#ambition of class mobility

[teafiend]

Am a fan of the character of 蔣簥 and despite my many issues with the show and its unremarkable writing, am rediscovering the reasons why it left an impression in my mind. Quite a few lessons to be gleaned here.

[ingoodjesst]

one thing i really like about the apothecary diaries is how fluidly maomao moves between high- and low-class society, between the rear palace and the pleasure district, allowing us to see the parallels in the power dynamics. in both settings, we see women trying to make the most of their relative stations with whatever tools available to them, which are often shared. much of the politics of the series centers women and the ways they try to navigate the world through seduction, marriage, beauty, fashion, manipulation, etc, because these are the things they're valued for. their appearance, their social graces, their "purity", their marriageability, their ability to bear children, and beyond - these all lend political, economic, and social leverage to themselves and their families regardless of class.

the mystery angle in particular enables the story to closely examine what tools and motives are available to women in the apothecary diaries in a way that's contextualized and humanized. it's also how the series highlights said women operating with a keen awareness of society's expectations and systems. whether that's applying deathly white powder to maintain impractical beauty standards, faking illnesses to deter certain visitors, using parlor tricks to subtly punish callous men, or wearing ostentatious outfits to hide a certain truth, each mystery we encounter reveals more about what it means to navigate the world of the apothecary diaries as a woman in addition to revealing their cleverness (or lack thereof) in doing so.

maomao is no exception to the rule, often weighing similar questions of propriety and power before she acts - although she does engage from a unique position. she's a literate woman from the lower class with special circumstances surrounding her birth, versed as an apothecary, and favored by highly ranked members of the court. this, plus her marked lack of ambition beyond medicine, gives her a lot of mobility between and (relatively) unbiased insight into both the high- and low-ranked parts of society. in turn, we readers are given a fantastic protagonist to explore what i consider a core draw of the series: seeing how maomao chooses to move through the world, highly conscious of her own social positioning as well as that of all the other women around her

[maxdibert]

Lily. Is she just a popular Petunia? On the surface they’re two sisters that could hardly be more different, the elder unattractive, dull and untalented and the younger beautiful, vivacious and magical. But they both chose domineering upper class bullies. They’re both concerned with social respectability. They both place themselves in physical danger for their sons. And while I can’t see Lily shoving a child in a cupboard, she also seems to operate within the framework that violence is acceptable if she can justify to herself the victim deserves it. Lily gets called a Mary Sue a lot and I get why but I think JKR put just enough in there to make the case that that she’s as grey as her chosen company lol

This take on Lily as a “popular Petunia” gains even more depth when we consider their working-class backgrounds and how each ultimately chooses a partner who offers social mobility—though in questionable ways. Petunia finds security and an upward social shift by marrying Vernon, a man who embodies traditional middle-class respectability with all its rigid, judgmental values. Lily, on the other hand, ends up with James Potter, who, by magical standards, is akin to a wealthy, privileged elite. James’s status, confidence, and the power that comes with his family’s legacy mark a clear jump for Lily in the wizarding social hierarchy, just as Petunia’s life with Vernon marks a leap into conventional middle-class security in the Muggle world.

Both sisters align themselves with men who embody aspects of control and social status within their respective worlds, suggesting they value security and social respectability—even if it means overlooking or accepting certain flaws. Petunia tolerates Vernon’s small-mindedness and cruelty, while Lily accepts James despite his past as a bully and privileged figure. Yet Lily’s decision is often portrayed in a highly idealized way, with Rowling rarely delving into her motivations or background beyond her role as Harry’s mother. This lack of context is perhaps one of the biggest issues with Lily’s character: she’s preserved as an almost saintly maternal figure, untouchable and morally pure, which can feel one-dimensional and even hypocritical, especially when we learn about her past friendship with Snape. Rowling’s reluctance to explore Lily’s complexity leaves her moral standing somewhat hollow, given that she rejects Snape for his darker choices while forgiving James for his own troubling traits.

In the end, both Lily and Petunia are driven by a desire for social respectability and stability, but their different worlds shape those ambitions in distinct ways. By elevating Lily to an untouchable status as Harry’s “perfect” mother, Rowling misses the chance to flesh out the complexities that make her choices relatable, instead framing her as a near-flawless martyr. This leaves her character feeling almost like a “Mary Sue” figure, unable to reconcile the murkiness of her past or the double standards within her relationships.

[thyfleshc0nsumed]

“It means our lives get materially worse”

I’m glad you’re willing to fall on the sword and accept a tanking standard of living as penance for being American or whatever, but shouldn’t we find a way to end imperialism without sacrificing like…reliable food/electricity water

Look, take this with a grain of salt cuz I'm a dumb fuck who doesn't know jack shit, but the way I see it, we're a long way out from the American people doing anything besides more or less asking for a bigger piece of the pie of empire. I mean for Christ's sake, people think Bernie Sanders is a radical. A third of the people my age are "anti capitalists" whose highest political ambitions are Nordic model shit. A third are making car bombs cuz they think a cabal of woke pedophiles is making the boobs in their video games too small. The last third are working warehouse jobs and too alienated from everything to do much besides smoke grass and jerk off (not that I blame em). There's no chance for mobilization for meaningful alternatives, and we're decades away from that.

If there's a better world coming, I think we will be the last to see it. Chains break in the weak links, and America is not a weak link. Over time, third world and periphery nations will liberate themselves, which means the core no longer has access to their stolen labor and resources in the same way, and conditions worsen here until the capitalist is forced to turn inward and truly clamp down at home, which leads to conditions that could actually mobilize the American proletariat into revolutionary action. Then, actual fascism shows up and gains broader bourgeois backing as they feel their backs come into contact with the wall, and the cards fall as they may.

Idk, like I said, I'm some dumb fuck who doesn't know shit, I just think this ain't a YA dystopian novel. I just think we've got a good few decades before revolutionary minded people in this part of the world have much to do besides prepare, raise class consciousness, and do a bit of propaganda for those trying to liberate themselves from the empire we belong to.

[witsserviceablesubstitute]

A life isn't more or less worthy because it has the potential of being socially upwardly mobile. Henry's experience as a lord's bastard can exist as itself without him being considered a better or lesser person. Martin is no less his father, for example, because he was a Blacksmith. Mostly I love the twist because it explained Radzig's interest in him, all the sudden nepotism, the freedoms he was given.

Hans' life is a tragedy because he's a lord, a political game piece whose inheritance is essentially being held captive, his life on a knife's edge of shifting political sentiment. The world of women, both low and high, was a tragedy because they have no autonomy or respect. They are seen as subhuman and under Holy Roman rule that treatment was justified as women paying the price for original sin. The peasant's life was a tragedy because they were subject to a constant power struggle between Royalty and also the greed and capricious ambitions of the Holy Roman Church.

Kingdom Come Deliverance is trying to say this, I think. Class struggle is one of the themes of the story.

