#and i think my portrayal has evolved a lot

[cleabellanov]

Fighting for good, one widow bite at the time: Black Widow's cultural impact

Critics scoff when I call the Black Widow movie a favorite, but hear me out. It deserved a better release window, maybe at an earlier time, when things would've been viewed differently. Sure, it doesn't rise up what it could've been, leaving so much lingering dreams in the hearts of us, fans. So much potential remains untapped, so many questions unanswered... but Natasha Romanoff? She rises above it all. If you doubt her power, think again, and as I said, hear me out.

Black Widow, the assasin with steely eyes that hide and protect a heart of gold, has transcended the screen to become a cultural icon. From her first appereance in the MCU in Iron Man 2 (2010) to Black Widow (2021), she truly went through a lot, took us with her, and thaught everyone some lessons on the way.

Shattering the mold of the damsel in distress: She's no sidekick, she's a strategist and a fierce fighter. She is a vital member of the Avengers, that's a fact we saw in the 2012 movie. After all, how many characters can you name that tricked the God of Mischief? Nat didn't only do it exceptionally, she is the first we saw doing this on screen.

Reclaiming Narrative: Unlike many superheroes defined by singular origins, Black Widow carried the trauma of a dark past, manipulated by the Red Room, a notorious spy program. Her movie explored this narrative, acknowledging the exploitation and abuse she endured. This resonated with survivors of violence and abuse, offering validation and representation. Her journey of breaking free from her past resonated on a broader level, highlighting themes of resilience, empowerment, and overcoming hardship. Furthermore, she hasn't always been a hero, an avenger. "Regimes fall everyday. I tend not to weep over that, I'm russian" and "I've got red in my ledger. I'd like to wipe it out" show how she's not just using the power she already has, but has the power to change as well. This isn't about brute force, it's about internal struggle and choosing to become a better version of herself despite her history.

Sisterhood and Solidarity: Black Widow's story wasn't solely focused on herself. In "Black Widow," she teams up with other women who share similar experience, even if at first this doesn't seem to work, indoctrinated as they are in the Red Room programme. This depiction of female solidarity resonated with audiences, particularly feminist movements advocating for women's support networks and collective action.

Representation Matters: Black Widow's portrayal as a skilled leader and strategist challenged existing portrayals of Russian characters in Hollywood. They are often depicted as villains or stereotypes, but her complex identity sparked conversations about diversity and representation within the superhero genre.

Defying stereotypes: As the sole original female Avenger, Black Widow carried a unique weight. She didn't need superpowers or a revealing suit — her determination and arsenal spoke for themselves. That's true power. I mean, in some situations she only had two cool firearms, but did better than Captain America with a vibranium shield! I also love how her costume evolved over time, prioritizing functionality over sexualization. Ditching the impractical neckline in her solo movie? A much-needed win! It shows that Black Widow commands respect through her actions, not her body.

Her impact and importance punches like her combat skills, if you ask me.

So, the next time you see the Black Widow, remember, she's more than just a character. She's a symbol of strength, resilience, and the unwavering human spirit. Thanks for being a constant source of inspiration, Nat ❣️

[whumpfish]

So, I have been in a very long, very hot shower because I hurt like a bitch, and I think I have narrowed down the basis of my major whump pet peeve, and I'm going to be using my pet fav series Word of Honor to do it.

You cannot survive sustained/chronic/severe pain if you don't develop a relationship with it. The first couple episodes of Word of Honor aren't about Zhou Zishu x Wen Kexing, they're about Zhou Zishu x Zhou Zishu's pain/condition. And that latter relationship continues to evolve and stay at the forefront on a parallel path to the development of the former.

He saddles himself with this thing as penance, because when he makes that decision, he believes that being crippled is "a fate worse than death." And then he goes on living, and discovers that life goes on, so he makes an increasingly-less-guarded peace with it. So when he meets Wen Kexing and Gu Xiang, he's doing his own thing, enjoying the good parts of what remains of his life even though his condition remains at the forefront, and will for the rest of the series. He's integrated it into his life to such an extent that Gu Xiang readily dubs him "Sick Man."*

That's what gets my goat every time: whumpees that aren't allowed to develop a relationship with their pain and are instead thrust into relationships with "caretakers" who don't do much more than provide warm blankets and snuggles and therapy-approved conversation on demand, and be "heartbroken" over how broken and pathetic the whumpee is in their eyes. Because the reality is that the relationship with pain has to be established before any other relationships can go anywhere.

Pain/illness kills relationships. People leave. They just do. It becomes too much of a bother to make changes to their own lives, and they jet.** And it's just you and your pain/condition until you can find the few truly good people who will give you love and reasonable help. You have to develop a relationship with it. It's your new roommate for the rest of your life.

You and your pain are going to be in the wars. You're going to get mad and scream and throw things at it. You're going to resent it for being the only one who's there with you every day. You're going to think about all the shit you can't do anymore, and you'll be frustrated to tears.

But eventually - if you're allowed - you make peace. You stop hating your roommate for holding you back from parties, you just find someone who can drive you home, or stay in with you. You'll find other people who have the same kind of roommate, and then you'll all get along.

And if you are very, very, galactically, fictionally lucky, you find a partner who will help you stand your ground against life and what your roommate pain has made of it. This is what happens in Word of Honor.

Wen Kexing is by no stretch Zhou Zishu's perma-caretaker, or "Caretaker" in the sense that plagues new wave whump. But he cares, and offers what help he can, when he can, without hovering and without kid gloves. He looks for a cure earnestly but without coddling or pitying Zhou Zishu for being a Sick Man. It's a more honest and realistic portrayal of someone ill/disabled and someone not who loves them than I've seen anywhere else.

My relationship with my pain is ongoing and continues to evolve. It takes things from me, but it gives me things, too. My love of whump, the Pain Genre, is one of those things. Whenever my pain spikes like this, my tolerance for fluff in the whump zone plummets, so just know that whenever you get ornery meta from me, my pain and I are sitting around having wine (gingerbeer, can't have wine with the new meds, thanks a lot pain) and bitching.

The reason there's no good chronic pain rep outside of WOH is that characters are not being allowed to develop relationships with their pain, and are only allowed to have relationships with other things and people, and those relationships are inevitably trainwrecks, or insultingly unrealistic and saccharine, because an entire segment of the character's life and personality and identity is being masked or exploited instead of embraced. So let your whumpee have a relationship with their pain/conditions/traumas. Chronic pain/illness havers the world over will thank you.

[lizzybeth1986]

Drake and Kiara: When You're Fucking Racist

Series - TRR's Alternative LIs - The "Romances" that Didn't Happen

Previous - Hana and Madeleine: When You Reward Your Favourite Bully with One of Her Victims

A/N: Again, apologies for the length. There was a LOT to unpack in this one!! I'm really, really not going to be nice to Drake here. It was harrowing to go through a lot of these scenes again and I honestly don't have the patience or inclination to sugarcoat any of it.

CW: Mentions of gun violence and minimization of trauma. Mentions of racist fan vitriol towards a black character. Examination of the Jezebel stereotype.

Whenever I think about how unhinged the hatred towards Kiara (and especially towards Kiara's attraction to Drake) was, a specific edit comes to mind.

On the surface, it looks quite simple. Kiara in a white wedding dress, Drake right next to her in his blue formal suit. Both of them are smiling at the viewer. The background is a beautiful forest, and the entire picture is bathed in a lovely, muted sepia tone. A sweet, simple wedding scene.

The caption underneath this edit?

Classify under things no one asked for.

Kiara's dream come true!

The tags read "#i barf a little looking at this" and "#i must post to share the suffering". You find out in the comments that the OP created this edit inspired by one of the many fics where Kiara was Drake's stalker, and intended to make her creepy and deranged (but ultimately failed).

The comments are...tbh, things that this fandom has long since normalized and shrugged at when it comes to Drake stans. Multiple puke-face emojis. Multiple gifs signaling disgust. One stan even equates the ship name (Driara) to the word diarrhoea.

"She looks very stalkeresque and white "I drugged Drake so he's marrying me" wedding ready!"

"Well it's close to Halloween so we should expect scary shit"

"THAT is why I made that bitch my Maid of Honor...so she got the message LOUD AND CLEAR...it ain't NEVER gonna happen honey" (right below a barfing gif)

I wish I could say this example of Kiara hatred was the worst of the lot, or even the only one. It wasn't. I'm not sure even an entire essay would be adequate space to explore the sheer levels of vitriol, hatred and double standards dumped on this one character.

Until now, we've seen examples of alternative LIs that were treated with respect. With adulation. Often with kid gloves in case we hurt their poor lill fee-fees. Up until now, no matter what an alternative LI may have done, the LI matched with them wasn't allowed to treat them badly, nor was the MC able to get away with hurting them without punishment.

But in this series, Kiara was, is, and will always be an anomaly.

The Jezebel Stereotype

In most media, black women in particular tend to be subjected to a variety of stereotypes that often have serious, real-world implications. The Mammy, the Sapphire (that over time evolved to what we now know as the "Angry Black Woman" stereotype) and the Jezebel, being the most prominent ones among them. In this essay, I will be focusing specifically on the last.

An article in the Black Then website explains the definition and history of the trope this: "The portrayal of black women as lascivious by nature is an enduring stereotype. The descriptive words associated with this stereotype are singular in their focus: seductive, alluring, worldly, beguiling, tempting, and lewd. Historically, white women, as a category, were portrayed as models of self-respect, self-control, and modesty – even sexual purity, but black women were often portrayed as innately promiscuous, even predatory. This depiction of black women is signified by the name Jezebel."

So it isn't altogether uncommon to see stories where black women are juxtaposed against "pure", "innocent" white/white-passing women, and viewed as lesser. PB hasn't exactly escaped these stereotypes in their stories either - though there are a variety of characters and character types, we can't deny that there was a time when a black woman was made the antagonist, often in ways that were meant to measure her up to the MC/another white woman to her detriment.

(VoS screenshots from the HIMEME YouTube channel, ACOR screenshots from Vika Avey's YouTube channel)

Two very prominent examples of PB using this trope are Scarlett from VoS, and Xanthe from ACOR. There are other black women who serve as antagonists but in a more professional space, but these two particularly are measured on their attractiveness, sex appeal and "purity" in the narrative in comparison to either the MC, or someone close to them.

In VoS, Scarlett Emerson and Kate O'Malley are the sisters of the two male LIs (Grant and Flynn), but their treatment couldn't be any more different. Scarlett's role in the book is pretty short-lived. She's very prominent in the first half of the book as Kate's potential MOH who secretly hates her, before it's revealed in Ch 5 that Tanner was cheating on Kate with her (and that she'd loved him since she was a child). Notably, in that very scene, the MC places most of the blame on Scarlett (rather than on Tanner for choosing to betray his fiancée) by labelling the act as her seduction of him.

Thereafter she is either only mentioned, or has blink-and-you-miss-it appearances in one or two chapters. We see her in the "memory" portion of the bonus scene, but we are never shown what her future is like (even as minor characters like Miss Harleney get one!). Her bonus scene shows us how her bracelet ended up on Tanner's boat, and it is an uncomfortable scene to get through. Tanner berates Scarlett for having sex with him a week before his wedding, but it is she who points out that he asked her to come there! Yet the MC and others view her as the temptress who "seduced" Tanner, as if the man had no mind of his own.

The narrative often juxtaposes her with Kate, the pure, innocent, sweet fiancée (and she actually is! No pretence there) and the fandom lapped it up. There were many demands for Kate to be upgraded to LI status, which eventually resulted in PB allowing us to marry her if we chose. As I mentioned earlier, both Scarlett and Kate are sisters to two of our LIs - but one is made an LI, while no one bothers to even imagine what the other's future entails.

An even worse fate greets that of Xanthe, the sole female antagonist in ACOR. The slut-shaming and disgust over her overt sexuality is far more blatant here. And it is extremely ironic for Xanthe to be viewed in this way, because the MC herself is a courtesan and uses wiles to get men to do her bidding. While Xanthe herself is not perfect by any means - she is depicted as xenophobic and callous, going as far as to mock Syphax when he is sent away to a possible death as a gladiator - the MC's targeting of her goes beyond just her "righteous indignation" and develops into a form of hypocrisy. She has no qualms mocking Xanthe for her direct approach or her skimpy red dress (even though the MC herself wears a skimpy red dress and can seduce a man in a temple not too long after).

The end Xanthe meets is horrific in its implications - the black matron of her scholae (who began by promising the MC herself that "you need do nothing against your will") sends her away to sexual slavery in Sicily, while the black man who was one of the few bastions of morality in the book, escorts her, smiling, to the ship that will take her there. As far as the narrative is concerned, the end was well-deserved...even though PB has had no issues allowing white women to do far worse without any punishment.

We cannot view what ACOR did with Xanthe in isolation. They had built up to it early on - from the MC's reactions towards her, her patrons' dismissiveness of her, the MC's LIs' viewing her with derision and zero respect. The MC - despite her own unscrupulousness - is viewed as the "noble whore" to Xanthe, yet it is clear on even a surface read that there is not much difference between the two women.

The Jezebel stereotype, ultimately, is about dehumanizing the black woman it focuses on, so that her actions and choices are viewed as deviant from what is "normal" - feeding into either responses of disgust and derision, or a desire to objectify her. To some readers, it makes whatever awful or comparatively unfair end they meet, more palatable. Scarlett and Xanthe are not viewed as people by the narrative - especially not the way the MC of their books or even white female antagonists are. No one cares for their backstories, coos over their losses, wonders if they are okay. When they meet their inevitable end, the characters and so many in the fandom alike just shrug and move along.

How does a character like Kiara fit into this? Her smarts and linguistic talents are her most prominent traits, and while she does have feelings for Drake, she never really acts out-of-pocket towards him (more on this later). So at least from what we see in canon, there's very little about her that seems to apply to the Jezebel stereotype. Yet, the fandom is not only inclined, but eager, to view her as one. Kiara's feelings have been viewed in a far more predatory light, perhaps more often than any other female character in the series. Why is this so?

A response I have often seen - on reddit, on Kiara's wiki page, at times on Tumblr too - is how there is a "certain something" about Kiara that people "just don't like". Many players who prefer Penelope to her are often very aware of what she has done, but still insist they like her far more than they do Kiara. On a reddit thread about questioning the logic of having Kiara and Penelope as options for the MC's MOH in TRR3, certain players commented thus:

"I don't know why, I just dislike her a lot. Penelope is fine to me, but Kiara irritates me." (said commenter is an Aerin stan)

"I liked Penelope, I thought she was nice. But Kiara got on my nerves."

In her book, The Sisters Are Alright, Tamara Winfrey Harris makes an eye-opening (to me at least!) observation about how misogynoir works:

"Misogynoir, abetted by dehumanizing caricature, is like water. It fills its vessel, taking many forms, and then overflows, creeping unnoticed into the cracks of things, rotting the foundation. It spreads a belief in Black women’s inherent wrongness." (Italics mine).

Now of course, if I were to ask the current fandom, they would come up with a range of reasons. Some that emerged from fandom myths and became more popular than the truth in time, some from PB's excessive pandering to players that hated her. But the root of it all is in a certain "je ne sais quoi" that makes her automatically unappealing, resulting in those readers leaning towards misreading or misremembering her scenes, misrepresenting her motives, or watering down the impact of worse actions from whiter women. It results in a group of writers (who have thus far gone to the extent of retconning the worst of a white woman's actions just to make her look good) leaning into such readings, even when they're not true.

TRR1 Kiara: Pragmatic Courtier or Backstabbing Snake?

"Kiara is fake", "Kiara is a snob", "Kiara is self-serving", "Kiara promised to be friends with us but dropped us like a hot potato the moment we became unpopular". These are some of the most enduring takes about Kiara in the past few years, and readers who say this usually bring up a vague recollection of TRR1 and 2 as proof. Mostly that "Kiara was our friend" in the first book, and left us hanging at the beginning of TRR2.

Is that reading based in fact, though? Let's take a look at TRR1!Kiara and find out.

We are introduced to Kiara (along with Penelope, and standing next to Hana) in TRR3 when we meet Liam's other suitors. Olivia introduces each woman differently, and the descriptor she uses for Kiara is that she is the "daughter of a diplomat and fluent in ten languages" (note: Kiara never boasts of her linguistic skill, Olivia does. Nor are there any scenes of her looking down on anyone who doesn't speak her mother tongue French, unless of course you accidentally ask her to sleep with you).

Both she and Penelope note immediately that the MC doesn't quite fit in - if the MC questions the women about being allies with Olivia, a woman who calls them "harpies", they view that as an overreaction. When the MC tells the ladies at the Derby about getting lost, Kiara finds her tardiness and inability to fit in, a sign that she cannot keep up with the competition. Until the chapters in Lythikos, Kiara's and Penelope's characterizations are almost interchangeable, personality-wise. It is likely the team envisioned them more as European nobility rather than specifically Cordonian (based on Olivia's introductions), and they are both depicted as poised, refined and aware of their place in court.

It's in Lythikos that Kiara, at least, begins to show a more distinct personality (for Penelope it's after the Regatta). Unlike the rest of the court, who watches Olivia's unwanted kiss on Liam with either mild shock or disinterest, Kiara is angered by what she sees as a very obvious power-play - which gives the MC the opening she needs to gain an alliance.

Now this "alliance" scene of Kiara's is interesting, for two reasons. One is that fandom often uses this scene to establish her "double standards" in TRR2, claiming that Kiara opted to be friends with the MC. Yet nowhere in the scene does the MC or Kiara ever suggest a friendship with each other - they both agree to an alliance. Furthermore, this is an arrangement that benefits the MC more - there isn't exactly anything she contributes (or is expected to contribute) to Kiara from her end. Kiara's promise is that she will put in a good word in the MC's favour, and she upholds that promise throughout the social season.

Another is that among the courtiers, Kiara herself is the first person to identify and respond to the MC's potential if she shows it at the Derby and the tea party (though Hana is also a courtier, I view her strictly as an LI in this context - since her support is by default and is founded on a more emotional basis). Not many nay notice this, but there is a distinction between how Kiara responds to an MC in a successful play vs a failplay...in a way that none of the other suitors do. Take note of the screenshots below:

The top two pictures in this collage are dialogues that feature by default. The bottom two, however, are dependent on branch-coding. They only appear IF the MC has managed to win the approval of the King, the Queen and the press. If you don't succeed in the same, she will not mention your performance in the social season at all, nor will she say anything about the value of your alliance.

That is a far bigger deal than most players of this series realize. It means that Kiara has been watching us closely, and has understood our potential over the course of just three court events. Only two other characters are shown tracking our progress this way: Bertrand (who is our sponsor, so he has to keep track) and Queen Regina (who can guess already her stepson's feelings for the MC, which automatically makes her a person of interest). For Kiara to understand the MC's capabilities, and to openly admit she has potential this early in the competition - it takes a high level of rationality, honesty and pragmatism to come to such a conclusion. Unlike Olivia (who lashes out in jealousy at the MC), Penelope (who has to be told why exactly it's good to have allies), and Madeleine (who dismisses us as competition until it's too late), Kiara actually views the MC with a discerning, impartial eye and an objective approach.

So on the surface, it appears as if Kiara is written by a team that likes her! You could almost be convinced that they thought she was cool but were forced to pander to "crazy Drake stans" in their writing later (which is an argument I have heard often). After all, she's established as beautiful, skilled, smart and observant. You wouldn't do that for a character you don't like, right?

But even as early as TRR1, a disdain for Kiara creeps in from the writing that you rarely see for any of the others.

This is especially apparent when you look at how Kiara's proficiency with language is spoken about. It is supposed to be her most visible skill - Olivia identifies her by it, we see her peppering her English sentences with French words (of course, many may argue that she doesn't exactly sound like an actual French person...but let's remember that her writers aren't exactly very used to the language themselves or interested in doing extra research for authenticity!). As we approach the end of the first book, there are at least two dialogue options that result in people doubting her abilities or mocking her for speaking only English and French most of the time.

In TRR1 Ch 16, Madeleine optionally speaks to the MC over phone (believing her to be a reporter taking her interview) about her thoughts on Kiara. Kiara's tendency to speak mostly in French and English is supposed to be a sign that she "exaggerates her accomplishments". Mind you, this is from the same woman who claims to be the best choice for Cordonia despite her poor strategies and her antagonizing potential allies during the engagement tour (TRR2); who complains if the MC doesn't compliment her for mediocre work as a press sec (TRR3). The MC can also choose to diss Kiara in a similar way, treating Kiara like she is a circus performer and her skills as if they are meant for the MC's entertainment. The only solace I could derive from this dumpster fire of a dialogue option, was that Kiara managed to shut the MC up with her multilingual response.

No other time are we allowed to call a courtier's abilities and skills into question. The MC accepts on faith that Olivia is a badass with great fighting skills. Same with Penelope's ability as a seamstress. The MC is never even allowed to have legitimate complaints about Madeleine's work as press sec, besides maybe that she could "be a little nicer". So the fact that the writers not only have other characters doubt Kiara's talent, but also allow people to mock her about it in all three books...is really something.

Another possible indicator of this disdain is the fact that Kiara is the only suitor who never gets a chance to actually interact with Liam on-screen. Even Penelope, a fellow minor character, can approach and talk to him twice...and her gift to him is shown in Ch 18 whereas Kiara's and Hana's aren't. Despite the fact that Kiara is a potential suitor, the story never allows her to interact with Liam. She doesn't exactly have any interactions with Drake in this book either, but honestly nor does any other couple have much time together besides Liam and Olivia.

Drake and Kiara hardly seemed to be a possibility back in TRR1. Drake himself didn't seem to associate with anyone besides the MC and the group in the first book (and even with the group his interactions were infrequent). Kiara herself doesn't have many scenes that aren't related to the court or to the competition, even once she is no longer participating. The closest she comes to any sort of association besides Penelope, is a friendship with Hana that begins sometime before the Fox Hunt. Drake and Kiara never actually have any scenes together, or interactions, or references. It is likely that the idea to pair them up was entirely a Book 2 thing.

