#but also!!! there's only so many B names i think can fit these characters so 😐

[plan-bliz]

Just remembered them randomly but. Silly AU explanation for Francis and BonBon's whole deal is that (debatably) Francis has a missing hand/prosthetic and BonBon is just Really Short

[youraveragecatastrophe]

*emerges from the Carmen Sandiego (2019) french dub covered in blood*

[pynkhues]

I would LOVE to read your analysis of louis as byronic hero as apposed to his reading as gothic heroine. lots of the latter and zero of the former in the fandom.

Sure! Mmm, okay, so –

What are we talking about when we talk about Gothic Heroes?  

When we talk about gothic heroes, we’re really talking about three pretty different character archetypes. All three are vital to the genre, but some are more popular in certain subgenres i.e. your Prometheus Hero may be more common in gothic horror, whereas your Byronic Hero might be more likely to be found in gothic romance. That’s not to say they’re exclusive to those subgenres at all, and there is an argument that these archetypes themselves are gendered (in many ways, I think people confuse Anne being an author of the female gothic with Louis being a gothic heroine, but I’ll get into that later), but this is also not necessarily something that’s exclusive.

Anyway, I’m getting ahead of myself, haha, so the three gothic hero archetypes are:

Milton’s Satan who is the classic gothic hero-villain. You can probably guess from the name, but he was originated in John Milton’s 1667 poem, Paradise Lost. He is God’s favourite angel, but God is forced to cast him out of heaven when he rebels against him. As an archetype, he’s a man pretty much defined by his pride, vanity and self-love, usually fucks his way through whatever book or poem he’s in, has a perverted, incestuous family, and a desire to corrupt other people. He’s also defined as being “too weak to choose what is moral and right, and instead chooses what is pleasurable only to him” and his greatest character flaw, in spite of all The Horrors, is that he’s usually easily misguided or led astray. (I would argue that Lestat fits into this archetype pretty neatly, but that’s a whole other post.)

Prometheus who was established as a gothic archetype by Mary Shelley with Frankenstein in 1818. Your Prometheus Hero is basically represented by the quest for knowledge and the overreach of that quest to bring on unintended consequences. He’s tied, of course, to the Prometheus of Greek myth, so you can get elements of that in this character design too in that he can be devious or a trickster, but the most important part of him is that he is split between his extreme intelligence and his sense of rebellion, and that his sense of rebellion and boundary pushing overtakes his intelligence and basically leads to All The Gothic Horrors.

And the Byronic Hero, who as the name implies, was both created by and inspired by the romantic poet, Lord Byron in his semi-autobiographical poem, Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage which was published between 1812-1818. The archetype is kind of an idealized version of himself, and as historian and critic Lord Macaulay wrote, the character is “a man proud, moody, cynical, with defiance on his brow and misery in his heart, a scorner of his kind, implacable in revenge, yet capable of deep and strong affection.” Adding to that, he’s often called ‘the gloomy egoist’ as a protagonist type, hates society, is often self-destructive and lives either exiled or in a self-exile, and is a stalwart of gothic literature, but especially gothic romance. Interestingly too, in his most iconic depictions he’s often a) darkly featured and/or not white (Heathcliff being the most obvious example of this given Emily Bronte clearly writes him as either Black or South Asian), and b) is often used to explore queer identity, with Byron himself having been bisexual.

Okay, but what about the Gothic Heroine?

Gothic heroines are less delineated and have had more of an evolution over time, which makes sense, given women have consistently been the main audience of gothic literature and have frequently been the most influential writers of the genre too. The gothic genre sort of ‘officially’ started with Horace Walpole’s 1764 novel, The Castle of Otranto and Isabella is largely regarded as the first gothic heroine and the foundation of the archetype, and the book opens even with one of the key defining traits – an innocent, chaste woman without the protection of a family being pursued and persecuted by a man on the rampage.

The gothic heroine was, for years, defined by her lack of agency. She was innocent, chaste, beautiful, curious, plagued by tragedy and often, ultimately, tragic. Isabella survives in The Castle of Otranto, but she’s one of the lucky ones – Cathy dies in Wuthering Heights, Sybil dies in The Picture of Dorian Gray, Justine and Elizabeth both die in Frankenstein, Mina survives in Dracula, but Lucy doesn’t. There’s an argument frequently posited that the gothic genre was, and is, about dead women and the men who mourn them, and Interview with the Vampire certainly lends itself to that pretty neatly.

Of course, the genre has evolved, and in particular by the late 1800s, there was a notable shift in how the Gothic Heroine was depicted. The house became a place of imprisonment where they were further constrained and disempowered, she was infantilized and pathologized and diagnosed as hysterical, and as Avril Horner puts it in her excellent paper, Women, Power and Conflict: the Gothic heroine and ‘Chocolate-box Gothic’, gothic literature of this era “explores “the constraints enforced [by] a patriarchal society that is becoming increasingly nervous about the demands of the ‘New Woman’.”

This was an era where marriage was increasingly understood in feminist circles to be a civil death where women were further subjugated and became the property of their husbands. This was explored through gothic literature as the domestic space evolved into a symbol of patriarchal control in the Female Gothic.

Female Gothic vs Male Gothic

Because here’s the thing – the female gothic and the male gothic are generally understood to be two different subgenres of gothic literature.

While there are plenty of arguments as to what this entails, the basics is that the male gothic is written by men, and usually features graphic horror, rape and the masculine domination of women and often utilises the invasion of women’s spaces as a symbol of further penetrating their bodies, while the female gothic is written by women, and usually features graphic terror, as opposed to horror, while delving more specifically into gender politics. More than that though, its heroines are usually victimized, virginial and powerless while being pursued by villainous men.

The Female Gothic as a genre is also specifically interested in the passage from girlhood to female maturity, and does view the house as a place of entrapment, but she is usually suddenly “threatened with imprisonment in a castle or a great house under the control of a powerful male figure who gave her no chance to escape.”

That’s not Louis’ arc, that’s Claudia’s arc twice over, first with the house at Rue Royale, then with the Paris Coven, and Lestat and Armand aren’t the only powerful male figures who imprison her.

Claudia as the Gothic Heroine

Claudia in many ways is the absolute embodiment of the classic gothic heroine. Even the moment of their meeting is a product of Louis’ Byronic heroism – his act of implacable revenge against the Alderman Fenwick which prompts the rioting that almost kills her. She’s a victim of Louis’ monstrousness before they’ve even met, and while he saves her, he arguably does something worse in trapping her in the house with both himself and Lestat, holding her in an ever-virginal, ever-chaste eternal girlhood, playing into Lestat’s Milton-Satan by enhancing the perversion of family and ultimately infantilizing her out of his own desire for familial closeness.

Claudia has no family protection before Louis and Lestat – a staple of the gothic heroine – she is completely dependent on them in her actual girlhood, and again in adulthood, never developing the strength to be able to turn a companion, to say nothing about the sly lines here and there that further diminish and pathologise her (Lestat calling her histrionic, Louis making her out to be a burden, etc.). This is all further compounded again with the Coven, and when the tragedy of her life ultimately leads to the tragedy of her death.  

Louis as the Byronic Hero

Not to start with a quote, but here’s one from The Literary Icon of the Byronic Hero and its Reincarnation in Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights:

“Generally speaking, the Byronic hero exhibits several particular characteristics. He does not possess heroic virtues in the usual, traditional sense. He is a well-educated, intelligent and sophisticated young man, sometimes a nobleman by birth, who at the same time manifests signs of rebellion against all fundamental values and moral codes of the society. Despite his obvious charm and attractiveness, the Byronic hero often shows a great deal of disrespect for any figure of authority. He was considered "the supreme embodiment [...] standing not only against a dehumanized system of labor but also against traditionally repressive religious, social, and familial institutions" (Moglen, 1976: 28).

The Byronic hero is usually a social outcast, a wanderer, or is in exile of some kind, one imposed upon him by some external forces or self-imposed. He also shows an obvious tendency to be arrogant, cunning, cynical, and unrepentant for his faults. He often indulges himself in self destructive activities that bring him to the point of nihilism resulting in his rebellion against life itself. He is hypersensitive, melancholic, introspective, emotionally conflicted, but at the same time mysterious, charismatic, seductive and sexually attractive.”

Louis as he exists in the show to me is pretty much all of those things, and I think to argue that he’s a gothic heroine not only diminishes Claudia’s arc, but robs Louis of his agency within his own story. Louis chooses Lestat, over and over again, he’s not imprisoned by the monster in the domestic sphere, he is one of the monsters who’s controlling the household, including making decisions of when they bring a child into it and when Lestat gets to live in it – he wanted to be turned, he wanted to live with Lestat in Rue Royale, and while there are certainly arguments to be made about their power dynamic within the household in the NOLA era, importantly Louis actually gained social power through his marriage to Lestat, particularly through The Azaelia, he didn’t lose it in the way that’s vital to the story of the gothic heroine.

Daniel Hart even said it in a recent twitter thread about Long Face, but there is an element of Lestat and Louis’ relationship that is transactional, and to me, for that to exist, they both have to have a degree of control over their circumstances and choices in order to negotiate those transactions. Claudia is the one who can’t, she’s the one who’s treated effectively as property, and she’s the one who lacks control over her circumstances.

While you could perhaps argue the constraints of the apartment in Dubai lend more to the gothic heroine archetype, I’d argue it as furthering the Byronic trope again by being representative both of Louis’ self-destruction and self-imposed exile. As Jacob has said a few times, Louis does seem to have known to a degree that Armand was involved in Claudia’s death on some level, and it’s that guilt and misery that has him allowing Armand his degree of control. The fact that Louis was able to leave Armand as easily and as definitively as he was I think demonstrates that distinction too – after all, to compare that ending to Claudia’s multiple attempts to leave the confines of the patriarchal house, both in Rue Royale and Paris, which were punished at every turn – first by her rape, then by Lestat dragging her back off the train, and then by the Coven orchestrating her murder.

Louis gets to leave because Louis can leave, he has both the social and narrative power to, and the fact that he does is, to me, completely at odds with the gothic heroine. Louis can, and does advocate for himself, Louis is proud, moody, cynical. Defiance is a key part of his character, just as his exile from NOLA society due to his race, and his chosen rejection of vampire society in Paris, is. He’s intelligent and sophisticated, travels the world, and has misery in his heart, guilt that eats him up, and self-destructive tendencies. That’s a Byronic Hero, baby!  

