#an excellent example of the oath | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nyerus · 1 year

Text

The Narrative Importantance of Hualian's Sexual Intimacy

This is a repost and minor edit of a thread I made on Twitter yesterday. This is a topic I have always wanted to talk about because of how often it comes up in TGCF fandom, time and time again.

‼️CW: mentions of sexual assault, self-harm, bodily injury‼️

⚠️Major spoilers for the entire novel ahead⚠️

---

Saw a question the other day on what relevance Hualian being sexually intimate by the end of the novel had to either the narrative or Xie Lian's character arc.

In short: it bears significant relevance, especially in context of other themes the novel explores like bodily autonomy.

Throughout the novel, we see time and time again that Xie Lian is often dehumanized by pretty much everyone—including himself—with the sole exception of Hua Cheng. I've talked more in depth about it in an old twt thread, for those interested. @/stalliondany on twt has also made an excellent recent analysis that goes deeper into the specific ways Xie Lian was used as a physical shield, martyr, or scapegoat for others without thought to his humanity or suffering. I highly recommend reading it first!

But to sum it all up: it's important to Xie Lian's character arc to keep in mind that he is used to seeing his own body as a tool to solve problems. And in crucial narrative moments, he is robbed of his bodily autonomy, and either brutalized or violated in service of others.

One of the plot points that ties together all these concepts is actually... Xie Lian's chastity vows. That will be the main focus of this post.

When he was a young teen (or possibly as a child), Xie Lian took an oath of chastity because such was the norm for cultivators seeking ascension in Xian Le. To Xie Lian, even as he grew older, he never had an issue with this because he just never felt sexual attraction to another person, or any desire to be intimate in that way. Even if he yearned for the concept of being loved. And indeed, at first glance, his chastity vows may seem like nothing more than a side note. Or even a funny gag when it comes to Hua Cheng (later).

In reality Xie Lian's chastity vows are not only used against him, but paint a very disturbing picture with regards to his repeated violation.

The Land of the Tender scene is the most obvious example of this. Xie Lian's vows are directly tied to his spiritual powers, and because it affects how his followers see him. They place a high value on his chastity as being vital to his moral character.

For reference, an excerpt from TGCF vol. 3 of the English print translation, page 135:

Xie Lian's method of cultivation required a pure body. Those who worshipped the ascended cultivators who practiced this path were firmly convinced of the transcendence of gods untouched by earthly desires. If they couldn't protect their purity, their following would no doubt collapse and their powers would be devastated. It wouldn't be as serious as plunging from godhood to back to mortality, and there was still the possibility of recovery after many more years of cultivation—but with things as they were now, there was no time for him to sit behind closed doors and cultivate for years!

As a reminder: it is Bai Wuxiang who orchestrated this whole thing. Him trying to compromise Xie Lian in this way is horrific on many levels, yet that's not the main point I want to make here. It's that to preserve his "pure body," the solution Xie Lian realizes is to severely harm himself. To impale himself with his sword through the abdomen.

The juxtaposition of having to maintain bodily purity versus the gruesome violence inflicted on his body is extremely stark.

This grim contrast is no more evident than in the 100 swords scene. Where Xie Lian's body is literally brutalized and defiled to an unthinkable degree. To the point where he, quote: "no longer looked human." Yet he emerges from that temple physically "pure" all the same. His chastity vows were not broken, his body healed without scars. As though he was untouched.... And yet, he was completely destroyed mentally. It left permanent effects on him as a person. It's even worse when the scene is read analogous to sexual assault, as many have talked about before. I think that interpretation actually hits the nail on the head, especially keeping in mind the Land of the Tender scene and all the similarities between them.

Following the 100 swords scene, Xie Lian of course has a complete disconnect between himself and his body. I believe this is part of why he doesn't really feel pain, except when he is with Hua Cheng, who treats him and his body as one. As a person who is cherished, and loved. Hua Cheng is adamant in his adoring treatment of Xie Lian. Small injuries are also something he cannot tolerate because he knows what horrors befell Xie Lian in the past. (He was present at both the terrible moments mentioned above.) He will not let any of that continue, regardless of what Xie Lian says, because he sees it as injustice.

Xie Lian is willing to use himself as a tool to help others no matter the personal cost. He even thinks of it as something he must do, or that he deserves as penance. But Hua Cheng is the one person who asks "what about you?" He's the one that insists "your happiness matters." And it is Hua Cheng that takes issue with Xie Lian's chastity vows as being unfair, unlike everyone else. Regardless of Hua Cheng's reasons for this diegetically, symbolically it means a lot that he is the one opposed to this.

Just thinking about the chastity vows on their own for a moment: Xie Lian can indulge a little bit in stuff like alcohol, which isn't great to begin with for him. But he absolutely cannot engage in "pleasures of the flesh." He can totally have his flesh ripped from his bones, literally, but actually experiencing any kind of sexual gratification? Now that would make him unclean, and lesser.... Why? Because unlike everything else, that's something Xie Lian would do simply for himself to feel good. And what greater crime is there than to ever dare put himself first?

So Hua Cheng—being the one person who puts Xie Lian first above all else—thinking that such a restriction doesn't make sense is important. Hua Cheng being the person who Xie Lian breaks those vows for in the end is important! (Especially because it seems to have been an easy choice for him.)

And of course, the scene with Jun Wu and the Virginity Detector Sword™ has to be mentioned. Again, there's symbolism to be had! The perpetrator of two of the most physically violating moments of Xie Lian's life (both of which were sexual in nature; one literally and one allegorically) being the one to "check" Xie Lian's virginity... oof. Yikes. It's dramatic irony. It's deeply uncomfortable. Especially because Jun Wu probably wanted to know if Xie Lian slept with Hua Cheng, as he already knew Xie Lian wasn't the ghost fetus' father.

So it's once again a stark juxtaposition: of Ghost King Hua Cheng disagreeing with the purity vows, wanting Xie Lian to break them for himself and his own freedom. Versus Heavenly Emperor Jun Wu wanting to weaponize those vows against Xie Lian in whatever way he can, intact or not, to keep control over him.

Naturally, there's something to be said for the real-world problem with such purity vows being used against people, to judge their moral character, societal expectations, etc. Elephant in the room. It's very on the nose, so there isn't even much to say about it that hasn't been said already.

In the end, it comes down to how horrible it is that when Xie Lian tries to help others, it results in immense harm to his body every time. Yet he is expected to continue to bear it, for centuries, by others and also himself. Until he meets Hua Cheng, who helps him rediscover what it means to be happy, and to be loved. So yes, it's absolutely relevant that in the end, Xie Lian decides to break his purity vows to be intimate with Hua Cheng. That he's able to put himself in Hua Cheng's hands, and let himself be treated with affection and desire. It's Xie Lian finally forgiving himself, and beginning to heal.

#tgcf #tian guan ci fu #hob #heaven official's blessing #hualian #meta #nyerus.txt #crosspost

884 notes · View notes

una-hopeless-romantic1118 · 8 months

Text

⋆.˚ ☾⭒.˚of wolf's blood and dragon's wrath — Aemond Targaryen⋆.˚ ☾⭒.˚

"If a she-wolf is what they fear, then a she-wolf I shall be."

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. Aiana was always a guest at King's Landing, as the honorable Lord Rickon Stark's darling daughter. But whenever she was in the warmth of the Capital, the Prince Aemond and her shook hand in hand and took an oath of camaraderie in the cruel world that surrounded them, hiding away under tables as they created a world of their own.

But a child's conflict left them both wounded deeper than the rest.

Aiana Stark grew up to be the notorious Huntswoman of the North. The She-Wolf, with her chin held high and her spine straightened against the hurling insults of men, just as she was called the Hearth to the Cold for her unwavering kindness and personal work as a healer to the sick and wounded.

Aemond would come to be known as the "One-Eyed" Prince, and feared for his dragon Vhagar. He might excel in swordsmanship and studies of the histories, but he hid behind his eyepatch, miserable his comrade no longer thought the same of him. A fucking Targaryen Prince, who longs for the She-Wolf in the North. ⋆.˚ ☾⭒.

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. Tropes:

childhood best friends, to strangers, to lovers

oblivious puppy love

unequal social status (prince and lady)

soulmates

best friend's brother

second chance

sharing emotional scars

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. Inspired songs (*wink wink*):

Let her go by Passenger

The One That Got Away by Katy Perry

Chemtrails Over the Country Club Lana Del Rey

Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want by Deftones

How to Save a Life by The Fray

I Will Always Love You by Dolly Parton

Somebody that I Used to Know by Gotye, Kimbra

Now That We Don't Talk (Taylor's Version) by Taylor Swift

Mr. Brightside by The Killers

All I Wanted by Paramore

illicit affairs by Taylor Swift

The Great War by Taylor Swift

Forever and Always (Piano Version) (Taylor's Version) by Taylor Swift

Rescue by Lauren Daigle

Let the Light In by Lana Del Rey

Work Song by Hozier

Evermore by Josh Groban

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. a/n: major canon divergence bc who doesn't want to feed their delusions accordingly and go above and beyond for it, for example:

narrative will switch back and forth between aemond and aiana, and aiana will have a whole thing happening in winterfell. i don't want to spoil much lol

little sister to cregan, big sister to rodrik (not at all a real character to GRRM's work during this timeline, as well as so many more characters.)

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. LINK TO BOOK ⋆.˚ ☾⭒.

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. only posted on ao3 (4 chapters so far), but idk if i should also post here? i think it'll be more aesthetically pleasing but idk what do you guys think? ⋆.˚ ☾⭒.

96 notes · View notes

wavesoutbeingtossed · 6 months

Text

The whole discourse about the privacy/secrecy/support thing has been sitting with me for a few days (I mean other than it always does to a certain degree) thanks to all the excellent discussion happening and I know I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said a million times before, but I think what we're seeing and what we're going to learn (e.g. from TTPD) is that it wasn't just the support issue, but how it was shown/handled.