On a fandom level, neither Kiara or Penelope garnered much attention or fan reactions. They weren't noticed much, nor did you see their scenes too often. Probably that is why it was so damn easy to remember Kiara's entire equation with the MC wrong. Why certain stans of the book were able to get away with misrepresenting the relationship between her and the MC in TRR1, to hate on her in TRR2. I will not deny, though, that certain dialogue choices from PB (like "I thought we were friends!" in the Fydelia scene) may have had a hand in those beliefs becoming the "truth".

TRR2 Kiara - Pragmatic Courtier or Backstabbing Snake (Part 2)

I plan to get into the way the Drake and Kiara angle is framed in canon, but before that it's important to tackle that one elephant in the room - Kiara telling the MC the alliance is over. Because very often, people used this scene (coupled with their misinterpretations of Book 1) as their "justification" to hate her. Often, people would choose the ruder options (such as the Christmas card dialogue) and assume that Kiara was rude by default, rather than as a consequence of the MC's behaviour towards her.

Kiara and Penelope are the first to express surprise at the MC's return (and their reactions are shown as representative of the rest of the court). Kiara in fact is shocked that the MC dared to return (which is kinda warranted! Several people in these early chapters view that as a risky move, a gamble that could backfire on her. That's why Bertrand gets her a press secretary). Their scene with the MC immediately follows the MC's conversation with Liam and Madeleine (and mind you, in the option where the MC can tell her she was set up, Madeleine herself voices disbelief of the same. Conveniently, this is never used as a reason to hate her). Both women let the MC know of their change in status, and therefore the change in their relationship with her.

What gets missed overall, is that Kiara is a lady-in-waiting (which is an actual role with specific duties) to Madeleine, which means her loyalty now has to lie with this woman whether she likes it or not. For her to even agree to approach the MC and explain the situation, is a risk. In at least two dialogue options in this scene, she tells the MC straight-up that they will be in trouble if they're even seen talking to her (this becomes a moot point by Ch4, mostly because Madeleine herself is shown talking to the MC and allowing her into conversations in public, once Hana arrives).

Penelope is often viewed in a better light in this scene because of her obvious friendliness and her sadness at no longer being the MC's friend, but once you have the reveal of her being a traitor, her behaviour in this scene seems wildly disingenuous, and I'm surprised more people didn't call her a fake when the reveal came out. She had to know the allegations against the MC were fake when she rushed to hug her, having been an integral part of that fabrication. It makes her lament when she's caught, in the failplay, ("I can't do anything right. You were never supposed to find out!") that much more chilling. She is eager to have the benefit of the MC's friendship and emotional support, without ever being honest about her role in smearing her reputation.

The other was that - no matter what you may choose to think of this scene - Kiara was placing herself at risk to let the MC know it was over. Approaching the MC was the right thing to do, but what is never spoken about is the fact that it was also a brave thing to do. Rather than ghost the pariah of the court and never give an explanation, she tells her honestly what the situation is, and strives to protect her impulsive friend (who could get both of them in trouble) at the same time.

When you view Kiara's actions from that lens - when you look at the facts - suddenly the claims that Kiara was "fake", "a flip-flopper", "a backstabber", "unscrupulous and self-serving", sound pretty hollow.

TRR2: The Drake x Kiara "Romance" Begins...and So Does the Vitriol

So...an interesting thing about the general reaction to Kiara in the early chapters of TRR2. I was new to the fandom when this book was released. There was an annoyance at Kiara when the first chapter came out, but to my surprise it didn't exactly become full-blown hatred until she started showing an interest in Drake in Ch 3.

This book is often used as a reference by Drake stans when they speak of Kiara as an obsessed, stalker-type, sex-hungry woman - often in contrast to their "pure", "innocent" MCs. Basically...the Jezebel. But the five scenes we see of this ship in the book itself tell a completely different story:

1. Drake Helps Kiara Lift A Heavy Beam (TRR2 Ch 3)

Chapter 3 is perhaps the first time we see an indication of Kiara's attraction to Drake on a physical level. The scene takes place at the barn raising, but only if we choose to stay with Drake over Hana for the barn raising activities. Kiara shows up in a rather pitiable state - her friend Penelope abandoned her for thirty whole minutes, leaving her to lift incredibly heavy beams alone. Drake helps Kiara and mildly chides her for not asking for his help, and Kiara stares at his bare chest, mesmerized.

She isn't exactly alone in this - the MC herself ogles at his bare chest at one point (if we go by the lines in the narrative that read "his muscles glisten in the sunlight" which is def from the MC's PoV). This scene was meant as fanservice for stans who wanted to drool over Drake's physique for a bit, and belatedly build up an alternative (at least for all three male LIs, they were trying to do this in TRR2).

The MC can either point out Kiara's obvious attraction towards Drake, or suspect her of being part of the plot. This will not be the last time the MC or the group will view her with suspicion, with little to no basis in fact. In the option that calls attention to Kiara's attraction to Drake, she is shown covertly sneaking a second look at him. Drake is shown with a visible discomfort at even the idea that Kiara could like him, one that only the MC notices considering she is working in proximity with him.

The reaction to this was instantaneous from several Drake x MC shippers. One or two glances at Drake's chest was enough for Drake stans to begin typing posts in capslock, screaming "BACK OFF KIARA HE'S MINE". The excuses given at the time were that the MC didn't get much opportunity to romance him (Drake was trying to refrain from kissing her in Ch 2 because he felt guilty), and largely-inaccurate judgements of Kiara's character. Jealousy of this kind is sometimes seen as the norm when you have a popular ship and a third angle is created, but this was about to take form in some...very disturbing ways in later chapters.

2. Kiara was Once Savannah's Friend/Kiara's long-standing crush on Drake (Ch 4)

A misconception I often see in the fandom (particularly in relation to how Kiara's feelings for Drake aren't given the same level of consideration that Olivia's for Liam is) is that Olivia's are "more genuine", and Kiara's are "mere lust" or "only physical" and this is probably why she's not given as much respect as Olivia was. Even though, tbh, Kiara was far, far more respectful of Drake and his personal space, than Olivia was of Liam in TRR1.

Leaving aside the obvious problems with that train of thought (viewing sexual feelings as "lesser" just because they're not rooted in some intense emotion), this is not even true, and the first part of the Driara garden party scene is proof enough. Kiara says, straight up, that Drake had been "such a good friend to [Liam]. It's part of why I always liked you." (Bold mine). If the MC voices doubts about this (likely incorporated for readers who would question it as a retcon...and it was a retcon since they didn't interact in TRR1), Kiara tells her that she doesn't wear her heart on her sleeve, which actually matches her practical approach to most things. In fact just a few scenes earlier, when the MC questioned her about wanting a husband (when she'd mentioned earlier about wanting to join the ministry), Kiara informs her that it would never hurt to have both. So it makes sense for her character if she's someone who kept her feelings for Drake a secret, especially while in a competition for winning the Crown Prince's hand. But we cannot, in any honest capacity, claim that Kiara's feelings for Drake weren't deep enough, or lasting enough, or genuine enough. At least based on the evidence we have.

Another point this scene brings up is Kiara's friendship towards Savannah. Up until this point, the only people who did reference her were Olivia, Drake and Maxwell - and Olivia's mockery of especially seemed to imply that the ladies of the court weren't very nice to her. Kiara's account is very different from this, and actually quite affectionate ("she was one of us", "she was coming along so well in learning French"). It's not the closest friendship, but Kiara did care enough to tutor her in the language and clearly missed her. It is possible that this scene was positioned to both build up to the alternative romance and foreshadow Savannah's presence in Paris. There is a lot more that could have been done with this angle, but perhaps that is a discussion for another section.

3. Never-Have-I-Ever (Ch 9)

This is a small option in a drinking game - the MC can get to say "never have I ever had a crush on Kiara", and loses, because Drake says she isn't his type (ironically he claims he isn't her type in the next chapter). It's interesting that he does consider her as not as bad as some of the others in that group.

3. Flirting with Drake in Paris (Ch 10)

For five chapters, we don't see any more hints of this romance. We see Drake in plenty, and we see quite a bit of Kiara. But none of it shows them together.

Kiara's scene with Drake at the tea party, is in some ways a continuation of his diamond scene with Savannah. He knows now where his sister is and what her big secret was, but this scene is where he realises how little he actually knew about her, if even her "noblewoman friend" knew she had intentions to go to Paris and he, her brother, didn't. This scene also takes place at what I call a "rest period" in the story - the group has just come out of a high-intensity altercation with Bastien, and it is one chapter before the major reveal about Constantine. So the MC can relax a little, some of the loose ends of previous stories can be tied up, and we get a vibe check on at least two alternative ships.

Drake is rather civil to Kiara in this conversation, mostly because he's trying to get information about his sister out of her. There isn't much he contributes besides this - it doesn't seem to matter much to him that Kiara was a rare friend among the court to Savannah (tho TRR3 would later retcon this), and when she talks about herself he doesn't pay much attention. Kiara does make an attempt at a light flirtation which goes largely unnoticed.

The MC's response when she first sees them goes three ways - a neutral comment about the petit-fours, a "matchmake-y" comment that points to them that they "look cozy", and a "jealous" comment about interrupting them. The third one especially results in Drake inadvertently confirming he doesn't think of Kiara in a romantic light, and Kiara appearing disappointed. Remember, at this point she doesn't see much evidence that Drake and the MC romancing him are an item.

The follow-up conversation with Drake, too, follows along similar lines. The neutral comment just asks him about the information he gathered from Kiara, the "matchmake-y" one points out she has feelings for Drake and the "jealous" one is... something.

The third response is very obviously crafted for the more possessive Drake stans to get satisfaction from dissing Kiara, perhaps in a more aggressive way than the Maxwell stans could. While the Maxwell MC can pass an insult or two to discourage Penelope, the Drake MC will go as far as to tell him he belongs only to her, and can threaten to "push her into the petit-fours".

Ironically, this scene follows a scene with Olivia about her lingering feelings for Liam - and Olivia's grief, the MC's clear sympathy and Liam's concern for Olivia are all by default. There is a certain level of sensitivity the Liam MC is required to have for Olivia that is never once expected of the Drake MC, and that plays out in very dangerous ways in the next book.

This scene, again, brought forth rather violent reactions, and in fact the language of the MC's responses itself seemed to encourage that kind of response. A poster later compiled an entire set of these responses ranging from mocking, to "back off, Kiara!" to straight up demands for murder (I couldn't link to this post because the names of the people involved were included in it, but I do have quite a few of those screenshots for reference).

After this point, you don't see any more scenes where Kiara actively flirts. In fact for most of the second half you see her and Penelope very rarely. So it does feel really wild in retrospect that "obsessed Kiara" became such a popular interpretation, after one checking-out scene, one flirtation and one rather sweet and genuine compliment of him as a person.

4. Pranking Kiara (Ch 17)

A pattern you would have noticed by now is that there is a bit of a mean streak in Drake for Kiara that is either very dominant or latent, based on whether the MC tries to encourage him, or shows jealousy towards her.

And this isn't necessarily an indicator that he can never be interested in Kiara. A distrust for nobility is almost a norm for him at this point, and let's not forget that Drake's first few interactions with the MC too didn't exactly leave her with the best impression of him either. Kiara initially being on Madeleine's side at the beginning of the story could be a factor in some level of disdain too. Such complications could - in a good story - add layers to a potential romance in the future if that was the direction the writing was going for.

Around the MC who doesn't mind them as a pair, he shows a small sliver of an inclination towards Kiara herself. His response if the MC points out that Kiara was flirting with him (Ch 10) is that he doesn't believe he is Kiara's type, not the other way around. In this scene, a drunk Drake who is encouraged to write a "nice note" to her as a prank, can write "your hair is pretty and your French is totally not stupid". Both of these lines present a sign of a possibility that a romance could happen. His behaviour when an MC casually hints at this possibility, is of someone who may like this woman deep down, but show it in very strange ways (akin to the age-old metaphor of the "boy who pulls the pigtails of the girl he has a crush on"). They wouldn't have even needed to show his responses in this way if they weren't trying to hint at a possibility.

His response to a "jealous" MC is to delightedly bask in her possessiveness of him, and to go hand-in-glove with her as she insults or suggests violence on Kiara in any way. Now one could perhaps headcanon this as a behaviour that comes from being unused to female attention focused on him, coupled with his affection for the MC - but when you take into account his behaviour towards Kiara herself in TRR3 as well, there seems to be a blatant lack of consideration or compassion towards her as a human being. Compare this, again, to the way Liam's behaviour towards Olivia is written in canon, and interpreted by the fandom. Liam is expected to be kind to her, even if he's clueless about her feelings or if she is harming him (eg. Even when she kisses him, he cares enough to opt for a reaction that will not publicly humiliate Olivia).

Not so for Drake. He is very happy to follow in the MC's lead, even in hurting Kiara. And in this scene, he pretty much kickstarts it with the suggestion of a prank.

Drake knows where Kiara's room is (thanks to a nameplate on the door, and the familiarity of the hallway, which he likes for the view outside) and wants to prank her. The MC can either accept or refuse. If she accepts, there is one nice option, and two distinctly mean-spirited ones. The first proposes to mess up her book organizational system, and the narrative describes the attempt as "ruining any semblance of order to Kiara's bookshelves". These are materials she likely requires for her career as an aspiring diplomat, or even books she uses to update herself on the world. But to this MC and Drake, her work and interests are little more than a joke.

The second one is not only aggressively mean - it also is an attempt to ruin her personal space with her personal items. Going by the array of haircare the narrative mentions, maintaining her hair is very important to Kiara (I am not equipped enough to speak about black women and their relationship with their hair, but this option did make me very uncomfortable, because of the little I've seen on how essential regular haircare and good products can be for many black women). Not only does the MC suggest using all that product to render Kiara's bed practically unusable, she also insists Drake waste the full bottle of said product. Because, yknow. "It's a prank. Go big or go home". Drake has one moment where he tries to be less mean in this option (when he attempts to use less of her hairspray), but the moment the MC encourages him towards a crueller direction he does not hesitate. In fact, when the MC first suggests this option, he regards her with something approaching awe, and praises her as "an evil genius".

There's a mean streak in Drake here no matter which option you choose. If you do go for the nicer one, he complains at first that it's not exactly a prank and in fact does claim that they "could still put glitter in her cupboard" as an alternative prank. But the other two options encourage the player to give full vent to whatever underlying frustration/enmity/hatred one could possibly have against Kiara, goading a drunk Drake to be merciless towards the things in her room, in her absence.

Maybe, perhaps, one could just view this as a "fun vent" for the "possessive stans". It allowed the Drake MC and her LI the chance to gang up on her, mock her and cause her discomfort through things that were clearly important to her, treat her like the butt of their joke, and get away with it. When you encourage that kind of hatred with your writing, it can go into some very dark, disturbing places. And it did, especially in TRR3.

The overall response to this scene didn't show much, since it was just one small sequence in a larger scene - and most of the focus was on the heartfelt bonding between Drake and the MC when he takes her to his "special hideout" and his reveal about his motives behind calling the MC by her surname.

Many Drake stans, however, took note of this specific section, and took their interpretations in a completely different direction. Questions were asked about why Drake knew about Kiara's room - completely ignoring that he frequented the hallway regardless for its view and her nameplate is literally placed outside her door - and several fans suspected the two to be involved in an affair just on the basis of him knowing where her room was. These suspicions, again, would crop up from the fandom in a more dramatic way in TRR3.

5. Drinks at Homecoming Ball (Ch 19)

This scene takes place in the finale, just before Kiara and Penelope apologize jointly to the MC for their comments in the beer garden.

Drake is, quite predictably, at the bar in this scene. In some ways one could draw a parallel between this one and the "bar" scene between him and the MC in TRR1 - the only differences being that the two were alone in the first, and that he and the MC are free to romance each other now. However this time, the two ladies of the court could also communicate with him about drinks, and he could use his knowledge of alcohol to guess their preferences.

The scene with Kiara is, again, written to be both a possible sign of familiarity and a diss (mostly the second, I think). With Penelope he just vaguely mentions cocktails and focuses on the decoration for the drink - with Kiara he is able to name the specific wine even though in TRR3 he has no idea what tannins are. There are ways one could envision that as a sign that he notices more about Kiara than he lets on.

The diss, of course, comes with his claim that no matter how top-shelf the wine is, it will still always be "old grape juice" (which is a very strange thing to say because most alcohols are fermented from basic ingredients be it fruit or grains - where did he think his high-quality whiskey that he regularly carries around in his personal flask came from??).

Kiara's attempt to impress him is pretty obvious, but the diss isn't something that weighs too much on her mind. There are less indicators here of a dejection if he brushes her aside, unlike the scene in Ch 10 - she just looks a bit surprised he could guess the exact drink she wanted. Kiara in this scene is more likely to shift gears to something more important. In this case, that is apologizing to the MC for what she views as poor behaviour that sprung up under the influence of alcohol, and offering her an olive branch (the specific apology is for her asking the MC if she came to gloat, not for telling her the alliance was over at the beginning of the tour. In that scene specifically she feels she has nothing to apologise for, and I'm inclined to agree for the reasons I stated in that section).

The overall pattern for this ship seems to indicate that it's...kinda there in case the MC doesn't want to pick Drake, but I always feel like they focused a lot more on the jealousy options and didn't spend enough time to see what a possible relationship could look like. They do claim later that Kiara's affections were supposed to be one-sided, but the buildup at least seemed to indicate some small baseline of interest from Drake's end, even if shown in some rather bizarre ways. However, because there seems to be very little respect for this character already, having the MC threaten violence and having her and Drake overreact over what were essentially harmless interactions from Kiara's end really does indicate that the writers didn't mind taking potshots at her whenever they felt like it. Like I've said before, the trashfire that was Kiara's treatment in TRR3 didn't develop overnight.

Smart, Skilled...Disliked?: Kiara and the Writing Team in TRR3

On 25th Sept 2023, PB released a two-chapter series on Storyloom called "Choices Secrets", which involved at least three writers (Andrew, Kara and Chelsa) talking about ideas and plots and backstories that didn't make it to the released book. In one section, Kara Loo speaks specifically about the ending of TRR2:

According to this account, the original idea was to kill off Olivia and possibly use that as a segue into the Nevrakis plot of the book, since her aunt and Justin were the real villains at the end of the series. When they decided to keep her alive in the series, Kara mentions finding "more members of your group get injured, like Drake".

Interestingly, Kara referred to "members" in the plural, and Drake is the only person from the core group to get shot. So it's just as possible that the choice to have Bastien, Justin/Anton and Kiara sustain injuries, was made once they decided to do away with the storyline about Olivia's death.

Olivia got spared because her writers cared for her. Kiara was likely one of the people injured in her stead, and probably the only one out of them (except for the one who was the main villain) who wasn't getting a prominent scene that focused on her being a survivor of the attack until some readers protested (the entire intro of TRR3 was dedicated to Drake recieving tender care from the MC, Bastien gets showered with concern and care from Constantine, Liam and optionally the MC. The MC comes to the estate, makes a perfunctory mention of the injury once and proceeds to emotionally blackmail Kiara into joining the tour. Let's not even talk about Lythikos. That shit warranted its own essay). No matter how much you downplay the situation, the truth is that Kiara got grievously hurt in a terrorist attack and her writers didn't think it was important enough to address.

I often wondered in the beginning, why Kiara was chosen for this. A close friend at the time theorized that perhaps it was done to ensure Madeleine would become our press secretary, because there was no way the MC would be considering her for this position if someone less hostile (like Kiara) was around. Another wondered if we might get opportunities to address palace security through the experiences of the survivors. Being a Drake x Kiara supporter at least by the end of TRR2, I wondered whether it was a coincidence that they both were injured at the same ball, and the possibility of the two bonding over such a painful experience.

Well. Boy was I about to be disappointed.

Because why did Kiara have to be so badly injured, if it was going to amount to nothing? If they weren't even going to address it in her own home? If - after even players who didn't care much for her, noticed the silence around that attack - the best you could offer was a scene that followed the MC and her friends suspecting the victim of this attack??

Had I looked at Kiara's narrative treatment (from TRR1 onwards) closer back then, perhaps I wouldn't have expected so much. It would have occurred to me that maybe they hurt Kiara the most, because they cared for her the least. Kiara is viewed as smart, poised, talented. Madeleine even calls her "one of the more competant courtiers" at some point. But that doesn't always mean that the team that writes her deems her worthy of respect.

For one, the writers tend to lean more into fandom perceptions of her in this book, rather than looking at their own canon. Kiara being a snob is not canon - that is ridiculous considering that she was such good friends with Savannah, and her support of the MC when she fits in well. Kiara acting like her linguistic skill makes her better than anyone else isn't canon either - nor is she obliged to speak in all ten languages on a loop just for the MC's or Maxwell Beaumont's entertainment. Kiara being perpetually mean to her best friend is inaccurate at best - she is often frustrated by Penelope, sure, but she spends far time and energy helping her than anyone else in that court.

Yet the narrative gives both these statements as dialogue options for the MC, where she can bitch about Kiara...but somehow only ever allows the same MC to be nice and caring and loving to Penelope - never once reminding her of the hell she'd put the MC through in the past. And because the fandom expected the Kiara-Penelope friendship to focus only on Penelope, PB got away with having Kiara's "best friend" stay conveniently silent as the MC berated her in her own home. The narrative even threw Kiara under the bus in TRR3 Ch 16, in order to make Madeleine look better in Hana's memories of the TRR2 bachelorette, claiming falsely that Kiara shouted at Penelope so much while drunk, that the latter was brought to tears. There is way more energy spent in painting an inaccurate and negative portrait of Kiara, than there is in showing the truth.

