’s an iPhone considering he has an iPad.

More flowers, different from the ones from the previous day (sunflowers). Sunflowers are associated with respect and passionate love. (Uh...I’m gonna say a yikes here folks). Interesting to note that while Ryoma’s room is full of lots of leafy plants, there are no flowering ones.

Prefers just coffee instead of eating breakfast. If he’s still an athlete, he really should be more worried about his health! [Insert “Breakfast is the most important meal of the day!” PSA here].

Is in college, has friends (plural).

16:18 - Shinjomom attempts to guilt him into staying for dinner. She doesn't even say anything outright, and Ryoma already knows what she’s attempting to say.

Dad is on a trip, and may travel a lot.

Mom says Toma is "nothing like [Ryoma]".

Ryoma shuts down after his initial attempt at argument.

Ryoma calls his mom "kaa-san." It’s a pretty generic way to just say “mom”, but I do want to note that technically the standard was to talk to your mom is to call her “okaa-san”, so dropping the “o-” may denote slight familiarity.

16:30 - Ryoma likes his coffee dark. Maybe black. Just a little characterization note here: stereotypically in Japan, liking sweet things and having a sweet tooth are associated with children and femininity. Since Ryoma likes his coffee dark, he prefers bitter things, so going by stereotypes (as this is a trope-filled anime), we can safely assume he’s a fairly masculine guy.

Mom has dark thoughts around Toma. It appears to be pretty common.

17:03 - Moon and Venus, with seagull. I did say that there’s basically no character associated with water, but pretty much everything in this shot (aside from Maki’s fingers) has some sort of water connection. The moon pulls the ocean tides, Venus was named after a goddess that was born from seafoam, and a seagull...is a seagull. They’re associated with the sea. It’s in their name. I know there was a meta post by someone else about this shot a while back, and I’ll hunt for it later.

Maki Kyobate. Not super important to Ryoma, but Maki’s old last name is useful to note anyways. Maki’s shit dad can, as such, be referred to as Kyobate-san. Could maybe tie into why Ryoma refers to Maki by his given name, rather than his last name, considering the last time Maki was around, he must have been going by Maki Kyobate.

The Shinjo family is well-off enough that they don’t need to worry about money. Toma can afford to buy Maki’s uniform and equipment.

19:13 - Maki forgot/didn't know Ryoma was an alum.

Toma knows Maki cares enough about Ryoma that that information could be used as leverage.

19:18-19:24 - Ryoma appearance, flashback featuring little Maki. Is this their first meeting? Also important to note that, unlike the flashback of Toma from earlier, this one is not done in pastel tones, and instead is done in the show’s usual coloring style.

Ryoma either practiced at a shrine or hung out there from time to time.

Ryoma was already in middle school and on the soft tennis team the last time Maki was around. Considering he’s a college student by now, that puts him at around 19-21 years old.

Ryoma has seen Maki injured.

Maki knew Ryoma had a racket, but didn't know Ryoma was a soft-tennis player. “He had a racket back in middle school. So that must have been a soft tennis racket?” I’m putting the dialogue here because there are some interesting implications going on just in that one line. Maki knows Ryoma had a racket, but he didn’t know it was a soft tennis racket. If Maki and Ryoma are as close as they appear to be, they must have talked and hung out a lot, so it’s odd that Ryoma never...mentioned that it was a soft tennis racket, and that he played soft tennis? Unless Maki just straight up forgot, but that seems really unlikely.

19:23 - Ryoma's racket was red. Again, Toma is associated with green. Maki is also associated with blue. Their tennis rackets match their colors. Ryoma’s, however, is red. His bedroom is very green though. I know all the rackets that are used in the show are based on real soft tennis rackets, so I may hunt down the model Ryoma is using in this image.

Maki seems to want to join now that he knows Ryoma was apart of the team and approved of him joining. Again, he’s incredibly close to Ryoma, and that fact that this is the first thing that gets him to actually consider soft tennis is telling.

Maki only joins after asking for money. Since we’ve already passed the summer tournament, I just want to note that Maki earned 40000 Japanese yen by joining the soft tennis team and winning at the summer tournament. That’s around 370 US dollars, 480 Canadian dollars, 280 English pounds, or 330 Euros! Some some fun trivia.

Toma assumes Maki accepts joining without him saying anything. Like, seriously, he doesn’t even wait for an answer.

Toma is incredibly persistent. He chased after Maki for several days, and continually sweetened the deal for joining. That boy really wants Maki on the team, even if it’s just because he wants to win and not necessarily because they’re close.

Maki’s first racket is blue. Again, they’re all based on real soft tennis rackets and I know there’s a post with Maki’s model somewhere.

22:15 - Maki’s shit dad shows up. Pretty much everyone knows this, just noting it for posterity.

Recap

What have I learned?

In order from mostly canon to mostly speculation:

Ryoma is a young college student, around 19-21 years old, and a formerly successful soft tennis player.

He’s explicitly said to be in college, and that he was an alum of the Shijo Minami boys’ soft tennis team, and ended up going to nationals.

However, currently it’s unknown whether he stuck with the sport or stopped after middle school. He has sports magazines on his bed that focus on soft tennis, but they may belong to Toma, considering they’re positioned next to him, rather than, for example, on Ryoma’s desk or shelves. In fact, Ryoma doesn’t appear to have any magazines on his shelves, nor does he have any photos of soft tennis on his corkboard. (Toma doesn’t take the magazines with him when he leaves, so they could be Ryoma’s. I think there’s evidence leaning both ways. Hell, they could just be sharing them.)

He also seems surprised that the soft tennis club is doing so poorly, and when Toma suggests recruiting Maki, Ryoma’s first thought is of the camaraderie the team provides, and not necessarily about Maki’s technique or physical talent. This possibly shows he doesn’t/didn’t necessarily take soft tennis as seriously as Toma does currently.

Ryoma and Maki were/are relatively close friends.

Ryoma and Maki both refer to each other using their given names without honorifics. Ryoma knew Maki was coming back to their city, and knew with enough time in advance that he was able to prepare a welcoming gift for Maki, the Astronomical Almanac, which Ryoma knew Maki was interested in.

Interestingly, Maki wasn’t aware that Ryoma was a soft tennis player, despite him basically being his team’s ace player. If there were truly as close as they appear to be, it’s interesting that it was...never brought up at all. This may tie into my theory that Ryoma isn’t as into soft tennis as he appeared to be. Maybe he just had natural talent, and he was more into it for the friends, rather than the sport itself.

Ryoma has seen Maki injured, and considering this was back when Maki Katsuragi was still Maki Kyobate, aka when his shit dad was still living with him, Ryoma may know a lot about Maki’s abuse. Ryoma may have even been the person Maki vented to about his dad, and he might still be, considering they seem to still be in close contact. It’s an interesting friendship for sure, considering the age gap.

Maki and Toma aren’t as close as Maki and Ryoma are (at least, not in this episode, as they do get closer relatively quickly). Maki only refers to Toma as “Shinjo” (no honorific), so while they may have been close as kids, they aren’t as close now.

