#The Antithesis of Nobility

[yandereunsolved]

🐉 Yandere Aemond Targaryen w/ platonic yandere Alicent Hightower (part 2—requested) 🐉

↝ (part 1) ᝰ.ᐟ

You had left to do your daily duties after he pulled you aside and confessed his true intentions. You seemed so frightened of him in that moment. You simply asked to be excused and continue your work. Aemond would say it broke his heart, but it did not. It only strengthened his will and resolve to make you his. 

He would have to face his mother and ensure your hand in marriage to him. Aemond once said that he would have gladly married Halaena; only now does he see the foolishness in those words. Hopefully, his mother will see the foolishness as well. His heart yearns for no other, and he will slay as many as needed if denied you.

His hand nearly slipped from the knob of her chambers. His heart had nearly halted to a stop. He cannot say he has ever felt a fear quite like this, not even when he was disfigured. His hand absent-mindedly touched his eye patch. A lovelorn grimace appeared on his pale face. He opened the door with another new sense of vigor. 

His single step within his mother's chambers commanded great respect, like that of the dragons the Targaryens pridefully ride. The maids looked up in panic at his intrusion. They were fixing the queen's auburn strands and her emerald gown. Even at the cost of a possible scolding or death at the hands of the queen, they quickly left her chambers without so much of an indication of Queen Alicent allowing them.

"Mother," the words hung on his tongue loosely, his expression blank but betraying a hint of anxiety. "I have an urgent matter I wish to speak to you about."

"Yes." Alicent answered quickly, with a wistful warmth evident in her tone.

"Yes?"

"The maid," jealously and vitriolic animosity clear in her curt wording.

The queen stood up and glared at her son. Her steps were quick, and her single action fierce. It took him a moment to register the stinging ache on the edge of his face. His mother had just struck him, as she often did to Aegon. 

"Idiot boy. You want to marry that maid, correct? You have gone about it all the wrong way." 

His ability to speak left him, and with it was a pit of shame that only grew with the impact of the hit.

"Aemond, speak. Use your words if you want them so badly."

"I—how did you know?" He manages to croak out. He tries to maintain his crumbling visage of indifference.

"They are special. They may have been born among the common, but they are destined for nobility." Alicent hissed. She had to refrain from slapping him again because of such an asinine inquiry.

"That does not answer—"

She cut him off. "Hush, son. I am the queen. I am entitled to know everything that goes on within these walls. I know you have fancied the maid for a long time. You have gone about it all wrong. Still, I will give you their hand under one circumstance. You must woo them and treat them with the care they deserve. If I see you raise your voice or your hand to them, even in a moment of rage, I will make sure they are taken from you."

Aemond's head spins with her agreement, his thoughts scattered around his mind like the bones of Vhagar's victims. He had to clutch onto the side of the wall. His one violet eye narrowed at his mother. He somewhat feared the silly little woman, but he had to regain his ground. Through dawn and dusk, he is a man that has come of age. Asking for your hand through his mother was nothing more than a formality.

"They are mine, regardless. I do not intend them any harm; abuse would be the antithesis of my love for them."

Alicent seemed to stare into his soul and see the truth. Her shoulders relaxed, and she returned to her proper, queenly persona.

"Good boy. Listen to my words, and they shall be yours. I will not hesitate to order your brother to strike you down if you disobey."

"You have made that abundantly clear." He has to restrain himself from rolling his eye. His sapphire one nearly rolled in his socket.

"I will keep an eye on them, which means they will end up visiting my chambers once a week. I am sure I can get them more smitten with you." Alicent chuckles, but it is more like a court member's snarky laugh than that of a proud mother. "That confession of yours, just when the sun rose, was absolutely disastrous." 

"Mhm." His lips tightly pursed.

"Is that all you have to say?"

"We are on the same side. There is no need to fruitlessly argue. I am far more clever when it comes to my words anyway."

The queen was already tired from her earlier meetings. Her son had already agreed to her wishes. There was no more need to chastise his prideful words. Such is the way of men.

"You two will make a perfect coupling." She brings her hands up and cradles his face. Her left hand nurses the red mark that she left. The traces of her previous rancor are gone. "I love you, my son."

"As do I."

Aemond nursed his mental and physical wounds that night. He caressed his body and imagined it was your own hands that replaced his. Tears, both delighted and sorrowful, escaped him as the hour of the ghosts approached. His impatience and sexual frustration were at their peak. He needed you to belong to him. He needs you now. He can no longer appease his internal beast with mere glances at your tantalizing skin and fleeting touches.

Queen Alicent convinced you to marry Aemond that night. She invited you to a private dinner and spoke to you with saccharine-coated phrases. You fancied him; you were simply skittish due to the fact he revealed his obsessive tendencies. She assured you that his proclamations were hyperbolic; he was simply ecstatic and impulsive, losing the true meaning of his pure and healthy love.

She's much smarter than Aemond in that aspect. You will never know how deep her motherly love runs for you. You are like the child she always wished she had bore. You did not drink your nights away or fuck whores; you were not the runt of the litter fighting tooth and nail to be considered strong. You were grounded; you may lose yourself in your mind sometimes, but you still had a grasp on reality. 

You are perfection, quintessential to the both of them.

[helenofsparta2]

One thing I’ll never be able to forgive Game of Thrones, especially the later seasons, is the way they warped the conception of so many characters, and completely dumped down their complexity.

Jon Snow is not my favourite character because he is this perfect, always noble hero, who is a great, badass swordfighter.

He is my favourite character because, while he is more morally righteous than a lot of other characters, he can be bitter, and sarcastic and ruthless. Because he used to be arrogant and thought of himself as better than his brothers at the nights watch because of his upbringing but learned to overcome his prejudices again and again and again, first towards the men at the watch, then later towards the wildlings. Because he has always been jealous of Rob and secretly dreamed of being lord of Winterfell, but still refuses Stannis’ offer to get legitimized because of his oaths and because he defends Sansa’s and Arya’s claims. Because he has a strong inner conflict between his intense, often romanticized, desire to someday have a wife and children, he could name after Robb, and his position as a bastard and as Lord Commander of the Night’s watch. Because he tries so hard to be a son Ned Stark would be proud of and tries to be as honorable as he has always been taught, but would still drop his oaths to save his family any day.

Because he makes mistakes as Lord Commander, which cost him his life in the end, but is one of the only characters who sees the big picture and whose efforts will be vital in defeating the Others. Because he is hunted by the ghosts of teh dead. Because he is a Warg, and deeply involved in the magical side of a song of ice and fire, but most of the time acts as pragmatic as possible. Because he is able to win the respect of Stannis, of Aemon, of Lord Commander Mormont, of many brothers of the night’s watch, in spite of his parentage. Because in a world, where bastards are mostly seen as deceitful and dangerous, and their existence has often caused rebellions and wars, especially within the Targaryen dynasty, he loves his family more than anything and is seen as a symbol of safety and home by Arya, Sansa and Bran. Because while Catelyn Stark feared he would someday endanger her children’s birth rights, he is the one, that defends it the most.

Daenerys Targaryen is not one of my favourite characters because she is a Targaryen queen who has dragons and burns slavers, but because she is a young girl who has gone through immense suffering, but still tries desperately to be a good queen.

She makes mistakes, she can be hypocritical and ruthless, she lacks wisdom and experience. She is the mother of dragons, and has close to no idea how to raise and train them. She is disillusioned about Viserys and her father, and is the antithesis to the entire Targaryen dynasty, but still clings to every new piece of information about her brother Rhaegar. She desires to have a home and a family, and wants power not for the sake of power, but because she wants the ability to make the lives of other people better and protect those who can not protect themselves. She wants her kingdom to be beautiful, full of fat men, and pretty maids and laughing children. She is one of the most powerful characters in the books, the one who brought dragons back, and will break the system, but often does not know how to do that and sometimes does not know how to deal with the consequences of her actions. She listens to the smallfolk and nobility alike. She is barely 16 years old in a dance with dragons but acts as an older sister figure to Missandei and a mother figure to her people.

Arya Stark is not one of my favourite characters because she is a cold assassin, and “not like other girls”, but because Arya “underfoot” gets along with soldiers and smallfolk alike and finds friends wherever she goes.

Because she has the wildness of the north in her, and is tomboyish, but doesn’t look down on feminine women and girls. She uses her list as a coping mechanism after seeing her father die. She tries to become this strong assassin, but clings to the memories of her family, especially Jon, and her home. She is (probably) the second strongest Warg in the Stark family. She thirsts for revenge, and doesn’t hesitate to kill, but still has a strong sense of justice, and doesn’t lose her ability to socialize.

I could go on and on and on. I could talk about how Cersei is no cold, calculating player of the game, but a delusional, unpredictable, but very entertaining narcissist, or how Tyrion is becoming a revenge-obsessed, bitter villain. I could talk about Sansa, or the entirety of Dorne or about Stannis Baratheon, or so amny other characters.

