#and being completely disgusted

[loadinghellsing]

the comedic potential of anderson not knowing that alucard is vlad lll dracul and finding it out is severly under-recognized and im glad you’re exploiting it

Half the reason I love Anderson as much as I do is due to his room being covered in books - and for the refrence to Mars. The thought of him being a major history & mythology geek gives me life. So him finding out Alucard is Vlad? Fights momentarily put on hold- We've got a first person resource on the 15th century to interrogate-

[spacepunksupreme]

this is what this movie was about to me

[kikicolors]

:/

[sweetface-the-dollbaby]

reblog if you’re a better person than lily orchard simply by not being lily orchard

[fayevalcntine]

The whole framing of Lestat as the sole symbol of patriarchy that fandom is so desperate to put him in doesn't work unless you deliberately ignore how he was also a victim of rape and abuse before he was turned. People want him to be fit into this strict role of "father figure/violent husband/perpetrator" that is only that and not even a whole person, and in doing so they need to push aside the fact that despite being his family's provider, he was also pushed into that role when his father forbid him from joining a monastery or gaining an education that he wanted. Lestat wanted to run away with a theater group as a kid, and actually managed to do so once Gabrielle gave him her blessing and monetary support in order to go to Paris. He didn't always want to be the provider, he was forced into that role and became despondent when he thought he would never get a chance to leave his home.

His new life prior to being turned is pretty much the antithesis to the whole "Lestat is a manly man who would sooner throw up than be compared to a woman" spiel: he lived with another man in Paris while also being an actor, having left his family and "responsibility" to them. The only family member he was ever close to was his mother, all the other male members shunned or ridiculed him. Add onto that the fact that his turning firmly placed him within the role of the damsel/victim: he's kidnapped from his bed by a stranger, taken into a tower and left to rot while being fed on for a week, before then being raped and violently turned all while never even being asked if he would consent to it in any normal circumstance. But you of course have to ignore all of this if you want him to only represent the aggressor/patriarch while Louis is the helpless unhappy matriarch of the family.

My issue isn't that I think Louis isn't a victim, it's that it's not unrealistic for Lestat to be an aggressor/abuser while also displaying traits that aren't regularly assigned to stereotypical depictions of male characters. He's abusive to Claudia while also having been a victim of abuse from his own family. He's not a good maker/teacher, but he also didn't even have one when he was turned. He's the provider/attempted protector of the family and seemed to like being that, while also having run away from his own family prior to this to act in a theater in Paris. He's a rich white man while also being obviously effeminate in public spaces, even to Tom's own bigoted humor.

Like Louis' own complicated story with being his family's benefactor and provider, you can't firmly place Lestat as being one thing or another in terms of gender ideals without deliberately ignoring parts about him that don't fit this. And I don't think it's an absolute necessity, when even in Louis' own story, Lestat isn't stripped of his effeminate mannerisms or behavior while also being the abusive maker/father/lover.

[painfullyprickedandticked]

i dont think striker and alastor are characters who are "precious senpais who did nothing wrong" i just don't think they're as reprehensible as valentino or stella. their actions aren't excusable, no, but they aren't near that level of abhorrent.

[lady-corrine]

"Rhaenyra being usurped had nothing to do with misoginy and her being a woman -"

"The Greens are not only constituted by misoginystic -"

"Aegon and Rhaenyra were just as bad and neither deserved to -"

"George is writing about how Aegon and Rhaenyra were equally bad, not about how misoginy and patriarchy killed a woman and ruined her entire life -"

"Rhaenyra being murdered has nothing to do with her being a woman, nor is she sexualized even in death-"

[clarisimart]

You know what would be sooo funny for season 2 of Blue eyed Samurai? if no matter whoever Mizu's bio dad ends up being, after being forced together in close proximity for a while, Fowler keeps getting more and more examples of just how unhinged Mizu is and ends up being genuinely fond of her and goes like, "you know what, I'm officially your dad now", all the while Mizu still hates him and has to fight the urge to kill him every single second while she still needs him.

[friezaglasiencold]

‘Smouldering coals’ my ass, you clearly adore Kuriza. Emotionally repressed man who cannot comprehend that he loves his child unconditionally because his own father was awful my beloved and detested.

My father was a rat of a man, but that’s hardly relevant. I never said I didn’t care for my child.

And to think… here I was, being so vulnerable with my feelings. Shame on you, and shame on me for trying.

