#ardently meta

[vibrant-dol]

@bloodspick HI HELLO THANK YOU i'm actually making a separate post for this because i have so many words .

a lot of aries' character revolves around his involvement in the temple. he rose in the ranks very quickly, both due to his devotion to his work and a resentment towards the corruption in the world around him. always been a prude who would rather scathingly insult someone than submit at any point ever

and when he learned what was really happening during the vigil, about virgo and about how the destruction of the town paralleled the destruction of her body, something in his mind shifted and he began to see both virgo and the world itself as a dying animal that only people like him could protect. he devotes all of his time and energy into understanding the corruption and fighting it and it gets to the point to where his vision is permanently altered, thus locking him at max awareness basically Forever.

and then he meets harper. because of course people who violently oppose the way the town works are going to get accused of being mad and sent to either the hospital or the asylum. and the corruption in harper is PALPABLE in a way that immediately has aries on his guard in a very cold way.

the thing about aries' harper specifically is that while he is still very much Mr Malpractice, he's also kind of pathetic (art by @phosphorlily)

and the thing about aries is that, behind all of his cold demeanor and his violence, he is very much Someone Who Wants to Save the World. and if he can reach out a hand to someone he Will do it. even if they tried really really hard to gaslight and hypnotize him

and so aries DOES try to purify harper, with everything he's learned from the temple, but it doesn't really. work. because he ends up in the tentacle plains with harper (whether it be mentally or physically is in the air), and because he has his chastity belt + shield, the tentacles decide that if they can't penetrate him literally, they'll do it Psychologically. so part of his brain just ends up COMPLETELY corrupted, compartmentalized away from the rest of his Pure™ brain, and he rationalizes this by thinking that he's taken away some of harper's corruption into himself. surely that's Fine. which is why we have this situation

it's not quite like having a slime ear parasite, because it really doesn't ever affect him while he's going about normally. chastity belt for his brain. but it gets to the point to where he dreams about the plains pretty much every night, and he goes to the hospital once a week and occasionally disappears for a week or so but don't worry about it <3

basically he's secretly deeply and deliriously in love with harper but only one discrete part of his brain can act on it. otherwise he's kind of tsundere and tries to reinforce better behaviors. he's gonna learn about the underground farm eventually and it's gonna be Over for everyone involved

[hejustcancelledit]

Western players: Western supports are so bad lmao, playing Sona??? Ur so bad, everyone hates you, uninstall league

Also western players: Why does no one want to play support? And why are our supps so bad on enchanters?

[thekimspoblog]

That would be so hard to picture, considering my extensive headcanon where she started dating Jimmy specifically to vent about how disillusioned she was with Chuck.

But that's not a crackpot theory; I'm dead serious about that one. Um... I guess I'm half-joking when I say stuff like "The gods of this world demand blood to be entertained; sacrificing Howard was the force which bought Kim her extended lifespan"... but still only half joking.

I'm bored I want to start Better Call Saul discourse because this fandom is too peaceful. let's all contribute. I'll start:

Kim dated the wrong McGill brother. electrophobic chicanerous chussy hits harder than anything else

[sentientsky]

good omens fanartists, i love u most ardently. good omens fic writers, i would commit arson for you. good omens shitposters, i cherish and adore u. good omens angst meta-analyzers,,,my therapist knows your names

[lord-squiggletits]

"To Children Ardent For Some Desperate Glory": A War Story Reading of Tarn's Death

From a narrative perspective, Tarn's death in this scene as a long-running antagonist of MTMTE is extremely cathartic in that, because he's evil, his death is satisfying: the dramatic irony of how Tarn was made by Megatron and now is unmade, that he trapped himself in the means of his own death, and, most importantly for this meta post, that he talked a big game about being willing to die as a Decepticon, only to falter and panic once the moment of his death was actually upon him. As a reader, there's a sort of vindication that you get from seeing Tarn, a supposed zealot, suddenly too cowardly to die for his own ideals, and so Tarn's death is satisfying to read under this judgement of his cowardice.

Cowardice? Perhaps not. Although it's definitely valid to read Tarn's panic here as the last of many signs of hypocrisy he's demonstrated throughout MTMTE, the tragedy of his death comes when you read this scene from the lens of the war story genre: That is to say, I read Tarn's fear in the face of death not as a demonstration of cowardice/hypocrisy, but as the moment that, for him personally, "the old lie: Dulce et decorum est / Pro patria mori" was finally pulled from his eyes (literally, as the mask Tarn used to hide himself was ripped off by Megatron to expose his fear) and he realized that it was not, in fact, worth it to rush headlong into his own death for the sake of ideology. The Old Lie that it's glorious to die for one's ideals protected Tarn for that one moment of him declaring "At least I'll die a Decepticon," offering him that comfort/delusion that his death would have meaning... then, of course, having that ripped away as Megatron informs him, "Everything you did was for nothing."

Bringing this quote forth from War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges:

And like every recovering addict there is a part of me that remains nostalgic for war's simplicity and high, even as I cope with the scars it has left behind, mourn the deaths of those I worked with, and struggle with the bestiality I would have been better off not witnessing. There is a part of me-- maybe it is a part of many of us-- that decided at certain moments that I would rather die like this than go back to the routine of life. The chance to exist for an intense and overpowering moment, even if it meant certain oblivion, seemed worth it in the midst of war and very stupid once the war ended.

Tarn's choice to pursue revenge against Megatron was his "intense and overpowering moment" that won over choosing to retreat like Nickel and Deathsaurus did, as they, unlike him, realized that throwing away soldiers' lives in a grinder for the sake of a useless grudge was the wrong thing to do; they went "back to the routine of life" and failed to be claimed by The Old Lie.

Another interesting part of WIAF is that, throughout the book, Hedges makes comparisons between the illusions of power, meaning, and righteousness that war brings and drugs/narcotics/addiction, which brings to mind that Tarn is actually canonically an addict of multiple substances, meaning that the "drug of war" is both literal and metaphorical in his case.

So, when recognizing that Tarn was peddled The Old Lie not just as one of many generic soldiers in a lifelong war, but as a target for brainwashing Megatron personally singled out, it becomes impossible to view his death simply as a karmic death for a hypocritical jerk. The idea that Tarn is a coward for not being able to "die as a Decepticon" being brave and unafraid relies on the assumption that dying in battle for a Cause that doesn't care about you is a demonstration of bravery and sacrifice rather than a pointless destruction of life in service of propaganda.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in [...] My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.

I would argue that the fact that Tarn was drawn so heavily into Decepticonism (and indeed, a smaller cult-- the DJD-- based on worship of Megatron himself) that he would choose to fight, kill, and die in a crusade of revenge against people who wronged his Cause (Megatron) is not a fault of his moral character, but rather a tragedy of his conversion into a rather common lie of war, exemplified by the poem above: It's all well and good to talk about how awesome a glorious death in battle is until you're the one dying and witnessing other people around you dying. In my mind, it's not cowardice or hypocrisy that made Tarn terrified of "dying a Decepticon": it is, and has always been, a moral fact that life is greater than death and that choosing to live in peace is better than fighting a perpetual war. His terror came from the fact that the veil-- or rather, the mask-- convincing him otherwise was ripped away from him. He did not experience a fall from principled morality into hypocritical cowardice: he experienced a revelation from propagandistic lies to hard, tragic reality.

To those who swallow the nationalist myth, life is transformed.... They can abandon even self-preservation in the desire to see themselves as players in a momentous historical drama. This vision is accepted even at the expense of self-annihilation.

Tarn's story basically follows the formula of the war story genre near-perfectly: The beginning of his life as an otherwise ordinary person (Damus/Glitch), his fall into a militant group as part of a desire for meaning and battle against an oppressor, his committing and excusing of heinous acts in the name of that false meaning-- and finally, his inability to detach from The Old Lie and the subsequent terror and futility he faced upon dying for the sake of that Lie.

All this to say that, as vindicating and fun as Tarn's death is from a pure entertainment/satisfaction perspective, I do like to look at this scene and remind myself that it's not cowardice to be afraid of dying, especially to be afraid of dying for no reason and in the service of an ideology (and in Tarn's case, person) that does not and never did care about you.

[whinlatter]

The Ginny and Peter parallel though?? How have I never thought about that?? It‘s so horrifying and insanely compelling to me at the same time. I would love to hear (read?) you elaborate on that.