George R. R. Martin has crafted so many complex, and fascinating characters in this rich wolrd and narrative, and their treatment in the later seasons of the Tv-show adaptation really make my soul bleed.

[vigilskeep]

im rly enjoying hearing about bea, it’s always so impressive to me how you can make so many very different characters and yet they all feel complex and very grounded in the setting! do you have a process for coming up with them or do they just sort of fall into place?

ahh thank you!!!

i don’t know that i have a specific process exactly... i love making characters who are very grounded in their setting & origin so i kind of work up from that. for me everything is about backstory and how that feeds into motivation and big decisions

that can go in either order, so like: minerva’s basic character concept starts with me seeing the circle and saying ‘what if i make a character who really tried to fit in here and be everything this place wanted?’, in combination with the later-introduced addition once i knew more about the setting, ‘what would it be like to have tevinter elven heritage but end up in a southern circle?’ i only go from there—the backstory—to figuring out what this person’s goals might be as the grey warden, so minerva’s ambition and obsession with optics stem from that, and her decision to spare loghain, her choice of romance, etc. all from what i think someone with that background might do

keir’s basic character concept starts with my interest in some red hawke/anders dialogue i’d heard and the concept, ‘it’d be fun to play a hawke whose love is so clear and ruthless that the question of whether or not what anders finally does is morally acceptable is almost irrelevant because he’d stand by him even if it wasn’t. what kind of person would do that?’ so with him i’m doing it in the reverse order, i’m starting with the motivation and the big later decision and then “reverse engineering” the backstory, what his relationship with his family must be like, how the hawkes’ childhood affected him. and in funny ways that changed what i started with; technically the original concept is still true, but when i made keir so protective and dedicated and fierce to justify those depths of devotion, suddenly he was really angry and heartbroken after the chantry explosion regardless, because anders was willing to throw away the life that mattered so much to him, and because anders expected him to kill him, which is the antithesis of his entire character and suggests anders might not know him very well at all. that’s the best thing, when they start coming to life in ways i didn’t expect

coming up with inquisitors i can stick to is harder for me because they don’t have what the warden and hawke have, which is a clear backstory environment and cast of characters i get to work with for those building blocks. so the reason i find trevelyans so much easier than other inquisitors to make is that i know a little about medieval history and how christian(-coded) nobility works, so it’s very very easy for me to like... figure out the “cast” i might be working with and play barbies with the setting and decide how some people might turn out. i think the eagle-eyed can notice that when i come up with a new inquisitor, it’s usually an idea for backstory and how that makes a character, even if a simple one, like: “what if i play a very privileged member of the carta who’s never fought like this before in her life?” “what if i play an older dalish character who has leadership experience?” “what if i play a pious young noblewoman who’s not yet had any experiences that break that mold?”

for me i very much believe setting is closely closely intertwined with character. it’s why i find it really difficult to make one in a setting with less hard rules, like bg3. i believe that people, based on whatever circumstances they grew up in, learn a set of logic and behaviours and frames of reference for how they think they can best deal with situations. that’s defined by your “personal” backstory, your family and your life and so on, but also by your place in the world. what were you taught about who you are and who other, different types of people are in comparison? where do you come from? what’s your religion? how much money are you accustomed to having? who in this world do you look up to? i don’t believe in making characters in isolation from all that, i’m not sure how it can be possible. it’s why i’m so passionate about dragon age, because it gives me a world that is so full and varied with options of where to come from, but also has so much room with blank spaces for you to write into and characters who can have very nuanced individual experiences that still belong in thedas. i really love it jgshsksk

i hope any of that made sense 😭

[witchqueenvisenya]

once again fixated on how one of the most prominent markers of house targaryen is survival beyond all odds, against all opponents. daenys bringing her family to dragonstone, an old valyrian outpost; daenerys and viserys fleeing dragonstone to return to essos, the remnants of the valyrian power; daenerys in perpetual flight from braavos to pentos to the dothraki sea, once again surviving when she was expected to fade away, being reborn into the pinnacle of house targaryen as well as an antithesis to all westerosi nobility in the way she incorporates those they turn away from society, daenerys establishing herself as a mark upon slaver's bay, onto the histories of essos, surviving and flourishing.

[learnastrowallura]

The Sun in astrology

I will resume here my findings mostly from Chris Brennan's video featuring Demetra George

The Sun: Deity, God, illumination, sight, flames, light, rays, life force, spark, life generator, justice, All seeing, divination, leadership, authority, kingship, nobility, reputation, status, publicity, identity, potential, purpose, centrality, public affairs, ideas, mind, visualization, creation, gold, fortune, wealth, privilege, spirit, honor, respect, virtous action, justice, Father figure(day) the heart, the right eye, eyesight, lifespan, vision, intentionality, creativity, masculine, hot and dry, the core, visible/inner planet

Sun in the natal chart:

The sign and house that our Sun is in can show us how and where (respectively) we tend to shine the most, where our potential lies; it represents our lifeforce, motivation as well as vitality.

Personal example: Sun in Sagittarius in 1st house (Placidus) or 2nd house (whole sign) and the idea of freedom is what helps me get out of bed every single day tbh and just doing my own thing and being comfortable so both houses resonate with me although I do resonate more with the second house since tbh I cannot fully relax and be free if I'm broke lmao but yeah you get the point

My sun trines my Saturn and I kind of see that as my love of learning and discovering new things (Sag) helping that kind of frustration going on with my Saturn being in that 9th house because I am actively fighting back and working hard I would say and I would credit that toward my passion and curiosity

My sun also squares my MC and my Uranus and I will probs only talk about my MC here so like I'm gonna be honest I have a mutable sun you know so at the end of the day I really am wishy washy not super disciplined so it does make sense that that is an area of challenge for me but yeah

I should also mention that my Sun is at 1° degree which is an Aries degree and that (along with my Aries moon as well) helps me be proactive, initiative and passionate so yeah

Dignity and debility:

Domicile: Leo (being special/standing out)

Detriment/Antithesis: Aquarius (egalitarian perspective, being within a group)

Exaltation: Aries (independance, instinct)

Fall/Depression: Libra (partnership, hesitation)

Planetary joy:

The sun has its joy in the 9th house. In other words it is most comfortable and productive/powerful being there because 9th house central/obvious themes are higher learning, spirituality and the Sun is all about clarity, self discovery and potential as well so I think it is an awesome placement to have and I will make a post about the planetary joys so I can speak of this in more detail but yeah

Sect:

If the Sun is above the horizon, the individual's chart would be a day chart which mean that the native will have Jupiter as a benefic and Mars as a malefic

If it is below the horizon, we would be dealing with a night chart and Venus would be the benefic with Saturn being the malefic planet

Gender:

The Sun is masculine so it would feel more comfortable being in masculine signs (Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius, Aquarius/fire and air signs) in general expressing itself in its masculine energy (active, fast acting, welcoming change). In the case of the Sun I'd look at the Quadrant as well (I have made a post about the Gender of Planets as well)

Father figure:

Aspects between the Sun and other planets especially inner planets, as well as the house it is in (angular, succedent or cadent) can tell us a lot about one's relationship with the father/father figure(s), father's situation etc (aspects with outer planets are important too with the Sun but especially if they (Neptune, Uranus, Pluto) are in an angular house (their effect would be more notable in this case)

I will add more information as I go but I wanted to post it rn so there u go lol and make sure to check this post again in a day or two for its full version x

Thank you for reading <3

Masterlist

Paid readings available

[communist-manifesto-daily]

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Part 16

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

But, side by side with the antagonisms of the feudal nobility and the burghers, who claimed to represent all the rest of society, was the general antagonism of exploiters and exploited, of rich idlers and poor workers. It was this very circumstance that made it possible for the representatives of the bourgeoisie to put themselves forward as representing not one special class, but the whole of suffering humanity. Still further. From its origin the bourgeoisie was saddled with its antithesis: capitalists cannot exist without wage-workers, and, in the same proportion as the mediaeval burgher of the guild developed into the modern bourgeois, the guild journeyman and the day-laborer, outside the guilds, developed into the proletarian. And although, upon the whole, the bourgeoisie, in their struggle with the nobility, could claim to represent at the same time the interests of the different working-classes of that period, yet in every great bourgeois movement there were independent outbursts of that class which was the forerunner, more or less developed, of the modern proletariat. For example, at the time of the German Reformation and the Peasants’ War, the Anabaptists and in the great French Revolution, Babeuf.

These were theoretical enunciations, corresponding with these revolutionary uprisings of a class not yet developed; in the 16th and 17th centuries, Utopian pictures of ideal social conditions; in the 18th century, actual communistic theories (Morelly and Mably)[2]. The demand for equality was no longer limited to political rights; it was extended also to the social conditions of individuals. It was not simply class privileges that were to be abolished, but class distinctions themselves. A Communism, ascetic, denouncing all the pleasures of life, Spartan, was the first form of the new teaching. Then came the three great Utopians: Saint-Simon, to whom the middle-class movement, side by side with the proletarian, still had a certain significance; Fourier; and Owen, who in the country where capitalist production was most developed, and under the influence of the antagonisms begotten of this, worked out his proposals for the removal of class distinction systematically and in direct relation to French materialism.