[addamvelaryon]

I still can’t believe HOTD turned Addam into a coward. 😐 Instead of the brave boy from the book, who was assertive enough to claim a dragon to prove himself as a Velaryon, we got a joke sequence of Addam running away scared and then laying on the ground cowering before Seasmoke. GRRM is clearly not pleased with the show screwing up the dragonlore. Based off what we see in canon, it’s unwise to show excessive fear in front of dragons as that can be a death sentence. So show!Addam only became a dragonrider by accident, because the plot demanded it, and not because of his own merit.

The scene should’ve been Addam making an active choice to claim Seasmoke for himself. In the book, Addam was described as “relentless” and “determined”. HOTD should’ve portrayed Addam taking matters into his own hands and going out of his way to claim Seasmoke as a way to earn Corlys’ approval. Instead we got Seasmoke randomly dropping on Addam from the sky. Claiming a dragon was the key for the dragonseeds to obtain upwards social mobility and join the ranks of the noble class. That is the reason they all participated in the Red Sowing in the first place. Hugh & Ulf are shown to have motivations for claiming a dragon, but where is Addam’s motivation in the show? Why is he not allowed to actively pursue his ambition to rise higher?

Even after that awful scene of Addam & Seasmoke in episode 6, I thought perhaps HOTD would still let Addam show the same assertive nature of his book counterpart, now that he’s finally become a dragonrider. He would fly to High Tide to confront his father and make Corlys acknowledge him because he’s no longer okay with being ignored. Except in episode 7, Addam continued to be a passive character. He tells Rhaenyra that he had no design on becoming a dragonrider; he’s just very happy to be of service to her.

The book version of Addam was willing to claim the Driftwood Throne for himself, though it meant pushing aside Rhaenyra’s son, Joffrey. During the Fall of King’s Landing, he didn’t just follow the example of the other dragonseeds, but took the initiative to act separately. He also escaped the dragonpit rather than submit to an unlawful arrest. Then he set out to clear his name from the false accusations instead of just sitting around to wait the war out. Fire & Blood consistently portrayed Addam as the type of person who takes control of his life in his own hands, who acts according to his own choices, and not solely what his superiors tell him to do. The only one whose will Addam was beholden to was his (grand)father, Corlys, and that’s because they have mutually aligned interests; it’s through his relationship with Corlys that Addam can connect to his Velaryon side, which is the sole reason he’s involved in the war to begin with. It’s such blatant character assassination for HOTD to portray Addam as a passively obedient figure. Rhaenyra says one word to him and he’s immediately bending the knee. After that, he’s just quietly obeying every order given to him. Alyn tells him to stop dreaming big and so Addam has to downplay himself, and he just goes along with being a passive character. 🙄

The duality between duty and defiance is one of the major themes in Addam’s story. Why bother adapting the character if you’re going to remove half of what defines him as a person?

The show didn’t even include the scene of Addam swiftly saving his little brother from the much larger wild dragon, Sheepstealer (who had already killed plenty of other dragonseeds that appeared before him). Although if that event happened in show canon, I guess Addam would just run away scared again.

[ranticore]

in kobold story, would red leaf have initially reacted any differently than holly did, if he'd been the one to receive the offer?

Red Leaf would have turned it down after a short deliberation period. He was already happy with where he was in life and lacked ambition and imagination for anything more than what he already had.

He wasn't the smartest either but he was aware of his limitations in a way that Holly was not - he knew that entering a different social class would leave him disadvantaged in nearly every interaction and that would only make him feel bad. His attitude was a little defeatist in a way, like the person who never applies to a good job because they feel they'd be no good at it. A slight inferiority complex played off by knowing that Holly could do better, but that was never clear to Red until the exact moment it actually happened, forcing him to reflect on it for the first time. He did always know that Holly was the braver of the two as well but that was not so much an issue until, again, the bravery became a mechanism for this big leap into the unknown world of matriarch consort/babysitter.

Social mobility between classes in the colony is almost nonexistent so it wouldn't have been a very common offer - matriarch candidates are born frequently (and die very easily) and each time, they get their consorts selected from the general population. the consorts always fill pre-defined roles like the protector and the healer but the scavenger role is actually rarely held by an actual scavenger from Holly's social class. This makes the offer more exceptional but as most baby matriarchs die, most would-be consorts end up back where they started in their old lives and won't be chosen again for the next candidate matriarch (new set of consorts each time). Functionally it means that Red Leaf had to also weigh up the potential outcomes - slim chance of fabulous unimaginable luxury forever, or, most likely, coming back to his old life after a short painful interlude. It would feel pointless to him. on the other hand Holly was far more willing to gamble.

Finally Red Leaf was happy with Holly as a partner and wouldn't be tempted by the promise of consort orgies in the colony core. He was already satisfied with his partner, his life, and its known quantities and predictability. throwing it all down the drain for the sake of a hypothetical would seem like madness to him

[lavendersugarplum]

𝐎𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐎𝐍 | umbrella academy reader insert

𝕻ʀᴏʟᴏᴜɢᴇ

IN AN INEXPLICABLE WORLDWIDE EVENT, At the same time that "Tusslin' Tom" Gurney defeated the space-squid from Rigel X-9 with a flying atomic elbow in an exhibition wrestling match, on the 12th hour on the first day of October 1989, forty-three children were spontaneously birthed around the world in a seemingly random occurrence, to women who'd previously shown no signs of pregnancy, most of them single. Most of the children that survived were subsequently abandoned or put up for adoption. The mothers have solemn been known to have have kept the children.

One day, a world renowned scientist and wealthy entrepreneur; Inventor of the The Mobile Umbrella Communicator, and Clever Crisp Cereal. Olympic Gold Medalist and recipient of the Nobel Prize for his work in the ceberal advancement of the chimpanzee. For some reasons unknown, Sir Reginald Hargreeves set out with his bodyguard Abhijat aboard his favorite private vessel, The Minerva. to locate and adopt as many children as possible.

He got seven of them

In the shadowy world of the Umbrella Academy, the children were more than just gifted individuals with extraordinary powers. They were pawns in a game of cosmic proportions, symbols of a higher purpose that extended far beyond their own individuality.

Assigned codenames by their enigmatic and formidable father, Sir Reginald Hargreeves, the children were ranked 00.01 through 00.07 according to their perceived usefulness, their powers and abilities carefully calibrated to meet the needs of a world on the brink of cataclysmic change.

But Hargreeves' plans were shrouded in mystery, his motives obscured by a veil of secrecy that left the children wondering about their true purpose and place in the world.

And so it was that Sir Reginald held a press conference in Stockholm, his face stern and unyielding as he faced a sea of journalists, each one hungry for answers.

"Why have you adopted these children?" asked Cosimo De'Lostrono, a journalist from Milan, his voice ringing out like a challenge in the tense silence of the room.