Ryoma and Toma are set up as opposites and foils.

A foil is a character that “highlights someone else's trait, usually by contrast.”* 

Toma, again, is associated with the color green, which is also the color of his racket. However, Ryoma’s racket, as mentioned before, is red. Red and green are opposites on a color wheel in basic color theory. Still, it may be a stretch to say that Ryoma’s color is definitively red, because Ryoma is also associated with green and earth tones in his room.

I was going to save this for when I rewatch Episode 3, but I feel it’s worth mentioning here. Ryoma’s room is filled with leafy plants. Toma’s room has plant life too, but his plants are cactuses, plants that don’t need a lot of water, whereas Ryoma’s would. Again, opposites.

The plants they own can also hint at how their mother feels about them. Ryoma’s plants require a lot of water, and he’s his mother’s favorite, whereas Toma’s plants are ones that flourish in a dry environment, and...explicitly, Shinjomom hates him.

There’s a bit more contrast though, both in how they appear to approach soft tennis and how they approach conflict and resistance.

I already discussed in depth above how Ryoma doesn’t seem to be as obsessed with soft tennis as Toma is, despite being a well-known star player, so let me focus on the other contrast.

There’s two scenes in this episode where Ryoma is met with friction and immediately backs down, or ignores what’s going on. The first is when Toma is angsting about the tennis club shutting down, and he assumes Ryoma thinks that he can’t save it. Toma runs out of the room, and while Ryoma calls after him, we don’t see him try to explain himself, or even get up out of his chair.

The second is when Shinjomom is asking him to stay for dinner, using her hatred for Toma as leverage. She starts off subtle in her distaste for Toma, but Ryoma seems to immediately know where her train of thought is going. He tries to reply gently, but is cut off by her snapping at him, and he just...shuts up.

It’s becoming more and more clear to me that, while Ryoma is a fairly gentle and kind person, he’s really non-confrontational.

This is in sharp contrast to Toma, who spends days trying to convince Maki to join the soft tennis club. Toma knows his club is going to get shut down, he thinks his brother doesn’t believe he can keep it alive, but he doesn’t want to give up. He’s going to get Maki and his sharp reflexes on his team if it kills him, and he won’t take no for an answer.

Maybe it just has to do with maturity. After all, Ryoma’s racket was red, a color associated with hot-bloodedness and strong emotion. Or maybe, it’s just like Shinjomom says, in that “[Toma] is nothing like [Ryoma]!”

Conclusion

Both surprisingly and unsurprisingly, I think I covered a lot of ground of Ryoma’s characterization and role in this episode. Unsurprising since it is the first episode he was introduced, and surprising since...you know, it’s only been one episode. However, Ryoma doesn’t appear in most episodes in the series (he has appearances in episodes 1, 3, 9, 11, and 12, yes I did count), and this is the one where he appears the most, so I doubt most of my other recaps will be this long.

Still, I hope this was informative for some people, even if no one else is as obsessed with him as I am.

Is Stars Align and Ryoma my new special interest? Eh, maybe.

See you in the next recap!

[tearsofahime]

Anyways buckle down folks this has been sitting in my head ever since I started seeing spoilers about the identities of the zodiac heroes that have been revealed in Season 3

Click below on why I think Marc Anciel will get a miraculous in season 4/5 and what I will predict it will be (Spoilers for everything up to Party Crasher and Ikari Gozen):

The first and obvious piece of evidence that would lend some form of credibility to this theory is based off of the number of confirmed (and shown) miraculouses in the show vs the number of eligible users. As of season 3, we know that there are 19 miraculouses in Paris: The Ladybug and Black Cat, The 2nd-tier Miraculouses (Bee, Fox, and Turtle as well as the Butterfly and Peacock), and the 12 Zodiac miraculouses (Rat, Ox, tiger, rabbit, dragon, snake, horse, goat, monkey, rooster, dog, and pig). Take away 2 of them (the Butterfly and Peacock as they go to Gabriel and Nathalie) and you are left with 17 miraculouses that can be given to new heroes.

As we have seen from past episodes, Ladybug tends to appoint new heroes based off of who she is close with and can trust as well as who is best fit for the task at hand. So far, the people Ladybug has appointed as heroes have all been Marinette’s friends (or her peers), and given that this is also a kid’s show designed to cater to and be relatable to kids, it would stand to reason that ALL of the new heroes would be around Marinette’s age. In addition, in “Timetagger”, Older!Alix also talks about there being a TEAM of superheroes in the future, which presents plenty of opportunity to explore the lore of the show through each Kwami and their powers and what better way to do that then to add new superheroes to the Miraculous team (plus it would be a waste to see some miraculouses be used but not all of them over the course of the show, even if some light is shed on past heroes in history).

Back to the math: There are 17 miraculouses, and 15 members of Madame Bustier’s class (including Lila), plus recurring students like Luka, Kagami, and Marc, totalling to 18 candidates for kwamis. As “Ikari Gozen” and “Party Crasher” confirmed, Kagami and Luka both get Miraculouses, leaving 15 to be distributed amongst Marinette’s peers and classmates. The Cat, Ladybug, Fox, Turtle, and Bee miraculouses were all accounted for with Adrien, Marinette, Alya, Nino and Chloe, leaving a total of ten left. Alix, Kim and Max were confirmed to be Zodiac heroes of the Rabbit, Monkey, and Horse, respectively. This leaves 7 miraculouses remaining, and 8 potential candidates.

Now this is where the theory and predictions of who will get what remaining miraculouses occurs.

If you go off of the popular fan theory that the girls of the class will each get a miraculous (Which many had used to predict Alya and Alix’s miraculous holder statuses so would hold more weight as a basis for a theory), the remaining girls in the photo, Juleka, Mylene and Rose, will each respectively get the Tiger, Rat, and Pig miraculouses. I know it’s confirmed through reference image leaks posted by Jeremy Zag that Marinette will be a temporary wielder of the Rat miraculous, but that is just that: Temporary. Marinette is Primarily the Ladybug holder and as such if given the chance (which is certain there will be), she will gladly give it to someone else who can use it to assist her in saving the day.

Many a Fan theorist will also suggest that Sabrina, due to her immense personality trait of her loyalty to Chloe, will be a shoe-in for the Dog Miraculous.

This now just leaves Ivan, Nathaniel, Lila, and Marc and the Ox, Rooster, and Goat miraculouses to be distributed amongst them.

As stated earlier, we’ve seen that Ladybug appoints new heroes based off of people she knows she can trust from her civilian life (with the exceptions of Queen Bee, which was an accident but one that served to better Chloe, and Kim, who Master Fu himself appointed, although I’m sure had he not given Kim a miraculous then Marinette would have anyway). With the matter of trust, we can ABSOLUTELY rule out Lila based on the virtue of her being a liar hell-bent on ruining Marinette’s life (As well as how the show seems to hint/imply her being a future villain from the end of “Timetagger” and from Lila allying herself with Gabriel which means from a plot standpoint, her being willingly given even one of the “Lesser miraculouses” like a zodiac one will be unlikely).

