#could still do something unambiguously good

[mxtxfanatic]

Random Thought #33: Idk how to say this without sounding like I’m tryna diminish Jin Zixuan’s one moment of unambiguous good, but I don’t think Jin Zixuan defending Mianmian would ever have happened if he had to do something more proactive than just…ignoring the words of a man he had been building a simmering hatred for over the course of a few weeks.

Jin Zixuan is shown (and explicitly said) to side with people he considers “his people.” While they are all hostages of the Wen during the indoctrination camp, outside of that shared victimhood, Mianmian is simply a stranger to Jin Zixuan, while his “defense” of her is simply refusing to move out of the way when Wen Chao—the man who had been targeting him for harassment every day for weeks on end—ordered him to. This is a very passive resistance. And not to say that this wasn’t a good deed or any less of a powerful moment, but if Wen Chao hadn’t singled out Jin Zixuan for bullying, would he have still ignored the former’s words to move out of the way? If Jin Zixuan hadn’t happened to be standing by Lan Wangji and Mianmian hid behind only the Lan, instead, would he have said anything in her defense? Would he have even physically moved to shield her? Is any of that in-character with the behavior we are shown of his throughout any of the rest of the novel?

[viric-dreams]

⚠️ for them ALLLLL!

- @zeebreezin

Warning:

Ockham: Holds long grudges.

Roberts: Has shrimp neuroses.

Nite: Will sell you to January for one corn chip.

Tamara: Will agree to what you say with no intention of doing it to avoid hurting your feelings.

Jones: Utterly useless in a high-stress situation.

Rubbery Barber Surgeon: For the love of fuck do not try to pay in amber.

Graham: Girl, run.

[psychronia]

I've been rewatching Avatar: The Last Airbender because why not and I'm losing my mind at Zuko's proper introduction. I don't know if it's hindsight, shifting characterizations, or just me not watching this in a long time, but this was amazing.

We start off showing he's an impatient and very angry kid. Reasonable, and the sort of flaw we might expect to see in a villain. Kinda funny that he expects to go up against an adult and fully 4-Element realized Avatar, but the kid is desperate and Iroh clearly expects his nephew to get the banishment-denial kicked out of him.

What's important here, though, is Zuko's introduction to the Southern Water Tribe.

Here, we have a very intimidating entrance where his entire ship just sails through the ice right up to the village's front door. It's quite ominous and this is our first proper introduction to how the Fire Nation interacts with a foreign people.

Sokka charges, I'm assuming fully prepared to die, and Zuko casually knocks him out of the way. Okay, so clearly the Water Tribe are entirely outgunned.

He asks "Where are you hiding him?" and the people of the Water Tribe go silent. I assume they're either just too scared to talk or actually protecting Aang.

Whatever the case, it's important to note that the Southern Water Tribe know the terror the Fire Nation can inflict. We have a whole episode dedicated to tracking down a division of raiders. Sokka was able to not only identify the ash-mixed snow as signs of an incoming attack, but estimate how many ships the amount of ash measures to. These are a people who have experience being terrorized and are probably expecting something terrible to happen.

And then, after they don't answer, Zuko grabs Gran-Gran. There was a horror sting to it, and everything the tribe knows about the Fire Nation suggests that Zuko is about to threaten or straight up hurt her to get answers. Classic "terrorize the elderly" bad guy stuff.

And then...

He goes "He's (the Avatar) be about this age and is a master of all four elements!?" and lets her go.

And all of a sudden, the tension that was built up is shattered as Zuko went "I know, I'll give them a reference for the person I'm looking for because clearly they're confused and I wasn't specific enough."

This went from a show of villainy to a show of Zuko being totally socially awkward and misreading the situation entirely. Not helping is that when he does try to menace them a moment later, his fire is slow and angled quite safely.

It still worked on the Water Tribe because they're understandably scared, but all I could think of is that this was the equivalent of a playground bully trying to make someone flinch with that fake-out lunge thing.

Because the fact-and something we'll come to learn-is that Zuko is TERRIBLE at being a Fire Nation oppressor. He's capable of doing morally dubious things and is a competent fighter. But he's lousy at terrorizing people and cruelty-that's kind of the point of his banishment.

And while we can see the story paint this picture of Zuko's true character as the story goes on with hints of good and conflicting loyalties, here we get to see just how bad he is at being "the bad guys". He's still unambiguously being the villain of this scene, and it makes no real difference to the oppressed themselves, but there is a comical gap between where Zuko thinks he is, where he actually is, and somehow it still puts him on the same page as his victims just because of how terrible the Fire Nation's influence is on everyone involved.

[utilitycaster]

started to go on a tangent in the previous post but something I wish we could have seen in Campaign 3 in much more detail is the stories of parental abandonment and the way people mythologize those absences, because it's a throughline for Imogen, Fearne, and Ashton and to an extent Chetney. I think Fearne's is the most realized by far; she realizes that her parents were manipulated, but also that her ideas of them were nostalgia, and she develops a closer relationship over the series but it's still very marked by distance that would not have been there, had she been raised by them. Ashton's is rather frustrating, in that their response immediately post Shardgate was incredible: they realized they had been hoping, despite all everyone had said and every sign to the contrary, that their parents were visionaries and something just went wrong, but no, their parents did a cult ritual with a child present because they thought they were destined for greatness, and it went to shit, and had it not and had he stayed there he would have become a cruel person. It's frustrating because that realization seemed to utterly vanish a few days later in-game but the initial exploration was excellent.

And then there's Imogen and Liliana, and I think what gets me is that sure, Relvin lying was not a great choice on his behalf despite there being no ill intent behind it, and indeed had he told the truth, that Liliana left when Imogen was a baby and never sent a single litter for over a quarter century, I think the story would be very different (and, in my mind, better). But Liliana was unambiguously unhelpful and antagonistic, consistently, until Imogen managed to sway her on Ruidus based on a lie (that she didn't know about the assassination attempt) (I do not blame Imogen for lying about this, incidentally, this is about Liliana ONLY becoming helpful when her daughter withheld the truth from her for her (Imogen's) own safety). And it's just...I think a lot of fantasy narratives go too far in the other direction, of "fuck them, found family only, no contact immediately" but Liliana didn't do jack fucking shit for Imogen for years and months, and at what point do you give up on the myth? Again, why does Imogen care so much about this woman? Zathuda is a fucking horrible asshole, and I like the Gentleman but he's certainly not a good person, and somehow both of them managed to realize that given that they'd been absent for their children's entire lives they are parents in a biological sense and little more.

That doesn't even mean it's bad for Imogen to make the choices she does; it's just, I'd like to have an understanding of what is making her say "ok, absolute jack shit in 28 years plus untold harm to the world at large is fine because of two or three things in the past few days", and I've never felt like we've gotten anything but "but she's her mother." And two other characters in this campaign (and many in past campaigns) have at least for a while explored why that's not enough.

[daenerysstormreborn]

“Why is it always Rhaegar that fans talk about when it comes to what happened to Elia and not Tywin or Gregor?”

Because Tywin and Gregor are presented unambiguously as villains in the text. Gregor does not have any depth to him at all. He is cruel, violent, and evil. There is not much more to say about him. He did something absolutely horrific without remorse. Tywin is more interesting but still entirely unsympathetic and unambiguously evil. Even Cersei, who idolizes Tywin, thinks he went to hell. Plus we saw both of them alive on page, so there’s less speculation to be done. Meanwhile Rhaegar never appeared alive on page and we only have information from various characters. He’s more of a mystery to the reader, and he’s not presented as an unambiguous villain. Most characters think about him positively. The only one to really speak ill of him is Robert, who is awful. The kind of person Rhaegar was is more up to the readers to decide. There is simply more room for discussion.

Second, Tywin and Gregor are held accountable by characters in the narrative already for the death of Elia and her children. Their culpability is not something to be discussed. It’s obvious. And characters already find it vile. You could make the case that since we don’t get a lot of animosity towards Rhaegar in the Martell POV chapters, that Oberyn’s anger was directed at Gregor, that they don’t assign any blame to Rhaegar. But two things: 1. Rhaegar is dead and gone, whereas Gregor and Tywin were still living and able to be held accountable. For the readers, all three are fictional. And, now, dead. And 2. The characters not blaming Rhaegar isn’t an indication that he’s blameless. The readers are often invited to come to our own conclusions about what is wrong or right, evil or righteous. Jaehaerys is regarded in universe as a good man and great king. But we the readers know that he slaughtered his teenage daughter’s lover while she watched. We get to decide for ourselves if Jaehaerys was a good man regardless of the opinions of the characters.

