#also correct me if i got anything historical wrong

[furorsopher]

im not kidding when i say that ive watched this like 35 times now and my heart gets more itchy every time (in a good way)

i’m reading too much into this but ima post it anyways:

it’s so painful that historical hamilton loved his shit ass father to some extent, he tried to keep contact and sent him letters and money years after he left them. he had a lot of mixed feelings about the guy. but probably more negative ones when he had his own children and couldn’t dream of just leaving them without shame or remorse (which he kinda did then anyways. +30 points emotional damage).

he always loved his kids but he was probably scared he would end up making the decisions his father made which had hurt their whole little family. And phillip wanted to be just like his father. just as accomplished and clever, as “honorable” and he was prepared to sacrifice his life for their name, that’s how proud he was (and also duels were so illegal at the time he wasn’t even buried properly, just somewhere in an unmarked grave outside the cemetery, we don’t even know where now).

in this context both of them are asking this question. alexander is looking back at his father, into the depths of his past he tried to run away from, not only by physically leaving, but also by marrying into high society, wondering if he’ll ever escape his origins, pleading not to be like his father.

and phillip is looking up at his father in awe and admiration for the man who always cared for him, made sure he was fed and educated, but most importantly loved. he loved that man so much that he wished to be him.

when phillip dies he asks to look like his father even in his last moments. to be seen as brave and dying a glorious death, putting his life on the line for the thing that was most important to him like alex did fighting for their country and fighting for their family.

and then, when alexander dies, he knew he was close to where his dear first born had sacrificed himself for him. he probably felt a little at peace knowing he would die the same way his son did, maybe thinking he’d atone for the sin of letting his child die before and because of him by suffering the same fate.

This animatic was quite difficult for me, considering that I feel the song to some extent. The idea with Philip and Hamilton was born almost immediately when this song spread and at the first opportunity I decided to sketch it all, even if a little differently than I originally wanted

[bretwalda-lamnguin]

Ptolemaic Gondor?

Tolkien named Ancient Egypt as one of the inspirations for Gondor-particularly aesthetically and in their capacity for grand architecture. The crown of Gondor also resembles the crown of Upper Egypt, tall and conical, with similar symbolism between the combining of the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt and the combination of the Gondorian crown with the Arnorian diadem-the Elendilmir. I think there is also a deeper link between Gondor and Ancient Egypt, particularly Egypt under the Ptolemaic dynasty, the last to rule Egypt before the Romans annexed it.

Under the cut for a brief history of Ptolemaic Egypt and what that has to do with Gondor!

The Ptolemies were descended from one of Alexander the Great’s generals, called, unsurprisingly, Ptolemy. Alexander and his army were from Macedon, a northern Greek kingdom. In the chaos after Alexander’s death his generals carved up his empire, with Ptolemy rushing to Egypt and having himself proclaimed Pharaoh. The Ptolemaic dynasty ruled from Alexandria, a city founded by Alexander in the Nile delta, on the shores of the Mediterranean. Ptolemy was a Macedonian, and many other Macedonians, both soldiers of Alexander and others, followed them to Egypt. Alexandria became a great centre of Greek Hellenic culture dominated by Macedonians, who became basically a ruling class of this new Ptolemaic state. The highest offices of government were reserved for Macedonians, Macedonian Greek was the court language, the military was made up (at first at least) of Macedonians and mercenaries, with no recruitment from the Egyptian population. The traditional Egyptian religion and the role of the Pharaoh within it remained (with some Greek introductions), but in most other things Macedonians and their customs dominated. No Ptolemaic Pharaoh even knew how to speak Egyptian until Cleopatra VII (yes, that’s THE Cleopatra), the last ruler of the dynasty! Even she seems to have done little to better integrate Egyptians and Macedonians, with the Macedonians remaining firmly in charge until the Romans annexed Egypt.

Now the Ptolemies were not the only successors of Alexander, and one of their main rivals were the Seleucid empire, founded by fellow Macedonian general Seleucus. The Ptolemies often fought for control of the Levant in the Syrian wars. During the reign of Ptolemy IV the Ptolemies and Seleucids were embroiled in the fourth Syrian war. Faced with manpower shortages within the Macedonian ruling class, Ptolemy IV’s army included Egyptians trained to fight in the Macedonian style as part of the phalanx. At Raphia, Ptolemy IV won a decisive victory, with the Egyptian troops playing a key role in the battle. While this did improve the lot of Egyptians within Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonians continued to dominate both the state and the military, and the failure to further integrate Egyptians into the army contributed to the weakening of the Ptolemaic state, which enjoyed arguably its finest hour at Raphia. A succession of poor rulers and civil war would see the state decline, eventually being annexed into the Roman empire after the death of Cleopatra VII.

Now, how does that fit with Gondor?

Gondor was founded by Númenorian exiles, with a Númenorian ruling class. Its main languages are Westron (descended from Númenorian Andunaic) and Sindarin, a common language among certain Númenorian communities. Comparisons may be made between Alexandria and cities like Pelargir and Osgiliath as centres of Númenorian dominance and culture (Pelargir especially, there is a reason Castamir liked it so much). And, like Ptolemaic Egypt, it seems like Númenorians dominated the military, with other peoples excluded. To quote Faramir:

“But the stewards were wiser and more fortunate. Wiser, for they recruited the strength of our people from the sturdy folk of the sea-coast, and from the hardy mountaineers of Ered Nimrais.”

This would seem to imply that prior to this, these peoples were excluded, and Númenorians dominated the military. But the Gondorians learned their lesson, at least to a greater degree than the Ptolemies did, and were able to slow their decline by better integrating non-Númenorians into the state. Númenorians still hold the highest positions of power (Denethor and Imrahil are the two most powerful men in the country in the late third age, both are Númenorians), but military discrimination is at least heavily reduced.

The appendices and unfinished tales do say that Northmen were recruited into the Gondorian military after the Kin-Strife, and mentions them in Eärnur’s army sent to fight Angmar. These may have been analogous to the mercenary forces used by the Ptolemies, rather than representing a widening of recruitment (though many Northmen did settle in Gondor after the Kin-Strife).

Obviously the comparisons are not 1:1, but I think early Gondor may well have resembled Ptolemaic Egypt in the structure and stratification of society. I suspect that this began heavily breaking down after the Kin-Strife. For a start, a lot of Númenorians are dead, or have been forced to renounce their ancestry by Eldacar. The Gondorians will need to look elsewhere for a supply of manpower. Númenorian supremacy may well start being seen as treasonous due to Castamir’s actions, and an active threat to the continued existence of the Gondorian state. By Denethor II’s time the Gondorian army seems far more diverse, and even many of the aristocrats may well be non-Númenorian (though again, Denethor and Imrahil occupy the most powerful positions).

[stargazostli]

i know we all love the idea of Joel in a corset

however... consider... Joel in stays

(found the images from google and wikipedia respectively, the first came up if you search 'brown stays', the second is on the wiki article for the history of corsets)

these are (iirc) kinda pre-corsets corests? they were used for the same things; supporting breasts, heloing posture, back support etc and may be laced either at the front or the back but often connect over the shoulders... like a vest... like Joel skin... yeah thats all my reasoning basically... also im a nerd

i especially like the ones laced in the front as they especially look like Joel's skin's vest

also im no expert on historical clothing, i just happen to watch alot of videos by people who are and have random knowledge on it - if i got anything wrong or youd like to add anything, feel free to add or correct me on this!

[lissa612]

Can someone point me to where in 9-1-1 canon it is shown that Buck thinks of “Evan” as a separate identity or a version of himself he escaped?

Because we’ve got Buck 1.0 that’s been clearly mentioned in the past as a persona he’s outgrown, but I can’t remember him ever saying anything like “That was Evan…This is Buck.” He started going by Buck because it was convenient. He liked it and perhaps considered it a fresh start along with the career he found to finally be his calling, so he kept the nickname…But even the reasoning there is speculation because I can’t recall him ever saying anything more than “Everyone calls me Buck now. I kinda like it.” But there were still people who would call him Evan. His girlfriend, his sister, his best friend when he wanted to make sure he was hearing him, and his therapist (who honestly should be the most mindful of his comfort with mode of address) just off the top of my head. The only time he seems upset when called Evan was when his parents did it after he apparently asked him to call him Buck…That seems to be more about them ignoring his wishes than any sort of visceral rejection of the name itself.