For another, the way the courtiers' and their parents' agreement to join the tour is coded...is extremely suspicious. When you compare both a successful and a failplay, you will find that all the parents have the chance to reject the MC's proposal to join the tour...except for one. Kiara's father, Hakim. In a failplay where you purposely do all the wrong things...out of the entire group of people who are still doubtful about supporting you, only Kiara and Hakim join your tour by default, without any expectation of a reward (Madeleine demands her own department after the wedding). They will be a part of it no matter what you do, no matter your failures, no matter how badly you treat them.

Hakim may have joined mainly to confront his old friend the King, but he still stays on even after Constantine dies. The writers made sure to branch-code things in a way that Kiara and Hakim could never drop out even if the MC was awful to Kiara, and never once acknowledged what it must take for them to do that. After Kiara herself had been fucking stabbed!!!!

Joelle, Kiara's mother, and Ezekiel, Kiara's brother, can reject the offer if they aren't impressed with the MC, but out of these two characters only one is viewed with respect - the one they were going to pair up with Penelope.

The narrative doesn't mind letting the MC mock Joelle for her passionate support of the arts if she doesn't win her approval, and her insistence that it is the sign of a thriving kingdom...and they make her sound petulant and churlish in response to that mockery. This despite the fact that in a successful route, she says one of the most profound political statements in the books:

"Hakim and I don't just want Cordonia to remain stable and peaceful. Those are blessings, naturallement, but our kingdom can do so much more than just survive."

In contrast, when you look at the same failplay, Emmeline and Landon are treated with far more respect from the narrative, even though Hakim and Joelle's plans for the country would benefit Cordonia as a whole. Drake looks up to Penelope's parents as an inspiration, especially if he's going to become a duke. Meanwhile Hakim actually acknowledges Drake and his bravery in a way that none of the other dukes and duchesses did, and Drake never gives a shit.

Emmeline can accuse the MC of not taking their situation seriously, if she does a bad job at the polo match, and the MC only has the grace to look contrite rather than lash out at her. Landon himself is never judged for coddling his daughter the way he does. Their focus on Portavira rather than the country is respected, and the MC not meeting their demands is viewed as her weakness, not an overreaction from their end. They never get the snarky responses Joelle gets, where the MC can outright call her "a handful" in front of her own husband.

And then there is the matter of how PB deals with the problems of all the court ladies.

(Screenshots from the Skylia YouTube Channel)

The period of the Unity Tour isn't exactly an easy time for anyone. The LIs each deal with their own shit, and the ladies of the court themselves have their own reasons for being reluctant to return. The entire point of this tour is to address their specific concerns as well as that of their families', because without the courtiers themselves we wouldn't have as strong a court.

In Madeleine's case, we have to talk to her through a diamond scene and then educate her mother on her ways of mourning lost opportunities, among other things. In Penelope's case we are required to give her complete protection and emotional security, for her to even bother joining the tour (there is branch coding where she can refuse to be a part of the tour at all). Even for Olivia - who is already an ally - the diamond scene encourages us to stand up to her aunt, by letting Olivia know that it is valid for her to lean on others for support without being considered weak.

But for Kiara? The best we can come up with, while in her duchy, is some version of - "You're smart. You'd know that if you left now, people will say bad things about Cordonia and then it would be your fault". You either manipulate her, or insult her as being a useless excuse of a diplomat. As I mentioned in another essay, Kiara's comfort is a non-factor. The gap between the care we were expected to give to Madeleine and Penelope, and what we deign to give Kiara in Castelserraillan (which is...well...nothing), is massive. And this gap would only increase - not reduce - in the books to come.

It might seem a bit irrelevant to talk about this, especially when this essay is about Drake and Kiara. But it's important to take note of this inherent disdain the writers had towards this one character - and people close to her. Because it is only too easy to pretend that the writers "got scared of the crazy stans".

Of course the stans had a huge, huge role in this. Of course their vitriol and racism succeeded in bringing about (what I consider) one of the most disgusting dialogue options in this series...or perhaps in any series. But I doubt those "crazy stans" would have gotten this far, without a team that didn't mind being cruel to Kiara.

When the Fandom and Canon are both Heartless: Drake and Kiara in TRR3

As I've mentioned in previous essays in this series, playthrough divergences truly begin in TRR3 (eg. While the playthroughs acknowledge who you chose as endgame by end-TRR2, you can still access diamond scenes through a small tweak that allows you to romance other LIs). And whichever LI didn't get engaged with the MC had indications of a new romantic possibility coming up. These were scenes you wouldn't find in your own playthrough with that LI as your fiancé/e.

Kiara doesn't appear in TRR3 until Ch 7, when the entourage comes to her estate Castelserraillan. There aren't a lot of Drake and Kiara scenes themselves, and I will get into why, section by section.

1. Kiara Greets the Group at Castelserraillan (TRR3 Ch 7)

Many Drake stans - once they found their MCs engaged to Drake in TRR2 - seemed to be practically giddy at the prospect of showing off their newly-engaged status to Kiara, and hurting her through the news. They were perhaps more excited about this than their upcoming wedding.

Well, they got that chance in Ch 7. In every other playthrough, she still holds the same feelings for Drake, and compliments his suit as Drake awkwardly fails to meet her eye. In his specific playthrough, Drake defiantly shows off his relationship with the MC, and Kiara shows a slight wistfulness before she forces herself to be normal then wishes the happy couple well. You'd think that would be enough to satisfy the stans who had been baying for her blood all of the previous book.

A throwaway line about Drake knowing where Kiara's room was, had already raised the heckles of a whole bunch of his stans. Kiara's "wistful look" in her first TRR3 scene somehow added fuel to that fire. Suddenly, you got to see a raging torrent of posts demanding to know if Drake had had an affair with Kiara. Fanfic had already been written about Drake cheating on the MC with Kiara by this point - and some of those headcanons and fanfic hinged on making Drake the innocent/vulnerable one, taken advantage of by this sexy, obsessed woman who would be either a danger to him or would be juxtaposed with the "pure", "virginal", "perfect" MC. Drake would never be the problem here, and none of the stans screaming over the possibility of Drake sleeping with Kiara would dream of blaming him for it. No, Kiara was predatory, Kiara was obsessed, if anything happened between them it would be likely Kiara's fault.

This is where it's important to note, again, that none of the more obvious signs of the "Jezebel" stereotype seem to be used in canon for Kiara. While cruel in her own way, the TRR MC doesn't exactly slut shame her or believe Drake will be unfaithful to her, Kiara isn't accused of seducing (or even trying to seduce) anyone, and she actually places respectful personal boundaries for herself in her attraction to Drake, that she never crosses. She may indulge in a light flirtation with him, try to impress him or simply talk to him - but you will never catch her forcing her sexual attention on him like Olivia did with Liam. Yet in popular fanlore, even Olivia's feelings were often cast in a far more noble light in contrast to Kiara's.

In her essay, The "Offending" Breast of Janet Jackson: Public Discourse Surrounding the Jackson/Timberlake Performance at Super Bowl XXXVIII, Dr Shannon. L Holland explores the historical and contemporary uses of the Jezebel stereotype in depictions of Black women in popular culture and discourse, especially in contrast to white masculinity (which in these contexts, is often viewed as innocent and blameless - and much of the blame lies with the Jezebel figure). The "Jezebel" stereotype "has come to symbolize both a malign, cunning sexual object and an autonomous, liberated sexual agent" - she is at once an independent sexual being making her own choices, and someone who is "incapable" of reining in her sexual appetite...and is therefore often depicted as not only a threat to the "purer" (and often "whiter" or "lighter skinned") woman, but also dangerous for whoever she is "obsessed" with. And we see this time and again in the discourse around Kiara - the fanfic that depicts her in a range of scenarios (stalker, obsessed lover, abusive girlfriend who will break a bottle over Drake's head, at times even descending into murderer to get the man she wants). Which is how we wound up in a position where Kiara even breathing the same air as Drake was viewed as a threat.

It didn't matter that he was flaunting his love for the Drake MC in that playthrough to send a message to Kiara, or that he stayed silent with the others as his wife badgered her into joining the tour. It didn't even matter that Kiara never got a diamond scene the way the two other women did, despite being the most harmed among the ladies. What mattered was that Kiara existed. Her damn existence was the threat.

2. Cheering for Drake's Victory (Ch 10)

Ch 9 of TRR3 was released to players on April 27th, 2018. Immediately after, a mid-book hiatus was announced, mostly to work on some new art (very possibly the red pandas), work on the wedding, and make changes (such as shifting diamond scenes from character-centric ones to LI specific - they'd already started making changes to LI diamond scenes). The book would return 2 months later, in June.

In a livestream before the hiatus ended, the writers had made it very painfully clear that Kiara's feelings for Drake was one-sided. And by that I mean they really emphasized on the one-sidedness of her affection, almost as if to reassure the panicking stans. This would manifest in any future interactions between the two - both in Drake's single and engaged playthroughs - and any hope that such a pairing would even be hinted at was over. But there was one variation that the team had perhaps neglected to edit out.

A small one-word depiction of Kiara cheering Drake when he wins his duel against Neville, joining his friends to praise him. It really isn't much - just Kiara saying "bravo!" before Savannah rushes up to hug him, which is replaced by a scene of Drake himself going up to the MC and passionately kissing her in his own playthrough. What is definitely striking about this depiction is that Kiara was clubbed with his close friends and his sister, rather than the second group of people that largely represented the larger court (Rashad and Queen Regina) who offer their congratulations.

Given the way the writers wrote any remaining interactions between Drake and Kiara, and the fact that this small appearance doesn't really amount to anything, it is possible that this variation was part of an earlier draft that involved other hints, that the writers failed to notice when they put up Ch 10. If they had, I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have stayed in the book.

3. Leaving Court + Wedding Conversations

Remember how I kept stating in this essay that the narrative was going to take their enthusiastic pandering of the "possessive stans" end of the fandom, to some dark, disturbing places? Well, here we are.

Tbh, the writers could have just stopped showing any interactions between the two, or given Kiara another boyfriend if their aim was simply to show that Drake and Kiara would never be endgame. They had done that with Maxwell and Penelope already...oh. I forgot. They actually wanted us to care for Penelope.

Up until this point, Drake's mean streak re: Kiara was present, but not really as obvious as it gets here. PB takes that cruelty several steps further in these two chapters, starting with Ch 11. Ch 11 was fanservice to the people who shouted abuses and "joked" about killing Kiara in every chance they could get. Ch 12 showed this sentiment at its worst, covered it up with enough fluff so it would be harder for people who liked Kiara to notice...and let those players get away with it.

In Ch 11, Kiara approaches the MC and her group to inform them that she is withdrawing from the tour. Drake is the first to respond to this, remaking at the suddenness of the departure. The MC can speculate on a couple of things, ranging from sympathy (that she might be afraid), selfishness (that she is "bailing out" on the MC) and suspicion (that she is hiding something).

In all three options, a pensive Hana expresses sympathy and encourages the group to "reach out". In all three options, Drake will only view Kiara as a suspect.

Mind you - according to Ch 12, Drake is saying this knowing Kiara was injured at Homecoming Ball...and knowing exactly which weapon she was injured with. Aware that she has gone through an event as traumatic as that (if we go by his "just one step at a time" monologue to Kiara), better aware than most how it would feel...he still opts to act like her motives should be suspicious.

This is further emphasized in the Drake playthrough, through the armory scene that the MC takes with Maxwell.

As I've mentioned in the post on this scene, it is divided into three halves. The first half deals with whoever the MC rejected (either Liam, or Drake in Liam's playthrough). The third is buildup to Lucretia's plans to usurp the throne. The second is supposed to be about the excitement among the members of the court for the wedding, and of course as the only people who come for the tour by default (and Madeleine is already taken for the first scene), Kiara and Hakim are used for this scene!

I will only focus on the Drake version of this scene today. There are a few things you notice straight off the bat:

1. Since this is Drake's playthrough, the narrative seems to do away completely with any lingering feelings Kiara may have had are done away with. In this scene she is quite happy about Drake's wedding - in fact, practically chipper. Literally nothing about her behaviour here serves as a reminder that she once had feelings for him.

2. Drake's response to Kiara attending his wedding ties in pretty well with his earlier default suspicion of her. Unlike Hana who is surprised but also happy that Kiara is attending, he seems to voice it as a doubt or a question. While that makes sense and there is continuity, it's pretty awful that he is allowed to suspect her like this and feel no remorse when the truth about her is revealed.

3. Now as I said in the post, this scene is meant to be a buildup to Drake's ice-palace scene. He speaks about wanting a private, country-style wedding in a natural place there, and Kiara's gentle teasing in this scene is supposed to be an indicator of how much he dislikes the usual fanfare. Okay. Fair enough. You're uncomfortable with the fancy decorations and the insane planning, fine.

4. But it's Drake's attitude towards Kiara in this scene that leaves a bad taste in the mouth (unless you were one of those Drake stans that liked to threaten murder on this character ig). The narrative really went out of their way to make him sound uncommonly angry with her, just for asking about his wedding. He angrily hisses at her to keep her voice down the moment she asks about the wedding, and then lashes out the moment she teases him about his love for the MC and his reluctance to be very public about it in that context. Of course, people who either liked Drake or hated Kiara would downplay this scene - either blaming Kiara for not magically knowing his likes or dislikes, or acting like Drake's behaviour in this scene is no big deal.

And his explanation in the ice palace scene really doesn't cut it as a reason for why he should be this pissed off at Kiara's excitement. There is no real bitterness or resentment tied in with the fancy trappings that are mentioned in that specific scene - it's just that he likes simplicity better. If Kiara doesn't know him well enough to understand that - it's because he has never properly talked to her. She made attempts to converse whenever she could. You can claim he never owed her a conversation - but in that case she doesn't owe him a complete understanding of his wants either. He could have just politely answered the question and changed the subject, or quickly took his leave.

He is well-versed enough in court etiquette by this point that he could have managed to sound civil enough. That he could have made a quick, polite exit. But no, he gave her the kind of anger that one reserves for someone who is kicking a puppy or stealing candy from a child, instead. And it was Kiara's grace that allowed her to view that awful behaviour in a more positive light.

It's pretty clear this scene - and to some extent the framing of the next - was made specifically for those Drake stans who were screaming and throwing tantrums about a possible affair. It was to highlight that there was no way Drake could ever return Kiara's feelings - and the only way they could do that was by making sure he treated her as rudely and inhumanely as possible.

I didn't think it could get any worse than this, when I saw this version of the scene...but then I saw Ch 12.

The Talk

If you were to speak just about fandom reactions to this scene...the responses to Kiara chronicling her trauma after Homecoming Ball, were pretty positive. Plenty chose the middle option "You're suffering from the trauma of the event. You need help", and cooed over Drake's touching little monologue about "taking it one day at a time".

I admit at the time I was fooled too. But one thing did niggle at me as I played both this option, and the "understandably cautious" one (I would later understand that the latter was not very good either - it has a thin veneer of "validating" Kiara's feelings, but it still has the MC and Drake expecting her to put their needs before her own safety and sanity).

Drake was reassuring to an extent in both options, sure. But why were his responses so different? Why was his answer to Kiara so closely tied to whatever point the MC was making, rather than independent of it? After all, he was the one who should be able to better relate to Kiara - wouldn't he have thoughts of his own here? If the MC chose that horrible final option, Drake would correct her and comfort Kiara instead, wouldn't he? Wouldn't he???

It was only when I (reluctantly) pressed that third option ("not as driven as I thought you were") that I understood what Drake's role in this scene was.

He wasn't going to be there for Kiara. He wasn't even sympathetic to her! It wasn't even going to be about two traumatized people connecting over their trauma. Drake was a puppet. He was there to parrot whatever garbage came out of the MC's mouth.

Because in the third - and most horrific - option, the MC is allowed to minimize Kiara's trauma, and mock her ambitions in the face of what she has just gone through. Drake is allowed to agree with her ("sometimes ambassadors have to work in dangerous areas"). Kiara is forced by the same narrative to find value in these words.

And all of this, stems from a scenario where Drake and the MC go in suspecting this woman from the jump. Where Maxwell is happy to make jokes about her being a suspect. Where the only two decent people in this group - Liam and Hana - are conveniently written out of the scene, ensuring that these ghouls can act the way they want around Kiara, and get away with it.

Not once is Kiara herself ever allowed to know that the group suspected her by default, nor is she allowed to go through with her intention to leave court. The very roots of this scene are rotten.

Very often, when this scene in particular is addressed, not many people actually address Drake's behaviour here - or in the previous chapter. Stans will vaguely, and conveniently, blame the group as a whole rather than their favourites. Such a tactic allows them to never name the specific people or specific actions, and therefore the main people involved in speaking to Kiara the way they did never have to be held accountable. This is particularly relevant in the case of Drake.

It was Drake's idea to interrogate her. He was the one constantly harping about her "suspicious behaviour". He was the one aware of what happened to her yet chose to think of her as shady. He was the one who should have known better, yet was absolutely game to minimize her trauma or engage in emotional blackmail. And neither he nor the MC came out of this conversation feeling anything resembling remorse. Because, apparently, they never did anything wrong.

They got what they wanted. At best, Drake and the MC manipulated this woman (again) into returning to their court. At worst, they badgered and bullied her into that decision. Either way, she was going to return, and the narrative was going to pretend that the MC and Drake were great people for making it happen.

I have heard some justifications over the years for Drake's behaviour here. One is that he "tends to act like an asshole to everyone". Another is that Kiara is a noble so he was never going to see her in a positive light. Which is hilarious to me, honestly, because in the same book you have Drake reassure Penelope - the woman who had made the MC the target of a reputation-ending scandal - and comfort her when she sees Madeleine. If this was really about the chip on the shoulder he had for nobility, why was he so kind to Penelope? And if Penelope's mental health warranted a change in mindset and behaviour from Drake's end, why was Kiara not worthy of that as well?

The truth is this. Drake was allowed to express his mean streak to a black woman, bully a black woman (the pranks), lash out at a black woman (the conversation at the Lythikos Ball), suspect a black woman, and finally minimize her trauma if the Duchess he had a crush on wanted to. While being overly protective and chivalrous to the white woman who actually did harm her. No matter what way you spin it, that is what Drake's behaviour - especially in TRR3 - is.

The way the team trampled over this "pairing" post that miniscule hint in TRR3 Ch 7, would make a rampaging elephant look like a ballerina in comparison. They wanted to make it clear after the hiatus that Drake x Kiara would never happen, in any eventuality, in any future, in any universe. And no matter how much we pin this on "crazy stans" (who do hold some responsibility for sure, for their own veiled racism), it's a fact that the writing team was comfortable doing this. They had already found other ways to pile disrespect on their sole recurring black female character - what was a little more?

TRH and Beyond: Taking Away What Was Left of Kiara's Remaining Fanbase

Given all the narrative back-and-forth and shadiness, I'd have to say the end Kiara got in TRR3 was comparatively...decent. Not great...not exactly satisfying...decent.

Her fighting off the assassins at the boutique ("not again...not again!!") was the highlight of that scene. In Hana's playthrough, Kiara was her MOH by default, and the lines the MC could give if you chose her in other playthroughs was pretty sweet. At the end of the book, her father would make Kiara his heir, after her older brother Ezekiel abdicated. There were still things I was always going to hate (such as the fact that we could lie about "having Kiara's back" - we absolutely did not) about the aftermath, but all in all as a fan...I could maybe envision a fairly happy ending for her with what we got.

The next series, The Royal Heir, would debut on June 2019, almost a year after TRR3's own debut. This would be the first series that would go completely LI-divergent, spanning four books. It started out as an attempt to envision the future (and pasts) of the main characters, as well as tie loose ends...but descended into an incoherent, retconning mess with each book.

Kiara doesn't feature much in Book 1, but is pretty prominent in certain chapters like Ch 7 (Savannah's bachelorette), Savannah's wedding, and the Apple Ball in the finale. You'll often find a marked difference between the way she is looked at for most of the book, and how the MC speaks to her in TRH1's finale.

Savannah's bachelorette, for instance, features all the ladies of the court in Texas, with new "country" looks and engaging with Texan culture. Here, too, you see a sign of PB leaning into popular perceptions of Kiara rather than remembering their own writing, when we see how Savannah praises the MC by default but has very little to say about her former friend Kiara. Since Savannah's return to court in TRR3, the team seemed to have forgotten that other ladies of the court weren't very nice to her, and Kiara was the only one concerned for her. They have Olivia act sweet and caring towards Savannah in both TRR3 Ch 17 and TRH1 Ch 7, conveniently forgetting the insults she piled upon Drake's sister in the first book. Savannah never has to talk about Kiara's friendship at all, other than a teasing comment hinting at her French lessons. Savannah was never expected to have any gratitude or affection towards Kiara even though she was the only woman who cared about her in court before she left.

An interesting thing to note in the diamond scene of the bachelorette is the way the courtly ladies' previous/current "romances" are framed. Kiara's, in particular, warrants a lot of discussion. Unlike Olivia (who can address her feelings for Liam regardless of playthrough, if asked, and can actually show some level of resentment towards him for not picking her), Kiara's feelings are addressed only if the MC isn't married to Drake. If she is, Kiara mentions a fondness for "rugged, down-to-earth men" (which the MC and Penelope perceive to mean hunky and muscular), and avoids mentioning his name at all.

There are two very interesting things to note about this sequence. One is the pattern of how, and how far, are Olivia and Kiara are allowed to address their feelings for these men. Not only is Olivia allowed to be open about her feelings and her bitterness (despite Liam actually romancing her in TRR3!), the narrative demands our respect for her position and plight. The Liam MC lauds her honesty and her decision to move ahead, unfazed even by her anger for something Liam didn't even owe her. In contrast, in the Drake playthrough, the writing makes sure Kiara never mentions him by name. And not only that, when the MC and Penelope tease her about her romantic preference, she is shown to stammer and seems downright afraid of the MC.

