#even if so far this is all that exists of this concept. I have no idea how becoming like this would affect lorenza | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

anghraine · 2 days ago

Text

Okay, so this is the Tarsus IV post I vaguely threatened alluded to a few days ago. I wrote most of it before last night's grumbling about movie Kirk, btw, so it's not a result of that; I was already thinking about what we know about Kirk and the Tarsus IV massacre from TOS, and what speculations and headcanons make the most sense to me in the context of TOS. I just waited until today to post it because I wasn't quite done yesterday.

Anyway, I was going over the finer details of "The Conscience of the King" to figure this out, and ended up with a ton of thoughts about the Tarsus IV backstory. So here are my (many) personal takeaways:

Firstly, there's a vague reference to some kind of local coup or uprising that put Governor Kodos in power, I think shortly before the food supply crisis. We don't get any details about the uprising from TOS, though the next to last version of the episode's script did mention Kodos setting himself up as a messianic figure once the coup succeeded. In any case, his power grab was certainly reinforced by the starvation crisis, as revealed by Spock's research:

"there were over eight thousand colonists and virtually no food. And that was when Governor Kodos seized full power and declared emergency martial law."

As far as we know in TOS, the crisis was set off by chance: an exotic fungus happened to destroy most of the colony's food supply, and it wasn't clear when relief would arrive. In fact, the Federation did send relief to the colony, per their usual practice, but it took them long enough to get there that the situation had become dire by then. Nearly all food was gone and the colonists were starving; the episode implies that some had even started committing suicide. Nevertheless, the Federation relief force arrived sooner than expected.

Kodos tries to argue in "The Conscience of the King" that the Federation's relief showing up so soon was just luck and he couldn't have guessed it would happen. But given what we know about the Federation as an institution, and given the urgent pressure the Federation puts on the Enterprise crew in multiple episodes to get food/supplies/medicine to some colony or another, it seems like there is a pretty competent, long-established Federation infrastructure for addressing crises like this. In reality, Kodos used the circumstances to justify something he already believed in and wanted to try implementing.

That thing was eugenics. This isn't ambiguous; the aired episode explicitly describes his atrocities as based on eugenics. The starvation of the colony gave Kodos the opportunity to put his theories into action.

He declared that half the colony would be executed, and the remaining food distributed among the other half. Moreover, the assignment of each colonist to either group was determined by Kodos's conception and judgment of genetic superiority. The genetically inferior half of the population, according to Kodos, was executed, and the genetically superior survivors (again, according to Kodos) were given all the food supplies. Kodos's exact words at the time to those slated to die included these lines:

"Your continued existence represents a threat to the well-being of society. Your lives mean slow death to the more valued members of the colony."

Kirk says of Kodos's full speech to those chosen for death:

"I remember the words. I wrote them down. [...] Are you sure you didn't act this role out in front of a captive audience whom you blasted out of existence without mercy?"

In the episode, Spock condemns Kodos in similar terms as "without mercy" and "ruthless," and is clearly horrified by what he's discovered:

"Children watching their parents die. Whole families destroyed. Over four thousand people. They died quickly, without pain, but they died."

The means by which Kodos had thousands of civilians killed isn't stated in the episode. As we see in the above quote, though, it seems to have been done very rapidly.

In an earlier draft, there's mention of some kind of re-purposed anti-matter chamber as the mechanism, and Kodos deliberately "sparing" Kirk while making him watch as the chamber switch was flipped. In that version, Kirk seems to be personally targeted for some reason, where in the episode as it is, he's just one of several random eyewitnesses who survived. I personally prefer the episode's version, which I think better fits a narrative around a mass-scale atrocity.

Anyway, there's another take on the massacre where the thousands of civilians slated for execution were gunned down with phasers, but I find that more difficult to reconcile with Spock's description, which sounds more mechanized and efficient to me. I do think there's reason to believe phasers or some other form of advanced weaponry did get used in the course of events, but not in the executions—more on that later.

As I mentioned in my poll, Kirk is established in TOS as being only 33 during "The Conscience of the King," and thus was only 13 when he personally saw all this (the episode repeatedly insists the atrocity took place exactly twenty years earlier—I think the emphasis on this time gap is important). There is no explanation in TOS of why 13-year-old Kirk seems to be the only member of his family who was present for this—and certainly the only one of the Kirks to personally see Kodos—though earlier drafts do have various explanations that make sense.