Gregor and Tywin are undoubtedly the most culpable for the deaths of Elia and her kids. One ordered it and the other did it. This is known and nobody is going to contest it. It does not erase this fact to say that if Rhaegar had not absconded with Lyanna, leaving his wife and kids in King’s Landing, they may have survived. It was short-sighted of him. He didn’t know he would die. He didn’t know that his wife and kids would suffer—but he knew that what he was doing would cause political unrest, and he knew that his father had no love for his wife and kids. Perhaps Rhaegar truly believed that having a child with Lyanna was the key to saving the realm. Even if this is true, he still bears some responsibility for the deaths of Elia and her children. I’m sure he did not think they would be harmed—but therein lies the problem. He should have thought more of them, even if his intentions were noble, because he knew he was going to incite political unrest and he knew his father didn’t care for Elia and her kids.

Saying that Tywin Lannister, Amory Lorch, and Gregor Clegane are evil and culpable in the deaths of Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys is just very “water is wet.” It’s preaching to the choir. We can all see this. The characters in the story see this. Trying to understand the kind of person Rhaegar was, including the BAD, since we’re given mostly positive views of him, is something to actually talk about. The only one really speaking ill of Rhaegar in universe is Robert and it’s most certainly NOT because he cared about Elia and the kids. Elia’s end was tragic and it echoes through the story just like Lyanna’s. Speculating about her relationship with her husband (which GRRM himself has said was complex) and what he could have done to protect her is just a matter of investigating a series of events that is still rather shrouded and thus is actually worthy of discussion

[signalburst]

Shōgun Historical Shallow-Dive: Part 1

Does everybody else's heart hurt? Good! Let's get learning. These characters and the people that inspired them all deserve their own post, but here's a quick one if you're wondering what happened. This is a shallow-dive because the history is extremely complicated, and a condensed version of just the events leading up to Sekigahara (the battle depicted in the finale) take up entire volumes of history. I'll do my best to answer questions about what happened to our three protagonists, in the show, as well as real life 🙇

One note: given I'm not a professional historian, I've got no obligation to not have biases and favourites. I've tried to keep most of them out of this, but if you want to punish yourself by trying to keep track of who's who in the Azuchi-Momoyama period, this book is the best English-language overview.

What happened to Toranaga (Tokugawa Ieyasu)?

Gif: @yocalio

I am not as strong as I might be, but I have long known and practiced patience. And if my descendants wish to be as I am, they must study patience. - from The Legacy of Ieyasu Tokugawa

In the book, Toranaga reveals that it had been his aspiration to be Shōgun from the very beginning. That was what drove his alliance with the Taiko, that was what drove his feigned alliance with the Heir.

History follows a very similar path. I re-read some chapters on the battle of Sekigahara last night, and there is no easy way to explain it, but: the result of Sekigahara (an enormous, two-day battle with 200,000 samurai and ashigaru warriors in the field) was an enormous victory for Tokugawa, Toranaga's real-life counterpart.

Years - sometimes decades - of scheming by Tokugawa had made Ishido/Ishida's Western Alliance completely fragmented. In the months leading up to the period displayed in the show, Toranaga was calling in a lifetime of marriage alliances, diplomatic advantage, defensive pacts and childhood friends who'd risen to high status. Re-reading the sources, the names of all the lords of all the important fiefs and castles makes my head spin, let alone the ones that turned out to be pivotal to Toranga/Tokugawa's victory. But it was a resounding victory, and by both the numbers and the disposition of forces, he should have lost.

Historians have a consensus that if the 'Western forces' of the Heir had have fought together with a unified command structure, they would have won, easily. But they didn't - orders from Ishido/Ishida were ignored, Toranaga/Tokugawa endured onslaughts, and the Regents' opposing armies eventually fractured and melted away. This was a last-of-an-era battle. Families were fighting on either side, every single unit that could be brought to bear was on the field. It is no exaggeration to say Sekigahara is one of the few, unambiguous battles upon which the beginning of a historical era came down to.

Toranaga/Tokugawa triumphed because he spent decades building unity of purpose and strong alliances, simultaneously sowing division amongst the Regents, who ultimately balked at being commanded by a bureaucrat like Ishido/Ishida. Whilst there was no one decisive moment of an extremely bloody, rainy, two-day battle, the fact that Ishido/Ishida's forces refused to be told what to do by someone of lower status was the main theme of their defeat. A crucial army stationed on the hill stayed still, refusing to commit to either side, until Toranaga/Tokugawa fired muskets into their ranks. They made up their mind, and attacked Ishido/Ishida's Western army. Ishido/Ishida's one trick of firing a flare to commit the reserve army didn't work. The commander ignored it. Instead of being there to fight for something, Ishido/Ishida's coalition was there to oppose someone. They all had different reasons. And ultimately, the man that brought them together didn't command enough respect to command a battle.

As our show Toranaga said, the Regents fell upon each other. He might have been a bit optimistic about how and why this would happen (they fell over each other in retreat, and it took two days of horrific combat), but it happened. Tokugawa Ieyasu was famous for richly rewarding former enemies, and most of those he defeated kept their heads. This reputation is a strong incentive for leaving the field when things start going Tokugawa's way.

The two exceptions were Ishido/Ishida, and Kiyama/Konishi, both beheaded in Osaka (Ishido, bizarrely, was upbeat about his fate, until seconds before the sword came down). Killing Ishida was the obvious move, as the man schemed and bitched so much he caused a civil war. Killing Konishi was more calculated - it opened up his trade-hub in Kyushu to being ruled by a fervent Buddhist daimyo and ally of Tokugawa.

Toranaga/Tokugawa forces soon captured Osaka Castle after the battle of Sekigahara, and with it, the Heir.

Toranaga/Tokugawa 'reluctantly' accepted the Imperial appointment of Shōgun three years later, in 1603. In 1605, he abidcated, passing the title to his most malleable and competent son, Hidetada. He was the real power behind the throne and ruled until his death in 1616.

The year before he died, he was able to fully secure his legacy. The Heir (in real life, Toyotomi Hideyori) had begun to gather daimyo to Osaka castle who were opposed to Tokugawa. Tokugawa used the flimsiest of pretexts - the opening of a shrine - to order the Heir out of the castle. He refused, Tokugawa forces besieged the castle - twice. The first one was called off because cannon fire nearly killed Ochiba no kata, and she pushed her son to sue for peace. By the second siege, there would be no peace: the Tokugawa forces defeated all oppoosition, and secured the legacy.

Toranaga/Tokugawa's descendants would rule for 250 years of internal peace and external lock-down of the country from barbarians (and Christians), except for limited trade.

The big question: did Toranaga/Tokugawa really want to be Shōgun from the start? History tells us, rather unambiguously, yes - before the campaign, he was writing his 100 Articles for ruling Japan, which would be instrumental for his family holding on to power and preventing internal strife. His plan may well have gone back to his formative, teenage years. At the very least, it is highly likely it was solidified when Toranaga/Tokugawa was a vassal of the Dictator Koroda/Oda Nobunaga - the man Mariko/Hosokawa Gracia's father assassinated, who was brutal even by the standards of the day. We don't have time for him, the Taiko, and Mariko's father today - but my opinion is that the motherfucker firmly deserved to be assassinated, and the only amazing thing is that the inspiration for Mariko's father was able to hold off for so long.

But that killing set off a chain of events that would lead to Toranaga/Tokugawa becoming sole ruler of a unified Japan. So much of history is contingent on individual actors and random events. It didn't have to happen. It was extremely unlikely. But, through patience (and by my reckoning, a lot of luck), he made the world he wanted to see. Whether that was worth the price in lives is for the reader to decide.

But by all accounts, Toranaga/Tokugawa died very satisfied in the knowledge that his legacy was secure, his realm was unified, and, finally, at peace.

What happened to Mariko (Hosokowa Gracia)?

Gif: @yocalio

As is probably obvious, Mariko's purpose was fulfilled before the conclusion of the show. As is also probably obvious, her historical counterpart - Hosokowa Gracia - did not have an affair with an English sea pilot (😢). She did, however, change Japanese history, and tipped the balance of noble support towards Toranaga/Tokugawa. Her death had meaning.