The fact that there is such a gap in how Olivia and Kiara are allowed to act about the men they love, and the fact that this gap was normalized so much in fandom discourse that it didn't even warrant a discussion, tells us plenty about the fandom too. The fandom position has almost always been that Liam owes Olivia love, appreciation, kindness. And that Drake owes Kiara nothing, not even common human decency. Which is why the fandom wants Liam punished for the high crime of not loving Olivia back. Which is why Drake is allowed to treat Kiara like an irritating pest at his best, and like utter garbage at his worst...and almost no one so much as bats an eyelid.

Since most of the story of TRH1 seemed to revolve around the ranch, the ladies of the court made minimal appearances and most of those were in keeping with patterns established in TRR3 (except for maybe Olivia's spy scenes). Some of their parents - too - feature in Royal Council scenes: Godfrey and Landon are part of this council and are seen during the MC's announcement - no one from Kiara's family, besides her brother Ezekiel who is dating Penelope, make any appearances in this book. Towards the end of the book, however, you suddenly find a scene or two where the narrative is suddenly, and inexplicably, syrupy sweet to Kiara:

(Screenshots from the Skylia YouTube Channel. 1-5 are from Ch 18, during the council meeting. 7-10 are also from Ch 18, at the start of the ball. The last two are from the finale as buildup for the pregnancy photoshoot)

There are indications of Kiara's diplomacy and good advice in other parts of the book too (such as her suggestions for dealing with the foreign royals at the baby shower) but never were the praise and compliments as obvious as they were in the last two chapters of TRH1. Kiara was given a quippy dialogue to spout at Godfrey, who would later be revealed as the murderer of Queen Eleanor. All three of the MC's dialogue options in response would praise Kiara by default (a rarity). King Bradshaw would shower her with compliments too about her talent and expertise. And when Kiara approached us with an offer for a pregnancy photoshoot, the MC could cheerfully say "for you, Kiara? Of course!" as if they'd been bffs from the beginning.

There isn't any obvious reason why we saw this sudden change, but I can make an educated guess or two. A pattern that commonly emerges with attempts to address something that would benefit Kiara, is that the writers often only do it when enough people complain; that was how we got the horrible Lythikos sequence. Midway through TRH1, I managed to put up an essay exploring Kiara's treatment (centered around the Lythikos sequence in TRR3 Ch 12) in comparison to Penelope's and Madeleine's. It did not receive an immediate fandom wide response, but several readers did come away from that essay feeling like Kiara really got the short end of the stick, compared to all the other court ladies. I'm not sure whether that essay had a direct impact, but those three scenes PB added to the finale chapters do make me wonder. Was the team trying to prove to the fandom that they did like Kiara and wouldn't personally sabotage her, either for their own enjoyment or to pander to a section of the fandom?

If they did, then that plan didn't last beyond these two chapters.

Another possibility of course was to give Kiara something slightly positive before they did her dirty - again - in TRH2 and 3. Because in those two books, they managed to first make her - along with the rest of the council - party to a vote (that everyone was involved in, including the LIs!) that would later prove detrimental for the country. They would then have her be the only heir involved in the notorious Coventus Nobilis, which ensured that anyone who wanted to hate Kiara could tie her to her vote in favour of Bartie Sr, without ever asking any further questions. This was a far more successful attempt, because most of the fandom already believed the misconceptions of Kiara's characterization to be truth, and these storylines simply added fuel to the fire.

Kiara's biggest supporters tended to be a section of the Liam fandom, as well as wlw stans who tended to like most of the courtly women. Having her vote for Bartie at the end of TRH2, and her explanations in TRH3 about the "MC's ruling style" (which was really canon's way of making sure she did more a silent diss on Liam) was written specifically to place a serious dent among her fans who liked Liam. And sadly, it worked in part. Because even if one considered Kiara's thoughts on "reactive ruling" accurate, it was a fact that the nobility (she included) would have to be blaming Liam for something that the entire Council voted for, and that Liam and his friends fixed on their own.

Making Kiara the lone person to voice this argument, made her a target in this fandom. I mean, people were ready to praise Madeleine and speak of her as loyal (eagerly ignoring that she was actively involved in the child's kidnapping if you didn't coddle her enough), and badmouth Kiara in the same breath, claiming that Kiara wasn't worth forgiving and people should just get over Madeleine's deeds in the past.

This resurgence of hate didn't just erupt out of nowhere. Once they finished spending two chapters on two-second compliments to Kiara, PB reverted in the next two books to some of their usual patterns with her. For instance, remember how I mentioned that PB had an obsession with never letting Kiara and Liam interact? In TRH, they repeated this pattern, but with the Heir. The only scene Kiara has where she can so much as touch the heir is in the last part of TRH3, if you choose for Kiara to read to her. Penelope is regularly allowed to hold her even though she has often placed this child in dangerous situations (on one occasion, Kiara herself had to stop her) - even Madeleine is given an entire babysitting scene to win her favour. But Kiara is the only lady of the court who is made to stay away or care for the child from a distance.

Kiara's family (besides Zeke, and just because he is Penelope's fiance/husband) is subject to disrespect in this book too. Hakim and Joelle were both conspicuously absent from the pregnancy announcement presscon in TRH1 (where Landon, Godfrey and Bartie Sr somehow featured!!), and future books would either retcon the family or force them to do things the other families didn't have to do. In TRH2, the MC takes a tour of the Great Houses with her newborn daughter, and each house is expected to pledge loyalty to her and the crown in different ways. Hakim is written as "bending to his knees" for the child. This is something only Adeleide and Madeleine - whose house, might I remind you, are considered the house of traitors at this point - have to do. Landon and Emmeline are never expected to express their loyalty to this extent.

In TRH3, the narrative callously pushes the Therons under the bus to make the Ebrim family's reluctance to help the MC make sense - the Therons are now "traditionalists" who frown upon scandals and may not allow Zeke to marry Penelope on the account of her past annulled marriage (this makes no sense when you take a closer look at the Therons themselves in TRR3 - they're a far more balanced, far more progressive family than any of the other Great Houses. They even took Zeke's abdication well!). Furthermore, you'll notice that the framing of Penelope's past with Guy is worlds apart from the disdain the narrative shows for the Therons during the flower festival. It is notable that in the latter, the black women are depicted very negatively - Kiara is shown unable to manage her own competition, Joelle is depicted as pompous and incapable of losing gracefully, Drake gets to take sarcastic potshots at Lerato for trying to charm the MC into voting for her and Drake into convincing her to vote. Meanwhile white people like Landon and Marguerite are presented in a just as humourous but less mocking light (eg. Landon moving his table courteously before flipping it in the flashback).

Even into TRF (Ch12), the narrative gives us choices where we can stand up to people criticizing Landon and Emmeline's parenting ("Duke Landon and his wife raised a kind, generous daughter..."). We are allowed to be far less critical of the Ebrims overall, we are allowed to be more charitable even in the dialogue options for suspecting Landon than we are of Kiara (think of how Maxwell can suspect that Kiara was planning to betray us all along). At the end of the Flower Festival, Kiara is made to appear contrite as the MC can choose to either demand she make this right before the latter can forgive her, or indicate that she never will. Ironically, a Penelope who can choose her fancy wedding over the safety of the MC's child never has to face words that harsh.

You will also notice if you look more closely, that the narrative continues to frame events surrounding Penelope and Kiara in opposing ways. Penelope is perpetually viewed as a victim, and Kiara constantly as a suspect.

We are expected to support Penelope, and to mistrust Kiara. And even though Kiara's feelings had long since become a thing of the past, Drake still maintains his animosity towards her and her family. And like everything else, it is so normalized at this point that you barely even notice it anymore.

In TRH2, Drake is allowed to tar all nobles with the same brush because of Godfrey's actions. Though his statement about the nobility ("We can't trust any of them to have Liam's back...not unless it's in their own selfish interests") is about the entire nobility, it is striking that he says this just before they go to Castelserraillan. The Therons are also the only noble family that Drake makes sarcastic comments about (in reference to Liam informing us that their province is a trade hub, Drake quips that "they are going to want to trade babies with us"). These snide comments he rarely makes about other noble families, and serves as a sharp contrast to how he treats the Ebrims (during Penelope's wedding festivities, he is unnaturally invested in Penelope getting a happy ending with Ezekiel). We can't even claim that his behaviour towards Kiara is in line with his disdain for nobles, because Penelope is proof that he is perfectly capable of showing compassion to most of them!

TRH3 ends with Kiara doing an apology tour of sorts - diplomatic missions aimed at improving Cordonia's international relations. TRF finds almost all the ladies of the court - even Olivia - in very minimal roles, as the focus shifts to the Via Imperii. Still, the narrative makes more references to Penelope than to Kiara, to the extent that the epilogue ends on both the MC and Penelope celebrating their pregnancies (Penelope's first and the MC's second) together.

Overall, you will find that the narrative repeated certain patterns with Kiara - the tendency to find her suspicious, purposely limiting scenes with important characters like Liam (TRR) and the heir (TRH) while the white courtiers get almost unlimited access, the discrepancies in expectations for her vs other ladies (eg. Madeleine is hailed for being "good" even though that is solely dependent on how you treat her. Kiara is largely ignored whenever she does help, and attacked when she is written to support the enemy). Drake - even as a former alternative to her, who should have gotten over whatever nonsense beef he'd had with her earlier - is allowed to make snide remarks about her home and family.

It's pretty clear they could do this because they could get away with it... because most of the fandom made it so easy for them to get away with it.

Fandom

When I look back at how the perception of Kiara in the fandom progressed over the years, I find it half-amusing, half-sad how much of it is rooted more in fanlore, and how little in actual fact. And this is something you couldn't just pin on "crazy Drake stans" - they were the biggest promoters of these lies and misconceptions, sure, but normally analytical, commonsense readers often believed that Kiara was fake and a snob and awful to Penelope too.

I get some of it, given the timing of Kiara and Penelope's scene at the beginning of TRR2. It takes place at a low point in the MC's story, a time when she isn't even sure the LIs want to support her. Coupled with that is the lasting image of Penelope hugging you and complaining about Madeleine, making you feel like she's more willing to give you a sliver of solidarity. Coupled with that, is Olivia's newfound popularity in the fandom - once she emerges in Ch 5 of that book, fans believed they found their wildcard who would stand by them in complete solidarity among the ladies of the court (did they ignore Hana's already massive contributions to the investigation? Yes they did. Yes they did). Madeleine herself is shown giving quotable quotes about female solidarity and Tariq's guilt in TRR2 Ch 7, which - coupled with Justin's high praise of her - made people want to find things to like about her too. Penelope's own betrayal was overshadowed by an expectation to support a person with serious mental health struggles.

Kiara's the only one who doesn't get such backstories or explanations. So at least in the heat of the moment, in reading those chapters between weekly gaps, it makes sense that a false impression of her got somewhat solidified.

But when you build your interpretations out of lies and misinterpretations, how does it become so valid that even the writers bend to it and prefer to show that?

Every fandom has its "crazy stans". And this instance wouldn't be the first or last time they are pandered to. But when the same stans get backed up by the "saner", more commonsense members of fandom; when even neutral readers promote versions of a story without actually looking at the scenes in question - that's when a fandom is in danger of turning a "headcanon" into canon.

Kiara being a horrible friend to Penelope wasn't canon. Kiara being a snob was not canon. Kiara being creepy towards Drake wasn't canon either. Especially when you take the fandom response to Olivia's forced kiss on Liam into account.

And that brings me to another point. I had been asked once why I felt the need to compare Kiara to the other ladies in my defenses of her. It's important, when we speak of the kind of hate Kiara received, to understand how a lot of flaws that the entire court has (eg classism) is often pinned onto a lone person, and how several white female characters could get away with worse behaviour while Kiara alone was slammed for harmless interactions.

This is most apparent when you look at how Olivia's violation of Liam's consent is perceived, vs Kiara's harmless flirtation with Drake in TRR2. Which woman had fans foaming at the mouth and wanting to kill her? Which woman was given dozens and dozens of fanfic and content that depicted her as creepy, desperate, downright obsessed with their man? Which woman got the "oh well, he doesn't owe her anything 🤷🏽‍♀️" vs a "he doesn't love her back?? WHAT AN INSENSITIVE ASSHOLE!!1111"?

Perhaps this Olivia/Kiara comparison is where the fandom's tendency to cast Kiara into the Jezebel stereotype is the most visible. Kiara's very act of talking to Drake sometimes is registered as a threat to those stans, and it reflects in the way they speak of her, the way they speak of their MC's own relationship with Drake in association with her (eg. the number of posts rejoicing at the thought of showing off their "engaged to Drake" status at Kiara's estate), the way they're allowed to dehumanize her and villify her (eg. The edit I mentioned at the beginning). This is often encouraged by their friends who are fans of other characters, and you can see that in sharp contrast, Olivia - despite her actions in Book 1 and her resentment of Liam for not loving her back in other books - is still often viewed with sympathy and respect. Her feelings - still viewed as genuine, even pure. To the point where PB eventually allows Olivia to constantly address her feelings about the MC's and Liam's relationship, while forcing Kiara to not even utter Drake's name in his playthrough.

But you see this with other characters, and in other contexts too. Particularly how Madeleine can be duplicitous, hypocritical, and power-hungry, and it's Kiara who is called these things despite her actual honesty in canon. Madeleine can get away with actually helping Bartie Sr kidnap the MC's daughter in TRH3 without a murmur, in the same fandom where people can curse Kiara for voting for Bartie Sr "to take the child away" (despite her telling the MC and spouse that she was promised they would have custody of the child, therefore the claim that she "voted to take the child away from their parent" is inaccurate).

You saw some of these discrepancies in how Penelope and Kiara were spoken about too - Penelope's crime in TRR2 was considered easily forgiveable, while Kiara's innocence is constantly called into question. Kiara was often viewed negatively for what the fandom perceived as "meanness" to Penelope (when it was in fact Kiara worrying about how Penelope would fare when she wasn't around) while Penelope herself was never expected to be a good friend to Kiara. An interesting thing to note about the fandom response to Penelope and Kiara showed that often when posters wanted to hate on Penelope, she and Kiara would be clubbed together, almost as a unit. This was especially prevalent in TRH3. It was easy to express hatred for Kiara independently, but most posts that showed a dislike for Penelope (besides from specific Kiara stans) would often tie her with Kiara, as if there wasn't much to hate about her otherwise.

It is important to line up whatever hate Kiara gets with the responses to the other women - especially in the face of what the latter are allowed to get away with. In doing so, you get a better sense of what is allowed for a certain subset of women, and what isn't allowed or permitted for black women specifically.

Often, the fans who would not hesitate to call her alone fake, opportunistic and creepy were WOC, and there have been cases where some would use their identity as WOC to shield themselves from the criticism concerning their vitriol. It would often descend into "I don't hate her because she is black, I hate her because {insert inaccurate/false/convoluted justification here}". It didn't matter that much of this information wasn't based in fact, or had a heavy bias that they never applied to anyone else. It only mattered that because they were WOC, somehow that meant that they couldn't possibly be racist. That their unfounded hatred for Kiara had to be legitimate. As if there was no chance that someone who was WOC couldn't be antiblack too. I mean, the ultimate proof of this could be found in TRR itself - the two head writers of the TRR/H/F series' are Asian women - who have a pattern of liking mean (white) women, and who didn't mind throwing the black woman and her black family in their story repeatedly under the bus, who didn't mind minimizing and retconning the abuse and childhood trauma that the darker-skinned Asian woman in their story went through.

Overall, it is possible that the fandom did take some of their cues (for their impression of Kiara) from the inherent disdain found in canon itself. But many of them also misinterpreted several things about Kiara, then didn't bother to revisit those biases with a critical eye, or even try to see if they were wrong. And that baseless hatred fed the already-existing disdain that Kiara's own writers had towards her. Resulting in the kind of horrific, racist garbage that we got to see in TRR3, and the constant attempts in canon to pull her down in TRH.

Did Drake and Kiara Ever Have A Chance?

There have been various opinions - from both Kiara fans and haters - for why a Driara ship would never work. He hates nobles, she won't like his disdain for art and culture, he likes the simpler life, she's a snob...so on and so forth. Many people will agree it's not a great ship, but of course with differing opinions on why.

I, however, often wondered at possible scenarios where such a pairing could work. The magic of shipping is often that you can play around with personalities and pair almost anyone, and find enough reasons to explain why they would tick. And in Drake and Kiara's case, personally, I do feel like it's a complicated question to answer - primarily because I feel like the authorial intent at the beginning may have been very, very different to what finally happened in Drake's story.

A lot of Drake's early writing focused on the reasons behind his mistrust of the court and his tendency to view the people he loves who are part of it (eg. Liam and later the group) as anomalies. There are two ways you could take such a story in TRR2 - you could either get him to admit to the flaws in his own thinking (thereby providing a more nuanced insight) and allow him to grow from there, or you could just have him double down on his biases and never change beyond the superficial. The team of TRR - esp the head writers, Kara and Jen who were both v fond of him - definitely seemed to go in the latter direction.

Drake's prediction in Coney Island does indicate that he should let go of the past, and I honestly feel like the sequences where he learned about Maxwell straining House Beaumont's finances to help her, and Kiara and Savannah's friendship, could have been turning points for him if the writers weren't so obsessed with proving him right all the time - even when he was supposed to be wrong. Maxwell and Kiara, in their own ways, were proof that not every noble was the same, nor would every noble treat the commoners around them all the same way. However, the narrative trampled all over this possibility in TRR2 Ch 9, where Drake could optionally claim that the Beaumont brothers (among others) were "just looking out for themselves, no matter the consequences", or later when the narrative had Savannah be grateful to him for breaking her confidence to Bertrand, and have Maxwell try to earn his forgiveness in Ch 12 rather than the other way around. It allowed Drake to be selective about the nobles he admired or defended, while still free to treat certain others like garbage.

I could easily envision a Driara pairing for most of TRR2. I could even see it as potentially salvageable in certain parts of TRR3. But the moment they had Drake readily suspect her, the moment the team thought it would be okay for Drake to even suggest minimizing her trauma...that option was no longer worth seeing. Not for Drake, but for Kiara. Drake would have to be the worst possible guy I could find for her, in such a scenario.

But I could see potential in a storyline that had Drake understand that some of these people weren't the monsters he so desperately wanted them to be. In one where he could hear about Kiara's friendship with his sister, and learn about a whole new side of her. One where he maybe felt insecure ("I'm not her type") and could be reassured by a woman who had likely held a torch for him since they were teens/young adults. One where they could reach out to each other in their pain and trauma, and find solace. One where Drake knew that the family he may be marrying into would respect him, and his father too. There were possibilities there.

It would still take more work - his mean streak for one would need to be reduced by more than a half. A lot of it, of course, was kept for the Drake stans, but it really doesn't add much to Drake's character besides making him a mean-spirited, hypocritical bitch who only targets the lone black woman this way (and Olivia occasionally, if she goads him). If the narrative did want to keep a characterization where Drake acts weird around the girl he likes, they could - but that story would need a lot more work to be palatable.

All of this is to say that regardless of personal bias, there were possibilities there. There was a sliver of potential. And if they wanted to let go of that potential midway, they didn't have to go about that the way they finally did. They could have just worked on creating another love interest for her. They managed to create a brother for her overnight just so Penelope could have a boyfriend; they could have easily done the same for Kiara.

Multiple factors went down that explain why the Driara ship didn't take off. But many of them boil down to one specific root cause - the white women (whether they caused actual harm or not) needed to be protected, needed to be cherished. The black woman who dared to ask for the same things from their pet LI, would be viewed as a threat, a villain, a creep...just for breathing in his direction.

And her writers cared so little, that they took the fanon perception for her and stamped it onto their canon, like it was the truth.

They didn't do any of this for the woman who forced a kiss on a prominent LI. They didn't do this on the woman who betrayed the MC and set her up for assault. They didn't do this to the woman who bullied the lone female LI, and swore to continue doing so till she broke.

They did this for the one woman who was fairly innocent of most of these crimes, actually respected the LI and treated him well.

They did this because they could get away with it. Because they were confident that the fandom they wrote the story for, would let them get away with it. And tragically...they were right.

--

Resources I used to learn about the Jezebel stereotype:

The "Offending" Breast of Janet Jackson: Public Discourse Surrounding the Jackson/Timberlake Performance at Super Bowl XXXVIII by Dr Shannon Holland

Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, the Jezebel and white masculinity by Khadija Mbowe (I actually got the recommendation for the first paper from this video essay).

From Mammy to Jezebel: The Portrayal of Black Women in American Cinema from the BlackThen website

[epicspheal]

Pokemon Concierge

I have to say after watching Pokemon Concierge last night, it brought actual tears to my eyes. Happy tears it was such a good series probably now my favorite miniseries of Pokemon outranking even Twilight Wings and Hisuian Snow. It was such a wholesome and refreshing take on the series. Don't get me wrong I love the battling aspect but it's nice to see the life of everyday NPCs who aren't partaking in the league/contest circuit/rangers/island challenges. Like it's been hinted since gen 1 most of the world aren't really active trainers (and by that I mean getting the badges/ribbons and actively competing in leagues/contests) but rather just live and work alongside Pokemon. We just don't get to interact with that world of Pokemon since the games always put us in the role of someone aiming to be a champion/complete the Pokedex. So it's nice to see that aspect get focused and the worldbuilding around it because it's a lot. The idea of resorts for people and Pokemon to relax makes a lot of sense when you think of the world. Even though it's in many ways a lot better than the real world it still has it's stressors (as the series of event that led Haru to the Pokemon resort in the first place lay out). I could honestly really relate to Haru's anxiety having a long string of stressors that just lead you to needing some type of change in environment. One thing that really stuck out to me in the last episode was Haru mentioning "adults have a lot of freedom" and it made me think. Granted I've spent only 12 out of my nearly 30 years on this planet as an adult and oftentimes it doesn't feel like I'm very free but you know in the end I do have freedom. Not freedom from bills and taxes but I can more freely pick my path in life and how I want to achieve my goals compared to as a kid.