With Lila out of the way, that leaves an equal kwami-to-remaining-friend ratio. If one goes off of physical appearances and traits, Ivan with his size and strength would be a shoo-in for the Ox, and Nathaniel with his bright red hair and fiesty-if-you-anger-him temperament could work well with the Rooster (who could also help him learn to open up and be less shy).

That leaves Marc with the goat.

“Why Marc? Why not another recurring teenager like Aurore or Wayhem as an alternative candidate to Lila?”

It’s doubtful that Marinette even KNOWS Wayhem personally outside of being Adrien’s fanboy, and we’ve hardly seen Aurore on-screen except to have Stormy Weather be a plot vehicle for the intro episode and a recap episode, and we hve yet to see Marinette and Aurore interact in a way that would suggest that they’re actually FRIENDS and not just mere acquaintances.

MARC on the other hand, has been established in the show as being a friend of Marinette’s (as seen in “Reverser” with Marinette already showing her familiarity with him), and is also the one character outside of Madame Bustier’s class that is seen frequently hanging out with the rest of the ensemble class (as seen as being invited to the Heroes Day Picnic in ���Mayura”, getting invited to test play Max’s new video game, and getting invited to Adrien’s boy’s-only party (that had initially just been amongst Adrien’s school friends).  

With Marinette already being familiar enough to Marc to be friends with him and him being close enough to Nathaniel and the rest of the class to be invited to hang out with them relatively frequently, it is ABSOLUTELY plausible that Marinette would consider him to be trustworthy and enough of a team player to give him a miraculous.

“Why the Goat though?”

Marc getting the Goat miraculous would be fitting for many reasons. One of the most obvious would be the similarities in color schemes and patterns between Marc’s Reverser form and Ziggy (the goat kwami).

This would not be the first time that a Kwami-Holder match-up would make a callback to the holder’s past akumatization: Alix’s time travel powers as Timebreaker ended up being similar to her powers as Bunnyx, and other Kwamis like the snake, fox, and bee kwamis all design-wise had at least SOME similarity to their holders in terms of physical appearances/character designs.

Another reason, appearances aside, that a goat would be suitable for Marc is that his personality would be suitable to be matched with a goat. Goats/sheep are popularly characterized as skittish, anxious, and overall kind of shy, which are all personality traits that can be used to describe Marc. Some kwamis match their users in terms of similarity of personality, others are opposites that complement their holder’s personalities. Either way, one would agree that a goat would be very fitting personality for Marc. There is also the fact that Hope Morphin (a friend of Thomas Astruc and who was the inspiration for marc) also said on her twitter (I couldn’t find the tweet at the moment) that Marc’s favorite animal is the sheep/goat. Make of that what you will, as she could just be banking on a popular theory.

Speaking of Hope, the creators of the show, through various tweets have confirmed Marc is LGBT, and given that Marc was based on Hope, who identifies as genderfluid and bi.

That, along with Marc’s comparatively more “feminine” features (like his painted nails, his visible eyelashes and his pink-tinted lips which suggests he wears lip gloss), lends to lots of fans and show creators referring to him as “androgynous”.

Why bring up Marc’s androgyny as a point? Good question. Consider Ziggy the Kwami. Thomas Astruc confirmed in a tweet that Ziggy was named after David Bowie’s stage persona, Ziggy Stardust.

David Bowie’s “Ziggy Stardust” alter ego was FAMOUSLY known for his androgyny.

Now back to Ziggy the kwami. Another interesting feature design-wise about the goat kwami is her seemingly “feminine” features like her long eyelashes (just like a certain androgynous writer). The goat kwami, though genderless like all other kwamis, does prefer female pronouns according to the wiki. However, just because Ziggy uses feminine pronouns doesn’t automatically mean that it rules out that Marc won’t get the goat simply because he doesn’t match the “gender” of the kwami, as although most of the male miraculous holders have been given kwamis with preferred masculine pronouns, female holders like Ryukko and Rena Rouge have kwamis that use masculine pronouns. Given Marc’s androgynous design and behaviors, it wouldn’t be out of the question for him to have Ziggy as his kwami at all, On the contrary, it would be a PERFECT fit from a symbolic standpoint (and let’s face it, writers, ESPECIALLY showwriters like the miraculous ladybug team, LOVE their symbolism).

“I don’t think Marc should get a Miraculous. He’s hardly there in the story.”

We’re all entitled to our opinions and I respect yours as long as it doesn’t step on mine. Personally, I think giving characters a day in the limelight as a newly-appointed hero provides for LOTS of character-development, which is something that admittedly, most of the miracuclass could benefit from having more of. Even so, the show was confirmed for their fourth and fifth seasons, which leave plenty of episodes for which less frequently-seen-but-still-relevant-enough characters like Marc (and let’s face it, Nathaniel too) could get more episodes focusing on them. And if not, they’re still considered very good enough friends of Marinette’s and valuable and cherished members of the Miracuclass to still be considered in the running to be Zodiac heroes, especially over other characters that have even LESS story presence like Wayhem or Aurore.

[ladybuvelle]

// Unpopular opinion:

“Of course he/she’s gay! lmao just look at them! If you think they’re straight then you fuckin blind don’t @ me!”

Can we stop that? Please? I know no one’s going to, and I know, at its core, most people probably don’t mean any harm in it... but it is harmful.

You’re implying being straight is a bad or lesser option.

You’re implying you can judge someone’s romantic and sexual orientation solely based on how they look.

I grew up struggling with my femininity because of how masculine I look, talk, and often presented myself because I had so few female influences in my life to take note from. People very often thought I was a lesbian even though I never once mentioned liking other girls and never even hung around other girls. I always had guy friends and did ‘guy’ things. I was a tomboy. I was plus size and couldn’t find women’s clothes that suited me and an abusive father that was not only useless in helping me express my gender but actively made me feel disgusting to be a woman.

I explored my sexuality early on with a childhood friend that was a girl. I couldn’t kiss her, and that’s how I knew it wasn’t for me. I like men. I’m straight. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I spent probably the last decade or so of my life as an adult, free woman on her own trying to catch up with society and learn about LGBT+ issues. I made a lot of mistakes because I didn’t know any better. I learned. I’ve never once “hated” anyone for how they were or made fun of them or treated them as lesser or used “gay” as slang for “stupid”. I have always tried to be considerate of people’s feelings regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever have you. Because that’s just the right thing to do.

So I admit. When I see posts around Tumblr talking about how awful it is to be white, cis-gendered, straight, etc? It hurts. It hurts even though I know it’s not directed at me specifically, because you know fucking what? You can’t just reach over and pat my hand and say “Oh but not you, dear” because holy shit how does that make it ok?

That’s like the racist guy in the bodega screaming about illegal Mexican workers to another Mexican, and he uses the eraser phrase “Oh, but not you. You’re one of the good ones!”.

I know a lot of LGBT+ people have been hurt and are still being hurt. Massively. Constantly. But how does that excuse you? How does putting down other innocent people help you? You’re not teaching me anything. You’re not ‘waking me up’. I already know you have it hard. Putting me down when you don’t even know who the hell I am is being no better than the people who hurt you in the first place.