The framing of her marriage to Buntaro and exile after her father's successful assassination of a brutal dictator is almost exactly correct. She was one of the most desirable, valued and accomplished young noblewomen of the day. The stain of the name Akechi would haunt her for the rest of her life. Real life Buntaro, Hosokowa Tadaoki, genuinely sent her away for two years to save her life. The Hosokowa family even went so far as to pretend that she had died, to save her from the Taiko's vengeance. Whilst her marriage was an unhappy one (though not, as far as is known, abusive), she was beloved by the head of the Hosokowa clan, the show's Hiromatsu. They went to extraordinary lengths to keep her safe.

Her main comfort in her life was her faith. It's perhaps here that we get the strongest through-line from Hosokowa Gracia to Mariko - unafraid, intelligent, and fierce.

She first came to learn about Christianity from her Christian maid, who extolled the virtue of the faith, and the opportunities for intellectual stimulation theological discussion could bring. In 1587 (five years after her father assassinated the dictator, three years after she returned from exile), she decided to take action on it. She snuck out of Osaka Castle and visited the main church in Osaka - she had lively conversations with the elderly Father-Visitor, and was an excellent pupil of both Portuguese and Latin theological texts. I don't know if you guys have ever tried to read those things, but even in translation, they are torturous. This woman was extremely intelligent.

As a noble woman of the Taiko's court, she knew he was about to issue an edict outlawing Christianity. Being the (excuse the language) absolute fucking badass that she was, she had her maid (baptismal name Maria) baptise her before the edict was issued, transforming from Hosokowa Tama to Hosokowa Gracia. Even though she had to keep her faith a secret due to the Taiko's edict, she found a way to hold on to it. She had a special sake cup made with the Hosokowa mon emblazed on the lip, which, on very close inspection, was actually a Christian cross.

During this time of her religious conversion and education, a primary source from a Jesuit priest says that 'I have never disputed with a woman of such clear judgement, and such definite knowledge.' She was known for being fiercely intelligent, and this is commented on in many European letters and journals that have remained from the Catholic church's time in Japan.

Her relationship with her husband - like Buntaro, a senior retainer of Toranaga/Tokugawa - was frosty. They never reconciled after her father's (Akechi Mitsuhide) rebellion, but her husband did recall her from exile when it was safe to do so, and she lived to serve a very similar purpose to Mariko in the book and show. By virtue of not being an interpreter, she was less close to Toranaga/Tokugawa than in the book and show, but she was still dedicated to her clan and her clan's overlord, as will become clear.

Just as in the show, Hosokowa Gracia agonized at the thought of seppuku putting her soul in mortal danger. But she perceived her duty to be to ensure death before being captured or otherwise dishonoured.

To put it bluntly, Ishido (Ishida in real life) fucked up. Before any military manouvers had begun, he went to seize hostages of friends and enemies alike throughout Osaka castle. His forces tried to forcibly seize Hosokowa Gracia from the family quarters. She gave orders for her senior retainer to kill her, her daughter, and set fire to their section of Osaka Castle, so that none could be taken and subjected to dishonour. She arranged with this samurai to stand on one side of a shoji screen, facing him. He stabbed her through the heart with a naginata. She died, satisfied in the knowledge that:

...the death was not suicide, and her soul would doubtless be spared from the torments of Hell.

Although not doing this directly on the orders of Toranaga/Tokugawa, it's highly likely she knew that she was making a statement (many of the other hostages went quietly). This furthered his cause immensely. Inspired by Hosokowa Gracia, families streamed out of Osaka Castle and other Regent-held castles by any method they could. Her example ignited a firestorm of controversy surrounding the gall of a jumped-up bureaucrat (a reputation Ishido/Ishida would never escape) forcing the death of one of the era's pre-eminent noblewomen. Although her husband was relatively unbothered by her death, her father-in-law - the book/show's Hiromatsu - was furious. Because of Hosokowa Gracia and his granddaughter's death, he immediately fortified his border castle.

He defied a large [Ishido/Ishida] army of 15,000 men with only 500 men of his own.

Many of [Ishido/Ishida's] commanders held [Hosokowa Fujitaka/Hiromatsu] in such high regard that they went through the bare motions of laying siege. On a regular basis, gunners 'accidentally' forgot to load their cannon with iron shot, and so Tanabe Castle's walls reverberated daily to the harmless booming of blank gundpowder explosions. [Ishido/Ishida's] military offensive had launched to a disastrous start.

The siege only ended because of an imperial decree (it's a long story - Fujitaka/Hiromatsu knew an oral tradition special imperial poem that risked dying with him, nobody could refuse the Emperor). More than this, any chance Ishido/Ishida had of convincing skilled and respected generals to commit to his side ended with Fujitaka/Hiromatsu's defiance. Such was the respect that he commanded, and such was the rage he felt at the death of his daughter-in-law, that he worked tirelessly to gather support for Toranaga/Tokugawa, despite his advanced years.

Mariko/Hosokowa Gracia's contribution was an inflection point to what many samurai, busho and daimyo were suspecting - that Ishido/Ishida was a snake bitch who couldn't be trusted (I believe that's the correct historical term). Her actions galvanized resistance against him, and continued to spread the wildfire that would seal his defeat on the battlefield of Sekigahara: 'Why are we taking orders from him?'

Importantly, Hosokowa Gracia's remains were gathered by a Catholic priest, and given a Christian burial in Osaka. From everything we know of her, this would have been very meaningful indeed. Just as with Mariko in the show's depiction, Hosokowa Gracia's death was not senseless or without meaning. It meant something, and continues to resonate through the centuries.

What happened to John Blackthorne (William Adams)?

Gif by @cinematic-gif-archive

The short answer: imagine an alien landed in America. It was smart enough to avoid death. It ended up chief special advisor to Obama, and they became bros. That is William Adams's life.

First things first: Blackthorne stays in Japan. 'Old Rich Blackthorne' scenes are basically fever dreams. I was worried when the episode opened with a flash-forward to an old man living in Tudor comfort. This would be a huge change from both the book, and history. The novel ends with Toranaga confirming that his plan is for Blackthorne to never leave Japan. Blackthorne finds his place there. In history, the same is true of William Adams.

In episode 10, the 'is this a flash-forward?/is this a dream?' question is answered halfway through the episode. Blackthorne drops Mariko's cross over the side with Fuji's family ashes. As soon as that's done, the aged visions of Blackthorne disappear.

For those who are more textual than visual: the episode is titled A Dream of a Dream (a play on the title of the Taiko's death poem). Concussed, grief-stricken Blackthorne is dreaming of the dream he used to have - returning to England with riches and glory, his family name secure, with every comfort Queen Elizabeth the First can offer a pirate-explorer like Sir Francis Drake or Sir Walter Raleigh. But as soon as he lets go of Mariko's cross into the water (earlier, actually, when he sincerely attempted seppuku to try and save the people of Ajiro) that dream stopped appearing. The dream he had of exploiting Japan for riches and glory was gone, replaced with the reality of the life he is left to build.

In the show and the book, Toranaga is explicit about never letting Anjin-sama/Blackthorne leave Japan. If he builds new ships, Toranaga will burn them again. He needs Blackthorne's knowledge, expertise, and - in a bizarre twist of fate - friendship. We leave him hauling his wreck from the harbour, ready to salvage the keel and spars, to build a new ship in Japan.

So how does this marry up with history? Extremely accurately. As far as we know, the historical William Adams was slightly less of a pirate/privateer than the book/show's John Blackthorne. His hatred of Catholicism was more driven by their fervent desire to kill him, which they kept up for nearly a decade. His interest in exploration, in the show and in the historical, was genuine.

The show's story very closely follows what actually happened in real life (again, sans romance... although he does have love in his life, which we'll get to). His crew were initially imprisoned, he was summoned by Toranaga/Tokugawa, and met with him many times to discuss his knowledge of the outside world, trade, and Christianity's impact in Asia. The Jesuits did pester the Council of Regents, and Toranaga/Tokugawa in particular, to execute him. Toranaga/Tokugawa refused, saying this barbarian had done nothing to harm Japan or its people. The Jesuits would not forget this.