We've all gone out of our way to show that introversion =/= lack of support. Someone can be shy, reserved, etc. and still show up for their partner, whether in public or at home. To chalk any of the differences up to the clash between introversion and extroversion is unfair to folks who count themselves among either tbh.

@thisisctrying said something the other day that hit the nail on the head about how if that support had been offered in private, there very well may not have been a Joever to begin with, or at least not at this point in time. (Sorry for loosely paraphrasing, and for namedropping you! Long time listener, first time poster.)

If this were a case where the "shy" partner said, "I am really uncomfortable with the spotlight personally and do not want to court it, but I will support you in your ambitions and offer you whatever you need to make them happen and make the glare bearable," I suspect that would have gone a long way to making Taylor feel seen and comfortable in pursuing her goals in the way that she now has. Again, that might have been more akin to the balance that seemed to have been struck around 2019 from what we can see, but even speaking in a general sense, there are lots of couples out there, celebrity or not, that have similar approaches where there are highly driven people and busy careers involved.

(A famous example being Dolly Parton's marriage. Tbh I know next to nothing about her and Carl, but she's always heralded as an example in this regard, because her husband is famously uncomfortable with the spotlight and hasn't accompanied her to public events in decades, but she's said that she never minded that because that was always work to her, and what was important was that he supported her in pursuing all her career goals and basically ensured she had a place to call home to return to at the end of the day.)

We're kind of in a brave new world with her current relationship because it felt like, at least at the start, we were maybe watching her figure out her boundaries in real time as to what she was comfortable with or not and adjust accordingly. Like so many have said, I fully believe the extreme privacy thing was initially driven by herself and her experiences in 2016, and she needed that quiet time to recover from all of the things and figure out how to exist in the world again.

Stating the obvious, it seemed like eventually privacy was equated with secrecy, turning the relationship and the celebrity into the elephant in the room and something to never be spoken of to the outside world. People are free to choose whatever works best for themselves and their relationships, and for some the separate public lives might work, but the “kept me like a secret but I kept you like an oath” theme is all over her work and it’s clear that it’s a sore spot for her, because she’s been made to feel shame just for the life she leads so many times in the past.

What I’m trying to say is that it’s pretty obvious something Not Great was happening behind the scenes, which didn’t just amount to “she wanted to be a public celebrity and he wanted to be a private hermit.” (Also, in case anyone forgot, this is a person who also chose a public-facing career who also has to engage in press for it, but I digress.) As her career reached new heights post-folklore, if she had the support at home to do all the things without judgment and with encouragement, and in turn offer the same support to her partner, she may have very well lived just fine with that, not unlike Dolly Parton’s case.

By reading between the lines in all the press since, as well as comments on tour and general ~vibes~ with TTPD teasers, it seems like one of the issues was that that was likely not the case. There was all the stuff that we saw — the reticence to acknowledge each other in the media (particularly on one side), the lack of public support even at events at which they were both in attendance for their respective jobs, the great lengths they went to not to be photographed together at events they attended yet no problem taking pictures with other friends and coworkers, the jobs that separated them, the withdrawing from the public even for work accomplishments, etc. Which could all be manageable if a couple chooses to do so together and are not inherently a sign of trouble in themselves.

But what we’re seeing now I think is a reflection of the things we weren’t seeing then, and it seems to indicate some very deep hurt. (I know, call me Captain Obvious.) And like so many have been saying, it feels likely that that part of that hurt is rooted in that very lack of private support where a person would expect it from their partner. Obviously as a Taylor fan blog I’m going to be more inclined to understand her side of a story, but tbh, it’s also because… this is sooooooo common, and something I’ve experienced in my friend group. (@taylortruther is right when she says most breakups are the same one way or another lol.)

One partner is resentful of the other’s success, or resentful that the other’s priorities begin to evolve as new experiences unlock new goals, or feels the other’s ambitions are not worthy of pursuit, and coupled with perhaps their own struggles in the same domain, it’s easy to see where that can chip away at the other partner’s morale and faith in the relationship. I know I’m just speculating here, but I also don’t think it’s totally unfounded. (Again, because a) I’m picking up what she’s putting down and b) it happens to sooooooo many women even among us dull normals.)

With all the pointed mentions about how much Taylor feels supported in her current relationship and how she in turn loves to offer the same show of support to not only her partner but other loved ones, how she’s stepped out more in the last year to a whole host of events, how she’s mentioned feeling like she locked herself away for years and she’s just proud of her partner and happy she can show up for him even if the chaos around it is unsettling, it paints a picture of what perhaps was happening before last year.

To feel like you’re all alone in carrying the weight of the relationship (or burden of it), of twisting yourself into knots to accommodate the other person’s boundaries (or insecurities) but not feeling reciprocity for your own has to be so painful. (The idea that it may have been even darker and to have a partner not only be unreceptive to your own needs but even perhaps resentful/dismissive/belittling of them is even more painful to think of. I guess we’ll find out when TTPD comes out if that was the case, too.)

At a certain point, that lack of acknowledgement will force your hand to be able to reclaim yourself. And it feels like the further removed Taylor in particular is from it, the more she moves from being sad about the life she felt she gave up by leaving, to angry at the life she felt she was giving up by staying. Especially being in a relationship now where it seems like everything comes much easier, where she can be open about the person she’s with and show up for them, all the stuff that seemed as challenging as climbing Mount Everest in her past is nothing more than a molehill at best in her current life.

TL;DR: I don’t think it’s privacy that inherently spells doom for a celebrity relationship like this; it’s the mutual support and respect that does. If Taylor had felt that in the later years of her previous relationship, I think we could be seeing a different, though not necessarily unfulfilled, person right now in 2024, who’d be happy on tour but whose personal life would look a little different. But it seems like by losing that support she lost parts of herself, and we’ve seen her reclaim that in spades in the last year, and perhaps to degrees she didn’t even realize she could from before all the Bad Stuff started happening in her young adulthood.

I know this was extremely long-winded and unnecessary, especially about total strangers we only know through scraps fed through the media, but I just always bristle at this idea that issues like these boil down to “personality differences,” as though one person wants to live in a city and the other on a remote island, or some shit like that. The whole support (and gender tbh) issue is one that’s just very close to my heart because again, I have seen it play out with so many of my friends in long term relationships and marriages and I just think people in relationships (and women in particular in some circles) deserve better than to feel like they’re being, well, tolerated.

#thisisctrying and taylortruther sorry for tagging you two!#can remove if needed!#but you guys made me think a lot #this was inspired by a conversation i had with a friend the other day #where she relayed an argument she had with her partner #who basically felt slighted that he wasn’t getting acknowledgement for all the housework he does — which is. just. the dishes #and she was like ‘wow congrats you’ve done the dishes — i do every other fucking thing to keep this household afloat in ways you see #and don’t see and i never ask for praise because it’s just stuff that needs to get done because that’s how you support your family’#and it just reminded me that some partners (and a certain kind of man in particular) just… think their struggles take precedence #when their partners drown in them everyday but keep things afloat out of necessity and are never recognized or supported for it #(my friends have shitty husbands/boyfriends can you tell lol)#long post #again the way i just feel like i know the vibes of ttpd in my bones are 😵‍💫#i feel like i have a lot more thoughts but I’m trying to be more gracious and less parasocial so #also just want to again defend the introverts of the world by reiterating that being introverted does not mean unsupportive #being a shitty partner does though!#writing letters addressed to the fire #it’s also just like… i feel like if Taylor had had even a modicum of the support in private and even public she needed #she’d probably still be with you know who and wouldn’t have considered leaving let alone doing it #because it would have felt like enough and like it was what was needed for both of them #whereas we’re seeing a completely new side of her open up now because this is the first time she’s ever had that support from a partner #in her adult life at least #and it’s like it’s opening up things she didn’t know she needed or wanted

55 notes · View notes

nikoisme · 9 months

Text

Alright Achilles and Patroclus headcanons take 2:

-Patroclus is older than Achilles (this is canon but it's fine),, not by much, in my head it's about 2 years;

-They are the same height!

-Before Patroclus killed the boy over dice, they got into a fight and Patroclus ended up breaking his nose. It healed with a slight deformity and he has a bit of problems with breathing through his nose;

-I portray Achilles with amber/hazel-ish eyes,, but i'm so tempted to change them to blue purely because of this:

-Achilles and Patroclus got along immediately. You know how some kids in kindergarten are best friends and maybe swore a blood oath by the end of the first day? That's them.

-Chiron had to constantly keep them from getting into trouble and getting killed. They were really reckless as kids.

-Patroclus almost never gets sick. Even when he does, it's nothing serious. Achilles on the other hand? He's the first to catch a cold or any sickness. The moment it gets slightly colder he is sick;

-Achilles is an excellent swimmer and can hold his breath underwater longer than average;

-It's not that Achilles is afraid of Patroclus' dogs,, he just avoids them. Doesn't think much about them, but they kind of tolerate each other based on their shared love for Patroclus.

-Achilles and Patroclus kind of have this little.. grudge against each other since they were kids. It started with Achilles tripping Patroclus. Then Patroclus returned it by letting a branch hit Achilles (he didn't hold it for Achilles to pass,, he just let go of it and it smacked him in the face). And that whole "oh you'll fucking see for this" thing extended through adulthood;

-Patroclus' sense of humor I talked about here;

-Also he has a habit of boasting over someone he's killed and just cracking jokes as he kills them, and usually someone of the Achaeans will hear him and go "oh my gods" and just burst into laughter;

-He does that partially because Trojans will obviously be pissed off and rush forward,, but he just wants them to come closer so he can kill them;

-On that topic, Achilles doesn't really know how to joke. He doesn't understand most of the jokes, and frankly doesn't like them. He only understands Patroclus' humor and slowly learned his own as time went on. Also he is shit at recognizing tone of voice (that's why he is on complicated terms with odysseus. never knows if he is fucking with him or not).

-And my interpretation of their relationship here;

-Thetis and Patroclus never interacted much, but she is quite fond of him;

-While Patroclus gets along with pretty much everyone in camp, he isn't afraid to call out anyone's bullshit.