For instance, there was an idea floating around the drafting process that Kirk might have been a young midshipman stationed on Tarsus IV during the massacre, not a child. His exact age in TOS was up in the air until the second season explicitly established his then-current age as 34. So that idea is not at all canon, but did internally make sense, since there'd be no reason for his relatives to be posted with him.

There's also a fairly late script in which Kirk's father was among those killed. I believe Kirk Sr was already envisioned as a Starfleet officer at that point, and had been assigned to a post on Tarsus IV some time earlier, which is how a boy born in the Midwest ended up living in a remote colony as a child. However, as I understand, the writers were forced to remove the reference to Kirk's father getting killed because higher-ups didn't want to nail down Kirk's history too much in S1, in case they later wanted to take his family in a different direction.

IIRC, TOS never did do anything with Kirk's parents and we're never even told in the show if they're currently alive or dead, much less told anything about their roles during the massacre. His brother Sam Kirk was envisioned as 10 years older than James (I think the new shows shrink this, but that's irrelevant to the TOS production process), so it also made sense that Sam wasn't there, since he'd have been in his 20s and early in his own career elsewhere. (Sam and his family are mentioned in both earlier and later S1 episodes, so "they hadn't invented him yet" isn't the reason for his absence.)

Beyond all that, another detail I find interesting is that Kodos's speech announcing the impending massacre is preserved in some kind of audio file that Kirk has access to on the Enterprise. Kirk gives "Karidian" a copy of the exact words of this speech and orders him to read it aloud, and has the computers run a vocal comparison between that reading and the original recording. The computer analysis strongly indicates that both speeches were delivered by the same person, but lacks 100% certainty—perhaps due to vocal changes over the last 20 years, perhaps to a difference in the quality of the recordings or some other reason.

However, we don't actually know who recorded the original speech; since so few survivors ever got near enough to even see or hear Kodos in person, maybe the recording was done by Kodos himself or one of his people, and recovered later by Starfleet. The speech only addresses the colonists slated for death, suggesting that the 4000 chosen for survival had already been separated out. But it's possible that it was one or more of the colonists themselves who managed to record the speech.

Only nine of the survivors ever personally set eyes on Kodos (this seems to again imply that those selected for survival were mainly not present during the speech). There's a preserved photograph of him from that era, but that's all, and one of the reasons he's able to evade discovery for so long is because of the vanishingly few people involved who had ever seen him—this is not only canon but a major plot point in "The Conscience of the King."

I read on the wiki that there's a book about the whole thing, and in that version, Kirk never actually saw Kodos and just found a picture in a database, which honestly I think is stupid as fuck and makes no sense in terms of the episode as written (though very typical of corporate franchises watering down the horror of some element of an original, less sanitized story in later byproducts). In "The Conscience of the King," though, Leighton, Kirk, and Riley are explicitly stated to be among the nine survivors who saw Kodos personally.

It's never explained why they were among this small group of eyewitnesses, especially considering that Kirk and Riley would have been children at the time and Leighton was quite young.

Another intriguing data point is the fact that half of Leighton's face is very heavily damaged, and it does seem strongly indicated that this happened during the massacre. We don't know why, though, or how old he even was at the time—he seems older than 33-year-old Kirk, but they're good friends and rough contemporaries, so not that far apart in age.

There's also some interesting phrasing in the episode:

"There were nine eyewitnesses who survived the massacre, who'd actually seen Kodos with their own eyes. Jim Kirk was one of them."

This description is also from Spock after his research dive, someone unlikely to be loose with his phrasing. The general assumption, I think, is that the nine eyewitnesses (who I'm going to call the Tarsus Nine for convenience) were among those chosen for survival for eugenics purposes. The reason such a small number of them had ever seen Kodos is, presumably, that most people who'd seen him were deliberately assigned to the genetically unworthy group and killed. The Tarsus Nine were just the tiny fraction who flew under the radar.