I just wish I could scroll through Tumblr one day and not run into a post about how awful I supposedly am just for being born like this.

Sounds familiar, right? We’re not that different.

But I know no one’s going to stop making posts like that. It’s “fun”. It’s “celebratory”. I totally get wanting to express yourself, your thoughts, your wants and ideas and fantasies.

All I ask if you don’t put down other people in the process of raising yourself up.

[seonghwa-things]

Gender Misrepresentation: The Importance of Being Earnest and A Life of Galileo

Male, female, nonbinary, agender, etc. are all different classification of gender today. For the sake of clarity, this essay will only discuss the misrepresentation of binary genders (male and female). It is important to show that media can change how society views gender and their accompanying stereotypes. Consumers should be aware of the fact that there are more to these genders than just the limited view that they are seeing within media. There is a lack of conversation about the misrepresentation of gender in A Life of Galileo, so this essay intends to elaborate on those facts, in comparison to misrepresentation arguments of The Importance of Being Earnest and those seen in everyday media. Although for significantly different reasons, gender binaries are misrepresented in both The Importance of Being Earnest and A Life of Galileo.

Females are generalized, limited and misrepresented in both Galileo and Earnest. In A Life of Galileo, women are treated as lesser, or seen as overly strict. In scene three, Virginia, Galileo’s daughter, asks to look through his telescope; she shows an interest in her father’s work, only to be brushed aside by harsh words: “Why? It’s not a toy” (Brecht 23). It is implied that Galileo would be more likely to show her, had she been a boy instead. Throughout the show, Galileo takes the time to teach Andrea, who is portrayed as the son he never had. The show opens with a parental interaction between Galileo and Andrea, while Virginia is first introduced as a pretty face to present the telescope to the public. Unfortunately, the idea of women being lesser is something not limited to plays written in the 1930s, and is often shown in modern media as well - especially in commercials. Many commercials will stereotype genders; males are typically seen as the breadwinners, while women are often portrayed as homemakers. Research done in 2014, by the Journal of Marketing Management says that “family related advertising in women’s magazines does little to challenge traditional roles of paternal masculinity” (Grau and Yorgos 765). Unfortunately, Galileo treats Virginia the way he does because she is a woman - she should not take part in work related business. Comments like “See to the geese, Virginia,” when Virginia was interested in his and Andrea’s work only emphasizes the fact that Virginia is indeed seen as only a homemaker (Brecht 74). Telling Virginia to attend to the geese was a subtle way of saying “get back in the kitchen”, a joke made far too often - both verbally and on the internet (Drakett et. al. 120). Mrs. Sarti, however, pushes against that stereotype. While doing so, she manages to fall into another - she is strict. In scene one, Sarti shows that she is against Galileo teaching her son, making comments like “What are you doing to my boy…?” and “You should be ashamed…” (Brecht 7). As stated in Grau and Yorgos’s research earlier, the idea of paternal masculinity is not challenged. Brecht shows that Sarti does not want Galileo to take a parental role in Andrea’s life - anytime Galileo starts to teach him, Sarti tries to shut it down. This strictness is shown throughout media today - “Mom said no” is a common phrase said within movies and television series. Not all mothers are strict; they are just trying to do what they think is best for their child.

Women in Earnest have similar misrepresentations to those in Galileo, although Oscar Wilde had a different agenda. While Brecht’s stereotypes were not necessarily created as purposefully, Wilde’s were created as a over-exaggeration - he desired to point out these stereotypes. Lady Bracknell, for example, is strict (and perhaps even a golddigger). Through the duration of the play, she is against Jack and Gwendolen’s marriage. Jack does not have the money that Lady Bracknell desires; she does not wish for someone of such low income to enter her family. The idea of a woman being “dependent on a male breadwinner” is a common occurrence in everyday media - one that often does not sit well with females. The youngest females in the play are also filled with misrepresentations - both Cecily and Gwendolen are gullible. As stated in Finney’s piece, both girls “have always longer to marry a man named Ernest” (643). Falling into the stereotype of gullibility, both ladies quickly believe that their beloved is indeed named Ernest. Wilde’s intentions come to light throughout his show- he brings forth comical elements while also showing how ridiculous these representations of genders happened to be during the 1890’s.

Female characters are not the only ones who are misrepresented within these plays - the men are overwhelmingly stereotyped as well. In Galileo, all men, to at least some extent, are shown to have power over other characters. Galileo clearly has an influence over Sarti, Andrea and Virginia - all will do his bidding without much complaint [e.g. Virginia immediately attending to the geese] (Brecht 74). This power is played with often in media, though often to a more sexual extent. Jokes such as ‘“if I poke her with it, it’ll put her in the mood”’ are seen heavily on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, indicating that even in a more intimate setting men have the power (Drakett et. al. 116). This is not always true. Several characters also show power over Galileo, such as: the Bursar, the Philosopher, and the Mathematician. While these power dynamics are more realistic (a boss to an employee) they are still hyperbolised - at least in relation to today’s media. A boss (or someone equivalent to it) isn’t likely to call their employee out in front of other people, like the Bursar does to Galileo in scene three. Although Galileo insists that his companion stay in the room, most boss-like figures would wait until another given time (or at least let them down a little easier). This type of content helps “legitimise the importance of heteronormative, masculinised traits in leadership roles”, as in the time this play was written, it would extremely unlikely for a role like the Bursar to be played by a female (Drakett et. al. 118). In media, the role of the boss, to this day, is still usually portrayed by a male actor where the character is straight, powerful, and intelligent.

While the men in Earnest are also depicted as smart and dominant, it is pushed past that; they are manipulative liars. Algernon and Jack spend the second act of the play convincing their loved ones that their names are Ernest. “The only earnestness here lies in the homophonous name ‘Ernest’” (Finney 643). Finney’s words speak truth - both Jack and Algernon are willing to lie to get what they would like from Gwendolen and Cecily. When the girls discover that Jack and Algernon have been lying, the men are quick to say that they will be Christened; they are willing to change their names to get to their end goal: marriage (Wilde 166). This could be played off as taking a sacrifice for the sake of their relationships, but with how quickly the girls forgive them, it is clear that there is something more to it. Their forgiveness can easily be interpreted as fear - they must forgive quickly to avoid further disagreement.

The interactions between the genders in Earnest and Galileo further prove that gender binaries are misrepresented in both shows. During scene eight of Galileo, Ludovico enters for a quick visit. Sarti quickly exits at Galileo’s command, and Virginia takes her leave by saying “I’ll show you my wedding dress” - a hyper-feminine reason to exit. As per usual, Ludovico and Galileo start a more detailed conversation after both women have exited the stage (Brecht 50). Brecht is using the lack of female characters in the scene to “‘re-macsulinise’ identities, roles and spaces” (Drakett et. al. 118). Within this scene, it seems as if Brecht was trying to state that important dialogue could only happen when a woman was not present. The women seem to only appear within a scene to further amplify a man’s masculinity - they are there to be bossed around [e.g. “Bring a jug of sicilian wine…” (Brecht 50)].