"Sirius, Sirius, what could I have done? The Dark Lord… you have no idea… he has weapons you can't imagine…. I was scared, Sirius, I was never brave like you and Remus and James. I never meant it to happen…. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named forced me - " "Harry – oh, Harry – I tried to tell you at b-breakfast, but I c-couldn’t say it in front of Percy. It was me, Harry – but I – I s-swear I d-didn’t mean to  - R-Riddle made me, he took me over..."

thank you so much for this question anon.  i have been thinking about this for a long time - about how ginny weasley might have made a really, really good traitor - and would love to talk more about my thinking behind it. a little meta on traitor talk - who flips, and why, and why ginny weasley might be the peter pettigrew to the trio's marauders after all - can be found below the cut (with spoilers for beasts chapter 14). 

hp, as a series, puts great moral emphasis on the concept of choice. after all, it’s about a world at war, where the question of whose side you're on is often a matter of life or death. double agents, deception, treachery, people serving the interests of others (either consensually or under duress): these are recurrent tropes, on both sides of the wizarding war. the plot begins the ultimate act of betrayal - that of lily and james potter by peter pettigrew - and the series concludes with the revelation of another (snape). throughout the books, there are all sorts of characters who spy, or flip, for all sorts of reasons. you have those who knowingly pretend to be serving the interests of one side when actually serving another, for principled reasons, either ideological motivation or out of selfless loyalty to another person: snape, peter, likely rookwood, quirrell, fake moody/barty crouch jr, both sirius and regulus black, kreacher, and narcissa in the forest. and then you have the group who betray either out of fear, or who are manipulated into acts of betrayal and deceit, sometimes through possession but otherwise through blackmail and intimidation, to varying degrees: xenophilius lovegood, mundungus fletcher, pius thicknesse, marietta edgecombe, bertha jorkins, bathilda bagshot, those types. (in a sign of jkr’s consistently dicked-up biases re gender in the series, women are never allowed to be interesting enough to actively betray anyone unless they’re doing it out of maternal love eg. narcissa - they can only ever actively be led astray or hoodwinked, whereas male characters can have a vast array of complex motivations and all sorts of shades of moral grey. we'll come back to that in a minute).

in chapter 14 of my postwar fic beasts, during the course of the hogwarts inquiry, augustus rookwood takes the stand and testifies of an attempt by him and his fellow death eaters to find someone who could play double agent to pass secrets about the resistance, the order and harry to the other side during the second wizarding war. rookwood - himself a former double agent - talks about how to make a traitor. he discusses the different motivations of traitors, how to find a target and how to exploit their existing vulnerabilities and weak-points to get them to come around to your side. he also reveals that, during the death eater seizure of the ministry and hogwarts school, he and his peers identified a would-be target in ginny weasley. in the fic, i have him describe the process of traitor-identification as ‘the pettigrew playbook’: finding someone who is connected, who knows the order’s secrets, who has the information you want, and who will flip less out of an ardent ideological commitment, but more because they are weak and scared but also disrespected and resentful and more inclined to save their own neck than act out of loyalty

i’ve always been very struck by peter pettigrew’s attempts to justify his betrayal of lily and james in PoA (see above). peter pettigrew is always a slippery and elusive character, rendered mostly through other people’s memories or descriptions of him. this is one of the very few times he explains something of his own worldview - though, as we know he is a liar, and in this instance errrr trying to save his own life as sirius threatens to kill him (slay), we have to take even these lines with a pinch of salt. we know pettigrew is a character that acts, at all times, out of a desire for self-preservation, trying to secure his own survival. he was tolerated but never respected by his schoolfriends, made the potters’ secret keeper as a ‘perfect bluff’ because he was a  ‘weak, talentless thing’ voldemort would never bother going after, a trait which ultimately made him the perfect and most vulnerable target. when outed as the real spy by sirius and remus here, he acknowledges he is aware of his deficiencies and weaknesses, and talks about his fear for his own life, his sense of how he did not live up to the principled bravery of his friends, and claims  that voldemort ‘forced him’ to surrender lily and james - presumably through the threat of terrible violence, suffering and death. 

pettigrew’s remarks are particularly interesting when put alongside the justifications and excuses of another character who has betrayed harry to voldemort, albeit under very different circumstances. like peter, ginny’s confession is given through floods of tears as a desperate plea to be believed and excused. in it, ginny begs harry to understand her own lack of culpability. just as wormtail does, she insists to harry she was forced by riddle to cause harm to others and to hand information about harry over to riddle, and to play an integral role in returning lord voldemort to life.  of course, the series always frames ginny’s actions in CoS as the behaviour of an entirely innocent person. but even these lines show a streak of self-preservation and a certain amount of weakness and cowardice that runs throughout ginny’s encounter with the diary. ‘I couldn’t say it in front of Percy’, she says, suggesting she feared getting in deep trouble with no proof of riddle’s hand in her actions. in fact throughout the diary episode, ginny shows real moments of acting to save herself rather than do the right thing and come forward with the truth. she tries to dispose of the diary, but doesn’t go to a teacher about what it has been making her do. she stole the diary back not to protect harry but to protect her own secrets and prevent him from discovering her complicity (at least by TMR’s telling). she even watches hagrid get falsely accused and sent to azkaban, and stays silent in the process, a distinctly pettigrew echo if ever i heard one. 

of course, we know ginny and peter pettigrew’s relationships with voldemort are not alike in dignity. it’s clear that, in so many ways, ginny’s encounter with the diary is much more clearly an experience of victimhood than of malicious intent. we know that ginny was possessed; we know she is not a character who would commit murder without that level of involuntary mental surrender. but there are more uncomfortable echoes of pettigrew in her experiences in CoS. we see them in the decisions of a character acting of fear and a desire to save their own skin in ginny’s experience of the diary than we might like to think. ginny ofc was targeted by lucius malfoy because of who her family was, as stalwarts of the anti-voldemort pro-muggle resistance during the first wizarding war, with powerful enemies determined to discredit and undermine them at every turn. but, as TMR makes clear, what makes ginny such a good target in the end, so vulnerable and so useful, was that she was weak. she was insecure, and lonely, teased and misunderstood and feeling inadequate. in all of that, there was a very rich opening for TMR to access her innermost fears and secrets and to use them to manipulate, pressure and threaten her into compliance, in addition to the active possession of her body to conduct deliberate acts of attempted murder. it’s not a perfect pettigrew parallel by any means. but there’s more than a little bit of pettigrew in that, too. 

maybe more parallels with ginny and peter pettigrew than meets the eye - particularly in ginny’s relationship to the trio. there are a few posts that periodically do the rounds on tumblr and reddit that talk about neville’s relationship to the trio as the parallel to peter pettigrew’s with the marauders - as this post compellingly puts it, ‘all who peter could have been’. neville, these posts usually point out, was a character who was weak and much less talented than his friends, an outsider who needed the protection and patience of cooler classmates, who was always on the outside looking in on a friend group that largely excluded him. what distinguished neville from peter was his approach to his own weakness, and how that approach drove him to heroism rather than betrayal and villainy. it’s an interesting idea, and there’s something to it. but the more i thought about it, the more i thought - is neville + the trio the only parallel with peter + the marauders? what about ginny? 

it’s remarkably under-appreciated in fandom that ginny is remarkably poorly treated by the trio for much of the series. ‘go away, ginny’ - that’s how ron banishes his sister at the start of PoA, because harry mutters to his two mates that he wants to talk to them in private and to ditch ginny. neither harry nor hermione object to it - hermione, though kind to ginny when the dementors arrive, makes no defence of her right to stay. ginny duly leaves, hurt, to go sit by herself on the train back to school, returning to hogwarts for the first time after her deeply traumatic experience in the chamber, dismissed and dispatched. not meaning to drag ron here - this is, ofc, how big brothers have behaved for time immemorial, as is their wont. but it’s kind of the statement for how the trio treat ginny for much of her school career really until HBP, harry and hermione included. ofc there are many textual/plot reasons ginny needs to be held at arms length from the trio. but it is striking that the effect of this plot habit for the reader is a usually unkind and sometimes even callous exclusion of ginny by the trio throughout many of the books.

in CoS itself, ginny is never invited to join the trio or spend any time with them: when she isn’t, you know, trying her hand at possessed attempted murder, she’s doing a light bit of potter hero worship that does recall a certain lakeside snitch-catching display of yore. it’s ginny who’s left feeling left out when the trio are swapping suspicious eyes and sirius secrets in GoF, ginny who is hermione’s back-up friend when the ron and harry showdown kicks off over the triwizard tournament, ginny who shoulders the role as harry’s consolation prize friend when ron and hermione go off to the prefects on the train in ootp (and takes him to neville and luna), ginny who goes defenceless when the trio are demanding to be included in order secrets and is physically removed from the room with no protest from the others, ginny who has to fight her case to be taken seriously and included in the department of mysteries plot to rescue a man she too is friends with (‘I care about Sirius as much as you do!’), being patronised by three friends who pick her up and put her down when they feel like it (always enjoy hermione being like ‘we need three thestrals!’ and ginny being like ffs we need four why won’t you show me an ounce of respect). in fact, when ginny is revealed to be becoming popular in a different social circle throughout ootp and hbp, it is something of a shock to harry and ron, who have spent a good six years making no effort to include her and now are finding she has built a much more successful social life beyond them (you reap what you sow, lads). i don’t say this to overstate the trio’s malice nor to overstate the pettigrew comparisons (ginny is clearly both conventionally attractive and much more socially adept).. but i do think it’s striking that  if there is a character with pettigrew echoes in the trio’s surround, always orbiting the trio, trying to feel included (and hero worshipping the potter at the heart of it), it’s more often young ginny than it is neville. so many of the things that made ginny vulnerable to TMR - her loneliness, her isolation, her insecurities and sense of inadequacy - are not helped by the trio in the years afterwards, and in some cases, actively reinforced.

