#critical view

[maxdibert]

Lily doesn’t seem to think she’s done anything wrong by insulting his poverty and aligning herself with his abusers - only Severus is remorseful, and the trauma that caused him to lash out was considerably worse than the trauma that caused her to lash out. She believes he deserves it, as apparently she believed his abuse was amusing. And I’d be totally fine with this from a character perspective because it’s the teenage condition to be self-centred and poor at self-reflection. But the *narrative* (and the author in interviews) doesn’t believe Lily was in the wrong here. And it believes Lily made the correct moral judgment on the two boys when she casts Severus off for his crime and falls in love with James despite his. But I just don’t buy into that framing, and I didn’t even when I was 10. The use of the word ‘mudblood’ while in considerable distress is not a greater sin than sexual assault.

Lily feels no remorse, nor does she think it's wrong to half-smile at the bully who’s targeting your so-called friend. She doesn’t even consider that this might be why your supposed best friend insulted you in the first place. But here’s the thing: this isn't Lily's fault. It's J.K. Rowling's fault, and the way she portrays ethical dilemmas throughout the series, blurring the lines between what's morally right and wrong. Now, if you’ll allow me, before diving into the dynamics between Lily and Severus, I’d like to provide some context as to why I believe the biggest issue with many of the characters’ attitudes in the series lies in Rowling’s constant attempt to project her own moral compass through her writing. In doing so, she falls into repeated inconsistencies and creates a narrative that’s all over the place when it comes to how certain characters are treated.

Rowling is never consistent. She portrays Draco Malfoy as an irredeemable, terrible character because he’s a rich kid spoiled by his parents, using his power and influence to bully those weaker than him. Yet, she gives James the benefit of the doubt, even though he behaved exactly the same way: a rich bully who used his status and his friends to gang up on the vulnerable. From early interviews, Rowling claimed Pansy Parkinson is practically the reincarnation of Satan, even though, of all the antagonists, Pansy is probably one of the least relevant and harmless. This is simply because Rowling projected onto her the stereotypical “mean girls” who mock those who read and study—something Rowling clearly couldn’t stand. On the other hand, she glorifies characters like Ginny, who has a pretty nasty attitude towards any girl she doesn’t consider cool or "not like the other girls." Ginny treats Fleur like a witch when Fleur has done nothing wrong—her only crime is being incredibly beautiful, knowing it, and not constantly apologizing for it. And this treatment of female characters throughout the series deserves a proper gendered critique, because they fall into every stereotype and archetype set by the traditional male gaze.

In Rowling's world, there are always two kinds of women. When it comes to younger, adolescent characters, there are the "good" women—those who don’t fit the typical feminine mold, the weird ones (like Luna), the tomboys who are “one of the guys” (like Ginny), or the overly studious ones who don’t have time for frivolous things like reading magazines or talking about boys (like Hermione). In other words, the cool girls, the ones who are supposed to be role models, are those who "aren’t like the other girls." But not because they’re deconstructing gender roles consciously—they just happen to embody the fantasy of the woman who can give you kids while still being one of your bros. It’s a common male fantasy, where women abandon the graceful, ethereal, delicate image to fit into a set of needs the modern man has. These are "manic pixie dream girls," hiding a deeply internalized misogyny as they are presented as individuals opposed to the “other” women—the “other” being less cool because they lack traditionally masculine traits, and thus are less than. We see this not only with how Fleur is treated but also with the disdain or prejudice Hermione shows towards girls like Lavender or the Patil sisters, just because they act like normal teenagers instead of validating themselves through academia to compensate for their inferiority complex (cough, cough).