Conversations in Earnest are no better. When Cecily and Gwendolen first interact, they are volatile towards one another because they are afraid that they are engaged to the same man. Realistically, these types of conversations are few and far between - many females are likely to approach their significant other before bickering with another woman about something that may not even be true. Another unrealistic conversation is shown between Algernon and Cecily in Act II (Wilde 149-152). While intended to be comical, Cecily’s persistence and Algernon’s eagerness to accept her story border on mental disorders. Having mental disorders in a play isn’t necessarily a misrepresentation when done well, but all the characters are so well-spoken that it is clear that that is not Wilde’s intention. He is over-exaggerating the idea of a couple in love to the point where it is almost stalker-like.

Both The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde and A Life of Galileo by Bertolt Brecht are plays that heavily misrepresent binary gender and gender roles. Unfortunately, these ideals of gender are still relevant in today’s media through advertisements and internet memes.  Through the overwhelming stereotypes of females, males and the two of them in conversation, it is clear that both Wilde and Brecht had an agenda (albeit quite different ones) - to overplay each gender.

Brecht, Bertolt. A Life of Galileo. Translated by Mark Ravenhill, Bloomsbury       Metheun Drama, 2015.

Drakett, Jessica et. al. “Old Jokes, New Media: Online Sexism and   Constructions of Gender in Internet Memes.” Feminism & Psychology, Volume   28, Number 1, 2018, pp. 109-127.

Finney, Gail. “Comparative Perspectives on Gender and Comedy: The   Examples of Wilde, Hofmannsthal, and Ebner-Eschenbach.” Modern Drama,   Volume 37, Number 4, Winter 1994, pp. 638-650.

Grau, Stacy Landreth and Yorgos C. Zotos. “Gender Stereotypes in Advertising:   A Review of Current Research.” International Journal of Advertising, Volume 35, Number 5, pp.761-770.

Wilde, Oscar. The Importance of Being Earnest: A Trivial Comedy for Serious   People. Penguin Books, 2012

[evakuality]

Isak and internalized homophobia

Okay, so, I keep telling myself I’ll write my Even meta, but apparently what i then always do is find something else to write about Isak.  What can I say?  I love this guy.  So yeah, this isn’t about Even, yet again.  This is about Isak.  As we’ve already established at length, Isak is a complex character who is endlessly fascinating to me.  One thing I think I really find interesting about him is his internalized homophobia and how hard he works to overcome it.  I’ve been thinking about this over the last few days and decided to write about it.  Partly to share it with others, but if I’m honest mostly to sort it out properly in my head so it’s coherent rather than a series of notes that try to connect together but fail miserably.  I’m not claiming to be original here, as I’m sure this has been discussed many times by many different people, but I do want to get this all straight (haha, or not straight as the case may be) in my own head.  Once again, because I cannot be concise to save myself, this is stupidly long.  So once again it goes under a cut.

Isak is fairly obviously really deep into internalized homophobia before we even meet him.  In season one, he reacts very badly to the jibes casually thrown out about him being gay, about Elias having to be in a room with the gay guy, that he likes gay songs.  It irritates him that people think this about him.  But why?  By season two it’s fairly clear that he’s hiding his sexuality, not that he doesn’t know about it.  Some scenes at the end of season one heavily imply that he knows he’s got a crush on Jonas but is keeping it as secret as he can (though honestly, the amount of heart eyes he’s giving at the end there means than anyone less oblivious than his friends would almost certainly have noticed and figured it out).  So, Isak has a pretty good idea of who he is but he’s hiding it.  I propose that he’s doing so at least in part because of the way masculinity is portrayed in his world.  He has three examples to go by: his father, his friends, and Eskild.  

We don’t know much about his father, except that he leaves his family when things get tough and Isak resents him for it.  His reaction to receiving texts from him is irritation and a demand for money.  What they were like as a father/son dynamic before his father left is uncertain, but it’s definitely a strained relationship whenever we see them interacting.  Even the hug at the end of season three, when Isak has come to terms with himself and is more open, is distant and stiff.  It’s not likely that Isak would see his father as any sort of role model for ‘how to be a man’ given that he resents him so much.  

The boys in his group of friends are lovely, supportive people who have each others’ backs and will do anything for each other.  They are also very bro-ish, for want of a better word.  They, and the other guys he sees around him at school, perform a lot of very heterosexual male behavior.  They talk about girls and sex, they hook up, they want to get with girls at every opportunity.  This may be very authentic for these boys, but it isn’t for Isak.  We see how uncomfortable he feels around them when these conversations start, we see how he tries to emulate them and hook up with girls.  They also, very casually, throw homophobic slurs around.  This is Isak’s immediate group of role models.  No wonder he feels anxious and ill at ease when they say things like ‘why don’t you want to hook up with Emma, are you gay?’ -- they’ve made it very clear that being gay is somehow not the way you should be.  Jonas talks a good talk, but he too is guilty of these comments and ironically the only person he calls out for homophobia is Isak.  Other casual gay comments, use of it as a slur etc etc are all just accepted as usual.  This is the world Isak inhabits day after day after day. Adolescents tend to be heavily influenced by their peers and Isak’s peers are all sending him the message that being gay is somehow not right, that it single you out and means you don’t fit it.

That leads us to Eskild, Isak’s only (or at least closest) representation of what it looks like to be gay.  Eskild is very open, he’s proud of who he is, he likes to suck dick, he likes to hook up with guys and he has no shame in it.  He’s also very feminine-coded: he wears tights, likes makeup, has delicate clothes, scents everything with lavender etc etc.  To Isak, this looks very threatening if applied to himself.  His friends have made it clear that the way to be a man is to be bro-ish, and his only model of gayness is the opposite of that.  In order to be gay, Isak believes he has to be like Eskild and he rejects that idea.  If, in order to be true to who he is, Isak has to be like Eskild then he’d rather not.  It’s far more important for him to fit in with his group of guys.  

It’s no surprise at all that when Isak talks to Eskild about his ‘thing’ with Even, he doesn’t want to be associated with being gay.  He still feels like gay = feminine = not what he wants to be.  The things he mentions to Eskild in that speech are all feminine-coded and all things he personally doesn’t want to be associated with.  Eskild quite rightly calls Isak out on his close-minded, self-centered view of the world and on what it means to be gay; he is insulted and horrified by what Isak is saying, and he defends the open, flamboyant gay people from Isak’s narrow minded ideas.  It’s important to note here, that Eskild never says here that it’s okay to be whatever type of person you want and still be gay; he’s too busy defending himself and others like him from Isak’s ideas.  But of course, this reinforces for Isak that gay= all those things he’s been rejecting.  It would be easy to blame this on just Eskild and his flamboyance or on the boys and their casual homophobia, but this is Isak’s perception of the world.  This is his take on it.  It’s easy to say he’s just being close-minded, but it’s coming from somewhere.  We’ve seen some of that in the types of masculinity he sees around him, but it’s not just that.