-For example; he gets along just fine with Odysseus (they often talk about dogs :D) but he is willing to get into an argument with him any time.

-On the other hand, Achilles and Odysseus get along great on some days, but on some days they can't stand each other's guts.

-You know how we talk about how Patroclus has to hold Achilles back when he gets mad? I stand by that. But whenever Patroclus gets mad, he has to be held back by several people (that usually being Achilles, Automedon and/or Phoenix). He needs to be given a lot of time to calm down.

-On that topic, Patroclus has so much rage stuffed inside of him. He just chooses to remain calm and collected and find a reasonable solution for things,, but as a result he is a ticking bomb just waiting to explode. He usually takes that rage out on the battlefield.

-Patroclus and Achilles aren't constantly next to each other in battle. They are always ready to rush in and help on other sides of the battlefield, then they get distracted and just fight their way through. But they always somehow spawn next to each other. One will turn around and see the other just fighting next to him out of nowhere.

-Achilles doesn't really mind blood (he literally spills it every day). But he kind of freaks out when he sees his own, whether it's a nose bleed or whatever. On the other hand Patroclus tends to his own wounds by himself like it's nothing.

-Now, they are both formidable warriors on their own. A Trojan soldier will see Achilles and while that's horrible on its own,, he can't help but think where is the other one??? And then he gets killed from behind by Patroclus. They like to ambush soldiers like that.

-Patroclus is the one who listens to Nestor's long stories. Listen, everyone at camp respects the man, but they always find a way to get Patroclus to do the listening instead of them. He takes one for the team.

-Also Achilles gets nosebleeds often.

-Patroclus and Menelaus were really good friends! And after Patroclus was killed, guilt was devouring Menelaus from the inside.

-Antilochus kept a very close eye on Achilles after Patroclus died. He is also one of the first/only people Achilles let into his life after Patroclus.

#whooosh. that was something.#achilles #patroclus #niko rambles

113 notes · View notes

utilitycaster · 5 months

Note

I don't know how you feel about it, but I was extremely frustrated last night when I found out that break was called after around 3 hours. I just felt that at that point they should have just made it a Crown Keepers episode instead of promising that BH would be back and then them barely being in the episode. I don't know, I'm usually really go with the flow with CRs creative choices, but this was just a real big swing and a miss for me. I wish this had all just been its own episode

So here's my feelings:

My thoughts on EXU Prime, and later Kymal, were that I love the player characters and their relationships and much of the worldbuilding (notably all of Niirdal-Poc and the Qoniira Tetrarchy) and I liked many of Aabria's NPCs but there were some pretty big gaps left in "what the fuck is going on" that left me feeling as though I wouldn't mind seeing the characters again but I didn't feel strongly about continuing the story in-world, if that makes sense. The Aevilux reveal, for example, was sort of what the main plot of EXU Prime hinged upon (ie, that was Myr'atta Niselor's motivation; that was what the deal with Ted was) and so the fact that didn't come out for over 2.5 years irl after it ended meant I'd just kind of said "well, some weirdo from Syngorn really wanted to do shit to Opal for some reason related to her sister, who is also her patron, and we don't know why either of these things is the case, and I guess that's what happened" and made my peace with it. Similarly, I don't know what the Nameless Ones want, and never have (other than, at one point, the circlet of barbed vision, and I don't know why they want it). I made a joke that Myr'atta, Poska, and Otohan are all kind of the same and honestly that is the thing: if you don't know why a villain is doing something - even if the reason is "because I love to be evil and terrible!" it's hard to care, and if those are only villains, it's hard to be invested in the story about the heroes either, even if you like the heroes as characters.

When I say I like how this ended, I mean it - I think it could have gone only a few ways, but I like that Morrighan and Opal have both become divine champions, Morrighan willingly and Opal less so (this is yet another case of "the gods don't do take-backsies on oaths", but also, I do feel for Opal despite it all because of Aimee's excellent work throughout). I mentioned how I felt about the exact details of Cyrus's death but I don't mind that he's dead. Fy'ra was a highlight throughout, as she frequently is, and I think she was faced with two extremely unpleasant choices and made a fascinating decision. But I'd have preferred to see this as a flashback (see next paragraph) or like. Just decide what happened. If I'm being extremely honest a lot of my issues with the Crown Keepers portion is that it felt like there was a very specific desired ending (Opal's complete corruption and Cyrus's death); I also said at some point well before that you can only do so much with the Crown Keepers while Dariax is there because Matt does, even if he's turning his brain off to play our Charisma-only kinda short king, know all the cheat codes for the main campaign. It's kind of like why how, even if the DM will control an absent player during RP, they usually have another player control in combat.

I don't mind that the Bells Hells portion was short. I think the choice to break where they did makes sense given everything else that went on. But I think that, criticism of the actual Crown Keepers portion aside, while you might have lost some of your audience for a Crown Keepers-only episode on the main feed, you would have preserved the drama of FCG's death better and gotten people more excited for the Crown Keepers if you had essentially run things exactly as done here but then just cut the two episodes together, which, as a pre-taped medium, they can now do! Hindsight is again 20-20 but: Run the first half of 92 as is. Break and tape a full Crown Keepers episode. Return to Bells Hells and narrate the message back from Dorian saying he'll be there, play out the rest of Bells Hells in the camp dealing with FCG's death, and then have Dorian arrive at the very end of that episode and end the episode when the party asks him what's been going on with him, then reveal there will be a Crown Keepers episode. Air your full Crown Keepers episode as episode 93, and then return to the main campaign with 94. It would have been better balanced in terms of time, people who wanted the Crown Keepers to return would have gotten hyped up, and people who dislike them or are neutral would have at least known what to expect and frankly if they skip the episode that's their choice to make. Hell, since there were 2 weeks? Could have even been like "hey, we'll do a Crown Keepers Marathon on Twitch and Youtube on some random weekday" to build up some hype!

So overall my answer is that I agree this wasn't a great creative choice. I don't think this means they shouldn't take big swings! But some will be misses and this was, while not an entire miss for me, at best a walk.

#answered #minxie-the-sabertooth-kitty #cr spoilers

44 notes · View notes

asha-mage · 10 months

Note

Wheel of Time (books or show)

I'll go with a mix for this one.

A lot of the things that folks are crediting the show for doing 'better' then the books are not the show fundamentally changing anything about what the books did- rather its' a result of an intimate understanding of the books on a deeper thematic and narrative level, and making sure that comes through in the new TV medium.

Lanfear is a great example of this. In the books Lanfear is one of my favorite antagonists, because Jordan does an excellent job of conveying the nuances of her personality and deeper character to the reader, even as she herself is trying to present various fronts, ranging from 'classic storybook maiden' to 'all knowing sinister sorceress'.

There is nothing in Lanfear's depiction in the show that doesn't have a clear root in the books: her tendency to only be vulnerable when she has the shield of plausible deniability, the way there is more love and affection for Lews and Rand then she wants to admit to herself. The way her pride is her cardinal sin and she can't see it: even as she simmers with quite rage from having to present herself as 'less' then she is- rage that she finds subtle plausibly deniable ways to express at any target she has at hand.

The way her casual disregard for human life is born of that same pride and how it allows her to remorselessly kill without hesitation or regret. The way she holds herself apart from other Dark Friends, even other Chosen, because deep down, despite her oaths, despite her promises, despite having witnessed the Dark One's power herself, she doesn't believe in his cause. A part of her still views him fundamentally as a creature of her own discovery- she knows personally that he can be bested, because she broke into his prison with her own two hands, and that gives her the inescapable nagging thought that she can best him too, or exploit him for her own gain, if only she is willing to take the gamble.

The show's changes- 'Selene' being an innkeeper rather then a noble lady, her not using the mask of mirrors off the bat, Lanfear being exposed to Rand earlier and so being able to engage with him on later-book things sooner, even her slightly adjusted manipulation techniques- have more to do with the logistics and realities of bringing the story to TV then with the core of Lanfear's character.

It's all there in the books. It's just that like Rand, most people take the surface of what Lanfear presents as the truth, rather then digging deeper.

#Wheel of Time #Wheel of Time on Prime #WoT On Prime #WoT #WoT Book Spoilers #TFOH Spoilers #Lanfear #Rand al'Thor #The Spicy Take Zone

89 notes · View notes

howlingday · 10 months

Note

Okay, I absolutely adored your last Jaune & Weiss social standing reversal!

So how about one where their family dynamics are reversed?

Weiss is the one who leaves her loving parents and siblings behind, intent on becoming a hero like her grandmother....

...While Jaune is the one desperate to leave his strict, manipulative mother and drunkenly depressed father. Meanwhile, all 7 of his sisters, apart from Saphron the eldest, are either very distant or cold to him.

Weiss Schnee had everything a woman of her status could ask for. Since her grandfather's passing of his position as CEO of the Schnee Dust Company to his daughter, and her mother, Weiss had been the perfect example of how a Schnee should be at her age. Her sister, Winter, dismissed the offer to take her mother's place and instead chose her own path to become a huntress like her grandparents and her mother. Weiss would also choose this same path, mockingly called a copycat by her siblings. Speaking of said siblings, Whitley, the youngest of the three, threw himself into his studies to pick up the slack left by his sisters. He was always the odd one, loving mathematics and probability and statistics and other such complicated business jargon that made any other thirteen-year-old's head spin. Their father, Klein, seemed to be the only member of the family who seemed to understand him, or if he didn't, he hid it very well.

Weiss was now at Beacon, modestly packed with only the barest of essentials as the representative of the Schnee Dust Company. If said "bare essentials" required three suitcases and a trolley to carry them, then so be it. Still, she was confident she would excel in her classes and establish herself as the team leader in time at all. And if she didn't, then oh, well, right?