(to briefly say something on gender - sometimes wonder if ginny were a male character if people would have made more of this. percy stans, for instance, go to great lengths to point out all the ways percy was bullied or teased by his family as an excuse for his errrrr war crimes. would people care more about many ginny's exclusions if she were a maligned misunderstood young man? probably? it's noticeable too that all traitors in hp are men lol, a classic example of jkr’s weird and fucked feminism striking again. women are led astray or hoodwinked - men get the complex motivations and agency arcs. but i digress).

why does any of this matter? we know ginny doesn't take the path of pettigrew, however much she might have good reason to. harry's endearingly naive line in DH ('I trust all of you, I don’t think anyone in this room would ever sell me to Voldemort’) ends up being borne out: there are no betrayals during the second wizarding war, and certainly not by ginny (though the sword heist almost ended up doing it on accident). but i found myself thinking a lot about this as i was sketching out the plotline for beasts and thinking about ginny’s war, and what is asked of ginny in it. i was particularly thinking about it relation to how the second wizarding war plays out, the unique position of danger ginny would have been in as a hogwarts student in the 1997-1998 academic year, and what a good target she would make for death eaters on the hunt for a spy within the order of the phoenix.

when i was reading DH for the first time, i remember thinking that it is absolutely bonkers that ginny weasley goes back to hogwarts in september ’97. by that summer, the weasleys are the order of the phoenix. no longer just the blood traitors’ blood traitor, they’re now the face of the wizarding resistance, both parents and (nearly) all sons in active combat, something the ministry certainly knows about even when trying to normalise death eater rule and allowing the facade of arthur et al going to go to work in the ministry/gringotts etc. ginny’s family home is order hq: she lives there all summer, and trots off to the hogwarts express straight from the kitchen table where order meetings take place. when death eaters descend on the wedding, she’s there alongside the rest of the rest of dumbledore stans. she is also famously in the DA, and fought death eaters alongside the trio in the department of mysteries, and again in the battle of the astronomy tower. and then there’s the obvious point that hinny shippers everywhere have pointed out is baffling since the dawn of time, which is that the world and his wife knows that ginny weasley is harry potter’s ex, something that might put a big fat target on her head for a death eater or two to have a pop at trying to get some secrets and intel out of her. 

of course, there’s a compelling case for why ginny has to go back. ron’s already used the splattergroit excuse, and arthur’s going to work, and so is bill, and the twins (at least for a bit), and the weasleys are going for normalisation and at least a fig leaf of compliance. so off ginny goes, into the belly of the beast, back to school, despite all the access she has to order secrets and intel, as well as information on harry and the trio. she is in a uniquely dangerous position of risk: it’s a fortress run by death eaters and her card is marked. she finds herself in an unenviable and unrivalled position as a very good person to go after if you’re a death eater fancying some intel about what the guerilla resistance - and harry potter - are up to. we know there are death eaters about who would like to claw themselves back into some level of relevance by working towards the big man and trying to curry favour (yaxley). we know there is a family intimately aware of ginny weasley's weakness and failings who are desperate to get back in voldemort's good books (the malfoys). we also know there are witnesses to ginny's exclusions both from the order and from the trio over the years - in particular, one witness that already sold secrets on the order to death eaters, namely kreacher.

the reason i came back to thinking about parallels between ginny and peter in beasts is because beasts is a story about ginny’s war, but also in part about morality in the wizarding world, about war and sides and choices. at various points in beasts, i’ve tried to play with ginny’s echoes with characters that waver morally - including regulus - or who find themselves drawn to or in some way embroiled in darkness, and who are at times governed by fear and cowardice and self-preservation in a moral universe that prizes bravery, loyalty, and self-sacrifice. so this plot came from putting all these pieces together - ginny's existing vulnerabilities and insecurities, her position of privilege and access, but also her alienation and mistreatment, and this interest in moral motivations and what experiences or traumas might lead a person, or even justify, a person's treachery, moral inaction, or active moral failing. it was even more interesting for me to play with the idea that other people might have noticed ginny weasley's weird position relative to the trio and the order too, people who want to know what she knows and who would be willing to exploit the cracks in those relationships for strategic wartime gain. and that's for chapters fifteen and sixteen!

[mon-chef]

FREE THOUGHTS ON CLAIRE BEAR

(from an ARDENT sydcarmy shipper)

• I’m finding it really hard to keep disliking Claire. (I don’t actually think I ever did.)

• Claire is deeply kind and also deeply bland.

• Do I pity her? Yes.

• Do I believe her and Carmy should be together ? No.

• Do I think her and Carmy are even good for each other? I definitely think Carm could stand to experience her kindness and some softness but no way, in the long run I don’t think they would be good for each other. (That’s neither of their fault’s tho)

• I don’t see her as some conniving villain that’s trying to steal Carmy away from his responsibilities, I see her as just a girl who wants to be with a boy she really likes (and who could blame her).

• I just don’t see it as her duty to keep a grown man focused on his job. In my opinion Carmy is all the way in the wrong. He’s wrong for not honoring his commitment to the team (AND TO SYDNEY!!!!!!). He’s also dead ass wrong for using Claire as a means of distraction. I get that he might not be aware that he’s doing it,but is still his fault and not hers.

• NGL it is wild that she “tracked” Carmy down after he gave her a fake number. If it had been me, homeboy would absolutely never had heard from me EVER AGAIN Like that’s so embarrassing. Technically it worked out for her so props, I guess, but Jesus she lacks shame is persistent.

• I think the fandom can be so unfair to Claire and it’s making me feel defensive of her. Even though initially I felt like she was a super unnecessary character. (Sort of like Renesmee in Twilight (like what is even the point of her?) I understand CLAIRE’s relevance to the narrative now I guess (thanks to some people’s meta posts) but I could probably still do without her tbh. I know there are reasons to dislike her but to frame her as some she-devil who’s manipulating a helpless man is textbook fucking misogyny. It is really weird that people cannot see that.

• I will be a SYDCARMY stan TILL I DIE and it hurts me to say this but I think them calling her Claire-Bear is sooo adorable. I mean think it’s stupid that they call HER that but it is such a cute nickname and it aligns with the Berzatto family nickname and I wish that Sydney got something similar. (This is could still happen,,,,,maybe)

————————

Just throwing some thoughts at the wall maybe I’ll expand on these later.

[prying-pandora666]

What Your Ship Says About You

It’s so interesting how certain ship fandoms behave relative to their characters.

Zutara fans are deeply passionate and ready to fight at any moment. They don’t care what canon (authority) says, they’ll fight them too. They also have very creative souls and explore possibilities that others wouldn’t have even considered. However they can be hotheaded and their passion can turn to aggression. Just like Zuko and Katara.

Kataang fans are more peaceful usually, content to bask in the zen of being canon. But if you drag them into a fight, they’ll bring the fury like they’re in the Avatar State! They strive to find coherency for the canon couple and accept what they cannot change rather than fight a fruitless battle. Just like Aang and Katara.

Ty Zula fans are fierce and sometimes they say things that don’t make sense to others because it’s based on “vibes” (auras). But if you insult them, they’ll come at you with the full force of their collective might. Just like Ty Lee and Azula.

Toko/Zutoph fans don’t care about the rules and are happy to enjoy their ship without feeling the need to defend it as canon. They’ll hit you over the head with their love for the ship in their memes or stealthily lure you in with fanart. Under their rash surface though, there’s some heartbreaking and vulnerable metas. Just like Toph and Zuko.

Zukka fans are just fun. Although sometimes there’s the occasion where they slip into taking themselves too seriously, and need to remember they have nothing to prove. They’re fine the way they are even if it’s not canon. Just like Zuko and Sokka.

Sukka fans are lovely and I haven’t ever seen them start fights with anyone, and yet Bryke continues to do them dirty and neglect them, even going so far as to imply this ship has broken up. Just like Suki and Sokka.

Maiko fans handle criticisms with smug dismissal and apathy a lot of the time, but set them off and you’ll see another side. It has ardent defenders but most of it seems like a defensive reaction against much more stable ships. Just like Mai and Zuko.