Not to mention the Pokemon themselves that we see throughout the episodes all having their struggles and it was exceedingly wholesome to see the Magikarp evolve and be able to swim, Psyduck learning to control it's psychic powers to reduce headaches and the Pikachu finding it's voice. It makes sense that living, sapient creatures like Pokemon It's a very realistic and mature portrayal that we don't really get to see all that much in the mainline games (Amphy, Koraidon/Miraidon and Arven's Mabostiff being a few notable exceptions and of course there are instances in the manga and anime as well) because at least for the player (the rideable Koraidon/Miraidon being the exception) it's kind of necessary for the purposes of the gameplay that their Pokemon aren't in need of true psychological or physical support (that being said I would love a side-game that was based on Pokemon Concierge or even a Pokemon Hospital). Pokemon Concierge is the type of extra media we need more of to expand on the world building and I'd love to see A) more episodes of Pokemon Concierge and B) more miniseries that dive into parts of the Pokemon world outside of the league.

[contentment-of-cats]

Thrawn, age, illness, and injury.

Ahsoka talk below.

Fandom can be shallow and disappointing. First up, it's possible to dislike the representation of the character without shitting all over an excellent actor whose body of work is more than Disney can bound with contracts and Filoni's scripts. Disney got a full on smack in the face with Jon Boyega (who like Kelly Marie Tran got the shit end of the stick in 2 out of 3 of the sequels), you can bet that there are NDAs and 'you can't say mean things about us even if they're true' clauses.

Mostly I want to talk about age, illness, and injury and the way that people take it as a personal insult to their existence.

Let's start with the man himself. According to the Official Timeline (because everything eventually gets retconned and there is no actual canon) Thrawn was born 59BBY. He was 59 (two years older than I am now) when the space whales yeeted himself and as yet unknown other ships into the dark. Counting forward from the official timeline, he is at the very least 68 years old. He was in exceptional shape before the space whaling, yes. And no, he is not fully human, but is 'near human' - the Chiss evolved from human origins, their blue color explained in canon by something in the Csillan hydrosphere.

But let's look at this.

That is pain.

I'd guess about a 7 or 8.

Those tentacles are tight enough to hold him still, the twisting could induce torsion injuries to the spine and pelvis, cause spiral fractures to bone, dislocate joints, and compress/crush organs. Even with my Chiss physiology headcanon, I can't see anything but pain, crushing and twisting injuries, possibly with internal bleeding.

Additionally, I think that there could have been some kind of brain injury. While some of it could be the makeup and the lighting (or unlighting as the case may be), I think that the droop of one side of his mouth could be from nerve damage somewhere. My mother had a droop like that after a 'baby stroke' - transient ischemic attack.

He and Ezra were alone on the bridge, and he shot Ezra. Further, I can't see Ezra doing anything to help Thrawn after the credits roll. Once those Imps break through the blast door, he's going to be lucky to survive the fist minute.

In the great in-between that moment and the new canon?

So Thrawn, at the end of nine years is not just nine years older, but has managed to get his ship operable without a shipyard, not starve to death after the two years of consumables were gone, and not die of his injuries. (I've posted my theory that the survivors went into coldsleep to preserve the supplies.) Filoni has retconned bacta treatment into a magic potion - except when it isn't. The man is so inconsistent and wishy-washy that I could drive a 1960 Cadillac Eldorado through the smallest plot holes.

Y'all were expecting the buff blue daddy after all that. Elon Musk and 'dad bod.' I get it though, a lot of people invest in the concept of youth and health, go to extremes to hold onto it, even worship it - and denigrate the people who visibly age, are ill, or injured, or disabled. So many of the posts about Thrawn's portrayal in Ahsoka carry the stench of ableism and ageism. As for hating the character for his portrayal, blame Filoni instead.

[wingsoverlagos]

Mark Lewisohn and the No Good, Very Big Scoop

A few weeks ago, I made a post showing that Kim Bennett, the crucial interviewee who provided the crux of Mark Lewisohn's "debunking" of a classic Beatles myth, was not, as Lewisohn has suggested, completely absent from Beatles history. Kim Bennett had been quoted in an issue of Beatles Book Monthly, in which Mark Lewisohn, aged 10 1/2, also made a brief appearance.

That was a teaser, and now that any interest it may have stirred has had time to die out, it's time for a proper introduction to what has become an unwieldy examination of Tune In's biggest scoop.

I came across Kim Bennett in that issue of Beatles Book Monthly while I was working on a "Lewisohn vs." post focusing on George Martin's memoir, All You Need Is Ears. Checking those citations went off the rails before the train had left the station. It led me to take a closer look at the way Lewisohn tells the story of how the Beatles signed their contract with Parlophone. This section of Tune In represents the biggest Beatles "myth" that Lewisohn busted, and it has been discussed in any number of reviews and interviews since the book's release. Yet the evidence given for Lewisohn's biggest scoop was thin, and relied disproportionately on the word of Kim Bennett, a man whose story only saw the light of day because of Mark Lewisohn--or so he would have us believe.

I did some digging. I found the aforementioned quote from Bennett. Then I found another one, in another issue of Beatles Book Monthly. Then I found him in the pages of a prominent book of Beatles history. Then another book, and another.

Kim Bennett's evolving story was the first red flag, but the more I dug, the more problems I found with Lewisohn's choice to present the Bennett version as definitive. The other supporting evidence Lewisohn brought to the table was, at best, thin. Evidence supporting the classic narrative went unaddressed. His heavy-handed authorial choices evinced a man trying to overturn a narrative to further his own reputation and book sales, not a historian using his best judgment to parse conflicting accounts and come to his best assessment of the truth.

My intention here isn't to attack Kim Bennett or to defend George Martin from an unflattering portrayal of his role in the Beatles' contract signing. Nor do I think Kim Bennett's account should be stricken from the record entirely. My focus is on Lewisohn's choice to present Kim Bennett's story as an undeniable Truth in the story of the Beatles. At best, his historical judgment utterly failed him, at worst--and far more likely, in my view--Lewisohn put forward a substandard work of history solely for the sake of grabbing headlines by disrupting a traditional narrative.

There's a lot to discuss with the Bennett/contract story, which I'll discuss in future posts. My ~tentative~ table of contents is:

0. Mark Lewisohn’s Star Witness 1. An Introduction and Primer >You Are Here< 2. The Evolving Story of Kim Bennett, Pt. 1: Before Lewisohn 3. The Classic™ Contract Story, and Why Lewisohn Distrusts It 4. The Evolving Story of Kim Bennett, Pt. 2: Tune In 5. Lewisohn’s Other Sources 6. Lewisohn’s Portrayal of Kim Bennett & George Martin

For now, I'll set Kim Bennett aside and briefly address another Busted Myth in Tune In: the story of young John Lennon, forced to choose between his mother and father.

Alf Lennon and Billy Hall: A Lewisohnian Microcosm

Along with the story of the Beatles’ Parlophone contract, Tune In’s new take on the traumatic custody dispute over John Lennon is one of the book’s most discussed “revelations.” This story plays out over a few pages (unlike the Kim Bennett/Contract narrative, which sprawls across several chapters), but it demonstrates many of the same heavy-handed writing choices Lewisohn makes to prop up a “definitive” version of events without adequate evidence or analysis. The tactics Lewisohn uses fall into three broad categories: (1) misrepresenting opposing evidence and (2) inflating the credibility of supporting evidence, and (3) creating a false dichotomy between two accounts.

I'm sure you're familiar with this classic tale. It’s been written in nearly every Beatles biography starting with Hunter Davies’ The Beatles (1968), as told to Davies by John’s father, Alf Lennon. The story goes like this:

Alf Lennon took five-year-old John to Blackpool, ostensibly as a holiday, though he planned to keep his son. They lived with a friend of Alf’s for two weeks. That friend planned to emigrate to New Zealand; Alf decided he should emigrate as well, with John in tow. These plans were foiled by the arrival of Julia, and a custody dispute ensued. At an impasse, Alf asked John who he wanted to stay with. John at first picked Alf, but when his mother started to leave, he ran after her.

The story has been embellished over the years, but those are the core facts as related by Alf. Mark Lewisohn doesn’t believe it happened this way. He tracked down the friend Alf and John stayed with in Blackpool, Billy Hall, and asked for his version of events. Hall’s testimony would form the basis for one of Lewisohn’s major MythBusting moments.

I’m not going to dissect these events in depth here. What I want to illustrate is the way Lewisohn sells the reader on his interviewee, Billy Hall, and Hall’s version of events. From Tune In Ch. 2:

Lewisohn starts by introducing Billy Hall as the "only living witness" and "the only person to relate the events impartially."

I’ll give him “only living”, but Lewisohn does nothing to demonstrate his impartiality. Generally, one would assume a guy relating the story of a disagreement his friend had with his ex would have some degree of bias. Lewisohn knows this, but to overturn this classic narrative, he needs the reader to trust Billy Hall. He can’t show Hall’s impartiality, so he must tell the reader.

“Witness” is also doing some heavy lifting here. More on that soon.

Before jumping into Hall's version of events, Lewisohn tells us how how “[e]very account” of the story has been told to date. With this phrasing, Lewisohn purposefully obfuscates opposing evidence; rather than acknowledge that Alf Lennon himself gave this story, he presents it in the vague terms of "[e]very account." Acknowledging that these accounts arise from a primary source would give them strength, so Lewisohn portrays it as another old chestnut in the pile of oft-repeated Beatles stories. It might seem like a simple turn of phrase here, but we’ll see this tactic pop up again soon.

Framing aside, the passage highlighted in blue is in keeping with Alf’s story as told to Davies. That changes once we get to the phrase in pink. According to Lewisohn, “[e]very account…turned on the vital fact” that John would first emigrate with Billy Hall’s parents. This is just a lie. I have read multiple accounts that do mention Hall’s parents involvement in the plan, but, crucially, they play no role in the story Alf Lennon told Hunter Davies. Davies writes, “The friend he was staying with in Blackpool was planning to emigrate to New Zealand. Fred decided to go with him. All the preparations were made, when one day Julia arrived at the door.” (Davies 1968, p.8)

Hall’s testimony doesn’t contradict the premise that Alf wanted to take John to New Zealand (“…Lennie said he might [emigrate to New Zealand] too…and at some point it was mentioned that it would be a great place to raise Johnny”), but says definitively that his parents had no intention to emigrate. To present this as a proper MythBusting, Lewisohn makes the detail Hall contradicts (his parents involvement) central to the story as a whole (“[e]very account….has turned on...”) He’s moved the goalposts by framing a detail he can debunk as crucial to the story, when that detail wasn’t present in the primary source to begin with.

Then, in yellow, Lewisohn lets us know that the classic version of events "is fantasy." Or rather, Lewisohn lets us know that Billy Hall says its fantasy. It's a heavy-handed introduction. Hall is never given any pushback, and we're left with the impression that Lewisohn wants the reader to believe Hall's conclusion.

Hall goes on to say that Alf couldn’t have emigrated anyway because Alf, “had to go back to sea. He had to go back. We were only on leave.” This is a blatant example of Lewisohn refusing to question or push back against an account he wants the reader to believe. Alf Lennon already had a history of going AWOL, so “It couldn’t have happened because Alf wouldn’t go AWOL” isn’t convincing evidence. Lewisohn doesn’t bring this up, though, and indeed provides no comment on this section of Hall’s testimony. He lets it stand unquestioned.

Here's how Lewisohn introduces us to the custody dispute between Alf and Julia:

Lewisohn describes the well-known version of events as “painted vividly in John Lennon docudramas.” Again, Lewisohn neglects to inform the reader that this story comes from from Alf Lennon - one of the three people in the room where it happened. The “docudramas” didn’t make up this chapter in John’s life—they based it on the words of his father, and accounts of people close to John (e.g. Cyn.) We would expect Alf to have some bias in the matter, but that’s no reason to complete discount his story.

Also note Lewisohn’s use of charged language to highlight how melodramatic the “docudrama” version of events is. Silly of you to believe such made-for-TV sensationalism, reader! Luckily, Lewisohn has found someone who “recalls what actually happened.”

How Lewisohn knows this is “what actually happened”, he doesn’t say. But trust him—this isn’t just another version of events, it’s the version of events. Billy Hall says:

(The “Terry-Thomas character” mentioned here is Bobby Dykins, Julia’s boyfriend)

Right off the top, Hall says that the conversation happened in a different room. THIS is Lewisohn’s decisive witness��a guy who didn’t see things go down. Have you ever lived with someone, readers? Ever had a college roommate who got into a fight with their significant other in the other room? Even if you did your best to eavesdrop, would you be able to confidently say what happened if you were asked to recount it sixty years later? Would you weigh your word more heavily than the people in the room itself?

Billy Hall is only a “witness” in the loosest sense. He can tell us what happened around the fateful meeting, but he has no information on the actual event.

Billy tells us that Alf told him “I’m letting Johnny go back with his mother—she’s going to look after him properly.” Okay. Maybe Alf was broken up about events but wanted to save face in front of his friend. Maybe Alf wasn’t broken up, having just spent two weeks parenting after spending much of John’s life as an absentee dad. There’s nothing here that precludes a tense exchange occurring in the room. The room where Billy Hall wasn’t.

Finally, and damningly, “I really can’t remember if Johnny was in there too.” So Hall admits that he has no memory of the crucial detail of whether or not John was in the room, yet Lewisohn wants us to believe his account is “what actually happened.”

I commend Lewisohn for seeking out people like Hall, people peripheral to the Beatles’ story that may nevertheless add depth to it, but I seriously question his choice to present Hall’s version of events as definitive. He presents Hall’s story without question or criticism, outright telling us that a story told sixty years later by a man who wasn’t in the room where it happened is impartial and definitive. Meanwhile, Alf Lennon’s account isn’t attributed to him—it’s veiled behind catch-alls like “[e]very account”, or conflated with “docudramas.” Lewisohn clearly isn’t treating these accounts with equal scrutiny; he’s purposefully uplifting a version of events that contradicts accepted “myth.”

One final point that drives this home is Lewisohn’s choice to portray Billy Hall and Alf Lennon’s accounts as mutually exclusive. Rather than looking for how these two stories might dovetail, he creates a false dichotomy between them. This begins by framing the role of Billy Hall’s parents as crucial to the existing narrative, but it’s most clear in the utter absence of effort by Lewisohn to reconcile these two accounts. Aside from the point regarding his parents, what does Billy Hall contradict here? His portrayal is different from many dramatizations, but there’s very little that goes against Alf’s account. There’s no reason to completely throw out one or the other; there is every possibility these are two angles on the same story, not two mutually exclusive events.

But “Alf and Julia Lennon’s argument over John’s custody was maybe more sedate than sometimes depicted” isn’t getting headlines. It doesn’t make for a good talking point, and it certainly isn’t increasing Lewisohn’s prestige as the man finding out the True Story of the Beatles. Put simply, Mark Lewison chose to portray Billy Hall’s story as busting a Beatles’ myth not because a careful examination of the evidence supported that conclusion, but because disrupting a narrative would increase his profile and the profile of Tune In.

This isn’t an isolated example. We’ll see many of these tactics again with the story of Kim Bennett.

Sources:

Davies H. 1968. 2009 Edition. The Beatles. New York (NY): W.W. Norton & Company. 408p.

Lewisohn M. 2013. The Beatles: All These Years Vol. 1: Tune In. New York (NY): Crown Archetype. [ebook]

[reikunrei]

I'm not gonna make as in-depth a post about it as my other DW analyses, but a month or so ago I watched the season 1 episode "Dalek" and now I'm thinking about it in relation to what Vecna's ending might look like.

A lot of people complain when they hear folks (such as myself and my friends) say they want Vecna's end to be tragic in some way. They interpret it as us saying we want him to be redeemed, or forgiven, or be made into a "good guy" who actually did nothing wrong, or whatever. Which (setting aside all the Henry/Edward stuff, which I'd argue is a separate discussion anyway) isn't the case at all. Not necessarily, at least. Vecna has done a lot of heinous things that can't be overlooked.

However, that doesn't mean he's entirely unsympathetic. He's very relatable in his motives and is a fun way to explore revenge and justice in the extremes. He's an example of the cracks in the Capital S System. However, I would agree that Vecna as a person and as a concept shouldn't be given a full pass on everything he's done just because his reasoning has a strong foundation.

"Dalek" offers a really interesting alternative where the Dalek in the episode is given multiple chances to "redeem" itself or is shown sympathy, only to constantly push back against it and refuse the kindness offered to it up until the very end. Even so, its eventual self-destruction is still tragic.

This is for multiple reasons, but the one I want to introduce here first to set the tone is: It's tragic because there's no changing what's been done to the Dalek, what the Dalek has done, and the general circumstances of what a Dalek is and their history. Rose wants to help the Dalek, but it's simply not feasible given the circumstances.

So, let's get into some of this episode.

We open on the Doctor and Rose landing in an underground bunker in Utah, USA, having followed a signal "calling for help." Inside this bunker are rows and rows of glass cases containing extraterrestrial artifacts, owned and collected by a man named Henry van Statten. We learn that one of these is a live specimen, which van Statten keeps in "The Cage," where they've been attempting to get it to speak for some time, often resorting to physically harming it and making it scream. Okay, NINA silo.

The Doctor goes in to speak to it, since van Statten wants to know what it is, and we get this exchange:

Some abridged Doctor Who history to explain this interaction: The Daleks are an alien race that's been around for the entire run of the show, first introduced in the original series. As it pertains to the 2005 reboot, early in the show we learn that the Doctor is the last Time Lord in existence because all of them died in the Last Great Time War. The Last Great Time War was fought between the Time Lords and the Daleks, and it was ultimately ended by the Doctor themself killing (or sealing away) both the Time Lords and the Daleks to stop the conflict and save the universe(s).

The Daleks and the Time Lords have had beef for... basically forever, as far as I know. The Daleks also make multiple returns throughout the rest of the series and still remain a recurring antagonist, though I don't know what's been going on with them past like... season 7 or so. We even get a few more sympathetic portrayals of them, but we don't need to talk about that today.

I should also briefly explain here that the Daleks were bred and evolved to hate. They exist only to kill things that aren't Daleks because they see anything that isn't a Dalek as "wrong." They have such a strong will to live in order to push this regimen that they almost don't die, as their bodies will simply refuse to do so, unless ordered or killed by force. Okay, Vecna. In short: they basically only know hatred and anger, and anything else simply isn't part of their genetics. There's some nuance to this in the greater lore, but I won't touch on that here because it's not introduced in this episode.

Anyway, back to the episode!

Once the Doctor realizes that the Dalek is damaged and can't actually kill him, he starts laying into it, circling it and asking "What are you good for?" and "What's the point of you? You're nothing." The Dalek says it's awaiting orders (something it's bred for), and the Doctor breaks the news that all the other Daleks have been destroyed by him and it won't be getting any orders.

Admitting to his own self-hatred, the Doctor switches on the chains holding the Dalek, electrocuting it. The Dalek begs for pity, and the Doctor says, "Why should I [have pity]? You never did." Then, van Statten enters The Cage with guards and pulls the Doctor out, at which point the Dalek returns to refusing to speak.

The Doctor speaks to van Statten more, telling him about the Time War, learning how the Dalek fell from the sky "like a meteorite" and surmising that it must have fallen through time as the only survivor. And at this point, van Statten smugly eyes up the Doctor, now knowing that he, too, is an alien not of this Earth, and chains him up to be studied and tortured just like the Dalek. There's honestly so much I could say about van Statten and his similarities to Brenner, so I might do that some other time.

Meanwhile, Rose, who's been tagging along with van Statten's assistant, unaware of what's happened thus far, sees security footage of the Dalek being tortured by one of van Statten's scientists and goes to The Cage to investigate and try to help.

She talks to the Dalek, asking if it's in pain, saying that she can help because she has her friend, the Doctor, with her. The Dalek says yes, it is in pain.

Rose continues to insist they help, but the Dalek says that its race is dead and it will simply die alone. Rose places a gentle hand against its "head," which burns her, and as she pulls away, that Dalek shouts, "Genetic material extrapolated. Initiate cellular reconstruction."

Having gotten DNA from Rose, a time traveler, the Dalek is able to regenerate, fixing all of its damage and breaking free of its chains before hacking out of The Cage and gaining access to the entire bunker. In short, it starts killing people indiscriminately and drains all power from the bunker, from Utah, and from the entire west coast of the USA, also downloading all of the information from the internet at the same time.

Most of the rest of the episode is an extended chase scene, where Rose and the assistant, Adam, are trying to get up to a higher level of the bunker, though are often relegated to stairwells and detours in an attempt to keep the Dalek locked away as deep as possible. At one point, Rose and Adam are being escorted by an armed guard when they come face to face with the Dalek in a stairwell, and the armed guard starts trying to talk it down:

Martin "but but but I locked you kids up because I loved you" Brenner, over here.

The first major hint that we start to see something is awry with the Dalek is it and Rose making eye contact, and Rose leaving the interaction feeling like the Dalek saw her as more than just a target for extermination, and rather that "it knows [her]."

Then, after some more chasing and some more mass murder, the Dalek addresses the Doctor. It says that, now with no place to get orders from, it will follow "the Primary Order," or the "Dalek instinct to destroy" and conquer. The Doctor asks why, though. What's the point of doing that at this point when it's the only Dalek left? The Dalek can't answer that and just asks what it should do, wherein we get this impeccable line that aired on public television in the year 2005:

He rips into the Dalek again, really showing his anger as he screams, "Why don't you just die!?" at which point the Dalek responds with, "You would make a good Dalek" before ceasing communication. Mic drop of the goddamn century!!! That scene still drives me absolutely batshit. Anyway.