[leftneb]

alr here's me yapping about the landoscar Detroit: Become Human AU @lyslsstuff and I have cooked up over the past week or so

(decided to make a full post about it bc a. I have many MANY thoughts about it and b. you people are clearly not normal about this either) (affectionately)

first off have another WIP (peep the blue blush and the lines on their faces I'm totally normal about it yesyes) I unironically had to hide their heads a couple times because the sheer homosexual glee on their faces was making me nauseous (this is how I know I've succeeded as an artist)

the main concept goes: oscar is an F1 driver, and lando is one of his android mechanics. unbenoknownst to the general public (and pretty much everyone except like. zak brown) is that oscar is also an android

androids are very much banned from f1

lando starts out as a normal android, just following his programming and minding his own business really. altough the au plays out after the android revolution androids are still mistreated, just in subtler ways. technically they're not owned by anyone (but they're only allowed to exist when employed) and there's no segregation in public (but there's no laws against it) and some people are vaguely accepting (guess what there's no hate crime or hate speech laws either)

basically I went with the game's commentary on capitalism and treatment of minorities and made it a lot more actual c: we're not oppressing you (but we're also not not oppressing you)

the real plot begins when lando (accidentally) finds out that oscar is an android, which both of them proceed to be completely normal and not disgustingly in love about for the rest of eternity

one of my favorite things about this au (and this was completely unplanned it sorta just happened on it's own) is that the car is basically the 3rd main character. the way I'd explain it is basically: rk800 connor in the game is able to reconstruct entire events (crimes in his case) by examining details and piecing it all together. both lando (being a mechanic) and oscar (actually pulling functions out of the thing) are intimately familiar with the car, like they KNOW it on a personal level pretty much, they can reconstruct every single thing that is happening mechanically by hearing the sound it's making alone

for oscar this is sort of unfortunate because he is suspiciously good at telling when something is wrong (way before anyone else can really). but it also makes both of them emotionally attached feel connected to their machines which I think would be a genuinely interesting aspect of having androids in motorsports

thought I had while writing that paragraph: since irl the cars are usually identified by their drivers' numbers ("car number 4" and such) it could be that oscar litterally just calls his car "81". like that's just it's name. very creative ik

for the enjoyers of the original game I'd add that oscar's deviancy arc (in the sense of which impulses he recieves that lead him to disobey his programming) is most similar to markus' while lando's is more akin to connor's

bonus details that I can't really fit in a paragraph but want to add anyway:

android movements being inhumanly smooth conveniently mirrors oscar's irl driving style (minimal movement)

oscar normally has his pain receptors on despite being able to disable them. something about wanting to feel human (refuses to turn them off after crashes he feels were his fault despite mark scolding him about it)

yk the thing where both of these idiots are always dressed for opposite weather? yeah here it actually makes sense they were just programmed that way

I have no idea where lando's name comes from androids don't have names by default. they just get called "it" for the most part except oscar sometimes slips up and calls lando by his given name (that sounds very trans when I put it like that) which everyone else collectively goes "who the FUCK is lando" at

android transgenderism

I will not elaborate on that (note: I am trans. I will project this)

fun fact the piece that started it all ^^ was quite litterally just me seeing a picture of lando and going "dbh vibes" despite my knowledge of the game consisting of maybe half a playthrough I kinda-watched in 2021 (tubbo played it on stream lmao). it's safe to say that I may have hyperfixated on it a little tiny bit taking into account the 10 hours of playthrough I've watched and 2283 words of google doc we've written since that fateful day. whoopsies

also want to conclude this by saying that I purposefully didn't give too much away about the AU plot-wise because the hypothetical fic that hypothetically may come into existance at some point is hypothetically still a ways away and I don't want to spoil it too hard. consider this a director's commentary if you will

lmk if you wanna be added to the tag list for posts related to this au btw!!! I absolutely love hearing people's thoughts on it (though I am gonna be a bit busy in the coming weeks)

tag list (more people asked me to talk about this than I anticipated soz if I didn't respond directly I hope this makes up for it) @roosterhouse @wisteriagoesvroom @kpiastri @kingkestrel

[wickmitz]

I decided to start talking about Wick and Rocky's relationship because I like their dynamics too, I like seeing Wick scared of Rocky and Rocky being aggressive with him, which is unusual because Rocky is rarely aggressive with anyone, but of course Wick is an exception to rule

Also my mini opinion about their possible relationship, I think that if Rocky didn't have to fight for his place, then he and Wick could become friends, or at least tolerate each other a little, I also see some superficial similarities, their gentlemanly and romantic natures, and their common love for explosions (remembering the quarrymen chapter), but this is my assumption, I think that I don't understand the characters' personalities well, so I can be wrong in this assumption, something like that. So, what do you think about their relationship?

for starters, i cannot thank you enough for this ask! as i’ve said previously, i have many thoughts on these two, so it’s nice to finally be able to share some of them. although given the extent to which i think about them, i apologize in advance if this is sloppy and sort of everywhere … while i’ll try to structure things the best i can, i cannot promise i’ll succeed! but hopefully this is an enjoyable reply nonetheless.

one of my favorite things about rocky and wick’s relationship is absolutely how aggressive rocky is towards the aristocrat ; he is prone to glares and cruel jokes and borderline hissing whenever the man is within his line of sight, or can be brought to a wailing-fit over the mere mention of his name from miss m’s mouth. there is a childishness to it, but a very prominent threat as well in spite of rocky’s usual incompetence. so he goes out of his way to posture around wick, readily lying and adorning himself with the gangster drapes he so badly wants to wear, in the hopes that it intimidates … will even badmouth wick’s family and make fun of his name and rock related obsession to mitzi, and so on so forth! yet all of this is very reminiscent of schoolyard bullying rather than anything too severe, though we as the audience understand rather quickly that rocky would bash wick’s head in with a tire iron if he could. ( translation : if it wouldn’t earn the tears or hate of a certain beloved mitzi may ) and it’s all very intense despite the absence of actual violence! and i understand why many fans see this as unusual for rocky and believe that it’s only wick who makes him act so aggressively, but i’d argue it isn’t really wick at all that prompts such scary reactions from him … and that rocky is a deeply angry character who’s a.) been boiling quietly for a long, long time and b.) has turned wick into a punching bag of sorts for this inner world of resentment and hurt. basically, when he’s judging the well-to-do or poking fun, his eyes don’t look at wick and actually acknowledge him as sedgewick sable ; instead this is a being, something vague and metaphorical, who threatens to upseat rocky’s permanence in the lackadaisy and steal away his savior, and he’s had a hand in the violinist’s misfortune for a long time.

obviously, rocky doesn’t think wick robbed him of his family twice over and made him homeless, but he is channeling the fear and anguish of those events into his loathing for wick, if that makes sense? it’s easier that way -- to finally have an outlet for everything bleeding inside of you, to be able to bite and claw at something without feeling conflicted or having to take personal accountability for your own mistakes … which is something that i think rocky does struggle with to a degree. he is sort of a finger pointer! his pain has to be worth something, it has to be for someone else ; spending years homeless and losing his last bit of family was for freckle, and the scrambling of his literal brain was for mitzi, and that means he can’t ever be angry with them! well, except that he is, somewhat, but he buries it deep down instead of feeling it. with freckle there is a sense of strain between them -- an air of ‘you owe me’ from rocky to freckle as he uses freckle to appease miss m, and he constantly pokes fun at his cousin too. it’s lighter than his jabs at wick, but there’s a constant pestering, a reminder of how good freckle has it : how he’s got the mom and the house and the job and the girl most notably. i don’t think rocky is intending to come across as mean, and to his credit he hardly does! but it’s rather clear to me that some part of him, some hidden and deeply hurt part, is rather indignant about taking the fall for freckle all those years ago. which he can’t understand, because how could he? he made that choice, he decided to take accountability for something he didn’t do because he loves freckle and knows it’d be so easy to believe this family tragedy was roark’s fault ; the devilish child he was, all troublesome and too broken to properly fit anywhere. so there is a disconnect born here, where rocky can’t comprehend that he’d be angry at freckle, so instead these not so great feelings are placed elsewhere and silently boil over time. and with mitzi … i don’t think he’s angry at her per se, but there is a frustrated and desperate chorus of : why him and why not me, when i’m the one out here dying for you? which is certainly unpleasant. of course, rather than allowing those feelings to be more aimed at miss m, whom he feels unloved by, he ( again! ) represses these emotions and allows them to fester into his greatest fears and fantastical complexes. i think there is a lot of other miscellaneous anger he could have towards others too … perhaps some part of him is sore upon seeing ivy’s normal lifestyle, watching her go to university and knowing that’s been taken from him. or an ache felt when hearing stories from zib and the band and how they used to travel successfully, living as nomads, and rocky is all too reminded of his similar lifestyle and how he couldn’t make it work as effortlessly. people with immense trauma are more prone to irrational anger and jealousy, to viewing everything around them as unfair and believing it’s even more unjust that so many people get to live comfortably while they’ve suffered. a situation that gets more messy when you’re someone like rocky, a man who’s willingly made choices that have harmed himself and wants to continue on with his smiling, bumbling fool of an act. he does not want to be angry, does not want to see it within himself, i think, which leads to an accidental increase of it.

all of this is to reiterate that wick is a scapegoat for rocky and nothing more. it’s why he’s rather hypocritical whenever it concerns the man. for example, it was stated by tracy that he looks down upon wick for his excessive presence at the bar, yet he appears to enjoy hanging out with zib -- who drinks just as often! he makes fun of how all wick ever talks about is rocks, when he himself is prone to poetry rambles that people find irritating or boring, and etc etc. this is also just a human nature thing, to critique someone you heavily dislike and even going as far as to belittle things you love or do in your own day to day because you just hate them that bad! but given rocky’s willingness to befriend anyone, it more so reeks of a dehumanization element. wick is every obstacle in his way, every divine force that threatens to send him packing again, so he is equal parts unnerved by wick’s presence and angry about it. it is mostly a fear response we are seeing, an emotion that’s morphed into long held resentment and anger. so his actions are extremely defensive, with him trying to push wick far away and keep him and mitzi separate, like some sort of animal attempting to ward off a threat that’s come too close to their home. despite the loaded animosity there, this hate has hardly reached its peak … but it shall only grow more intense as things continue onward i’m afraid, since as it stands ( in the comic at least ) rocky is at an all time low … and is ten times more desperate. i’d honestly say wick has become so warped in his mind’s eye that he can only strive towards ‘winning’ over the other man, because that’s all he can see anymore. i think mitzi implying that wick willingly helped her out, the intense head injury, and rocky’s fragile emotional state is exactly what pushes him towards premeditated murder in look-see. i don’t know how people perceive that arc, but to me it’s very clear that rocky actively sought to see the deaths of wes and fish that night. going as far as to lament that he’d be, “very disappointed if ( he ) dreamed them,” and purposefully luring the marigold duo away to have freckle pick them off. while you could argue that this was a smart move, in a gangster sort of sense, there’s still no denying that rocky is oddly chipper about the whole thing and is now seeking death out ; whereas before his methods of vengeance were just, well, ruining people’s livelihood but ultimately leaving them alive. this isn’t to discredit the fact that rocky is going through something! he is in a very muddled and dark place, mentally and physically, but even tracy has said that the head injury hasn’t changed rocky’s personality -- it’s only brought things to the surface.

source : q&a with tracy .

which, yeah! makes sense! head trauma can cause a person to become a wreck emotionally ( think mood swings, irritability, etc ) but it doesn’t completely morph someone either. personality changes may occur, but it’s not like you’re being rewritten entirely, you know? and given tracy’s old statement, it’s clear that ‘personality changes’ aren’t a side effect he’s suffering from. something that adds to my beginning statement, which is that rocky is a deeply angry and troubled person, more so than fans give him any credit for.

however, to touch upon your mini opinion about these two, i actually wholeheartedly agree that rocky and wick could become friends if circumstances were different. they do in fact have many superficial similarities, but one of the more prominent things they deeply share is never really belonging in the groups they frequent. this is more overt with rocky’s character, yet wick faces it too in subtle ways. the well-to-do crowd, seen through the investors, find the gentleman to be lacking in about every place imaginable ; to them he is an obsessive freak who cares too deeply for meager rocks, something they constantly mock him for, while he’s also being noticeably set apart from the rest of them … he seems younger than the investors, more excitable, passionate, and a little less experienced, and doesn’t seem to care for money or reputation as much as them either. there is a constant rubbing between him and them, where what he enjoys is seen as wrong, such as his love for the lackadaisy and his choice in paramor, a grieving widow with extremely dangerous ties. we also know that wick doesn’t have many friends at all, with the only two he has being lacy and church ( church is listed as such on his character profile, in a sort of tongue-in-cheek way ), both of whom work for or with him. they are obliged to hang around, and while they care in varying ways, they are prone to judging him just as much. honestly, it’s not shocking that wick seeks refuge at his chosen speakeasy! but even there he is rather distant from everyone else. he doesn’t speak to zib ever in the comics, nor seems all too close with viktor, ivy, or horatio … it is merely mitzi he is close to, even if he knows of the other people who work there. and, once again, wick very obviously doesn’t fit in. he is not gangster material, could never be an atlas may replacement, much less someone who could get his paws dirty in such an active way. so he has his feet in two different worlds and doesn’t know how to fit into either of them, or which one he actually wants to fit into more. i think in many ways rocky could relate -- these are two very lonely people who wish to belong somewhere and be accepted by some group or another but go about it in all the wrong ways. wick, who is too hesitant to fully commit to what he wants and is worse off for it, and then rocky, who obsessively throws himself against what he wants until he breaks every bone in his body. they also have explosives to bond over, lol, and other miscellaneous things like their taste in women i suppose … but this potential bond adds to the tragedy of lackadaisy, where we see two people who on every level should get along but we’re burdened with the knowledge that it’s an impossibility anyway, because there’s no removing the circumstance of which they’re in.