Even if she really wanted to be team leader so badly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jaune Arc was living in hell. Saphron had the right idea to run away, just like he was doing now. The only difference between them was that Jaune had enough sense to take a weapon with him. If only he held that sense when his mother had one of her "fits". Not like Dad would do anything to stop him. He'd been deep into the bottle since his time in the war, and in a way, he was still there. He felt pity for the poor man, though it was cold comfort for him when seven other women were screeching at the only two men in the house. And now, that pity would be long forgotten, hopefully like his mother and her underhanded manipulation of his family's actions would be. Y'know those stories about the "perfect man who does everything around the house"? That was him, being groomed by his mother to be perfect at everything so that someone would look his way and decide, "Yeah, I'll definitely marry someone tall, blond, and scraggly!"

The last he saw of his family before boarding the bullhead was his father sitting on the porch, bottle in his hand. He didn't say anything. He didn't do anything. He'd been the same man for the past seventeen years of Jaune's life. Most motion he made was taking an especially long sig of his liquor until it was only the bottle left. As the alcohol soaked into his blond, graying beard, Jaune made an oath, a promise; Jaune Arc would never become his father.

He'd say he'd give his word, but what good would that do? An Arc never kept his word before.

#rwby #jaune arc #weiss schnee #rwby au #arc-schnee swap au #mama arc #papa arc #whitley schnee #winter schnee #willow schnee #klein sieben #nicholas schnee

70 notes · View notes

paladin-tourney · 8 months

Text

Round 1, Side B - Javert (Les Miserables) vs. Brienne of Tarth (A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin)

Propaganda:

Javert (Les Miserables)

This man is, as far as I've seen, the go to explanation for what an Oath of the Crown paladin should act like. In the name of the law, in the name of France, he will defend the people from (what he sees as) Dangerous Criminals and Revolutionaries. Unlike many other paladin pop culture examples, he did swear an oath, by the stars, to hunt down Jean Valjean. He serves as an excellent example of a paladin who is far more lawful than good, misguided by a restrictive black and white worldview yet still upholding all tenets of his oath.

He centers his entire life around the oaths he's taken to uphold the law to the letter and to hunting one man in particular. The moment he's forced by morality to break that oath he kills himself that night because he can't live with himself or understand a world more complex than blind unrelenting obedience.

Brienne of Tarth (A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin)

Despite not technically being a knight, the truest knight there was. Brave, protects the innocent no matter the circumstance ("no chance against seven. No chance, and no choice"). Her quest to return sansa ended up being a riverlands goose chase, but that isn't her fault.

49 notes · View notes

blade-liger-4ever · 14 days

Text

Dragon Prince - Blade's Freestyle

So, in my take, there are only four types of Elves: The Tidebound, the Sunfire, the Moonshadow, and the Skywing (I'm keeping that to give Tui T. Sutherland a piece of my mind.) The Startouch exist as the equivalent of the Greek pantheon, though they maintain an elf-ish look in order to seem both familiar and distant from the rest; therefore, they're nicknamed "the High Ones". The Earthblood are like the Ghillie Dhu of Scottish myth: towering, tree-like beings who go along to get along, and generally nonviolent. The dragons are at the head of this hierarchy, as appointed by the Startouch, and thus the Elves are second to them, with humanity at the lowest tier of this creation order. Additionally, the dragons can shapeshift into virtually any form, and possess the ability to use Celestial Magic, and any of the Four Seasonal Magics.

Regarding the sources of magic, there are only four, all derived from the four seasons and connected to something tied to that season. The Tidebound, for example, are intrinsically tied to the spring and the ocean, with their power being based around water, healing, cold, wind, floods, tsunamis, and VERY specific oaths/tithes. When you make an oath to do something, or agree to a tithe that carries on for generations, you'd better dang well adhere to it or your life is forfeit. That's how severe and serious this business is.

The Sunfire are tied to summer and the sun, giving them talents in blacksmithing, warfare, heat, fire, metal, plasma (a rare and dangerous technique), wind, and truth finding. The Sunfire detest lies and deceit, as it goes against the sun, which brings light to all that goes on in the shadows. Thus, not only are they powerful warriors and capable in war, but excellent lie detectors. Any of their kind who turn to deception are anathema to the Sunfire, which also means they have a rivalry of sorts with the Moonshadow.

Speaking of, the Moonshadow are tied to autumn and the moon, giving them access to bending light, traveling through shadows (allowing them real fast travel), poisons of any kind, life cycle awareness and occasional manipulation of it, wind, darkness, and Spirit Sense/Walk, where they walk in a parallel plane between the world of the living and the dead (also allowing them to see/interact with ghosts throughout the year, though especially on full moons and the peak of autumn). For this they are the perfect assassins, but despite this, the Moonshadow have a strict code of honor, and will only take the life of those who have done serious crime in the eyes of the magical community - hence why 1 they're great bodyguards for the Royal Dragon Clan, and 2 why they're so loyal to the dragons. They know serving the dragons is the right thing, and that if they have to take a life, they're better off doing said tasks from the dragons.

The Skywings are the most unusual - and powerful. They're tied to winter and the magnetic poles, and have abilities tied to ice, cold, wind, snow, temperature, magnetism, light, tornadoes, hurricanes, sound, rain, storms, lightning, and can form the nigh-unheard of life-force bonds. When Skywings want to marry, they perform some kind of magical binding rite that is deeply private, to the point no one outside of a Skywing knows how to perform it. This bond is unbreakable and can reach each person no matter the distance, and will give the lingering presence of the deceased spouse to the one still living, often providing comfort from beyond the grave. When a Skywing intermarries with a dragon, a different elf, or - more rarely - a human, they teach the future spouse this rite. They marry for life, with divorce or "separation" practically unheard of; should they encounter one of another race who is divorced/separated, the Skywing will express disappointment or disgust, depending on the situation.

Now we come to Dark Magic.

It's more of an offshoot of Moonshadow Magic, as it still relates to the darkness. However, it's not corruptive; rather, it's tied to the shadows, dark nights, storm clouds, fog, mists, swamplands, bogs, dead forests, and grants access to "grave visits" - you can see and interact with the dead. You cannot bring them back to life, but you can find them and learn things from them. As the Elves were intrinsically tied to the sources of magic, and the Dragons bound to Celestial Magic, humanity had no tie to any source but death and destruction. So when they discovered Dark Magic, it had the Dragons eyeing them nervously, as it was dangerous if you got too into the grave visits, which have the side effect of driving yourself to death if you went to see dead loved ones too much.

The real taboo is Blood Magic.

Blood magic requires the use of blood from still living creatures, siphoning it while the person lives and using it for vile rituals that raise the bodies of the dead, twist people into horrifying monsters, drain the life out of certain targets at will, turn you into a cannibal who cannot live without feasting on human/elven/dragon flesh or blood, and drive you to insanity as you fall further and further away from humanity. Somehow, a Mage Apprentice discovered this magic, and used it before terrorizing the village he dwelled in. Thus began the Great Exile, when the humans were banished by the Elves and Dragons a thousand years before Callum's time to the Western Lands, where fighting had once more begun to settle land disputes and out rose various human kingdoms. However, some Elves also fell from grace, selling themselves out as mercenaries for hire, assassins, or even allying with humans in war.

This brought upon the Mage Wars, which lasted until three centuries before Callum's birth. With the Orphan Queen of Katolis, Queen Aditi, and Avizandum's collaboration, the Mage Wars ended, though the peace was fragile, and skirmishes broke out frequently over the next few decades. For this, Avizandum guarded the Border, the thin patch of land that kept Xadia and the Western Lands divided, himself. However, ten years ago, King Harrow, Vizier Viren, and General Amaya, snuck past Avizandum and killed him in his sleep, his heart being carved out by an apprehensive Viren. However, the egg of Avizandum's son, the Dragon Prince, was left in pieces, leaving all to surmise that the Dragon Prince had been killed.

For this, the world is teetering on the razor's edge of war, though attempts by Viren and a slowly repenting Harrow have stalled the outbreak of war. Amaya has receded into the background, apparently conducting good relations with the neighboring kingdom of Neolandia, likely to bring the countries together in case war breaks out.

However, on the eve of the anniversary of the tenth year since Avizandum's death, a group of Moonshadow Elves have broken past the borders of Katolis on a secret mission....

11 notes · View notes

revoevokukil · 1 year

Text

Marriage & Sexual Politics among the Elves

I've been thinking -- we don't know if elven cultures have had a concept of marriage, right? Auberon remembers Shiadhal fondly but he doesn't call her his "wife" iirc, and Lara was supposed to "mate" with another Elder Blood elf, not to marry him.

Musings on the nature of elven desire and sexual politics (and nationalism, apparently); in response to a friend on Discord. As always, long; like your grandmother’s knitting.

I & II - Sapkowski's elves compared to Tolkien's. III - Elven biology & demographic predicament. IV - Elven nationalism as tied with their reproductive politics. V - Wild speculation on elven bonds & pacts.

-----

Would elven cultures in the Witcher have a concept of marriage? Probably. Marriage is a contractual agreement (with excellent PR) designed to achieve a particular end by way of the participant parties agreeing to terms advantageous of that end. As happens, everything in the Witcher ultimately comes down to sex and babies; especially as concerns the elves. Thus, enter: marriage.

Selective breeding, i.e. mating with someone particular as opposed to just anyone, entails at least temporary sexual exclusivity.[1] As a social construct, the primary function of marriage is usually to regulate sexual behaviour, encourage procreation while stipulating the concomitant economic and social responsibilities, and to pre-empt or solve various problems arising from the results of procreation (e.g. care duty, inheritance, kinship loyalties, tax and benefits).[2] So far, marriage fits the purpose.

Of course, marriage can also be – and is – a meaningful ritual between two (childless) lovers. More than that: in a species with a disperse procreation pattern a contractual agreement might also be struck for other reasons (e.g. political, ceremonial, benefactorial, amorous), for a fixed period, and between multiple parties (simultaneously or sequentially). There really is no reason to think nuclear family and perpetual monogamy must be the gold standard for Sapkowski’s elves. However, there might be cause to think that eternal love in the vein of Tolkien might be an ideal the elves in the Witcher’s universe cannot help but fall short of.