One thing is common to all three. Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once. Like them, they wish to bring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, as they see it, is as far as Heaven from Earth, from that of the French philosophers.

For, to our three social reformers, the bourgeois world, based upon the principles of these philosophers, is quite as irrational and unjust, and, therefore, finds its way to the dust-hole quite as readily as feudalism and all the earlier stages of society. If pure reason and justice have not, hitherto, ruled the world, this has been the case only because men have not rightly understood them. What was wanted was the individual man of genius, who has now arisen and who understands the truth. That he has now arisen, that the truth has now been clearly understood, is not an inevitable event, following of necessity in the chains of historical development, but a mere happy accident. He might just as well have been born 500 years earlier, and might then have spared humanity 500 years of error, strife, and suffering.

We saw how the French philosophers of the 18th century, the forerunners of the Revolution, appealed to reason as the sole judge of all that is. A rational government, rational society, were to be founded; everything that ran counter to eternal reason was to be remorselessly done away with. We saw also that this eternal reason was in reality nothing but the idealized understanding of the 18th century citizen, just then evolving into the bourgeois. The French Revolution had realized this rational society and government.

[2] Engels refers here to the works of the utopian Socialists Thomas More (16th century) and Tommaso Campanella (17th century). See Code de la nature, Morelly, Paris 1841 and De la législation, ou principe des lois (note from OP: no English translation available thus far), Mably, Amsterdam 1776.

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

[dandelionjack]

this is the most upsetting scene in series 10 so far and that's because, whatever's going on with him (brainwashed? cloned? simulated? playing the long game?), it could be in character. the sheer despair and betrayal in bill's eyes. this is the man who she travelled with, the man she gave up the planet for, the man who she looks up to; who teaches her to always question authority and trust the truth – here he is before her all mr. utilitarian, praising the monks for rewriting history itself to establish "peace and order". and she wonders to herself for a brief moment: is that in his dna, his biodata? is there a recessive gene in all gallifreyan nobility to seek stability and power and prosperity in stagnation, to abort progress and freeze the development of a species at a single point in time? even the runaway? he was the living antithesis of all that, he told her so himself one evening in the TARDIS. what happened to her professor? she gave him sight and he chose to blind himself again

[halogenwarrior]

I was really fascinated by how Mo Yan’s Life and Death are Wearing Me Out takes the Buddhist concept of stubborn attachment to things keeping one in a cycle of suffering, by actually using a plot device of Buddhist afterlives and reincarnation, and does something of a (in TvTropes style-terms) deconstruction and then reconstruction of the concept, first showing how stubbornness can be virtue and even a heroic or redeeming quality in a world where it is easier to accept cruel changes for one’s own greed and benefit, and adaptability can be cowardice, but showing in the end how it cannot be the ultimate solution and the Buddhist view has wisdom after all.

The beginning of this book plays on the typical trope of a wealthy, grouchy, unlikeable type of person reincarnating into an animal (in this case, multiple animals in a row) as a punishment and being forced to learn humility. Except while Ximen Nao is certainly proud, judgmental and spiteful of his enemies and fits into the archetype in a lot of ways, his reasoning for continuing to declare his innocence even under torture by lord Yama is far more sympathetic than is typical for that archetype.. It is a protest of the inexplicable, monstrous injustices of earth being seemingly repeated in the afterlife, by beings of supposed justice. However likable or not he seems as a person, his point that he did his best to not take advantage of his prosperity to harm others and even went out of his way to help the less fortunate, yet is still executed on trumped-up charges and thrown in the box of other more tyrannical people in his position for being a landlord, is a strong one. Yama can claim to be detached from the earth’s justice, but the very act of trying to teach people to eradicate stubbornness and accept change without attachment would seem to encourage those unfortunate enough to be victims of the earth’s justice systems to accept being trod upon and groundlessly declared guilty; in effect, such a system appears to just be a patsy for whatever the earthly systems of the time are.

So throughout his first two animal lifetimes, Ximen Nao starts by refusing the drink that will make him forget his struggles, so he can stubbornly maintain his human memories and resentments, and struggles between his human mind bitterness about being forced to be an undignified animal and the animal mind and qualities he takes on, which are more happy and accepting of the life he leads. And he finds a partner in his resistance to the changing times, Lan Lian, who he serves loyally both as a donkey and as an ox. Lan Lian fights hard to be the only independent farmer in China, despite opposition, and this is where the antithesis of the Buddhist idea, the nobility of stubbornness, becomes clear. If Ximen Nao bewailed his execution and his loss of wealth and status that came with reincarnation, but then easily adapted to doing whatever he could to have as much pleasure and wealth (metaphorically, if we are talking about him as an animal) as he could in a new life in China’s new system, then it would only be his personal, self-serving loss that he complained about and there would be no nobility in it. But by stubbornly taking a stand, even enduring horrible torture to do so, instead of taking the first opportunity to rebuild his own happiness, it shows his objection is based on a greater principle, and this lends at least the appearance of virtue to his actions. And this thread climaxes at the end of Ximen Nao’s second life as an ox, where his loyalty to Lan Lian and refusal to work for the commune to the point of a horrific death makes him be seen by the people of his village as a sort of Buddhist folk hero. The paradigm the book started out with, of reincarnation to learn to adapt and not be attached, is inverted, and stubbornness is seen as the Buddhist ideal.

This theme is seen not just in Ximen Nao and Lan Lian, but in other characters who similarly stick to their ideals even at the cost of personal loss. Hong Taiyue, in being a true believer in communism not just when it gives him power and allows him to lord over and punish others but when he sees the world giving lipservice to his ideas while following capitalism and forgetting what they once believed in, is possessed of a certain virtue that Jinlong, who equally uses communism as an excuse for cruelty but takes the “easy route” of betraying his father to rise in the ranks and adapts with the time to capitalism when this allows him to remain wealthy and politically powerful, does not. With regards to Lan Jiefang, we have the author inserting himself into the book as the perpetual gadfly Mo Yan explicitly stating the paradox of stubbornness – abandoning his family for an affair with a much younger woman is undoubtably cruel, but in being completely stubborn about it and willing to sacrifice everything he has – a home, prestige, the love of his family – for it, he also proves to be not just a common person “trading up” for a younger, prettier woman for personal gain, and by showing he values a principle more than personal gain he becomes, in the fictional Mo Yan’s semi-ironic view, a hero.

Another thing I think is interesting in the narrative framing’s handling of stubborn characters is that it never resorts to telegraphing a stubborn character’s righteousness by giving them an air of enhanced dignity even when the world judges them, with those who threaten them getting a “pie in the face” by the narrative even as they maintain their worldly power. No, to be stubborn is to invite the ridicule of not just earthly powers but of a universe that demands adaptability, regardless of what your cause is. Even if, like Lan Lian, in the future your endurance will survive and prove those who tormented you wrong, in the long time before that your suffering will not be noble and tragic but pathetic and darkly comical, like in the scene where he gets red paint in his eyes. Hong Taiyue, Lan Jiefang, Ximen Nao in his dealings with the afterlife, all get to fall flat on their faces for their attempts to resist. (Even the author inserting himself into the story not only gets humiliated constantly by the narrative, but gets just about the worst humiliation of everyone). 

In the second half of the book, Lan Lian and Ximen Nao are set up as mirrors of each other, two beings who started in the same place with the same goals but must take different paths. Because Ximen Ox sacrifices his life in a display of unyielding courage, and is praised as a Buddhist model for it, and then… life still goes on. Due to the cycle of reincarnation there is no climactic apotheosis of nobility that ends everything, and it is impossible to remain in his stubbornness forever. Lan Lian goes on with his determination, Ximen Nao must adapt to his new life as a pig. And in the short term, this is a form of corruption; when Pig Sixteen can no longer bear to starve himself in protest and allows himself to just live and enjoy life as is natural for a pig, abandoning his human judgment of it being humiliating, he grows crude and greedy. He does not just eat, he pushes aside his siblings and leaves them to starve, and mutilates his mother by the fervor of his suckling. He takes everything from Diao Xiaosan and leads to the rival pig’s downfall due to his desire for a harem. In eating and fattening up, he is considered a revolutionary pig, by being an emblem of the success of farming he is a “cannon launched into the reactionaries”, even as ironically his harem is compared by the narrative to that of an emperor. This makes it clear that whoever is in power, the ideal person (or pig) in their society is someone who is greedy for more and, should their victory be thwarted, adapts to the new system and seeks physical success and pleasure within it rather than stubbornly resenting what they have lost and taking a principled stand. 