though i like to believe that despite wick’s fear of rocky, he maintains a kindness towards him regardless. i think his worries about rocky are rather surface level … he doesn’t know the boy at all, really, and thus can’t make heads or tails of him, hence him believing the lie in balderdash. so when i’m feeling particularly self indulgent, i like imagining a world where they’re forced together and sort of ‘stuck’ together ; to which rocky finally breaks and exposes his wounds to wick, in every sense of the word, and wick finally gets him. the aggression, the possessiveness of mitzi … it is all fear and desperation and a profound sadness, things he’d sympathize with. if rocky was able to explain that he loathes wick because if he saves the lackadaisy then mitzi won’t need him anymore and that it’s not fair that wick gets to so easily fix things when rocky would give his soul for his home, for her, and how wick could render every sacrifice he’s already made for naught by smoothing things over with some greenbacks and he can’t lose this, he just can’t --! … which, well, wick is too kind of a man to be able to do anything except feel awful, even though it’s not his fault at all. here we have two people who could coexist! and they should, since rocky logically can’t do every speakeasy job ( band member, rumrunner, mitzi’s shadow, also the guy who gets the money for the hooch ) by himself, just like how wick can’t save the lackadaisy with only his cash and limited booze stash. it’d be a joint cooperation, a collaboration between them, both equally important in the grand scheme of crime’s every turning wheel … but rocky’s rage and fear won’t let him see that, and likely never will. still, in scenarios where everything ends up alright for the lackadaisy and the people involved in it ( which is not how canon will go, by the way ), i fancy wick and rocky getting better within their relationship. rocky will always be prickly and quick to upset around the other man sadly, but perhaps he could see wick in a softer kind of light. or at least understand vaguely enough that he isn’t out to get rocky, so to speak. and then maybe wick learns that pancakes soothe rocky’s ire and poorly makes them anytime he wishes to talk to the man, and other fun things like that! but you should have more confidence in your character analysis skills, because you were spot on ( at least in my eyes ) about them potentially getting along if things were different. it’s certainly a fun aspect to play around with, and is important to note when discussing their relationship so you can fully understand just how warped rocky’s perspective on things are. and how unstable and traumatized he is too, of course </3 sidenote, but i also hope that throughout everything i’ve said here, or anything i’ve said before on my blog, that my love for rocky and my own sympathy for him comes across well enough. while he’s deeply flawed and i have no qualms discussing said flaws in depth, i also don’t think of him as some insane freak who’s evil at his core or anything like that. honestly, i adore analyzing him so much as a character because of how far down his issues go! he’s very well written, i’ll say, as is wick and many of the other characters, but i digress.

once more, thank you for the ask! i’ll end this here because i fear if i don’t i’ll start going in circles, since their relationship is so vast and very important for rocky in a character sense. hopefully i shed some more light on it though! i love these two to bits and pieces and i wouldn’t be half as invested in lackadaisy if their dynamic wasn’t so monumental -- at least to me.

[lovelyyandereaddictionpoint]

Hi! Can I request Yandere Byakuya with a gender neutral reader(if you do those) who is the ultimate delinquent and they are very aggressive and hot headed, stubborn and just overall not a pushover at all. They care but they will absolutely beat the absolute shit out of someone?

Yandere Byakuya Togami x Ultimate Delinquent Reader

He’s not inherently fond of you

You’re supposed attitude, your dress, and your ultimate title

all point to a character he does not know or is fond of 

The absolute opposite of an Ultimate Affluent Progeny 

No money, no prospects, nothing to your name but your reputation for delinquency

And after all that you couldn’t even become the ultimate highschool level gang leader 

That role was manly taken

It's his mistake for taking you for a complete idiot

Losing his cool during the trial as you reveal his trickery and outside intentions with the investigation

“What?! Did you think I was an absolute dolt?!”

He also doesn’t expect how quickly you put him in a headlock as you spit in his ear

“Don’t. Ever. Include me in your crackpot ideas again, got it?!”

“F-f-fine…b-but I can’t help you if you look like an idiot-"

You tighten your hold 

Having Sakura and the majority of the group forcing you to let go

It's a strong-standing rivalry between you two

That everyone’s aware of 

Even Genocider Syo expects this 

But as many know supposed hate can be just as close as love

And in Byakuya’s case, it's quite an extreme example of that:

Dear fiendish enemy of Mine,

You will be pleased to know that I wish to accept an apology from you. 

I will be in the library, waiting.

–The Ultimate Affluent Progeny, Togami Byakuya

That’s what it said. The letter slipped under your doorway in the heat of the night or the morning you typically slept in on. You scoffed crumpling the letter before tossing it into your trashcan; just to spite him you debated leaving your room at all. You were all for keeping everyone alive and whatnot but the meetings were early and you were never one for following rules anyway. As much as you hated being grouped up with the rich boy you weren’t going to go out of your way to be some other hero type; that’s what Makoto was for. With ease, you settled into your bed drifting into another deep sleep. You’d eat later.

When you awoke, you had no indicator for any time passing. With an audible growl from your stomach, you tiredly sat up, finally setting yourself on a mission to feed yourself. Considering Monokuma hadn’t woken you up obnoxiously you figured nobody had died yet. That was good. Best case scenario it was ‘nighttime’ and you could feast without anyone bothering you. Pushing the handle down you only gave it a nudge with your hip. 

“D-did I forget to lock it?”

You tried the handle again to find the door was still unmovable. Getting irritated quickly you went to kick the door open only for the door to stay in place with the weight of something on the other side. 

“But why would there be something against the door?”

You tried again but to no avail spiraling you into a fit of anger. Turning from the door in a huff you began to take your anger out on the few pieces of furniture. Kicking over the table, throwing out the drawers of the cabinet; you were about to slam off the objects resting on the bolted shelf. Stopping when you see a familiar letter next to a lunch box.

Dear idiot of Mine,

I knew you wouldn’t follow such a simple command and that’s what I counted on! 

Now who’s the victim of their own laziness?! Since you are so inclined to laze about it makes you a difficult target in the killing game. Nonetheless, I can not have your reckless discretion decide both our fates thus I am making the executive decision to keep you caged.

“Caged!? That brat who does he think he is!?”

See like a dog you have a master. I would have included you in this decision if I was sure you were competent enough to understand it. But you are not and I am tired of trying to change that. 

Therefore be pleased you are going to be taking a back seat to this game and if you’re lucky enough Monokums will let you watch as I win this game. 

Eat dear idiot. And if you can muster the brain power read. You might be interested in rotting your life away but I am not. The exact opposite actually, I fully intend to have you tamed when I am through with this game.

Enjoy your suspension (Y/n), Togami Byakuya

Throwing the letter out of sight you reached into the duffle to find a few full thermoses, multiple bottles of water, some books, and some canned foods. Resisting the urge to throw its contents all around the room you instead picked up the letter again rereading the words as you tried to make sense of your predicament. 

“S-suspended!?”

‘Was that even possible in a killing school game.’

Whether or not it was as the Ultimate Affluent Progeny: Togami Byakuya said so. And it would be your fate until the game officially ended.

[applepie2523]

" HOTD's Issues Writing Women Part 2: The Whitewashing of Rhaenyra

**This is part 2 of my analysis on the issues with the writing of the two main female characters. If you haven’t already please read my part 1 post where I analyze Alicent’s character assassination which you can find on my profile.** I think many fans on the Blacks and Greens and in between regarding HOTD have been concerned and disappointed with the way the two main female characters: Rhaenyra Targaryen and Alicent Hightower have been written in HOTD seasons 1-2. This is very understandable. Female characters in general in HOTD and I think a lot of Hollywood films nowadays are not being written as well as they used to be and could be. Go on Youtube or Google and you'll find many film reviews/tv show reviews that critique the Mary Sue and Girlbossification or just poorly written in general female characters that are taking up a chunk of characters in Hollywood. Rhaenyra and Alicent to me were such great characters in F&B. They were two different kinds of medieval women in a fantasy setting. One, the medieval queen who gains power/influence through her relationship with men and advocating for her son. Two, the medieval queen who sought power in her name and defied some norms that make her compelling but also immoral in their eyes. They are two deeply flawed and complex characters fighting on opposite sides of a dynastic civil war.

This post is here to address the main issues of whitewashing when it comes to writing Rhaenyra Targaryen.

\***Some disclaimers: This is no issue with the actor themself. Emma D'Arcy while I may disagree with their opinions from time to time, they are a wonderful actor who is doing the best they can with the scripts they're given, so this is by no means a critique of them. I am going off of the show canon although the book will be mentioned.**

**So firstly... What is whitewashing?**

The modern definition of white washing is to cast in a show/movie or rewrite a character of a minority and make them white. For example, if someone decides to do a movie about Rosa Parks and they cast Emma Stone. However, white washing has another definition. It means to essentially remove or hide negative unpleasant facts or traits of a person or thing. I think Rhaenyra Targaryen suffers from this problem as many of her written negative traits or deeds so far are either not shown, projected onto another character close to her (Daemon Targaryen mostly), or severely downplayed. This results in a character that is almost too virtuous and bland for the setting she is in and a far cry from who she should be. A character whom doesn't seem to fit in the ruthless at times immoral world of Westeros. A character whom is almost a close to a Mary Sue. As I am very much on the belief that flaws versus virtues are what make a character compelling and human.

**I will say not every change made to Rhaenyra story arc and personality are necessarily all bad. Some are good ideas just poorly executed (ex - exploring more of Rhaenyra's hinted bisexuality, as there are hints in F&B that her close relationship with Laena may or may not have been more than platonic) and others are just good changes in general.**

*1. Victims vs. Villains - Biases in Writing Female Characters*

In the words of the iconic Grey's Anatomy actress Ellen Pompeo, “Women are one of two roles. You’re either the victim or the villain. But the victims are only victims because they don’t have what it takes to be the villain.” I think she states the major issue with writing female characters nowadays that HOTD has an issue with. Women must either be victims or villains. The character assassination of Alicent and white washing of Rhaenyra to me stems from this: Alicent is the villain in Rhaenyra's story to Rhaenyra's victimhood.

*2. Rhaenyra's Negative Traits: Arrogance, Hot Temper, Frivolity, and Bad Decisions to Peace-Loving and Plainness*

Rhaenyra had many great qualities in the book but it is only when coupled with major character flaws are we truly compelled. She was a loving mother, passionate, intelligent to a degree, etc. However, she was also very ambitious and power-hungry, arrogant at times, quick to anger, slow to forgive, and frivolous at times. **As a writer myself, I firmly believe that characters are truly humanized and compelling when they have major character flaws coupled with their virtues. Flaws they either have to overcome or use to their advantage. Flaws that make them who they are. Flaws create layers of complexity in a character. Or Flaws that help foster the characters downfall.**

I'm not saying the Rhaenyra in the show isn't flawed. She is! For example, I think what's great is that a flaw they gave Rhaenyra is something show Viserys also had: the ability to ignore or downplay potential conflicts or hard truths versus facing them head on. Viserys refused to see the potential conflicts in naming Rhaenyra heir or pretending her elder three children are trueborn. Rhaenyra in the show refused to listen to Jace whose concerns regarding his parentage as her successor and the dragonseeds were ignored or dismissed. The issue is thought, Rhaenyra is not given the flaws that she most certainly had, **flaws that helped lead to her downfall**. She's not flawed the way she's supposed to be.

Similar to many other Targaryens including her half-brother Aegon II, Rhaenyra was quick to anger and slow to forgive. We have some brief moments where we see Rhaenyra's temper and quick witt, but we don't see the major moments where her major character flaws are shown. Alicent provokes Rhaenyra for example in season 1, having her take Joffrey to her moments after he is born. We never see Rhaenyra provoke Alicent back. Any times where we should have seen Rhaenyra's sharp temper at the slightest of remarks are not shown.