I entertain this thought as part of the difference between idealized and gritty fantasy. The difference, on average, seems like it comes down to attachment to a preconceived blueprint. For example, mixed-race marriages produce strange and tragic fates in both authors’ works, but only in Tolkien is the concept of marriage inherently necessary and sacred – and its sacrality affects the physical nature of an entire race – while in Sapkowski every kind of an affair, however mundane or ennobled, is treated seriously as a potential cause for conflict. Tolkien’s ideals feel more top-down and Sapkowski’s grit feels more emergent.

The most extensive documentation and interpretation of marriage between elves as we have come to know them comes from Tolkien. His influence might be felt in Sapkowski’s take on elves, though I dare say mostly by way of inciting a response rather than an imitation.

The most widely-known treatise on elven love life out there must be the Laws and Customs among the Eldar. Tolkien’s choices, while impossible to overlook in today’s fantasy canon, diverge from the majority of folklorish matter on fae spirits. He makes elves human again (in the vein of the semi-divine elves of the Anglo-Saxon and the Celtic Aos sí), but then he also makes them the poster children of Catholicism.[3]

For Tolkien, elves were the idealized humans before the Fall. Even after their own brand of Fall (war in paradise: the First Kinslaying, Fëanor’s Oath, and the resulting war for the Silmarils) the Eldar retain a certain idealized nobility in their very nature and bear a fate that makes it seem to mortal yokels as if the Firstborn are especially favoured by the gods. Indeed, perhaps it is the existence of a Creator God – the Great Demiurge – and his Plan in Tolkien’s cosmology that really sets his narrative apart from Sapkowski’s in the first place? Because while there is worship and many deity-like figures, faiths, and organized cults in The Witcher Saga, theism does not really manifest as a certain, fundamental feature of the ultimate order of things. Tolkien’s worldview is primarily providential; all acts of free will ultimately reinforce the Plan. Sapkowski’s take is distinctly suspect of there being any ultimate Plan, and Geralt rejects the notion of a Demiurge’s playground; acts of free will can and do alter things, though as often for the worse as for the better. And yet… Faith is real. Having faith – in a world full of mysteries.

The Witcher is secular in tone but pagan at heart.[4] Wicca is written all over the Saga; the worship of the (Triple) Goddess, Mother Nature and her cycles. Especially in respect to the elves. Indeed, it is hinted in Tower of the Swallow that elves believe themselves to have been created as opposed to having evolved like humans.[5] But we would be looking in vain for their Creator God. Elves are strangers in the worlds they occupy in the Saga, and even should we like to consider them Sapkowski’s equivalent for the Children of Danu (Tuatha Dé Danann), the Dana we encounter in The Edge of the World is either an independent being altogether or… an aspect of a diminished Goddess? As the Witcher elves themselves are in some sense diminished and diminishing; perhaps for this very reason not reluctant to perfect their divinely created selves through genetic engineering; to restore some of their once lost divinity.

Conceptually, The Witcher’s elves have gone through a Fall of their own – from idealized to gritty fantasy. If Tolkien sets an “elven ideal” and makes his Firstborn fit with it, then Sapkowski looks at cause and effect – in biology, material world, and history – and draws conclusions about his elves’ existence and outlook based on that. Not ruling out cause and effect in Tolkien’s imagination, of course, but I feel like the pivot of his work’s tone is somewhere different than Sapkowski’s. Both authors anthropomorphize elves, but Tolkien’s is one of idealization and Sapkowski’s is something of an attempt at “realistic” fantasy. Because depicting the truly alien is, indeed, very hard. Myth and folklore, however, do not aim at establishing unique differences; more often quite the opposite. They toy with the similarities they can draw between you and the “other”; to see which conclusions they can help you reach about yourself. And so, as concerns elven love life, Sapkowski’s elves resemble the creatures in fae folklore more than Tolkien’s. Just as folklore is more often concerned with magical cattle thieving than struggling with cosmological fate (but since The Witcher is still inspired by myths just the same – and myths allow for the grandiose – Sapkowski can involve major cosmological struggles in his work, only indirectly, in the backdrop to the folklorish focus on daily realities and emotions).

I will have to generalize a little bit now, though I do not wish to go on saying silly things about a faith I do not share even while being subconsciously influenced by it.

With some exceptions (e.g. Aredhel & Eöl or Luthien’s kidnapping by Celegorm & Curufin), Tolkien’s elven ideal amounted to a “monogamous, one true love = marriage for life.” On steroids. No casual sex, no premarital sex. No adultery. Intercourse = marriage = a bond of souls. Marriage (and sex) was for begetting children. To the point where Tolkien made his elves biologically unable to be anything but the icons of the aforementioned equation in body and spirit: if they married then they bonded for life and remained monogamously married for the entirety of their existence.

Sapkowski’s elves came out a little more based than that.

You might say that in devising the elves’ outlook Sapkowski took sex seriously, and plainly.

The notion that one of longevity’s snags is sex is actually shared by both authors, but Tolkien never really made a point of it. Sapkowski, meanwhile, set the idea under a microscope, letting it seep into the very essence of the Witcher’s plot and themes. Relations between men and women, procreation and familial ties, sexual freedom, bodily autonomy, and sexual politics – all questions of power on several levels – permeate the story. Not on the level of metaphor only either, but very straightforwardly.[6] By contrast, Tolkien ennobled the question of elven sex in footnotes, and then wrote it off.

‘By their very nature, they [elves] are “seldom swayed by the desires of the body” or influenced by lust.’ ‘Even when in after days... [when] many of the Eldar in Middle-Earth became corrupted, and their hearts darkened by the shadow that lies upon Arda, seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them.’ - Laws and Customs among the Eldar

This is very much not the case in the Witcher.Lust pretty much capitalizes the elves’ demographic predicament; corrupted hearts or just plain hearts. Sapkowski did not prescribe a normative frame for what elves ought to be like, instead letting circumstances dictate what might make narrative sense. Both Tolkien’s and Sapkowski’s elves have few offspring. But Tolkien’s reasons for it were a little spiritual and a little conventional, whereas Sapkowski tried to be somewhat scientific about it; and definitely unconventionally specific.

“In the begetting, and still more in bearing of children, greater share and strength of their being, in mind and in body, goes forth than in the making of mortal children. For these reasons it came to pass that the Eldar brought forth few children; and also that their time of generation was in their youth or earlier life, unless strange and hard fates befell them.” - Laws and Customs among the Eldar

Theoretically, the immortal Eldar have an eternity for procreation. Except they simply will not be interested in sex later in life because their author deemed their biological life cycle as such: they marry in their youth (when they are not yet world-weary), have a few children shortly after, and turn asexual as they age because their desires change and they carry on with the pursuit of artistic and cerebral pleasures instead. (Never mind the thought of sex as of a cerebral pleasure.) A scale-model of an idyllic married love idealized in the patriarchal, Christian world.

And just in case (though it is also written that the Eldar can be reincarnated as themselves):

"The Eldar dwell till the Great End unless they be slain or waste in grief (for to both of these deaths are they subject), nor doth eld subdue their strength, except it may be in ten thousand centuries; and dying they are reborn in their children, so that their number diminishes not, nor grows." - The Book of Lost Tales: Part 1

Tolkien’s elves are like a ready-made set of chess pieces, replenishing itself eternally, until Arda lasts.

Sapkowski’s elves on the other hand are not immortal, and what becomes of them after death is unknown. There is no One World (Arda) to which they are tied; their origin is unknown. They are travellers in a multiverse of realities. They do not have a millennia and reproduction is a real, time-sensitive issue. As is sex in general – an issue. If Tolkien’s elves simply lose interest in sex because they get nerd sniped (and because they are good Catholics), elves in the Witcher experience ordinary sexual frustration. Their longer life-span induces a craving for novelty, which becomes harder and harder to satisfy. Avallac’h’s lecture at Tir na Bea Arainne isn’t, in my opinion, to be taken as evidence of the elves’ biological inability to feel sexual desire after a while. As their history has shown, the opposite is relevant – where has their lust for novelty led them? (A graveyard at Tir na Bea Arainne?)

Sexually frustrated, elven men, just like elven women, begin bedding the newly arriving humans. Because it seems that humans are, well, easy.

‘”You multiply like rabbits.” The dwarf ground his teeth. “You’d do nothing but screw day in day out, without discrimination, with just anyone and anywhere. And it’s enough for your women to just sit on a man’s trousers and it makes their bellies swell…’

But Avallac’h – for self-evident reasons – downplays the role of elven men in the resultant demographic catastrophe. Because as it turns out, elven women, who have a normal ovulation window every 10-20 years with elven men, suddenly become induced ovulators with human men. And as in this gritty fantasy elves and humans are competitors in a race for survival, this gives human genes an advantage.

‘…the honest truth and faithful history of a world where he who shatters the skulls of others most efficiently and swells women’s bellies fastest, reigns.’ - Blood of Elves

III

Biology and demographics, then.

Elven women get the chance to have children only a handful of times in their youth. An average elf lives maybe half a millennia, maybe less. But a male elf of 600+ years is not considered too old to sire offspring, while the upper bound for female elves might arrive around 200-250 years.[7] Depending on when female elves are first considered mature for childbearing, this might result in 20-25 fertility windows (if ovulation every 10 years) or 10-12.5 chances if ovulation occurs every 20 years. The numbers are wholly speculative; we don’t know the age at which pregnancy becomes unlikely to impossible for elven women and we don’t know when elves are considered sexually mature both physically and culturally. However, if we bear in mind that individuals may also experience natural difficulties with conception on top of this diffuse ovulation cycle then elven children are, indeed, very rare.