Taang fans are myths of epic proportion. Can’t tell if they never existed or if they simply vanished. Just like Toph and Aang.

Tokka fans are fun and most people will get along with them. But if you’re one of the few to get on their nerves or find them annoying? You’re gonna have a bad time. Just like Toph and Sokka.

Sokkla fans are tactical. They don’t usually get in fights for the ship, they just slowly lower your defenses with beautiful fan art. Sneaking in past your walls, once they’re in they’ll bring the receipts with their metas and brainwash you to their side. Just like Sokka and Azula.

Ty Suki fans are perfect and correct and deserve a giant gay island all to themselves and their girlfriends. Just like Ty Lee and Suki.

[lunar-years]

don't apologize because i was also nodding along vehemently to @mitskijamie 's tags especially "he's so sopping wet and egocentric" because like yes. literally.

also now I'm highlighting YOUR tags @roughroadhaley because they are also so good and correct:

underlining highlighting circling "they do let her be mad at him but it's always for dumb stuff" because YES. why is it that one of the only times we see her getting genuinely and visibly angry at him onscreen is when the one time she wasn't exactly being fair in her anger??? Like, in Headspace she gets furious at him for never giving her space which is something she 1) never expressed to him that she needed in the first place and 2) aired out to literally everyone he knows including his boss and all of his coworkers behind his back before admitting to him that it was a Problem. Like... HELLO? THAT'S what they let Keeley be mad at him for??? and meanwhile there are a zillion genuine and valid reasons for Keeley to be angry with him????

Roy truly was not the best at giving Keeley support in multiple instances and part of it was poor communication on both of their parts and part of it was Roy being, as he later admits, "stuck in own shit," which includes being a sopping wet egocentric with mental health problems, and none of it is ever addressed (well) in s3 and instead we get a shoddy non-specific apology letter that results in them falling back into bed together (a pattern of Keeley's that also goes unaddressed) but not actually getting back together (which, imo, thank god). The lack of direct follow-up to basically any of the million of problem threads they introduced is the biggest crime to the roykeeley arc. thank you for coming today's lunar-years Ted (Lasso) Talk.

Roy No. Roy DON’T. Roy STOP.

[sasheneskywalker]

bernard is an avid tumblr, reddit, twitter, discord, and ao3 user. he participates in the rpf hero/villain fandom, writing fics, drawing fanart, sharing meta, and posting strange but compelling theories. due to his engagement with fandom discourse and writing what many fans consider problematic content, he quickly becomes a prominent but infamous figure with a legion of loyal followers and a horde of ardent haters.

when tim and bernard get together, tim accidentally stumbles upon one of bernard's more popular accounts. intrigued and baffled, tim looks into bernard's other fandom activity and finds years' worth of material. and all of it is something tim wouldn't have otherwise ever sought out. there're a robin i/batman dubcon sex pollen smut fic and a red hood/red robin noncon whump oneshot. a red hood/nightwing fanart of them hatefucking on a rooftop, based on a real altercation between jason and dick that someone has filmed and posted on twitter. headcanons of red hood being into gunplay and calling batman "daddy". theories about batman sexually abusing robins and grooming them. a nightwing/robin iii fic rec list.

tim has so many questions. this is a completely unknown side of his boyfriend. he's feeling weird. he always knew there was a hero/villain fandom but he has never read any fanfics about his own vigilante persona. he never even thought people shipped him with other bats. and bernard's writing and art is hot. tim is discovering so many new kinks he might want to try out and starting to indulge in some questionable fantasies that he definitely shouldn't entertain. (is it morally wrong to imagine fucking your adopted relatives and getting off on it? especially if you have a boyfriend? who gave you the idea of fucking your family members in the first place?). also, bernard seems utterly convinced that red robin and superboy are crazy in love, where did that come from?

meanwhile, after months of dating tim, bernard realizes his boyfriend and red robin are the same person and has a silent freak out session. he can only hope tim never ever learns about his favorite fandom pastime.

[indigovigilance]

Anthony, Anthony, Anthony

What does your Anthony mean, exactly?

I feel like your Anthony and my Anthony are different Anthonies…

In 1941 we learn that Crowley has named himself Anthony J. Crowley (Aziraphale doesn’t pronounce the H but closed captions write it and Neil Gaiman hashtags #Anthony and also it’s Anthony the script book so I guess Michael Sheen is just doing a thing idk). I haven’t seen extensive discussion of this topic but I’m going to jump in with both feet.

I propose that Anthony actually has a double meaning; that is, Crowley chose this name for one reason, but Aziraphale believes he chose it for another.

(I cite as indirect inspo a wonderful Tumblr meta about how the ineffable blockheads have completely different interpretations of Jane Austen and how this informs their S2 decision-making).