I keep seeing chatter about how it’s disrespectful of Tommy to be calling him Evan. But I can’t find anything in actual canon to back that up. You can head canon that Tommy ignored Buck when he introduced himself like “I’m Evan Buckley - Call me Buck” but that never happened. You can just as easily head canon that Buck blushed and told Tommy that he likes how he says “Evan” when Tommy catches that everyone else calls him Buck and tries to correct himself. I’d argue that one of those head canons fits better with actual canon, but there are arguments for both…Neither is absolutely wrong.

So you can totally head canon that Tommy is someone who ignored Buck’s wishes to be called Buck. But then you also have to head canon that Buck, despite all the progress he has made through the years, is someone who would actively pursue someone who has shown they ignore his wishes - Something we have seen in canon to be a boundary for him. Which is fine if you want to do that…Head canons allow for all kinds of freedom in interpretation. But it’s not canonical fact.

Buck has historically disassociated with parts of his past self with his software upgrades from Buck 1.0, but when was the last time he did that? Buck 3.0 was back in season 4. He’s grown and changed a lot since then without needing to proclaim himself to be Buck 4.0. But beyond that, he’s never proclaimed there to have been an early beta version of the software called “Evan”. Really the only thing we know was upgraded between Buck 1.0 and Buck 2.0 was how Buck handled sex and relationships. Was “Evan” the base code in Buck 1.0? If so, has the code changed so much to have erased that? (Again, there’s nothing explicit in canon, so we can head canon that all day).

Bobby noted at the end of the season how much growth he has seen in Buck. I don’t think anyone who has watched the show could argue against the truth of that statement.

That is canon.

But you can ponder on it and come up with head canon…Perhaps what we are seeing is a more self-actualized version of Buck who doesn’t need to think of any progress he’s made in terms of upgrades because the therapy has finally made him realize he is all of those versions of himself and they are all him - He is the result of everything he has experienced and everything he has done and every decision he has made, and who he is will keep constantly evolving with every new experience and decision.

Regardless, Evan Buckley is Buck. And he is Mr Buckley. And he’s Firefighter Buckley. And he’s Buckley. And he’s Evan.

Unless he’s told someone to NOT refer to him as one of those names and they do anyway, they aren’t showing any disrespect by referring to him in any of those ways. We have examples in canon of that happening. We also have examples of viewers seemingly deciding it happened without canonical basis.

That’s a head canon. Have fun with it but remember to not force it onto others.

[jellybeanium124]

so if your most recent post at the time of me responding to this is correct, you're like, 14 (and if I'm reading that post wrong and you're older, oops), so I don't want to put you on blast or nothing and I'm not mad, but I think you're a bit misinformed. christianity did evolve from judaism. jesus was a jew and he initially lead a sect of judaism, and then paul came along like 40 years after jesus's death and really got christianity going. they are different religions though, and in practice, we don't worship the same god. christians worship jesus. they praise jesus and pray to jesus and thank jesus. jews do not do that because our gd is not jesus, jesus is just some guy to me.

a lot of jews on this site have a bone to pick with christianity, which isn't my argument to make or anything, since atm I don't have a bone to pick with christianity itself. like I think my americaness is overriding everything else for now because I value religious freedom, like, actual religious freedom to practice your religion in peace, not freedom to discriminate against people, more. any arguments that seek to invalidate a religion skeeze me out because in practice it won't be the christians who are denied their religious freedom.

historically, however, christians have done some shit to jews, man. like the inquisition?? like all the antisemitism in europe ever? muslims have also done some shit to jews. in practice every group who lives alongside jews is antisemitic. like society is just antisemitic, man.

you're saying "just get along" to a tiny, persecuted minority, and the majority in power that has persecuted them for thousands of years. it don't work like that.

crazy how 2,000 years of being fed "jews are untrustworthy two faced liars" will make people instinctively think jews are liars and have their gut reaction to jews talking about judaism be "assume they're lying." or maybe these are two unrelated phenomena that have no impact on each other and the gentile instinct to distrust the jew has nothing to do with thousands of years of antisemitism they've internalized.

[alpaca-clouds]

The Lies We Are Taught In School

Talking about science this week, let me talk about the thing that irks me more than anything: The fact that we get taught so many lies in school. Both in regards to science, and in regards to stuff like history. Like, holy fuck. Why do we get taught that much garbage?

If you google "Lies we got taught in school", you will find an endless amount of listicles going over a variety of lies.

A lot of people in America will of course know that the version of American history they get taught in school is very "clean". Be it their version of how Thanksgiving came to be ("And then the indigenous people and settlers got along just fine"), how the entire story of Matoaka/Pocahontas happened ("And then everyone just got along and no 12yo girls got raped"), or how the Civil War went ("And then slavery was ended and everyone had equal rights, yay").

Another thing that school keeps telling us is the thing I mentioned yesterday: IQ. IQ is not real. At least not as any measure of intelligence. All IQ tests will test is, how good you are at taking IQ tests.

Or one that I found in so many listicles: The food pyramid. The food pyramid is a great example of a thing that a lot of people believe, that is not based on science, but fully on propaganda by an industry. And yet... It is very common in the US - and almost as common in Europe. At least I learned about it in primary school, and never learned a correction of it until I entered university.

Or getting back to history: A lot of history classes teach so much bullshit when it comes to medieval history and how people in medieval times lived. They will act as if the medieval world was just one thing, rather than many things. Oh, and a lot of schools place the witch burnings into the middle ages - even though they all happened AFTER the middle ages.

Or something quite relevant to trans folks: Schools very much teach that there are only two genders and sexes, and that those usually are based on the chromosomes. Even though intersex people exist and might be a lot more common than we actually realize, given that most people are never tested for intersex conditions. And since we know that other than what was long assumed (the supposed fact that almost all intersex people were infertile) is wrong... Yeah, some scientist argue that intersex is a lot more common than assumed. So even from the very biological aspect - without going into gender - it is quite wrong.

The list really could go on and on.

And mind you, some of those myths (especially in regards to history) are so prevailant, that folks who even go to universities and study ajacent stuff will still be believed. I still remember: Two years ago I talked in a historical podcast about the witch hunts, how they happened after the medieval period, how they looked different in different countries, how they did not happen everywhere in Europe, and how they not always were going for women. Mind you, we linked the historical sources under the podcast... And yet, someone I know, who studied history (though with their main focus on Victorian England) went on a long rant how that was all wrong. Was she able to come up with counter sources for her claims? No, obviously not. But she kept insisting even months later.

In general the entirety of all those lies taught in school usually go back to one of three reasons for those lies.

Propaganda. There are quite a few lies in school - especially in regards to history - that are propaganda. Especially when it comes to the sanitizing colonial history. Stuff like how settlers and indigenous people got along fine. How Lincoln ended slavery. Or for us in Germany, how we totally never really were ever involved in any colonialism whatsoever. That is all propaganda. Even stuff like the medieval prejudices are based on the propaganda that history only ever moves forward. The food pyramid also belongs to this.

Ancient material. This is probably the most common reason. See, a lot of material in school is just outdated by decades. At times because the curriculi have not been updated in decades - at times because the people updating them are actually not professionals in those fields, hence basing their ideas mostly on what they learned in school 40 years ago.

Simplification because kids "won't understand it otherwise". A lot of stuff in school gets dumbed down in comparison what you learn in university, because a) not everyone needs to know it (they say), and b) kids cannot understand it (they say). This is true for a lot of stuff in the science classes. Stuff like "only two sexes", "only five senses", "only three states of matter" is mostly based on this.

But honestly... While the first two reasons are bad either way (propaganda does not belong in schools, and schools should work with modern material), some people might think the last reason is somewhat understandable. But honestly... It is not. Because kids are actually not stupid.

It is one thing to not teach everything and leave out stuff. Otherwise we would not need universities. But... Lying to kids? Yeah, that is not good. It is not a good thing to begin with. And really, why do we keep doing that?

[sampoenjoyer]

It's really fascinating to me who the Aeons choose and choose not to gaze at. Like a great example of this to me is Gepard: He feels like the embodiment of preservation itself, yet isn't an emanator.