The elves’ low fertility is compensated by their longevity; in peaceful circumstances their numbers don’t fluctuate drastically. But the circumstances of their existence in Sapkowki’s universe are not, by default, peaceful. Elves in the Witcher do not have their Aman (and even in Aman, if we recall, elf on elf violence still occurred). They exist in competition with other humanoids. Insofar, we must look at elven traits as their potential competitive advantage over likely aggressors: elves are resistant to disease, they are physically very fast and move unheard and unnoticed, they live long lives which enables them to become untouchable in most arts and crafts, and they have a special affinity to magic. Above all, elves have much more time to spread, refine, and maintain their memes. Elven fertility though is a nail in their coffin.[8] Even more so when one of the species they must compete with is able to inter-breed with them; and, to add insult to injury, does so more effectively than elves are able to amongst themselves.

Elven couples are disadvantaged in the numbers game. A human female ovulates approximately 300-450 eggs over the course of her fertile years and the wait between each ovulation is a matter of weeks. The wait for elven women in-between each potential pregnancy is decades. It is possible Sapkowski’s elves might also require a longer recuperation period after each successful pregnancy, mirroring Tolkien. Or, alternatively, they may be more resilient to disease and injury instead and the problems with pregnancies might lie in the conception phase rather than in carrying to term. I would not be surprised, however, if in our “realistic” fantasy at least the Aen Elle had not developed IVF or ovulation induction drugs to level the playing ground somewhat; potentially even independently of the need to compete with humans. We know fertility elixirs exist.

Effectively though, elven women’s reproductive sparseness means that for the majority of the time they do not have to worry about unwanted pregnancies resulting from relationships with elven men. The other side of that coin being that during their fertile phases, the social pressure to reproduce could be pretty immense. Particularly as concerns selective breeding. The period for which a male loses the opportunity to reproduce with a particular female is much longer than for human or mixed couples. This is pretty damning if trying to reproduce magically gifted individuals, and a nightmare for elven nationalists (more about that later). Consequently, absolutely any social construct (e.g. marriage, a pair-bond cementer) that helps ascertain a particular pair ends up conceiving should be very much in demand. Especially with humans added to the equation.

(For the funsies, you can speculate if a recurring period of heightened sexual proclivity in both males and females dovetails with she-elves’ menstrual cycle. Do elves experience something akin to a heat? Which, given how Sapkowski made elven women induced ovulators triggered by the orgasms human males give, I would not even be shocked about. Perhaps it’s his subversive response to Tolkien’s elves having tight control over their biology and being able to choose when they want children to happen. But seriously: ovulation with each powerful orgasm? So… if the orgasm was, let’s say, middling – or there was no orgasm at all; a depressingly realistic prospect – then no dice? An incentive for human men who are not keen on paternity to never-ever learn about the existence of an elven clitoris? I…)

“They want our blood!” howled Baron Vilibert. “And our land!” someone cried from the crowd of peasants. “And our women!” chimed in Sheldon Skaggs, with a ferocious glower. - Blood of Elves

Blood, land and women are often equated, and sexual jealousy features heavily in the elven narrative.[9]

The opening scene of the Blood of Elves under Bleobheris shows the racial and social divisions permeating the Northern Kingdoms, and includes commentary on mixing and women’s bodies. An elven maid in a beautiful toque hat enjoys the attention of human knights, students and goliards; playing into it. Under the gaze of her companions – male elves, who have nothing but antipathy toward the human admirers, proceeding to mate-guard (a tall, fair-haired male elf puts an arm around the beauty with the toque, dispelling any lingering doubts). Sapkowski may have had the folk under Bleobheris poke fun at dwarves for believing everyone desires their women.[10] In the Continent’s recent history though, it was in the war between elves and humans where women’s bodies fast became objects to guard and gatekeep; elves being exceptionally attractive to humans, while humans to elves – a curiosity, a novelty, and an easy (and perhaps useful) lay.

‘Elves, bored by she-elves, court the always-willing human females. Bored she-elves give themselves, out of perverse curiosity, to human males, always full of vigour and verve. And something happens that no one can explain … some hidden hormone, or combination of hormones, became active. She-elves suddenly understand they can, in practice, only have children with humans. So, owing to the she-elves, we didn’t exterminate you when we were still the more powerful race. And later you were more powerful and began to exterminate us. But you still had allies in the she-elves. For they were the advocates of coexistence and cooperation… and they didn’t want to admit that essentially it was about commingling.’ - Tower of the Swallow

There is a lot to unpack here.

Blood, land, women. Technically, the inter-group conflict in the Witcher is an inter-species one, but the surrounding discourse is patently nationalist. Among elves, this is compounded by the worship of Mother Nature. Because in Sapkowski’s Wicca-influenced take, nature is inherently female. Ergo, land is female. And in Baptism of Fire, Regis notes: “Land and territory is what integrates elves.” Adapting to the influx of humans was therefore all the more difficult for elves because their “land and territory” was shared with the invader. Their women were shared.

One of the most common features of fairy mythology is marriage or affair between a human being and a fairy.[11] The one particularly interesting feature of such marriages is that the fairy is almost invariably the female party. Equally, there is almost always either some reluctance involved on the part of the fairy or some suggestion of the use of force by the human; or, on the contrary, it’s the fairy who seduces the human male, which usually ends woefully for him (abduction, death, maiming). The human-elf marriage is strictly conditional (e.g. striking your fairy wife or reproaching her with her origin guarantees she will leave for the Otherworld) and should the wife vanish, she usually tries to take the children with her. The prehistoric theory about the origins of fairy folklore ascribes its existence to reminiscences of earlier inhabitants, crowded out by later immigrants. The colonisers mythologizing the colonized.[12] This fits within the narrative of the Witcher, which makes a point about the inter-group conflict between different waves of migrants being fought both on the battlefield and in bed. [13] In this light, the marriage of a fairy and a human effectively amounts to a narrativization of marriage by capture: the migrants driving the natives into the forests, marshes, and other inhospitable places, where their lifestyle could easily come to be regarded as deteriorating and wild, leading to seeing them as inferior and non-human, at length even as supernatural beings or spirits of nature (i.e. as beings which later, in our folklore, developed into fairies (elves)). The migrants drive the earlier inhabitants off, while breeding with their women and thus inserting themselves into the notional line of inheritance for the conquered land through the creation of common ancestry. A bloodline that inherits the earth it walks on. Something similar is happening between humans and the Aen Seidhe in the Continent. By the 1200s, it is hard to find a human who does not have a dash of Seidhe Ichaer, the blood of elves, flowing through their veins, and pure-blooded Aen Seidhe have become a de facto minority “ethnic group.”

In nationalist discourse, the connection between the land and the people is forged through common ancestry. Blood-ties derive from the land and nourish one’s roots in the land. Women reproduce the nation biologically and under patriarchal relations are also expected to do so ideologically; recreating boundaries between groups.[14] Genes and memes. Women’s role is made to hinge on motherhood, and in national mythologies the identification of the fertile, life-giving land as the nurturing mother and wife is set to mobilize and lend legitimacy to the protection of the land by the male against those who seek to defile it. The option to deal with the invading humans aggressively had been on the table; it’s the elves’ appreciation for new life that had stayed their hand. Sexual jealousy features so prominently in the elven narrative then because the conflict they are immersed in is not only an inter-species one over the proverbial life-giving territory. It is also a conflict between elven men and women.

How do elven women position in elven societies then, politically and personally? Nationalism entails the protection and re-forging of group affiliations through ensuring similarity in its members’ biological and cultural markers, but the power relations of reproduction hinge on the nature of gender politics. In contrast to humans, elves are ostensibly egalitarian. Elven children, for example, are brought up without reinforcing arbitrary distinctions between male and female skills and practices. Insofar as elves, unlike humans, don’t seek to dominate nature (that is “the female”) – and should this mindset carry over to their social relations – the status of elven women might be greater still; also considering the commensurately more precarious situation with reproduction. The ball is in the women’s court, though so, apparently, are the stakes. After all, it seems elven women, at the time when elves still held power over humans, were in a position to steer history and choose freely whether to procreate with them. They decided in favour of it – almost as a matter of policy? – because of their love of children. And if it was a calculated decision, did elven men – who also lay with human women – see this then as either a fad or a potential?

Going down the eugenics rabbit hole for a minute: theoretically, in a controlled mixing environment, inter-breeding with particular humans could have worked out beneficially for the elves by increasing their numbers and by introducing useful mutations into their gene pool. It’s not clear though if heterosis in any form would have really occurred as a result. But if selective breeding is, indeed, widespread among them then I would not rule out at least debate among their elite. (By the way, might it be that only half-elves born of elven women would have been admitted among pure-blooded elves? (With the one notable exception being Riannon.) Perhaps due to the perception of a mother being more tied to the child and more integrated into her own people’s culture, traditions, and values?)

As it turned out, cross-breeding did not encourage peaceful relations. And insofar as sex can be a political tool (just as sexual violence a weapon of war), the choices of elven women went from being a subject of cultural reflection and appreciation to an active political liability. If previously all motherhood would have been revered for its own sake, now not all motherhood would have been perceived to lead to positive outcomes. Especially not for the group, and especially not in the eyes of elven ultranationalists. If the symbolic elevation of (nature as) “the female” thanks to her ability to bring forth new life was a distinct and possibly positive feature of elven societies beforehand, now – in this new world of competition with another species – the placement of procreation at the heart of the turns of elven history rather shifts the narrative toward the sexist objectification we are used to seeing in human cultures. Except on the whole and on average, elves remain an egalitarian species, and the overall value of life for its own sake – of hope and of new beginnings – persists.

It begs the question then if the changes in ideology that elven societies went through were wholly negative to elven women in a similar vein as they are usually negative to humans. An aureole of semi-religious significance does not necessarily result in a gilded existence – the Saga hammers this home with Ciri’s entire life – but motherhood seems to be a sought-after experience among elven women regardless. Their faces are noted to reflect boundless odium and surprise at Ciri’s disgust over the prospect of pregnancy and motherhood.[15] The gendering particulars of elven nationalism remain up for debate then: in which direction is their script askew – patriarchal, matriarchal, or some secret third thing? To what extent did it shift from one perspective toward another? If the objectification of the female body post-humans intensified commensurately with the elves’ increased procreative predicament, then an elven maid’s choice, while remaining still a choice, might have become culturally encouraged, traditionally supported, strongly recommended. But still a choice.