That was my original impression, and it is possible, but there were some things I found puzzling about that scenario. For one, if the Tarsus Nine were separated with the other survivors, why are they persistently presented as the only eyewitnesses? If Leighton was separated into the survivor group, why was his face so heavily damaged in all this? Did he try to fight? Would he have been spared from death if he did? And the episode is clear that Leighton, Kirk, and Riley all heard Kodos's speech and witnessed the massacre in person.

Leighton:

"I remember him. That voice. The bloody thing he did [...] Jim, Jim, I need your help. There were only eight or nine of us who actually saw Kodos. I was one, you were another."

Kirk:

"But I remember. [...] I remember the words. I wrote them down. [...] All I understand is that four thousand people were needlessly butchered. [...] I saw him once, twenty years ago. Men change. Memory changes."

Riley:

"He murdered my father, and my mother. I know that voice, that face, I know it. I saw it. He murdered them."

I had been considering possible explanations for the uniqueness of these nine people as the only direct eyewitnesses among some 4000 survivors + the fact that the three eyewitnesses we meet would have been so young at the time (and Spock talks specifically of children seeing their parents die) + Kirk saying he remembers hearing the speech and that he only ever saw Kodos that one time + the Tarsus Nine knowing that nobody left alive except themselves saw Kodos as governor + their very accurate estimates of how many eyewitnesses survived + Leighton's facial scars.

And then I tripped over an ancient post (on livejournal of all things—I was linked to a post unrelated to the massacre and then followed another link) that collected some of the relevant Tarsus IV quotes and offered a very simple and elegant solution.

What if the Tarsus Nine weren't assigned to the "genetically more valuable" group? What if Kirk, Riley, Leighton, and the other six were in fact considered genetically unworthy and assigned to the group slated for death? What if they're the only direct eyewitnesses because everyone else was either removed from the massacre (and never saw the speech) or killed, and that's why there are so few of them?

me: oh damn, I didn't think about that and ... whoa, I don't think the episode ever does say what group they were actually assigned to. It's possible. Holy shit.

So, here's an alternate possibility/headcanon:

4000-odd colonists including the Tarsus Nine were gathered without any knowledge of the intended massacre. They didn't know where the other colonists were or what was going on beyond starvation and martial law. None of them had ever personally seen their reclusive governor. They were just waiting with their families to find out what was going on. Kodos came out to speak to them, at last, and delivered his speech to those slated for death (hence Kirk saying in TOS that he only ever saw him once, 20 years earlier). The "survival" group didn't hear it and never saw him. But Kirk, Leighton, and Riley did—because they were supposed to die.

Kodos's description of 33-year-old Kirk is, uh, let's say intriguing in that context:

"Here you stand, the perfect symbol of our technical society. Mechanized, electronized, and not very human. You've done away with humanity, the striving of man to achieve greatness through his own resources."

Kodos's murderous daughter Lenore, similarly, says:

LENORE: Are you like that, Captain? All this power at your command, yet the decisions that you have to make— KIRK: Come from a very human source. LENORE: Are you, Captain? Human?

It's likely that these colonists and other residents didn't all go meekly to their entirely unexpected deaths. If we go with the concept of Kirk's father as a Starfleet officer serving on a post on the colony, some of these people were in Starfleet and might well have still had weaponry of some kind. They were just as hungry as the rest, but I suspect would have fought to the death against an undisguised atrocity. I think others also would have fought back against Kodos's people, despite being starved and much less well-armed (if armed at all).

In all probability, none of them expected to win, but hoped to buy time for others, especially their children, to escape (hence the conspicuous youth of the eyewitnesses). The resisting residents would have been massacred by Kodos's troops as he took control of the situation, even before thousands of more people were sent to their executions, but I imagine this resistance created enough havoc for nine children and young adults to escape with their lives (Leighton's face getting seared in the process—perhaps by a phaser set to kill that barely missed him).

Most of the literal children among the Tarsus Nine had seen their parents killed as Kodos's people took control, as had other children who didn't survive (hence Spock's description of children watching parents die and of the nine eyewitnesses directly surviving a massacre). The Tarsus Nine may have seen the other colonists forced into the execution mechanism, whatever it was, either during their escape or if any snuck out afterwards to see. Regardless, I headcanon that the Tarsus Nine found each other and hid out together (I'm assuming they ended up cooperating because they're so accurate about just how many of them there were and because I'm guessing literal children wouldn't have survived alone).