[riddlerosehearts]

okay azul having a dream where he like... apparently just wasn't bullied and so he never became friends with floyd and jade, never went to NRC and eventually became super successful and beloved and popular in the coral sea? is fascinating to me because based on the previous dreams where for example lilia and idia's loved ones still suffered and kalim was still causing trouble for jamil, i didn't think the spell they're under would be able to completely erase traumatic experiences like that. jade even explains that he knows azul couldn't be who he is in reality without those experiences--and that's why they're all so shocked to see that he's a star athlete in his dream, because they had just been trying to guess what the azul they know would've been dreaming about! instead they got a version of azul that makes no sense! and i guess it's because as they explain in-game, azul just has such a strong imagination that he's able to carefully construct something like this. which is also fascinating to think about in the context of so many of the other dreamers who just couldn't imagine what their lives would be without the people and experiences that have shaped them, and had dreams that weren't nearly as far from reality than this or were off in very different ways. like vil is literally a mega famous and talented professional actor, and even he couldn't imagine his life without neige around but here we have azul dreaming about his entire life and personality being the complete opposite of who he really is... and not only that but he invited a group of land dwellers to a party just so he could humiliate them for no reason?? azul ashengrotto may be an asshole and yes he may have done terrible things to try and be better than his bullies--but that's the thing, the real azul does want to be undeniably better than them, not just stoop down to their level. so it's just really unsettling to see him like this.

[sysig]

He was a human pirate, which you wouldn’t think you’d have to specify and yet (Patreon)

[actual-corpse]

Saw a YT vid with the title, "Fandom Can't Handle Asexuality"

You're right, they can't... Because it doesn't fucking exist to them.

[starrysharks]

every art critic, teacher or tutorial maker who tells you that your character designs must be conventionally attractive or appealing is a big fat liar

[yioh]

crazy to me that imane khelif is going viral for having her gender speculated instead of how she is a talented and hot asf athlete 😭 where are our priorities and why are they in the fcking gutter

[zlobonessa]

one aspect that always fascinates me about the witch cult is how much they are used-to-be humans-but-now-not-really-are. they were just people who sometimes were good in the way people are and sometimes were bad in the way people are. and then their lifes had been altered by powers so fundamentally that they just. lost touch with any humanity that they had. how do you comprehend being a hundreds years old? how do you comprehend being able to kill a human as simply as a mosquito? how do you comprehend being beyond time, beyond aging, beyond life and death, beyond your own body, beyond your own memories? it's a horror scenario accepted willingly, horror where instead of running from monster you shake its hand and convince yourself that that's all you ever wanted, because the alternative? the alternative is the existence so miserable you'd rather die than go back. the existence that may ask you to take responsibility for your actions, navigate your own life, change who you are as a person.

they cannot do that. they never could do that. they live for years and years, having powers to do literally anything and yet led by instructions in the book, further and further conservating in the state they were from a start, the moment they took a deal.

doomed from the beginning. never having a chance to escape. never wanting to escape, instead allowing your humanity to slowly seep away as a price for not bearing the weight of that it means to be human. damn.

[bethanydelleman]

In one of my most popular posts, I pointed out that Jane Austen and Charlotte Brontë's writing styles don't have a ton in common, despite being constantly recommended to Austen fans looking for further reading.

Anthony Trollope is another name I hear frequently as similar to Austen. And let me say now.

No. Stop it.

I read his most famous and popular novel, Barchester Towers. The whole time I had this vibe, though I couldn't exactly find a quote to support it, that this author did not really respect women. The main hero is explicitly said to treat women like children. A main plot is about a bishop being hen-pecked (controlled by his wife). Another main plot is a woman who is a heartless, magical siren.

Well then the vibe stopped being a vibe (woman is ivy, man is tower):

When the ivy has found its tower, when the delicate creeper has found its strong wall, we know how the parasite plants grow and prosper. They were not created to stretch forth their branches alone, and endure without protection the summer's sun and the winter's storm. Alone they but spread themselves on the ground and cower unseen in the dingy shade. But when they have found their firm supporters, how wonderful is their beauty; how all-pervading and victorious! What is the turret without its ivy, or the high garden wall without the jasmine which gives it its beauty and fragrance? The hedge without the honeysuckle is but a hedge.

Yeah, I want to vomit. Women are a parasitic vine that cannot grow properly without a man? Fuck you, Anthony Trollop.

And why in the world would anyone compare this author to Austen?

Before someone fights me:

Yes, I realize that an author from 1857 might have unfortunate views about women. I'm not an idiot. I choose to read those who don't.

Yes, I know I only read one novel. I'm not going further because that was enough for me. I also wasn't very fond of his writing style besides the misogyny.

The main problem here is the comparison to Jane Austen, not Anthony Trollope himself. I didn't find them comparable at all besides being British and the presence of clergymen. If you love Trollope, this is not an attack on you personally.