Gepard is someone who preserves a lot, he literally works a job dedicated to PRESERVING his home and people (I mean he's the Captain of the Silvermane gaurds who spend their time fighting off the Fragmentum to keep Belobog safe.) He PRESERVES his family. He continues to be close with his sister's, tries to care for them and make sure their not hurt of course, BUT ALSO he seems to be the only of the three siblings who still talks to their parents a lot, and attempts to keep the whole family together (such as when he encourages Serval to visit them in her quest, OR I BELIEVE HE DOES its been a bit since I did it.) He even preserves his family's legacy as the Landau's historically worked as/with the Guards (from the artifact set Guard of Wuthering Snow. He lives in a place that worships Qlipoth, one that has persevered for a long time despite harsh circumstances.

LIKE HE SEEMS LIKE A PRIME CHARACTER TO BE A EMMANATOR OF PRESERVATION, BUT HE ISN'T, AND THAT'S SO FASCINATING. (though I wouldn't be surprised if he became one ngl)

THERE'S PROBABLY OTHER CHARACTERS YOU COULD DO SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH BUT YEAH IT INTRIGUES ME.

ALSO DID HIS ICE POWERS EVER GET EXPLAINED?? Because he does have them out of combat, I remember it either being mentioned in dialogue or a story, unlike Lynx and Serval's, which seem to be purely gameplay in Lynx's case, and with Serval her lightning comes from her gadgets/guitar (?)

BUT NO YEAH. NEEDED TO GET THIS OUT MY BRAIN. RAMBLE OVER. ALSO PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I GOT ANYTHING WRONG (THOUGH I DONT THINK I DID BUT YKNOW SOMETIMES U MESS UP AND DONT WANNA SPREAD MISINFO.)

[nishnormp]

thinking way too hard about things that probably do not need this much thought

In lieu of tfc merc brainrot, I have decided to do some historical research and character workshopping to shape out the details of everything needed in ficwriting. I have nothing else to post (my art is not going well) so I might as well scream about this

P1: TF2 alternate history bullshit

Abraham Lincoln inventing rocket jumping before the existence of stairs, the entire thing with Australium, so on. Despite TFC having modern kevlar (as opposed to looney toons weapons, but a bit about that later) and a more serious/gritty tone, the setting is still within the TF2 universe; which means having a weird fusion of irl history and vaguely reasonable fantasy absurdities.

To clarify, I am not a bona fide history nut who knows absolutely everything (ffs my own country's history doesn't even play much in western incidents). I've just been doing research thru online articles, videos, and talking to other ppl who know more than me, so my brain can lack a bit for certain things; do correct me if I get anything wrong.

By the 1850s (estimation) Australia became a tech giant due to discovering Australium, making insane progress in basically every field (and also making their population very jacked). Newfound inventions also require raw resources, and this page confirms that australians pick their leader mostly based on pure strength, which begs the question; are they still connected to Britain? Would there still be a benefit for them to be linked to Britian the way they are?

There are many cases where nations plunder other nations just for natural resources; Britian is one particularly infamous force with many colonies, which makes me wonder if Australia ever resorted to snatching them just to afford all the material components that their tech requires. Australia was part of the British Empire up until 1901 irl (not too far from 1890), but the question about resources and sovereignty(even if symbolic) still remain (Britain likely wouldn't like a territory growing at terrifying and eventually unmanageable rates, and at that rate I doubt Australia would settle for middling trade margins)

(Well, apparently Saxton owns England. But that was when he discovered the internet)

There's also the ensemble of first gen mercs. RED and BLU recruit progressively less important mercs as time goes on, starting from important historical/media figures, to modern militant professional-lookin dudes, and finally to the current crop of crackheaded TF2 mercs we know and love. The Original mercs I mostly want to focus on are Abraham Lincoln and John Henry.

I'm not exactly sure if John Henry is even a real person, but he was a symbol for labor movements and the civil rights movement; the fact that he IS a real person in TF2 lore is p vital methinks, especially since him and Lincoln seem to be on the same team. Mercs are paid a lot, even the "bottom of the barrel" tf2 ones: scout has his merch collection to show for it, medic has his exotic animal parts, heavy has his gun ammo (and also casually gave a child 7k dollars), etc; could John Henry have spearheaded civil rights movements not just in America but also other territories (like africa) with the bread and merits he got for the job? Does he have a legacy with rouge merc groups (armed unions?) that fight against imperialism? Maybe even effect/radicalize Lincoln about some things??? Unethical business practices still persist even in Saxton's era (hell, he's an example) but maybe the (hypothetical) challenges to Britain's grasp on its colonies and evolution of munitions would give the people an edge.

I have no idea how a drastically colony-less Britain would affect the timeline of WW1 (esp in less popular side-wars like in South Africa where Britain was very much involved, which may be problematic since my interp of cmedic is FROM there but anyways) (btw they only won that bc they out-attritioned Germany, but by that point maybe the dutch or the americans would take over), but surprisingly enough WW2 ends at around the same time it does irl, despite my initial thought that a roided-out Allied Australia would be more than capable of turning the Axis Powers into a skidmark. The likely explanation for that is that the finer details were just not important for the tf2 comics that took place AFTER (fair enough), but as someone planning to write the 1930s mercs . Pain . My working explanation is that seemingly unaligned private contractors can get ahold of weapons easier than Certain governments, which makes mercs more popular than national soldiers for carrying out certain missions (plausible employer deniability baybeeee).

P2: Conflicting class meta - CHeavy edition

Onto something less heavy, another part of ficwriting is figuring out how characters are...characterized. The TFC mercs dont have much canonical info (I've already turned two of them into straight up ocs because I am NOT going to write p3dos from start to finish of a longfic) so I settle for looking at other things, like gameplay and ingame roles.

The first I focused on was cheavy, the leader of the group. Grouchy, but a surprisingly tolerant team player.

This IS reused from a previous post (im lazy) but the first bullet basically says "otherwise, offensive heavies are frequently looked down on and the power of the other team's defense will have you dead in no time". Gameplay-wise, CHeavy is considered the simplest class and the easiest one to master; most tfc gamers think its a common noob pick. His total health is pretty good, he occupies a big space so he can block narrow paths, and the way he attacks is simple; but he's slow even when b-hopping (grenades cant boost him either) so he can be outrun/picked apart by other classes, which really shows in tfc's most popular game format: capture the flag.

I've seen about a handful video of tfc gameplay that WASN'T ctf (or the slightly diff gamemode with a defense system), and even if the 4th bullet point is right, those two classes are usually doing more important things during ctf. My main point is that despite being the leader, he isn't the type of class to lead the charge.

The most reasonable thing I can think of is that he's just . Really good at strategy and can keep track of his team while reliably holding down a position. That, and his superior bulk makes him shine more outside of the gravel pits. Whatever it is, it does make more sense to me now that I revisit the comic panels where he is VERY spiteful that his teammates got killed (rather than calling them weak, they fr matter to him bc otherwise, he isn't getting shit done)

(Ik the reason hes the boss is bc big scary dude and karmic ass-handing via other heavy who actually respects his doctor but shh the fic demands reasons)

P3: Conflicting class meta - Cmedic edition

The contradiction I can immediately clock is the fact that cmedic never gets mentioned despite his omnipresence in his original game. Most hc's I've seen interpret him as the exact opposite of the current medic, which is a dedicated doctor who also happens to be a sweetheart (with very rare exceptions), but may I propose the theory that all mannco medic mercs are bastards? I'm 99% sure that the original medic was sigmund freud. TF2 medic is just a menace. Post WW1 most moral and noble medics would bust their asses at hospitals rather than sign up to a contract tying them down to just healing 8 other people and killing other people over and over, but that's just my hc (we're all making shit up, might as well have fun with it).

The most common citing for cmed's hidden menace energy is his virus weaponry, but I think his ingame role also shows it pretty well. Practically taking the scout's niche and making it less punishing by having straight upgrades of his two weapons, giving healing utility AND also being able to sniff out spies like a cscout (he can't diffuse bombs or trail caltrops, but he's already powerful as is). Imagine being cscout, having to compete for flag capture points with this guy who practically has everything you have but better (instead of leaving behind super visible spikes he has a college degree). This isn't even like the modern sniper vs spy debate where it can still be debated that spy has a unique niche with his mindgames, cmedic just straight up took copied his homework, 98% percent matching on the plagiarism bot.

Cscout and cmedic beef is very likely, but if cscout is a literal god at what he does then there won't be much issue, since the best cscout is ultimately better at flagrunning than cmedic. Its likely that cscout is simply human tho, so that's some drama that can happen.