We don't know a whole lot about what was going on psychologically with them at the time. But something else I've been thinking about is the interesting ambiguity in Kirk's statement to Kodos about the original genocide speech. Kirk says, "I remember the words. I wrote them down," which seems a reference to Kirk writing the speech down during the episode to force Kodos to read it. However, something I find fascinating there (/Spock fistbump) is that Kirk's statement that he himself wrote down the speech follows so directly from "I remember the words."

I think the implication is that he wrote down the exact words of the speech from memory (indicating that Kodos's genocide announcement that Kirk heard at age 13 is still seared into his mind). Or possibly, the causality is reversed: he perfectly remembers Kodos's speech because he wrote it down at some point in the past (likely not long after surviving the massacre). The former seems a bit more probable to me, but either case would suggest quite a lot about how deeply this affected him.

But whatever the Tarsus Nine were up to, they lasted long enough for Starfleet to arrive and take charge of the situation. We don't know the details of how that happened from TOS, either, though the fact that Kodos got the hell out of Dodge and left a burned body to be misidentified as him suggests that it was obvious enough what Starfleet's arrival was going to mean well before any fighting began.

Afterwards, well ... some of the Tarsus Nine maintained ties, for sure. Kirk and Leighton seem to be trusting friends; they address each other by familiar nicknames, Kirk knows Leighton's wife, and he regards Leighton's deception as something of a personal betrayal. Kirk is a bit vague on Leighton's professional life and dismisses his suspicions at first, so I don't think they're super close, but it's a trusting and familiar relationship in general.

Meanwhile, others among them lost contact. Kirk clearly has no idea that the Lieutenant Riley he knows on the Enterprise was a little boy among the other eyewitnesses, which seems probable enough. Riley likely ended up with caretakers who wouldn't have been all that keen on him being reminded of the horrific trauma he'd experienced. Him ending up on the Enterprise by sheer chance is a hell of a coincidence, but that's not unusual for Star Trek, let's be real.

A minor point: I'm guessing Sam Kirk had a hell of a week as the information about what was happening on Tarsus IV leaked out. I'm guessing from the outside, there'd be the official alert of the food crisis -> the colony's communications going dark -> Starfleet arriving and discovering what had happened -> their updates as they searched for survivors and those responsible -> their reports of finding the 4000 chosen for survival and the Tarsus Nine.

Moving forwards chronologically, we don't know that much about the longer-term effects on the Tarsus Nine apart from Kirk, though Riley is clearly haunted to some extent. Thomas Leighton has a respectable career, though his wife says after his death:

"At least he has peace now. He never really had that before."

As for Kirk, I think the next "version" of Kirk we know anything about via TOS is him as a very young man at Starfleet Academy. This Kirk is repeatedly described as bookish and solemn. In "Shore Leave" (which follows very shortly after "The Conscience of the King," though it's far lighter), we get this exchange:

KIRK: I know the feeling very well. I had it at the Academy. An upperclassman there. One practical joke after another, and always on me. My own personal devil. A guy by the name of Finnegan. MCCOY: And you being the very serious young— KIRK: Serious? I'll make a confession, Bones. I was absolutely grim.

Yeah, I wonder why.

Even as late as his time as an instructor at the Academy, when he was Lieutenant Kirk, he seems pretty recognizably "that" Kirk. He taught a notoriously challenging class (the subject not stated, but implied to be philosophy) and was known as a demanding teacher. In "Where No Man Has Gone Before," his friend and former student Gary Mitchell says:

"Well, I'm getting a chance to read some of that longhair stuff you like. Hey man, I remember you back at the Academy. A stack of books with legs. The first thing I ever heard from an upperclassman was, watch out for Lieutenant Kirk. In his class, you either think or sink."

Mitchell jokes about how he only passed by orchestrating the campaign of a "little blonde lab technician" to distract Kirk from his usual severity. And even this was not a fling; Kirk's relationship with the lab technician reached the point that he almost married her. So even that suggests someone who was taking every part of his life deadly seriously.