Rose and Adam are rushing to try and escape the vault portion of the bunker, but they're running out of time. Adam makes it through the final door as it's shutting, but Rose doesn't and is now trapped with the Dalek. Rose talks to the Doctor over her cellphone, telling him that it wasn't his fault and she wouldn't have missed any of this for the world. The Dalek fires its laser, the call drops, and the Doctor reluctantly accepts that she's dead.

However, unbeknownst to him, the Dalek didn't actually kill Rose.

They have a brief back-and-forth, and Rose questions the Dalek's hesitation to kill her.

The Dalek speaks to the Doctor again, revealing that Rose is actually alive and uses her as leverage to get him to open the bulkhead and let the two of them out. Rose pleads with the Doctor to not open the door, but the Dalek uses the Doctor's emotions against him, saying, "What use are emotions, if you will not save the woman you love?"

Rose and the Dalek take an elevator up to where the Doctor and van Statten & co. are hanging out, with the Dalek all the while continuing to act strangely.

The Dalek approaches van Statten, threatening to kill him for torturing it, but Rose tells it not to do it, and it listens. She asks it what else it could want that doesn't involve killing, and the Dalek answers with "freedom." Vecna when...

Rose takes the Dalek ahead, closer to the surface. It blasts a hole in the roof, bringing in a ray of sunlight. Rose says she thought she'd never feel it again, at which point the Dalek asks what it feels like before opening its metal casing to expose the actual Dalek inside. It feels the sun on its skin and reaches out toward the light.

In this moment of vulnerability, the Doctor appears, having grabbed one of the alien-made guns that van Statten has in a feeble attempt to actually kill the Dalek. He yells at Rose to get out of the line of fire, but she refuses, even when he tries to justify it with the number of people the Dalek killed that day, or the fact that it was the Dalek race that created the downfall of the Time Lords. She urges the Doctor to pause and just look at what the Dalek is doing.

Love a good TFS word.

The Dalek asks, "Why do we survive?" and the Doctor doesn't have an answer. When the Dalek once again says that it's the last of its kind, the Doctor explains that it no longer is a Dalek. Having absorbed Rose's DNA for its regeneration, it's begun mutating into something new. Rose asks why that wouldn't be a good thing, but, as I explained earlier, it's because Daleks view themselves as superior, so if they're no longer a Dalek, then they're not worth living.

The Dalek is experiencing human thoughts and emotions, ones that it can't, nor wants, to comprehend, and it asks Rose to order it to die, saying that "This is not life. This is sickness. I shall not be like you!" With some more pushing, Rose finally relents, quietly saying, "Do it."

Guy who says he's not gonna go as in-depth before proceeding to do so anyway. But trust me, I could say a lot more about this episode, I just wanna keep this brief and explore this one concept without the plethora of off-topic potential references.

I hope you can see some of the bones of what I'm getting at in how this could potentially be applied as inspiration for ST5, but let's get into some of my thoughts.

1) Paralleling the Doctor and the Dalek

This is something I've talked about in a lot of my other DW posts so I won't rehash it too much, but it's incredibly telling to me that we, once again, get this emphasis on muddying the waters between "good guy" and "bad guy."

Through the season, we've seen the Doctor grieving his people, constantly saying he's the last Time Lord in the universe and being generally depressed about it. We're very frequently reminded of how sad he is about it, and we're meant to be sad about it, too. More often than not, it's meant as a way to show a deeper bond between him and his companion whenever he shares that information.

Then, we meet this Dalek who is also the last of its kind in the universe, and who is also suddenly made to grieve the loss of its people. From the get-go, it's framed as a sympathetic creature begging for help as it's tortured, and only once the Doctor's bias is brought to light do we get any sort of inkling of an opposing stance.

Then, almost right away, we see their roles essentially swapped. Sure, the Dalek is a formidable opponent with an innate desire to kill everything it sees and perhaps maybe should be eliminated for the sake of the greater good. However, the Dalek is weak and vulnerable, with no way to defend itself, and the Doctor does the objectively shitty thing and tries to kill it while it's cornered. The entire episode has a bad ick about it. Even if the Doctor is technically justified, you still feel bad watching him take advantage of a situation to harm a defenseless creature.

The Dalek says it itself: the Doctor would make a good Dalek, allowing his hatred to drive him to make some morally fucked up decisions. He encourages his fear and rage to guide his hand, and it's not until he has an outside perspective - specifically from someone he cares about the opinion of immensely - that he backs down. If and when we get a similar scenario with Will and someone else having to talk him down... I'm seated.

In the end, it's hard to have sympathy for the Doctor without also extending that to the Dalek.

It very much makes me think of the larger fandom's perspective on Henry in ST, and how they'll dish out heaps of sympathy and empathy for the other characters, and even encourage them to do shitty things for the sake of "revenge" or "taking what they deserve," but then turn around and look at Henry's objectively worse situation and claim that he doesn't deserve that same courtesy simply because of a slightly less appealing past.

To specifically tie it to comparing the Doctor and the Dalek, I'm looking at how we're meant to compare Henry and Will to one another. We see two sensitive boys who come from imperfect households with a desire to be loved and accepted for who they are. We see them go through hardships beyond our imaginations and, the key here, is how their situations during and thereafter are different.

We see the perspective of the Doctor first, and we feel bad for him! When he attacks the Dalek, it feels justified given the history between their races. In ST, we see the perspective of Will first, learning everything he's been through, and thus when he says "we have to kill [Vecna]," it makes sense! We've been led to believe that everything that's happened to Will has been enabled by this one guy, so of course it's justified to want to put a stop to him, and we cheer on the other characters when they come to Will's aid.

But then we get the perspective of the Dalek. We see it admit that it's in pain, that it's sad, that it yearns for freedom and an end to its torture. In ST, we learn more about Vecna, about his (alleged) past, and the trials he's been through to shape him into who he is today, and his desire to make things better. It, then, also makes sense for these characters to react the way they do, even if it's not ideal, and even if their methods and motives aren't the most morally clean.

(I'd also be remiss if I didn't at least briefly tap in on the whole "perspective" thing with what James is discussing in his upcoming big thesis post about TFS. Definitely keep an eye out for it, because it's a super interesting exploration of perspective and how that paints certain behaviors/scenes in different lights than we may have initially been led to believe.)

When I first watched ST4, I wasn't in the fandom at all. I was entirely unaware of the vitriol being slung at Vecna and Henry. I watched him do all these inexcusable things, but then... we have NINA Henry explain what (allegedly) happened and why he is where he is, and I thought... oh.

We're told that this guy had a good reason for doing everything he did. Even if everything he's done is reprehensible, I still sat there thinking "wow, he didn't deserve any of that, everything could have been avoided if he was just treated with decency."

With the Dalek, even after we see what it's done, we're meant to feel bad for it. Should it be forgiven? Perhaps not, but it was just doing the only thing it knew how to do after being put in a situation by someone else (van Statten) that allowed it to do the damage that it did, much like Brenner essentially enabling the creation of Vecna by cornering a child into the lab and forcing his hand.

All in all, it really pushes you to accept that someone who is "good" can do bad things because they think it's what should be done, and someone who is "bad" can be offered a chance to change and become better, and it doesn't even have to be detraction if they refuse that help. And, ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if Vecna is offered help, but refuses it because it's too late. Not because he's being petulant and stubborn, but because there's genuinely no point, much like with the Dalek (even if the Dalek is being more petulant and stubborn than anything).

2) Vecna and the Daleks

By no means do I want it to come off like I'm directly correlating Vecna to the Daleks. There's too many key differences, particularly in what they are, for me to do that with a straight face.

I already explained that Daleks are born and evolved to hate. That's the only emotion they feel, because anything else would give them doubt in their Primary Order. Meanwhile, Vecna very much is a person. Even if he's not fully human, there's a human core there that allows him to hesitate and feel something other than disdain for humanity (I will always and forever stare at the way he kept El alive. Sir, I know you're not that cocky. Just kill her. Unless she....... means something to you......?).

Throughout ST, everything that comes out of the UD is distinctly nonhuman. I remember very early on in ST4 thinking it was weird that they made something from the UD so close to human. So, even if we're led into the story believing that Vecna is something purely monstrous, by the end we're shown that he is, in fact, still a human and always has been a human.

It's similar, if not slightly inverted, to what happens with the Dalek in this episode: We open on this strange alien creature and learn it was the reason for the downfall of the Time Lords, but by the end, it's been infused with enough human DNA that it becomes even harder to treat it with cruelty.

And I know I said I wasn't going to get into the deeper lore of the Daleks, but I have to just mention one of the myths of their creation from the short story "We are the Daleks!" published in 1973:

So like... um... anyway... just chew on that a little bit, I guess!!

As a final note for this thought, I do also find it interesting that even their motives could be considered similar. The Daleks kill everything that isn't a Dalek. And, yes, it is because of hatred, but it's also specifically about guaranteeing their own survival and making the universe fit for them. Not too far off from that, we have Vecna wanting to reshape the world into what he wants it to be so that he can exist freely. It's not exactly one-to-one, especially given that Vecna's motives are more of a commentary on the flaws of society while the Daleks are committing a "racial cleansing" (the Doctor's words, not mine), but I'd be remiss to not at least touch on it.

3) Objective Perspective

Rose gives us a very stark show of what bias can do in this episode. She showed sympathy before she knew anything about the Dalek, and while she does become frightened and tries to flee from it, by the end of the episode she's managed to either fight against or accept her fear and continue to try and help the Dalek and show it kindness.

It reminds me a lot of what we see with D'art in ST2, to the point that Rose's experience is almost beat for beat what happens with Dustin:

Finding the demoslug and growing fond of it because he doesn't know what it is.

Becoming frightened when he learns it's a "baby demogorgon" and tries to trap it.

Learning that he can have a connection and cooperate with it even if he's still scared.

Even Will manages to fight against his fear, understanding that D'art is just in a vulnerable position and needs help more than anything.

On top of Rose's demeanor with the Dalek, we also get to study how she reacts to the Doctor as the episode progresses. By and large, she's disgusted with the way the Doctor is behaving, calling him out multiple times and begging him to see the bigger picture. He's hurt, of course, but he can't continue to resort to violence under the guise of being afraid when this Dalek is no longer the same as the Daleks he hates. She doesn't even fully understand that until the very end, and still she can see that it's changing and it's been deserving of compassion this whole time.

The Doctor and the Dalek both hate each other and hate themselves, and Rose is the only one who can cut in, generally understanding both sides of the argument, to get everyone to back down. She's viewed both the Doctor and the Dalek with a clean, unbiased lens, which allows her to take in all the information she's given without any sort of judgement clouding her decisions.

Sure, her fear does take over a few times, but it's almost exclusively when her life is in immediate danger and she never takes it out directly on the Dalek. As soon as the Dalek refuses to kill her, she can wrangle herself into at least trying to approach things calmly and objectively and attempt to talk the Dalek down rather than resorting to brute force.

It makes me wonder just how, exactly, this is going to go down for Vecna. We've been given a lot of information thus far, but everyone has a different set of pieces without a way to combine them correctly just yet, and there's so many personal stakes involved that it becomes hard to parse out what's really an objective reading.

Will has been personally affected by the UD and the MF, which also affected his immediate family and friends.

El lived in the lab for her whole life and knew Henry personally, and potentially was the catalyst for finally creating Vecna.

Brenner has a desire to make himself look good as he works for his own selfish gains, and puts others in harm's way to get there.

Multiple people have had their lives directly altered by something Vecna did.

Vecna himself has a mess of wrongs against him that he's desperate to "fix."

etc. etc...

It's really just a whole big mess, and it's going to take a lot of work for someone to break out of the personal feelings involved in order to get everyone on all sides to step back and do some self-reflecting.

It's interesting to me that "Dalek" is not only a lesson in sympathy for others, but a lesson in sympathy for oneself. It's a large part of the Doctor's arc in this first season, and sympathy in general has been a huge part of ST throughout the whole show (which I know I've talked about endlessly irt these comparisons to DW), and it's a sentiment becoming increasingly pushed on our "villain" characters.

Like how the Doctor is "brought down" to the Dalek's level of cruelty and the Dalek is "brought up" to the Doctor's level of deserving sympathy, our "villain" characters in ST are being brought up to the protagonists' level of deserving sympathy, and our protagonists...? Well, we've already been blessed with loads of imperfect "good" characters in this show thus far, so I will not be surprised when that gets taken to the extreme.

It's already in line with El's monster vs superhero internal debate: a good character can do something morally reprehensible, with or without "proper" motive, and they will still be deserving of compassion.

In conclusion, while obviously I don't think it'll be a one-to-one, I do think that this DW episode offers an interesting route for Vecna's arc to take, specifically in regard to his demise. While a character such as Henry or Edward, who were dragged into this situation against their will, might be deserving of forgiveness/clearing their names and may still be able to be "saved," in whatever form that may be, someone like Vecna might simply be too far gone. There's no going back at this point, and it just has to be accepted.

I was talking to James about this, and I agree when he said it wouldn't be surprising if Vecna was offered help, he earnestly thanked them for it, but then had to refuse it anyway. I wouldn't be shocked if El wants to help him so badly but ultimately has to accept that sometimes things can't be undone, and they simply have to run their course, even if it has an unsatisfactory outcome. Especially if that outcome was one that could have been avoided had they gotten to the problem sooner. That is the tragedy.

The Dalek is a bit more complicated than that, obviously, given what it is as a species and its refusal for help being because it sees no point in existing now that it's "contaminated," but I think you can pick up what I'm putting down. The Dalek could have accepted the help and could have striven to change like Rose thought it could, but it simply wasn't in the cards and would have caused more pain than not.

The Daleks come up again in future episodes, which I might talk about someday, but I felt like this one was a good exploration of what you can do with an established villain and flip the narrative until they're almost entirely sympathetic while our "good guy" seems ridiculous for behaving the way he does. It is not a stretch to apply that sentiment to ST, especially because we have even more of a foundation for compassion toward our "villains" in that show than the Dalek got in this episode.

I could talk a lot more about this episode, too. There's so many trains of thought that this inspired, but, again, I want to just talk about this topic for now, so all the weird "why is this so ST" bits can stay in the vault (or you can go watch the episode yourself, which I highly recommend! It's a good one).

Overall, just knowing that DW was some level of inspiration for ST makes me excited to see what the Duffers took from that classic series and how they'll use it to inform their own final season, and specifically how they'll further the "no one is special/better/worse" message they have going on. We'll see!

[sepublic]

I've noticed that among the original Space Pirate trio, Kraid is the only one who's been completely left out when it comes to characterization, relevance, and impact on Samus' backstory. Mother Brain's role is obvious, she's the leader; Ridley's evolved, it seems, from his role in capturing the Infant Metroid and kicking off the game's events; The game needed one of the bosses to successfully escape, which also meant being defeated afterwards.

Between Ridley and Phantoon as the only mobile ones, Ridley is brought back to show how the series has begun to evolve, and these recurring appearances and importance make him a speaking character in the Super Metroid comic... Cue him returning in Fusion and being shown in flashbacks attacking Samus' family, and with Mother Brain retconned as a Chozo supercomputer who betrayed them to the Space Pirates, Ridley naturally filled in the spot of their previous leader.

Kraid? Alas, poor Kraid! He was also meant to be in Prime alongside Ridley, since it was essentially meant to be a 3D Super, but his fight was too difficult to program in their time crunch! So Retro resorted to a giant version of the Elite Pirates they'd already programmed, called the Omega Pirate, and had him replace Kraid in the Phazon Mines.

Anyhow, it makes me consider a Metroid show or fanon or whichever in which Kraid is given actual relevance just shy of Ridley and Mother Brain themselves, and is part of that trio. And my point on how even Other M discusses Ridley and Mother's relevance to Samus' psychology, even if this idea is executed in a very flawed manner, makes me also realize: Kraid has no personal relevance to Samus either.

Now, all of this does lend well to Dread's portrayal of Kraid as someone who was never as important or meaningful to Samus as those other jerks, which leads to her hilarious, badass irreverence towards Kraid. But I do have to consider a story in which Kraid IS made relevant, and the difference between him and Mother is that he wasn't as much of a horrific, longstanding trauma, and is someone Samus gets to see chained and shackled; Plus, Kraid isn't as much of a fight.

So how do Ridley and Mother Brain play into Samus' backstory? I realize they basically kill off two separate families of her, mark the end of two different lives in two different homes; Ridley kills Samus' human family, he ravages K-2L. This leads her to Zebes... Only for Mother Brain to betray the Chozo to the Space Pirates, causing Gray Voice's death and for the remaining Chozo to flee the galaxy. Zebes is no longer a home for Samus to return to, and eventually it's destroyed because of Mother.

So what 'third' family, backstory, home does Samus have? The Federation. She had her time in the Federation, she had the Malkovich brothers and Anthony. Samus eventually left that home too, in order to become the bounty hunter we all know and love today.

We even have someone in the Federation who dies; Ian Malkovich. His death is introduced in Other M, which is admittedly about Samus' relationship with the Federation when you think about it. And since Kraid is a member of High Command, it might make a lot of sense to make him responsible for the Lusitania incident.

Granted, this isn't as huge or traumatic a thing as losing her parents or the Chozo she was raised by being gone forever; So that could also match with Kraid not being as much of a specter in Samus' life. He could be more of a casual Space Pirate arch-nemesis to Samus, in-between Ridley and Mother Brain; With those two, their moments have to matter, they need to have weight, etc. But with Kraid, it's way less tense, which in some ways leads to more creative freedom, and of course culminates in the Dread fight.

Of course, there is one criticism I've considered; That having Kraid be part of Samus' backstory and growth as a character, influencing the incident that made her finally leave the Federation, could be... ludicrous? That all three Space Pirate commanders are involved with Samus in some way. Granted, Kraid is a Space Pirate commander; Samus inevitably comes to fight him anyway, and her time in the Federation was part of that revenge against the pirates. And making Kraid less directly involved with Ian's death, but still a component, could make the whole thing just understated enough... Idk.

In the case of Kraid, Samus kind of WAS asking to fight him and risk losses of some kind, and I don't mean that in a victim-blaming kind of way, but in a "We're avoiding a third coincidence of having this enemy just happen to cross paths/be involved with Samus, by having Samus be the one to take initiative to find this guy" kind of way. It represents her growing into the hunter who fights back, which then culminates in her finally becoming independent from the Federation after being dissatisfied by its handling of the nevertheless successful Lusitania mission.

Samus’ conflict with Kraid begins with her conflict with administrative handling of situations, and this could be reflected in Kraid’s antagonistic role as a commander who acts through others and even decoys to direct troops against Samus; Seeing Kraid sacrifice his own soldiers cements her hatred of him. He’s the most extreme example she learned from that informs Samus’ distaste for working within larger systems; Adam not getting everything right was also a minor part of it. But Kraid illustrated just how bad this could get.

So it matches with Kraid being less of a directly personal deal to her, compared to Mother Brain who has less appearances and didn't spark PTSD, and Ridley who caused everything afterwards and did lead to a suicidal panic attack. Plus, it kind of goes with Kraid being a starter boss in Zero Mission; He’s not this big emotional hurdle, just a physical one so it’s a good place to start off and show Samus’ growth throughout her first big adventure.

I’ve had this concept for a hypothetical show to give us the backstory, but then a few episodes of Samus fighting Space Pirates and building up her fame before the Zero Mission begins. And part of this is Samus trying to track down Kraid and defeat him, only to then find out the twist of his smaller doppelgänger. Because if Zero Mission no longer leaves room for that, the only place left is to put that before the Zero Mission itself!

And with Kraid as someone Samus fails to defeat after discovering how huge he is, it makes him a Goliath to her David to come back to and surpass, on a more casual first boss level. So next time, Samus is prepared and has actual upgrades with her, which allows her to have the big first moment when she downs a major Space Pirate for the first time; That makes her feel more prepared to then take on Ridley in Norfair. She succeeds, Samus is feeling better, Gandrayda gives her a thumbs up, and then she defeats Mother Brain…

Only for the Zero Suit segment to ask the question: Did Samus only get this far because of her upgrades? Or is there more to her and her growth than that? And this is confirmed when she passes the Ruins Test, and deemed just as worthy of the Power Suit as she’s ever been. Maybe anyone else could wear it like Samus does, but Chozo tech would not be enough to accomplish her feats; That is owed more to Samus’ strength of heart and ingenuity as a warrior.

[laylajeffany]

Not an ask, but, I'm currently about 2/3 of the way through Chaos for the Fly, and it is truly one of the greatest things I've ever read. It has made me laugh, cry, and every emotion in between. I have spent the whole time learning alongside Wednesday to love and care for myself. You've expressed out loud feelings of my autism and anxiety that I never could before, I've never read panic attacks more accurately written, and simultaneously you've taught me how to begin coping with them. The way you so vividly separate the voices of different characters, the way you describe every emotion so perfectly that leaves me feeling like I'm right there in the moment. The depth that you add to all the canon characters without taking away from their original personalities, the way all of your OC's fit so perfectly into the story, every single one of them mattering, not a single line, character or scene is unnecessary. I long for family like Josie and Emi, but in a way, just reading about them makes me feel they're talking to and teaching ME. Somehow on top of all that you wrote one of the most beautiful and realistic slow burn romances, It never feels rushed, no intimate touch or comment feels out of place, and yet you're constantly hoping for more. Then, once they are finally together they continue to have a beautiful and ever evolving dynamic, which is where a lot of other authors fall short in my eyes. The way you show Wednesday's comfort level with every character not just Enid, combines with her autism and uniquely affects each individual dynamic shows such and intimate level of understanding, it's so incredibly impressive. I think you may have ruined season 2 for me when it does eventually come out, simply because even with Jenna Ortega as a producer, it could never be as good as what you've written. and so I thank you. Thank you for writing this beautiful, spiritual, mental, and emotional journey. I hope for nothing more than that you keep continuing this story beyond chaos for the fly because I don't think I'll ever be ready for your writing to be over.