Then we have the adult female characters, where Rowling’s toxic and incredibly conservative view of motherhood kicks in. Except for McGonagall, the rest of the adult women who are seen in a positive light are either already mothers or end up becoming mothers. And for them, motherhood is everything. They are mothers first and women second, in every case. Lily is Harry’s mother, who sacrifices herself for him. Molly is the Weasley matriarch, whose entire life revolves around her kids—she hasn’t even looked for a job (which wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering the family’s financial situation), nor does she have any aspirations beyond knitting sweaters and worrying about her children. Even Narcissa, a negative character throughout most of the saga, earns her redemption solely because she loves her son and is willing to risk everything for him. Nymphadora Tonks, a 25-year-old woman, ends up pregnant by a man 13 years older than her and goes from being an independent Auror with her own life to a passive housewife waiting for her man, who is off having an existential crisis. The adult women in the saga aren’t independent individuals—they’re extensions of their children. And any woman who isn’t a perfect, self-sacrificing mother (like Merope Gaunt) is either a psychopath or portrayed as a terrible person.

What I’m getting at is that Rowling is far from impartial in the moral narrative of the story. In fact, she’s absolutely inconsistent. She presents characters she sells as "good," whose attitudes are absolute trash, yet she continues to insist that they’re good and perfect. This is especially obvious with her female characters, because throughout the seven books, she constantly emphasizes her ideal of the "perfect woman" in terms of tastes, motivations, and behavior. Hermione is a self-insert, Ginny is probably a projection of who Rowling wishes she could’ve been, and Luna is the quirky girl who isn’t “threatening” to other women, and is treated with a condescending, paternalistic lens. They are either Rowling’s aspirational figures or archetypes that don’t bother her, or they’re reduced to filler characters who are mistreated by the narrative.

When it comes to Lily, the problem is that Rowling spends half the saga painting her as some kind of Mother Teresa. She’s the quintessence of motherhood—but not a conscious, modern motherhood, but one rooted in traditional Judeo-Christian ideals. This is the kind of motherhood that can do no wrong, the one that represents women because, in this view, a woman can’t be fulfilled unless she’s a mother. Lily dies for her son, and that love creates a divine, protective magic. She’s beautiful, popular, and one of the most popular guys at school is after her. Clearly, she must be a saint, because everyone describes her as such. And while the narrative does question James’s perfection, even if vaguely and unsuccessfully, it doesn’t do the same with Lily. Harry questions his father’s actions but never his mother’s. He never stops to think about how problematic it is that his mother almost laughed at Severus or refused to hear his apology, or that she couldn’t empathize with what he was going through, knowing full well the kind of situation Severus had at home. When a narrative tells you something but never shows it, and worse, never questions it, that’s a problem. Something doesn’t add up. Rowling is obsessed with showing her own moral line through her characters and doesn’t realize how incoherent it is to portray Lily as someone who always does the right thing when what we actually see of her suggests that, if she really liked James all along, not only is she a hypocrite, but she’s also quite superficial with questionable principles. But this is never addressed, never explored. It would be fascinating if it were, giving the character more depth and making her more relatable. But Rowling brushes all this aside, as she does with so many other things, because to her, Lily was a role model, despite the fact that anyone with common sense can see she was just a terrible friend who got tired of justifying why she hung out with a poor, scruffy kid and ultimately decided it made more sense to date the rich, handsome bully.

[khruschevshoe]

You know, it's rather interesting to me that Taylor Swift's parasocial relationship with her fans is honestly more akin to a YouTuber than a writer's. When I scroll through her tag on tumblr/Twitter, it's far more regarding the connection to her personal life/relationship developments than the actual metaphors/fictional story she might be telling. Everything comes back to how her songs reflect back on her relationships with Joe/Matty/Travis/Jake/insert ex-boyfriend here. And what fascinates me about it is that even though she complains about it, she leans into that very perception because it strengthens the parasocial bond.

The marketing for TTPD so clearly being about Joe Alwyn and the songs to Matty Healy. The marketing/video for Red TV so CLEARLY being about Jake Gyllenhaal, with so many of the new lines in All Too Well specifically being digs at him (I'll get older but your lovers stay my age, casting an actor that looks like him for the video, specific lines in I Bet You Think About Me). The fact that songs like Getaway Car and Bejeweled and Gorgeous and London Boy and Lavender Haze being picked apart at time of release and long after for signs of relationships crumbling. The way she uses surprise songs in relation to her relationship development with Joe/Matty/Travis. The damn TTPD "stages of grief" playlists where she deliberately undid/changed the meanings of old songs just to keep her audience speculating on her love life.