Funnily enough the tfc class that gets the most weight and hate on its shoulders is sniper. This is because servers have a limit on how many snipers can join, and if a shitty sniper took up the slots, the rest of the team would be pretty pissed. Meanwhile, a competent sniper is the bane of every player's existence; a missed shot can still slow someone down until a medic cures them.

P4: cmedic backstory building hell - barely organized nonsense

Last one I swear. My drawings of cmedic explicitly portray him as a person of color- more specifically a cape malay, from the cape territory in South Africa; he even curses in malay in one of the posts. Ig I wanted the cast to be more diverse, but it did make his backstory somewhat harder to write.

Mann co is situated in New Mexico, far from SA. How and why did he get all the way there? With the fanon worldbuilding I set, what is stopping him from simply joining a nearer merc group? Probably heard of it through the grapevine, and travelled for fat stacks; wouldn't be uncommon for doctors (or mercs) to be highly motivated due to money. I wondered of what would set him apart from all the other hypothetical medic applicants that probably graduated from upstanding colleges like harvard, then I recall all those common hcs.

1)Most applicants assumed that the job would consist of primarily healing, without considering how bloodthirsty their company would be, and/or 2)the BLU team has been getting genuine medics and chewing them up like gum (and spitting them out utterly mangled, I suppose). There's also the possibility that some margin of these medics actually had some weapon training, but at that point a lot of time has been spent (also some conflicting motives there, I can't imagine the perks that a deadly merc job has over a hospital job unless the guy got a kick out of it).

My next idea was to make him a ww1 vet on the side of the British (australian? american?) colonies of SA, having joined midway after finishing his education. However this would clock his age during the current 1970s timeline to be around 81, pretty old; most of the tfc mercs would be 70s max around that time. Cmedic is visually the youngest of the mercs too, you can compare his smooth eyes to the more sunken cspy's eyes and there is a notable difference. This is really just an issue of me being on the fence about fully oc-fying him (a friend of him suggested making him a vampire, I am almost tempted to make it so).

In the case that particular hurdle is overcome, there are more details I have to iron out. I figured that his motives either come from wanting to financially help out his family after the war's sheer devastation, or just . a general resentment for the way things unfolded, and he swapped to merc work in the states to get properly paid for his work and (attempt to) fill the void in his soul. Maybe a mix of the two. An outlier in his community for being a godless man and having very material and tangible masters (science and money), he abandons the lofty ideals of nationalism and sides himself with the highest bidder in the private market. Also developed an insane immune system (trenches and exposure are no joke).

(Certain classes have shared characteristics across gens, like the demos' deranged smiles and engies' wholesome vibes. With sigmund freud, tf2 medic as the archetypal mad doctor, and tfc medic as the archetypal capitalist doctor, there are now three gens of doctors with dubious machinations.)

He'd probably be a great medic, respecting merc code and all (funfact tf2 medic mentions tfc demo by name, implying that he knows his real name and putting a dent in my theory that being on a first-name basis is a big deal actually , my countertheory to that is that grey mann gave him the team's files and tf2 medic wants to spite them). Cmedic also reverse-engineered the medkit and made a new version for non-gravel war missions, since the usual has several hard drugs (heals to full instantly and gives adrenaline boost, sounds sus especially if you read jarate's side effects) since he ended up somewhat caring about his pack of rabid animals

[hammyham-o-o]

Favorite thing that John Laurens did historically?

Guys, I gotta admit, for such a huge John Laurens fan (both musical version and historically) I barely know about ANYTHING he did irl other than write essays against slavery, recruit 3000 men for the first all black military regiment, witness wayyy too many of his siblings die, be in love with hamilton, and be a kickass soldier. (Oh and the whole marrying out of pity and then never visiting his daughter thing. And the sexism, but I'd rather not dwell on that -_-)

AND THE TURTLE DRAWINGS MUAHAHAHA (guys I'm kidding I know he wasn't actually obsessed with turtles, but he did love art and nature, right?)

WAIT I THOUGHT OF SOMETHING OMG-

So I once read a Tumblr post about historical John Laurens being left handed (there's an amazing depressedrevolutionariesinlove comic about this too !!), and more specifically about one time when he got injured in his right shoulder in the midst of battle, and just tossed his sword to his left hand and absolutely ANNIHILATED the soldiers he was fending off. Imagine their absolute SHOCK when they think they've won because "hahaha his sword hand is knocked out" and then BOOM he's even better with his left? 😂

I'd link the post if I remembered where it was from arghhh, possibly @john-laurens? (GREAT blog by the way)

I also read part of the SALTIEST letter from Laurens to Kinloch once, but unfortunately don't remember where I could find it or what exactly it was about, other than this man's passive agressivness was through the ROOF lol (does anyone know what I'm talking about?)

So, in hindsight after writing this essay (😭), I do know quite a bit about John Laurens... but I still feel like there's SOOO much I don't know (and plz correct me if I got anything wrong in this post!) Also, I'd LOVE to hear any funny or notable stories you guys have about him!! :D

What's your favourite historical John Laurens moment (moots and random people who see this)??

Maybe we could make a chain!!! :DDD

Also just a lil note in closing, my favourite thing about him historically is probably his bravery, passion for justice/abolitionism, and love for hamilton because live laugh lams <3

[seriousbrat]

why I don't think the Blacks were actually that wealthy is this:

"A reasonable amount of gold."

So, Harry inherits ALL of Sirius's money, house, his house-elf. Since Grimmauld Place goes to Sirius after the death of his parents, it's fair to assume that he also got all their money. He also, as we know, inherited a good chunk of gold from his Uncle Alphard. Being in Azkaban for 12 years and later living in hiding/at Grimmauld place, he probably did not spend much of that money. His one big expense is the Firebolt, which, yeah, is expensive but if the Blacks had been uber loaded like they're portrayed in fic, I don't think Dumbledore would have used the word "reasonable" to describe what was left to Harry.

Reasonable suggests to me that yeah, it's a decent amount. But it's not MORE than what Harry already had. It's not an EXTREME amount.

Another thing for me is the matter of Bellatrix's marriage. Narcissa and Lucius seem to genuinely be in love, but I don't think Bellatrix mentions Rodolphus, her literal husband, ONCE (correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain) in the ENTIRE series. She was in love with Voldemort. She probably didn't want to marry Rodolphus and clearly didn't care much about him. This suggests to me that the motivations behind this marriage were financial rather than romantic. Even Narcissa's marriage to Lucius was probably financially motivated, even though they were lucky enough to actually be a good match. Walburga married her own cousin- again, this was likely financially motivated.

The other clue is Grimmauld Place itself. Historically, wealthy/aristocratic families would have a london townhouse for the season, but reside most of the time in country estates or manor houses. There's no mention of any Black family estate at all, and if there was one Sirius being the eldest male heir would have inherited it, as would Harry later. The fact that the Blacks live only in their London house (which is not even that ostentatious, it's terraced and between Muggle houses. why would they choose this.) suggests to me that any country estate they might have had was sold. I guess you could argue that Cygnus and his daughters lived there, but he was the younger male so i find this unlikely. If anything, it would have gone to Alphard. It might have passed to Cygnus upon his death, but that still leaves Walburga without.

What I think happened was that the Blacks were a typical old money family with dwindling resources. Likely Orion and Walburga did not work, and yet still clung to a lavish, aristocratic lifestyle while burning the galleons they had. Grimmauld Place is in a state of disrepair, and yeah it's been abandoned for 12+ years but imo it probably started before that. Kreacher is OBSESSED with Black family heirlooms, which suggests that Walburga probably was too- likely she clung onto them as signs of her family's wealth and status, which was fading away before her eyes.

Personally I think Alphard probably inherited the bulk of what was left of the Black fortune, possibly an estate which he then either sold or gave to someone else- but presumably not Walburga, as she blasted him off the tapestry.