And yet, Hargreeves' only explanation was a cryptic one, a simple statement that belied the complexity of his plans and the depth of his ambitions. "To save the world," he said, his eyes shining with an intensity that left no doubt as to his commitment to his cause.

Sir Reginald Hargreaves stood before a waiting crowd, his eyes shining with pride and determination. His chest and shoulders were held high, his posture exuding a sense of authority and power that left no doubt as to his dominance.

"Our world is changing," he began, his voice ringing out like a clarion call, the strength and conviction in his words enough to silence the large crowd of people gathered before him. "Has changed. And yet, there are some among us who are gifted with abilities far beyond the ordinary. I have adopted seven such children."

It was a bold statement, one that left the audience stunned and silent, their eyes fixed on the seven baby strollers that stood before them like a symbol of hope and possibility.

Reginald stepped aside, gesturing to the strollers as he introduced his children to the general public

 "I give you the inaugural class of The Umbrella Academy."

No sooner did Sir Reginald Hargreeves punctuatehis sentence, the room was suddenly filled with a cacophony of sound, a parade of questions and queries from the eager crowd of reporters that squabbled at his feet, each one desperate to get a question in.

"Mr. Hargreeves! Mr. Hargreeves!" shouted a reporter from Channel 9 News, her voice rising above the din of the others. "What happened to their parents?"

For a moment, Sir Reginald stood silent, his face inscrutable as he pondered the weight of the question. And then, with a sudden and decisive motion, he answered, his voice ringing out like a bell in the tense silence of the room.

"They were suitably compensated," 

And yet, even as the reporters continued to clamor and shout, each one struggling to be heard above the others, there was a sense of unease in the room, a sense that something profound and mysterious lay hidden beneath the surface of Sir Reginald's words.

And so the reporters continued to shout and clamor, each one desperate for answers, even as Sir Reginald remained silent, his eyes fixed on some distant horizon, his mind lost in thought and contemplation.

"Are you concerned about the welfare of the children?" Asks another woman with her voice laced with concern,  as the other reports had turned to her then back to The Monocle. 

And yet, even as the other reporters waited with bated breath for his response, Sir Reginald answered without hesitation, his voice strong and resolute.

"Of course," he said, his words carrying a sense of conviction. "As I am for the fate of the world."

But from what? To this they had received no answer. A lot of questions and conspiracy theories surged around, with civilians questioning the Monocle's tactics and motives. They wondered what kind of world-saving plan involved adopting seven children and raising them in secrecy, away from the outside world.

And yet, even as the questions and speculation continued to swirl around them, Sir Reginald and the seven children vanished from public view, disappearing into the shadows as they prepared for the fateful day when their powers would be needed the most.

~ ☂︎ ~

The scene was one of ominous foreboding, as the skies overhead grew increasingly tempestuous. A dense cloak of darkness descended upon the land, swallowing up any hint of illumination. The clouds swirled and thickened, heralding the approach of a violent storm. Lightning streaked across the horizon like the merciless tides of a black sea, poised to crush anything in its path. Suddenly, without warning, a deluge of water came crashing down, cascading from the structures, trees, and earth below. The ferocious winds howled and roared, sweeping through the murky, gloomy environment with colossal force. Amidst the chaos, a piercing and booming cry could be heard emanating from the Academy's vintage exterior, a haunting sound that echoed through the tumultuous night.

One may believe that a person who adopts not one, but seven children would have a lot of love and nurturing to provide...

Seven small cots stood in a perfect row within what appeared to be a nursery, though to most it would seem more like a chamber of confinement. The room was devoid of windows and sunlight, illuminated only by a single, dim light at its center. Perhaps this was to keep the babies safe and contained, or maybe it was to ensure the protection of their caretakers. Cameras were scattered about the room, capturing every angle and movement with a scrutinizing gaze. The Monocle, also known as Sir Reginald Hargreeves, eccentric billionaire and explorer, was meticulously recording his daily observations. Though the babies were not yet of his estimated age for their abilities to manifest, it was never too early to start preparing for the future.

He stood in the nursery, his trusted assistant and friend Pogo, an advanced chimpanzee, by his side. Together they scanned the rows of cots, searching for any signs of extraordinary abilities. Suddenly, a thunderous cry erupted from the seventh cot, reverberating throughout the academy. But the Monocle remained unflappable, his expression stoic as he cradled one of the babies in his arms, examining him with practiced precision. Pogo, meanwhile, tried to ignore the wailing, casting occasional side glances at the seventh cot while attending to the fifth. Yet, as soon as Pogo averted his gaze from the fifth crib, a barely audible sneeze sounded, and the baby from the fifth crib vanished into thin air.

Panic surged through Pogo's body as he frantically scanned the room for the vanished child. He knew all too well the wrath that would befall them if the elder discovered what had transpired. His eyes darted from crib to crib, his feet shuffling with urgency as he searched for any sign of the missing baby. With trembling hands, he sifted through the first six cots, his furry fingers grasping at each one in turn. Finally, he arrived at the last bed, where two babies lay side by side. The cries of the little girl still echoed through the room. But as soon as the boy was placed next to her, the sobs subsided, and the two infants gazed at each other with a sense of wonder and recognition.

Pogo's glassy, deep chimp eyes flickered between the seventh cot and the now-vacant one, his voice heavy with concern. "Master Hargreeves," he began tentatively, "is it not highly unusual to witness a baby abruptly teleport into another crib?" The gravity of the situation weighed heavily upon him, and he awaited the elder's response with bated breath.

"Absolute Nonsense, Pogo. Now what kind of inquir–astonishing!" The Monocle's once cold and unfeeling eyes filled with dignity and pride looking in amazement at the first child who had displayed signs of his abilities. He set down the baby boy who clung onto his body, roughly as forcibly into the crib with '#4'  laminated on the side, not paying any mind, moving to the noisy 7th crib with Pogo taking his place beside him. "I'm sure he's going to be quite the handful as he ages."

"I am painfully aware of the gravity of this matter, but..." The Monocle's words trailed off as he lifted the child from the bustling crib, earning a swift kick from the green-eyed infant. With a small chuckle, he adjusted his monocle and began to examine the baby from head to toe. "This is just... extraordinary," he marveled, his voice filled with wonder. As he gazed upon the child, he could feel a sense of pride swelling within him. "You are truly an extraordinary being," he murmured, his heart full with the knowledge that he had witnessed something truly remarkable. 

The Monocle had just begun to reach for his report book when a sudden rumble and shaking rocked the peacefulness of the Academy. Small particles of debris rained down from the ceiling, causing him to instinctively shield his eyes. Within moments, objects and tools began to levitate into the air, defying the laws of physics and gravity. Pogo's voice rang out, filled with alarm and confusion. "Master Hargreeves, what is happening?!" he cried, his eyes darting around the room in terror.

but they would be wrong. 