He did train elements of Toranaga/Tokogawa's army in how to work the cannon his ship possessed - a skill he possessed, but no one else was willing to offer. He actually followed Toranaga/Tokugawa to several battles. Recent primary source evidence has revealed it was highly likely he was actually at the Battle of Sekigahara, which is a very recent development in the historiography of his life. It is just bananas insane, but it demonstrates just how useful (and likeable) Blackthorne/Adams was to Toranaga/Tokugawa.

I've read two biographies of William Adams, and he was very, very like the Blackthorne portrayed by Cosmo Jarvis. Other Europeans in Japan complained that he was arrogant and dismissive - historians see this as Adams adapting to his station in Japanese society, and being extremely frustrated with European manners and bearing in Japan.

Once Toranaga/Tokugawa became shōgun, Adams - already a samurai - was made hatamoto, and forbidden from leaving Japan. He was granted many generous cuckoos (250 of them!), an estate in Edo, a fief at the entrance to Edo bay, and rose to become Toranaga/Tokugawa's chief trade advisor. During Toranaga/Tokugawa's remaining life, he built two Western-style ships (which Tokugawa came aboard and was very pleased with - that's nice!), and took over piloting duties of Portuguese and Spanish ships making landfall in Edo, pissing off the Catholics to no end.

On Ieyasu Tokugawa's death in 1616, his holdings and fief were confirmed by the new shōgun, Ieyasu Hidetada. But his relationship with the court wouldn't be the same. My reading of the sources leads me to believe that James Clavell was right here: Toranaga/Tokugawa Ieyasu genuinely liked Blackthorne/William Adams, and wanted him around.

As more and more Europeans arrived in Japan, including the English and the Dutch, Adams served as translator for them, and - for the Enlgish - fixer whenever they did something barbaric and rude that would warrant execution. He seemed to view spending time with the (no joke) drunken, whoring, disgusting-smelling English trading factory members as an extreme annoyance. He seemed happiest at sea, and at his mansion in Edo, where he married the daughter of a merchant in 1613. Whilst her name is lost to the historical record, they had two children, Joseph and Susanna.

He wasn't a deadbeat dad - he wrote to his wife back in England, explaining that he could not return. She was a firebrand, and eventually extracted a form of life insurance from the Dutch company that had contracted Adams's piloting services. Partly she was able to do this because of a proclamation issued by Toranaga/Ieyasu Tokugawa: 'William Adams was dead the day he was made samurai, and Miura Anjin - the pilot of the fief of Miura - was born.' That sounds like a badass quote I've made up, but that's one of the English translations of Tokugawa's proclamation.

Adams kept up his maritime adventures, charting the Japanese coast, going on several trading missions to Southeast Asia (sailing to Thailand and meeting with the King of Siam, furthering his amazing ability to charm and dazzle). He struck up firm friendships with members of Tokugawa's court, fellow Japanese merchants in Edo, and the much more polite Dutch traders, despite the tensions that had grown between their two countries.

There's an important aspect of his legacy that endured for centuries. Toranaga/Tokugawa, suspicious of what he had learned of Catholic conversion and invasion of other Asian states, was already disposed to be wary of the Church. The Church in Japan would not let Adams rest, attempting to kill him, convert him, bribe him, and offer him passage home in 1614 on a Portuguese ship. In the same year Portuguese priests claimed that only Spanish miners had the skills to open up the mineral wealth of Japan. Adams warned the shōgun, again, that this was the Catholic way - first the priests, then the conquistadores.

Influenced by these reports and counsel, and because the Jesuits legitimately were conspiring to do the shit Adams accused them of (always a tough charge to defend), Toranaga/Tokugawa Ieyasu expelled all Portuguese priests in 1614, and demanded all Japanese Christians recant. Apart from this leading to the Dutch being the only nation allowed to conduct trade with Japan, this was the end of Japanese Christianity, until the country was forced open in 1855. Christianity never took root in the same way it would in places like Brazil and the Philippines. Was William Adams the only factor in this development? No. Was he a factor? Yes.

He died in 1620, after twenty contented years in Japan and Asia. His will stipulated that his estates and belongings be split evenly between his family in England and Japan. One of Adams's colleagues recorded that Ieyasu Hidetada transferred lordship of Adams's fief to his Japanese son, Joseph, as well as his katana and wakizashi. His line fell out of the historical record, but memory of and monuments to the Anjin remain in Japan.

Faring Well

Shōgun, the book, was fiction, written by a man fascinated by Japanese history, driven by a desire to bring it to the world. He was overwhelmingly successful. It was an excellent start, and even fired up some fascinating academic discussion at the time that I'd definitely recommend. The 2024 adaptation, in my view, changes many of the elements that have aged poorly, were flat-out wrong to begin with, and - like all great adaptations - adds to the work, rather than cheapening it.

Despite being based on real people, the fictional characters created for the show - Blackthorne, Toranga, and especially Mariko - feel real. That is an amazing achievement.

I hope this opens up an interest in Japanese history for some viewers. Being able to visit the places where these events took place is a truly awesome experience. Like all history, it's for individuals to judge what they think of the players.

Hiroyuki Sanada said that he admires Tokugawa Ieyasu because of his ability to bring forth 250 years of peace out of nearly 500 years of chaos. Was Ieyasu motivated by altruism, or self-interest? Does it even matter?

Anna Sawai saw in Hosokowa Gracia a moving, powerful woman, deeply committed to her faith, and to doing what she believed was right in the context of her time. As a person without faith myself, I found this portrayal of genuine belief extremely moving. The demonstration of her convictions was one of the most amazing performances I've ever seen.

And as for the English pilot, Cosmo Jarvis said he wanted to capture the restlessness of Adams, his slow transformation and growth, and the unique qualities that allowed the man to survive and thrive in an extremely deadly time. One thing he nailed that I think even James Clavell messed up was how deepy strange William Adams was. Not weird, not insane, but just a very singular individual. Biographers talk about his aloof, detached, self-aware nature being misconstrued as arrogance by Europeans who encountered him in Japan. Part of it was his annoyance at their inability to learn how to be in Japan; part of it was that he was simply built very differently. In embodying this, I think Cosmo Jarvis succeeded amazingly.

From what we can find in the historical record, William Adams and Hosokowa Gracia may not be 'great' in the sense that Tokugawa Ieyasu was 'great'. They did not build an era. To borrow a phrase from one of my favourite historical writers, whilst they may not be 'great' people, they were good people. That is vanishingly rare in the history we celebrate, and I think, for that reason alone, it's important to remember them, and the things they lived and died for.

[copperbadge]

Hi Sam. I finally bit the bullet and decided to get an evaluation for adhd. (yay!) My test is scheduled in a couple weeks, but I had an intake appointment a couple days ago and the doctor I saw sent me an MMPI test to do online ahead of time. (boo.)

I hate this thing so much. There’s over 500 questions and she said it would take 45-60 minutes to complete, but I’ve spent that long just waffling over the first 75 questions so far. There are so many generalizations and binary thinking type questions, and the longer I stare at this paralyzed with indecision between two wrong answers, the more I start to feel like they are going to come back with some other kind of neurodivergent label for me.

I was told the in person testing is supposed to take 4-6 hours, but I’m getting worried that it’s going to be much worse than that given the rate I’m currently going at. Do you have any advice for getting through these? I do recall that you’ve previously said to always answer as if you didn’t have your current coping mechanisms in place.

Also, thanks for talking about all this stuff so candidly and informatively. It’s been an inspiration and a big part of why I decided to finally get tested myself. Even if this does end up telling me and I’m different flavor of nd, I’m looking forward to hopefully having a little more insight as to how my mind works.

Hey Anon, apologies this reply wasn't as prompt as it could be! Hopefully it's still posting before your evaluation. Congrats on setting that up, it can be really hard to do.

The personality categorization tests are really dreadful for lots of people, if that helps, but especially for people who are either more literal minded or extremely adaptable, because we all know a lot of behavior depends on context or on comfort level. For what it's worth, the rest of the eval shouldn't be like that. They may put you through The Questionnaire, which is a roughly twenty minute list of questions about behavior, but even then that should be easier because it's asking you mostly to recall actions you've already done.

I would recommend when you have your evaluation, bring up your struggle with the MMPI. Remember that your goal is not to get A Specific Diagnosis, it's to get the correct one, and the more info they have, the more likely that is. Be as honest as you can within the difficult confines of a process that wants to categorize things that are very difficult to measure.