Read or bookmark for later on Ao3 because this got away from me and now it's a 2,888 word meta on people named Anthony what am I doing with my life

~~~

First and foremost, let it be stated that there is no canon for when Crowley anti-christened himself Anthony. Neil Gaiman himself won’t know until he writes it.

Secondly, let it be known that I am not an historian nor a literary scholar of any kind. So people who actually know these stories may find themselves cringing at my surface-level summaries and inaccurate interpretations: I’m just piecing together what I could find easily. I invite someone else to revise and republish if they can delve deeper on these topics. 

Part 1: Mark Antony

There is a bust of Marc Antony in Mr. Fell’s bookshop as of S1E1 modern day (2019) which is still there at the end of S2E6, where it features prominently in the center of a shot. In 2019, the bust is adorned with yellow ribbons; in 2023, it is naked. The flashback to 1941 doesn’t give a good view of the part of the shop where the bust would normally be located so I have no idea when the bust actually got added to Aziraphale’s collection. I’m going to assume, for argument’s sake, that Aziraphale acquired this bust after the Blitz. I’m going to further propose that he acquired this bust because he believes that Crowley named himself Anthony after Mark Antony.

Why would Aziraphale think that? Two reasons.

1) Mark Antony was the loser of a civil war for liberty

Mark Antony was a good and loyal Roman citizen, serving Caesar with distinction, even attaining the title of Master of the Horse (Caesar’s second-in-command). See additional metas on horse symbolism seen throughout S2. After the death of Caesar, however, Octavian and members of the senate turned on Antony, starting a civil war. You know, much like a certain someone we know that was involved in Dubious Battle on the Plains of Heaven.

Mark Antony was loyal to Caesar’s political mission, which was to establish a Roman republic, where the voices of the citizens would be heard through their representatives [a suggestion box, if you will]. But Antony’s defeat marked the end of the republic, ushering in an age of autocracy. Octavian, following his victory over Antony, crowned himself the first Emperor of Rome.

2) Mark Antony was a libertine, but also the loyal, ardent lover of Cleopatra

Mark Antony was an infamous, lascivious, debaucherous, womanizing lush. He was also Cleopatra’s lover and closest ally. Though Mark Antony could not often meet with Cleopatra, their affair was allegedly very romantic, and from afar Antony did everything in his power to support Cleopatra politically, expanding her territorial holdings even while they were apart for years. 

So legendary was Antony's wanton hedonism that when he went to Athens, he was deified as the New Dionysus, mystic god of wine, happiness, and immortality. Religious propaganda declared Cleopatra the New Isis or Aphrodite (mythic goddess of love and beauty) to his New Dionysus. The ineffable emperors, if you will. [source: Encyclopedia Britannica]

Parallels arising after 1941:

After Antony had officially divorced Octavian’s sister, Octavian formally broke off the ties of personal friendship with Antony and declared war, not against Antony but against Cleopatra. Much like how Shax, after her S2E1 “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” proposal, threatened Crowley that if he did not assist her search for Gabriel, Hell would declare war not on him but on Aziraphale.

The legacy of Mark Antony, therefore, is one of hedonism, romance, fighting for a cause that you believe in, and losing that fight. It’s easy to see how Aziraphale drew the conclusion that Anthony J. Crowley took his inspiration from this historical figure.

Part 2: Antony & Cleopatra

How is this a part 2? Weren’t we just talking about Mark Antony and his relationship with Cleopatra? Hear me out.

Crowley has never expressed much interest in politics. Every time something of political import happens, he declares that the humans made it up themselves while also taking credit for it with Hell. This includes 1793 Paris and the Spanish Inquisition. If I forgot any, drop them in the comments. 

But Crowley has a deep and pervasive interest in stories, especially romance stories. If he can keep the Bentley from turning it into Queen, he listens to the Velvet Underground. He watches Richard Curtis films (to the degree that he identifies them by director rather than by title). Though book canon is not show canon, it’s worth mentioning that his favorite serial is Golden Girls; while not a romance, it is certainly heartfelt storytelling at its finest and a homosexual staple.

We know, too, that Shakspeare stole a line from him, with an adjustment for pronouns:

"Age Does Not Wither, Nor Custom Stale His Infinite Variety”

Let’s first talk about Crowley’s context for the quote.

Picture it: the Globe Theater, 1601, the house is empty because it’s one of Shakespeare’s gloomy ones and an irritated young Burbage, in the role of Hamlet, is droning out his lines like he would rather be anywhere else.

Burbage: To be or not to be. That is the question.

Aziraphale: To be! I mean, not to be! Come on, Hamlet! Buck up!

Aziraphale looks at Crowley, grinning with delight. Crowley stares back at him, shaking his head slightly, but a smile tugs at the corner of his lip. He wants to be embarrassed, but cannot help being charmed.

Aziraphale: He’s very good, isn’t he?

Crowley: Age does not wither nor custom stale his infinite variety.

Crowley is looking up at the stage, and speaks immediately after Aziraphale has made a comment about Burbage. But is Crowley talking about Burbage? Does it stand to reason that age would not have withered, or custom not staled, this twenty year old (yet somehow jaded) stage actor?

I propose that this is a poetic inversion of the S2E1 cold open, wherein the Starmaker, looking out upon creation, says: “Look at you, you’re gorgeous!” and Aziraphale erroneously thinks the statement was directed at him. Here, even though Crowley isn’t looking at Aziraphale, I believe that Crowley is actually talking about Aziraphale when he delivers that iconic line. Unlike Burbage, Aziraphale is old, very, very old, and we know that he has a penchant for custom, wearing the same clothes and listening to the same music for century upon century. Yet here is this precious angel being a cheerful little peanut gallery of one, continuing to surprise the demon after all this time. Neither age nor custom has staled Aziraphale’s infinite variety.

When Shakespeare commits the line to a play written 1606-1607, a few years after this event, Crowley will recognize his own sentiment about Aziraphale issuing from Antony’s mouth about Cleopatra. The actual historical events will not have left much of an impression, but the immortalization of his own admiration of the angel in human romantic fiction will have.

It must be mentioned that Antony & Cleopatra is a tragedy, where the star-crossed lovers are kept apart by warring factions that demand loyalty to the state at the preclusion of each other.

There are also some (as far as I can tell) nearly copy-paste plot points from Romeo & Juliet about a misunderstood faked suicide followed by actual suicide and the lovers dying in each others’ arms. It does not have a happy ending. Anthony Crowley deliberately choosing his “Christian name” from this play embodies not only his deep love but his hopelessness that he can ever get the happily ever after he desires.

In Summary

Crowley was an admirer, in one respect or another, of Mark Anthony, though he relied more heavily on Shakespeare’s portrayal and reimagining of the character than Aziraphale gives due credit. Nevertheless, the difference…

Wait a minute…

What’s that?

Is that…

A piece of canon evidence that completely undermines my argument??

This screenshot will only be visible to Tumblr users (sorry Ao3), but at some point we get a good look at the Mona Lisa sketch that Crowley has hanging in his apartment. It is signed (translated from Italian) “To my friend Anthony from your friend Leo da V.”

The problem with this is, the Mona Lisa was painted 100 years before Shakespeare penned Antony & Cleopatra.

However, Neil Gaiman reblogged this transcription and translation, posing the hypothetical, “I wonder if Crowley knows what the A in A.Z. Fell stands for.”

Could it be that the Notorious NRG is jerking us around and sending us on wild goose chases? Absolutely a possibility. But. Let’s give a little grace for a moment, and assume that this comment was made in good faith. A bold assumption, I know. But humor me.

We know that Crowley and Aziraphale both knew Jane Austen, but from completely different perspectives. It stands to reason that Crowley knew da Vinci the scientist, but that Antonio Fell knew Leo da V., an artist with a heart that yearned for an unavailable lover. I’m just making wild conjecture that Lisa Gherardini (aka Mona Lisa), the wife of Florentine cloth merchant Francesco del Giocondo, was a love interest of da Vinci, but it could be true in the GO universe and would make for a great story.

Aziraphale also collects signed items from famous people; the inscribed books of Professor Hoffman to a wonderful student, and the S.W. Erdnase book, signed with his real name, come to mind. The Mona Lisa draft fits in much better with that collection of souvenirs than with anything in Crowley’s apartment. So it stands to reason that it could actually be addressed to Aziraphale.

There remains the question of how or why Crowley has it, but I won’t subject that to speculation here. All to say. Neil Gaiman’s implication-by-redirect is… possible. So let’s assume that it is the case, just for a moment.

If the Mona Lisa sketch is signed to “Antonio” Fell, then this allows the above theory regarding Crowley’s self-naming to remain intact. But it brings up a few questions regarding Aziraphale, not the least of which is: why did he name himself Antonio/Anthony?

Part 3: Saint Anthony of Padua

Anthony was the chosen name of a Portuguese monk, taken upon joining the Fransican order. Anthony rose to prominence in the 13th century as a celebrated orator, delivering impassioned and eloquent sermons. He is also associated with some fish symbolism, since he preached at the shore and fish gathered to listen. He was, incidentally, a lover of books:

Anthony had a book of psalms that contained notes and comments to help when teaching students and, in a time when a printing press was not yet invented, he greatly valued it.

When a novice decided to leave the hermitage, he stole Anthony's valuable book. When Anthony discovered it was missing, he prayed it would be found or returned to him. The thief did return the book and in an extra step returned to the Order as well.

The book is said to be preserved in the Franciscan friary in Bologna today. [source: https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=24]

This miraculous incident, wherein the thief not only returns a valuable book but also has a change of heart and returns to the bosom of organized religion, smacks of angelic intervention. But that is neither here nor there. 

Saint Anthony is the Patron Saint of the Lost, and is prayed to by those seeking to recover lost things. What is “lost” in this context is usually an item, rather than a person or an intangible concept, however he is also “credited with many miracles involving lost people, lost things and even lost spiritual goods,” such as faith. [Edit: @tsilvy helpfully contributes that "Here in Italy Sant'Antonio is commonly not just the saint patron of lost things, but, maybe primarily, the saint patron of lost *causes*."] He died at the age of 35, and in artwork is typically depicted with a book and the Infant Child Jesus.