And the blasting of Alphard itself. Yeah Walburga hated Sirius and anyone who looked kindly on him, but imo if had she been rolling in it and money was of no concern, Alphard leaving Sirius some gold might not have been especially noteworthy to her. I believe that she was hoping that either she or Regulus would inherit the gold, and when he left it to Sirius she reacted VERY angrily. Because tbh, it might have just gone to him by default as the eldest male heir if Cygnus was dead by that time, which if this is the case seems likely because Alphard DID leave Sirius money. If it was just about him being fond of Sirius she likely would have blasted him off earlier. It seems to me like it was about the money, and to me explains why Walburga was so bitter and so possessive over her legacy.

edit: it is actually canon that inheritance in the Black family goes through the male line:

[differentsublimephantom]

@zombinafonfrankenstein @seriously-nobody @abiscuit @griffinappreciator @mistressofthemacabresworld

@dreamelies @hostess-of-horror @caspertheconfused

Here is my (probably very bad) Universal Monsters chatfic!! (There’s a bunch of context for my au under the cut, so if you wanna skip it you’ll have to scroll a bit :/ )

Here’s a crapton of context for my AU:

All the characters have access to modern technology for completely unknown reasons (probably due to time travel caused by one of the scientists or something?) (and it makes for funny scenarios). Dracula and Renfield have a healthy (if a bit crazy) romantic relationship (inspired by Gomez and Morticia Addams) because I can’t bring myself to write abuse/conflict. Franky (Frankenstein’s monster) and Bea (bride of Frankenstein) are very cute kind couple (and they are ace) they also both have the intelligence of 18-20 year olds (for the sake of the plot). Jekyll and Hyde are here even though I’m pretty sure universal never made a movie with them. Both Larry Talbot and Jack Griffin’s families think they are dead. Kharis (the mummy) and Gil (creature from the black lagoon) also have average intelligence (because plot) and Kharis speaks English and whatever ancient Egyptian language he spoke when he was alive. Gil speaks English, and gets sick when in saltwater because he is (as far as I know) lagoons are (mostly) freshwater. They are all roommates living and “living” in the same house, the mansion from Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Griffin is a menace, frequently pranks everyone, and brags about crashing a train. I’m 95.9% sure none of these characters are actually “in character”, this is as “ooc” as you could get lmao

(Btw I wrote this as if it was gonna be posted on ao3 ((it’s not)) so that’s why it has chapters and chapter descriptions)

Chapter 1: documentary

(Griffin pranks Larry Talbot)

Griffin: social experiment: I play a wolf documentary in a room in the same house as a werewolf. Hypotheses: all the howling will bother him. Expected outcome: either I prank him and he’s too tired to do anything about it, or I get my ass kicked.

Jekyll: ..I- what? Don’t do that Jack. It’s mean.

Griffin: do you forget that I crashed a train?

Jekyll: oh yeah, I purposefully ignore that fact.

Griffin: rude. your ignoring one of my greatest achievements >:(

Jekyll: It’s *You’re and yes. Yes I am.

Dracula: why would a documentary bother Lawrence? It’s on a screen? Fake?

Griffin: I have that answer in the hypothesis >:) also, wdym fake?

Franky: Dracula… do you think documentaries are staged??

Dracula: yes..??? Aren’t they?

Jekyll: No!

Larry: whoever is watching that documentary about wolfs- PLEASE WATCH LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE.

Griffin: OMFG HYPOTHESIS = CORRECT XD

Griffin: I mean…. wow, whoever’s watching that is definitely not funny.. turn it off guys.

Larry: griffin I can hear your deranged cackling from across the house. It’s not funny, my werewolf senses are going crazy, TURN IT OFF

Griffin : why?? I’ve done no wrong 🥺

Jekyll: that’s historically inaccurate.

Larry: don’t “🥺” me! And you’ve done MUCH WRONG!

Griffin: that’s fair. But no. :)

Larry: why not?! You’re just doing it to bother me!!

Griffin: you can’t prove that! And it’s for educational purposes.

Larry: you admitted it in your previous texts idiot. I can scroll up and see them? “EdUcAtIoNaL PuRpOsEs” bs 🙄

Franky: hey griffin how about you try to bother Gil with a ocean life documentary?

Griffin: oooooooo good idea Franky!

Jekyll: Don’t encourage him Franky!!

Larry:….

In a different group chat…:

Larry: Gil is from the Brazilian Rainforest not the ocean?

Franky: it got the wolf documentary to stop didn’t it??

Larry: ooooohhhhh gotcha ;) thanks

Franky: ;) your welcome. Griffin is sometimes like a toddler, if you want to distract him just give him a shiny new toy to play with.

Larry : ah. Makes sense.

Chapter 2: when a mummy catches you…

(Gil asks an interesting question)

Gil: soooooooo…….what do mummies….. actually….. do?

Kharis: rude!!

Gil: No, I mean, if you were human, being chased by different monsters, what are the consequences?

Gil: a vampire drinks your blood, a werewolf bites you, a zombie eats you, what do mummies do to you?

Kharis: keep asking that question and you’ll find out.

Gil: I’m just wondering!!

Kharis: we beat the living hell outta you when you ask us dumb questions.

Gil: message received!! Chill!

Kharis: thanks 🙄😑

Chapter 3: jello and insomnia

(Bea is eating jello at three am and gets “inspired”)

3:17AM

Bea: could you make jello out of ranch?

Franky: honey, wtf???? Its 3am come back to bed!!

Bea: I’m in the kitchen eating. Can’t sleep. Answer the question.

Franky: no????? It’s too thick of a substance.

Bea: sad. If I could I’d eat ranch cubes with carrot jello.

Franky: ew???

Renfield: what about ketchup jello?? Or pure mayonnaise jello? Or BLOOD jello??

Dracula: that last one sounds yummy ;)

Franky: please stop :/

Bea: babe it’s for science! What about sparkling water jello?? Like- the jello is FIZZY ya know?

Dracula: carbonated jello you mean

Bea: yeah!

Franky: I hate everything about this conversation.

Renfield: relish jello.

Franky: 🤢

Dracula: I know for a fact that some of these exist. Meat jello exists.

Franky: ew, what?

Dracula: blame the Great Depression. Look it up.

Renfield: master!! What about bug jello?!

Dracula: probably not, but there are bug lollipops I think.

Renfield: oh my god I want one

Bea: cheese jello.

Franky: ALL OF YOU GO TO BED PLEASE

Dracula: I’m nocturnal and Renfield stays up late with me, tell Bea to go to bed not me

Franky: BEA PLEASE

Bea: I’ll be in bed in 5 minutes

Franky: thank you… 😮‍💨🥹

9:33AM

Hyde: what the HELL HAPPENED LAST NIGHT?? (And why wasn’t I a part of it?)

Chapter 4: diary

(Griffins steals a diary to try to get secrets)

Griffin: HAHAHAHHAHAHAH OMFGGG

Dracula: oh no…

Bea: what did you do.??

Griffin: I found Kharis’ diary!! >:)

Bea: if you picked it up and took it, then you STOLE Kharis’ diary

Griffin: …shush… anyways!!! Anyone know good ideas on how to blackmail him?

Dracula: griffin that’s not a good idea.

Gil: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Griffin: whats so funny Gil?  🤔

Kharis: open the diary idiot.

Bea: oh shit Griffin you’ve been caught

Griffin: GIL DID YOU SNITCH??

Gil: no?? you haven’t opened the book yet have you??

Griffin: ……..

Griffin: …I just did.

Kharis: ;)

Griffin: f you.

Dracula: what happened? What’s in the diary?

Griffin:….. its in hieroglyphics.

Dracula: OMG

Gil: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA KARMA LMAO

Griffin: :’(

Kharis: oh “boo hoo”, you were gonna blackmail me!!

Griffin: thats fair.

chapter 5: the munsters

(Hyde asks a question)

Hyde: you guys know The Munsters right?

Larry: yeah.?

Hyde: well if the dad is a “Frankenstein’s monster” character, and the mom is a vampire, why is their son a werewolf?

Larry: ….

Larry: that’s actually a good question.

Griffin: simple. Lily cheated.

Kharis: or he’s adopted? 😑

Griffin: the cheating storyline is more interesting.

Kharis: sure.

Hyde: plot twist: their milkman is a werewolf ;)

Griffin: HYDE YOU SEE MY VISION YES

Hyde: oh no what did I just start?

Kharis: please don’t encourage him.

Larry: griffin and Hyde trying to prove Lily Munster cheated:

Kharis: XD

Griffin: oh, shut up. >:(

~Fin~

[dwreader]

IWTV Episode 6 Podcast Transcript

Special Guests: Levan Akin and Jewelle Gomez

"Lestat made him [Louis] a vampire. He became in a way his everything. He became isolated from his family and his friends. He has nothing. It’s classic abusive, toxic. He’s isolated Louis." -Levan Akin

“Recording a song with your side piece is not an apology”

Naomi: First, in this episode, there’s a heated discussion of whether Emily Dickinson was a vampire. What other historical figures do you think could’ve been vampires? 