The in person testing will involve much more unambiguous testing -- lots of problem solving, memorizing, clicking buttons when prompted, etc. none of it is hard; some might be stressful but just remember you're there to demonstrate your real skills and abilities. There's no way to pass or fail any of these tests. Think of them as games if that helps. I enjoyed the process as a challenge :)

And good luck! I hope it goes well for you. Bring a snack and a water bottle and if you feel unsure about something remember it's totally okay to ask for clarity. You'll do just fine.

[oceansarepink]

most of the montage of Blitzo feeling like he's hurt others in Ghostfuckers made some kind of sense (except the bit where Loona kicked him, idk why they didn't show the clip of Blitzo calling Loona's bluff on the 'why don't you just replace me' line instead)

but then we get to the Stolas Section and boy oh boy

Blitzo pulling his hand away at Ozzie's (totally reasonable because Stolas just hid his mug behind a menu out of shame) Stolas looking oh so sad and hurt when Blitzo tells him off at the end of Ozzie's (totally reasonable and DESERVED because this was when the deal was still in place and after a whole season of Stolas demeaning and using him for sex, culminating in him calling Blitzo his plaything. like the inclusion of his one probably ticked me off more than anything else honestly) Stolas offering the crystal (i.e. him doing the bare minimum to fix things) Stolas walking to his door all dejected in apology tour (right after he spent an entire argument gaslighting Blitzo and being his absolute worst, most selfish version of himself.) Stolas singing (a song where he admits Blitzo didn't mean to hurt him and HE was the one reading too much into things, while at a party he called petty and stupid all episode long) Stolas looking all sad and drunk, Stolas making out with some other guy (right after Blitzo tried to open up to him)

like I get this montage is directly in Blitzo's perspective and he's in a self-hating tailspin this episode so some of the shots could be explained as him beating himself up way too much. but after Apology Tour and basically all of s2 we're past the point I can give the show any plausible deniability about what it's doing

literally in every single Stolas example, the way Blitzo has behaved towards him makes complete sense - he wasn't unambiguously in the wrong in ANY of those examples.

Stolas doesn't have the guts to stand up for him, showing Blitzo he is just his sex toy after all? Then he has no reason to want to hold hands just to humor him Stolas doesn't correct Blitzo at all when Blitzo says 'YOU make it really clear that there's nothing between us except sex all the time' and just says 'OK' like he's agreeing he would totally try it on with Blitzo if he invited him in? Then why should Blitzo feel bad about driving off?? And don't even get me started with the idea that Blitzo should feel like he hurt Stolas in AT after Stolas had the nerve to say 'I expect you to prioritize getting my useless self out of trouble over being there for your daughter even though you still risked your employee's lives for me'. Frankly that convo alone makes it totally understandable for Blitzo to just cut him off for good.

putting it short, the Stolas section of the Blitzo hurts others montage should have been one scene long: the part where he steals the book. That's it. That's the only time he was unambiguously doing something malicious to hurt Stolas.

But anon, stolas was really saaad, so he’s in the right. Feel bad for him!!! His big eyes made a frowny face!

The ship is moving into “it’s all my fault I have to make up for it by giving him the love he said I was incapable of” territory.

When he admits he’ll stay away from MnM and only wants to focus on seeking out stolas from now on, because…..of “reasons” compelling him. He looks so defeated man.

A relationship where the burden of guilt and the constant highs of rewards and lows of punishments will be addicting but terrifying constantly. Blitz is obsessed with shouldering blame, stolas is obsessed with pushing blame onto others. It will always be that way.

Don’t forget we still have to deal with them getting together, then promptly breaking up because of Octavia, then a new bird enters the scene, then they get back together again or breakup again back and forth a few times, then post the vassago love triangle ending. And they have to address fizz at some point even though hes married to Ozzie pretty much already.

[dostoyevsky-official]

could you elaborate on your most recent comment on that post about college students struggling to read entire works? because you frame an excerpt from the article as "it's the phones" but the entire excerpt is about teaching-to-the-test pedagogy that prioritizes small sections of texts etc rather than giving students practice in the classroom with reading a whole book. clearly that's a different issue than phonics, but I'm just not sure why that was the excerpt you chose if your point is that it ISN'T about poor pedagogical choices.

the excerpt is about how phonics isn't the issue, responding to someone who was saying that phonics are the issue. i don't think it's phones in isolation, but it's the biggest root cause, by far. the piece spends quite some time on it.

we could approach the problem like good economists, asking if it's possible to isolate phones as a variable, ceteris paribus. and it is. out of curiosity, i read a few books related to the 1990s "closing of the american mind" phenomenon earlier this year, including hirsch's cultural literacy. he, like others, bemoans television and loosening standards for lower reading rates and poor retention of basic cultural information you learn in humanities classes that are necessary for a coherent society—if any information was retained to begin with. but kids were still reading.

i graduated an extremely intensive, extracurricular-focused, top college prep-aimed high school in 2014. i had an iphone since 2012, a facebook, twitter, instagram, and tumblr account each since ~2008, but this was before the psychological abuse of each was maximized through streamlined app design. a lot of classes in this high school were also geared "towards the test," in this case, APs, and a chunk of it was devoted to polishing SAT scores and college essays. some classes focused on excerpts, and by far not everyone was Doing the Reading (one skill you learn in college and certainly in grad school is how to gut a book, not reading the whole way through—nobody does the entire reading). yet enough students were still reading the whole of the book for enough books, even if sparknotes was ubiquitous. phones, by the way, were confiscated on sight.

many issues were already destroying students' ability to read, including poor pedagogy. but something happened between the early 2010s and now that made the problem much, much worse. what was it?

there's a lot of anecdotal evidence from professors and other articles on phones as the issue, including some academic research on psychological effects—i don't know why this particular article is gaining traction here and on twitter, maybe because it's well-written, in the atlantic, concise—and it seems pretty unambiguous that phones and social media are destroying attention spans, not matter whether child or adult.

an interesting, just-published study, " Library in the Palm of Your Hand? A Randomized Reading Intervention with Low-Income Children" looks at what happens when you direct children's attention towards reading, providing them with easy access to books, instead of phones:

...

...

this happened in germany, by the way. i don't know about german school pedagogy, but i'm not sure they abandoned phonics.

it's phones. it's 100% phones.

[saintsenara]

I’ve curious about something you said… you mention that you believe 💯 that Barty Crouch Jr was a full on DE/Blood purist Before being sent to Azkaban but to me the trial scene made me think otherwise- could you elaborate on why you think he was faking and is a true DE?

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

barty crouch jr. is - obviously - a fascinating character. but this doesn't override the fact that his primary purpose in goblet of fire is to be a narrative device: the plot twist of the century at the denouement of the book, when "professor moody" is revealed as an imposter; and a man everyone assumed to be dead is revealed to be alive; and a man many people [including harry and, it's implied, dumbledore] suspected - on the basis of his performance at his trial - might simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, rather than a fanatical death eater, is revealed to be... a fanatical death eater, who has been working for a full year to facilitate voldemort's resurrection.

like in a murder mystery, the narrative purpose of crouch jr.'s unmasking at the end of the book is to reveal that several things the text presents as clues before harry [the reader surrogate] has all the information are actually red herrings once he does.

the first of these is that, like philosopher's stone, goblet of fire goes out of its way to suggest that the faithful death eater at hogwarts is snape - which it does magnificently:

A grim smile twisted his lopsided mouth. “Oh if there’s one thing I hate,” he muttered, more to himself than to Harry, and his magical eye was fixed on the left-hand corner of the map, “it’s a Death Eater who walked free...” Harry stared at him. Could Moody possibly mean what Harry thought he meant?

harry - and, therefore, the reader - is, of course, immediately primed to interpret this as the real moody suggesting that snape is still suspected of being a loyal death eater. what we learn later, of course, is that crouch-as-moody is actually accusing snape of being disloyal:

“I told you, Harry... I told you. If there’s one thing I hate more than any other, it’s a Death Eater who walked free. They turned their backs on my master when he needed them most.”

and the second is that goblet of fire treats barty crouch sr. not as a villain - per se - but as one of the long line of civil servants who appear in the series whose commitment to doing everything by the book - being precise, bureaucratic, inflexible, and so on - only ends up making them extraordinarily cruel. crouch is the precursor to how percy will behave in order of the phoenix, and he also has numerous things in common with how dolores umbridge [an unambiguous villain] and rufus scrimgeour [an antagonist, but not a villain] are written.