Rhaenyra's actions herself were also very whitewashed with how they were portrayed. We either see their negative consequences downplayed, not shown, or the actions were projected onto another male character. In the books due to how similar Laenor and Rhaenyra were in looks (I mean they were both white) there was still a tad more ambiguity as to whether or not Jace, Luke, and Joffrey were bastards. Race changing the Velaryons made it even more obvious her elder three boys were bastards. I took issue with the writing of Rhaenyra's dialogue and that of the characters around her, not truly showcasing why having bastards, especially as a woman, is a truly egregious thing. The potential chaos Rhaenyra could cause was completely downplayed.

A few actions for example that were incredibly violent and evil were butchered. First example being the murder of Vaemond Velaryon. I was disappointed with this scene. Firstly, we only see Vaemond protest Luke inheriting Driftmark which sets it up as more so an ambitious second son seeking power versus a man who doesn't want his house to be run by someone not of his blood. We don't see other Velaryons protesting with him. After Vaemond made his little speech, Rhaenyra orders him dead and Daemon kills him on **her orders**. She then viciously has his corpse fed to her dragon Syrax. I think this scene was crucial as it foreshadows the danger Rhaenyra would be in the future to House Velaryon and sow more seeds of discontent that are crucial to the house's eventual turn to the Green side. Not only is Vaemond killed more viciously, Viserys orders the tongue removal of even more Velaryons who sided with Vaemond with Rhaenyra's consent! Instead, the show projects this entirely onto Daemon. Daemon goes Rogue (see what I did there) and kills Vaemond on his own accord. Rhaenyra stands there shocked and doesn't even order the body fed to her dragon. Rhaenyra is absolved from all blame to Vaemond's unjust execution without trial.

The thing about B&C is Rhaenyra was paralyzed with grief for her son, Luke. The moment her child died was the moment where her descent into madness and powerful wrath began to truly manifest and she would stop at nothing. I was very disappointed in the fact that she has one episode of grieving and then continues to be so level-headed. I couldn't feel her grief, rage, and resentment towards the Greens for her son's death that makes the war even worse. Daemon tells Rhaenyra that he would avenge her son. I loved the acting of Matt and Emma during their argument about the aftermath. However, I felt like Rhaenyra wasn't acting on character with the book. I don't think book Rhaenyra was 100% okay with a child dying as her vengeance, but I do feel with how angered and filled with grief and hatred Rhaenyra should be, Rhaenyra should be a bit more hardened. She should have not been so sorry about the child's death.

I also think that one of Rhaenyra's most controversial and evil decisions in the future are going to either not be included, blamed on someone else, or downplayed. It's very clear at the end of season 2 episode 8 that my favorite dragonseed Nettles is being cut and given to Rhaena who had her own plot and dragon hatchling. After Ulf the White and Hugh Hammer betray her, Rhaenyra's paranoia goes overload and declares that all the dragonseeds are traitors. Corlys advocates for Addam Velaryon and Nettles and Rhaenyra responds by having him arrested. He warns Addam, and is then bound, beaten, and thrown into the black cells. One of her most powerful allies is now thrown in the black cells. This causes the fleet of House Velaryon to turn against her. Later, she attempts to violate guest right, which is sacred in Westeros (which is why the Red Wedding was so horrific to Westeros even more so), by plotting to have Nettles murdered. As Nettles is being cut, I doubt they'd show this truly negative action as Rhaena can't have Nettles's complete plot. Rhaenyra's unjust arrest of Corlys and House Velaryon turning from her from what they're doing so far might just be blamed on someone else, have a different excuse that is not the one that the book gave, or not shown whatsoever.

I also think they might just be setting her up to be innocent of the torture of Tyland Lannister. After the Greens flee with most of the treasury leaving Rhaenyra in Kingslanding pretty broke, he refused to tell her where the gold was sent. Under Rhaenyra's orders he was tortured and castrated and blinded and disfigured to point of being disgusting. They might just have him be tortured by Mysaria or Daemon on their own accord without Rhaenyra's orders, leaving her innocent, or they will have him tortured by the Triarchy or something. Maybe after Mysaria and/or Daemon torture him, they'll frame it as vengeance for Jace and then Rhaenyra might let him go to appear merciful to an audience. As they cut Maelor whose murder was the breaking point that caused Helaena's suicide, we might not see how another child under the war was murdered by her faction. I worry that they won't show how how her cruelties that she did on her own accord caused her to be hated just as much if not more than her half brothers Aegon II and Aemond. They might not truly set the tone and show actions that lead to her being "Rhaenyra the Cruel" and "Maegor with Teats" they might not show the actions, or blame them on someone else or something else. They might not have her tax into oblivion the smallfolk or send her knight inquisitors to execute dozens upon dozens of supposed or proven Green traitors. I was also confused by the characterization of the smallfolk as these naive little lambs who will follow whatever. There is no famine or riot against the Greens at the point the show showed it. I was pleased with the fact that we saw the book-accurate support the smallfolk gave to Helaena after her son was murdered and how angered they were at Rhaenyra and the Blacks. However, days later they are singing her praises. It makes no sense to me that they would forget something so easily. Of course, I argue in another post on my profile why the riot and famine made no sense. So they might continue to get rid of her all of her negative actions.

**These evil actions make her even more compelling and even more realistic in a violent medieval world. It shows how both sides commit great evils as both Rhaenyra and Aegon II were not remembered fondly by their own descendants, smallfolk, and nobles alike.**

I also hate how they hardly showed just how feminine almost girly Rhaenyra was. Rhaenyra notably loved fashion and wearing beautiful intricate gowns that always showed off her beauty and figure. She dressed very richly as befitting her station, wearing gowns of purple with maroon velvet and Myrish lace. Her bodices often had pearls and diamonds. She always wore rings on her finger that she'd play with and turn when anxious. I honestly found these traits very endearing and relatable as someone who is a girly girl. Finally, a "strong female character" who is a leader who is also very feminine and girly. She doesn't need to be a tomboy and wield a sword to be a badass. But no... we don't see that. Yes the costumes Emma D'Arcy wore were nice I guess on the show but they didn't feel like something book Rhaenyra would wear. I get they had budgets but still... you couldn't have made something else? Like where is the purple and maroon? She's mostly wearing just red and black. No rings. No nothing!

*3. Unequal Screen Time and Too "Modernized": Rhaenyra is the Main Modern Girl*

I feel like HOTD has a problem with perspective. GOT had it perfectly done! The original ASOIAF were written from the perspective of multiple characters so we got a perfect ensemble cast with writing that highlighted the stories and perspectives of many different characters. Jon Snow's narrative didn't overtake Daenerys's screen time and vice versa which is just how it should be. However, I feel HOTD makes a mistake especially in season 1 with framing. Rhaenyra as the main with secondary-main perspectives of Alicent and Daemon. We get most of season 1 from Rhaenyra's perspective and to a lesser extent Daemon and Alicent when the show should have been formatted like GOT as multiple perspectives were given in F&B. We should have gotten an ensemble cast with equal development and perspective from multiple characters, especially an equal development of both Aegon II and Rhaenyra. We get both of Rhaenyra's weddings, two births, her raising her children, many scenes with her dragon, her perspective, and her interactions. Our first intro to her sets her up in a more heroic light as she's a beautiful princess riding her dragon. We don't get Aegon II's wedding or Alicent's. No birth scenes for Alicent or Helaena. We hardly get their perspectives compared to Rhaenyra. We should have seen more of Aegon II's childhood and perspective versus just him being a bully and later a rapist. While they improved perspective a bit more in season 2, it's not enough to take away from what was done in season 1. Rhaenyra is the protagonist and **THE main character versus A main character.**

What I think they should have done is showcase the real dynamic of Alicent and Rhaenyra more. They can start off with their friendship but then transition it to the dynamic that both women had at court: competition. Both women wanted to be First Lady of the Realm and first priority to King Viserys. The Queen vs the Princess and named heir.

Rhaenyra does at times come off as more modern than she should be. I think her and even her aunt Rhaenys. For example, in the book Rhaenyra is at times very homophobic by our standards to Laenor. When she discovers she's to marry Laenor Velaryon in the show, we see her initially not too excited about it, but not fully antagonistic. She in fact has a very decent and friendship like conversation where she uses the metaphor of preferring roast duck to insinuate she understands and accepts Laenor for being gay, deciding to do their duty and support one another, while pursuing their own pleasure with each other's consent with whomever that may be. They appear to be very supportive of one another times, at least on Rhaenyra's end. She compliments him deeply when he says he wishes he were different.

While I'm sure on some level Rhaenyra wishes Laenor was bisexual at the very least so they can have more than a friendship and have trueborn kids together, Rhaenyra is almost too accepting for her medieval context. In the medieval world, same sex relationships were a HUGE no-no. In fact being gay was considered a mental illness and sickness up until the 20th century! Rhaenyra appears too accepting of Laenor, appearing too modern in just how accepting she is. In reality, while I'm sure Book Rhaenyra cared for Laenor on some level and had some kind of respect for him and affection, it wasn't this deep and this accepting. Laenor did mean something to her on some level, after all he is still the man she married, and very important to her storyline---however Rhaenyra in the book as a much more medieval reaction and medieval view on his sexuality. She was notably very unhappy about her betrothal to him. It took serious threats from King Viserys to remove her from the line of succession in order to get her on board and she did so reluctantly. She notably even said that "My half brothers would be more to his taste." This is a very cutting and almost homophobic statement. I mean her half-brothers were still toddlers. However, we never get any true antagonism, frustration, or even subtle or outward homophobia on Rhaenyra's end. While this statement is mean and homophobic, that is a more medieval response. It's sad, but it's true. Rhaenyra is a medieval woman in a medieval setting. She is a product of what her society raised her to be, which is being gay isn't something one should accept.

The same issue occurs with Rhaenys having an almost too modern point of view or opinion that doesn't fit with her medieval setting. When she discovers her husband Corlys Velaryon has bastard children, Addam and Alyn of Hull, she is neither furious nor disappointed or horrified. In fact, Rhaenys advocates that they deserve to be "raised up and honored not hidden in the tides." This is an incredibly unrealistic and unfitting reaction on Rhaenys's end. In our modern day society, even, if a woman finds out her husband cheated on her and sired kids off his side chick, she'd be furious. Of course, I think a moral modern woman wouldn't take her anger out on the children, but still. Rhaenys's reaction is almost too modern and too gracious. Characters are products of their circumstances. Despite Westeros being a fantasy world, we feel how medieval the characters are through their beliefs and behaviors. Catelyn Stark or Cersei Lannister's reactions to their husband's bastards is far more realistic---specifically how Catelyn and Cersei hated what their husbands had done and felt it was an affront to them personally. Corlys in the books was terrified of Rhaenys finding out as it would dishonor him, her, and their dead children together which is why he tried to pass them off as Laenor's no matter how ridiculous is sounded. Rhaenys should have been more realistically horrified at Corlys and angry. She shouldn't be advocating for them to be anywhere near her house or imply they should have been raised amongst their own trueborn children.

I think this does two things: 1) Makes it though Rhaenys is fully on Rhaenyra's side when raising her bastard children of Harwin as if they are her trueborn grandsons and 2) Modernizes her too much. That is a main issue. The show attempts to modernize her and make her appeal to a more modern audience. However, there is a way to do that without modernizing her so much that she doesn't seem to fit with her medieval context.

was very disappointed when I heard that the directors told Olivia Cooke to portray Alicent as "woman for Trump" and Rhaenyra is this "punk-rock Hillary Clinton." Modern day politics and movements and ideologies have little to no place in the way Westeros should be written as its a **realistic medieval setting with realistic medieval characters in a fantasy world**. Rhaenyra is too modern in her interactions and beliefs that she doesn't seem to fit well in Westeros. Rhaenyra as well is also presented as this more feminist character.

*4. Two Things Can Be True At Once: Women Can Be Victims of Sexism AND Still Do Terrible Things, Be Self-Serving, and Wield Significant Amounts of Power*

**What I ultimately believe that Condal and the HOTD production seem to get wrong is that in a medieval setting like Westeros, women are ALWAYS overlooked and dismissed and cannot take so much significant power. I feel like they believe that women can't do terrible things in the patriarchal system of Westeros while being victims of sexism.**

Women in the real middle ages and Westeros in Martin's story are not feminists by our definition. At times we see women take advantage of and gain power from the sexist patriarchal society they live in. We see it with Cersei Lannister, Margaery Tyrell, Daenerys Targareyen, Catelyn Stark, Olenna Tyrell, Ellaria Sand, Lysa Arryn, Melisandre, Arya Stark, Sansa Stark, every woman in the original GOT series were victims of sexism and an oppressive patriarchal system of Westeros just like real women of the Middle Ages AND YET they still were able to wield some power and do terrible or morally gray things. We can view them as victims of a horrible system but still see how they take advantage of it, gain power and agency as they have no choice to use the system versus fight it, do horrible things, but still view them as victims.