The Monocle was too transfixed by the glowing ball of light emanating from cot #7 to register his assistant's panicked question. With cautious steps, he drew nearer, his eyes fixed on the pulsating orb of energy. The room was filled with a sense of otherworldly power, and he could feel the air crackling with electricity.

Sir Reginald Hargreeves was not the most affectionate of fathers. It would be incredible to see the man show anything other than in scorn and pride. Sir Reginald Hargreeves was distant. Soon the children would be treated as experiments. Weapons. Instruments. Bombs. The children were given numbers rather than names, according to the order in which Sir Reginald Hargreeves had procured them. Grace, the children's mother and personal caregiver, insisted on giving them a proper name.

The baby's cries reached a fever pitch, drowning out the harsh rumbling that now shook the cots with greater intensity. Reginald's eyes remained fixed on the seventh bed, his heart racing with anticipation. The glowing ball of light at the center of the infant's being was near-blinding in its brilliance, but he could not look away. As the child continued to wail, he reached up to adjust his falling monocle, his focus unbroken. But just as he was about to raise it to his eye, the room was filled with the sudden slam of a door.

As the door slammed open, his personal bodyguard, Abhijat, appeared in the doorway, a look of urgency etched onto his face. "Abhijat, what is the matter?" the elder inquired, his tone firm and unwavering. He refused to be distracted from his task, even in the face of potential danger. The rumbling had come to a sudden halt at the sound of the door, but he knew that they could not let their guard down too soon. 

"It's ready, sir," Abhijat replied, his voice barely above a whisper. There was a sense of urgency in his tone, and the Monocle knew that they must act quickly if they were to succeed in their mission. With a final glance at the glowing infant, he turned his attention to his loyal bodyguard, trailing off after him.

[foursaints]

Who do you ship Pandora with, if anyone? And how do you imagine her dynamic with said person?

lily, probably!

alright now that we’re hiding under the cut, let’s talk about the secret real answer. this is genuinely a diabolical Hear Me Out & we’re all pinky promising to put our delusion hats on okay….

lowkey…. it’s lucius malfoy 😭 i believe they ruined each other for all other people. it’s a haughty stuck-up social climbing failson & the strange sickly carnivorous girlinventor who haunts his waking dreams and nightmares.

LISTEN!!!! i know i sound completely bonkers but i’m entranced by the idea of a younger lucius (with much less status and wealth before his marriage into the black family), who is much scrappier & angrier & more pathetic & desperate & obsessed with upward class mobility & completely insane. he’s still the Worst, he’s just a lot more pitiful and unhinged and his obsequiousness is genuinely embarrassing.

and then there is pandora, who only has her brother, who turned down the option of being heir to an ancient pureblood house, who is as freakish & uncaring of other’s opinions as anyone can get . who is just as angry as him. and he pisses her off

i think they would hate each other but i also think she would sneak that smarmy slytherin weirdo into the greenhouse & he would kick petulantly at an overturned flowerpot & she might brush his hair back from his face. they would hate each other but he would be disgustingly in love with her (without admitting it) and she’d be surprised whenever he acted like a gentleman. she likes his ambition for political power and he likes hers for invention. i NEED to see lucius tortured with love for a disheveled hippie ravenclaw….

it’s bohemian artist x sleazy politician!!! it’s evilwife x pathetic cringefail husband!!!!! she could fix him (get him to share a blunt with her)!!!! they would never publicly associate with each other of course, but there’s a really combative mutual fondness / fascination there.

they’re coriolanus snow x lucy gray baird variants

[abbenai]

class relations and thomas hutter in nosferatu 2024

i think this is all the nosferatu thoughts i have in my head for main.

thomas' character neatly explores ambitions and insecurities of the emerging middle class in 19th-century europe, specifically (and im paraphrasing @cafeleningrad here. tysm for the added context!) the characters live on the northern german coast, in a fictional city that appears to be a swedish colony. during this time, sweden’s overseas holdings were in economic decline, creating financial strain for many. friedrich, as a dock owner likely from old money, remains stable, whereas thomas, burdened with debt, must secure an income in a struggling town.

politically, the region is in turmoil. germany, as a unified nation, would not exist until 1871, and the decades leading up to unification were marked by instability. in response, many middle- and upper-class germans withdrew into domesticity and romanticism, deliberately ignoring the broader chaos. friedrich embodies this mindset—his rigid adherence to patriarchal structures and his fixation on an idealized home life reflect a widespread desire to impose personal order in the face of political uncertainty.

thomas' profession as a real estate agent places him in a social stratum striving for upward mobility, navigating between the working class and the aristocracy. and even still thomas is working within a system that offers little room for upward mobility unless you’re willing to go to extremes. his encounter with orlok is not just about the supernatural terror of a vampire, but also a confrontation with forces beyond his control: the economic pressures of his profession, the authority figures who hold the purse strings, and the overwhelming sense that life is far more fragile than he’s ever understood.

economic anxieties permeate the domestic sphere is thomas' mind too though. see, something interesting about thomas and ellens relationship is that it looks like ellen comes from money. her family home looks like a manor house and her childhood bedroom even looks larger than the apartment her and thomas share. the script also says they have a topiary garden which is definitely fancy.

it is kind of sweet in the way it implies a love match since ellen's marrying "below her station" in that regard but i also think this class disparity informs his insecurity in their relationship. he strives to take on a provider role and attain the same idealized domestic life and financial independence friedrich has. its not like that desire exists in a vacuum though, as vi pointed out friedrich does ask when they'll be having kids and is very generous with his money and loans to thomas which emasculates him as a provider since he hasn't reached those "benchmarks" like his friend has. there's also herr knock. "a new husband needs new wages," knock leverages thomas' financial insecurities as well as his precarious financial position to lure him into accepting a long and ultimately disastrous assignment.

until he comes face to face with ellen's tormentor, thomas struggles to balance economic realities and his desire to genuinely care for ellen. and you can see that when he initially dismisses her nightmare and sends her off to the hardings' to carry on with his assignment which he believes to be securing their future and maybe even what he expects ellen to value having come from money (nicer lodging, a midservant, the ability to support children).

thomas and ellen’s relationship is ultimately defined by this tension between love and economic survival. while their marriage appears to be a love match, thomas’ persistent struggle to provide and establish his own security renders their union fragile. his need to prove himself as a provider, exacerbated by the class disparity between them, prevents him from truly prioritizing ellen’s concerns until it is too late. ellen, in contrast, becomes the true agent of resistance, recognizing orlok’s threat not just as a supernatural menace but as an embodiment of the very forces that have already made their lives unstable. her end underscores the futility of the structures thomas has relied upon—money, property, and even marriage—leaving behind a question of whether true security or love can exist within such a system at all.