the text suggests on multiple occasions prior to its denouement that crouch's rigidity made him incapable of mercy [a virtue the series really values].

but, in addition to this, it suggests that crouch's cardinal sin isn't that he didn't show mercy to the genuinely guilty... but that he didn't show mercy to the innocent.

how do we know this? because he's the man who's responsible for the miscarriage of justice which defines the series:

Sirius’s face darkened. He suddenly looked as menacing as he had the night when Harry first met him, the night when Harry still believed Sirius to be a murderer. “Oh I know Crouch all right,” he said quietly. “He was the one who gave the order for me to be sent to Azkaban - without a trial.”

sirius also tells us that crouch was power-hungry and corrupt:

"Crouch’s principles might’ve been good in the beginning - I wouldn’t know. He rose quickly through the Ministry, and he started ordering very harsh measures against Voldemort’s supporters. The Aurors were given new powers - powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn’t the only one who was handed straight to the dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side."

and he also gives the reader a nibble at the other half of this red herring, when he suggests that barty crouch jr. might have been nothing more than a victim of his father's ruthlessness, just like winky - the innocent house elf whose cruel treatment at crouch sr.'s hands not only infuriates hermione, but is also given by sirius as proof of crouch's near-villainy:

“Was his son a Death Eater?” said Harry.  “No idea,” said Sirius, still stuffing down bread. “I was in Azkaban myself when he was brought in. This is mostly stuff I’ve found out since I got out. The boy was definitely caught in the company of people I’d bet my life were Death Eaters - but he might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, just like the house-elf.”

when harry ends up in the pensieve a couple of chapters later, then, he and the reader are primed to view barty crouch jr.'s hysterics on the stand as authentic, to be horrified that crouch sr. could send his son to azkaban with such brutal ease, and to highly suspect that his conviction - like sirius' - was illegitimate.

but - of course - the twist at the end of the book is that harry [and sirius] is completely wrong about this.

barty crouch sr.'s decision to send his own son to azkaban was the right one. and the thing that ruined him was not making a ruthless decision, but making a merciful one.

because, as barty crouch jr. tells us, his father breaking him out of azkaban, around a year after sending him there, meant nothing to him... other than the chance to return to voldemort:

“And what did your father do with you, when he had got you home?” said Dumbledore quietly. “Staged my mother’s death. A quiet, private funeral. That grave is empty. The house-elf nursed me back to health. Then I had to be concealed. I had to be controlled. My father had to use a number of spells to subdue me. When I had recovered my strength, I thought only of finding my master... of returning to his service.”

these are not the words of someone who was anything other than a sincere death eater when he and the lestranges attacked frank and alice longbottom.

and they are, therefore, the words of someone whose performance of horrified innocence - just in the wrong place at the wrong time - at his trial is one hundred percent fake.

[spoiled-ojousama]

betcha someone's thought abt it before, but the plothole of 'why didn't anakin just leave the order and marry padme publically' isn't a plothole because anakin never sought some peaceful married life as a househusband, he wanted power

take a boy who has never known security ever, never known agency, never lived a day without the fear his loved ones would be stolen from him, tell him you'll free him from slavery, but he needs to leave his mom and friends behind and he's only being taken to fill the role of 'chosen one' and because he's already pretty old, the ppl who saved him already doubt even bringing him along, and like, ultimately anakin feels within his gut he's being enslaved again, even as reality reveals itself he'd take god knows how long to break that instinct, and then onwards, he's taught the ways of physical violence, he excels at piloting starfighters, commanding armies, and swinging a blade, he's for once in his life given agency, given power, he gets to decide what happens to others, even if only within his own cosmos, why would he ever give up that brutal certainty for the uncertainty of domesticity and having to let others carry the universe, beyond merely a sense of task-duty deep within his skull, he's powerful, he can do whatever he wants, he can protect those close to him, even when his mother died when he was a padawan, he now has more ability than ever to guard his soldiers, his trainees, his other friends, but it's still not enough in war

and I mean, why would therapy help anakin either, he doesn't even know something's wrong with him and any suggestion from the jedi that something about him was wrong would be instinctively taken as a threat to his security, even if he was dragged to therapy, he wouldn't want to heal, he wouldn't even want to acknowledge that need, he wouldn't even know he had that need because he's never lived a life that was ever secure enough to teach him otherwise

from anakin's point of view, the jedi are evil, but ultimately while they did prolong his slave mentality, what could they have done.

think about it, why would you only ever train kids, luke's trainable, he was just hard, you only train kids because you need to make more and more jedi, more jedi to keep the peace, more jedi to fight sith, whatever the reason, you need the teachers to be younger, and you need them to train the easier students, and if you fight an ancient and nonstop battle with the sith, eventually the philosophy is discarded, mass production is all that is important, utilitarianism turns into dogma

no attachments, no older kids, a structure that has allowed the jedi order to churn out thousands upon thousands of agents for reasons that are unambiguously good (the protection of the weak), why would they change, especially as they become the only interstellar peacekeepers, especially as another war, a war of mass production and attrition breaks out, the jedi fell into utilitarian dogma, and anakin fell because of it, only needing a few nudges from palpatine to shove him over the edge

but ultimately anakin is irrelevant, whether he fell or not wouldn't truly effect palpatine's victory, anakin was made as a person of immense force potential so plageius and sidious could have a superpowered slave

palpatine and plagieus could have ruled the galaxy side by side in due time, but the drive to dominate, to possess ever powerful weapons led to anakin's birth, fall, and eventual redemption, wherein he, in one of his last moments, feeling nothing but rage, nothing but slave-mentality, bereft of loved ones to protect, finally had someone he could care about, someone who was family to him, some final reamnant of padme

of course he killed palpatine, he had all the power, he understood how much the sith path was a pathetic lie that earned him nothing but pain, all he needed was someone to protect

andyways, silly analysis poast

[la-pheacienne]

Alicent is unfortunately not the only lifeless portrayal in the show. I have to talk about my pookie. Daemon Targaryen, a fandom fave, grrm's fave (one of them), legendary, quintessential Targaryen prince, "both a great man and a monster", "the most admired, most beloved, most reviled in all Westeros", "made of light and darkness in equal parts", "to some a hero, to others the blackest of villains" (paraphrazing).

Now that is something isn't it? Except that I didn't see that Daemon.

The deal with Daemon is simple. Book!Daemon was, first of all, fiercely attached to his family and that part is extremely important for his characterization. That man was blindly devoted to his house, to his wife and to their kids, adopted or biological. That was his drive, that was his purpose, that was his inner logic. Secondly, that man was nuts. Genuinely terrifying, the "you touch my kin and you will be sorry you were born" kind of terrifying. The "I will not stop until I turn every single person who wronged my family to ashes, man, woman, or child" kind of terrifying.

And they violated his brother's will. They usurped his wife's throne. They murdered his boy. They dared make a fool out of him and tear his family apart, two clowns barely into adulthood, a whiny nun and an old man who faints at the sight of a dragon. These people did this to him. Like, can you even?

Daemon should be fucking seething. He should be coming down on these clowns like a ton of bricks. The mere mention of his name should make them tremble in terror. Blood and Cheese was his moment, and it was the moment of the Dance. Now Matt did a very good job conveying all of this up until Blood and Cheese but attributing Blood and Cheese to an oopsie severely underplayed Daemon's impact. Of course, the reason the writers made BxC a misunderstanding is simply the fact that they couldn't do otherwise, after what they did with Lucerys' murder. Show!Daemon, as he stands, could not unambiguously and straightforwardly order the murder of Helaena's son without turning into a cartoonish Ramsay type of villain, and this, because the writers have not established one of his two defining traits which is, again, his fierce, blind devotion to his wife and kids. Show!Daemyra is weak, Daemon's fatherhood is downplayed. This is a part of the general problem of the characters of the show feeling flat and vague in their motivations. The show may have included some intellectually stimulating changes, in all its anti monarchy blablabla glory, but in their effort to achieve that they stopped giving the characters space to feel, love, rage and form deep, unbreakable bonds with eachother which motivate the entirety of their actions. In the entire show the moments of pure, unfiltered, real emotion are extremely rare, and Daemon is a victim of that.