Rhaenyra is one example! I will say that this is partly more so the interpretation of the modern casual audience versus a writing issue, but it is still a writing issue that there are people who believe her to be a feminist. She's not! Of course just because she isn't one doesn't mean you can't root for her, but don't root for her if you think she's a feminist. We might never see the moments where Rhaenyra herself is denying women rights of inheritance from Lady Stokeworth to Lady Rosby. We should have been emphasized that Rhaenyra is not the closest thing to a modern day feminist. She is not advocating for women's rights or to make the world better for women, but to be an exception to the rule. Like most medieval woman in power, she takes advantage of the patriarchal system and gets power from it. Laena Velaryon is older than Laenor. She takes advantage of patriachal rulings to install her (bastard) "son of Laenor" as future Lord of Driftmark versus advocating that the eldest child, Baela Targaryen, daughter of Laena Velaryon, the elder sibling, to inherit Driftmark.

Victims can be villainous too! Soft power. Rarely in the Medieval world do we see women wield a hard power in their own name. Of course we have outliers, but in the end most medieval women wielded a soft power---gaining influence and power through manipulating their relationships with men (their husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, etc.). Did real Medieval women know they were oppressed? Perhaps they did, and perhaps they accepted it. Did real Medieval women make efforts to change it? I wouldn't say so. Many women upheld the status quo of men being dominant.

For example, in keeping with British history that Martin is so inspired by, going off of blood-ties alone, Lady Margaret Beaufort had a stronger claim to the English throne via her Lancastrian blood than her own son Henry VII, and yet she advocated for her son not herself to be the next ruler of England. Queen Elizabeth Woodville had three daughters (Elizabeth, Cecily, and Mary) before she had her son Edward V. Like any medieval woman with three daughters alone there was growing pressure to secure her husband's line and her own position by producing a male heir. She never tried to name any of her elder daughters over her son once she had him nor did she ever try to advocate to her husband King Edward IV that he didn't need a male heir, he had his eldest daughter Elizabeth of York.

Rhaenyra Targaryen as well is presented almost like she's pursuing power to make Westeros better and that she has more altruistic and kind intentions behind her actions. I mean this weird "Aegon Prophecy" contributes to it. I think we should have seen a more realistic medieval and Westerosi character by having Rhaenyra, just like Alicent or Aegon II, pursue power because she can! Pursue power and queenship for the sake of having it and because she believes herself entitled to it versus these more "virtuous reasons." I mean in the book she never considered accepting the peace terms despite how generous they were because she refused to renounce her claim and back down! She wanted power because felt entitled to it and because every character in Westeros wants power to some degree. Ambition is a theme and characteristic that unites every character in Martin's world.

**My Takeaway? The Writers are Biased and Fail to Understand the Medieval Context of Westeros and Martin's Female Characters. Don't implement modern politics and biases into a medieval show**

I love that Martin tries to write his women the way he writes his men. He has explicitly stated that he writes his women the way he writes his men. He states that women are people too. They can be driven by the same things men are in Westeros and/or the real world: love, anger, hatred, a desire for power, vengeance, grief, guilt, bringing glory to their name and themselves, a desire to protect their family, etc.

Most of all: **Westeros is a realistic medieval world with realistic medieval characters in an unrealistic fantasy setting.** So you have to look at it from primarily a medieval lens in order to fully understand it and its character. While its okay to analyze using some modern concepts and lenses (ex - analyze how Daemon is a pedophile) you have to couple it with a lot of grace and understanding of their medieval context and morals that impacts the way the characters behave as we are products of our own historical context (ex - remembering that pedophilia and child grooming isn't much of a concept in the medieval world. The moment a girl has her first period, they are a consenting woman in his context).

So I find it disingenuous to write off all of Rhaenyra Targaryen's negative traits as just nothing but maester propaganda and due to sexism. I disliked how they downplayed her ambition, arrogance, rage, and cruelties to make her appear more modern and peaceful and the most virtuous character on the show. Yes, perhaps sexism could have had some tie into how Rhaenyra was viewed in Westeros. However, historians in the real world can't just dismiss reports about what a medieval woman was like simply because of the sexist world they were living in. By that standard, perhaps a woman like Queen Anne of Brittany wasn't all that bad or Margaret of Anjou. By that standard anything that was negative about the personalities of any medieval woman in power is all just rubbish and not true.

I felt we should have seen more of the kind of women that Martin writes. The kind of women that fit with his medieval-fantasy narrative that showcases how pursuing power at all costs leads to nothing but ruin. We should have seen layered women. We should have seen a more book-accurate Rhaenyra. We shouldn't have to settle for a lackluster story where Rhaenyra is nowhere close to her book counterpart.

**And most of all, the HOTD team shouldn't subtly or outwardly bash the original source material as nothing but sexist propaganda to excuse the lackluster writing of the female characters being nothing like their book counterparts or subtly or outwardly write off critics and fans like myself as toxic for pointing it out.**

**If you like this analysis, read on my profile my part 1 when I delve into the issues with HOTD’s Alicent.** "

[cirusthecitrus]

Iliad? In my She-Ra cartoon? It's more likely than you think

Some of you may know that og Hordak and Prime (from the motu franchise) also have "normal" names. Sooo, you know how long it took my dumb ass to realize that Hec-Tor and Anillis are spelled and pronounced suspiciously similar to Hector and Achilles - u know, the heroes from Homer's Iliad??*

I have no idea if this lil trivia fact is an intentional reference or not or if this specific choice of characters is supposed to mean anything at all. But it means everything to ME

Because why Horde Prime of all people was given the name of a hero?? Why Hordak, his brother, was given the name of his enemy and his victim? And why do these names fit the 2018s versions of these characters so well?

!I'm not an expert in ancient literature or greek mythology/history or anything close so my knowledge and understanding of the Iliad and its characters is literaly on the surface level! I'm only making this post cause looking for parallels is fun c:

Horde Prime as Achilles

The mythological hero, Achilles was often reffered to as the beast, or pure element, force of nature, or even a star. Not a person, not a human being

He was an exceptional fierce hero known for his passion and determination, but also his arrogance and stubborness. Noble yet often selfish and capricious, understanding and caring yet cruel

The one who possesed arcane knowledge about the fate of humanity, and with it - about his own destiny

The one protected by the gods, who was so close to godhood himself, whos body was immortalized in the river Styx

And yet, one small part remained vulnerable, a part of him stayed painfully human. And once it was discovered and aimed at, he was as good as dead

The one who was driven by horrific almost animalistic rage. Rage that came from pain and grief. Rage that came... from love?

Achilles lost someone dear to him and this loss blinded him with desire for revenge, made him chase after the warrior who took his loved one from him. He refused to let go, not even letting go of Hector's corpse

Hordak as Hector

Described as "deserving of love" Hector was a great warrior, deeply devoted and loyal to his home and his cause

A brave unstoppable leader who nonetheless made many mistakes by letting his human emotions and traits make him act unwise, arrogant, reckless and naive

The one who believed in his gods and trusted so many, but in the end was only deceived and lied to. And this lie was the reason why Hector could not escape Achilles' wrath

The cause and the victim of Achilles' rage. His personal enemy, the one who killed his beloved. The one who feared Achilles so much yet in the end stopped running away and faced him in their first and final duel

The one who lost everything. Doomed to die tragically by Achilles' hand. Hector didnt even beg for mercy, only for his body to be treated with respect, but Achilles could not be reasoned with. Instead he dragged his corpse behind his chariot for days on end, not letting him rest. Not letting Hector return home to his family

But wait, who is Patroclus of this story?

Funny how this part of Achilles' story fits Hordak a lot more, since it was him who lost a dear friend and it was him who was consumed with grief and fury. Thus, in a way, Hordak is both Hector and Achilles and Entrapta is his Patroclus. But what's Prime's deal then?

We can always enter fanon territory and headcanon that Prime might have lost someone a long time ago and grief turned him into a monster. Could be a lover, could be a friend or family, could be his old self even. But then what Hordak had to do with it? Why he became the target of his rage?

Perhaps in this version Patroclus isn't even a person. An idea of perfection and control. Hordak's imperfections ruined the image of his ideal world where everything goes his way, ruined his own image, the facade of an all mighty god who could not make a mistake or create something less than perfect. In a sense Hordak's defect and later betryal killed everything Prime was working on and was trying to achieve, everything he believed in

Perhaps Hordak is both Hector and Patroclus. A brother Prime loved so much, but only when he was still a perfect obedient doll with no name. But once Hordak began to change, showing his personhood and becoming harder to control, becoming unrecognizable, HP could not accept it. In his mind Prime lost a brother, and someone who named himself Hordak was his murderer

Again, I have no idea why the hell they chose these names for their aliases. Achilles and Hector were in no way pure or flawless people, but... they were still heroes. Does this say anything about the characters of Horde Prime and Hordak or their dynamic? Especially their motu versions**?? Or was this just a reference for the sake of reference? (oh maybe im only seeing things and its not even a reference??) They could've chosen an iconic pair of tragic brothers instead idk on the surface it'd seem more fitting :/

But i'd rather keep my tinfoil hat on and think that it was all intentional, because I'm LIVING for the implications regarding Prime's humanity .з.

**Motu fans and experts if you're reading this, i'd love to hear your thoughts on this, you have to know more than me!

[rubyglasses]

Fancasting The Secret History

sharing my vision of who could play these classics students

i tried to be as realistic as possible, considering their book descriptions and casting actors close in age to each other and their characters. after seeing so many of the same names in these fancasts, i wanted to throw some new ones in the mix!

henry's a big guy, dark-haired, square-jawed, bespectacled — he basically looks like clark kent/superman. so my thought process went to henry cavill look-alike, jamie flatters (b. 2000). coincidentally, my old fancast was david corenswet, so i guess it all checks out. i only know jamie from avatar: the way of water, but based on his music videos, i think he's got the acting chops to capture henry's more unhinged side that he lets slip idk

to me, bunny is the most american out of the group because of his family background, it's even described as "an upbringing vitally present in Bunny in every respect, from the way he shook your hand to the way he told a joke." saw this rudy pankow (b. 1998) casting suggestion on mycast and it just made total sense to me. having watched him as jj maybank in outer banks, i know he can capture how obnoxious bunny can be, and he'll do well trying to annoy every character and pushing their buttons.

admittedly, this was a hard one because i originally had tom glynn-carney in mind but i wanted someone younger, so i didn't go too far and went with ty tennant (b. 2002) who's played the younger version of his characters twice now. i mean if you think about it, aegon ii targaryen and charles have a couple things in common: both are alcoholics and have an incestuous relationship with their sister 😭 since charles and camilla look androgynous and described as angels, i figured ty looks the part. i also believe in ty's acting skills to portray charles' complexity as the story goes on.

i thought of young actresses who resembled ty and went with thomasin mckenzie (b. 2000), who i loved in jojo rabbit and last night in soho. i know thomasin would look good as a blonde, but more importantly, she's got the face for period dramas. camilla is enigmatic, but i think richard just saw her as like an ingénue, so i figured thomasin can do that layered performance.

thought and long hard for who to cast as francis because i'm so tired of seeing the same redhead actors or some random redhead model 😭 thank goodness luther ford (b. 1999/2000) has been discovered. his portrayal in the crown sold me because it was very francis of him to just sit around drinking booze and smoking while dressed in modern princely clothing.

another inspired casting suggestion i saw on mycast — physically, i think dominic sessa (b. 2002) truly fits the bill; i like that he's not your conventionally good-looking guy too. acting-wise, he was incredible in the holdovers. and i believe he could put so much more personality to richard papen's character.

might make a part 2 for other characters like julian morrow and judy poovey :> thanks for checking this out and let me know if you see the vision!

p.s. it's never gonna happen but it'd be interesting to just see this set of actors get together because they seem like a bunch of introverts 😭 they might bond over taking film photos of each other though so that's cool

[atopvisenyashill]

THE PACT OF ICE AND FIRE

so there's an aspect of this one i don't think has really been delved into that I think may be important when it comes to canon jonsa and I wanted to do my own lil analysis, along with maybe some tin hatting at the end here.

this is what the pact is (or what we know of it at any rate, Munkun is not exactly a good source of information):

Cregan Stark and Jacaerys Velaryon reached an accord, and signed and sealed the agreement that Grand Maester Munkun calls “the Pact of Ice and Fire” in his True Telling. Like many such pacts, it was to be sealed with a marriage. Lord Cregan’s son, Rickon, was a year old. Prince Jacaerys was as yet unmarried and childless, but it was assumed that he would sire children of his own once his mother sat the Iron Throne. Under the terms of the pact, the prince’s firstborn daughter would be sent north at the age of seven, to be fostered at Winterfell until such time as she was old enough to marry Lord Cregan’s heir.