Of course, some of it is his mother and his perceived understanding of the world that her religion has imposed on her and by proxy onto him.  He’s scared of her response to him being gay, because of course what he hears from the religion around him is probably not great.  His mother isn’t stable, so it’s hard to know what things she’s said to Isak when she wasn’t particularly lucid.  What is easier to know is that there are passages in the Bible which suggest being gay is wrong.  Living with someone who is so clearly religious, Isak will almost certainly have heard these passages and taken them to heart.  If we couple this with what he ‘knows’ about being gay, which is that gay=feminine, it’s not a surprise that Isak has decided to go as full-bro as he can.  The one time in the earlier seasons that we see him being true to himself, he’s effectively told that he’s ‘too gay’ and heartbreakingly, after that what we see is an Isak who explicitly rejects pop music and is instead drawn to rap and other very masculine-appearing music.  I’m sure he does like those songs as well, he certainly seems keen on them, but it’s sad that he’s pushed away from other music because of how it associates him with ‘gay’ and is therefore a problem.

It’s not until he meets Even, who seems so cool and effortless and amazing to Isak, that he starts to realize that you don’t have to act any one way to be not-straight.  Even is unashamed to be exactly who he is.  He fits in very well with what look like bro-ish guys and he’s one of the guys whenever he’s with them.  But he also loves pop music, he is a fan of flashy love stories, he’s kind and gentle.  He’s a mixture of all the things Isak sees as manly, and has many of the attributes of ‘gay’ people too.  It’s a revelation to him that you can be like this and people can love you and accept you.  When he’s with Even, then, it’s easy to be open.  But it’s not so easy when he’s with others.  Because they keep on with their casual homophobia, their fixation on girls and hooking up.  Isak still can’t be sure that they’ll accept him because they don’t have that mix and he’s unwilling to lose them or to not fit in.  It’s a shame that Isak doesn’t have more access to a wider range of stories around what it means to be gay.  But unfortunately for Isak, a lot of what is gay in mainstream media is the stereotype that Eskild also represents so they echo each other to a point where this is, for a long time, all Isak knows ‘not-straight’ can look like.  The types of shows he’s likely to have been watching all tend to have one flamboyant gay character who’s there as comic relief and/or as a tragic figure who gets killed off.  The more nuanced portrayals are in less mainstream things, and given Isak’s reactions when people suggest he might be gay, he’s unlikely to have been seeking them out.  Indeed, the media Isak seeks out in the show (apart from Romeo and Juliet, which he looks at because he’s infatuated with Even) is all very masculine: Narcos, Nicolas Cage etc etc.  These are not pieces of media that would help him come to terms with being true to himself, in fact they are likely to do the opposite.

It’s a testament to Isak that he learns and grows from all this.  That meeting Even allows him to open himself up and take a leap of faith beyond the hookups with girls.  That Eskild telling  him off allows him to reconsider his ideas, that his conversations with Sana allow him to look at things from another point of view.  But it can’t be denied that Isak would have had an easier time if he’d been exposed to a wider range of ‘gay’ role models.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that his friends are so masculine, that they fit that stereotype so thoroughly, and that his only representation of ‘gay’ is so feminized.  Isak rejects that idea so thoroughly because he’s been so conditioned to see that stereotype as somehow ‘lesser’ (we can blame this on our society’s unfortunate misogynistic tendency to code anything female or feminine as lesser, weaker, not as important) -- this is, of course, why Eskild reacts so badly to what Isak says.  He’s so rejecting of gayness because he associates it with femininity and Eskild is offended, as he should be.  

The other reason Isak might find it so hard, is that because there’s such a narrow representation of ‘gayness’ in his life and in the media he consumes, there’s also the very real possibility that he fears he’d fit in nowhere.  Not masculine enough to be one of the guys, not stereotypically gay enough to be part of that community either.  Why risk that when you can keep on repressing yourself?  It’s an easy choice for a young guy to make: kind of fit in with the friends you’ve already got because it’s better than probably not fitting in anywhere at all.  Isak’s internalized homophobia has its roots in many different causes, but they all contribute to keep him firmly in the closet.

The problem here, of course, is as it is for so many young lgbt+ people, particularly those who live in environments which aren’t open and supportive.  Isak has no broad base to extrapolate from.  He’s desperate to be true to himself, but at the same time he thinks being true to himself means he has to possibly lose the respect of his friends and/or be a feminized, stereotypical version of ‘gay’ because this is all he has experience of.  His mother’s religion, and the subsequent messages through that, would definitely not help either.  But if our mainstream media had better examples of lgbt+ characters for young people, ironically more like Isak himself is in his show, then Isak may not have been as isolated as he was for so long.  This is why I wish there was more nuance in the way being lgbt+ is portrayed.  Isak is such a good representation of why stereotyped versions of characters are harmful.  He’s so thoroughly in the closet because of what he’s seen portrayed.  His journey is not to figure out that he’s gay, but rather to accept that he can still be himself and proudly be open about his gayness, because he’s been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the stereotypes that he can’t see beyond them.  It’s important to note that Isak is not a feminine character and does not associate himself with that type of gayness, and it would have been so helpful to him to see different gay people shown more readily.  Isak is very lucky in that when he does come out his group of friends and family is all very supportive and welcoming and so his fears about not fitting in and not being ‘right’ are diminished.  This isn’t true for everyone, which makes diverse representations in media even more crucial for those people.  It’s also important for straight people to see how diverse the lgbt+ community is, so more diversity is a win for all!

Media is definitely getting better now, so hopefully in the future there won’t be so many Isaks trying to find their place in a world which tries to put them into black and white boxes.  There’s still a feeling that lgbt+ people who want nuance and respect in their portrayals have to seek out explicitly lgbt+ media, while mainstream media still tends to keep its lgbt+ characters as more stock characters.  I’d love to see that changed, to see a variety of lgbt+ characters and not have that feminized, stereotypical character be all that people are exposed to.  Young lgbt+ people have a right to see themselves reflected more accurately and be able to recognize themselves without having to seek out media that is made explicitly for them.  And non-lgbt+ people also deserve to see a wider range of characters as well, to know that there’s more to ‘gay’ than the generally accepted stereotype.  Like I said, this is changing with a number of very good characters on more mainstream shows (and hopefully Skam US does as good a job with this as Skam Norway did).  Long may this continue!  May Isak himself be one of many to show how the society we live in is reflected in our views of ourselves, and may his struggle to be seen as himself, and not the stereotype he doesn’t fit, be just one of many.

[kvothbloodless]

So I’m not sure if anyone is interested, but I wrote a feminist analysis of Cheery Littlebottom from Discworld.

@frei-rancken​ @thebibliosphere​ @wymanthewalrus​ 

      Throughout his hallmark series, Discworld, Terry Pratchett subverts traditional fantasy norms of misogyny by exploring and condemning these ideals in the narrative; this unyielding assault on the xenophobic tropes that characterize fantasy as a genre is even more impressive when one considers the fact that although Pratchett began writing the Discworld series in 1983, his early works still come across as progressive today. By analyzing the character Cheery and the ways her femininity and gendered performativity are delegitimized, I intend to examine the progressive themes that set Discworld apart from the traditional fantasy genre.