It’s a defensible position that the thing that gives Aziraphale the most consternation across the millennia is Crowley’s loss of his angelic status, and it could even be framed such that Aziraphale does not consider Crowley actually fallen, but rather simply lost. It is a fact that he finds difficult to reconcile and, depending on your reading of the Final Fifteen, the offer to restore Crowley’s angelic status is one that is so pivotal to resolving his internal conflict that he cannot refuse. If this conflict is so central for Aziraphale, perhaps he did name himself after a booklover and the patron saint of lost things, hoping that the name would carry with it some of the power of the blessing, and return Crowley to the light, and in turn, to him.

But wait.

Because I googled “St Anthony” to look for some images and….

St. Anthony of the Desert

I shit you not there are multiple St. Antonies and we’re going to talk about another one of them with respect to Aziraphale because this guy is bonkers. The story traces to the Vitae Patrum, yet another fringe biblical text and I cannot even get a quick answer on whether it is canon or apocrypha because it’s so fringe. Anyways. I think the best way to explain St. Anthony of the Desert comes from the wikipedia page on the Desert Fathers: 

Sometime around AD 270, Anthony heard a Sunday sermon stating that perfection could be achieved by selling all of one's possessions, giving the proceeds to the poor, and following Jesus. He followed the advice and made the further step of moving deep into the desert to seek complete solitude.

[He] became known as both the father and founder of desert monasticism. By the time Anthony had died in AD 356, thousands of monks and nuns had been drawn to living in the desert following Anthony's example, leading his biographer, Athanasius of Alexandria, to write that "the desert had become a city." The Desert Fathers had a major influence on the development of Christianity.

Let’s all agree that this guy is not Aziraphale; this whole becoming an ascetic and living alone in the middle of a desert thing? Not his cuppertea. But St. Anthony is interesting not just for his decision to go into the desert, but what happened when he got there.

The Torment of St Anthony is a 15th century painting commonly attributed to Michaelangelo. It depicts demons crawling all over and attacking a hermit.

But the first round of demons are scraping the bottom of the barrel, practically the damned. Anthony’s journey continues and he meets another demon. Actually he meets two; a centaur, who is not very helpful, and then a satyr who is. It is much easier to find paintings of St. Anthony and the Centaur than of St. Anthony and the Satyr, so you don’t get an image, but I find the satyr to be a much more interesting character, so you get that story instead:

Anthony found next the satyr, "a manikin with hooked snout, horned forehead, and extremities like goats's feet." This creature was peaceful and offered him fruits, and when Anthony asked who he was, the satyr replied, "I'm a mortal being and one of those inhabitants of the desert whom the Gentiles, deluded by various forms of error, worship under the names of Fauns, Satyrs, and Incubi. I am sent to represent my tribe. We pray you in our behalf to entreat the favor of your Lord and ours, who, we have learnt, came once to save the world, and 'whose sound has gone forth into all the earth.'" Upon hearing this, Anthony was overjoyed and rejoiced over the glory of Christ. He condemned the city of Alexandria for worshiping monsters instead of God while beasts like the satyr spoke about Christ.

St. Anthony, then, is entreated by a demon to ask forgiveness from God upon the demons, and St. Anthony, seemingly, agrees to do it. He’s overjoyed to ask God to forgive demons. In connection to my analysis of the origins of the Metatron, and how Aziraphale and Crowley’s potential beef with him is that, as a human put in the exact same situation, he did the opposite, refusing to take the demon’s petition for mercy to God but instead taking it upon himself to confirm their unforgivability (yes that’s a word now) and damnation.

That seems like it would be pretty important to Aziraphale.

In Summary

I give up. I have no idea what’s going on with this show anymore. Here are two options each for both of our ineffable husbands to have given themselves the same God-blessed/damned name. You guys tell me what you think, I just have a pile of evidence and no spoons to evaluate it. 

[fuckyeahaudiodrama]

🪸 JULY LISTENS 🪸

(ft. some lovely coral for those of us caught up on The Magnus Protocol😌)

this month, i’ve been working through some of the stuff that’s been languishing on my listen list for approximately a million years as well as revisiting some old favorites. here’s what i enjoyed most in my earholes:

G.O.B.L.I.N.S — (pilot, crowdfunding now!) for fans of Stellar Firma, the Meredith brothers have reunited with some other familiar voices to spin a story about an overly ambitious human office worker who gets dragged through the veil into the fae realm by a pair of chaotic goblins. the show is scripted but it’s marked by the same sense of humor that has characterized the Meredith’s other improvised works. 8 episodes projected if it funds.

Larkspur Underground — (11 eps, complete?) a fictional exposé about the sole survivor of a serial killer’s disturbing abduction and grooming. i was giddy to discover this one as an ardent fan of Showtime’s Dexter. it’s gory and glorious, and if you’re keen you might spot some clues; if not, the final episode is going to shock you. creator wants to make more, but it’s been a few years so who knows.

I Found A Wormhole — (5 eps, complete) a short yet existentially harrowing series. exactly what it says on the tin. mind the content warnings on the final episode but by the time you get there you’ll definitely know what’s coming tbh.

The Grotto — (10 eps, ongoing) a pull-no-punches exploration of messy grief with a supernatural twist. season two is here! this series has an absolutely killer soundtrack and immersive sound design. it has such a unique vibe. you’ll definitely like it if you like WOE.BEGONE.

Dear Bastard! — (16 eps, complete?) an epistolary comedy about a bunch of squabbling neighbors. i like to use this show as a palate cleanser when i’ve been listening to a lot of gruesome horror, because it’s just so light and fun.

Deviant — (10 eps, complete) a space pirate dramedy! i stumbled across this purely by accident and did a little binge. i love an absolute mess of a protagonist, so this was right up my alley. it’s a little abrasive at times but overall i enjoyed the narrative and it wrapped up nicely.

Murphy — (6 eps, s2 in production) a folkloric monster-of-the-week mystery with very charming characters. the first season is complete and although it is short, the episodes are long and make great use of their runtime. pleased to see their recent crowdfunder has been successful so there will be more!

Ghost Wax — (45+ eps, hiatus) a horror anthology facilitated by a “reclaimer” who can extract the final statements of the dead. this is similar to How i Died but the lore feels much more fantastically intricate. i don’t want to spoil too much of the meta plot but there’s a LOT going on, and i’m looking forward to s2.

Fulmar’s Folly — (12 eps, ongoing?) people on reddit love this series so i decided to give it a spin. fans of zombie survival like We’re Alive are most likely to eat this up. it can be a little overwrought at times, but the constant tension feels genuine in context. episodes are quite long but the length feels satisfying and necessary.

Nowhere, On Air — (46 eps, ongoing) another spooky small town radio show about a girl in a world she doesn’t belong to. this is one of my favorite genres of AD. fans of WTNV, King Falls AM, Tiny Terrors, and other shows of that ilk will probably enjoy this. it leans a little more surreal and introspective than comedic. IMHO, the host also just has a lovely voice. the meta plot is currently really hitting its stride.

All In My Head — (19 eps, ???) night terrors turn out to be something much more sinister. so intriguing, i was devastated to realize it may have been abandoned. i’m not going to completely give up hope for a final season though!

Zoinks! — (11 eps, complete?) a darkly comedic homage to scooby doo and other childrens detective fiction. i loved the way the narrative approached the subject of child neglect, while still maintaining a thread of silliness that saved it from complete bleakness. s2 has been mentioned but it’s projected release date has come and gone without a word, so it may or may not happen.

Trice Forgotten — (10 eps, ???) an aspiring cartographer gets accidentally mixed up with some pirates. i relistened to this series in honor of its anniversary and was just blown away by the sound design all over again. the setting is made so rich and alive by the effort put in by the production staff! and the character dynamics are so intricate and gorgeous. i am especially a fan of the tension between alestes and gammon. beautiful first season with SO much left to explore, i really hope to see this come back for a s2 someday.

[indigo-scarf]

Lucius did NOT want Draco to be a Death Eater

In my last meta, I explained why Draco DID want to be a Death Eater, rather than being forced into it. In this one, I will argue that Lucius not only did not coerce Draco, but was actually opposed to his son’s taking the Mark — and for this too the story is more compelling and tragic.

Lucius’s actions suggest he became a Death Eater more out of self-interest than ardent devotion to Voldemort or his cause. For Lucius, joining the Death Eaters seems more like a pragmatic matter of being wherever power and privilege are. 

Of course he believed in pureblood supremacy, but he wouldn’t die for it, like Bellatrix. He was also not disenfranchised like Snape, so it’s not like Voldemort was his only option. Voldemort was simply a convenient option at the time, but Lucius wasn’t that attached.

That’s why he doesn’t stay loyal to Voldemort after he loses the First War. As soon as there’s nothing in it for him, Lucius dips out: “[Malfoy’s family] were some of the first to come back to our side after You-Know-Who disappeared. Said they’d been bewitched” (PS6).

Between the wars, then, Lucius forgets about Voldemort and simply puts his efforts towards other sources of influence: joining the Hogwarts Board of Governors, currying political favour through “donations to excellent causes” (GF36)...

He even acts directly against Voldemort’s wishes by smuggling Tom Riddle’s diary into Hogwarts. As Dumbledore tells Harry:

Lucius was supposed to wait for Voldemorts sayso [...]. No doubt he thought that Lucius would not dare do anything with the Horcrux other than guard it carefully, but he was counting too much upon Lucius’s fear of a master who had been gone for years and whom Lucius believed dead. [...] Had Lucius known he held a portion of his masters soul in his hands, he would undoubtedly have treated it with more reverence — but instead he went ahead and carried out the old plan for his own ends. By planting the diary upon Arthur Weasleys daughter, he hoped to discredit Arthur and get rid of a highly incriminating magical object in one stroke. (HBP23)

Lucius gets away with that for the time, and by the 1994 Quidditch World Cup he’s feeling unstoppable, gathering with the old Death Eaters in a highly public place to torture Muggles for sport. However, he’s in for a brutal surprise when Voldemort returns:

“Lucius, my slippery friend,” [Voldemort] whispered, halting before him. “I am told that you have not renounced the old ways, though to the world you present a respectable face. [...] Your exploits at the Quidditch World Cup were fun, I daresay… but might not your energies have been better directed toward finding and aiding your master? [...] You have disappointed me… I expect more faithful service in the future.” (GF33)

Plus, says Dumbledore:

“[Voldemort] was not aware, for instance, that the diary had been destroyed until he forced the truth out of Lucius Malfoy. When Voldemort discovered that the diary had been mutilated and robbed of all its powers, I am told that his anger was terrible to behold.” (HBP23)

So Lucius is fully aware that he is on thin ice with Voldemort. Retrieving the prophecy from the DoM is his chance to regain his standing, but that goes horrifically for him:

“Ah, poor Lucius… what with Voldemorts fury about the fact that he threw away the Horcrux for his own gain, and the fiasco at the Ministry last year, I would not be surprised if he is not secretly glad to be safe in Azkaban at the moment.” (HBP23)

At this point, Lucius surely realises that being a Death Eater isn’t the advantageous pursuit it once was, at least not for him. So why would he want to bring his son aboard a sinking ship?

Lucius has high expectations for Draco’s future: in the same scene where he berates Draco for not being top of his class, he also says, “I hope my son will amount to more than a thief or a plunderer, Borgin” (CS4). In the past, he might have imagined joining Voldemort would bring Draco the prestige he dreamed for his son, but by now that has no reason to remain the case.

Although Lucius’s love for Draco isn’t the healthiest, he never wanted harm to come to him. In the Nimbus 2001s and Buckbeak incidents, Lucius shows concern for Draco’s well-being, even if it might be mixed with pride and possessiveness. Lucius is not Bellatrix, who “would be glad to give [her sons] up to the service of the Dark Lord!” (HBP2) — Lucius’s son is his.

Proud, arrogant Lucius also wouldn’t want to rely on Draco to save the family. For one thing, it would only compound on Lucius’s post-DoM humiliation to need his sixteen-year-old son to fix his mistakes, to allow his son to be more competent than him.

For another, Lucius struggles to believe Draco is competent at all. As mentioned, Lucius does have high expectations of Draco, but at the same time he’s very worried that Draco can’t fulfil them. So, when it comes to being a teen Death Eater — something many people justifiably doubt Draco’s capacity for — Lucius would likely be sceptical, too.

This lack of validation is the root of Draco’s daddy issues, and that’s precisely what Voldemort exploits to concoct a beautifully evil scheme.

Voldemort lures Draco into serving him by promising Draco the recognition he never got from his father. Everyone else can tell that Draco isn’t expected to succeed (if Narcissa and Snape can, I don’t see how Lucius wouldn’t), but Draco is so desperate to prove his worth that he believes Voldemort. 

Thus, Lucius’s punishment is not simply that his son is endangered for Lucius’s failure as a Death Eater. The most cruel part of it is that Draco goes willingly — and that it’s Lucius’s own fault for his failure as a father.

It’s also thematically more logical that Lucius not be in control of the situation. He starts out as a cunning man who can manipulate his way out of anything and pull all the right strings to get what he wants, but then his arc is about losing all that due to his hubris.

After the DoM, the fitting plan for Lucius would be to distance himself and his family from Voldemort, just as he did after the First War — only now that’s no longer possible. “Slippery” Lucius can’t slip away this time, because he’s literally trapped in prison. 

He has been caught by the Light side, invoked the wrath of the Dark Lord, and now he can only watch impotently as the bigoted and callous upbringing he inflicted on Draco leads his son to towards his death.

In the end, Lucius loses command of his estate, loses his wand, loses his dignity, and very nearly loses his son. The puppet master becomes Voldemort’s helpless puppet himself.

Draco, meanwhile, tried so hard to make his father proud, but only ended up feeling more incompetent than ever. He made mistakes with lifelong consequences, while everyone, including his father, could see that he was only getting played for a naïve boy.

[maxwell-grant]

What are your in-depth thoughts on THE CHIMERA BRIGADE? Would love to know what you make of it, given its handling and assembly of so much pulp material.

@thedeathalchemist asked: With your first initial thoughts on League posted, I have to ask did you ever get around to reading all of the Chimera Brigade and its sequel/spin-offs?

Anonymous asked: Any advice for how to a fictional character mashup story ala chimera brigade, league, etc?

(So first and foremost huge thanks to Ritesh Babu for being the whole reason for me finally picking this up again and finishing it, our conversations with him and @davidmann95 were crucial for putting this together)

(Also SPOILERS for The Chimera Brigade - this comic is impossible to discuss meaningfully without spoiling it down to the last issue, so go read it first)

The French tradition of booklets and serials certainly didn't have the punch or the sociological freedom of the pulps, but certain of its great figures did survive the Second World War: Fantomas, Arsene Lupin, Rouletabille and even, in a way, Maigret. Why those and not the others.

Why doesn't anyone remember the Nyctalope, or Hareton Ironcastle, or Felifax or Michel Ardent? Which cultural black hole of pre-war French science-fiction were they swallowed up by? And why have our bandes dessinées authors neglected these virtual superheroes that a little touch-up here and there could have modernised? - Serge Lehman

I can very confidently say two things - 1: I've read countless works like The Chimera Brigade that set out to do something similar to what The Chimera Brigade does, and 2: I have never seen a work like The Chimera Brigade, and one that achieves what it does the way it does. This being a superb pulp fiction crossover, who makes most of the others seem like they're not even trying, is maybe the smallest of it's achievements.

It's the kind of project that so very often tends to get lost in the weeds of it's source material, of having it's context overtaking the plot, of devolving into simple sentimental reverence or spiteful potshots at the expense of the story it set up, of being able to construct a story and world convincingly but fumbling at the finish line, and it's so very rare to find one of these projects that is ENTIRELY about the finish line of what the narrative has set-up, especially when they have significant messy real-life history and context to bolt in, which The Chimera Brigade has a ton of.

Pulp nerd crossovers tend to be largely about the novelty of it's characters meeting up, or the unresolved tension between it's characters and the historical context they coincidentally inhabit, or setting up a shared verse to be played in, and thus a lot of them are predictably aimless when it's time to wrap up the story and thus define what the story in question was about. This is even an issue that series creator and co-author Serge Lehman even brings up during the annotations, regarding why he asked his friend Fabrice Colin to co-write the script with him, specifically in part to try and prevent this. I want to make note of what he says here, "confusing fanatic nostalgia for creativity". A thing this set out to avoid, and a thing that helps set this apart from so, so, so many pulp hero crossovers / pulp-in-wartime stories / dissertations about publication-meta-fictional history presented as stories, miles and miles of Wold Newton adjacent stuff I've scoured for days and weeks on end and tried very, very, VERY hard to like so much more than I actually do.

This project does demand a lot of data archival, it demands the laborious Jess Nevins annotations and footnotes to keep track of who's whom or who's meant to be what. It's a story about European superheroes that is focused why European superheroes don't actually exist / completely vanished stillborn around the time the American superheroes first appeared and became a dominant force, specifically drawing on reasons like publishing failures and the fascist incorporation of superhumanity that really did cause these things to vanish. But The Chimera Brigade is a very, very focused project: it's about one thing first and foremost, and it's about one moment first and foremost, and thus the thing that it is about, and the historical moment that informs it, completely defines the purpose of it. Crucially, this is one of the many things this has that makes it so good, that makes it so different from so many other modern takes on pulp fiction or crossovers: the clarity of purpose this has, the point it's making and the unflinching vision it achieves to serve it.

It's a historical pulp nerd project initially entirely centered around a real phenomenon only historical pulp nerds are likely to know anything about, and then it gradually reveals itself to be, in fact, about something everyone has always known about all along, and you were only ever deluding yourself for thinking this was heading anywhere else. You want to talk about European superheroes? You want to talk about European pulp history? You want to know about the absence of the European Superman and why the Americans got to really create that instead? Okay, let's talk about that. Let's talk about European fictional history and see where it goes.

Even before the central question of European Superhero History comes into play, the baseline concept of The Chimera Brigade's worldbuilding is already taking such a smart, clear-eyed, versatile approach to the crossover aspect, starting from really strong pitches and compelling hooks regardless of what context you have for it, that enables it to tie it's pulp characters to the superhero history and political turmoil it will dwelve into, by tapping into The Great Unifier of Marvel Origin Stories: radiation. What if the first superheroes were also created by radiation? If superheroes are so inherently tied to World War 2 and the Atomic Bomb, and pulp heroes are so inherently tied to World War 1, what if we went back further to Marie Curie and the discovery of Radium as the connective tissue between them? What if we set about unpacking the radioactive monster elements inherent to the genre, as they creep into the world before the actual superheroes do? What if the existence of superhumans, in itself, inevitably placed humanity into a cold war / arms race, just as the existence of atomic bombs in our reality did (a.k.a what if The Power Fantasy was actually about what it says it's about, or really was about anything at all)? What does it mean for these constructs to exist at the time they do, to come from the nations they come from, in the way they are made to be?

Everyone here may not have a singular common origin at first, but they really are all tied together, and that in itself allows all these wildly different fictions to exist together in a way that feels cohesive and justified, on top of lending itself to fun sequences and reimaginings of classic characters and visuals and ideas to engage with. And that's an important thing to also highlight first, that this is a very well-crafted and fun comic to read. Don't let all the pulp nerd context scare you, this thing is a hoot.

It does a superb job at being a fun, engaging pulp comic, playing with a Mike Mignola/John Paul Leon-esque artstyle that makes a lot of this feel familiar and dynamic, with a lot of collages that play more experimentally and add a lot to the real-world history aspect of it. Gess and Bessonneau's art lives up to the tremendous task of taking all these characters from very different sources or creators, or at least very convincingly made to feel as if they would have if they existed before this, and paying tribute to replicated history both real and imagined as well as making them all feel like they belong in the same world and even share similar rooms and spaces, to the point that you can't tell which characters were made up for this and which existed beforehand without consulting the collected edition notes.