Thank you so much for this!! Slow-burn on a realistic timeline, organic character development and a meaningful portrayal of emotional struggle in a hyper-fantastic setting are my passion. I’m glad it’s resonated with you! Writing OCs is always a gamble but people really seemed to resonate Josie and Emiliana for certain (as well as others but I hear about them the most). I’ve ruined S2 for myself, truthfully and if Gwendoline Christie really isn’t in it, I’m not sure if T. Martel and I will even be watching lmfao. (This entire fic started in a parking lot at the mall when she was lamenting about needing Larissa Weems to live and I mumbled, “I guess I could write something.” HAHAHAHAHAHA.)

The good news is that I’m still playing around in this universe, I’m almost 50k into chapter one of the sequel and I think that it might actually end up being longer than I anticipated originally (just like the other fic I’m working on goddamn it I did try to make new year’s resolutions about this but it seems like I’m breaking them). I don’t think anyone is going to be mad about it! 

Thanks for reading and for letting me know how it’s impacted you! Happy to have helped in some small way. 

[honourablejester]

Okay, normally this wouldn’t be something I’d go near at all, but I saw some things fly past my dash on the new James Somerton youtube controversy, and I vaguely remembered watching one of the guy’s videos a while back (I can’t actually remember which one, I just remember he was talking about growing up in a poor town where people were paid under the table as a regular fact of life? I can’t remember the topic, which maybe says something about the dude’s presentation style). So I got curious and watched first hbomberguy’s plagiarism video and then Todd in the Shadow’s misinformation video on the guy. The basic takeaway of which appears to be that 90% of his output is stolen, and the parts that aren’t are often wildly incorrect instead. Anyway. I realise this is a weird thing to get hung up on given the much more serious issues of, you know, plagiarism and theft and misogyny and frankly astonishing opinions on queer history, but …

There’s a section in Todd’s video (around 1.25.00) about Somerton’s interpretations of various vampire media from his video on ‘Vampires and the Gays that love them’, and I got to ‘Gary Oldman was the first fuckable Dracula’, and … what?

It’s around 38.10 in Somerton’s video, and the full quote is as follows:

“Again, the significant element here is how readily Coppola depicts a vampire who fucks, whereas Dracula is more prominently depicted as a reclusive humanoid monster. From Nosferatu, Plan Nine from Outer Space, Salem’s Lot, the Last Voyage of the Demeter, this figure has almost exclusively been painted white, and shown with clownishly monstrous features. But Coppola creates a monster for whom the audience looks at and completely understands what Mina is so horny about.”

I’m going to leave out everything else he says about Coppola’s Dracula, because … wow, there’s a lot of interesting opinions in there, but …

Christopher Lee. And Bela fucking Lugosi.

The man cannot be unaware of the two single most famous depictions of Dracula ever put on film, right? Dracula has been ‘more prominently depicted’ as the Nosferatu-inspired Count Orlok type monstrosities, and Coppola’s is the first ‘sexy Dracula’ on film? Like. What?

As Todd says, anyone even passingly aware of Dracula films is gonna go … Hammer? Universal? Bela Lugosi. The single portrayal that has been shaping Dracula’s iconography for nearly a literal century? THE film Dracula? The one literally everyone is going to think of?

Like. It’s such a weird choice. If he was going to say something about what you could get away with onscreen now vs in the 60s or 30s, or about the evolving tension between the sexier Draculas vs the more monstrous, which Chris Lee’s Dracula was an element of, a more visceral, animalistic portrayal vs Lugosi’s suave charm, arriving to what Coppola’s could actually explicitly put on the screen, but … This is framed like Universal and Hammer just didn’t exist. At all. It cherry-picks such a weird selection of examples of the Nosferatu style portrayals (and not even of Dracula, just vampires in general), and just flat never mentions the two single most famous Dracula film franchises ever made.

I’m curious what the comment section for this video was like. It’s been locked down now because of the controversy, so I can’t tell, but I’m assuming … I mean, that can’t have flown, right? As Todd says, literally anyone could have picked up on that one.

It’s just such a strange thing to choose to say. There maybe is a fair bit to say about ideas of sexiness in film across different decades, or if he meant that Coppola’s Dracula was the first to literally fuck on screen because of what could be shown in different eras, or even which Dracula he personally found most sexy, but …

Why would you choose to say, with a straight face, that Dracula has most prominently been depicted Nosferatu-style when literally anyone with the remotest knowledge of Dracula is going to point directly at Bela Lugosi and his ninety years worth of imitations and rejections and parodies and rebuttals? Nosferatu is a silent era classic and a periodic cult revival for vampire depictions, but THE movie vampire in popular consciousness is still Lugosi’s suave, sinister European nobleman in classy eveningwear. Any random Joe Soap off the street is gonna know that. Saying the Nosferatu depiction is the most prominent is just flat not true and everyone knows it.

Sorry. Again, I know this is a weird thing to get hung up on, but it’s such a weird choice. I get selective cherry picking of evidence to make your chosen point, but you can’t just ignore the one depiction that literally everyone knows and expect them to just nod along. Right?

Anyway. Weirdness aside. Carry on.

[eresia-catara]

Let's say we get a proper movie or series about Dante, like a thoroughly researched and well-written adaptation of his life by people who actually give a fuck. How would you want them to portray his relationship with Guido? Beatrice? How would you like them to portray Dante as a whole? I feel like a lot of adaptations fail to make him human-like, with flaws and strengths.

Oh interesting question...

The main problem with movies about Dante is that it seems the writers and directors sort of get a 'performance anxiety', in the sense that they so desperately want to go over the top and shock and amaze everyone that they end up with total disasters; and this is partly because Dante is the most important intellectual we have in italian literature so it would be tragic to let down the public (and yet it's what they do) and partly because it's just modern culture to want to produce extravagant movies.

My opinion is that we need to briefly take a step back from all these dreams of grandeur and look at things inside their context once more, because it seems people don't really know where Dante's greatness lies, they just know that he was great. At the same time, everybody knows Dante was human, he was an ordinary man with his flaws and virtues, but does that mean we have to show the public that Dante had sex and ate and whatnot? No, because that's a lowly interpretation of humanity, that's actually portraying a generic living animal (cough cough looking ad Dante 2022). Then do we have to show a hallucinating outcasted genius who's above everybody else? No because that's a kind of mystification that actually ends up belittling his greatness. The fact is that Dante was great exactly because he achieved what he did as a human. He struggled a lot, he had his contradictions and moments of weakness and yet what he ended up gifting to posterity is a message of unconditional love and a new look of wonder onto the world. If there is something that needs to be central in a portrayal of Dante then it has to be his love for humanity. Not Beatrice (as in an actual woman), not a crazy love delirium for Jesus. It is through catholicism that Dante manages to accept all the bitter events of his life and thus find beauty in life in itself. I think this is the fundamental thing one has to keep in mind.

So Dante has to be shown — like in any biographical movie — in his different moments of joy and struggle. You can't just skip his youth years in Florence during which he meets some of the (if not the) most important people of his life (Beatrice and Guido), but you can't even skip his travels across Italy during his exile, because it is then that he actually faces life and the difficulties through which his very capacity to love changes and evolves. We need to show Dante as an evolving, dynamic character whose thoughts and opinions change through time, not a static genius who had One thought and pursued it for all his life from start to finish. Is it complex to portray? Yes. But can you make a 2-3h movie? Yes, if you do it well (looking at Dante 2022 once more).

In relation to these considerations, I think the interpretation of Beatrice and Guido also needs to radically shift from what we're used to.

The way I see it is that Beatrice Portinari may have interested Dante in his youth, but after her death, when Dante started to elaborate new ideas and thoughts he chose her as the right figure to embody them, not because his was a desperate love for this woman but it was for his ideals and as a good little medieval man he needed to materialize it through allegories. So Dante's relationship to Beatrice was mainly intellectual, she was the vessel of his creativity and should be represented as such. No salivating after her, no hallucinating about her during sex (do I still need to mention Dante 2022?) because it wouldn't make sense. The thing is that he idealized her because he never knew her that well as a person (because of the customs Dante rarely saw her, speaking to her was even more difficult), and this should be reflected in the movie. You cannot, in fact, intellectualize and abstract a relationship this much if you truly know someone. So the abstraction of Beatrice needs to become the embodyment of the voice of his conscience, of his perfectionism.

With Guido it's more complicated simply because unlike Beatrice he was actually present in Dante's life, he was his actual friend, so he has played both the role of human and of Idea; as such, we cannot think of a black or white relationship like we did with Beatrice. I think that first of all we need to understand their friendship. Dante saw a great man in Guido because the two shared a lot of qualities and passions. They were both poets, inclined to pensiveness and speculation but most importantly both were free thinkers: neither could ever be satisfied by common sense or common ideas, both always looked to find truth by themselves regardless of any convention. This, I think, was the core of such a tight bond. I think the two could truly share all thoughts with each other and such cases can truly create a dynamic that can border on what today we percieve as a romantic bond. It is therefore understandable how disagreements could then be felt more intensely compared to those with other more casual friendships. So Words are the key to their relationship. Guido shapes Dante as an intellectual, we can't marginalize him to the typical two shots of their first correspondence and of his exile. Everything that happened in between is what truly matters. I believe that through Guido Dante saw Man at the apex of his glory and misery because Guido was also heretic and, I believe, self-destructive. So he was an exemplum of both the good and bad. We need to show this. If I were to make a movie I would treat the story of Guido as a tragedy within a biography whose finale gets dragged beyond his death up until the end of the movie, because after all that's what Dante did. So we need to see the human and the ideal mixing.

[wyverewings]

Knucker (Lindworm felpalus)

Habitat: swamps, lakes

Size: 10 feet long

Coloration: dull green, brown

Diet: rabbits, waterfowl, fish, carrion

Magical Abilities: toxic breath, acceleration of plant growth, toxin removal

So Smaugust is here, and I do not have the energy to draw for the entire month. I still want to participate in it, and I thought of the perfect plan for it!

So I haven’t really discussed it much here, but I’ve been planning out a fantasy setting and story in my head. I’m calling the planned story “Misadventures In Monstrology”.

Ever since I was a kid, I’ve been deeply enamored with zoology, so I feel the fantasy story I am going to tell should have zoology as its heart, like how language is the heart of Middle Earth. It’s somewhat disheartening how uncommon fantasy biology is as a trope. So someone has to step in, and I’m gonna be that someone!

Some major inspirations for this setting are the Dragonology and Monstrology books, the Flight of Dragons movie, @tyrantisterror’s Midgaheim Bestiary, and @draconesmundi. (I think you’d both like to see this!)

So in this universe, monsters such as dragons exist due to magic. While magic doesn’t allow for too much craziness (there won’t be much fairytale logic), it does allow monsters to gain mutations that would be strange or impossible otherwise, and also allows them to locally control the elements.

Dragons are squamates (having evolved from monitor lizards), but that doesn’t mean there won’t be any hybrids. Chimeras also exist in this universe, basically through a fantasy version of horizontal gene transfer, which is a real thing with some rotifers! I am planning to make them kinda rare, because I mainly want to do it with creatures that make the most sense (and are more interesting to me) as chimeras, like griffins, pegasi, and some dragons I’ll end up drawing eventually…

Also, I felt I should talk about this dragon. A knucker in English folklore is a sort of water dragon, but unlike sea serpents, they dwell in freshwater “knuckerholes” rather than the ocean. They’ve got a lot in common with wyrms like the Lambton Worm and Hydra in folklore, with how they’re aquatic serpents. So they’re more like lindworms in appearance, rather than the more common modern portrayal of them having four legs.

Design wise, they’re very much based on crocodilians with their heads and back spikes, since they are swamp dwelling reptiles. They’ve also got some amphisbaenian in them, which is kinda inevitable considering their body plan. Also, they’ve got barbels like a fish to kinda add to the swamp creature aesthetic. Poison breath seemed like a given, the magic over plants is due to them probably living in more lush areas, and I like the idea of their body kinda absorbing the toxins they breathe out, keeping their environment healthy.

If you wanna keep up with these posts, click my #field guide to dragons tag which will update throughout the month! Or follow me, if you'd like.

Next ->

[russadler]

A Little Death - A Note From The Author

For those on this website back when Cold War came out in 2020, you may have read a fic I wrote around that time titled ‘A Little Death’. It was pretty successful (at least by my standards as a first time author) and likely may even be the reason many of you are following me in the first place.

In 2021 I made the extremely difficult decision to delete it, with the intention of re-writing it as I had to come to the conclusion that the portrayal of the Adler/Bell relationship in this particular story was problematic for reasons I will expand on below the cut (for those curious)

I’ve had many people in the years since message me to ask what happened, and if I planned on re-writing it as I announced my intentions to. I’m incredibly touched that people have held my writing in such high regard, even after all these years ❤️

With Black Ops 6 coming in a few months, the topic has come to the forefront of my mind (and the minds of others) again. After an extremely difficult (and long) period of consideration, I am officially confirming that I will not be rewriting ‘A Little Death’ and consider it permanently shelved.

This is probably a surprise to absolutely no one since I’ve not really mentioned it since, but I have had several people still interested in what was going on. I still want to give thanks to everyone who has supported my writing, I’ve been wanting to start once again but felt like I couldn’t with the weight of this fic on my shoulders. I think finally closing this chapter will allow me to move on and evolve as a writer.

Please read the TW before continuing as I will be touching on some sensitive subjects in regards to Adler/Bell’s relationship dynamics. This is kind of long but honestly it’s a complicated subject, but I didn’t want to move forward without addressing some of the issues in detail.

TW: discussions of consent, sexual assault, manipulation, abuse

Why did I delete it in the first place?

‘A Little Death’ started off as a three part smut fic that grew into something more in part due to the positive reception I had received, but it was also my first ever piece of writing. It lit something in me, and it was no longer about just being “horny for Adler” and it involved into a bit of a character study.

I actually made a post years ago touching on this, but the jist of why I deleted the story was that someone who was close to me at the time I was quite deep into writing it pointed out that a brainwashed Bell, in an altered mental state, could not actually give consent to any sort of sexual relationship with Adler (who also facilitated their torture) I know this might seem to be fairly obvious to many, but honestly at the time I hadn’t even thought of it that way. I felt incredibly stupid someone had to tell me for me to even realize.

Now, I don’t intend this post to be one about total condemnation of the Adler/Bell ship. I mean we are talking about a game that revolves around some very dark subject matter like torture, murder, brainwashing etc. A lot of people have OC! Bells that they ship with Adler, and I still read fic of the ship and have my own OC. The ship is problematic for obvious reasons, but I began to realize that as an author I had a duty to portray dark subject matter with a certain level of responsibility, respect and with appropriate content warnings.

I was doing none of those things. I was writing a fic that portrayed a brainwashed Bell in a sexual relationship with Adler that begins to evolve into this emotional “affair” I had written something like 10 chapters, but I couldn’t continue with the knowledge that I had essentially been marketing sexual assault as smut without even really realizing the implication. I mean it wasn’t all smut, it did taper off into an actual story, but the damage had been done.

Wouldn’t that mean all Adler/Bell fic is problematic then?

I mean yes is probably the right answer, but my own feelings about the relationship in summary, is that a ‘romantic’ relationship with Bell utilized as a manipulation tactic by Adler would not be out of character for him, I mean it literally does happen in the game in a more platonic form. Dark? yes, very much so, but not totally out of the realm of the game’s themes.

Even then, we have to keep in mind that if we are going to write stories that have darker themes that could also contain potentially triggering subject matter, we have to approach these topics with respect and responsibility. Writing a scene or relationship that portrays sexual assault as romantic or sexy is not okay. (which was basically what I was doing, which was very bad) Appropriate content/trigger warnings should be used as well.

I think the Bell/Adler gold standard is fic where Bell and Adler meet each other long after the events of the game. Still a pair of messed of people with a messed up dynamic 100%, but Bell is no longer brainwashed and has developed into their own person who can make their own informed decisions. (My all time favourite fic is a Bell/Adler fic that follows this sort of plotline)

I wanted to try and salvage ‘A Little Death’ by re-writing it, but I just…couldn’t. I would have to re-write from the ground up, and honestly the central conflict was Adler “falling in love” and the guilt that subsequently followed because he knew the situation was fucked up and that he was in it for his own selfish reasons.

I have considered re-publishing in mostly the same form but with the sexual content removed and more as a dark fic focused on the messed up relationship Adler pursues with Bell because he wants ‘results’ that bad, but I wasn’t sure if that was any better???

Anyways, that’s why I deleted that fic in particular and not any other. It was deeply problematic and for that I apologize.

If there’s any other questions, please feel free to inbox or DM me.

Thanks ❤️

[twistedtummies2]

Top 15 Portrayals of Mina Harker

As I said in my past list, the famous Van Helsing is actually NOT the main character of Bram Stoker’s “Dracula.” He’s the leader of the team, sure, but he’s more along the lines of Merlin in Arthurian lore, rather than the main protagonist proper. It’s hard to say who the main protagonist of Dracula is, really, since the structure of the book makes it rather ensemble in nature…but if I had to cast a vote, I’d probably say that Mina Harker (nee Murray) is the best option for that role.

I say this because, in the same breath, I would also say that Mina is one of the most maligned characters in all of literature, and certainly in the long history of Dracula. And not just in adaptations, either: even the novel ITSELF shortchanges Mina by the end of the book. In the novel, Mina is intended to be Stoker’s idealization of the “New Woman,” a concept prevalent in Victorian times: a feminist icon who is still good at heart, and still able to have feminine leanings, but is also just as competent, willful, intelligent, and interesting as any of the male characters in the book, if not more so. She’s one of the most proactive characters in the novel, as she and Van Helsing are really the ones who lead the charge against Dracula. She’s even the one who helps lead the other characters to the vampire in the climactic final chapters…yet despite this, she plays almost no role in the final battle against the Count. Neither does Van Helsing, for that matter. They just…kind of watch the other characters take care of things. 

On top of that - and this is something critics have pointed out many times since the novel’s publication - this “strong working woman’s” oh-so-glamorous job is…being a secretary. And Stoker’s cast tries to build that up as if it’s something to be REALLY freaking proud of, as if Mina is the world’s coolest gal because she’s so good at this particular job. There’s nothing wrong with that profession at all, of course…but I think most can agree that’s not really the kind of work that those in favor of the “New Woman” ideal had in mind, then or since.

These flaws are fairly minor in the grand scheme of the novel, I would argue…but one could see them as portents of the mistreatment Mina has suffered in adaptations and reimaginings since. Many versions of Mina depict her as little more than a damsel in distress; a much weaker character who ultimately is only there to be saved by the rest of the cast. Others take the liberty of crafting a romantic subplot between herself and Dracula; sometimes this angle CAN be interesting, if it’s handled a certain way, but I often feel it’s a total misunderstanding of the intent behind her character. Plus, it makes things difficult, since Mina IS a married woman (or at least engaged, depending on the version you look at), and I think most of us can agree that creates some questionable subtexts. Even her NAME is subject to mismanagement: in some adaptations, Mina is referred to as “Lucy,” while the Lucy character is swapped to “Mina,” which only confuses things more. With all that said, there’s no better way to look at how Mina has evolved over the years than for me to present the versions of her I like most from all the Dracula-related stuff I’ve gathered. (pauses) Well, actually, there probably ARE better ways, but this is my technique. So, having rambled all your ears off by now, let’s waste no more time: here are My Top 15 Portrayals of Mina Harker!

15. Agnes Moorehead, from the Mercury Theater Radio Version.

Moorehead, of course, is a fantastic actress, and her performance, on its own accord, is pretty good. However, the Mercury Theater’s treatment of the novel’s plot - which had to be highly truncated for time - means that the character doesn’t even appear till I think about halfway through the entire production. As a result, a lot of what makes Mina so interesting isn’t really present in the radio show. Still, hearing future Endora as Mina makes for some interesting listening, if nothing else.

14. Kate Shindle, from Dracula: The Musical (2011 Studio Cast Recording).

Frank Wildhorn’s musical version of Dracula has a LOT of problems, not the least of which being the way it treats Mina’s character. This is one of several versions that tries to create a romance between Dracula and Mina, and in my opinion the execution of this concept here is…well…not the greatest. Tie this to some of the musical’s other flaws (there are several), and you can see why she ranks low. However, I will give credit to Kate Shindle - an actress I admire greatly, who has worked on several Wildhorn projects - for her work in the role on the 2011 Studio Cast Recording, who probably made this role work about as good as anybody reasonably could manage.

13. Melissa Stribling, from the Hammer Horror Films.

Hammer’s first Dracula film, “Horror of Dracula” (as it’s known in the states), is quite possibly my favorite Dracula movie of all time. (“Favorite.” Not “best.” I will always contend that there is a difference.) With this in mind, I’ve always felt mixed feelings about Mina’s treatment in the movie. Actress Melissa Stribling does a very good job, and I will say this is one of the first versions of Mina I think of when I think of the character’s name. HOWEVER, her ultimate role is essentially just being “the housewife,” so to speak: she isn’t nearly as proactive as in the novel, and while she does START to turn thanks to Dracula in the film, we never get far enough to see the full contrast between her true self and her half-vampiric change, which I’ve always felt to be one of the most interesting parts of her story arc. Also, it’s worth pointing out that the Hammer version (for reasons no one can explain whatsoever) swaps characters around: everyone has their names right, but for some reason Mina is depicted as Arthur Holmwood’s wife, while Jonathan Harker is instead engaged to Lucy. One of many times where characters are fiddled around with for no apparent reason, as you’ll see.