     Despite its reputation as a liberal and diverse genre, mainstream fantasy has for years been extremely misogynistic in its content; the best-selling series A Song of Ice and Fire, considered by many to be the epitome of modern fantasy, utilizes the offensive, if common, fantasy trope of depicting sexual violence against women in order to make the narrative “darker” and “more realistic”. In her analysis of misogyny in fantasy, Tolmie notes that gender based oppression and violence is so common in fantasy as to be the rule, not the exception (Tolmie, 148). The existence and prevalence of these misogynistic tropes in fantasy is even more disturbing when one considers that fantasy is often the main genre read by children and teenagers; this near ubiquitous depiction of femininity as negative, weak, and violated in the primary source of literature for girls who are still forming their own identities and perceptions of the world was, and still is, a major critique of the genre as a whole. The need for more progressive works in fantasy was obvious, and Terry Pratchett decided to write them.

    Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series consists of 41 books published over the course of 32 years. Despite being considered a hallmark of the fantasy genre, and its origin three and a half decades ago, Discworld is filled cover to cover with progressive themes that mock and reject the misogyny common in fantasy. In addition to the prevalence of strong and diverse female characters, and a lack of sexual violence, Pratchett’s depiction and exploration of misogyny can best be seen in the character of Cheery Littlebottom, a dwarf who travels to the city of Ankh-Morpork to join the city watch. In Discworld, dwarves are traditionally seen as all male; they all have beards, they all carry weapons, and gender doesn’t exist. Female dwarves are expected to act and appear the same as male dwarves, to the point where female pronouns are taboo. As Cheery acclimates to the city’s more tolerant, or at least less oppressive, culture, she begins to reject the repressive ideologies of her society and expresses her femininity. By examining Cheery’s perspective on gender and identity, her experiences surrounding her gender expression, and the delegitimization and discrimination she faces as a result of her identity, one can see a unique perspective on gender and identity that remains in conversation with academic discussions on the same topic.

       A moment perfectly in conversation with our readings appears in Feet of Clay, when Cheery first discusses her dissatisfaction with traditional gender presentation (Pratchett, 80). Similar to Serano’s point that cissexual characteristics are taken for granted and seen as natural, dwarven society doesn’t recognize the difference between male and female; male characteristics are taken for granted, seen as the norm, and deviation from this norm is punished (Serano, 161). Cheery’s situation provides an interesting analogue to Serano’s discussion of gendering and cissexual assumption; dwarves are automatically gendered as male, with the dismissal of their actual gender occurring through the same process as cissexual assumption (Serano, 164). Additionally, this automatic assumption that Cheery is male functions to erase her identity just like trans-erasure, making invisible both her identity and the identity of others like her (Serano, 188). This moment also provides an interesting angle to Butler’s discussion of what defines a woman; Cheery justifies her identity as a woman by stating her distaste for traditionally masculine activities, implying that she feels gender is, at least partially, something one does (Butler, 4). Furthermore, Butler’s statement that gender cannot be separated from the culture that produced it is clearly paralleled by Cheery’s conflation of traditionally masculine activities with being a dwarf; having been raised and indoctrinated in this culture, she is unable to separate her gender identity from her race. Her friend’s response to Cheery’s dissatisfaction with dwarven gender norms also illustrates Butler’s critique of the assumed universal misogyny; her human female friend points out that most human women, who are restricted to traditional gender activities, would prefer to do things the dwarven way, allowed to do anything the men do. Cheery argues that they can do only what the men do, and are thus equally repressed (Butler, 6). When this friend asks Cheery about the apparent contentment of dwarves back home, she responds that they are happy because they don’t know any different. The general isolation of dwarves and their indoctrination into conflating being a dwarf with being a man functions as Althusser’s Ideological State Apparatuses (Althusser, 145). In a single page, Pratchett presents new perspectives on gendering, erasure, assumption, identity, oppression, and ideological indoctrination, clearly distinguishing Discworld from traditional fantasy.

      Over the next few days, as she grows more comfortable in expressing herself, Cheery begins to wear more traditionally feminine attire, such as ear rings, lipstick, and mascara, resulting in confusion from her boss (Pratchett, 157, 163, 182). These moments are clear illustrations of performance and disidentification as discussed by Munoz; Cheery is publicly and aggressively performing her identity, while simultaneously disidentifying with traditional dwarven gender norms (Munoz, 92). This disidentification goes even further when her friend asks if Cheery is going to shave her beard, an obviously traditionally masculine feature; Cheery begins to disidentify with traditional feminine norms as well, refusing to shave her beard or remove her helmet, conflating these traits with being a dwarf, but not with gender. As discussed earlier, Cheery’s gender identity intersects heavily with her racial identity, but she is beginning to disidentify with the dwarven norm of these two identities being the same. As her gender performance becomes more obvious, she encounters a male adopted dwarf while wearing a skirt, and he delegitimizes her identity, erasing her gender and shaming her for her choices (Pratchett, 199-201). Once again paralleling Serano, he misgenders her, and erases her identity by calling Cheery ‘he’, and then claims she should have had the decency to keep her gender identity to herself, thus reproducing the ideological apparatuses described by Althusser. His delegitimization of Cheery is markedly similar to the delegitimization Truth describes in her speech; because she does not fit his view of a valid dwarf, she is lesser and shameful, not a true dwarf (Truth, 1). When she later encounters a group of dwarves, they again shame her, punishing the deviation from traditional norms (218-219). However, after the rest of the group leaves, one of its members stays behind, nervously asking to try Cheery’s lipstick. By visibly and actively disidentifying with traditional gender norms, and performing her identity publicly, she actually undermines the ideological apparatuses that repress dwarven women. By providing this representation to the other dwarf, Cheery gave her a sense of legitimacy. But perhaps the most striking example of disidentification occurs in The Fifth Elephant, when Cheery has become completely comfortable in her identity and its expression:

“‘Is that what you'll be wearing, Cherry?'

'Yes, sir.'

'But it's just … ordinary dwarf clothes. Trousers and everything.'

'Yes, sir.'

'But Sybil said you'd got a fetching little green number and a helmet with a feather in it.'

'Yes, sir.'

'You're free to wear whatever you want, you know that.'

'Yes, sir. And then I thought about Dee. And I watched the King when he was talking to you, and . . . well, I can wear what I like, sir. That's the point. I don't have to wear that dress and I shouldn't wear it just because other people don't want me to’” (Pratchett, 209).

       Cheery has disidentified with both traditional dwarven gender norms and the performative norms she accepted to legitimize her identity. Although she continues to wear makeup and ear rings, she has accepted her identity as legitimate regardless of external perception, and thus performs her identity in a way that she wants. Over the course of several novels, Pratchett develops and explores themes of identity, disidentification, repression, gender performance, and acceptance, once again clearly separating himself from traditional fantasy.