A lot of stories do great work by honing in and highlighting the novelty of clashing wildly different tones and structures and designs against each other, that is actually one of my favorite things to see done well in any kind of fiction, I'm certainly not arguing that visual consistency is a definitive must for any kind of crossover. But I will argue that here, consistency is a must, because this is not a story about the crossover, the crossover is necessary for the sake of what this story is about. You must believe that you are reading about a world that exists, in part because the finale of this is about making you realize that you were, indeed, reading about the world you live in all along.

With the exception of a not-so-disguised figure who makes two small but very crucial appearences (with other characters scattered across a handful of cameos and mentionings), this completely refrains from using any majorly known characters, and it's important that it does so. This has a very tight control over which characters show up in what way, which characters are relevant and which characters are not, in part because this is about real-world history as much as it's about any of the existing characters it's pulling from elsewhere, and so those are chosen more so as representatives of their nations than anything else, picked first and foremost to represent the real historical circumstances driving this war. The cadaverous and inhumanly wealthy Gog to represent fascist Italy, the weaselly and controlling and useless Nyctalope as a condemnation of France's inaction and whose greatest failure was his unwillingness to stop the fascist takeover of Spain, the mechanical men of the Soviet Union, Dr. Mabuse as a living rampant metaphor for Nazi doctrine and dehumanization, and so on.

All these fantasies/metaphors turned literal and on the warpath, constructs that stand for more than just their respective characters or publishers but the imaginations that created them. You have to talk about those to talk meaningfully about these characters, about the history, and about the reasons why there are no European superheroes from that era, about the profound failure of imagination that occurred in Europe at that time. You have to talk about not just the ways Europe's imagination not only failed, but turned for the worst in the worst ways imaginable, for the worst ends possible. This comic is frequently compared to, or pitched as a companion to, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which I've covered here, and that's not a parallel I feel is particularly worth getting into (not in the least because this is, obviously, tremendously better written and more thoughtful and purposeful with a fraction of the page count), but I'll say this: if LOEG touches a lot on the idea of fiction as a dangerous, noxious force, largely in terms of stunted moral development and unhealthy attachments to problematic ideas (a thing it can never fully commit to because Moore and O'Neil themselves do have a lot of attachments to it and because it's trying to extend commentary to ALL of fiction), if it's always dancing around the idea of our fictions being unhealthy and problematic and potentially dangerous, The Chimera Brigade picks a subject it very much cannot dance around. Instead of trying to be about all of fiction, it takes a laser-focused approach on the way fiction informs it's central topic. The Chimera Brigade fires a bullet into your heart by just showing the example of how, when and why fiction was used to enable and justify and even perpetrate the slaughter of millions.

There is so much about this comic's final stretch that feels like it shouldn't work, particularly the literalized cockroach metaphor purposefully evoking anti-semitic fiction, but there is no other way this could possibly end other than showing how fiction very much did get weaponized in the name of slaughter. There is no triumph to be had in the European imagination of 1939. There is no way the European superhero can possibly end in anything other than colossal shame and failure, if it allows this to happen. Even if Superman shows up to help, you can't Hope your way out of the Holocaust, not when you're in this historical playground, not when you're talking about the history of the genre. The finale in particular is something I'd like to see being dissected and discussed from a Jewish creator perspective, because so much of it is specifically about that aspect of the superhero myth, but this finale is the big reason why this comic can't be discussed without spoiling it. It would be like trying to discuss Watchmen or Miracleman without spoiling their endings, and believe me, those comparisons are extremely warranted. This ends on even more of a downer ending than those two, and there is no other way this could possibly end.

This comic doesn't just come from a place of great curiosity and historical interest and research, it doesn't just come from a place of love for the medium and it's possibilities, it doesn't just come from a desire to rectify or correct or live up to an ideal within the genre, but it comes from a place of genuine insight and honesty and focus on what it's about, and what it has to say to truly be about that thing. It's a comic that is willing to turn to you and say, "let's take this all the way to the top, let's take this concept where it was actually always going in a way that can never be walked back, no beating around the bush or happy ending, this is what the European superheroes were, this is why they stopped existing after a point. Maybe we could have had them, maybe we could have had superheroes the way the Americans did, but we drove their creators elsewhere by bulldozing their people into mass graves, we deserve this shame and we must confront it, there is no happy ending here, only a reminder of what has been and what must never be again"

It can't pretend this failure, the failure of the European pulp heroes and superhumans, the failures of European society, were redeemed by a different kind of super imagination, and it becomes apparent how much of this is built on the understanding that you do know how this is going to end for everyone and how much all of these characters must dissappear basically forever, The End of the European Superhumans as it displays on the back of the collections, ending the only way it possibly can and with just as horrible of a gut punch for them as it needs to for everyone.

Everyone except the mysterious smiling American strongman with a spitcurl and a suit whose real name can't be legally said, and who is here to bring his family of fellow constructs home so they can take and create The Superhero Genre elsewhere. "Mr.Steele"? Why, he is gonna do just fine from now on.

I was wildly underprepared for how much this would give me to dissect and think about, on it's own and especially in comparison to the kinds of stories that usually attempt what this one is doing. I do know there are sequels and prequels, the sequel doesn't seem like it's any good (you can feel Colin's absence from the first issue) but I do want to check the Nyctalope prequels, and apparently there's a big fancy animated project coming out and I have NO idea how the fuck is that gonna work. But overall this is just a tremendously impressive achievement in genre archaeology and storytelling by every metric, it's astonishing how much this can do with the space it has.

This has genuinely reinvigorated my entire interest in pulp fiction like nothing has in a really long time and I think from this point onwards, any question I get regarding how to tackle a pulp fiction crossover or genre mashup is gonna be answered or prefaced with "read The Chimera Brigade and try to get on that level".

[lesbiansforboromir]

Of course I'm posting opinions on the piss on the poor website so naturally complicated longform meta I have written will occasionally be narrowed down to inflammatory single sentence statements like 'Faramir is homophobic' and called a 'braindead take'. This is all fine if frustrating, mainly because it ignores the overarching point I'm making which is; pretty much everyone in lotr is homophobic! This is due to strictures and taboos placed upon them by the dominant and 'proven' religion, a religion that makes up the base impetous for the largest surviving and historically colonialist kingdom's 'right to dominate' those around them. And Faramir, being an extremely ardent follower of said religion AND very invested in the superiority of said Kingdom he is a part of, is bound to espouse this dogma as part of his quest to be as 'noble' and 'faithful' as possible. And that's leaving out all the textual interpretations I could offer surrounding his and Boromir's relationship. But like Denethor is also homophobic. Aragorn is homophobic. Homophobia is the norm for the faithful of Arda. Even if any of the main characters are gay they will also be somewhat homophobic. God is real and hundreds of elves have been telling people for millenia that if you have sexual desire without procreative desire then you are corrupt somehow, like spiritually. There's not much going for the queer liberation of middle-earth's denizens at the moment. BUT as I said, it's fine, there is no innoculation to being misinterpreted, especially when your opinion is quite far from the mainstream AND I will admit that for shits and giggles I have just thrown 'faramir is homophobic' out there without context for the mischeveous whimsy of it all, which is definitely shooting myself in the foot. There is something very amusing to me about deadpanning that kind of statement and sometimes I cannot help myself uwu BUT rest assured and as stated above, I do have reasons for all the things I say about Faramir on this blog. For instance 'Faramir is into raceplay' is another excellent example.

[mintacle]

I am ardently in support of therapy and especially therapy being made available to all people, but I'm also very critical of the rhetoric that thereapy is the ideal and true way to healing and betterment.

I think the meta stance that Jason needs therapy is frankly ridiculous. It upsets me so extremely because the western origin for therapy and psychiatric support is so deeply steeped in blaming victims and just wanting people out of sight & out of mind.

Reading both the way the batfam will demand Jason get help and the way that some voices within the fandom call for it, they just both sound superficial. Not as much "we want him to feel better" but far more "we want you to be better", specifically, wanting him to adhere to some standard of good that Jason doesn't get to decide and create himself, but that is patronizingly imposed on him.

Everytime the batfam brings up therapy with Jason, it is never because he just expressed distress or a need for help, but always because he does something that they disapprove of.

It is more of a token item to check off before being allowed to ethically punch him in the face. As if having brought up therapy means it is now ok to bring him down. Comics will often explicitly show internal monologue saying something like "I tried as best as I could". It's still just an excuse to not feel guilty about not listening to Jason or trying harder to speak with him. Confrontations between Jason and the Bats take only a few panels to regress into fistfights.

Maybe Jason could use therapy, maybe his situation is too messy!! Either way, even if he were to get therapy, Jason deserves to have his family trying for him regardless. He shouldn't have to prove himself first before being loved. And no matter what, if it's his decision to not go to therapy, then that is valid.

Healing from trauma does not happen only within therapy. You can heal without it and even when you do go to therapy, you also need supporting and understanding family and friends. And frankly the Bats are so not holding up their end of that deal for Jason.