the economic underpinnings of thomas’ assignment become even more apparent when he arrives at the inn. his money holds power here, but it also isolates him. in a small community, thomas’ ability to throw around coin—whether it’s paying for a room, securing a horse, or ordering a meal—marks him as an intruder. this financial dynamic is particularly evident in how the innkeeper reacts. they are deferential because of his wealth, yet reluctant, knowing that their compliance means sending another hapless man to his doom. their hesitance is not only rooted in fear of the supernatural but also in an unspoken economic calculation: can they afford to refuse him? can they afford to lose him? thomas, in contrast, remains oblivious to these tensions, his mind singularly focused on fulfilling his commission.

thomas' interactions with orlok similarly reflect his precarious social and financial standing. thomas enters the vampire’s domain thinking he is the agent of commerce, the man negotiating the sale of an estate, the professional wielding the authority of paperwork and contracts. but orlok immediately undermines this dynamic. from the moment they meet, the count does not engage with thomas as an equal in business; instead, he toys with him, positioning him as prey long before any overt supernatural horror is revealed.

money, which has defined thomas’ sense of self and security, becomes meaningless in orlok’s world. thomas’ attempts at maintaining professional decorum fall flat against orlok’s eerie disinterest in the transactional. there is a perverse irony in how thomas, a man whose livelihood depends on property and ownership, finds himself trapped in a place where all pretense of control is stripped away. his financial ambitions, his carefully curated aspirations of upward mobility, disintegrate as he realizes he has been lured into an arrangement in which he has no power. the estate sale, which once represented his economic salvation, becomes irrelevant. the true exchange occurring in orlok’s castle is not about land or money, but about life itself—thomas’ life and ellen's life, which orlok has already deemed his for the taking.

in the face of a creature who exists outside human constructs of wealth and property, thomas’ insistence on playing the role of the aspiring bourgeois only hastens his downfall. it is not just supernatural horror that undoes him, but the crushing realization that the economic structures he has placed his faith in hold no power in the face of something ancient and inhuman.

[cskv11]

Idea: Bill's insistence that free will doesn't exist is just another cope so he doesn't have to take accountability for destroying his dimension

Oh yes, absolutely!

Also, It's also highly likely (and referring to previous posts) that he feels aversion or disgust towards the topic, mainly due to his own personal experience.

If the world of Euclydia bears even the slightest resemblance to Flatland's, then whatever has been sold to society as "free will" would be a complete scam.

Flatland, in itself, is a critique of Victorian England, focusing on the rigidity of the class system that characterized the era.

Society is governed by some kind of hierarchy in which rising up the social ladder is practically impossible, unless you already belong to the highest elites.

The rigidity that exists between social classes makes mobility between them literally impossible.

Within this context, the nature of this hierarchy consumes the lives of the inhabitants to the point where it becomes the center of all their motivations, incapacitating them from having other ambitions. They live by and for this. They oppress the lower classes, and claim violence against the weak is justified. They live by and for this. This is a self-absorbed, narcissistic, and rotten society that cannot see beyond their own selves.

Knowing this, anyone who says that "free will" exists in a society like this is either an ignorant or is just lying.

The number of sides you have decides your place in society, your profession, and every other aspect of your life.

Don’t agree with that? Get ready to be isolated from society, stigmatized, and in the worst case, sentenced to death.

Of course, seeing it this way, Bill was exposed to a society where free will could be considered an optical illusion, so it’s understandable that he firmly believes it doesn’t exist and even mocks it. Bill can’t help but project his problems onto others.

He watches us and sees us as an extension of Euclydia's failed society...

[justforbooks]

Alfa Anderson

American singer best known as a vocalist with the 1970s disco group Chic whose hits included Le Freak

Among the disco goddesses – the Donnas, Glorias, Evelyns, Gwens, Candis and Anitas – who serenaded the dancers of the hedonistic 1970s in such celebrated joints as New York’s Studio 54 and London’s Heaven, it seems likely that only Alfa Anderson’s destiny included leaving show business to resume her studies and eventually become a high school principal.

Anderson, who has died aged 78, had been one of the featured singers with Chic, the high-fashion disco ensemble whose chart-topping hits included Le Freak. Emerging from the ranks of backing singers in the Manhattan recording studios, she had been spotted by Luther Vandross, then a star-to-be, who introduced her in 1977 to the guitarist Nile Rodgers and the bassist Bernard Edwards, Chic’s ambitious young founders and songwriters.

The duo’s ambition was to create an upscale dance music blending funky dancefloor rhythms with the sophisticated style of an English band they much admired, Bryan Ferry’s Roxy Music. By comparison with their disco rivals, Chic were cool and restrained, their musicianship impeccable, their female singers conveying a matching sense of class.

On the sleeve of C’est Chic (1978), their second album, designed to look like the cover of a fashion magazine, it was Anderson who reclined in a white silk blouse and old-gold skirt against an expensive sofa in the garden room of a country house, while the other core members of the group struck suitably soigné poses. The message was unmissable: a dream of upward mobility which their audience was invited to share.

On another of their hits, I Want Your Love (like Le Freak, included in C’est Chic), Anderson took the solo lead, her voice finding a sinuous path between Edwards’s pulsing bass, Tony Thompson’s implacable drums, Rodgers’s flickering rhythm guitar, the cushion of strings, the syncopated trumpet figures and – in a typically imaginative touch – tubular bells prominently doubling the melody on the chorus.

The eldest of four children, Alfa Anderson was born in Augusta, Georgia, and named after the first letter of the Greek alphabet, its spelling varied to match the Christian name of her father, Alfonso Anderson, an employee of the US Postal Service. Her mother, Essie, was a social worker and Girl Scout troop leader.

Interested in music from a very early age, Alfa grew up singing in church and with the Girl Scouts, and learned the saxophone, flute and piccolo at Lucy C Laney high school. A degree in English at Paine College in Augusta was followed by a move to New York, where she settled in Harlem while studying for a master’s degree at the Teachers College at Columbia University and singing in the college choir.

She received her first significant public exposure through a role in Big Man, a play with music by the jazz saxophonist Julian “Cannonball” Adderley and based on the legend of the Black railroad worker John Henry. Attending its sole performance at Carnegie Hall in 1976, her churchgoing mother was shocked to discover her daughter singing the part of a “whore” called Maggie.

Her next professional appearance was at Lincoln Center, singing a solo piece called Children of the Fire, written by the trumpeter Hannibal Marvin Peterson as a protest against US involvement in the Vietnam war.

She also appeared on the soundtrack album of the hit musical The Wiz, produced by Quincy Jones.

In the daytime she was teaching at Hunter College, the public university on Park Avenue, New York, and music was still a part-time occupation when she met the founders of Chic. Arriving early at the studio to sing background parts on their first album, she was discovered marking her students’ papers while waiting for the session to start, much to the other musicians’ amusement.