There's two parts to this that I think are important here. Here is the first, which is the basics of the pact, and that most Jonsas are familiar with:

Jacaery's First Born Daughter Is Fostered At Winterfell -> She will marry Cregan's first born son and heir.

Obviously, this never happened for several reasons and the pact is forgotten but perhaps it will be fulfilled anyway by...

Jon, a secret Targaryen bastard, is "fostered" at Winterfell -> he will fulfill the pact by marrying a Stark Maiden aka Sansa.

Basically, it's a genderswapped version of what the pact entails. I think given George's fondness for how Tolkien was a hater of Macbeth because he thought the "no man of woman born" should have indicated a girl and not just a man born via c-section, I think the genderswap aspect fits George's style.

The second part however, has more to do with Jacaerys and Sara and I feel like it's glossed over a bit. See here:

They had spoken their vows in Winterfell’s own godswood before a heart tree, and only then had she given herself to him, wrapped in furs amidst the snows as the old gods looked on.

Jacaerys, a "secret" Targaryen bastard who gets his family name and allegiances through his mother, not his father -> Rumors of a secret marriage in front of a Weirwood with a Stark bastard, Sara

Listen. It doesn't matter whether Sara Snow is real, you believe whatever makes you happy! But what IS real and relevant is that this part was included in F&B for a reason, and is indicated to be the catalyst for the pact. Jace and Sara get secret married in front of a Weirwood, and this is what calms down Cregan so they can make their pact. And here is how (I believe) it applies to Jonsa:

Jon, a secret Targaryen bastard, but who gets his look and his allegiance not through his father but Lyanna's blood -> Jon, a Stark bastard, will marry an Heir in secret in front of a Weirwood tree.

THAT is, imo, the most important aspect of this scandalous story from Mushroom - that a secret bastard, a targaryen and a stark, secretly marry in front of a Weirwood tree just before a bloody war kicks off. People tend to make Sansa the Sara in this part, which is valid, but I think Sansa's role in this is not just to be the pretty Stark maiden, but to be the HEIR that is secretly marrying for love, like Jacaerys is, and that Jon's role will be about his status as a bastard, so that both parts kind of apply to both characters. And given that, if Jace and Sara had married, their daughter would have been a Starkgaryen with "secret" bastard heritage (from both her parents), marrying a Stark Heir, it does make sense (at least in my mind) that this may apply to Jon and Sansa's future plot. the That's something I touched on here in my "what will Jon's endgame" post.

Then there's the Vermax of it all...

Mushroom also claims that Vermax left a clutch of dragon’s eggs at Winterfell, which is equally absurd. Whilst it is true that determining the sex of a living dragon is a nigh on impossible task, no other source mentions Vermax producing so much as a single egg, so it must be assumed that he was male. Septon Barth’s speculation that the dragons change sex at need, being “as mutable as flame,” is too ludicrous to consider.)

This brought to mind the ole' Jonnel and Sansa (the first) thing - beyond the J&S similarities (Jacaerys & Sara, Jon & Sansa, Jonnel & Sansa), I think it's also important that Jonnel and Sansa never have any children, though they're married for several years. Jacaerys and Sara also never have children, yet there's the rumor Vermax laid eggs in the crypt, with some believing this may have meant Sara was pregnant (but perhaps miscarried) when Jacaerys left. I think however, the fact that both J&S couples kind of mysteriously do not have children of their own, and that their Houses descend from someone else to be important.

I've kind of briefly gone into the idea that Bran rules in a parliamentary style over (what's left of) Westeros, and while I'm not too committed one way or the other on whether he physically has children or whether they elect the ruler on the Iron Throne more often starting from Bran, the succession is significantly less of an issue because of the permanent Great Council/Parliament that will exist. Sansa (and Jon, for that matter), however, is the heiress to a long line of kings and lords and needs some sort of heir. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibililty that while in the Vale, she connects with some of Jocelyn Stark's descendants (the famous "Vale cousins" that Catelyn mentions as heirs for Robb) and makes one of them her heir, or even names the children of Arya her heir, and pulls a Queen Elizabeth, but then I thought of Vermax laying dragon eggs that are never found, and Jonnel and Sansa never having children, and George's love of threes and thought...perhaps Jon and Sansa will have an heir, but Sansa can't claim the child as hers.

In that same vein, it’s noteworthy to me as well that Serena and Edric (Sansa's younger sister and Jonnel's younger brother) have TWO sons but the line completely bypasses them. We have no idea how the Northerners felt about these marriages beyond the fact that they didn't like Lynara's sons because their rules were plagued by troubles. Is it possible that they chose to bypass Edric's sons because of the incest, and Sansa/Jon may be forced to reconcile with how the realm views him (as Ned's son) and what he actually is (Lyanna's son) when it comes to the line of succession? IE - Vermax is rumored to lay an egg in the crypts but no one ever finds out, Sansa is rumored to have have had a child with her “brother” but no one ever finds out the truth.

TO SUM UP: I think the Pact of Ice and Fire is a hint that Jon and Sansa will secretly marry in the godswood of Winterfell, and it's likely that when Sansa is named Queen in the North, her heir will be "fathered by a wolf" or a "wildling" and she and Jon won't be able to tell anyone that Jon is the father.

[alicentsgf]

Let's talk in depth about book Alicent. because even though i read the book 3 years ago I didn't engage online about it until the show's release and um. wow. some people have a very different interpretation of her to me. and also... some of those interpretations show a fundamental misunderstanding of the text, a tendency toward indulging the misogyny present in Fire and Blood, or both.

People are saying the writers changed Alicent's story to 'make her a victim'... they didn't. It was always possible to read the book and perceive that she was in many ways a victim. Honestly the biggest thing they changed was her age, probably to assist the interpretation they'd chosen, but the larger elements all stay the same; in both versions she's worked in service of the crown since she was young (as a type of companion either to Jaehaerys or Rhaenyra) and she and Rhaenyra initially have a good relationship (according to one source in F&B - this supposedly changes when Aegon was born and not named heir). So making it Rhaenyra we see her close with just makes the emotional tethers that might have been there anyway more visible. After all, Rhaenyra Does spare Alicent's life in F&B, and whilst she says it's for Viserys sake, Alicent at that point had been at the very least complicit in the deaths of most of Rhaenyra's children. Rhaenyra having such a strong former bond with Alicent is going to give this event in the show a lot more weight. It's not hard to see why they made this change, because it adds to the existing tragedy of the story.

The fact is everything we see of Alicent in F&B is up for debate to some extent. Like, for example, did she seduce Viserys? of course certain sources tell us yes, but Fire and Blood is brimming with asoiaf-typical misogyny; it all reminds me somewhat of the story of Anne Boleyn, her story molded into something unrecognisable by history in order to make her the instigator. In truth, we have no way of knowing if Alicent wanted Viserys or not, but we do know she probably didn't have to seduce him. She was widely regarded as being the most beautiful woman - it wouldn't have taken a lot for Viserys to notice her. People, characters and readers alike, assume that because she wasn't the best political match he must have been persuaded, but Viserys was a selfish man, (that is indisputable, we see it in many of his provable actions), so it fits with his character to choose a slightly unsuitable wife on the basis of his own lust. The age gap in the show only serves to demonstrate visually the power imbalance that was at least somewhat present in the book anyway. And yes, this like most things in the book is up for interpretation, but I will say this: I seriously do not respect people calling her 'evil'.

The text never presents Alicent as evil. Even in the worst of her actions she is never legitimately shown to revel in the pain and suffering of others. At most you could argue she was ambitious, but I don't even believe that on the basis of one specific thing: it was her, not Otto, who asked Viserys to betroth Aegon to Rhaenyra. This was not a crazy suggestion in the book, as it was presented in the show; they were only a decade apart, and it was the Valyrian custom that the eldest son would marry his eldest sister, as Aegon the conqueror married Visenya. Alicent wanted this without stipulating the expectation that Aegon would rule instead of Rhaenyra. Viserys reportedly dismissed Alicent on the basis of believing she only wanted Aegon a step closer to the throne, and it can be read that way, but personally I don't think so. I think she was exhausting options to try to protect him after she realised Viserys was never going to name him heir.

Ultimately, Alicent would have been stupid to ignore that her children's lives were at stake. Especially in Fire and Blood where she was much less familiar with Rhaenyra. Nothing in Rhaenyra's actions suggested she wouldn't be capable. She reportedly had no affection for her brothers where she was kid enough to Helaena, suggesting she already saw them as threats. She had demonstrated herself willing to accept physical harm to them in favour of her own sons. She was later thought to be at least complicit in the death of her husband Laenor, who had by all accounts been a good, kind husband to her… and then she married Daemon. Even before this he had been an obvious threat to Alicent's children; a violent man who'd always lusted after power, with a known hatred for Hightowers and who'd never been kind to his nephews by Alicent. Even if Alicent didn't believe Rhaenyra capable of murdering her sons, she would have been stupid not to believe Daemon able.

The truth is even in the book this crisis was set in motion by Viserys. Once he'd refused to marry Aegon to Rhaenyra the bomb was built and ticking away, it was only a matter of time. Even if Rhaenyra's heirs had been indisputably trueborn, Aegon and his brothers and any descendants they had would have been symbols for those who wanted to oppose the Crown to rally behind as soon as Rhaenyra or Jacaerys disappointed them, no matter if Alicent's sons had personally bent the knee. The situation only became more dire when it was clear that Rhaenyra's heir was not trueborn.

Fire and Blood isn't even really quiet about Rhaenyra's first three sons being bastards. To me it read like Rhaenys' Baratheon blood allowed those who wanted to believe otherwise to delude themselves, as Viserys does in both versions. After all, in the book Laenor being gay is an open secret. But the thing is… it doesn't even really matter if they were or not. With so many people believing they were bastards, they were pretty much as good as. Eventually, and most definitely after Rhaenyra's death, there would have been some form of conflict. Because if Jace, an assumed bastard, ascended the throne it would throw into question the claims of almost every lord in Westeros, many of whom would have older bastard brothers. and if a bastard who didn't even look targaryen could sit the highest seat in the realm over a trueborn silver-haired son of a king like Aegon, what's to stop the bastard brothers of any lord from laying claim to their seat? Aegon would have become a rallying point for that dispute whether he liked it or not, and Jace would have been forced to dispose of him if he wanted to maintain power.

In light of this, it's really no wonder Alicent repeatedly voices her animosity over Rhaenyra's sons questionable births. It's very telling that in F&B every cruel comment she reportedly makes about or to Rhaenyra references it. and I say "reportedly" because one of the worst of her quotes, her saying 'mayhaps the whore will die in childbirth' about Rhaenyra, people quote as fact… if you do this I will laugh in your face and ask if you read the book. because Alicent did not say that. or rather, if she did, Fire and Blood would not be able to tell us either way because the quote is attributed to her by Mushroom, one of Rhaenyra's supporters who (apart from being a famed liar) was with Rhaenyra on Dragonstone at the time.