Let’s leave humans out of the equation. Let’s speculate.

There are three things Sapkowski’s elves value above all else, as far as I can tell: beauty, novelty, and the preservation of life in its particularity. The number of truly novel experiences decreases fast and nothing truly lasts in the material world. Worse, the virgin feeling of any experience loses its shine in memory. To be perpetually nostalgic then for the mental state reminiscent of a newborn for whom every new thing encountered seems permanent and never-ending – such seems the fate of elves who have no guarantees of a paradise of their own or of eternal life.

Insofar as putting a label on it goes, I suspect elven relationships are quite intricate but precisely defined per the time they intend for them to last, even if they may seem messy and opaque to the human eye. The majority of folklore depicts fae spirits as sexually liberal[16]. A mix of serial monogamy intersected with polyamory? Patch-work families and age differences also seem all but assured. Neither would I rule out the ideal of eternal, monogamous love, which rings precisely of the kind of experience that remains elusive, unreachable, and yet, desirable for these a-Tolkinesque elves. They have the time, and love has many faces. Since novelty and the particularity of experiences matters though, the general population may be tempted to maximize for variety, and their social structure and socialisation may well have had to develop to accommodate the different bonding-configurations desire and time can birth.

There is a catch, though – the fine print.

A prolonged lifespan implies every stage of elven life and their every decision – every action and non-action – will stretch in its impact; on themselves, on their society, on history. Either great foresight or a plethora of little balancing devices seem necessary in order to guard against civilizational, interpersonal, and individual breakdown. Ida Emean would not describe elven race’s strength as arising out of excessive rationality, and truly, an oath, a promise or an action that is born as a result of irrational desire, momentary impulse, or chance opportunity can be a weighty and dangerous thing for an elf. Consequently, negotiations of terms are to be expected whenever a contract is to be entered into; both before and after the bond has come into effect. But a contract is in the interests of everyone involved. Reliance on formal agreements and debts is likely as normalised as being shockingly straightforward in delineating one’s wants and expectations. Even in sensitive matters that benefit from illusions, such as love. The flipside of the coin – the catch – is that elves are incentivized to allow for and find ambiguity in the wording of their own terms, and, provided they are not ideal beings, are wont to try and re-define the precise manner of the satisfaction of the terms in their contracts.

Marriage is, first and foremost, a bargain.

Depending on the specifics of the relationship, the length and nature of a marriage may differ wildly. The notion of the immutability of sacred vows may not be quite as idealized among ordinary elves as it is among humans; in fact, it might be quite a frightening concept. If we allow for the fallen nature of the Witcher’s elves – from an idealized to a gritty depiction – then marriage as an eternal commitment is much like an impossible bind; in a universe where nothing is by virtue of design guaranteed to last, where the notion of fate itself is dubious. Moreover, not all love or lust necessitates marriage; not even real romantic love. If marriage is first and foremost a bargain, a social construct for (temporarily) regulating sexual behaviour, and a social safeguard of procreation, then I imagine elves may be quite a bit less deluded about its function; which is practical first and idealized second. Unless you belong among elven mystics (though I don’t know if they too get tax benefits).

Generally though, the ball is in an elf-maid’s court. If children are the aim, and unless subject to a selective breeding programme, she can be picky in who to mate with as her time-sensitive choices carry that much more weight. It’s up to the groom to be up to par, really. Being up to par, however, can mean many things. Is love part of the bargain? Moreover, is it “lasting” love that is being promised or sought, or a seasonal one, or something entirely, wonderfully specific and different? Tricky. No elven maid would enter into a marriage contract without first considering the terms carefully; in order not to over-promise or to be extorted of more than was seemingly agreed upon. And should true, lasting love be baked into the ideal of marriage then there would be plenty to be wary of as The Witcher’s elves maintain only the veneer of the Tolkinesque ideal and not a nature that would necessarily be able to live up to the idealization. To be tricked into performing the impossible – whether by your own feelings or by another’s – can be dire.

I think marriage is a very real concept among elves, but also a quite de-mystified one, except for a few special cases.

-----

[1] Naturally this begs the question if all elves (amongst themselves) practice selective breeding, or only some? We don’t know, and the topic is a little too broad to broach here, but we do know that at least the elven elite among the Aen Elle does selectively breed the magically gifted (who also happen to belong to the upper strata of their society).

[2] An interesting question in its own right would be about the nature of inheritance laws in a species that lives half a millennia a piece.

[3] The incorporation of fae spirits and their associated folklore into Christian cosmology in sub-Roman Britain is a topic of ideologically-motivated revisionism in its own right.

[4] In an interview to Stanisław Bereś (Historia i fantastyka), AS mentions his worldview is pagan: ‘Yes. Even the term "agnostic" is too weak for me. My worldview is not agnostic, atheistic or secular. This is pure paganism. I really am a pagan in the textbook sense of the word.’

[5] AS mentions creationist elves in The Manuscript.

[6] One of the metaphors being: sex -> rebirth -> hope (hopefully). Or: Grail = Woman; leading to hopeful new beginnings or the opposite, death and destruction (either by not “realising its hope” or by giving new life to what will invariably have a high chance of causing more evil). As I said, Wicca is everywhere.

[7] This is probably a generous estimate. We don’t really know the details about elven life span.

[8] No wonder elves are hell-bent on controlling Ard Gaeth; if they cannot outcompete their co-habitants or negotiate favorably for themselves, they can at least find a new universe to thrive in.

[9] In other examples, the burning of Birka – the later Jealousy – occurred in consequence of a human girl not reciprocating an elf’s feelings and, as the people say, mocking his feelings on top of it by sleeping around. Or in yet another pivotal occasion, the semi-mythical love triangle between Crevan, Lara, and Cragen gives the Witcher’s plot one of its major catalysts.

[10] ‘Several people started to laugh – as quietly and furtively as they could. Even though the idea that anyone other than another dwarf would desire one of the exceptionally unattractive dwarf-women was highly amusing, it was not a safe subject for teasing or jests… the dwarves, for some unknown reason, were entirely convinced that the rest of the world was lecherously lying in wait for their wives and daughters, and were extremely touchy about it.’ – Blood of Elves

[11] H. N. Gibson (1955) The Human-Fairy Marriage, Folklore, 66:3, pp. 357-360

[12] In case of the Witcher, the colonized Aen Seidhe were obviously technologically more advanced than the colonizing humans. A case is to be made then that infantilization plays an important part in the narrative the colonizers create against the colonized (equally to narratives emphasizing the elves’ cruelty or Otherness).

[13] It is noteworthy though, that Sapkowski’s elves are both the colonizers and the colonized, which is true to real life in many places and times; even if in particular AS drew on the several waves of migration that saw various peoples landing in Ireland and the British Isles, fighting and driving out the earlier inhabitants on each occasion. Aen Elle’s position to their human servants is diametrically opposite to that of humans’ to Aen Seidhe; possibly also in terms of reproducing with them. All servants Ciri saw at Tir na Lia were female.

[14] Yuval-Davis, N. 1988.

[15] To some extent it begs the question, do elven women on average even mind their politically and symbolically-vested position, deriving from their unique ability to create life? In ancient Celtic societies, motherhood and nurturing were considered sacred feminine qualities. There is only a small step from holding this view kindly to holding it as espoused in various patriarchal, traditionalist and nationalist discourses, though.

[16] While depicted as sexually liberal among their own, they are notably stringent with the humans they elope with.

103 notes · View notes

ladymirdan · 1 year

Text

Uriel Ventris isn't a good Ultramarine.

I know this is a spicy hot take but listen to me. Ventris is a great character, but not a good Ultramarine. So what is the difference?

I've heard people say so many times “I don't like the Ultramarines, but I like Ventris”, and boy do I got some news for you; you won't like the rest of them.

Because Uriel routinely fails at being an Ultramarine. And that is what makes him such a great character to read about.

The big problem comes when people have read only the Ventris books and think that he is a good representation of an Ultramarine, when he in all actuality is a failure in their eyes.

My own feelings about Ventris has been a roller coaster, at first I loved him, then I got frustrated by him and finally I have gone full circle into loving him again.

I admire his stubbornness and his idealism. The Ultramarines have tried to kick him out more then once for not following the codex (and lets face it, other captains have done worse and hardy gotten a slap on the wrist). And he just soldiers through it. The man survived a death oath! It's in the name of what is supposed to happen to you 😂

So if Ventris isn't an ideal Ultramarine, who/what is?

The Ultramarines' niche is to be politicians. They are often said to be “boy scouts” or the “good guys”, when in actuality they are the masters of propaganda. (the propaganda works so well that GW routinely has to tell people there are no good guys in 40k, guess who they are addressing)

In my mind Marneus Calgar is an excellent example of a perfect Ultramarine. I was confused about Calgar at first. How did a good man like him manage to become chapter master in a legion of politicians?

And then I read Calgar’s books, he is a good man as long as he can afford it, then rules and morals go out the airlock. And that was just a fascinating contrast to Ventris who sticks to his morals even when breaking the rules.

The Ultramarines are a weird bunch overall. They have so many good characters, and they are allowed to be flawed as hell, to be their own thing, to have a personality. I think that is why I love them so much, they are real people, they have real relationships that spans over many books (and autors!)

Some would say there is an unfair amount of Ultramarine books (and while I disagree on that because I personally want/need more) and that massive pile might be daunting to look at but they have so many gems.

If you like adventure, or political intrigue, or maybe some straight-up bolter porn, they got it. There is some flavour of Ultramarine for everyone.

They are so much more than just some boy scouts doing their best.

#ultramarines #warhammer 40k #40k #horus heresy #warhammer #uriel ventris #space marines #games workshop #books #feel free to ask me for book recomendations

86 notes · View notes

stitcherofchaos · 8 months

Text

Maedhros is an ESTJ

He is dutiful and responsible, when he argues with his father to send the ships back to the larger host of the Noldor, I believe he was considering Fingon specifically out of loyalty, sticking to his principles and ideals about the situation. Obviously this is the Te function that butts heads with his father. I don't need to go into his Te too much otherwise this would be a book-long post but is comes out in the fact that he is an excellent commander and leader.