12. Maria Rohm, from the 1970 Jess Franco Film.

Rohm’s Mina is one of the stronger versions on this list, as she is counsel to just about everything the men do in the story, tries to save Lucy from Dracula, and even interrogates Renfield at one point, nearly getting killed in the process. However, much like in the novel, she’s ultimately shortchanged by having basically nothing to do with the Count’s final defeat, and I personally felt still more could have been done with the character than the film ultimately tried. It’s hard to explain, but I just don’t feel I can, in proper conscience, place her higher.

11. CindyMarie Small, from Dracula: Pages From a Virgin’s Diary.

As I said on my previous list, in this surrealist dance-based motion picture, all of the male characters from the story are depicted as…well…creeps and jerks, to put things in the kindest possible words. As a result, the two primary female characters - Lucy and Mina - take center stage as the true heroines of the story. In Mina’s case, she proves to be the stronger lady, as - after being kidnapped by Dracula and whisked back to his Castle - she is able to resist the vampire’s temptation and actually helps the men take down Dracula. In fact, one could argue it’s really Mina who is responsible for the Count’s defeat; she doesn’t drive the stake through his heart, but the men could not have done it without her help. Ironically (and intentionally so), the men take all the credit despite this, and still treat Mina like a child or a trophy in the end. Ah, the patriarchy of Victoriana…what foolery…

10. Helen Chandler, from the 1931 Film.

Chandler’s Mina is arguably one of the weakest versions of the character on the list, so it’s probably surprising for many to see her so high up. Well, the fact of the matter is that I really like the classic Universal version of Dracula (despite the fact several elements of it have admittedly not aged very well), and - much like Stribling - Chandler is one of the first versions of Mina I think about when I utter the character’s name. In the Universal film, Chandler’s Mina is very much depicted as a damsel in distress; ironically, it’s LUCY who is depicted as more of a “modern woman,” despite smaller screentime. (More on that another occasion.) Instead, Chandler is more of the typical society lady: repressed, glamorous, and idealistic. Dracula’s corruption of Mina, turning her into a vampire and causing her to become attracted to him (in here not so much a love story so much as just another way of him controlling her), is symbolic of the vampire’s influence corrupting her innocence and the order of society as a whole. While this is totally NOT what Stoker’s idea for the relationship was (this is actually more what he tried to do with Lucy than with Mina), I do like Chandler’s performance. She goes through various stages, from a prim and proper young lady to someone more playful and sensual…and finally seeing her go into vampire mode, where she behaves more like an animal than a human being with a deeply unsettling, predatory slowness that really plays into the idea of the undead. Not accurate at all, but very unique.

9. Lupita Tovar, from “Spanish Dracula.”

For those who don’t know, the “Spanish Dracula” is the colloquial reference to the Spanish-language version of the classic Universal film from 1931. Due to the technical and budgetary standards of the time, whenever a movie like this was going to be released to other countries, instead of doing dubbing or subtitles, studios would basically just make the film all over again, using the same sets and often a lot of the same costumes, but now with a different cast and crew all speaking that language. Tovar’s Mina - or “Eva,” as she’s called in the Spanish version - is honestly more interesting than Chandler’s. Tovar’s Mina is more vivacious, youthful, and has a sort of fiery quality to her performance, which becomes downright manic and feral when she goes into vampire mode, making for a more memorable character, in my opinion. It’s the same basic character, but much less “stiff.”

8. Minnie Mouse, from Disney’s Dracula, Starring Mickey Mouse.

Here’s a shocker for you: this might be one of the most book-accurate Minas, in some ways, on this entire list. No joke. One of the things I love about the graphic novel version of “Dracula Starring Mickey Mouse” is that the people who made it clearly loved the original book and gave it a VERY thorough read. A lot of the humor and intrigue in the comic comes from stuff that you will only get if you actually read the original book. Case in point: Minnie makes for a PERFECT Mina Harker, as, like Mina, Minnie - by typical default - is able to be romantic and sweet, but is also perfectly capable of standing up for herself and won’t hesitate to give somebody a piece of her mind if she needs to. She has the same role in the storybook version, which is only appropriate.

7. Greta Schroder, from Nosferatu.

It’s weird that the Mina character from the very first true Dracula film (not counting the lost film “Dracula’s Death,” which is a whole other can of worms) is still one of the best, in my opinion. In the 1922 German Expressionist classic, the Mina character is “Ellen Hutter,” the wife of Thomas Hutter, the Jonathan character. She is once again the main character; a woman pure of heart (film’s words, not mine), who is tormented throughout the film by the vampire’s powers. Yet she struggles on, determined to find a way to destroy the vampire herself, ignoring her husband’s fears. Eventually, she finds out the only way to defeat Orlok (Dracula) is to sacrifice herself, and does so to save her hometown. Admittedly, she’s also shown fainting about…five times throughout the picture, but to be fair, if I had to deal with a vampire like Orlok, I’d have trouble staying conscious, too.

6. Ellie Beaven, from the 2006 BBC Radio Version.

Honestly, not sure what to say about Beaven’s work in the BBC Radio version. (Obviously, no, she is not in costume for Mina in this image, but she certainly looks like she’d fit the bill there.) I just think she does a really good job, plain and simple. Also, this is one of two versions I’m aware of where Mina and Lucy are depicted as being sisters, instead of just being best friends. Doesn’t really impact the story, but the other one was also made by the BBC. You may now insert the “If I had a nickel” meme here, if you care to.

5. Winona Ryder, from the 1992 Film.

I really struggled with where to place Winona Ryder’s Mina in the ranks here. Some people will probably think she’s much, MUCH too high up, while others will think that, despite making the Top 5, she’s too far down. I actually used a method a friend suggested: looking at the highest placement I could put Ryder’s Mina at for me, and the lowest I felt was earned, and finding the median between them. That median just so happened to be either 5th or 6th place, and between Ryder and Beaven, I do think I prefer the former SLIGHTLY (though, once more, I'm not sure why), so fifth place it was. Ryder’s Mina tries to combine the strong, independent, capable, charming lady from the book with a raw, sexual edge and a romantic daliance with Dracula, and…in my opinion, the result is something of a mixed bag. As popular as this film is, and the way Mina and Dracula’s romance is depicted, I actually feel the writing is clumsy on Mina’s part, in terms of her motivations and the way her relationships with other characters are depicted. HOWEVER, I think that Winona Ryder gives one of her absolute best performances in this movie, and her work as Mina is probably the first performance of hers I think of when I think of the actress. She manages to maneuver skillfully through the clutter and creates an interesting character to watch as a result. Ultimately, Number Five just felt like the best balance between the pros and cons for me.

4. Kate Nelligan, from the 1979 Film.

When it comes to versions of Mina who have a romantic daliance with a more sympathetic Dracula, I think Kate Nelligan was the first…and I would also say that she was the best. I should point out, on that note, that this film is one of the ones I mentioned before where the names of Mina and Lucy are switched: Nelligan’s character is NAMED “Lucy,” but the actual character HERSELF is clearly meant to be Mina. Apparently, this change was made simply because the writers liked the name “Lucy” better, which…is a bit of a dumb reason, in my opinion, as it just makes things more confusing, but whatever. I’m going to continue to refer to the character as “Mina” here, for consistency’s sake. In my opinion, Nelligan’s version succeeds at what the Ryder version (among others) would later try to accomplish: depicting Mina as a strong and competent woman who can stand up for herself and has full agency in her life, while also creating some interesting tension by having her form a romantic attachment to Dracula, and ALSO still having her relationship with Jonathan ongoing. How did they do this? Eh, watch the movie yourself to find out and see if you agree; I haven’t got time to go through it all here.

3. Isabelle Adjani, from Nosferatu the Vampyre.

Just like our previous pick, this version once again reverses character names, with this character being called “Lucy,” even though the actual role is clearly that of Mina, and vice-versa. It also came out the same year as the previous pick, 1979. (Again, insert “if I had a nickel” meme here.) This remake of “Nosferatu” (the first of no less than three, the other two of which have yet to gain public release) expands on the version found in the original film, showing even more of the character’s struggles as she tries to combat the vampire, even having her directly confront Dracula at one point. Interestingly, Dracula is depicted as a sympathetic character in this one, but he and Mina do NOT have a romantic interest in one another; that’s very rare in adaptations. Just like in the original version, Mina ultimately sacrifices herself to stop Dracula, and since Dracula is depicted as a sympathetic antagonist as well, that makes the ending all the more tragic.

2. The Version from The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

If there’s one way to make Mina independent, it’s to completely separate her from the rest of the cast in “Dracula.” I’m talking about the comic version here, by the way, not the one played by Peta Wilson in the 2004 film adaptation. While Wilson’s Mina isn’t BAD, per say, she is…very, VERY different from the one in the Alan Moore comic series. In the original comics, Mina is actually the leader of the titular League. She has no powers in the comics, but is instead depicted as a capable and charismatic leader, as well as a surprisingly gifted strategist; after her adventures in the novel, Mina has actually become an even stronger woman than before, and shows no fear in the face of opposition from characters like Mr. Hyde or the Invisible Man. She forms a unique romantic relationship with Allan Quartermain, and has some…COMPLICATED feelings in regards to her past, and especially towards the (presumed late) Count Dracula. Again, the movie version isn’t necessarily bad on her own merits, but the comic is definitely a more interesting character between the two.

1. Judi Bowker, from the 1977 BBC TV Film.

This TV production is quite possibly the most book-faithful adaptation of the novel ever put to the screen. By extension of this same fact, Bowker’s pretty-but-not-prissy Mina is quite possibly the most accurate interpretation of her character ever put to the screen, as well. The only major change for her character is that this is the other BBC rendition I mentioned where Mina and Lucy are made to be sisters, rather than just best friends, but this really doesn’t cause a HUGE impact on the story. Indeed, Bowker’s Mina even gets some slight IMPROVEMENTS from the original, as she and Van Helsing take direct part in the final battle, instead of just watching it happen like in the novel. Easily the best Mina onscreen, bar none.

[thats-so-weird]

Thoughts on So Weird's 25th Anniversary

It's hard to believe So Weird premiered 25 years ago. It feels like we JUST celebrated the 20th anniversary, but then again the pandemic has completely distorted my sense of time.

Maybe it's because I'm in my 30s now or maybe it's because I was fortunate enough to meet the wonderful actress who brought her to life, but I have discovered that I am in my Molly Phillips era and Molly has overthrown Jack as my fav.

I truly have had a different favorite character for different stages of my life and I love how as I grow older, I continue to love this show for different reasons.

Now as the show is 25, I've been doing a lot of thinking about the lost episode Chrysalis and the character Molly Phillips and the content that is on Disney Plus now and the content we were denied. It was such a missed opportunity.

At the time that So Weird was airing, I was 6-8 years old and my dad was struggling with a disease. I remember asking my mom what it was that my dad had that made him have to sleep on the couch or stay in the hospital and her just repeating "He has a disease!" until I stopped. It wasn't until I was adult that I learned he struggled with alcoholism.

At 6-8 years old, all I knew about diseases were that they could be caused by smoking and that they can kill you so I assumed it was related to his cigarette smoking and feared he was going to die. I also knew that he had stopped smoking for 4 years, around the time he and my mom got married. My sister and I are exactly 4 years and 6 days apart. At 6-8 years old I knew basic math and the conclusion that I came to was that having a second kid (me) must have bad so stressful it led him to smoking. I fully believed for my whole childhood that my mere existence was killing my dad by driving him to smoke.

That is some heavy shit to carry as a 7 year old and a whole lotta shit to unpack in therapy as an adult.

And it was all because everyone thought it was in my best interest not to explain things like alcoholism in a way that I could understand because they thought children shouldn't know about such things.

As a latchkey kid, I was raised by television as much as I was raised by my parents and if the execs at Disney would have allowed So Weird to do that issues show they were so afraid of, it could have been lifechanging. Being able to see my favorite characters discuss alcoholism and provide some context that shows and explains what it is in a way a kid could understand would have been so valuable.

But Disney was too afraid to do an issues show.

Earlier this year, I watched the new Goosebumps series on Disney+ and was surprised to see kids openly making fun of one of the moms for being a wino. I'm glad that Disney is no longer afraid to show real life situations in that alcohol is a thing that exists and kids (well, the ones who aren't extremely sheltered like I was) are aware of it. But as happy as I am to see Disney is evolving to include these elements and showing more kid-friendly horror, all I could think of was the missed opportunity they had with So Weird. They could have done so much good with Chrysalis.

One of my favorite things about So Weird as a kid was that I never felt like I was being talked down to.

As an adult, I absolutely love the depth to Molly that a past struggle with alcoholism brings. It indicates just how visceral losing Rick was, how much pain Molly was in that she needed to self-medicate it away and stop feeling feelings because they were too hard. It shows how strong she is as a person for getting her life together since then, being able to do a comeback tour and be the amazing mom we see her as. It humanizes her on such a real level. She's the best portrayal of a tv mom because she very much is a MOM-- she doesn't try to be best friends with her kids, but she makes sure they know they can talk to her and go to her for help.

Dealing with my dad's unexpected death in my early 20s (which was surprisingly not due to smoking, or at least not primarily) showed me that my parents are above all else PEOPLE-- with flaws, with struggles, who just did the very best they could with the hand life dealt them. Molly represents that so well and I think it's why I've been drawn to her lately.

25 years of So Weird and I am still finding so much to relate to and gush about with this show.

Forever keeping the faith that one day So Weird's full story will be told, either by graphic novel or reboot.

It is still absolutely timeless.

[blueepink07]

Hello!! I'm always amazed by the sybolism and connections you find -- I was wondering about your thoughts on your favorite/most interesting of the birthday cake art!

THANK YOU, I'm really glad that you like these analyses!!

I know that I have been posting a lot of Muu lately, but her birthday art is my favourite! It's simple and elegant and looks different from the other cakes, which makes it more interesting!

Before starting, I will separate this in sections so it can be easier to read!

1. Cake

2. Accesories and dress

3. Flowers

(mentions of murder, suicide and death)

Cake

Muu's cake is called Galette des Rois, a dessert originated from France and rich in traditions!

"This dish is eaten to celebrate Epiphany which is the day that the newborn baby Jesus was believed to have been visited by the three kings or Wise Men or Magi."

"Inside the cake, a fève or a miniscule trinket is usually hidden. Fève translates into ‘fava bean’ which was originally believed to be hidden in these cakes. Nowadays, a porcelain or plastic figurine representing baby Jesus is often put inside the Galette des Rois instead, a shift believed to have occurred towards the end of the 19th century. The person who gets the slice containing the fève gets a crown as well as the right to be treated as king or queen and choose their queen or king for the entire day."

Based on this description, we can see the similarities between this cake and Muu's Queen bee portrayal in the second MV. Her being shown doing what she pleases, finding comfort in her friend group.

However, before proceeding, it's necesseraly to give a brief history of this tradition and how it evolved over time...

"We traced this tradition of picking up kings back to Antiquity. In those ancient times, during the festivities consecrated to Saturn. Romans used to pick up king between their slaves. During one day this slave would have the luck to live like a master. Luck? Well.. after the day, in the best case he was returning to a state of slave, or he was just put to death. The roles were inverted to thwart the evil days of Saturn."

Awfully familiar, isn't it? The galette des rois it's a good representation of the dynamic in Muu's friend group. Because of how easily she was betrayed, it makes me think that the group was already formed or they knew eachother for a while. Despite that the old tradition tells that a poor person was chosen to be the king, which seems contradicting, because of Muu's financial state, if she were in the vulnerabile position of being new and not having friends, than she could be considered "poor" in terms of relationships. The friend group integrated Muu and started admiring her for the expensive things she had and for her beauty. For a short while, Muu felt like a queen, because of the attention she got at the expense of giving items to her friends. (In an older post I explained that Muu has the love language of giving objects to the persons she cares about!) Based of the phone messages, we find out that she has given an expensive lipstick to one of her friends, followed by Sayu who is expressing her wishes to try it too.

However, once Rei damaged Muu's reputation, the admiration and the "care" these girls expressed meant nothing in the end, followed by Muu's almost killing herself to be freed from the pain.

Basically, if we take in consideration the Galette des Rois tradition, Muu has been given the slice with the fève. She got the crown and have been treated like a queen for a short period of time by her friend group. Once the day was over (when Rei damaged her reputation), this privilege has been taken away from her. She had become nothing but a slave for these girls to make fun of, followed by Muu almost dying to escape from the pain. The same thing that happened to the people who were chosen as kings for a day in the past: being killed.

Gallete des Rois is usually eaten during Epiphany, a celebration that commemorates the visit of the Three Kings or the Three Magis to see the baby Jesus after he was born.

What I want to point out are the gifts that there were given to celebrate his birth, which are foreshadowing his life story.

1. "The gold represents Jesus’ kingship.

2. The frankincense represents Jesus’ deity.

3. Commonly used to embalm bodies, the gift of myrrh foreshadows Jesus’ death."

For Muu:

1. Muu being trated like a queen for a short period of time

2. Muu's great financial status

3. Muu being betrayed by her closest friends and almost dying because of them

Quite similar and interesting at the same time! The fact that the birthday art was foreshadowing Muu's second MV...

Accesories and dress

-> Earrings

Not a lot of symbolism, but more me describing what they represent!

The earrings look a lot like the hourglass from her MVs!

She also has a teardrop coloured in green (the colour of the honey in her MV) representing her pain and sorrow during that period of time, and how with every passing moment she felt more and more suffocated in this horrible "friend" group. For this birthday art however, Muu is crying out of joy, so let's hope that the honey teardrop represents more her happiness during her birthday!

-> Dress

This was written in my latest post...! I didn't change much, since my thoughts about it are the same!

Muu's dress looks similar with Belle's dress from the "Beauty and the beast."

I think it's interesting how the story (not the Disney version) is originated from France. No matter what version you take, Belle saved the beast by reciprocating his feelings and seeing past his appearance, Belle's presence awakening his good inner self.

Somehow, I think it fits with Muu's and Haruka's relationship, in a way. Haruka thinks of Muu as his benefactor, the one who helped him become more confident and cheerful. Although Haruka considers himself as being "useless", Muu saw past this, and found a friend that she can rely on in a weird place like Milgram. She takes care of him bringing him food, prasing him and giving attention, basically, showing kindness.

"Haruka: Muu-san praises me. The useless me… She praises me, acknowledges me, looks at me, and she needs me. My current self only exists thanks to Muu-san."

Her presence and her kindness is one of the factors that contributed in making Haruka feel more confident, changing him. Haruka and the beast are both characters who weren't used to being treated with compassion... And so, the appearance of Muu, respectively, Belle ultimately saved them, based on their perspective and situation.

Also, "Belle" means beautiful in French and Muu is canonically described as gorgeous!

Flowers

The flowers have been found by @oehale on twitter!

->Rosa Rugosa

"Rosa rugosa is a strong symbol of Love and adoration.

Rosa rugosa is associated with the Greek goddess of beauty and love in ancient mythology, Aphrodite. Goddess Aphrodite is often portrayed as having a rose crown on her head."

This flower can represent the friend group's feelings of adoration and awe towards Muu, before the incident that changed their perspective on her.

In the second MV, Muu is in the center of attention, every eye is on her and every worker bee is waiting for her comand. Adoration and loyalty is depicted as the honey which is given to her by the others. This substance is sweet, alluring, like love, a sentiment which can become addicting, until you can't live without it. The fact that the honey is more green than yellow, can symbolise the superficiality of the "love" and "adoration" that the friend group has given to Muu. The second MV illustrates how Muu escaped from this intoxicating addiction of eating this honey (towards the end she is eating less and less, until she literally escapes from the honey, without consuming it), flying away from the hourglass, the place where she once felt safe and happy, which now is just an empty, broken space.

Rosa rugosa, in the language of flowers, means sad and beautiful. Sorrow and pain are sentiments that Muu felt during the time she was bullied. Sadness was a daily thing at one point, the girl wishing that tomorrow will not come, so she would not experince it again. Beauty it's one of the aspects that made her to be so adored by her peers, and also one of the factors that, due to jealousy, made her a target of bullying.

Moreover, the presence of the teardrops on her earrings, and the way she is drawn, as a queen, elegant and pretty, further illustrates this symbolism.

-> Penstemon

"These flowers are also known by the name beardtongue. This one is supposed to mean gentle courage or risks of the heart."

Penstemon is a representation of Muu's sorrow and pain and how she escaped from it. Being pushed to the point were she felt trapped in an awful situation, where she couldn't ask for help, her pleads being ignored, she managed to escape my eliminating the source of her problems. A risk of heart done in a moment of disperation, in which, once again, her feelings were not listened or taken into consideration, which ended up with Rei's death.

Courage for finding a solution to her problems, in a place where she only had herself as a friend, and avoiding, in the end, to succumb to those inner feelings which were pushing her to wish of her own dissapearence.

"Penstemon provides great strength, courage, and perseverance during challenging life circumstances. If you are feeling sorry for yourself, you may benefit from taking this flower essence. Those who have been through unusually hard circumstances may feel more ease and grace after taking Penstemon. Those circumstances could include the loss of something special, which causes a soul to lose faith and feel pity or intense despair. Penstemon brings about more courageous energy for that soul, rebuilding it with feelings of trust and hope."

After murdering Rei, she finally felt relief, hoping that things will turn to better and be as it was before. She is feeling sorry for herself and what she has experienced, in the first VD, being unsure of her actions that lead her to this point...

"It looks like each flower is sticking a bearded tongue out of its mouth, which is why we also call them “beardtongues.”

This distinctive aspect of this flower can symbolise Muu's pleads and cries which ended up being ignored by her peers and adults... She tried to alert people of her pain, but it seems like, no one has cared enough to help her to escape from this circumstance...

Thank you for reading! ~ 🎂