Levan: Good question.. I would say Tesla. He could be a vampire… I don’t know maybe I’m just thinking about was it David Bowie who played him in a movie. Maybe I just got that image in my head… I don’t know what do you think? 

N: I’m not used to having the tables turned on me… Bowie and Iman. 

L: And also Grace Jones. 

N: Can you tell me when you first discovered Anne Rice?

L: I’d heard about her and then I saw the film I think when I was 14. 

N: Wow, formative. 

L: I remember that screening very well. I loved vampires and I saw that film. I was a little gay kid and there was a lot of subtext I could pick up. And then I went to the school library and found The Vampire Lestat so that was the first book I read and that was a gamechanger for me. I was obsessed… 

N: Do you remember your parents having a reaction to you reading these books?

L: The thing is they didn’t really get it. My parents are from Georgia, former Soviet Republic. They had no idea about pop culture or anything. 

N: You’re live with us from Sweden. Correct me if I’m wrong but IWTV is the first time you’re directing a US TV series?

L: Yes.

N: Tell me everything, how does it happen? How are you out here working in Sweden and like get me on the AR show? 

L: I did a film called and then we danced, and that opened some doors. I got agents. I read from an AR fan I follow on facebook and heard they were doing a series and I told my agents, get me on that show. And then finally I met Rolin Jones and luckily Rolin thought why not give this guy a try. He’s a risk taker. 

…

L: I also got to do the scene where Louis meets Molloy in San Francisco. I can’t believe it. 

N: You directed ep 5 and 6 which are the most tumultuous episodes in the show and the most tumultuous time in their relationship. What is the core of the conflict, how would you describe it? 

L: You know those two episodes, its essentially the darkest days. Everything comes to the end. When I was reading ep 5 I was thinking, how does Lestat ever come back from this? And then I started reading ep6, and how he slowly tears Louis down and talks his way back into their lives. And I thought it was brilliant but also you know frightening. I always tried to approach the material with like what’s the reality of this situation? You know it is a toxic relationship. It was interesting approaching these scenes as an adult, having read these books as a kid. 

N: When you read these romances, its like I want someone to love me that much. And then when you’re an adult, you’re like this is sick this is twisted. We have to have boundaries. 

L: Yes, of course. 

N: You see the relationship change, for all the fantasy of it, the emotions are real, regardless of the time. How we stay in the truth of what the feelings are. As you said this is a tumultuous time, the darkest of days and we see Lestat begging for forgiveness over the course of years and trying to win Louis back. And he has a messed up way of apologizing. Can we talk a little about as a director, getting into the mindset? When you’re talking to Jacob and Sam, do you get them in the mindset of okay its been 6 years, you swam the Mississippi, bring me that energy. 

L: Yeah, again how do you find the truth in that scene. Its at its core.. Lovers reuniting but also there’s so much frustration coming from Louis in that scene. He’s been having this stalker slowly nudging his way into his wife. I remember talking to Jacob about it over lunch, it feels as if that scene also he’s had enough. He knows he’s never going to be free of Lestat. He might as well relent. Its very sad later in the episode he says what difference does it make. 

N: I want Louis to realize he can do better.. 

L: Me too. But you know Lestat is his prison. Its like him trying to get over a bad breakup and he’s still a hundred years later you’re sort of still trying to understand and deal with what happened in this relationship. 

N: And you see here in 2022 and he’s still mad. Relatable. 

L: Of course, of course. Lestat made him a vampire. He became in a way his everything. He became isolated from his family and his friends. He has nothing. It’s classic abusive, toxic. He’s isolated Louis. 

Voicemail from listener: I did watch the first episode, I was very intrigued but I did not read the book. I was a little confused about why Louis’s brother killed himself and then I thought maybe Lestat had gotten into his head because he wants Louis so badly but he wants Louis to come to him. So what better way to get someone and get into someone’s head when they are in mourning for someone they loved and vulnerable. I just wanted to know if that was why Paul killed himself that Lestat put that in his head so he could get to Louis. 

N: You’re asking the question that Louis asks in this episode! I thought this was such a huge moment, have you been sitting on this for 30 years? Have you been with this person wondering this all this time? Can you tell me your thoughts on this question? He says no. 

L: He says no, but as you said, him having this question for 30 years and never asked before, what does that mean? Does that mean he had his doubts but he didn’t want to ask and didn’t want the truth? But now theyre standing at this threshold so he’s like Im gonna ask this question but I think Lestat did not have anything to do with it. I think he’s telling the truth.. What do you think?

N: Its tricky to me cause we know Lestat is a manipulator, thats what he does. On one hand, the way he responds, I believe that but he did get in Paul’s head at the dinner table. 

L: But if he did do it, he’s irredeemable in a way. Which is why I think he did not do it. 

N: Why do you think Lestat is telling his story NOW?

L: To me, its cause he know he has to give him something. It’s purely tactical. He’s very earnest when he tells it, its very down to earth and grounded and direct. 

N: Was that something you and Sam talked about? 

L: Yes, we talked about it and we said this has to be different. It has to feel different for you to sort of lay that final punch toward winning over Louis for real. Without doubt. I don’t want the audience to feel Louis is an idiot. You have to understand Louis like he’s finally giving me something real something vulnerable. 

N: Speaking of sort of this intimacy and this toxicity of this relationship, do you think Lestat deserves forgiveness? 

L: It’s an interesting question and I was thinking about it, cause when you read the books and you read TVL/QOTD, its told from Lestat’s POV and he’s manipulating the reader and you love him and you’re inside his mind and he motivates all of his bad decisions and the bad stuff he does. When you see him objectively from the outside, it becomes more complicated. And this is Louis’s retelling of Lestat. The real question to me is does Louis really forgive him? I’m not sure he does, he takes him in again but is he totally open to him or has he locked off some places? 

N: You gotta lock up some places with Lestat. 

L: You can see that in relationships. People who have been together too long and you wonder should they really be or is it just comfortable its easier like this to keep going. 

N: Lestat will not let him go and we also see he won’t let Claudia go. I HATE HIM! WHY why won’t he just let Claudia go? The thing I don’t understand is he never wanted Claudia, he made her to appease Louis so I’m like why wouldn’t he let her go so he can have Louis all to himself again? 

L: Yes, cause he knows he’s never going to be enough for Louis. He knows that Louis is going to be depressed and thinking about Claudia, he doesn’t want to rock the status quo of the situation, he just wants to keep it as is. Cause its going to be trouble for Lestat. 

N: I feel like Lestat is his own trouble. If he could just be nice and stop having side pieces. Cause this is what kills me, when he mentions the Bruce thing adn knowing what we know of Lestat and how vengeful he is.. Why didn’t he go kill Bruce? 

L: yeah that’s a good question. 

N: Oh so you knew all this time and we know you love killing people just for fun, could you just go kill Bruce for the family please? I was mad.. 

L: Me too. 

N: One of the things too is the idea of enduring. As Lestat says, we endure each other. In some ways, Louis is just enduring Lestat like what can I do, so I’m just gonna stay with him. Is enduring something to even be proud of? Doesn’t sound great to me. 

L: I agree, its a way of suffering. I see it almost as a duty to go through these things and to endure. Being a vampire and living forever is an endurance. In this context, Louis is saying what else can I do?  He doesn’t have anyone else,  he doesn’t know any other vampires, why not just endure this and let this pass? Cause you see time differently when you’re a vampire, like it’s gonna be 10 bad years but then things are gonna change. 

N: 10 bad years.. What’s one bad decade?

L: Yeah cause they don’t have what we do which is like its now or never. I’ve gotta get my shit together now. Hustling to try to fulfill all your dreams. He’s like whats the point? And try to make the best of this, cause this is what we have and the cards we’ve been dealt. 

N: That brings me to Molloy in present day when Louis offers him eternal life and Molloy says no so quickly when we know that was not the case in the 70s. I interpret it as having heard this story, he’s like no I do not want to be a vampire now knowing what he knows hes like no thank you. 

L: Also I think being older and seeing what an effed up place the world is and its all going to hell and its the middle of the pandemic and climate change and wars, I think Molloy is like I don’t wanna stay here. 

N: This episode ends with Molloy having a dream? A memory? I love a camera pan and he’s there. 