Since they have not established that emotional core for him, they cannot go full force on his vilest act either. The two go hand in hand. The one motivates the other. Of course you're gonna tell me that in the show, he still orchestrated Blood and Cheese and he is still technically responsible for everything that happened. Matt was still seething with fury throughout the entire episode. Fine. It is still far less impactful than the book version, far less powerful, far less horrifying, because the motivation behind it is flimsy, because Daemon's characterization is hollow. In the book, Daemon was both greater and meaner. He was just more, in every category. In the show, he didn't give me that "oh my fucking god" shocking moment I felt when I read the source material y'all call boring (!) in comparison to the adaptation.

Daemon's moral core is his family. Period. For his family, he becomes the blackest of monsters, without scruples and without mercy. That's what "light and darkness in equal parts" means. Both are necessary. The show ironically managed to dim both his good side and his evil side and turn this proud, fearsome, horrible, legendary Targ into a whiny man whose toy got stolen. Not the vibe. I hope they do better with the battle above god's eye.

[itsclydebitches]

Okay, so I saw this RWBY meme made by a fan and I can't remember it completely but it was about Emerald switching sides. What stood out to me was the language used and how Ruby's group was specifically referred to as "The Good Guys side" and if that doesn't show how broken this show's morality is then I don't know what does. Emerald switched to the side of good, not just Ruby's side. The side that is specifically good because it's Ruby side. You're either with Ruby or against her with no in-between. Compare this to Aang's group in ATLA, affectionately called The Gaang by fans. A term that collectively refers to the group without proclaiming them as THE good guys. We know they're good because their actions show they are good. It isn't just a title grafted on because they're the stars of the show. And while they have an official grouping in the form of Team Avatar. It still isn't used in the same manner as RWBY fans calling all who agree with Ruby "The Good Guys".

Decided to start answering backlog asks! We've officially entered the post-RT discussion era. Fun! 😬

You know, RWBY is compared (unfavorably) to Avatar a lot, but this comparison is particularly interesting to me because Avatar is, well... Avatar. That's a title. And it's a title built into the fictional world, one that's so significant it's worthy of being the name of the show. The Avatar is a combined destiny/job description that, in the words of the wiki, is the "human embodiment of light and peace." Obviously free will still comes into play - I'd never ignore the significance behind Aang's personal choice of how to bring balance to the world - but there's an element of fate here, of self-fulfilling prophecy, and fourth wall-breaking knowledge. In-world, benders are (presumably) not chosen if they're unsuited to be this embodiment of peace. Once someone knows they're the avatar, they can more easily find the courage/determination to meet such high standards because this is how it's "supposed" to be (regardless of whether anything cosmic is actually ensuring their success). And the audience knows, by virtue of that title and our opening, how we're meant to view Aang: as the Good Guy of the story. All that already exists outside of the actions he takes within the show, helping to soften anything potentially suspect with a "Well, he's just a kid" or "Well, everyone makes mistakes," or whatever explanation that's technically true in any harrowing story featuring a young protagonist... but continually falls flat with Team RWBY.

Because RWBY didn't do that same work. RWBY doesn't have a handle on its own identity the way Avatar does. It laid some of the groundwork early on but then never capitalized on it, which is why I'm endlessly groaning over the failure of not doing anything with Ruby's status as a SEW/simple soul. Those could have easily been titles the way "Avatar" is a title, something that the people of Ruby's world see as cosmic evidence of her purity and inherent ability to lead them in this war. Instead, it's just a one-off, ambiguous statement and a very badly used skill.

So yeah, Emerald joins The Good Guys, which wouldn't be bad if, as said, the show had shown the group unambiguously being Good people in a war with black and white solutions. Or, if we had some reason to believe that Ruby is The One True Leader, destined/worthy of bearing this burden no matter the number of mistakes she's made. But RWBY even undermines the title aspect by making Ruby herself fairly inconsequential in later volumes. Yeah, the show is also named after this team/our protagonist... and yet that began to feel incidental as the cast grew AND many of the characters brought new - arguably better - perspectives + powers into the fray. Avatar made the simple but VERY important decision to say, "This is the ONLY GUY who can do this job. Sure, he's going to need a lot of help and saving the world is absolutely a team effort, but that team revolves around him because he is, again, the ONE PERSON who can accomplish this." RWBY failed to set that up and (arguably) failed to show the group being The Good Guys, at least to the extent that the whole world would understandably put their faith in a teenager who, frankly, just keeps making things worse. Like, that's a big consideration imo. Ruby's intentions have always been good and most fans are fully on her side regarding justifications for her choices, so in that sense she is absolutely The Good Guy, but beyond that she's just really bad at saving the world. So if she's not somehow ordained to do it and continually shows a severe lack of skill in this regard... why are the characters/the viewer rooting for her again?

[theunsinkableship1]

So are you telling me there's a chance or not?

DISCLAIMER: This is LUKOLALAND only. Do not read if you're not a shipper. This is only my point of view. No harm intended

Luke Newton is not only a talented actor, but also a genuinely kind person and a loyal friend, as confirmed by those who know him personally. He has done nothing to warrant shame that we know of, nor should he be the target of any malicious attacks. It’s deeply troubling and unacceptable when people make baseless assumptions and then use those assumptions to attack others.

Once again, his good pal Nicola Coughlan stepped in to show her support in a beautiful way. She posted a behind-the-scenes photo of the two of them from "Bridgerton" Season 3, where they’re seen sharing a moment filled with real joy and warmth on their faces. Nicola captioned the post with, "I thought I’d already shared this, but I hadn’t, so here you go now it’s all yours!" She also shared it on her Instagram story, adding, "With the loveliest pal a gal could have” with purple heart emoji and tagged Luke in it. Luke later liked the post on her grid.

Perhaps it’s just my Lukolaland mindset, but there seems to be something intriguing in her choice of words.

On the surface, the captions express a friendly gesture, as if Nicola is simply sharing a behind-the-scenes moment with her fans that she thought she had already posted. The use of the word “pal” is casual and affectionate, highlighting the close friendship between Nicola and Luke. The phrase "all yours" could suggest she is offering this moment to her followers, making it seem like a casual sharing of content.

The timing of this post is significant. It could be related to them reprising their roles for the new season but certainly comes amidst negativity surrounding Luke, this is therefore Nicola’s subtle way of showing support and solidarity, reminding everyone of their strong bond.

Her choice of words, however, may carry more depth:

"I thought I’d already shared this, but I hadn’t...":

This could suggest that Nicola had been holding onto this moment, perhaps with intention. The idea of "thinking" she shared it but realizing she hadn't might hint at a more calculated decision to share it now, It hints at the possibility that this wasn’t just an accidental omission but rather something she chose to hold back until now, and in sharing it, she’s making a deliberate statement. It’s as if she’s saying that this is something she had kept to herself, but now she’s ready to make it known.

By saying, “but I hadn’t...,” It suggests a sense of realization or a decision to finally share something that matters to her, making their bond more visible. A poor translation could be: "In case you didn’t get it the first time, here it is” It’s almost as if Nicola is saying, “I should have done this earlier,”

"So here you go, now it’s all yours!":

 The phrase "now it’s all yours" might suggest that this is not just a personal gesture between friends, but something she wants to offer to the public as well, a statement to her followers or the broader community. This could also imply that by sharing this now, she’s putting an end to something perhaps to rumors or negative talk by showing the closeness and happiness between them.

"With the loveliest pal a gal could have":

On the surface, calling Luke her “pal” could be downplaying any romantic undertones, while still emphasizing the importance of their relationship. Nicola could have simply referred to Luke as her "pal," which would have sufficed in describing a close friendship. Sticking to "pal" would have kept the meaning simple and unambiguous. By choosing "pal a gal," it might only be a play on words but it introduces a duality; that phrase adds layers of meaning and implication, making it more than just a casual reference to friendship.

Pal" and "gal" are almost mirror images of each other, which could simply be seen as playful language.

But in this context, it can also carry an undertone of something more profound, or it could be a subtle jab or an inside joke.

This phrasing creates a sense of camaraderie and closeness that goes beyond mere friendship, giving it a more personal and endearing touch. By including "gal," she not only personalizes the sentiment but also subtly acknowledges the gender dynamic in their relationship. The added phrase "a gal" brings a warmth and familiarity to the relationship, hinting at a connection that could be deeper or more complex than what is outwardly shown. It’s a subtle but significant choice that invites curiosity.