But in the last sections of the book, it becomes clear that Ximen Nao’s spiritual fulfillment does not depend on remembering his stubborn values again at all. Without reverting to that state, in fact while becoming even more adaptable and fully embracing his life as a pig, he feels regret for his treatment of Diao Xiaosan and grows to love and respect him, and he ultimately dies to save children, even those he had no connection to in his human life, feeling nothing but warmth and happiness about how his life ended. And this is where the ultimate vision of the book becomes clear. For while it is true that if one is of the temperament to value storing up physical goods most in life, reacting to losing those goods unjustly by fighting for the principle that it was unjust is more noble and heroic than taking the cowardly route of abandoning principle to continue to flourish, why should one assume that this temperament is the best way to live life in the first place? 

The alternative to both stubbornness and greed that the book proposes can be described as something like melancholy. It’s a perspective that first comes to Ximen Nao during their time of starvation in the winter as a pig, one he admits is unfamiliar to him until that moment because he is “not a melancholy pig” – a perspective where one’s appreciation of life is more complex than just feeling gratified when you get money or food or a harem and feeling bitter and resentful when you do not, where even sadness and loss has its value. And it’s one that reaches its climax during the scene near the end where, as a dog, he sits by the graves of all of his previous lives and feels a bittersweet sadness, mixed with love and acceptance, over his old memories, showing how much he has changed. And it is shortly after that where Yama, acknowledging he has let go of his hate, allows him to once again be reborn as a human. In the end, the vision of stubbornness in this book is that of a “local maximum” so to speak, a mode of existence that is the best, most heroic representation of a blunt mindset without melancholy, but one that must eventually be escaped for true enlightenment, because that mindset as a whole must be escaped. The only way out is through, then, through greed and cruelty and into something better.

[bardic-perdita]

In your hands

Genre: Comfort, but also a tinge of angst

Pairing: Astarion X Named male Tav (Breoch)

Word Count: 1500

Warnings: Explores the edges of Astarion's trauma, especially around touch

A/N: a short drabble about the shift in Astarion and Breoch's relationship at the start of Act 3. It's much more of an Astarion introspection than anything with plot.

Astarion could smell the Elfsong Tavern before he could see it. The malodorous musk of stale ale and sweat shrouded the streets around the tavern in a thick miasma. It was uncanny seeing the establishment in daylight after only seeing it under the veil of night. Its gaudy livery glowed in muted oranges and reds; the sun’s glare exposed the innumerable cracks in the paintwork and years of scrawled graffiti that adorned its walls. The clientele seemed different during the day too, much more respectable than the rabble of drunkards, blackguards and fools that scurried to the bar after sunset.

The party seated themselves at the heart of the room, but the table was a chair short. Once Breoch had realised the error, he stood and motioned for Astarion to take his seat. Acting the gentleman was as natural to him as his sorcery; the culmination of his lessons were etched into his very bones. Astarion shook his head. After a short pause, the drow sat down again, unwittingly granting the vampire the opportunity to strike.

Astarion plopped down onto Breoch’s lap with an exaggerated foppish flair. The gesture earned him an exasperated murmur from his companions, and a few curious stares from the other patrons, but it was worth it for the wry chuckle that rumbled in Breoch’s chest. His thighs were plumper than he’d expected and were surprisingly comfortable to sit on. Yet even through the layers of clothes and armour, he could feel the taut muscles and slender frame of the sorcerer under him. It was a body that he’d seen and felt many times before, however feeling him in this new context made the differences in their physique all the more apparent. There was a certain security to playing the fop in a place like this. Even if he was recognised by some acquaintance of a former conquest, he doubted anyone would dare approach their table. Not many would have the nerve to confront the exiled son of the Archduke; a burly tiefling whose rage and heart pulsated with the ferocity of hellfire; two of Baldur’s Gate’s heroes of legend; a (former) Sharran; a battle-scarred githyanki warrior, and, well…Gale. All of his companions would be formidable in their own right, even Gale (though he’d loathe to admit it). Not to mention that there was a special sort of power that derived from lounging in the lap of a handsome noble evidently dripping with gold. He held one of Breoch’s hands and gazed at the array of jewels and silvers crowning his fingers as they glittered in the lamplight.

Their hands were pure antithesis. Each other’s features were contrasted and refined in the other’s. One hand was pale as moonlight, calloused by centuries of cruelty and wielding blades, yet had been painted to appear flawless in its manicured nails: a guise of nobility to conceal a tormented existence in the kennels. In the absence of a reflection, Astarion had placed a lot of value in the appearance of his hands. There were times when he felt that his face was nothing but a great void: a shapeshifting mist that altered to suit his victim’s tastes; the slew of compliments about his appearance seemingly changing with each seduction. Sometimes he was beautiful and fair, other times roguish and sharp-smiled and, on rare occasions, a disgusting pockmarked whore. But his hands were real and solid. He could still see those. Those never changed.

The other’s hand was a shimmering lilac and as delicate as petals. The soft skin across his palms was more accustomed to stroking silks than pitching canvas tents on the road. His cuticles had been battered by the elements until they blistered and bled. It was not a hand used to the hardships of adventuring after centuries of decadence. Astarion stroked the unblemished skin along Breoch’s knuckles down to his wrist. He hardly remembered the days when he too had the luxury to be soft; when he armed himself with quills and parchment, rather than daggers and fangs. Even if he didn’t know that the drow was nobility, a single touch of his hand would have betrayed his heritage.

For a rare moment of distraction, he allowed his attention to drift to the sorcerer’s fingertips. They were ice-cold, but that was hardly unusual for him. His nails had splintered, some half-snapped and exposed the deep purple nail bed underneath. Strands of skin peeled down his cuticles, thorn-like and brittle, and bled where they had snagged and ripped off. Faint scars radiated from the tips of his fingers. A lattice of near-invisible lightning bolts were the only trace of his overuse of cantrips, as though the magic coursing through his veins was scarcely contained by the lacework of veins underneath, and had attempted to burst through his skin unbidden. Compared to the existential threats they had faced to get here, fretting over the state of somebody else’s hands seemed incredibly foolish. It was stranger still to think that the future of Faerȗn now rested in hands like these. Everybody’s lives depended on hands that were too fragile to withstand sunshine and dirt.

Astarion had been so engrossed in his meditations that he didn’t notice how in spite of his curious exploration of Breoch’s hands, Breoch had made no attempt to hold him. His free hand rested on the arm of his chair. His fingers remained still and malleable, never once moving to clasp hold of Astarion’s own. It would have been so easy for him to grip Astarion’s waist, pressing into his back to breathe on his nape, and clamp onto his hand to stop his fidgeting. It’s what any other man would have done.

But Breoch didn’t.

Was he too afraid to touch him? Or was this pity? Did he truly think he was so pathetic and helpless that he couldn’t handle something as simple as this? It was Astarion’s choice to sit here, and Breoch had never shied from returning flagrant displays of flirtation in kind before. These games of faux romance were as integral to their relationship as the confessions of past misadventures and victories, half-whispered between each other beneath the moon, as they huddled beside the campfire. A roiling contempt bubbled to his cheeks.

Why won’t he touch him?

The question caught him off-guard. To feel frustrated by the lack of touch, to be angry when his acts of physical affection aren’t reciprocated must imply that he wants to be touched by him. Only a few weeks ago, Astarion might have sacrificed his soul to a devil if it meant that all who touched him would burst into flame. Some small part of him almost envied Karlach: he had wished to be untouchable. And yet, this was different. He felt unsettled not by the abundance of physical contact, but the lack of it.

He ventured a glance over his shoulder to peer at Breoch’s face. He was politely listening to Gale’s ever-riveting cascade of conversation, and smiled when he caught the elf looking at him. The flush of warmth in Astarion’s cheeks remained, but it was not fuelled by impetuous irritability any longer. There was a gentle patience in Breoch’s gaze; a vulnerable longing that he made no attempt to disguise, even though such a look would have spelt his demise in his former life in Menzoberranzan. He didn't want to push too far by seeking affection for himself, to pull at the thread connecting them and risk snapping it, instead he allowed Astarion to take the lead.

Astarion’s hands moved before his mind caught up as he held both of Breoch’s hands to wrap them around his waist. He hugged them close.

“I’ll fall off if you’re not careful, darling,” Astarion quipped, but they both knew he was lying. Breoch tentatively rested his head against him, although adjusted his position when he felt Astarion shiver when his breath tickled his ear. The two of them shuffled and eventually eased into the embrace.

Astarion’s attention now settled into relaxed awareness. The various snippets of conversation, the clinking of tankards, and chair legs scraping across hardwood floors flowed across his senses as effortlessly as water. Given his history with seducing countless victims within these walls, he had a lot to be wary of. That was before factoring in the close proximity to Cazador’s front door, his six siblings prowling the streets in search of him, and the encroaching elder-brain led army that was about to descend onto the city. To say that he was well and truly fucked would be quite the understatement. This was the most dangerous city to be in right now, especially for Astarion, and a stake in the heart or fangs at his throat could find him at any moment. And yet, nestled in the arms of his not-quite lover, surrounded by the convivial hubbub of his fellow adventurers, he felt the safest he had ever felt in centuries.