It's not sexist to point out that her wielding her love life is a marketing tool and that the strongest connection to her audience isn't the strength of her writing/the composition of her music- it's her deliberate crafting of a connection between her music and her personal life, leaving the audience invested in her music as an extension of Taylor the Person/Girlfriend rather than Taylor the Artist.

[keepthedelta]

actually how you dress and present yourself really does matter because nico rosberg, who dresses like the CFO of goop, is largely thought of as narcissistic and self-obsessed, despite the fact that his primary form of social media is linkedin and his two main activities are environmental finance bro and girl dad. meanwhile sebastian vettel is out here regularly posting about his career highlights, commissioning fan art of him and senna to use as merch, and flying 6000 miles to do an insect hotel photo op, but because he dresses exclusively in flannel and hasn't touched a hairbrush in six years people think of him as a humble cabin dwelling hermit

[meanya]

I don't think I ever posted about this, but I noticed a long time ago that there's a facial expression that seems to pop up in Lore Olympus a lot.

I can't tell if I just see it everywhere now just because I'm acutely aware of it... I tried to catch it every time I saw it on rereads. I'd taken to calling it "Lore Olympus Face," it's this sort of exaggerated eyeroll + open pog mouth 😅

Am I just looking too deeply at the details? Did anyone else notice this expression everywhere or am I just seeing it now because I'm looking for it?

[ittybittyremy]

I'm sorry but some of you really overestimate how pro-god Orym is

[nellasbookplanet]

Downfall has only just started, but already I'm deeply curious what Bells Hells reaction will be to seeing it play out. I've mentioned before that I suspect the dislike or outright disdain some of the party feels for the gods - most notably Ashton and Laudna, but also Imogen at times - is in part a product of the gods being so distant as to not feel like real people to them, and therefore being easy scapegoats.

It’s easy to see the mortal victims of Ludinus and the Vanguard as just that: victims. The Hells have met them, have been them. They have not seen or felt the gods suffer in the same way. Laudna even went so far as to blame the gods for mortal deaths and suffering after the solstice, even as the gods are the ones under attack. They feel uniquely abandoned by the world, and it's easy to blame these distant, powerful figures for their hardship. Certainly much easier than to see the mortal systems that enabled their harm, or to actively seek improvement on their own.

But to see the gods now, not just as people but as mortals, with all the flaws and vulnerabilities and fears of any of the Hells, with loved ones of their own and the same desperate sense of self-preservation as any living thing, will they be able to hold onto the disdain that they’ve clung to for so long?

[pawthorn]

It’s kind of funny how certain Ashton is that knowledge of what really happened at the fall of Aeor is going to overturn society.

I think that expectation comes from the classic Taliesin PC Pride (affectionate.)

Ashton has always mistrusted authority. Ashton has always believed the gods weren’t really interested in helping the little guy. They figured it out a long time ago, because they understand the world better than all these normies.

And now, here’s proof for all the normies that the gods don’t care about mortals as much as they care for their siblings— even the evil ones. And Ashton thinks it’s totally gonna blow their minds and rewrite everything. People won’t know how to handle it!

Which, even within their group is demonstrably not the case.

Ashton is so certain of his unique perspective being truer and clearer because of their trauma (and that’s… not really how trauma works) that he can’t fathom that people of faith may have already grappled with the fact that the gods are messy. That seeing what happened in Aeor might be heart wrenching, terrifying, but ultimately will likely still fit into most people’s view of the gods.

After all, the fate of Aeor and the gods’ role in its downfall (lol) has never been a secret. The new information is how oppressive Aeor was, how much the choices of its wizards contributed to the total loss of life there; the flight of the Cognoza and Selena’s Wish, specifically.

But Ashton has a deep sense of superiority toward the faithful, as well as a very specific value system that doesn’t take into account the values of others. (Hell, of the ten gods whose will was active in Aeor, only three were even “Good” aligned. Saving people was never gonna be this group’s priority.)

Not everyone in the world is concerned with individual freedom and wellbeing first and foremost. Many will see the collective good that came from Aeor’s fall and conclude that the ends justify the means.