When the lead singer, Norma Jean Wright, left in 1978 to pursue a solo career, Anderson was invited to take her place. Giving her notice to Hunter College, she shared the lead role first with Diva Gray on Le Freak, which became a Studio 54 anthem, and then on the road and in the studio with Luci Martin.

Most memorably, her voice was also featured on At Last I Am Free, a spellbinding ballad tucked away on C’est Chic. It caught the ear of the English rock musician Robert Wyatt, who released his characteristically plaintive version as a single in 1980.

After Chic disbanded in 1983, Anderson toured with Vandross, whose solo career had taken off. Her session work included a contribution to Bryan Ferry’s Slave to Love, a hit single also featuring Rodgers on guitar, its success boosted by its appearance in the 1986 film 9½ Weeks.

While with Vandross she met his bass guitarist, Eluriel “Tinker” (sometimes “Tinkr”) Barfield, who became her husband. Leaving the road and the studios in 1987, she went back to college, taking a second master’s degree, in educational leadership, at Bank Street College of Education, before joining the El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice in Brooklyn, first as a teacher and then as principal.

Although Chic later re-formed with other singers, there were occasional musical reunions with Norma Jean Wright and Luci Martin.

She and her husband also formed a group called Voices of Shalom, which released two albums of spiritual songs, Messages (1999) and Daily Bread (2005). Returning to secular music, in 2013 she released a single, Former First Lady of Chic, and in 2017 Barfield produced her solo album, Music from My Heart, featuring a song titled Perfectly Chic, which precisely recreated the sound of that most exquisite of disco ensembles.

She is survived by her husband and two stepsons.

🔔 Alfa Karlys Anderson, singer, born 7 September 1946; died 17 December 2024

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

[neathyingenue]

Character Timeline: Pilar Rodriguez Luna

Pilar's timeline goes along with Angeline's, which you can read here!

1868:

Pilar is born to a working-class mestizo family (European and Mixtec ancestry) in Oaxaca, Mexico. She is assigned male at birth and raised as a boy.

She’s educated at parochial school, where she does well, known for her lively intellect and predisposition for music, dancing, and sculpture.

1896:

Pilar goes to the capital, Mexico City, to study law, but while she’s there, she makes tons of friends in the theater scene. She especially develops a taste for puppetry, inspired by the tradition of carnival and mask folk art which originated from Black and Indigenous Mexicans. She learns craftsmanship from artisans and develops a small following among both lower and upper classes.

1898:

As she ages, Pilar discovers that she feels uncomfortable with manhood, and she attributes this to her attraction for both men and women. She begins incorporating female impersonation in some of her acts, and she has relationships with both men and women.

1899:

Pilar gets more involved in leftist anarchist circles, specifically with the Partido Liberal Mexicano. At this point, she’s making a living performing, including for the ruling elite, but revolutionary messages and themes creep into her shows.

(At this time, Mexico was in a period called the Porfiriato, a dictatorship under Porfirio Diaz. Upper and upwardly-mobile classes were prosperous thanks to Diaz’s laissez-faire policies attracting US investors. But the working and lower classes suffered, especially many Indigenous people in the Yucatan, who were basically enslaved.)

1900:

After a Partido Liberal uprising that the military crushes, one of Pilar’s performances is a little too obvious in its symbolism—a herd of pigs stampedes a jaguar, causing other jaguars to send the pigs to their bloody demise. The next day, soldiers search Pilar’s apartment, and she’s banned from performing further.

Pilar continues to perform in secret, but one of her clandestine performances is raided, too, and she’s arrested. The experience leaves her shaken. Her comrades begin to fear for her life. They make arrangements for her to flee to the United States.

One of the operatives who knows about Pilar’s sexuality confides in her that he’s heard that since London was swallowed into the earth, its attitudes regarding sex and gender have loosened up. There’s also something about a Moonlit Chessboard where it’s possible to tip the scales of power in ways that you can’t do in the waking world. Pilar’s interest is piqued, and she asks if she could be sent as an agent there.

For the arduous journey to London, Pilar “disguises” herself as a woman. Then she arrives in London and just…doesn’t take the disguise off. The only puppet she has left with her is a small marionette of a woman that, secretly, is what she’s always hoped to look like.

1899 (1901):

Pilar has started Neath HRT and begun to learn English. To pay the bills, she goes back to puppetry, experimenting with all the new materials and figures available in the Neath. She spends time at Wilmot’s End, studies the mirrors, finds Parabola and the Chessboard.

1899 (1902):

Pilar’s puppetry career has taken off more than ever. She’s always pushing the boundaries of what she can do with both practical effects and Silverer-ing. But she is notoriously difficult to pin down for fans and the press, earning her the moniker “the Flighty Puppeteer.” Though she doesn’t have many close friends, she’s happy enough.

Then she hears that one of her lovers back in Mexico has been killed, jump-starting her Nemesis ambition. And in her dreams of the chessboard, there’s one Red Bishop who, it seems, plans all her moves not to further the Red cause in general—but to corner Pilar.

[gatheringbones]

[“Our institutions have socialized us to scarcity, creating artificial resource shortages and then normalizing them. For example, because the residents of affluent neighborhoods have been so successful at blocking the construction of new housing in their communities, developers have turned their sights on down-market neighborhoods, where they also meet resistance, often from struggling renters fretting about gentrification.

As this dynamic has repeated itself in cities across America, the debate about addressing the affordable housing crisis and fostering inclusive communities has turned into a debate about gentrification, one pitting low-income families who have stable housing against low-income families who need it. But notice how contrived and weird this is, how our full range of action has been limited by rich homeowners essentially redlining their blocks. Or consider how a scarcity mindset frames so much of our politics, crippling our imaginations and stunting our moral ambitions. How many times have we all heard legislators and academics and pundits begin their remarks with the phrase “In a world of scarce resources…,” as if that state of affairs were self-evident, obvious, as unassailable as natural law, instead of something we’ve fashioned?

The United States lags far behind other advanced countries when it comes to funding public services. In 2019, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and several other Western democracies each raised tax revenues equal to at least 38 percent of their GDPs, while the United States’ total revenues languished at 25 percent. Instead of catching up to our peer nations, we have lavished government benefits on affluent families and refused to prosecute tax dodgers. And then we cry poor when someone proposes a way to spur economic mobility or end hunger? Significantly expanding our collective investment in fighting poverty will cost something. How much it will cost is not a trivial affair. But I would have more patience for concerns about the cost of ending family homelessness if we weren’t spending billions of dollars each year on homeowner tax subsidies, just as I could better stomach concerns over the purported financial burden of establishing a living wage if our largest corporations weren’t pocketing billions each year through tax avoidance. The scarcity mindset shrinks and contorts poverty abolitionism, forcing it to operate within fictitious fiscal constraints. It also pits economic justice against climate justice. When lawmakers have tried to curb pollution and traffic gridlock through congestion pricing, for instance, charging vehicles a fee if they enter busy urban neighborhoods during peak hours, critics have shot down the proposal by claiming it would hit low-income workers in transit deserts the hardest. In many cases, this is true. But it doesn’t have to be. We allow millions to live paycheck to paycheck, then leverage their predicament to justify inaction on other social and environmental issues. Politicians and pundits inform us, using their grown-up voice, that unfortunately we can’t tax gas-guzzling vehicles or transition to green energy or increase the cost of beef because it would harm poor and working-class families. My point isn’t that these tradeoffs aren’t pertinent but that they aren’t inescapable. They are by-products of fabricated scarcity.”]

matthew desmond, from poverty: by america, 2023

[une-sanz-pluis]

The Ambition of Eleanor Cobham

One of the questions I have about Eleanor Cobham is just how much anxieties around her social mobility, her gender, class and sexuality, have impacted the way she was viewed and is now remembered. So Take, for instance, her ambition.