The personable, dutiful-but-easy-going charm and good humor of Kirk in much of TOS seems to not have been much in evidence for many, many years of Kirk's life. And even by the time we meet him, this runs much less deep than his powerful sense of responsibility and his commitment to the ideals of the Federation and his own philosophical convictions. We often see his outwards charm switch off like a light when it doesn't serve his purposes.

This is especially apparent in "The Conscience of the King" itself, which includes one of Kirk's most cold-blooded charm offensives—he can't immediately reach Kodos, so instead he deliberately charms Kodos's nineteen-year-old daughter Lenore in order to dig up information on him (not realizing Lenore herself is a murderer). There is a chasm between this calculated charm and his manner when he finds Kodos and drops the front:

The last thing I wanted to say about "The Conscience of the King" and this particular backstory for Kirk is that, after all of this, what exactly is the point of the backstory revealed in this episode? It's Star Trek, there usually is one, even when it's executed badly or clumsily. What is it gesturing at?

There's a repeated emphasis on the twenty years between the present moment and Kodos's atrocity. He is now an old man living a normal life, and doesn't seem to be a particular threat to anyone. One of the major subplots involves Spock trying to figure out what the hell happened twenty years earlier, then trying to convince McCoy of the threat, then Kirk and Spock and McCoy having this fraught discussion about it.

Spock is not dispassionate; he is horrified by both the past atrocity and current threat to Kirk, and quickly reaches a point of certainty about Karidian's/Kodos's identity and what should be done about him. Kirk is more anxious and unsure about getting it wrong and about his own motives, despite simultaneously wanting to just kill this guy on the spot. McCoy doesn't want to believe at pretty much every turn, and even when he does, is wary of acting out of potentially questionable motives so long after the fact. It leads to this great scene between all three:

SPOCK: Why do you invite death? KIRK: I'm not. I'm interested in justice. MCCOY: Are you? Are you sure it's not vengeance? KIRK: No, I'm not sure. I wish I was. I've done things I've never done before. I've placed my command in jeopardy. From here on I've got to determine whether or not Karidian is Kodos. SPOCK: He is. KIRK: You sound certain. I wish I could be. Before I accuse a man of that, I've got to be. I saw him once, twenty years ago. Men change. Memory changes. Look at him now, he's an actor. He can change his appearance. No. Logic is not enough. I've got to feel my way, make absolutely sure. MCCOY: What if you decide he is Kodos? What then? Do you play God, carry his head through the corridors in triumph? That won't bring back the dead, Jim. KIRK: No, but they may rest easier.

Of course, the matter of "oh hey, we keep finding elderly people who committed atrocities some 20 years ago and we've got to navigate how to deal with them now in a way that honors their victims" was not at all metaphorical at the time. In the 60s, the architects of atrocities who made their escape twenty years earlier and were discovered as ostensibly normal aging people were just literal Nazis.

While the Tarsus IV massacre is on a much smaller scale, obviously, Erin Horáková has a good explanation of the topicality here:

In “The Conscience of the King”, we learn that Kirk is a survivor of a colony-world genocide that occurred during his childhood. As an adult, Kirk attempts to determine whether an old man, now an actor, is actually Kodos, the mass murderer who perpetrated this genocide. “Conscience” is a complex, shifting episode made in the wake of the arrest of aged Nazis in South America by Mossad agents (again, it’s subtextually important to this episode that Kirk is played by a Jewish actor).

For further context, plenty of people involved in TOS had themselves fought in WWII, so "what do we do about elderly Nazis" was not a distant issue. Also, while Roddenberry himself was unfortunately antisemitic (a quality presumably related to "Patterns of Force" ever seeing the light of day), there were a lot of Jewish people working behind and in front of the camera on TOS, most famously including both William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy (both are/were Jewish actors from Jewish communities, though this tends to be much more present for many fans with Nimoy—it's hard not to think that is at least partly related to their physical appearances). So the whole premise is complex and fraught in real world terms, as well, which I felt was also worth mentioning as a significant element of what's going on here.