The other two quotes used to argue her supposed evilness are from slightly less questionable sources, and honestly, yeah, it does seem likely to me Alicent implied to Rhaenyra her bastard sons' blood was worth less than that of her own trueborn sons'… but at that point, with the horror she'd experienced on account of Viserys upholding Rhaenyra and her sons' questionable claims, her reacting in this way is perhaps cruel and prejudiced, but not evil. And almost justifiably cruel in my opinon; for all she knows the woman she's talking to directly ordered for her six-year-old grandson to be brutally murdered in front of her, her daughter, and her other grandchildren, directly leading to her daughter's madness and later suicide. Was she going to be respectful? Is it fair to expect that from her? This focus on the term 'bastard blood' overshadows the rest of the quote: “Bastard blood shed at war. My son’s sons were innocent boys, cruelly murdered. How many more must die to slake your thirst for vengeance?” Why is Alicent being a bit of a bitch treated as a worse sin than Rhaenyra ordering the brutal murder of a toddler, or at the very least excusing it.

The last quote mentioned to back up claims of alicent's 'evilness' is her telling her granddaughter Jaehaera she should slit the throat of her husband Aegon III in his sleep. By this point it seemed to me Alicent was no doubt consumed by bitterness and would have attacked Aegon herself given the chance, but even without condoning her words or actions we can see how she became like that; all of Alicent's sons are dead and she wants all of Rhaenyra's gone too. Wasn't it "an eye for an eye, a son for a son"? - Rhaenyra's side set the precedent - the idea that it is justifiable to take one innocent life in exchange for another, no matter if its the life of a child who just happens to have been born on the other side of a war.

Alicent by the end of her life had certainly been driven to cruelty in her grief, twisted into something ugly by the world and locked away to rot.

And yet her final words weren't steeped in bitterness or violence. When the fever sets in she accepts death, even welcomes it. She speaks of seeing her children again, and King Jaehaerys. So doesn't that say she was never driven by hatred at all? That there was never any kind of innate evil nature? At least that's my interpretation. This is the same girl who spent her youth reading to a dying king for no clear reward, and felt such affection for him that she mentioned him at the end of her own life, perhaps pining for the time before her marriage. (No doubt in the show she will mention Rhaenyra instead). This is the woman whose daughter and grandchildren visited her with such reliable frequency her grandson's killers knew to wait in her rooms for them.

So what was so evil about her? That she quite understandably saw Rhaenyra and her sons as a threat, and preemptively acted to protect her own? As much as people like to project ideologies onto these characters, neither Alicent nor Rhaenyra's motivations were ideological, that much as clear.

I may have many reservations about House of the Dragon's execution of it, but the decision to present Alicent as a victim of the world she inhabits was not only the right choice, but also kind of the only choice. HotD is presented as objective truth, where F&B is a collection of biased accounts dripping in the misogyny of the men relating them, and so HotD had to be a critique of its own source material. I admit to having my own bias, and my analysis is at least slightly skewed in Alicent's favour because I'm responding to the most negative interpretations of her. And they are all just interpretations. But in my opinion, those adapting the text looked at Alicent and asked "what if this woman is misunderstood?", "what if this woman had no real choice?", "what if the men of this world just chose to ignore her complexity, because she was a woman?" and those were absoutely the questions to ask.

[piracytheorist]

"Sy-on boy" vs. "Second son"

As someone who a) watches the anime first and then reads the manga (and doesn't read manga chapters that haven't been animated yet), b) is quite cautious about Damian's character and c) doesn't even like Damιanya as a ship, I think I have a very different perspective on Anya's view of Damian - at least, according to the point the anime has reached - to the point that I can get VERY confused whenever I see some shippers talk about that. To the point I go like "Is there something I missed?"

And there IS something I miss. And that's manga-only (or at least manga-first) context.

In Japanese, Loid thinks about Damian being the second son of Donovan Desmond, using the word "次男" (jinan) which literally means "second son".

Damian uses the same word for himself later,

and Anya picks that up from then on (though using hiragana characters instead of kanji, as she does in general). And maybe because of that use of simpler characters, the manga translation team decided to have her call Damian "sy-on boy" - a mispronounced "scion boy" - instead of simply "second son".

The thing is, though "sy-on boy" makes Anya's speech sound simpler and more imaginative, fitting her age more, it can also sound more endearing, cute and affectionate, if you lean towards that. Meanwhile, "second son" can range from neutral at best to derogatory at worst - especially considering that Damian is not dealing very well with the fact that his older brother is already an accomplished Imperial Scholar and has raised the bar very high for Damian.

Again, my first contact with the story was from the anime, where Anya simply calls him "second son".

Which, if I'm honest, already sounds appropriately silly. Who calls someone, even the second child of a family, that? Anya's use of "haha" for mama and "chichi" for papa is already kind of incorrect when she talks to them, she's young and has still got lots to learn, in the same chapter/episode she called Becky "milady" until Becky reminded her of her name, and also Damian pissed her off so she has no reason to refer to him with his name (yes I'm fully taking her side on this, bully victim for bully victim). She heard both Loid and Damian use "second son" in their thoughts, so same way she called Becky "milady", she picked that up as a way to call Damian.

I actually wonder why the manga translation team went for "sy-on boy". There's no indication that Anya heard the word "scion" ever before, so it sounds out of place, and honestly, with what I said above, out of character for her. In a weird way, though, it actually fits with how she manages a decent score in her "Ancient Language" test many many chapters later.

(I am aware that there was a fan translation of some chapters before the manga got picked up for an official translation. I have no access to the fan translation, so maybe "scion" was used there and it passed on to the official translations in that way?)

Anyway, what I mean to say is that the use of "sy-on boy" may have encouraged a more lenient and even "encouraging" view of Anya's feelings for Damian, even though through her actions and words she keeps showing that she would rather not be around him, but she has a mission to accomplish.

And with that, though I don't know any Japanese myself, I'm leaning towards the conclusion that "sy-on boy" is not a translation that accurately communicates Anya's sentiments.

And as someone who is very passionate about defending Anya's mistrust of Damian, the use of "sy-on boy" in the manga translation sounds... misleading. Maybe it just feels that way to me because I am a bit more cautious, but it also explains why some fans are so passionate to the point of saying Damian never actually bullied Anya - or to tell me to my face that I shouldn't call Damian a bully because it upsets his fans. If the manga has her use a nickname that could show she's on equal footing with him and could betray, under a certain interpretation, some hidden affection for him, then you kind of understand why people reach that point. It doesn't mean it's right to say Damian was never a bully, or to tell me that after I've shared I still carry scars from having been bullied, but you know. Fandoms will be fandoms.

[doodlingwren]

✨️Gold Saints✨️ if they were to be ✨️Dungeons and Dragons✨️ characters

If you were wondering what I’ve been up to in the last few days, I was making this list based on my own headcanons. Mostly, I decided for what kind of class or subclass they could be. I don’t think I will add a race or a background for them because I am not up to date with the latest released manuals 😂 and these are just the official builds. If I had to look through the homebrew material I'd still be searching. Also, I used the classes of the fifth edition ^_^

Aries Mu

He’s an artificer (or if you are more familiar with the older name, he’s a tinker). There’s even an Armorer subclass, that let him have proficiency with heavy armours and so he can go in the middle of the battlefield without too many problems while still being a smith. When I say it’s perfect, I’m not even joking. Mu is possibly the easiest one to translate as a DnD character.

Taurus Aldebaran

Look, I would love to say paladin, but since he’s more on the pure physical strength rather that paladin stuffs, I’d assume for him a class like a fighter. I wouldn’t mind for him some sort of fighter + paladin multiclass where for the bigger part is a fighter. Maybe a Champion fighter + some levels of an Oath of Devotion paladin. Those subclasses are very basic, but they do the work. I cannot put his as a barbarian because well, I don’t think it would fit him (maybe the strength part, but only that).

Gemini Saga

He’s the dungeon master.

Okay, joke aside Saga is a bit more difficult. Visually, I think he’d be a paladin. Unlike others he has a good balance between physical strength and use of cosmos (both for attack and defence purposes). The subclass is a bit tricky, in the end it could be the Oath of the Watchers, since at least at the beginning, his wish was to protect Earth and then maybe he could later become an Oathbreaker? I’m partial to the Watcher since one of the spells for this class is Banishment and if it isn’t the poorer version of Another Dimension ability, I don’t know what it is.

Cancer Deathmask

He has the necromancer vibes without being a necromancer. In short, Oathbraker paladin: he can cast the ✨edgy✨ spells with ghosts and undead and it kind of makes sense that during the fight against Shiryu his cloth yeets off because of how bad he fucked up.

Leo Aiolia

Undecided between a normal fighter or a paladin. If he had an animal like Leo Kaiser in ND had those huge lions, he would be the ultimate ranger (subclass: Beast Master). But he doesn’t so… paladin. Maybe the subclass could be Oath of the Ancients, but I’m not sure.

Virgo Shaka

I’ve been thinking of where to put Shaka for almost two hours. My mind says monk, but my heart says wizard, but he must be a paladin somehow. Monk could be the perfect class for Shaka: you can easily see ki (the magical energy that empowers a monk attacks) as cosmos and the training/asceticism part would make sense for him. My only problem is that personally, I don’t see Shaka as someone that would resort to fighting bare hands against enemies (which is the core concept of the monk class). And mostly important, the monk class don’t have armour proficiency, which is the point of being a Gold Saint (neither does the wizard). As a wizard, I’d put him in the War Caster subclass, but being a wizard would make him a sort of cannon glass (wizard have the highest damage output, but at the same time the lowest number of hit points, aka life). Unless it is the Shaka from KotZ, then I could forgive a monk/wizard multiclass. As a paladin, I’m not even sure if he should be an Oath of Devotion. So, I will use the ace up my sleeve and say: Shaka is a cleric either with the Light Domain or the Order Domain, but I’m partial to the first one.

Libra Dohko

MONK. ASCENDANT DRAGON SUBCLASS. And if you feel silly enough, either a few levels of Paladin – Oath of Devotion or some levels as a Fighter - Battle Master .

Scorpio Milo

I am afraid that I have no clue of what Milo could be. My personal idea would be to make some sort of rogue, so I could imagine his scarlet needle to be a kind of sneak attack with a poisonous dagger. The subclass in this case would be either an Assassin or a Swashbuckler, to have the best implement of damage output. Maybe also a multiclass with a fighter (Champion subclass)?

Sagittarius Aiolos

He could be a paladin (Oath of the Crown?) with a feat like Crossbow Expert or a fighter with the Arcane Archer subclass. But because of his role as the Sagittarius Saint, I’m for the second option. Truth to be told, I wouldn’t mind a multiclass between those two.

Capricorn Shura

Another character that could be a paladin or a fighter BUT I say fighter AND the subclass must be Samurai, which is one of the best for striking powerful attack with a sword. No paladin class could do such things.

Aquarius Camus

Camus, like Aphrodite, has that kind of power that can be based on some sort of natural element, that would make me go “HE’S a DRUID!!!” if I didn’t know better. My main problem with druids is that they cannot wear or wield anything made of metal, therefore there would be no possibility for him to achieve a gold-saint-like kind of armour. As a paladin, Oath of the Ancients has a few spells that are ice-based, and I would implement that by giving him some levels in the sorcerer class (the subclass isn’t important for choosing those spells, but I’d like for him the Storm Sorcery subclass).

Pisces Aphrodite

Like Camus, he could be a druid, at least on paper. The ranger class has access to some druid spells, but I don’t know if it would match Aphrodite aesthetic completely. As a ranger, I’d go for a Fay Wanderer subclass and maybe a few paladin levels (Oath of the Crown subclass). He can have some levels a cleric (Nature Domain) as a treat.

[sirowsky-stories]

Lingerie For Beginners

Summary: Pero wants to give his new lady a present, but he's not exactly at home in the underwear store.