[thisisjustmefangirling]

Merlin rewatch 2x08 : "The sins of the father"

Part 1 :

Alright ! While Ao3 is down for maintenance, I'm going to watch "Merlin".

I like that we're going to see why the Purge happened, right after an episode like "The witchfinder", in which we saw how terrible witch hunting had been for decades.

It took me several times going back to this scene to notice that this is Sir Caradoc being knighted ? Karadoc ? Coucouuuu.

Wow, Uther praising his son ! "You'll find know one who embodies this values better than my son". (Nobility, honor, respect).

All the new knights circle in front of the king to protect him but Arthur steps forward. No one protects him but Merlin, and he doesn't even know it.

Morgana's interest in Morgause... She probably senses she's familiar.

Arthur is holding himself to the same standards as his fellow knights and I love him for it. No hypocrisy here.

He also states twice he refuses to be taken for a coward.

I love that Merlin points out the obvious : Arthur is gallant, he could hesitate to kill her because she's a woman, and she could use that to her advantage.

Ah, Morgause and her eyeliner...

"Who's to say Arthur's life won't rest in my hands ?" Merlin is like "oh fuuuuck".

Merlin comforting Arthur before the duel, stating he gave Morgause a chance to withdraw and whatever happens will be her doing <3

Lemme say I love that we saw him tinkering with Arthur's armor to fix it and later that we saw him finishing to put it on Arthur. In fanfic, it's such an important plot point. Even when Merlin can be rid of his other tasks, he'll never let anyone else take care of Arthur's armor, in case they mess with it. This armor is Arthur's life, and Merlin should have reinforced it with magic ages ago already.

Morgause's win is quite the accomplishment, as Arthur is apparently one of the best fighters in all of Albion...

That tear in Arthur's eye when he realises she could kill him...

"I have never been so humiliated in my life... I was defeated... by a girl." Arthur you really need to be less sexist.

Morgana you are gorgeous in that silver dress.

Morgause is not looking very straight in that shirt...

"You've shown yourself to be a man of honor."

And she hits where it hurts. Ygraine is Arthur's Achille heel...

Uther is showing himself to be the antithesis to Arthur. He was the one who knighted those new knights at the beginning to the episode, asking them to keep their word and behave with honor, but now he's asking his son to break his word and not go to Morgause. He knows more than he lets on and he's a liar.

Merlin enjoying Arthur's humiliation is pretty funny.

We need to stop with the fatphobic jokes. I never thought they were funny before and I still don't think they're funny now.

"THERE IS NO MORE ROPE" lol Arthur in horse dung !

"I swear this horse is even dumber than you Merlin" how about you stop calling your only friend stupid, dumb, etc ?

Gaius espèce de grosse balance.

I KNEW there would be an arrow flying right in front of them !

The spear is catching fire ? MERLIN ! How obvious is that !? And how oblivious is poor Arthur ?

Aww Arthur is opening up to Merlin and telling him Morgause knew his mother !

Help Morgana is too beautiful here and I'm too gay for this.

Those scenes by the fire in the middle of the forest are always some of the best for Merthur. They're far away from court, Uther, etc. It's just them, their personalities, and they open up and confide in each other. I think it's the first time Arthur talks about his mother and the first time Merlin mentions his father.

Part 2 coming soon.

[queen-scribbles]

For Tragen! 🎈 (balloon) - What does your character do at parties? Are they a wallflower or a party animal? Do they go with friends or alone? ❗️(exclamation point) - What was the scariest moment of your character’s life? Does it still affect them? 🍄 (mushroom) - Does your character like being in nature or do they prefer the indoors? Do they have any outdoor hobbies like camping or fishing? If they prefer the indoors, why?

🎈 (balloon) - What does your character do at parties? Are they a wallflower or a party animal? Do they go with friends or alone?

Depends on the party, to an extent. If he knows a lot of the people and/or it's a "fostering goodwill" situation, he's more likely to mingle. If it's full of stranger(especially imperial strangers) and/or he's scoping things out for the Alliance he'll be more of a wallflower. Prefers to have someone he knows and trusts there as backup(so, Vette, Jaesa, Theron, Jorgan etc) He's nominally an ambivert; more okay in social situations than a lot of my kids, but his preference is 1-3 close friends watching a holovid, or alone reading a book. It would take a lot to talk him into a clubbing-type party, bc that is so not his scene.

❗️(exclamation point) - What was the scariest moment of your character’s life? Does it still affect them?

Proposing to Jaesa. Jk, he was 99.999999999% sure he knew her answer. xD I'd say probably those first couple days after the Sith took him. He was thirteen, barely got to say goodbye to his father and sister, DIDN'T get to say goodbye to his mother :) bc she was away, got dragged off to Ziost where Sith arrogance and cruelty are on full display and it was made abundantly clear what would be expected of him if he wanted to survive more than five minutes. Completely ripped away from his support system, surrounded by people who would kill him soon as look at him(including kids his own age OR YOUNGER), with instructors trying to mold him into a belief system the antithesis of every value he'd been raised with--yeah, he was terrified. His decision there to conceal his true nature/morals and survive long enough to GET OUT(which was the original plan, before he caught first Tremel's eye then Baras') is one that dictates practically the entire rest of his life to this point, so that's a pretty lasting effect, yes.

🍄 (mushroom) - Does your character like being in nature or do they prefer the indoors? Do they have any outdoor hobbies like camping or fishing? If they prefer the indoors, why?

He definitely prefers indoors, lol. Camping isn't awful or anything, he'll survive having to do it and probably even have fun(especially if it's a clear night so he can see the stars), but an outdoorsman he's not. Far as why, I think it's just a case of how he was raised? His family is well-off, borderline nobility(or maybe actual nobility >.> can't remember what I said ohno), and he went from that to the Sith, so neither are conducive to camping trips or cultivating outdoor hobbies. He does love to sit outside on quiet clear nights to watch the stars.

Red Emoji Asks

[fantasyinvader]

I think...okay, you know how people love to compare Houses to Persona, usually 5? Think about it like this, Joker is under probation because their attempts to help a woman got them into legal trouble leading to others ostracizing and looking down on him. While there is Dimitri and him being falsely accused of murdering his uncle in Houses, look at Rhea.

Edelgard accuses her of being the source of Fodlan's problems, especially the corrupt nobility. Edelgard's source for this is her father telling her so, but she's seemingly ignoring the fact that according to Hubert she KNOWS her father was a puppet of those who killed her siblings. And in Hopes, she outright admits to ignoring how much influence the Slithers had over the Empire, The Slithers want Rhea dead so they blamed the experiments on her influence when in reality, and Thales says this to Edelgard herself, they did so in order to obtain their own salvation.

In Houses, Edelgard should fucking know that Rhea is innocent of what she's accused of. The evidence speaks to this, but Edelgard is so ensnared by what she believes she refuses to accept the truth. As such, she imprisions Rhea for 5 years in the routes where Byleth opposes her, all while still seeking conquest. And in Flower, Byleth ignores Edelgard's actions in White Clouds to side with and ultimately kill Rhea.

Claude, at least, realizes his initial assessment is wrong in Verdant Wind. The fact that Edelgard is tied to the concept of hadou would also mean that removing her from power is an act of justice, especially Dimitri considering he's supposed to represent it's antithesis oudou. Dimitri's suffering also is tied to injustice as he's seen the Duscur people blamed for the tragedy and be prosecuted as a result, with his own suffering aligning with the Buddhist idea of hell where people are tormented by their own powerlessness. Dimitri also calls her path out in the Japanese for the innocents who suffer because of her.

And I just want to point this out, the JAPANESE CONSTITUTION RENOUNCES WAR, instead aspires to international peace according to justice and order in Article 9. So, Japan already denounces war and Edelgard is going after innocent people with the intent on imposing her will upon the continent. You really think Japanese society is going to agree with her?

Instead, we're supposed to find that Rhea is, after all the red herrings, actually the good guy all along. Just like Joker.

[horizon-verizon]

I don’t like Rhaenyra. I don’t think she’s a good queen, and I think blaming Alicent, Aegon, or the “Green” party for her failures as a ruler excuses her for faults which are entirely her own.