L: I freaked out when I was reading it too... This series is everything I wanted as a fan, there are so many cool things you’re going to see in the series from the book. And a lot of things Rolin has planted now that you will see later. 

Horror Author Jewelle Gomez

N: Episode 6 did not leave me feeling good, coming off the heels of 5, it was another pummeling in a way. 

J: Louis has gone through the ringer and its not that often you get to a see a vampire who has to recover. Usually in TV/movies its like bada bing bada bang and injuries are gone. This is a knitting back together and its an emotional thing to watch. 

N: It’s been years, it takes like 3 years to get back to who he was like walking around. This is an episode about the family dynamic and how it is changed by what Lestat has done. What do you think is different about a vampire family? Should they even be a family? Are they forcing something not right? 

J: We’re thinking like mortals, like they can get a therapist to work it through. I think it’s valuable to try to make something but it has to be as Louis say no lies and I dont think Lestat is ever capable of being fully present and fully honest even when he says he’s going to compromise or be honest I don’t know if you can trust him in particular. And then you add in Claudia who is in many ways superior to Louis and Lestat, she’s got a really strong mind a strong intellect… 

N: They’re like she’s a sweet little girl, it will be fine. Have you never met a teenage girl? 

J; WRONG. 

N: It’s funny cause I don’t think of her as smarter but she is colder. Louis he is bound by this love of Lestat, he’s in his thrall. Then Lestat is driven by power and control. Claudia just wants to be free… she is the one who is the least attached in this trio which enables her to see clearly and this dynamic is not right and I dont have to stand for it. 

J: She’s coming into her own as she goes out into the world and sees women. She’s never going to become one in the traditional scene and it engenders her anger. She is definitely chillier than Louis and that’s a surprise to them. She’s not as wedded to the value of mortals cause she’s never lived as long as a mortal. She’s chilly and ruthless. 

N: Absolutely, a bit theme of the series is ht eidea of freedom vs repression and she says to Louis lets leave and go to Europe lets life our own life. But do you think you can really be free as a vampire? Do you think a vampire is any more free as a mortal?

J: Usually its the stuff you take into your vampire life before you were a vampire, but if you were not taught how to create family or what freedom really means, it would be very hard to be free of someone like Lestat. I think that’s a significant element of who Claudia is trying to be free, what it creates for her is assault. She takes that into how she feels about Louis and Lestat. Its stoked by this incident by Bruce, its something they do not understand, even reading the diary you can’t really understand what it means to a woman to have that experience. It’s a very valuable part of the story for us to understand claudia and why she wants to be free why she will go to any lengths to be free. 

N: She thinks the only way to be free is killing Lestat. What are the vampire rules against killing your maker? 

J: It’s like how mortals views patricide or matricide. It’s like the worst crime other than killing your child. It sentences you to death in the vampire world. 

N: Can she ever really be free? If she thinks the only way to freedom is to kill Lestat but to do so would put a target on her back… there’s no way out for her? 

J: The only way for her would be if Lestat turns over a new leaf and just lets them go on their European tour but what’s more likely to happen when he finally does understand Claudia is serious and powerful. The possibility of him killing her is not that slim. He might just be done with her and is not worth the hassle. She’s not in love with him the way Louis is. 

N: We’ve talked a bit about Louis being in love with Lestat and in his thrall but Claudia says we’re slaves to Lestat and Louis is like that’s not true. Why does he not see do you think? 

J: I’ll tell you, when she tells Louis we’re slaves to Lestat, Louis knows what slavery looks like in real life, he does not feel its true for him in this moment. Even though slavery comes in different shapes sizes and forms, he’s like little girl you don’t know what you’re talking about. He doesn’t take in himself as a slave but he’s unable to see himself as a slave but someone who treats him the way Lestat does is not healthy. We cannot underestimate he is in love, he takes the position of the battered spouse who keeps forgiving. 

N: Its Claudia who gives the strength to Louis, when she says we don’t have to be like this anymore, you deserve better, we deserve better, we can start over. The young person who sees all the opportunities vs. the older person who was never given that opportunity. 

J; And that gives you hope that things can change but she’s also a young person who doesn’t know the past so she doesn’t know what Louis’s been through to get where he is. So its a double edged sword in some ways, but the hope part of it is most valuable to Louis at this stage of this story. 

N: If you’re vampire, where would you live and when? Preferred time period and location where you would feel the most free?

J: I would live between London and NY. London in the 1800s - number 1 the clothes, the outfits, I’m a corset queen and bloomers on your bicycle and you could go to the theater every night of the week and see something different. As a person of color I wouldn’t be invited to a lot of the salons, that’s alright I’ld have my own vampire salons. 

[marcusagrippa]

Hey, what was inaccurate about Domina? I want to watch it but I’m unsure on the characterizations

(oh this got quite long, sorry in advance-)

it's not that it's *super* inaccurate, it's just that (in my opinion) some of the choices made were a little, well. they could have been more interesting. guy who only ever thinks about agrippa all the time voice i am going to talk about agrippa first. i do love how they did agrippa but i also feel like his character was sort of flattened? like we see him for the most part as either a violent warmonger or then flip it entirely to this (i'm going to be mean here, but i don't care) pretty pathetic man who just kind of rolls over and does whatever gaius and livia want, and there's not really much nuance - no mention of the whole quote unquote 'exile' situation in 23, or negotiations with herod or parthia or anything like that.

(this is very much a personal thing, but the [spoilers] sort-of-but-not-really romance plot with him and livia definitely irked me. i think they did it well for what it was, but - they did come close, but when are they going to make a show where him and octavian are as insane about one another as they were historically? the emphasis on his relationship with livia over octavian lessens the effect of his death - and the whole death thing really did piss me off. they show his death, they show his funeral, they focus on how sad LIVIA is in that funeral shot (and not his, you know, childhood best friend other half of my soul etc etc) and then immediately cut to a sex scene with livia and gaius. yay. i haven't seen beyond this episode, so correct me if im wrong, but it kind of feels like people just... forget about him immediately? even gaius. there's not really a mourning or grief sort of thing. it's weird.)

the show also often skips out on events that, in my opinion, could have been more interesting than inserting some kind of weird little random subplot in instead. like - without too many spoilers, they give livia this ex best friend who's now a vestal virgin who was also in love with her as a kid which could have been really interesting! and done really well! but it's. not. it glossed over characters who's stories i think are really intriguing - like octavia adopting and raising antony's children (cleopatra selene isn't in the show at all, which i think is pretty sad) could have been interesting to focus on, but instead after a point in season 1 they just kind of reduce her to her grief over marcellus.

i think the show has a little bit of a problem with girlbossifying livia, but to the point where it sort of comes full circle and goes right back to portraying her how people like tacitus might have portrayed her. despite all the reasoning and motivation the show gives her, it still comes across like she's picking off and poisoning octavian's possible heirs one by one (because, well, she literally is) to protect her and her family's power. i think the whole 'restoring the republic' thing COULD have been really interesting! but they don't really explore *how* they'd do that or anything, they just kind of... bring it up every time there needs to be some kind of dramatic secret scene and never expand on it. i understand the show is the livia show but i think the focus on her sometimes makes the other characters (eg gaius) seem stupid or idiotic when we KNOW they weren't historically.

i am not very knowledgeable about the historical julio-claudian 'kids' (for want of a better word), so i can't really speak on a lot of their portrayals, but the whole 'bad tiberius' thing irritated me. unsure of how grounded in history this is but they give him some slightly odd butchered form of doctor-jekyll-esque did where he has an evil fucked up version who comes out and kills people sometimes. i really really love the portrayal of tiberius for the most part in the show, but this bit... eh. he also wants to kill his mum and have sex with his mum, so that's a thing.

side note but it does feel a little weird that two of the main slave characters (antigone and tycho) are both Black, especially in a setting where slavery wasn't influenced by race.

not sure if this is coherent or what you were asking at all, but here are some slightly disconnected thoughts! but despite all of this i do genuinely enjoy the show, if nothing else i think it's very fun. thanks for the ask :]

[baeddel]

The WASP ask got me wondering:

Is Anglo-Saxon at all relevant as, like, a modern ethnic category ~over there~? Is it meaningfully different from saying English?