[peachdoxie]

Rereading Oathbringer, and it's once again so painfully clear to me that Lirin pushing Kaladin to become a surgeon was his desperate attempt to keep Kaladin from going to war. As a surgeon's assistant, Kaladin was exempt from being conscripted into the Alethi military, and sending him to Kharbranth would get him even further away from the war. I know Lirin gets a lot of flak for trying to push his views and desires onto Kaladin, but all I really see is a father trying his hardest to protect his son from the horrors of war while living in a society that venerates it.

[fluentisonus]

relatedly always thinking about this particular bit of javert's perspective

[luckthebard]

I’ve had enough wine while watching the WNBA finals tonight that I’m going to just bluntly say I still find it weird and am still annoyed that a lot of the “WOMEN <3 MARISHA IS A QUEEN” crowd pretty transparently didn’t watch A Familiar Problem or care that Marisha wrote the game or that she was the GM

[ariadne-mouse]

Regarding the initial confrontation between Essek and Astrid, the tone of the situation, and what exactly Astrid's stance is right now, I have a couple of thoughts:

Astrid has presumably not joined Ludinus because she is currently hiding in a smut shop. She also presumably hasn't joined the Exandrian Accord because, again, she is currently hiding in a smut shop & the Accord is sending missions after her. Maybe she disagrees with Ludinus but feels she can't safely outright oppose him. We don't know yet! Provided she isn't rooting for Ludinus, it's very possible she could be enlisted to help (I hope this happens btw), but Astrid is first and foremost a survivor and ambitious achiever who has gotten to where she is now by working within the greater system, not against it, even when she disagrees with it. She remained a Volstrucker until Caleb and the M9 turned the tide against Ikithon, and she later took on the role of Archmage that Caleb refused, continuing her original trajectory ("race you to the top!"). She has a great deal of power now and we don't have much information about what she does with it. I am very curious, though, Astrid please tell us your secrets.

"Bren sends his regards" - we don't know if Caleb told Essek to say this, but whether or not he did, I do think it was meant to convey "this is all with Caleb's knowledge and direction", for whatever measure that means to Astrid, most likely "you are safe for the moment". The purpose of this encounter is to have a conversation instead of a fight. And Essek's intent in saying it does seem to be to disarm Astrid, but his presentation puts some layers and edges on it that are likely independent of whatever Caleb might be feeling on his end (other posts have summarized the juicy possible layers well so I won't cover all of that here).

More high level on Essek's angle: even if "Bren sends his regards" was meant to signal to Astrid that she is safe in this encounter, one of the very first things Essek does is declare Astrid as Trent Ikithon's "successor", which Astrid of course disagrees with ("I'm his usurper!") but nevertheless this is an insult and condemnation coming from Essek. The subtext reads to me like "I don't like you or agree with you and you're on thin fucking ice how I see it". Is she safe from physical harm? It seems so, for now. Is she safe from bitchy comments and thinly veiled judgement? Certainly not.

Notably, Astrid tried to bamf out after hearing "Bren sends his regards", so the mention of him or what that message would mean coming from Caleb is not enough to get her to play ball by itself. This is perfectly reasonable to be honest; shit's all fucked up now and Essek basically cornered her with a squad of unfamiliar adventurers. But her skittishness despite the "friendly" signal implies a great deal of tension in her position, and Essek's behavior shows tension on his part as well, separate from whatever Caleb might be feeling offscreen and the purpose of this little mission for the Accord. I am very eager to hear the conversation that comes next!

[throwawayasoiafaccount]

‘the black bastard of the wall’ moniker is the exact opposite of the ‘white wolf’ moniker and this perfectly highlights the irreconcilable differences between book Jon and show Jon

[jakeperalta]

every day we inch closer to the inevitable release of taylor's "all the haters are throwing shade at my relationship but I don't care" music about matty and for that reason I live in fear

[thinkingofausername]

so many people saying curly's fate serves him right and "his disability was the punishment he deserved" rubs me the wrong way so goddamn much

[ittybittyremy]

With all the talk about the Archheart's plan, here are 2 reminders:

1. Disagreeing with a character's points doesn't automatically make their points stupid.

Ask yourself this: Do you think their points are stupid or do you just disagree with them? (yes, there is a difference)

You can't just say "oh x is being stupid" and leave it at that. At least put the effort into explaining why you think that.