We know she was ambitious because, well, we know. Everyone says so, it must be true. But the idea of her ambition rests on two pieces of evidence. The first is her social mobility itself. That she went from damsel to concubine to wife and duchess. The second is her downfall, the accusations that she had employed witchcraft to bring about the king's death and ensure her rise to to queen.

The first seems to confirm the second, the second the first. But when we separate the two, when we don't automatically assume that Eleanor was ambitious, and look at each incident on their own, then they don't necessarily confirm anything.

Let's start with the witchcraft accusations. I could write thousands upon thousands of words about the accusations themselves so I'll try to be brief. The main accusation against Eleanor and her associates (Roger Bolingbroke, Thomas Southwell, John Hume and Margery Jourdemayne) was that, on Eleanor's instigation, Bolingbroke, with Southwell and Hume assisting, had drawn up Henry VI's nativity chart that predicted he would die soon, unless he managed to avert this future through prudence. They then publicised this prediction, with the intention being that the common people people to withdraw their love from him (apparently, being king was a bit like being Tinkerbelle - if people didn't believe in you, you ceased to exist). The indictments for Bolingbroke, Southwell and Hume suggest that they were imagined to have used demonic assistance to draw up the chart. It's not clear what role Margery Jourdemayne played in this plot.

The accusations against Eleanor also seem to have included love and fertility magic. Eleanor was accused of using love magic to induce Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester to marry her and the marriage was annulled as a result of this idea. It's possibly in this area, not in the necromancy and astrology, that Margery was involved.

The main motivation ascribed to Eleanor throughout is her ambition. Her only motivation mentioned by chroniclers is that she wanted to know to which estate she would come. Which means she wanted to know if she would become queen which means she wanted to become queen which means she wanted Henry VI to die. In short, she was imagined as desiring the death of Henry VI to ensure her rise to the top - and, retrospectively, her status-defying marriage was recast as one of coercion born from her ambition.

There is no real consensus between historians on Eleanor's guilt or innocence of these accusations. It's fairly common to find the idea that she was guilty of "no more than foolishness" or curiosity or fertility magic, and that the idea that the charges were exaggerated or politicised. But there some historians who think she was completely and utterly guilty, and there is no evidence for there being a conspiracy against Eleanor or Humphrey.* There is also an idea that Eleanor was entirely set up, though this is fairly rare to find from historians.

While we can't acquit Eleanor, we can't convict her. Which means there is reason to doubt the accusations against her are proof of her guilt and proof of her character. And even the accusations were true, that she wanted to know when Henry VI would die, her motivations may have been less two-dimensional and more complex than "ambition". Concerns about Henry's health, mental or physical, may have been behind Eleanor's alleged inquiry, as well as insecurity about her position should Henry die and Humphrey succeed him. We certainly can't take her admission of using fertility magic as "proof" of her ambition and treason, as some historians have done. Her society was deeply patriarchal and based on primogeniture, it would be natural for her own to have felt anxiety about her lack of children and try to remedy it. Not long after Humphrey's death, anxiety about the succession would become an open issue, publicly remarked upon, but it seems logical to imagine that this anxiety was present before Humphrey's death and before Eleanor's downfall. Henry VI was unmarried and childless, his heir was an ageing uncle who had no legitimate children. Even if it wasn't openly expressed, the wider ramification of their childlessness would have affected Eleanor. If she and Humphrey had a child, it would have relieved this anxiety. Yes, it would mean she might become the king's mother (assuming she survived the birth, assuming she outlived both Henry VI and Humphrey) but accusing her of callous ambition because she wanted to have a child in the middle of this anxiety seems a very narrow view.

I'd also add that while her admission of using fertility magic seems very reasonable, it may not have been true - she may have cracked under pressure and admitted to it in effort to stop the questioning. She may have attempted to acquit herself of the more serious charges by admitting to something lesser.

At any rate: we cannot take it as a given that the witchcraft accusations were true and we cannot take it as a given that they were proof of her ambition. What they might tell us, instead, that she was perceived in a way that made her vulnerable to such allegations. Whether that perception had any basis in reality is not known or recoverable. In other words, the idea that the accusations "prove" her ambition must remain doubtful.

To move onto the first piece of evidence, the idea that Eleanor married Humphrey out of ambition... this is even harder to be certain of.

That Eleanor made a status-defying match is clear. That she made a meteoric transformation from damsel to concubine to wife to duchess is undeniable. That this would arouse suspicions of ambition and greed - and of witchcraft - is also obvious. But does it actually mean Eleanor was ambitious? That she deliberately seduced Humphrey to rise herself?

It does appear that the idea of a high-status man being seduced, manipulated or bewitched by an ambitious woman of lower-status to fall in love with them was the standard explanation for these matches in the first place. Alice Perrers was accused in Parliament of bewitching Edward III, Katherine Swynford was figured as having bewitched John of Gaunt by chroniclers, Anne Boleyn was accused by her enemies of bewitching Henry VIII (though witchcraft was not a charge laid against her), while Elizabeth Woodville's marriage to Edward IV was sometimes accredited to sorcery performed by herself and her mother, Jacquetta of Luxembourg. All women were presented as ambitious in their witchery. Eleanor's alleged seduction and bewitchment of Humphrey thus fits into a pattern where the women of lower status were figured as overly ambitious and employing witchcraft to seduce a high-status man into loving and potentially marrying them. While most people accept that witchcraft and magic aren't real (or, while "real" to the people who use them, have no real power), these accusations become transformed into proof that these women were beguiling temptresses, raised to rise and/or driven by ambition or a desire for self-aggrandisement, that they used their sexual wiles to manipulate men into loving them.To put it another way: the woman was an ambitious witch-whore and the man her hapless victim, a sexual weakling.

Of course, it's possible that one or more of these women were really ambitious, that they did set out to seduce their lover. But we should be careful to accept the misogynist constructions of medieval and early modern chroniclers and commentators as factual evidence, particularly when we see this same idea presented over and over again.