81 notes · View notes

thornethenorn · 2 days ago

Note

I wanna hear all the fun facts about the norn then pretty please

Okie dokie hehe

1. It's assumed that there is a spirit of the wild for every animal that exists, not just the ones we hear about. This leaves room for a lot of original spirits for people to make

2. They produce a lot of body heat, and this is likely why they don't cover up in cold environments- they would overheat. I made a whole post about this you can find in my Biology of Tyria tag.

3. The Kodan believe that norn are descendants of Kodan who didn't listen to Koda and went south. This is likely not true.

4. The lowland Kodan call norn "Children of the Bitter Wind"

5. They're shapeshifters. It's not acknowledged enough that they're literally a race of shapeshifters.

6. They also have an AVERAGE hight of 9ft tall. They can be way taller than that, probably.

7. They don't sleep in beds. They don't have mattresses, just piles of furs and blankets. They also will sleep on the floor.

8. Skaalds are bards, yes, but anet literally just took the actual Norse word for 'singer/bard/poet" and added an a.

9. Speaking of which, Hoelbrak means "hall of noise" in old Norse, but in-game, it means "lowland" in the norn's native language.

10. The norn's native language is canonically mostly lost, but it can be infered that its writing system, described as runes, are similar to elder futhark runes. In old Norse, elder futhark was the writing system and alphabet. Old Norse was mostly a spoken language, but occasionally could use the runes as writing. The runes also had individual meanings and were used for divination.

11. They were forced out of their native home and have been for 200 years. Even after killing Jormag the corruption still makes the far Shiverpeaks uninhabitable.

12. Norn and Jotun used to be some of the most powerful magic weilders in Tyria.

13. I call them the viking furries race as a joke but honestly they're more like the normal scandanavians. This isn't really a fact about norn this is actually your monthly PSA that vikings were from literally ONE part of scandanavia and the history of this region is so much more nuanced than just "those guys with cool pirates"

14. They're anets least favorite race of the main five (next to Asura free my guys Asura mains) and if I have to write the rest of their lore on my own I will

15. Also the norn and Asura have a lot of parallels that should be explored more often. Both pushed out of their homes and given half-written lore that we're begging to be completed

16. Norn live up to 120 naturally. However, almost nobody ever lives this long because of their culture. They constantly try to top themselves and push themselves too hard and die to 'hold my beer' moments and that's sad

17. Norn women die so often in the story. The fact Arina survived getting thrown into Nayos is a miracle

18. They're named after the Norse version of the Fates. The Nornir (singular being norn) in Norse myth were the three goddesses that sat at the base of Yggdrasil and spun threads of fate. While they can be depicted as hags, they are also sometimes depicted as maidens. This works for the norn race because their culture is insanely intertwined with the concept of fate and destiny.

19. They're not human. Anet are cowards for not doubling down on that. Norn should've had pointed ears and fangs and slit pupils and I will die on this hill

20. There's a stereotype of norn being dumb muscle that only drink and hunt but fuck you all they're nuanced and perfect and I love them

Now we're not even getting into my headcanons either so...

#gw2 #guild wars 2 #guildwars2 #gw2 norn #norn #norn gw2

39 notes · View notes

michanvalentine · 2 days ago

Text

Good morning, people! Good morning, lovers of wild ramblings!

Today, I feel like talking about Spawn Astarion again because, honestly, I just don’t get it. Let’s talk about the mask—that damn mask of Astarion. The one he apparently keeps firmly in place even in his "good" ending. Because he feels the need to hide, because Neil said that in the evil ending, he takes it off, etc. So, by that logic, Spawn Astarion is just a façade.

This topic of the mask is truly fascinating in general, in my opinion. It’s very deep, connecting to psychology, philosophy, and even literature. I mean, it’s not a new subject—far from it—and it has been discussed forever. Most importantly, it’s something that concerns all of us, whether we’re aware of it or not.

"One, No One, and One Hundred Thousand." A novel by the Italian author Luigi Pirandello (playwright, writer, and poet, awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1934), which revolves around the concept of the mask and how each of us wears one depending on the social context we’re in. At home, we act one way, at school another, with friends yet another, and differently again at work. We behave one way with those we like, another way with those we don't. And when we're alone, we behave differently yet again. We are different in each of these situations. In psychology, this ties directly into the concept of the self and how the ego reconciles all these facets to create a unified sense of personality.