Thought I'd ask you since you know all about Anglo-Saxons :3

hahaha well it never meant anything over here. in the Anglo-Saxon period we were the invaders! the first time the English conquered Ireland they were called Anglo-Normans, and English settlers in Ireland were only ever a small elite minority. the plantation of Ulster in the 17thc brought mostly Scottish as well as northern English settlers (and the North's relationship to the historical AS identity is tricky because Northumbria was colonized by Scandinavians from the 9thc and they spoke Old Norse!) but also this fact was completely forgotten by the 18thc and both Protestants and Catholics completely believed that Ulster Protestants were and had always been Irishmen. in Connolly's day the idea that Protestants were settlers was known as the 'Two Nations Theory' and it was a fringe one (he considered it ridiculous). it's only quite recently that we know about it & i still think most people would find it surprising. in terms of how Ulster Protestants identify themselves it depends on what question you ask: in response to some questions they answer British and in response to some questions they answer Irish. they never call themselves English (Whyte didn't include any questionnaires that asked if they were 'Anglo-Saxon', click). Catholics will also sometimes call themselves British, remember the civil rights slogan was 'British Rights for British Citizens.'

in England my understanding is that while Anglo-Saxon was used as an identity at least occasionally in the medieval period, it completely disappeared and had no meaning whatsoever in the Norman period. it wasn't resurrected until the 19thc in Germany by philologists and race scientists when they were inventing the idea of a Germanic race. no letters department in England studied Old English and very little was known about it; the field was dominated by Germans until the 20thc. when the first Anglo-Saxonist department was opened at a British university there was an outcry that they were going to unleash the ancestral barbarism that Latin and Greek education had tamed, and its existence as a field was controverisal during both World Wars when Germans were the enemy. so i'm not entirely sure about this, maybe an English reader can correct me if i'm wrong, but the impression i get is that Anglo-Saxon as a racial term for the English was invented in Germany in the 19thc, which was then exported to America, and only then was it used by foreigners in general to refer to the English, and the English have never called themselves Anglo-Saxons.

[suffersinfandom]

Okay, so I usually try to stay out of discourse and drama and all of that because I'm here to have a nice time, but I saw a post in the OFMD tag after the whole Blackbonnet/Stucky poll thing that I really need to type about. It's just... so bad. Like, I totally get disliking things (I dislike things too!), and I understand that OFMD isn't everyone's thing, but wow. WOW. Um.

While the first part's annoying (point to the tumblr fandom that has absolutely no one in it with a victim complex, please), what I really take issue with is the last bit -- the assertion that OFMD's cast diversity is there to be "inclusive" and "progressive" when the narrative isn't. That's just not true? One of the reasons for OFMD's popularity IS its inclusiveness! People who have never seen themselves represented in a show finally *see themselves* in some of these characters, and I think that's lovely. And the show has a wonderfully diverse crew behind the scenes and in the writing room as well!

As for "the narrative being the opposite"... all I can do is assume that OP never bothered watching OFMD. It's the most genuinely, earnestly inclusive and progressive piece of media I've ever consumed.

The acting in OFMD isn't stylistically different from any other show I've watched. The situations and lines are often comedic, Stede and Ed are definitely prone to dramatics, and plenty of the characters are pathetic (affectionate), but this is such a weird critique. Or maybe I just haven't picked anything up from a lifetime of watching media and being a massive dorkass theater nerd? Idk. Maybe they just think the show itself is cringe (I certainly don't think it is, but that's something I've seen plenty of folks who dislike it say) and that colors their opinion on the acting?

Also: where's the slavery apologism? As many other people have said, there's definitely room for good faith criticism of OFMD: its tendency to gloss over the existence of slavery, the rom-comification of real, historic slaveowners, etc, but there's no apologia in the text of the show. (Correct me if I'm wrong! I'm very white and will defer to others here.)

I'm gonna need some sources. I've seen the various accusations, but never evidence or anything that couldn't potentially be explained with context. (I don't actually take much issue with this point -- it's not a crime to think someone's annoying -- I just don't understand the constant vilification of Taika.)

"REAL gay piracy," lol. I can't say much about Black Sails since I haven't watched it (tbh it doesn't sound like something I'd be able to enjoy), but I haven't seen that much seriousness in the OFMD fandom. Do I have all of the annoying crewmates blocked? Do y'all feel like you have a lot to prove? I personally only became invested in this poll when I saw the death threats from Stucky folks, and my impression from my timeline is that most everyone else was in the same boat.

If you ARE taking these polls to heart, please don't! They're for fun (sometimes petty) fandom drama! Win or lose, we all love our ships and our communities and we really don't need to prove anything to anyone (I say, typing out a response to a thing that got under my skin, resolutely not touching grass).

THIS is where I had to start typing. WHAT DOES IT MEAN. How is a show with multiple canon queer couples gaybaiting? Isn't "canon gaybait" an oxymoron, or has the meaning changed? (I'm old, genuinely lmk if my millennial ass is missing something.) Again, I can only assume that OP either hasn't watched OFMD or hates fun romcoms, because the gayness of it all isn't the only thing the show has to offer. My brainworms have better taste than that.

It's some of the best gay rep I've ever seen and I would be delighted to see better! I mean it! I've been in queer circles for almost two decades and in fandom even longer; OFMD is some of the best, kindest, most loving, genuine representation I've come across in that time. I truly hope that it's just the beginning of a new era in media.

"Weak fandom output." I am *drowning* in fandom output and I love that for me! "Driest gay kiss." I'm sorry you don't like awkward middle-aged men who think they're unlovable coming together in what might very well be the first loving kiss either of them has ever had, but I think it's very sweet and moving! No fictional characters have ever owned my brain like this before! I love my silly traumatized queer pirates who can't communicate to save themselves. They're very beautiful to me.

Anyway, that's enough of that. I've released the pettiness and I'm going to go back to being annoying about seeing the lads again in just a few more days. <3

[white-lotus-pavilion]

Well would you look at that the moment something happens the other officials jump at the opportunity to ruin xiao chiye's reputation. It really puts into perspective how cutthroat historical politics were because this is just devious.

So from what I can defer, initially this seems like a faction struggle for power between the Xiao family and the Hua family. There fighting has been one that goes throughout the generation so of course they want to see Xiao Chiye's downfall.

How ever that is not the case.

The Xiao family and Xiao Chiye in specific are not only up against the Hua family but also all of the great clans because the empress dowager is pulling the strings behind their moves. But the kicker is that there is someone pulling the strings behind HER moves.

Now that is interesting.

No wonder why the politics in this novel are so confusing I had to do a second reread just to understand what the hell was happening while Shen Zechuan and Xiao Chiye are having this discussion (which is still tripping with sexual tension by the way).

I also find it very interesting how Xiao Chiye was able to deduce Shen Zechuan's involvement in his reputational decline with just a few clues. That's really amazing and it shows that he may put on the act of a lecherous man who likes to fight and drown himself in the pleasures of women but he's actually very smart and it makes sense because of being a general you have to be very smart.

Even though that is the case my boy Shen Zechuan comes in to correct him on a false assumption because when Xiao Chiye is out here thinking that the reason why Shen Zechuan is doing what he is doing is not because he wants Justice for the tragedy that happened at the chicha sinkhole but instead is actually trying to get more power, my beautiful boy clocks him and he's like actually no I have figured out things that you don't know and he goes on this long explanation of his thought process and I'm sitting over here like damn you really pull one over his head didn't you!

(Also. He's a damn genius wtf?

Like genuinely the fact that he is able to deduce so early on that there is somebody or more than one person besides the empress dowager pulling all of these strings it's just a sign to how intelligent he is and I really wonder what that five year I'm skip taught him because how the heck did he become so smart in 5 years what the hell was he learning?)

This chapter really puts into perspective how importantly the chicha sinkhole incident was because the loss of that many people is a huge cause for national concern. The loss of 30,000 people, that's workers, fathers, brother, is not only a huge drop in morale but it also puts the nation into a lot of debt because oh how that loss affects literally all walks of life but in the case of this kingdom it is farm workers.

The chicha sinkhole incident being something that is now the foundation for so many of these future plots is so interesting. So many things are being affected by this one incident and it shows.

This chapter ending off with Shen Zechuan telling Xiao Chiye that if he wants to aply with him he has to be sincere is honestly the best. Than they draw there swords at each other too!

How romantic.

There's still a lot of the politics that I still can't wrap my head around but writing out these thoughts really helps me out that's for sure.

If anyone can correct me if I got anything wrong I would very much appreciate that because I want to understand this novel better it's so interesting.

Ballad of Song and Sword: Qiang Jin Jiu