It's also interesting to note how the idea of any of the women mentioned in the example as "ambitious" loses or gains currency depending on the view of the woman. For example, the idea of the ambitious Katherine Swynford only has currency in Ricardian/Yorkist circles where it is used to denigrate the Tudors' Beaufort heritage; she is more likely to be figured as a romantic heroine than an ambitious upstart. Similarly, the view of Elizabeth Woodville as an ambitious schemer tends to have greater currency amongst those Ricardians who figure her as Richard III's enemy and those who use her as a repository for the misdeeds of Edward IV, while those more sympathetic to her see the story as a misogynist smear. Similarly, Anne Boleyn might be a romantic heroine, victim or a cold-hearted schemer depending on where one's opinions on her lie. For Katherine, Elizabeth and Anne, their status-defying marriages can be construed as proof of romantic intentions. Katherine, in particular, is almost universally rendered a romantic heroine because of her transformation from governess to mistress to duchess.

Neither Eleanor nor Alice appear to have been read as sympathetically, perhaps because the nature of their downfalls seem to confirm the view of them as ambitious upstarts and/or because there is no popular counter-narrative seeking to redeem them. Or perhaps it is the obscurity of their lives outside the misogynist vitriol of chroniclers or the lack of a great dynasty descended from them that makes this negative view of them seem so tempting.

But to view a concubine or a woman marrying up as either a romantic heroine or an ambitious schemer places her in a binary and relegates her to two different stereotypes, both with misogynist elements (reducing a woman down to her romantic life is a form of misogyny). Recent scholarship on medieval mistresses have acknowledged the power dynamic between them and raised the possibility of coercion. In Women in the Medieval Court: Consorts and Concubines, Rebecca Holdorph notes that:

Given the power dynamic, many women and their families would have found it ill-advised or impossible to resist the advances of a nobleman or king. Some families probably encouraged women to acquiesce to a powerful man's demands, whether or not those demands were welcome.

In other words, a woman's ability to consent to the relationship may have been compromised; she may have faced pressure from her family, her lover or from both. I don't say this to mean "every mistress was coerced" but to raise the probability that some mistresses may have limited choices in their relationships. It is impossible to tell when this was the case with Eleanor or, indeed, any mistress; evidence expressing their perspectives on their lover or situation simply does not exist. Ruth Mazo Karras, in Unmarriages, raises the possibility that the union between a concubine and her elite lover could be arranged between the woman's family and her lover similar to how a marriage would be arranged. If so, Eleanor's relationship with Humphrey may have been begun through an agreement between he and her father, than through her own actions.

How Eleanor would explain how and why she entered a relationship with Humphrey and why she married him cannot be recovered. She may well have been ambitious and used her body to rise. She may have felt she had little to no choice, that pressure from her family or from Humphrey was too much to resist. She may have fallen in love with him or felt he was a kindred spirit - they seem to have shared intellectual interests. She may have been motivated by a combination of these reasons or more. In short, the idea that her relationship with Humphrey was borne of her own ambition is unknowable and cannot be "proof" of her character.

There is little evidence for Eleanor's ambition outside these things. In a letter petitioning Eleanor, she is referred to "the right high and full mighty princess and full gracious lady Duchess of Gloucester", but this seems like a more standard address of a high-ranking noblewoman than proof that Eleanor demanded to be referred to in such terms. It might tell us that this was how she was perceived as wanting to be addressed and seen as but it does not tell us if this was something she actually felt and believed.

While Humphrey's manor at Greenwich known as La Pleasaunce was a grand manor house and tower that emphasised his stature and was associated with Eleanor to some degree, it is also clear from Rachel Delman's discussion of Margaret of Anjou's building work at Pleasaunce that the residence as Margaret received it was not grand enough for a queen. Eleanor did not construct and build with Humphrey a home that overemphasised her status or revealed her ambition to be queen..

Basically, the main pieces for evidence for Eleanor's ambition are open to doubt. If Eleanor was innocent of treason and did not want Henry VI dead or if Eleanor married Humphrey for love or for some other motive, then the view of her ambition changes dramatically. In the end, the belief in her ambition becomes a product of circular logic. We know she was ambitious because she seduced Humphrey and attempted to murder Henry VI with magic to become queen. We know she did those things out of ambition because we know she was ambitious. We know she was ambitious because---

And the view of her ambition is a stereotype. Most people desire to improve their standing in life, few do it such two dimensional, caricaturing ways. The real Eleanor, even if she was driven by ambition, was probably more complicated than the cold-hearted, scheming seductress she is usually presented as. The (unevidenced) claim that she was "raised to rise" may well be a story of a girl and woman who was exploited and pimped out by her family seeking to find security. The view of her callously trying to determine when Henry VI would die may well have been a desperate move by a woman who felt threatened by her husband's enemies and seeking to gain a powerful position from which she, not they, would have power. This all builds off the idea that the accusations were true and that she was ambitious, clearly - but attempting to give her more complexity than "she's an evil ambitious witch". She may well have been moved by love and a desire for children, not ambition at all. The point is: she could have been anything.

*The idea that Eleanor was completely guilty and there is no evidence of a politicised attack has become quite a common pattern amongst historians writing revisionist histories of 15th century figures who are known as Humphrey's adversaries, namely the Beauforts and William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk. Most also treat Humphrey very harshly, and in these cases it is clear that Eleanor is treated as no more than an extension of him.

[remus-poopin]

Question for the brit’sh folks: I was thinking about hogwart houses and their value systems and about how JK shows her bias towards these value systems. She holds Gryffindor values in very high regard but seems to look down on Slytherin. One of her biggest issues seems to be that of the ambition trait. Ambition is almost always portrayed as a negative quality to the point that those who aren’t even in Slytherin with this trait are treated quite poorly by the narrative (Percy you deserve better).

I’ll admit right now that I don’t truly understand the class system in the UK. (I’ve found myself asking “wait what jobs do the Malfoys and Blacks even have? Where is this money coming from” And then I have to remind myself that they’re old money aristocrats types). I’ve made attempts to get it but I’m still a bit perplexed. So as an American reader some things in the series completely went over my head and I’ve had to have them be pointed out for me to even notice them (thank you Snape meta writers!).

As an American reader it is a little strange that ambition is held in such contempt in this series. The whole thing about America is to try to do better than your parents did, to move up in life, to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and achieve that American dream! So when you start analyzing the series with that perspective it is a bit puzzling.

So I guess my questions are: Is JKR’s aversion to ambition a “her problem” or is this a general view that the British class structure encourages. Or to put it a different way, does British society look down upon upwards economic mobility? And if so what are other ways this is reflected in the series?

For a more general question: Is the idea of the American dream in contrast with traditional British values? If so, what do these culture clashes look like?

(Also I’m not asking if you personally as a British citizen have a problem with ambition but more trying to understand UK culture and society)