And take a second to consider why that character is thinking/acting like that. It can be due to their experiences, their identity, character alignment (i.e. Dorian being chaotic neutral & Orym being neutral good), or character stats (i.e. Ashton's 6 charisma).

Think about what they know and don't know (i.e. Dorian has only been back for ~5 days, he doesn't have all the information that BH has).

Calling someone's points stupid implies that there was no thought put into them. And I think all of BH put thought into their points

2. Just because a character is biased, doesn't mean their views are any less valid.

Newsflash, there is no such thing as an unbiased perspective. Who you are and what you experience impacts how you perceive things. You can either be directly biased or indirectly biased

A perfect example of being directly biased would be Orym towards the Ruby Vanguard. He is biased because their attack caused the death of his father and husband. Another example would be Dorian towards the gods. He is biased because the Spider Queen killed his brother while the Wildmother and Matron refused to help.

Indirectly biased would be more identity-based. Laudna has not had any direct communication with the Matron (until now) BUT her opinions on the RQ may have ties to her identity and experiences as a hollow one. Another example would be how Ashton's views on Liliana has ties to their experiences with cults

My biggest pet peeve is when they use the fact that the character is biased as a gotcha. When Orym verbally acknowledged that he's biased (c3e92), I saw an uproar of people saying that Orym is "too biased" to have the conversation or that he is not in his right mind. Or worse, that he "shouldn't be in this conversation." I heavily disagree with all of that. If anything, acknowledging that you are biased will make me listen to your points more.

You can't be unbiased. The closest thing you can be is less biased than others. An example of this would be Dorian during swordgate. He was not there to see Orym, Fearne, Laudna, or Chetney die to Ishta. Also, he had only been back for two days and didn't know everything as deeply as the rest of BH did. He was less biased (and more detached from the situation) than the others. However, as I said in this post, there was some bias there. The main ones being (a) him being closer to Orym than Laudna and most importantly (b) his experiences with cursed/evil items.

[carbonated-fenwater]

Mostly screaming into the void with this one but I'm almost to the end of earning my Bachelor's and I've got something to say.

It is not edgy or subversive to redirect your hatred onto animals that you deem morally impure or to try and yassify misunderstood creatures.

"Sea otters assault their females to death and drown their pups" they are still a cornerstone species worth protecting and whole ecosystems are suffering for the loss of them.

"Sharks are just ocean puppies and big sweeties." No they're not, they are apex predators and you have to treat them with respect. Saying they're not capable of aggression or completely misunderstood is still spreading misinformation, you cannot generalize a group of animals like this.

"Dolphins are super smart and actually capable of understanding that some of their behaviors are evil" I am actually going to break into your house and steal your shoes if you say this to me.

"Charismatic megafauna are useless and overrated and taking away from underappreciated species that Really need our help" wrong again dipshit. Animals like pandas, elephants, whales, and others that I'm sure you're tired of seeing plastered everywhere are important to get the general public involved. It's called PR (and while I wish it wasn't necessary and that people would care regardless I digress) and what conservation work IS done based around them is advantageous to other threatened species that share their habitat.

As someone going into the field of ecological conservation and marine biology, I have met one too many people who think it's okay to say a certain animal doesn't deserve to be protected because it makes them feel yucky or just because they think it doesn't deserve it. I shouldn't have to tell you why that is SO not okay. The underappreciated and overrated can both exist, you don't need to proselytize people into hating dolphins just so sharks can get their dues.

You're also allowed to just dislike an animal! But if you sensationalize their behaviors that are morally incorrect by human standards, then I am begging you to reevaluate yourself, get more educated on the subject, and talk to a real ecologist.

No creature on this planet deserves to be eradicated just because you are personally offended by their natural behaviors or deem them unfit to take up space.