As Rohanne Webber says in The Sworn Sword, “a woman must needs piss twice as hard, if she hopes to rule”. Rhaenyra had a difficult task ahead of her, to be accepted as Queen of the Seven Kingdoms after her father died. Yet she allowed herself to be attached to scandal with three different men, both before and after her marriage. Aegon IV was mocked in his time for his numerous affairs, and is now considered one of the worst kings of Westeros; Rhaenyra, as a woman, would never be able to maintain respect with her affairs. Too, few if any lords would happily follow a boy whose bastardy was common knowledge, especially knowing that trueborn male-line descendants of the king existed. Like her father, but even more impossibly, Rhaenyra expected the lords of Westeros to acknowledge her sons as true Targaryen heirs purely on the basis of her own will – to subjugate their power to her pleasure. She was, in effect, claiming more male privilege than an ordinary king, not only the right to take a paramour and have bastards (something no queen would ever be permitted, for fear of disrupting the succession), but the right to solemnize these bastards as her own royal heirs. Such a course of action would be dangerous for a king; for a queen regnant, it would be absolutely fatal.

Nor did Rhaenyra take the opportunity to give her future bannermen more than a legal reason to follow her. Besides her betrothal progress, we have no evidence of Rhaenyra traveling around the realm, the way Jaehaerys and Alysanne did, forging important personal connections. Why is it that Queen Rhaenys is still beloved as a Targaryen queen, and not remembered for the possible bastardy of her son Aenys ? Because Rhaenys took important steps to make sure she would be beloved, by crafting marriage alliances among the nobility; by patronizing singers and bards to praise the Targaryen monarchy; by becoming involved in charities for the smallfolk, by initiating reforms like banning the raiding of the Ironborn for women and limiting the number of blows a husband could strike to six, etc. Rhaenys was on personal terms with all the Lords of Westeros. Did Rhaenyra urged her father to pass laws benefitting women or the smallfolk ? What does Rhaenyra do to be like Rhaenys (or that other beloved Targaryen queen, Alysanne) ? Nothing.

Asker may be responding to a chain of posts that ended recently HERE.

Answer to Current Ask:

There is a difference between acknowledging that she had the in/ability to know who she could trust or not AND claiming that if she had just "proved" to the misogynist people around her that she would be a great ruler she would have survived and won. Option B makes Rhaenyra still have to conform to patriarchal expectations of leadership and womanhood when this society already makes womanhood the antithesis of leadership itself. They want a man to rule them and distrust female leadership. To pretend that this isn't a huge factor in how any woman, much less Rhaenyra, will decide how to accrue power and maneuver her way using others for that is to be shortsighted.

Whether or not a royal/noblewoman is cunning or carefree, too entitled, too impulsive, too reserved, or too hesitant, the fault of her being in a position where she has to work harder than a man to even be trusted with power is not hers. Meanwhile, why aren't the same pressures and conditions for her ruling made on the male candidates (and Alicent) around her?

If we compare her to Alicent, Alicent is a heavy-duty blood purist who never looked out for other women, even seized power from another woman entirely for herself and her house's patriarchal prestige and power. No matter who Rhaenyra was before King's Landing or after, Rhaenyra was "vulnerable" to this due to her gender's inequitable access to higher positions of power in Westeros. Rhaenyra was never a tyrant before King's Landing and the greens' usurpation.

A)

You: "Rhaenyra had a difficult task ahead of her, to be accepted as Queen of the Seven Kingdoms after her father died."

Aside from the fact that I never claimed Rhaenyra was an Alysanne or Rhaenys I regarding care towards common-born people (women or men), I think I can take this sentence of yours alone and guide you to this post.

(But if you're able: POST #1, POST #2, POST #3, POST #4, POST #5, POST #6, POST #7, POST #8 – esp Section B, C, & D too)

If we are resting on altruism for the definition of a good ruler, then there is no other current alternative at this point of the Dance. No one cared about the smallfolk. So why the pressed opinion towards Rhaenyra?!

B)

In my past posts, I not only attribute some of the blame/origins of Rhaenyra's troubles on the greens (rightly bc again Alicent formed a faction against her when she was 10), I ALSO:

said that Rhaenyra made critical errors and identified a few faults. I think your problem is that I refuse to ignore how she got there because of things that do exist. If I did that, I could easier claim that Rhaenyra's paranoia and distrust came from out of nowhere, therefore ignoring nuance and raising questions for the sake of shifting ALL blame onto her for not meeting already-colored standards.

mention Aegon not just to point out that he usurped her, but that bigger-picture-wise, Aegon's deviancy and us knowing that some people would want him as a ruler anyway because he is a boy shows us that Rhaenyra being a woman is not as secondary to why she falls as people would try to make it seem.

that Aegon is not held up to the same standards of having to be a better king/ruler than Viserys even though this character is worse than Rhaenyra's

You: "Nor did Rhaenyra take the opportunity to give her future bannermen more than a legal reason to follow her".

And why did she have to? That's the entire point! Nor did the text corroborate what you feel, since you seem to forget that her supporters continued to fight for her after her death and a section of Northerners explicitly stated that they "came to fight for the dragon queen", denoting loyalty to her. If they didn't feel they had any other reason to follow her, why are you trying to advocate for them?!

Anon, the reasons are that her father chose her--as is his feudalist, monarchist right, the same if he had chosen Aegon over Rhaenyra!--and those supporters of Rhaenyra made oaths to support her. Nothing is "illegal", the monarch's word is Law. Why do you think people want to be a King?!

You: "Rhaenyra expected the lords of Westeros to acknowledge her sons as true Targaryen heirs purely on the basis of her own will – to subjugate their power to her pleasure."

So did Jaehaerys...again, you think the Doctrine of Exceptionalism was accepted by the Faith or the Faith-adopted Westerosi people?! Anon...this is a feudalist monarchy! The monarch's word is Law! It's not a constitutional one where a monarch has to refer to anyone before making a decision! Why is Rhaenyra evil or tyrannical now that she's practicing the power that is already bestowed to a monarch?!

C)

1.

You: "Yet she allowed herself to be attached to scandal with three different men, both before and after her marriage. Aegon IV was mocked in his time for his numerous affairs, and is now considered one of the worst kings of Westeros; Rhaenyra, as a woman, would never be able to maintain respect with her affairs."

May I refer you to this list:

A Semi-Master Post of Links about Rhaenyra, the Status of her Kids, and Bastards in Westeros

On Blaming Rhaenyra Alone and Specifically, sans discussion of bastards, for what happened to her and Not about Choosing Harwin

The Post already linked in the post/reblog linked in #2 as “Counterpoint”

2.

Aegon IV is hated for treating his wife, Naerys --who acted very much like the ideal Andal woman and was very religious- and admired/loyal brother Aemon as if they were trash AND for legitimizing Daemon Blackfyre for no other reason but for spite against them both. Not his having affairs and mistresses and bastards. Aegon IV could have as many bastards as he liked, but Naerys couldn't even if she wanted to. I mean, go back and see how people characterized Daena Targaryen for having a bastard child/premarital-extramarital affair, saying she didn't deserve the throne because she was "wanton" and "unmanageable" (TWoIaF, "Viserys II"). Funny enough, so was Aegon IV, and though he was seen as unworthy, no one actually questioned his right to rule nor tried to pass him over to his brother or sister. Even though he was whoring and being unfaithful way before he became king (Megette, Daena herself, Cassella Vaith).

One thing about medieval, Tudor, & early mod societies in Europe (esp England) is that conforming behaviorally and visually to a "model" already set by religio-cultural principles was the expectation. More room was left for the man to stray than a woman. If a woman did have affairs or bastards, they were likelier to be kept secret, and she would more likely do so when the alternative is her husband putting her aside in various ways. And her reputation is more than likely ruined, characterized as her being "disobedient", "soiled", and "treacherous" bc she failed at being that Virgin/Mother Mary OR Faith Mother model woman and made her king a cuckold AND introduced possible rivals to already existing children OR placed doubt as to whose kids t=she already has with her husband. She has gone against the model of the dutiful, obedient woman-wife-to-man-husband ideal. She is reviled for not holding back her urges and "soiling" the lineage and succession. She "made" her husband look like he has no control. That doesn't happen the other way around, there isn't a true equivalent for when a woman is cheated on and her husband has bastards.

Rhaenyra would be more in trouble than any man and potentially lose her position if she even had one child that was officially known and recognized as not her husband's. Aegon and Aemond even at had 2 between them, yet no one uses this to say they should not rule or command others! You cannot equalize her status as a female heir vs Aegon IV having open affairs, mistresses, and bastards. That avenue is simply not as open to noblewomen as it is to noblemen.

So you severely underestimated the consequences of having bastards for a man versus a woman. Men can openly have many bastards, and even be mocked for their lack of self-control, but it ultimately is also put up as a consequence of their "natural" desires. Whereas with women, the ideal woman is chaste and nearly sexless. a model of the Mother/Mary from the Faith/Catholic religion who gives birth to legitimate children for the sake of the kingdom having a future ruler and continuing to have "peace". A woman was more held to the standard of becoming a model for others than a man.

D)

Back to Alysanne and Rhaenys, once again, Alysanne herself did not want her daughter Daenerys nor her granddaughter Rhaenys to be queen(s) because she thought they had good, altruistic, "feminist" characters and looked out for other women. She did so because she wanted a woman's claim to mean as much as a man's, full stop. (She pushed for Dany #1 when the girl was just a baby, I mean, c'mon!).