I’d also like to point out that, beyond the perception we have of ourselves, there’s also the perception others have of us. Which one is true, and which one is false? They’re both subjective, so how can we distinguish absolute objectivity?

Now, back to Neil’s statement. First of all, the context needs to be clarified: this is about the actor's performance—the two different ways in which Astarion moves and speaks, the general attitude he has toward the world and others, and the approach Neil Newbon had to develop to bring his character to life.

"With Lord Astarion, we talked a lot about the idea that the cover is now off completely. So that you see him at his most terrible, and it's completely honest and he doesn't have to pretend anymore. So he loses a lot of the flamboyance and the fun of the theatricality, which is all a distraction anyway."

Ascendant Astarion no longer needs the cover. He is completely honest, and this is undoubtedly the worst version of himself. We see him at his most terrible. But what cover are we talking about? Where was this mask that Ascendant Astarion no longer feels the need to wear?

"That's all distraction so you don't see how he's hurt and damaged and his vulnerability. Lord Astarion doesn't need that anymore. So we just thought, okay, now mimics taking off a mask it's off. He doesn't need to pretend, he doesn't need to do too much. It's all about the status and that kind of stuff."

So we’re talking about the mask that covered the wounded part, the vulnerable part—the most human part of Astarion. The part that Ascendant Astarion killed during the ritual.

Ascendant Astarion feels free, powerful, and untouchable (feels, a subjective perception, always to be considered in relation to the opposing force—I can confirm that stabbing him atop the Absolute was quite easy, much to his surprise and disbelief; and if I’m not mistaken, he can even be forced back into slavery if one doesn’t intend to share the power of the brain with him). He no longer needs to use that mask because the part of him that needed hiding no longer exists.

So, keeping the context and the thread of the discussion, it follows that spawn Astarion—who has chosen to embrace his vulnerability and the most human part of himself—sometimes still needs the mask to protect himself. Which is perfectly understandable. That doesn’t mean everything he says or does is fake. Or that he’s constantly trying to please others. I genuinely don’t understand how people are connecting the dots in this way.

If anything, he behaves exactly like any person who has been hurt. We all do it, whether we realize it or not. A silly example? Who hasn’t, at some point in their life, made a joke about their own physical flaw (or any other personal insecurity) to diminish it and take away its power? It’s easier to laugh about it than to admit outright, "I don’t even want to talk about it because it makes me feel bad!" Does that make us fake? Meh...

Let’s take the Mind Flayer scene, for example. Astarion doesn’t find them attractive (but I bet all of us in real life are married to Mind Flayers, right?), yet he tries to be kind when expressing that. Is he faking it? Is he trying to please the other person? Absolutely not. He’s behaving like a normal person who considers the other person’s feelings and tries not to hurt them (otherwise, we’re venturing into sociopathy). That’s something to be admired. It’s not like he’s forcing himself to sleep with a Mind Flayer just to appease Tav. He’s simply being kind to someone who means something to him—as he should be.

And come on, I even read somewhere that in the graveyard scene, he’s too perfect, too accommodating to be real, ready to say and do all the right things! Because obviously, with that relaxed expression and those bright, sweet, emotion-filled eyes, he’s faking it! It has to be an act!

Aren’t we maybe exaggerating just a little?

And if we really want to go there, it’s not like Ascendant Astarion has many opportunities to build relationships or establish useful connections with the important people in Baldur’s Gate without having to "work them" a little. He, too, is subject to One, No One, and One Hundred Thousand—in the sense that he still has to navigate society.

#astarion #astarion ancunin #baldur’s gate 3 #baldurs gate 3 #baldur's gate #baldurs gate #baldur's gate astarion #baldurs gate 3 astarion #astarion bg3 #bg3 astarion

26 notes · View notes

stranger-feathers · 2 hours ago

Note

The whole "what if Will was a girl" is a good way to reduce bias in the audience. But you're definitely right that it really doesn't make sense in narrative analysis because their arc in S3 and S4 is deeply tied to the fact that Will is a boy, most notably with the rain fight. A straight version of the rain fight (it's not my fault you don't have a boyfriend/you're jealous of El) would not have led to the nuclear reaction Will has in canon, and probably wouldn't have even happened since it's prompted by Mike feeling uncomfortable with queerness in canon. It can't be fully dissociated from the fact that those are two boys, just like Mileven can't be dissociated from the fact that it is a straight couple (by virtue of the social pressure and acceptance involved in how other characters view it).