The addition of a purple heart emoji to Nicola Coughlan's caption can carry several layers of meaning, especially in the context of her public post about Luke Newton:

The purple heart emoji is often used to symbolize deep friendship, loyalty, and strong bonds between people. The purple heart can also be seen as a symbol of support and solidarity, this emoji could subtly suggest romantic undertones between her and Luke without being overtly direct. The use of this emoji is often associated with affection that is more nuanced more than just friendly, but not as openly romantic as a red heart.

Purple heart also, could signify forbidden love for romantic prospects.

In conclusion, this is still a mixed message, Nicola’s post is more than just a simple social media update. It’s a nuanced and deliberate gesture that conveys her strong support for her good pal Luke, making it clear where her loyalties lie. The real nature of their relationship remains unclear for me, her post creates ambiguity through a combination of playful language, affectionate imagery, and subtle word choices.

The message suggests that the relationship is still sailing steadily, even if they're not quite at the destination yet. Things might be complicated and the waters rough, but the horizon is promising. The belief is that they’ll reach their destination. Today’s post is more evidence that they’re on the right course rather than a reason to doubt. As I’ve said before, it would take a foundering or a relegation for me to abandon this ship. Until then, I remain a loyal crewmember.

Just because she’s calling him a pal now doesn’t mean he won’t be promoted to something more later. After all, friendship is the best foundation for love, they could go from pals to lovers. Hopefully sooner than later.

[molsno]

hii so im kind of confused about the general inner workings of transmisogyny as an extension of transphobia and was hoping you could clarify. basically, transphobes & terfs in particular say that trans women are men, however they treat trans women differently than men, dehumanizing them on the basis of their gender. i always interpreted this as a form of gender discrimination that aims to define trans women as a lower or subhuman class, a third gender of “not quite men but undeserving of the title of woman”. does this conflict with the concept of bioessentialism, i.e. that trans women are fundamentally men? i see people say that “transphobes see trans women as men” but from experience that’s not quite true. men receive privilege and rewards for being men that trans women don’t. sorry if this is incoherent im just trying to get a better understanding of it

your understanding is pretty good to be honest. trans women are a separate gender class - an underclass to be specific - and transmisogynists are aware of this, even if they claim to see us as men. does this conflict with bioessentialism? not necessarily, but in some ways it does.

the thing is, though, logical consistency doesn't particularly matter to bigots. that's why basically all of the laws designed to oppress trans women, despite all of the fearmongering about how some technicality in how they're worded will result in them targeting cis women and other tme people, are ultimately only going to be enforced to the fullest extent against trans women. for example, tme people would rightfully be furious if a teenage cis girl was subjected to a genital examination due to the suspicion that she's trans and playing in a high school girls' sport. this would unambiguously be sexual assault, after all. but ultimately, she would be allowed to continue playing (not that she'd likely want to after something so traumatizing, but I digress), and she would probably (not certainly though) have some kind of recourse available to her due to the backlash this incident would cause. if this happened to a teenage trans girl, though, would anyone care? would there be outrage about this? she would have gone through the exact same kind of sexual assault, but the law in that scenario would be functioning exactly as intended. no form of recourse would be available to her. sure, you could make the case that a cis girl might not be able to sue the school district due to financial or other barriers, but a trans girl would have no ground to stand on, legally speaking; she would have broken the law, no matter how unjust and discriminatory the law is.

so violence against trans women broadly isn't recognized as violence against women because we aren't viewed as women. but we're not viewed as men, either. for another example, let's work through the lens of sexual assault again. if a tme person of any gender accuses a trans woman of sexual assault, there is little to no doubt that she will be viewed as guilty automatically, both by other tme people and by the law (the trans panic defense is still legally admissible in many places). in the best case, this will lead to her ostracization and isolation, putting her at higher risk for instability and suicide. in the worst case, this will lead to her imprisonment or death - REGARDLESS of if the accusation is actually true or not. the justification for this is that trans women are secretly perverted men who are trying to prey on innocent cishet people, but the basic idea underlying that premise isn't even something tme people truly believe! if they actually viewed trans women as men, then her guilt wouldn't be quite so certain. men can commit sexual assault every day and face no consequences for it, even when brought to trial with clear and damning evidence, because patriarchy ensures that men won't be held accountable for their actions. of course, this isn't always the case, marginalized men often do face intense scrutiny, many times involving violence. but even adjusting this analysis to account for additional factors such as racism, trans women still receive absolutely none of the same solidarity, leniency, or respect that men of the same demographics as them do.

fundamentally, trans women aren't treated like women or men in society. we're treated as a disposable and undesirable underclass of women that everyone else is free to abuse without consequence. any claims by transmisogynists about what gender they see us as is posturing. we are treated in unique ways as a result of our status as transfeminine. that's exactly what we mean when we talk about how transmisogyny is a unique form of oppression. bioessentialism certainly plays a part, but its contradictions are so obvious that it can only be understood as one piece of a much larger puzzle.

[shwoo]

Okay here's my headcanons of which Bugsnax characters actually know the Journalist's name. I'm also headcanoning that Lizbert mentioned their name when she told the others she wanted to invite them, and that they tend not to give their name unless prompted. They're a journalist, is that not enough?! (They may also have some personal identity issues)

REMEMBERED THEIR NAME

Lizbert: Knows their name and maybe also their address.

Beffica: Knew their name because she's read all their articles. Pretended not to know at first as part of her facade of detachment, which is why she said "You're that journalist!" when first meeting them.

Clumby: Presumably knows them as something more specific than "obsessed monster hunter who made me have to work late."

Chandlo: Remembered because he is definitely the kind of friendly and outgoing person who can remember anyone's name after hearing it once.

Wiggle: Makes a point of remembering journalist's names. Tends to unconsciously assume that any media person is there mostly for her, so she wants to make a good impression.

Snorpy: Remembered in order to look into them and figure out if they were the heroic truth-seeker kind of journalist or the villainous sensationalist kind. Liked what he found, but still suspected they were a Grumpinati impersonator when first meeting them.

Floofty: Remembers their name, but refuses to use it out of spite.

DID NOT REMEMBER THEIR NAME

Gramble: Forgot their name, and either asked them when they met, or asked Wiggle.

Triffany: Terrible with names, apologised and asked them for it when they met.

Cromdo: Told himself he'd remember their name in case they did show up and he had the chance to sell them something, then totally forgot. Asked them what it was when they met, and immediately did the "[diminutive], can I call you [diminutive]?" thing. The Journalist said "Sure," because they didn't really care.

Eggabell: Didn't pay much attention to what Lizbert said about them, since she didn't think they'd take the invitation. Despite having quite a bit of interaction with them and worrying about their health, didn't realise she didn't know what to call them until halfway through her "I just need Filbo and... Filbo's... buddy." line.

Shelda: Tried to remember their name so she could address them by it before they introduced themself, and impress them with her mystical knowledge, but got distracted by everything else that was happening and forgot. Got away with it for a while because of her tendency to refer to people with descriptions when overacting, but exposed herself when she said "Floofty, did you ask the journalist to throw acid at you?" The Journalist made fun of her for keeping up the charade for so long, so she reminded them that Floofty had asked them to throw acid at them, and they'd done it.

Wambus: Took a little while to realise that he couldn't get away with just calling them Stranger forever, and then was too stubborn to admit defeat and ask. The Journalist specifically suggested he use their name after his "I been calling you stranger, but you been around a while" chat, but he still refused to ask what it was, or admit that he didn't already know. Eventually heard Triffany refer to them by name, but she had to do it a few times before he decided that he knew it now.

Filbo: Forget immediately after being told, and also forgot to ask when they met. Didn't realise they probably had a name until after they'd interviewed him, and didn't want to ask out of awkwardness. Hoped they or one of the others would mention it, but coincidentally, nobody ever did, at least in an unambiguous way. Eventually asked them while they were heading back to the mainland, but continues to call them Buddy anyway.

Jamfoot: Clumby told him their name when she let him know that they were also going to Snaktooth Island, and he forgot their entire existence immediately. Was confused when Clumby mentioned them by name after they returned alive, even after she clarified that they were her ex-employee who went to Snaktooth Island.