Requested by @suttonspuds

Rating: Mature 18+ONLY Warnings: Pero Tovar x OFC, the images are just for aesthetics, female character is not described beyond being a B-cup, no overt sexual themes but plenty of mentions of breasts and overall mature content. Word Count: 1200

   His hands are already clammy with nervous sweat as he walks into the store, certain he’s about to embarrass himself, but also determined to leave with what he hopes will be an outfit exactly as the one he pictures in his head.    Calling it that might be an overstatement, however, as he stops and looks around a few feet into the establishment, seeing nothing concealing enough to be referred to as a complete outfit.    Lots of it looks fun, though. While some of it looks downright scary.

   “Can I help you, sir?” a silky voice says to his right, and he looks over to find a middle-aged woman, wearing a polka dot dress in 60’s style with matching makeup and hat, all of which somehow suits her perfectly.

   “Yes, well…” he tries, but the words die on his tongue when he realizes he doesn’t quite know how to describe what he wants.

   “First time in a lingerie store?” the woman guesses, and there’s no judgement or even curiosity in her voice, which sets him at ease.

   He nods while feeling his shoulders relax somewhat, and she smiles in response.

   “Alright, no problem. My name is Wendy, now let me just work out what we’re dealing with here.    Are you looking for something for a new relationship or something to spice up an older one?”

   “New. Three months.”

   “Aw, congratulations,” she offers sincerely. “That means it’s not an anniversary, though. Birthday?”

   “No. She has been feeling down lately, because of her job. It makes her feel ugly sometimes,” he tries to explain, and she immediately gets it.

   “So, you wanna remind her that’s not how she looks to you, and maybe help boost her self-image a bit?”

   “Yes, exactly this.”

   “Honey, that’s precisely what sexy lingerie is supposed to be about. You’ve got the right idea, now let’s see if we can find a good fit for you, and for her, of course.    I assume you have her sizes?”

   “Uh… I know she has a B-cup,” he offers, feeling stupid for not remembering to check more than that, but in fairness, he’s never done this before.

   “Don’t worry, I’m sure we can figure it out. Can you show me by hand-measurement how wide her back or hips are?”

   This he knows without hesitation, because he loves to watch her when she struts around naked or just in her underwear in the apartment. And she’s been trapped beneath him both from the front and the back many times, so he knows her size compared to him very well.    Using his hands, he gives the saleswoman as accurate a representation as he can, and she leads him off down the aisles.

   “Okay, first off: which color did you have in mind?”

   “She looks especially good in white. And I like the lace that you can just almost see through,” he admits, feeling a bit vulnerable revealing his preferences to someone he isn’t intimately involved with.

   “And what about style? What type of bra do you think would best show off her bust?”

   This question he feels genuinely unwilling to answer, simply because discussing his woman’s private parts with a complete stranger seems utterly indecent.    She’s come to a stop in one of the aisles and is perusing a variety of white bra’s, some with lace, others with silk, but she pauses when she notices him turning away and displaying general discomfort.

   “I’m sorry, I know this can feel somewhat invasive. I’m just trying to help you visualize so that you can get the perfect set for your woman, and for yourself.”

   “I understand this, I just… don’t feel good about describing her in such detail.”

   “Well, maybe you don’t have to,” she suggests, and then picks out a cute little bra, holding it up to his scrutiny. “For example, this is a balconette. See how the cups form a straight line when they’re filled? It usually gives the breasts a bit of a bounce and rounds them off really nicely.    Whereas this one is called a plunge, because the triangular shape of the cup means that you don’t conceal any skin between the breasts.    And then there’s the cage-bra, which is really sexy with different kinds of straps, either over the breasts, shoulders, or across the back.”

   As she describes them, she holds each of them up and demonstrates their features, then she emphasizes that each of the different styles come in all sorts of fabrics, so there’s no limit to which one he can pick, if he wants lace.    But all this does, is confusing him even more. He really has no idea what his date might look best in. Hell, he didn’t even know there were so many different types of bras.

   “I don’t like the cage one,” he finally manages to work out. “Too complicated.”

   “Good, now we’re getting somewhere.”

   “Which would you recommend?” he asks then, conceding that he is talking to an expert on the matter and might as well trust her judgement better than his own ignorance.

   “Hmmm… Having only a basic sense of your girl’s body-type, I think I would go for the balconette. It generally makes any bosom look good, provided it’s a good quality piece.    And actually, come to think of it, we have a gorgeous lace version, with a satin/lace hipster panty to go with it.    Let me get it for you, and see what you think.”

   She darts off before he’s had a chance to respond, so he stands there awkwardly while he waits for her to return, idly looking at some of the choices available in the nearest aisles, some of which he can’t even work out how a person’s supposed to get into.    But he also spots something interesting. A teddy made almost entirely from glass crystals, strung together into the shape of a bra which connects to a tiny pair of panties, only the crotch of which is made of fabric, but still see-through lace.    It’s not at all what he thought he might be drawn to, but he can almost see how good it would look on the body he most desires, and he just can’t take his eyes off it.

   “That one’s not as expensive as it looks,” Wendy promptly informs him when she sees where his gaze has gotten stuck.

   “Really?” he hears himself ask before he manages to reel in his racing thoughts. “Uh, but it’s not what I was looking for. It is nice, though.”

   “Maybe next time,” she suggests, and he shrugs, so she proceeds to show him the piece she’s gotten for him.

   “Oh… this is perfect,” he whispers, not sure how his bumbling efforts of explanations enabled her to find exactly what he’d envisioned.

   “Excellent! I had a feeling you’d like it. But just so you know, if you keep the receipt, you can exchange it if your girl doesn’t like it.”

   He pays for the gift while she wraps it for him, in what has to be the most beautiful package he’s ever seen, and before he leaves, he throws one last glance at the crystal teddy, glinting at him from the back half of the store.

   “Next time. Definitely.”

THE END

[actual-changeling]

one thing i really really like about txf is that they aren't afraid to kill off characters.

in most shows, melissa would make a miraculous recovery, mulder probably wouldn't lose both his parents, and there are all the episode-specific characters that are killed simply because

a) it fits right into the plot

b) they can and

c) it adds a layer of realism to it.

if you never kill any of the characters—even minor side characters/npcs—then at some point, the dangers will feel less dangerous, less real, because you know everyone will be fine anyway. but not here.

the stakes ARE real and we are shown and told so over and over again.

scully loses her dad, melissa gets killed in her apartment, mulder's dad is killed, mulder's mom kills herself, there is no miraculous, perfect return of samantha, scully gets cancer, OTHER (returning) characters get sick and die, and the list goes on.

nowadays, way too many people are incapable of consuming anything that isn't 99% "everything will be fine" because processing complex emotions requires complex thinking, and boy are people refusing to develop that skill.

ironic to say, but txf is refreshing in regards to that AND has better representation that most shows and movies being created in recent years. do you know how fucking rare it is to have disabled characters that simply exist? whose disability is right there, it's real, they're not somehow hiding it or trying to make it less obvious.

they are like any other characters, and unless it is in some way relevant to the plot, it's usually not even brought up or mentioned. no misery or inspiration porn, no weird "you're not disabled, you're [insert term that's fucking horrible]", nothing.

even with episodes like gender bender, there is no transphobia, no caricatures, it's treated like any other case with any other people.

you'd expect a lot of ableism in a show about the paranormal since "crazy mentally ill person is a danger to everyone" is a popular trope (disappointing but not surprising), yet as someone who has highly stigmatized disorders—not just in general, specifically in the medical field too—I don't think I have ever felt uncomfortable with any of the cases.

people look back on older shows and start criticizing the language but not only were the terms and concepts named differently and have evolved, i'd rather have a show use "bad" or incorrect language but have genuine, caring representation than someone using all the buzzwords and thinking that makes whatever they do not offensive.

(side note: language moves fast, especially in psychiatry but also in other scientific circles, and the same applies to what i'll loosely call 'community language'. as long as there's good intent and an open ear, i couldn't give less of a fuck if they say transgender, transsexual, or transvestite)

i'm rewatching 'the field where i died' and this episode has one of the best, most accurate portrayals of DID i've seen in probably. ever. is it played up a bit? yeah sure, but it doesn't feel mocking or otherwise disrespectful and it refuses to play into any existing stereotypes.

this post got away from me, but bottom line is that this show is genuinely good in a way few shows are.

[dulcemaiden]

Lord Canopus, revealed

So, we have received confirmation in ch. 204 that Doll is Lord Canopus, as many in the fandom have theorized. I personally believed this too, not because Vega was most likely Layla/Al (and canopus was the only left), but because her personality fits with the japanese chart about blood type personalities. By now we know these canopus/Types B: Lizzie, Doll, Redmond, Lau, Bard, Wolfram, and all the corgi class students like Mabel and Ginny.

"Type B blood people are creative, cheerful, independent, laid-back, and adventurous. They are quick thinkers and spontaneous, as well as passionate and strong-willed. They do things at their own pace, and mostly end up going their own way because they are not good at follow orders, so they are known too as the "rule-breakers". They are honest and caring at heart, and make friends easily because they are loyal and non-pretentious. On the other hand, their negative traits include being “wild,” selfish, unforgiving, irresponsible and unpredictable. When type B blood people focus on something, they put their all into it, and they are unlikely to let go, even if the goal seems unachievable or impractical."

There are interesting things in the symbolism of canopus too:

Canopus was the helmsman of the Argo Navis, the ship of Jason and the Argonauts, who served King Menelaus. Canopus is described as a handsome young man who was loved by a egyptian prophetess, but never reciprocated her feelings. While visiting the Egyptian coast, Canopus was bitten by a serpent and died, and Menelaus then built a monument to his memory on the shore where this happened, around which the town of Canopus later grew up. In this town was worshipped the egiptian god Osiris, under a peculiar form: that of a vase with a human head. Osiris is a god who is in among other things, the Lord of the afterlife, the dead, resurrection and life in ancient Egyptian religion).

Osiris is the name of the group/company Undertaker was supposedly working with on his bizarre doll/resurrection project during the Campania arc. It is curious too the way Canopus died (it will implicate Doll's fate in the future?... although for now I see it unlikely).

About Doll's role in the plot, I don't think she will be killed (in this arc), because I think our Ciel will see her again, it would be a poor choice on Yana's part to reintroduce Doll just to kill her off so quickly, what would be the point then? And we still don't know why Undertaker revived her either. The "Stars" require a lot of work and huge amount of resources to function properly, and her blood type is rare (not as rare as Sirius but still rare), so why Undertaker gave her such preferential treatment is a mystery. I don't think he has revived her just to mortify OCiel, there must be another reason.

And some things start to make sense now, just at this part. I don't think the relationship between RCiel and Doll is good at all, since RCiel wouldn't tolerate someone who hold such a big grudge against his brother, and Doll wouldn't like the idea of dealing with the brother of the one who killed her and her family. So it makes sense not to mention Canopus as a candidate for his butler.

Besides, the butler of RCiel would need to be a fighter, and unlike Lizzie, strength in combat doesn't seem to be Doll's strong point, who also seems to be in a delicate state. Polaris fought AGNI and won, Layla(Al) almost beat Ronald if it wasn't for William's intervention, but Doll just walk and collapse? Like with RCiel, that could be because of a low blood supply.

What will happen now?

Regarding what will happen next, I was somehow expecting a confrontation between Doll and Finnian, but in her current state that seems impossible, since she probably can barely move, so the whole conflict will happen between Finny and Snake.

Doll is an important part of Snake's character. She is the first person who reached out for him, and in his memories she is the most prominent figure of his "circus family". The worst thing is that Snake has been serving loyally to the one who ordered her death, and him forgiving OCiel after finding out seems unlikely. There are inocent children involved too, so the situation is really complicated. It will all depends on what are Snake's priorities and loyalty, but I wonder if he will bear with the idea of killing Doll, I highly doubt it (I hope he and Finny save the kids though).

On the other hand, I expect Finnian not to die and return to OCiel and Sebastian, but he could learn from Doll the truth about Sebastian's nature. At first obviously not believing her words, but the seed of doubt would be planted, as he could remember Sebastian's strange behavior in the Emerald Witch arc. Finnian could confirm this later, causing a huge conflict between the servants and Sebastian, who would want to protect their master from him, and complicating things for our Ciel.

In addition, we must consider that Meyrin and Bard have already achieved 2 victories for OCiel, will this be the occasion where RCiel will win a game?