Plus, Alysanne tried to push for women to get into the Citadel and become maesters or suggest it, and she was totally ignored, and condescended to despite her Consort rank. Rhaenys I is thought the "sexier" and "better" sister, but also the "sluttier" one in maesters' histories. People (really men) didn't welcome to resist her rule of thumb and rule of seven laws. The difference between Alysanne and Rhaenys was that Rhaenys had her own right and ability to make and contradict laws as if she were a Queen Regnant while being a consort. She made laws in Aegon's name and in his absence, but both she and Visenya still had that ability and wouldn't have had the condescending ignoring of words Alysanne was treated to.

If having power for a man is not contingent on his moral character, then why is it justified for doing the opposite for a woman? Why the accommodation for a man, and not for a woman? The only answer is that men are preferred over woman and that it is about preserving such powers and privileges for men over women and keeping women legally, socially, etc. subordinate to men. It was not about personality, that isn't what drives misogynists to criticize women. It's about control. It's about questioning the claims and the rules people make for themselves.

You do not understand the point of the Dance.

*EDIT* (8/21/23):

THIS is a great post by @mononijikayu about medieval queens, female rulers, the history of how women in leadership positions were made and seen as threats to the very structure of social "order", and contextualizing Rhaenyra through Empress Matilda. I didn't even know about Matilda's husband being comparable to Rhaenyra's Daemon! PLZ READ!!!!

[garou-art]

Adore! I really wanted to push the antithesis of a tiefling bard (also his instrument of choice are bagpipes)

🌻

2020 vs 2024 glow-up & info under the cut:

quick facts: -middle aged, fun uncle vibes -opened his own tavern and gives out rooms in exchange for stories -a soft spot for children (of any race) -most of his wounds are childhood accidents from his negative luck -his parents are nobility and super-model tiefs, and as their only child he has a hard time with their dotting love -hums and whistles to himself while working

[mayowitch]

Feudal Resistance in the English Rising of 1381

The English Rising of 1381 was a widespread movement throughout England, particularly concentrated around London to the South-East, in response to a wide variety of tributary factors, but precipitated primarily by the implementation of the Poll Tax exacerbating the existing economic pressure on individuals such as peasants, workers, and craftspeople by the Statute of Labourers (1351). While the Rising developed in a variety of ways throughout England, in this essay I focus on the activity and ideology of rebels around London and East Anglia, as the majority of accessible literature concerns this area, which provides a good base for analysis. Rebels utilised extant political and religious tradition as a key resource in guiding their aims and methods as well as providing a strong foundation for organisation, connection, and knowledge gathering. However, the traditional and conservative nature of these foundations also undermined the rebels’ ability to succeed independently.

To demonstrate this I will begin by suggesting how the English Rising can be understood as an evolution of previous local protests and how repertoires adjusted. This is followed by how the concept of the “wicked advisors” and serfdom was used to legitimise revolt against the king’s government, and devotion to the king seemingly remained disastrously unquestioned. Finally, I explore the importance of formal language and contracts, religious celebrations, and pre-existing interpersonal relationships to the Rising.

Protestors in the English Rising developed their repertoire by expanding on methods that were previously limited to local targets and issues. Potentially in part due to the intrusion of national legislature and judicial processes into seigneurial and village life, once local issues now operated at a larger scale of magnitude, and protest methods remained proportional. Disputes over mundane issues such as rent and villeinage are continuous throughout England before and after the English Rising and are characterised by some, such as Patrick Lantschner, as a routine aspect of medieval English governance, wherein “revolts were not, in general at least, an antithesis, subversion or pathology of the political order”, but only “intensifications of existing processes of negotiation”.[1] [2] The Statute of Labourers (1351) removed much responsibility from employers to provide acceptable wages and conditions, as national law forbid negotiation.[3] This is not, however, to say that there was not still societal anger directed at the continued wealth of the privileged in England who profited from the abuse of English workers. Justices invariably came from the gentry, with vested interests aligning with that of lords of manors and there is certainly intersectionality between government officials and nobility.[4] The targets of rebel violence are highly suggestive of this shift in aims, as rebels were extremely discriminating in their actions.[5] While destruction and looting of property were by far the most prevalent transgressions, the destruction of seigneurial documents was rare, as were attacks on lords themselves.[6] Only five of the 62 violent incidents in the Cambridgeshire countryside were directed against feudal or manorial targets, which is in stark contrast with the 44 incidents directed at judicial and political targets.[7] This suggests that rebels generally prioritised exerting pressure on key governmental figures, and adapted their repertoire of violence to focus on the destruction of wealth rather than seigneurial documents, which had lost significance due to national policies.[8]

Through legitimising themselves as defenders of the king against wicked advisors, rebels operated within a framework of patriotism and religious morality. Accusing Richard II’s advisors rather than the king himself allowed rebels to express frustration with the governance of England without contradicting the divine basis of England’s monarchy. This both defended the rebels from accusations of being unchristian and immoral but in comparison depicted the advisors as unholy manipulators perverting and corrupting the holy office of the King.[9] Internally, this legitimation may have filled rebels with a sense of righteousness or duty to remove the corrupting influence that had led the king, and by extension the country, astray. Conceptually, the evil counsellors were vague enough to encompass a variety of ideologies, binding together disparate parts that may not have all aligned with programs such as the more radical teachings of John Ball, and were malleable and actionable enough to condone a range of actions, so long as they were performed with crowd approval.[10] However, in their loyalty to Richard II, the rebels appear to have been inhibited in their ability to develop a sufficiently coherent, common ideology or establish an alternate leader.[11] By maintaining the king as their non-cooperative figurehead, disparate groups and their local leaders ultimately left themselves at the monarchy’s mercy, and were severely constrained in their ability to organise when eventually contradicted by Richard II.[12] [13]

A key feature of the rebels' claims, an end to serfdom, represented a desire for a far more drastic change to the social structure of medieval England. The social stratification of the Rising is approximately reflective of total social proportions, and rural workers such as peasants never constituted more than half the protesters.[14] [15] Nevertheless, the issue of serfdom was one of the most persistently presented issues by rebels despite competing with the Poll Tax and malicious influences on the King.[16] The prominence of these demands may be due to it being used as a symbol of a general struggle against seigneurial oppression and a call for a complete end to lordship.  Most notably John Ball, but also Wat Tyler and likely many more considering both wielded demonstrable mass support, envisioned a future beyond the tripartite structure of feudal society, leaving no intermediary beyond a single bishop between the king and the body of his kingdom.[17] Within this radical emptying of social category is expressed a desire for the English political structure to have shielded, rather than beleaguered, the disempowered common people, as well as to preserve the essence of the existing system while removing as much of the offensive privilege and wealth as possible.[18] This is furthered by the fact that sources of existing authority were excluded from any place in rebel ideology and leadership, apart from priests who were already excommunicated by the Church, such as Ball.[19] However, even these most radical rebels notably continued to cling to the feudal system and the king's ultimate necessity, relying on Christianity and the monarchy to legitimise their cause. This further demonstrates how the legitimation of the rebels of the English Rising was self-sabotaging in that it relied upon cues from the same system which it simultaneously tried to diminish.

Rebels of the English Rising frequently employed formalised language and conventions typically reclusive to nobility or the judicial system. Through the utilisation of officious language such as bonum commune (common good) and res publica (republic or ‘public thing’) rebels criticised the hypocrisy of English authorities’ paternalistic stance and essentialist distinctions surrounding the intelligence and moral character of social strata such as peasants, craftsmen, clergy, and nobility.[20] The selection of Latin in particular is especially notable due to its association with religious and administrative purposes. The wielding of this language is itself an act of defiance against the exclusivity of ways of expression and by extension ways of thinking. The distinctions of the social hierarchy were further blurred by the use of formalised contracts between rebels, wherein common folk swore fealty to one another and to their cause.[21] While according to the chronicles many of these bonds were coerced, they in any case attest to the capacity of the rebels to gain, swear in, and mobilise a significant mass following, as well as to their ingenuity in the appropriation of the tools of those elevated in society to fulfil their own agenda.[22]  Additionally, when considered in tandem with Ball’s vision of the destruction of hierarchical ordering, these oaths also further undermine the legitimacy of the feudal system as a whole. For an unfree English peasant, the appropriation of contracts and terminology may be perceived as just as significantly radical in their implications as any armed insurrection, as they represent a disregard for the presumed social order and a kind of intellectual rebellion.[23]