The reason he is a sensor though is because he uses Si to guide him through middle earth. Si is what reminds him of the larger, stronger portion of the Noldor left behind in Valinor, the oath, how he strategizes, and whenever he sticks to his firmly implanted principles and logic which causes him to make big picture mistakes.

For example: His father leads a battle against Morgoth and dies. A little bit after that, Maedhros tries to overpower Morgoth again and gets captured. The big picture he missed- is that his first sole job is as King of the Noldor and to get the Silmarils back and he focused on the 'smaller 'detail of trying to overpower Morgoth on his own.

Maedhros's mind is in two places: remembering the lessons (and sufferings) of the past and planning for the near future (not far).

The Ne function is tricky but ESTJs use it a surprising amount to come up with better, more efficient, solutions to problems and we can become surprisingly inventive.

Examples: when Maedhros gives the crown to Fingolfin (which none of his brothers expected), making allies with nearly everyone (dwarves and men included), and his last desperate attempt to take the Silmarils, which cause him to spontaneously unalive himself due to despair.

(Trust me when I say, when ESTJs despair, it is caused by hopeless situations and finding ourselves in a dark places where we believe that everything that went wrong was our fault.)

The last function is Fi, and we never see Maedhros confront his own feelings through the book, his entire focus is defeating Morgoth so that all of middle earth can be at peace. But then when it became hopeless, then his eyes focused on the next attainable objective, getting back the Silmarils and fulfilling the oath (despite it being in vain).

That despair I mentioned earlier was the inferior Fi causing Maedhros to mentally break- paired in with Si is a horrible experience.

Fi may be the last function of ESTJ, but it's also ENTJ's last function. it's the same thing that caused Feanor to mentally break after his father's death, a deep seated sorrow coated with wrath (and Feanor is clearly an ENTJ). For Maedhros, it's yearning coated with stoicism.

ESTJs (being the community oriented people that they are) care about their neighbors and want to help them (mostly practically), they want everyone just to get along and not cause any drama or situations which create harm so they can work together more efficiently against the common evil (if they do see it). But they can become brutal when people become a risk/danger to their friends and neighbors.

Maedhros did not want to harm anyone, but due to PTSD and despair, he caved and learned not to care; unhealthily utilizing his Te function to its full extent.

If anyone wants to add on to this and/or disagree, feel free to! I'm guilty of not grasping the four cognitive functions completely but I wanted to get my thoughts out there. I wrote this all though the method of the cognitive functions instead of 'which personality traits match what'.

#Let me know in the comments/reblog tags if you wanna hear me ramble on how I think Maglor might be an ISFJ #maedhros #mbti #myers briggs #the 16 personalities #estj #silmarillion #the silmarillion #tolkien #cognitive functions #Ironically enough #this is the same reason why Maedhros is NOT my favorite character bc everytime I read about him-#-I wanna slap myself for making similar misjudgments and mistakes #please tell me if I made any grammatical errors as well thx

15 notes · View notes

ceterisparibus116 · 1 year

Note

As a lawyer, what do you think about Matt's closing statement at the end of Healy's trial?

IT'S GOOD.

And I don't say that lightly. XD

What is a closing argument supposed to do? It's supposed to explain the law, summarize the evidence, and apply the law to the evidence in a way that convinces the jury that the only reasonable outcome is the verdict you want.

(This is opposed to opening statements, where you aren't supposed to argue to the jury; you're just supposed to outline the facts they can expect to see.)

What makes a closing argument effective? Aside from catching and holding your audience's attention (a must for any public speaking), you have to know exactly which facts to emphasize and masterfully understand the law, and you have to put it together in a story that makes sense to the jury.

What if you're a defense attorney, and you actually think your client is scum? Well...then you have to be even more artful and work even harder to keep the jury's attention squarely on the relevant facts, and not wandering off to other speculation or concern.

After all, in a criminal case, the jury is not supposed to ask: "Do we like this guy? Is this a good guy?" Instead, the only question the jury should be asking is: "Did this guy commit this specific crime?"

And you have to do it in a way that doesn't sacrifice your credibility. Trials can be won or lost because the jury things one of the attorneys is slimy or manipulative.

Matt deals with all of this excellently.

His opening discussion of morality, for example, efficiently does two things:

Hooks the jury's attention

Keeps the jury's attention on key question ("Did he commit the crime?") and away from other questions about Healy's character

Then, Matt moves on to summarize the evidence. The relevant evidence he highlights is:

Healy's claim of self-defense (unclear when or where Healy made such a claim if he didn't testify...maybe he made such a claim at the scene, and that was introduced at trial, or maybe Matt is referring to the claim of self-defense he and Foggy are making as Healy's representation)

The silence of Mr. Prohaszka's associates

What the other witness can't testify to (she can't testify to how the fight actually started)

What the other witness can testify to (that Mr. Prohaszka was "pleasant and friendly")

Matt is absolutely right that these facts are utterly insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Healy wasn't acting in self-defense.

Matt then goes on to remind the jury of their oath. This is key! Ideally, he's tapping into something that either he or Foggy would've brought up in jury selection: they would've questioned all the prospective jurors on whether they are really comfortable upholding the law, even if they don't agree with it, even if they feel funny about it. They would've asked all the prospective jurors to promise to hold the prosecution to the "reasonable doubt standard" and to find Healy guilty if the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction - no matter how the jury feels about Healy or what he did.

Matt's comment about "a judgment of his own making" was probably not brilliant, but I give it a pass because it's so beautifully ominous.

His conclusion that the judgment is "yours and yours alone" is great because it makes the jury feel pressure. As the defense, you want the jury to slow down and feel pressure. After all, as the defense, it only takes one (1) juror to result in a hung jury. So the last thing you want is for all the jurors to go back to deliberate and feed off each other and settle into group-think and come back forty-five minutes later with a confident "guilty" verdict.

Also, can we talk about Matt's delivery for a second? It always bothers me how Foggy goes right up to the jury box during his opening statement; there's too much risk with that sort of thing that it will come off as pushy or desperate. I also think Foggy's claim that the prosecution will go "nowhere near" meeting their burden comes off as a little exaggerated. The risk with those exaggerated statements is that it can alienate the jury. Even if they don't think the prosecution met their burden, you don't want them distracted by thinking, "Well, they weren't that far off like Mr. Nelson said..." It just has too much potential to create a disconnect between Foggy and the jurors, and it can damage Foggy's credibility.

Matt, however, looks completely in-control and confident the entire time. He barley moves during his closing argument, except for a few key gestures that are expertly timed to enhance his points. His voice is low and even. And he doesn't speak in exaggeration. If anything, he acknowledges that Healy isn't a great guy. This is important for basically telling the jury: "Hey, you can trust me. You think Healy isn't great - nor do I. We're on the same page. But I'm also saying he's not guilty. We should be on the same page about that, too."

Actually, I wonder if part of the difference between Matt and Foggy is that Foggy secretly is compensating. Foggy, after all, really does think Healy is slime, and as far as Foggy knows, if they get Healy off, that's it: no hope of further justice. Maybe that's why Foggy seems insincere: he is insincere. Foggy is trapped playing a role he doesn't believe in.

Matt, on the other hand, has no such issue. He can argue that Healy is innocent under the law, while also acknowledging that Healy is not a great person, and he is personally reassured by the fact that if Healy escapes justice in the courtroom, Matt will ensure that he faces justice outside of it. Matt comes off as completely sincere because he is sincere.

Besides all that, understated delivery is just so good.

That said, what are some things that are a little off about this closing argument?

First, Matt really should've used the jury instructions to his advantage. Jury instructions are the law the jury is supposed to apply to the facts. Jury instructions define the relevant terms and help the jury figure out not just what the facts are, but what the facts mean under the law.

In any criminal case, Matt should really camp out for at least a minute or two on the fact that the prosecution bears the burden of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the fact that the defense bears no such burden. Foggy touches on this in his opening statement, but Matt should (ideally) hit on it again in his closing argument.

And in any criminal case involving a claim of self-defense, Matt really needs to camp out on the fact that it's the prosecution's burden to prove all the elements of self-defense by beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution needs to prove that Healy wasn't acting for any reason other than self-defense (which Matt only briefly alludes to), and that Healy wasn't acting in response to an imminent threat, and that Healy's actions weren't necessary, and that Healy's actions weren't proportional.

That's...a lot for the prosecution to deal with.

Now. To be fair. Kinda hard to argue that Healy's actions were proportional, so maybe Matt intentionally shied away from that point.

Anyway, related, there's Matt's comment that questions of Healy's character are utterly irrelevant. Actually, if he's an aggressive dude who picks fights with people, that is relevant, since, again, a claim to self-defense is valid only if a person acts solely in self-defense, and not for any other reason. But apparently the prosecution wasn't able to provide any evidence suggesting that Healy is an aggressive dude. Still, the question is, technically, relevant.

We didn't see enough of the trial to know if there are any juicy quotes Matt could've quoted. That's really fun in closing arguments. The only quote we get here is Matt (apparently) quoting the witness that his client was "pleasant and friendly," which isn't a bad quote, but there were probably other quotes he could've used, too.

And then normally, you want to spend a chunk of time countering the other side's argument. This is especially important as defense. The prosecution gets to go twice (their closing argument, and then their rebuttal of the defense closing argument), but the defense only gets one shot at arguing. So you have to make sure you hit all the prosecution's strongest points.

Unless the prosecution made no strong points. Which is kinda what it looks like in Healy's case. So maybe I can give Matt a pass there, too.

Anyway, there you have it. My thoughts on Matt's closing argument!

#matt murdock #foggy nelson #daredevil #meta #asks #ask me things i'm friendly #i'm so sorry this ask is so old #my inbox is a disaster

83 notes · View notes