           Throughout his novels, Terry Pratchett provides a unique perspective on discussing gender identity; Cheery’s character is a focal point around which themes and situations worthy of academic discussion occur regularly. In spite of its age and genre, Discworld clearly deviates from traditional fantasy norms of misogyny, instead discussing and refuting these themes for over 30 years.

                                           Works Cited

1.     Tolmie, Jane. "Medievalism and the fantasy heroine." Journal of Gender Studies 15.2 (2006): 145-158.

2.     Pratchett, Terry. Feet of Clay. Gollancz, 1996. Web.

3.     Pratchett, Terry. The Fifth Elephant. Doubleday, 1999. Web.

4.     Serano, Julia. Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press, 2007. Web.

5.     Althusser, Louis. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. 1971. Web.

6.     Truth, Sojourner. “Ain’t I a Woman?”  Women’s Convention, Akron, Ohio, 28-29. May 1851.

7.     Butler, Judith P. Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge, 1990. Web.

8.     Muñoz, José Esteban. “‘The White to Be Angry’: Vaginal Davis's Terrorist Drag.” Social Text, no. 52/53, 1997, pp. 81–103. Web.

[secretlyatargaryen]

I never tried to argue that traditionally feminine girls are superior than others. I didn't try to argue Sansa is a superior character either. Actually, I don't think I'm using the expression "feminine traits" properly and it's deviating from my main point, so let's just say Sansa's or Dany's or Arya's aspects. In earlier seasons, Sansa is portrayed as stupid. Cat rolls her eyes at a potential marriage with Joffrey (which downplays Cat's political ambitions), (show!)Arya says "Sansa can keep...

… her needles, I’ve got my own", Joffrey calls her stupid, ect. What do we miss? How empathetic she is to Sandor (GoT gives his lines to LF), how she can be charismatic to others, how she can act kindly and yet lie to try to survive (Dontos shows up late and Sansa is saved like a damsel in distress in GoT), how she has a potential knack for diplomacy and is being taught politics (no, let’s focus on Ramsay’s story and let her be raped to become a hardened, strong woman). Those are the traits… 

I’m talking about, they’re not necessarily feminine, they’re Sansa’s and they’ve been downplayed. Now that (many, not all) show!fans are seeing the “stronger” Sansa, how does she act? Emotionless and vengeful. Does she have the right to act this way? Yes, but I don’t think that’s who Sansa is, and I’m seeing a pattern. Dany has been the main Strong Female Character from the beginning. Do we see her laugh, cry or have a crush on Daario like in the books? No, she has to be emotionless and…     

and vengeful. Arya cried trying to go after Cat and Robb, do we see that? Do we see her starved to the point of eating worms or finding dead corpses everywhere? No, because she’s also a Strong Female Character, she’s not supposed to be affected even though she’s in a war zone. And, while Cersei tells Sansa in GoT that her weapon is what’s between her legs, does she use it? Is she as angry as her book counterpart? No, she’s emotionless and vengeful, because she’s also a Strong Female Character…

Cat is not politically astute in GoT (she’d have wanted Sansa to marry Joffrey) because well, that’s a man’s aspect, huh? And she’s allowed to be a mother, but she’s not considered a Strong Female Character by a lot of show!only fans. GoT doesn’t let those female characters be who they are in the name of what they think is a Strong Female Characters. Still, the point I tried to make in my original ask was that femininity is not valued by the NARRATIVE. I’ve already talked about why I think so…       

… and I used other female characters to make sure I’m not implying they’re “lesser” than Sansa. I didnt try to argue Arya didnt suffer, but I dont think GoT showed her suffering properly. Remember the coin killing? In the books, Arya did it to survive. In GoT, she did it for vengeance. Emotionless and vengeful. Arya, Brienne or Yara don’t suffer for not fitting in. Also, I doubt Sansa would be refused by the Northeners (not in that way, at least). A lot of their men were killed…

… killed in the Red Wedding. Not revolting and being fine with Ramsay is being fine with their murders (and that’s not even counting kingslaying). Besides, the books show how Sansa is charismatic, something that’s not in the books either. I bet she’d convince them without having to be a political mastermind, as you I said. I’m not trying to argue she’s perfect, but her qualities are overlooked by GoT. If other fans of hers defend her by using other arguments, I don’t know.

 Just wanted to make my ideas clear. I think we’re criticizing different aspects of a complex situation, so whatevs.

I definitely think we are criticizing different aspects. The post that prompted you to start sending me these asks was a post disagreeing with an article saying that Sansa is not valued for her traditional femininity in WESTEROS. You started making this about how the narrative doesn’t value traditional femininity, and I still don’t agree with you. It isn’t traditional femininity that is devalued. It is women. Women are devalued. The point of my post was that Sansa, and women who conform to patriarchal values, are not the ones who suffer the most under patriarchy.

The idea that Sansa is stupid perfectly supports traditional ideas about femininity. Making cat less political and ambitious and reducing her to a mother role where she is chastised for not knowing her place is valuing patriarchal ideas of femininity.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with Arya reclaiming something that was used against her by patriarchy and making it her own. This is not an attack on femininity, this is Arya reclaiming femininity and defining it in her own terms, not in patriarchal terms. It is an awesome, feminist moment that comes straight from the books. Four for GRRM on that one.

Joffrey treats Sansa like she’s stupid (and Arya) and we are not supposed to agree with him. We are supposed to see Joffrey as unambiguously terrible.

As for Sandor and Dontos and Ramsay, I agree, but you said it yourself. These aren’t specific gendered traits, they are Sansa’s. And a lot of other female characters are mistreated on the show, whether they conform to patriarchal femininity or not. Because another key value of patriarchal femininity is that women are treated like lesser human beings no matter what traits they posses. The show values patriarchal femininity by constantly treating its women badly.

And as I said before, vengeful ice queen Sansa is another patriarchal stereotype, because they’ve sexualized her in the process. They haven’t made her “masculine”.

Sansa’s qualities are overlooked by GOT, yes, but so are other female characters, and it doesn’t have to do with how well they adhere to patriarchal norms. The show writers and the actors also say things about how Arya is emotionless and consumed by revenge and we shouldn’t be rooting for her. They reduce her to having no emotions and then slam her for having no emotions, because women who don’t show emotions do not get special privileges.

I still think that book Sansa would be dismissed in a similar way, as she is in the books by Stannis, as being not a Stark. This has nothing to do with the show devaluing Sansa or not portraying her positive qualities. It isn’t about Sansa’s lack of ability to convince them to follow her, it’s about the fact that she is a woman who has been “soiled”. It’s about societal misogyny. In the book, the Northerners don’t rally around Jeyne Poole pretending to be Arya, either. Some of them try and save her, but not because they value her, but because they value protecting the innocence of “Ned’s precious little girl”. I think if Jeyne went to the Northern lords pretending to be Arya and tried to convince them to make a political move, the same thing would happen.

Edit: Part of the problem here is that there are so many definitions of “femininity” and people use it in a way that is exclusionary in order to say that certain women need more support than others. That’s not true. There are so many different ways to be a woman and no “type of femininity” suffers the most.