The celebration of the Feast of Corpus Christi on June 13th was used by the rebels to embolden and inspire those around London with religious zeal and traditional ritual festivity. Corpus Christi marked the entrance of the rebels of Essex and Kent into London and the unification of “neighbours and friends”, as described in the Continuatio Euogii, within the walls of the city.[24] This congregation of like-minded rebels and the revelry of the holiday gave religious significance and energy to the rebels’ actions that greatly empowered and influenced their actions. This energy may also have been derived from the commandeering of the typically carefully controlled celebration of the Church to fulfil their own desires, simultaneously bringing their spirituality and politics into their control. The Rising's gleeful abandon is expressed through several protest methods, such as a procession of decapitated heads marched through London and the crying of “A revelle! A revelle!” (as in revel, or boisterous enjoyment) during the destruction of the Savoy Palace.[25] Particularly notable is the use of one of John of Gaunt’s vestments to construct an effigy of him outside the Savoy to be used as a target for archery before being taken down and eviscerated in anger by the crowd.[26] This example of the entwinement of carnivalesque activities with symbolic violence suggests the power of the shared identity and knowledge the Feast provided: a collective understanding through which rebellious actions could be not only interpreted but enjoyed by participants.[27] Although the chronicles' descriptions of these methods are intended to evoke the grotesque barbarity and impropriety of the common people, they also suggest underlying and empowering ideas of community and equality within the suspension of social difference bestowed by the festivities, within which rebels refuse to accept customs of polite deference and paternalism.[28]

Another key factor in the proliferation of the English Rising was the utilisation of existing knowledge and experience of political activity and strong relationships between urban and rural people. The judicial and fiscal expansion evident between the late twelfth and the mid-fourteenth centuries brought a greater number of people into direct contact with news of the actions of the royal government, the king, and the nobility.[29] They were aware of its impact on their lives as their objects, agents, and victims, and it is certain that peasants and rural artisans had knowledge and opinions about politics.[30] Furthermore, villages had extensive experience in implementing this knowledge and organising themselves, and in many places were almost completely in control of enforcing bylaws at the time of the Rising.[31] In the medieval period, distinctions between political and personal differed greatly to modern conceptions: an insult to a family member or neighbour was an affront to the entire community, and the collective responded accordingly. [32] By drawing upon this extensive political experience, rural and urban England were interconnected not merely ideologically, but socially. These connections were a vital resource in the growth of the Rising as a mass movement that pervaded much of England. Much of the organisation of the Rising was likely improvised, forming a dense web of communities and institutions, only searching for outside leadership once the Rising had gained momentum as a mass movement, such as in the appeal from the people of St Albans to Wat Tyler.[33] [34] Unity was not necessarily created by a centralised focus on London, but through connections between the villages, towns, counties, and guilds that made up the countryside’s rich social and political landscape.  Although events throughout England were inevitably influenced by the status of its capital, movements in other areas of the country generally operated independently of London, each node of rebellion taking place based on the region’s familiar local political environment.[35]

Thus, the English Rising drew largely traditional feudal and Christian tools to empower themselves strategically and ideologically against those who created them. Through the appropriation of formalised and legal language, holidays, and experience of seigneurial disputes, as well as the commonality of living under these structures, rebels created forms of protest that questioned the existing social order. However, despite its unprecedented size as a mass movement and success in ostensibly seizing the capital, the trust and reliance of the Rising’s actors on these paternalist systems of power ultimately prevented them from achieving significant political change.

[1] Rodney Hilton, Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the English Rising Of 1381, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Taylor & Francis Group, 2003), 146.

[2] Justine Firnhaber-Baker, “Introduction: Medieval Revolt in Context,” in The Routledge History Handbook of Medieval Revolt, ed. Justine Firnhaber-Baker and Dirk Schoenaers (London: Routledge, 2017), 4.

[3] Edward III and his council, “The Statute of Labourers, 1351,” in The Peasants Revolt of 1381, trans. and ed. Richard Dobson (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1983), 63-68.

[4] Hilton, Bond Men Made Free, 154.

[5] Mingjie Xu, “Analysing the Actions of the Rebels in the English Revolt of 1381: The Case of Cambridgeshire,” Economic History Review, 75 no. 3 (August 2022): 887, doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13122.

[6] Xu, 891.

[7] Xu 891.

[8] Hilton, Bond Men Made Free, 139.

[9] Joel Rosenthal, “The King’s “Wicked Advisers” and Medieval Baronial Rebellions,” Political Science Quarterly 82 no. 4 (1967): 597, doi.org/10.2307/2148080.

[10] Rosenthal, 596.

[11] Paul Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 41.

[12] Strohm, 41.

[13] Hilton, Bond Men Made Free, 219.

[14] Hilton, 184.

[15] Paul Strohm, “A “Peasants’ Revolt”?,” in Misconceptions About the Middle Ages, ed. Stephen Harris and Bryon L. Grigsby (New York: Routledge, 2010), 197.

[16] Hilton, Bond Men Made Free, 224.

[17] Hilton, 227.

[18] Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow, 41.

[19] Strohm, 56.

[20] Firnhaber-Baker, “Introduction: Medieval Revolt in Context,” 4.

[21] Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow, 39.

[22] Strohm, 40.

[23] Firnhaber-Baker, “Introduction: Medieval Revolt in Context,” 6.

[24] Continuatio Eulogii: The Continuation of the Eulogium Historiarum, 1364-1413, trans. and ed. Chris Given-Wilson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2019), 39.

[25] Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow, 47.

[26] Thomas Walsingham, “Historia Anglicana” in in The Peasants Revolt of 1381, trans. and ed. Richard Dobson (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1983), 70.

[27] Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow, 49.

[28] Strohm, 47.

[29] Christopher Fletcher, “News, Noise, and the Nature of Politics in Late Medieval English Provincial Towns,” Journal of British Studies, 56, no. 2 (2017): 250, doi.org/10.1017/jbr.2017.1.

[30] Firnhaber-Baker, “Introduction: Medieval Revolt in Context,” 6.

[31] Hilton, Bond Men Made Free, 217.

[32] Sylvia Federico, “The Imaginary Society: Women in 1381,” Journal of British Studies, 40, no. 2 (2001): 182, doi.org/10.1086/386239.

[33] Firnhaber-Baker, “Introduction: Medieval Revolt in Context,” 6.

[34] Hilton, Bond Men Made Free, 219.

[35] Hilton, 140.

[sburbian-sage]

I've got a bit of an odd situation. See, we picked up a Rage Player between sessions. Quiet guy, bit of an asshole at times, really his short swords. He keeps talking about his dream self doing paperwork on derse? And being surrounded by windows? And some overarching conspiracy to murder nobility or something? Our new Sage of Time, they were a Prince last game, said something about how the newbie had ecto-biological data from some "SS" entity in-game. I guess I'm supposed to fuck up our new player's ecto-biological cloning or something. I'm not happy about it, nobody's happy about it, this has not been a good time. All I know is, is that I don't think we're prepared to face off against a glitch dream-self that may or may not be a derse carpacian or something. ( How do you even god-tier that? I don't know, and our Thief of Rage is, well, raging about it. ) Do you have any advice? ... Also is it bad to be a Bard twice in a row? I don't mind being the Bard. But, if it consists of getting lost on the battlefield twice, and potentially missing the final boss battle (again), I'm going to be very annoyed.

Wear your codpiece with pride, soldier. And invest in a map.

Also I think I'm connecting the pieces. The "SS entity" is probably Spades Slick, the Scurrilous Straggler, the Sovereign Slayer. Jack Noir. Which would explain the player's dreamself 1) being confined to Derse, which is where Jack Noir lives 2) being confined to bureaucracy in an office, which is what Jack Noir does 3) doing weird murderous conspiracies, which is what Jack Noir does when he's not handling bureaucracy. Also wait hold on a fucking second, are you implying your Thief of Rage is like, The Son of Jack Noir. Did I read that correctly. Are you telling me your player shares DNA with Jack Fucking Noir. These asks are gonna drive me to drink one day.

I choose not to believe that your Thief of Rage is the secret lovechild of Jack Noir because briefly considering it caused me to curl up into a ball involuntarily for several hours. It was like an instinct.

In the event that your Thief of Rage is the secret lovechild of Jack Noir, I really wish that SBURB's coding didn't disable suicide, and also I legitimately don't know how his ectobiological code mixes with a player's in such a manner that their dreamself becomes him(???) but not the actual player. This is all bullshit, if this is true then good luck. You broke me, congratulations.

The much more likely possibility is Apocryphal Antithesis. Essentially, your Thief of Rage is missing a sleep ratio stat, and so their Dreamself is a distinct entity with its own agenda. I imagine that it's co-ordinating with Jack Noir to murder all of you, because that's typically what happens with Apocryphal Antithesis (the murder part, not the Jack collab itself). The good news is, if you're in a position to God Tier, just do it. Your Thief of Rage can't, y'know, by himself, but if one of you takes him behind the shack and onto his Quest Bed, his dreamself will automatically merge with him as he ascends. Indeed, even if it isn't Apocryphal Antithesis (I refuse to believe the other option), this might fix it anyway. If there's anything weird about your Dreamself, god-tiering is the "turn it on and off again" of solutions. Highly effective and simple and everyone should try resorting to that immediately.