Will's arc is deeply tied to being queer : if you get rid of that fact, you get rid of most of the arc. Will is pulling away from Mike, being self conscious and second guessing everything, pre-emptively sacrificing his feelings etc. because he's queer, and doesn't believe there's a happy ending for someone like him. He would not be going this far if it was simply about loving his best friend who already has a girlfriend: the stakes of Byler would be much, much lower for a girl Will, and his actions would change accordingly.

Will in canon isn't only scared of Mike being uncomfortable with Will loving him specifically the way a straight girl might. He's scared of Mike rejecting him entirely, even as a friend, simply for being gay.

Mike would also change a lot in how he acts. He wouldn't feel the need to hide his affection, and would be much more open in public if Will was a girl : no more closing doors before you talk or jumping when they get interrupted because there would be no reason for him to be scared of being found out. Mike acting visibly different and softer when they're alone is due to their queerness and the social climate around it: it would not happen if Will was a girl.

And those are just a few examples of what would have to change in a straight version of Byler ! The truth is that the whole "what if Will was a girl ?/what if Mileven was gay ?" would change just about everything in both relationships. It has some value in adressing biases : more people would see Byler coming if it was straight (heteronormativity), and some would like Mileven more (those who dislike straight ship on principle or ship just about anything if it's gay - they do exist, especially on tumblr) or less (homophobes) if it wasn't. But the characters' stories would also change so drastically that you end up in complete speculation as to what that version of the show would even look like, so does it really matter at this point ?

I personally have similar thoughts about Lesbyler as a concept because Will's backstory would change a lot in a version where he wasn't immediately clocked as a gay boy by the town (and his dad most notably). Even if you assume that people would think that girl Will was a lesbian instead (I'm not even sure it would be the case since that version of Will would be much closer to the gender norm), lesbian and gay kids have different experiences and expectations pushed on them, which would lead to different attitudes in my opinion. I would argue that their respective familial situations could also have evolved and influenced them very differently (most notably in Lonnie and Will's relationship, but there is also something to be said about the difference in treatment between Mike and Nancy by their parents), but I'm gonna stop my tangent here because this was not the main topic at all. Lesbyler can be fun but it would probably be very different from canon Byler if we're being honest (just like most genderbend/sexbend stories to be honest : changing assigned gender at birth will lead to wildly different socialisation, and wildly different characters in most cases, just like making a ship queer or straight would).

If Will were a girl, how do you think the average audience would react? Would they say she's also a homewrecker or a slut? Or that her and Mike make much more sense and chemistry?

I think there would still be a shipping war, like there is with Jancy and Stancy. Therefore, toxic people on the Mileven side of things would likely call her that yes -- but I think that's not the issue brought up by people who are asking the question of : What if Will were a girl?

If Will was a girl, people probably would see Byler as having more of a chance, people would be more receptive of the idea of it happening because it's straight. People would be much much more likely to see their romantic scenes as romantic and the showrunners and interviewers would definitely be asking the actors more about this love triangle.

But a lot of the reason why so many people , including queer people, think that Byler won't happen is because it's a queer ship. These are the common doubts:

Will's unrequited love is realistic. Many gay boys have crushes on their straight best friend.

Will's sadness is realistic because he is a gay person in the 80s.

Mike loves El meaning he is straight and can't love Will who is a guy.

The showrunners can't make a gay love story the main focus of a huge show like Stranger Things.

The showrunners might be queerbaiting like a lot of other shows.

Doubt number 1 is eliminated if Will was a girl because straight unrequited love is not seen as realistic.

Doubt number 2 is eliminated if Will was a girl because she would be straight and not discriminated against for being gay in the 80s.

Doubt number 3 is eliminated because both El and Will would be girls, meaning Mike can equally have a chance of being with either of them.

Doubt number 4 is eliminated if Will was a girl because the writers would not need to make as big of a social leap to make Mike and Will in love.

Doubt number 5 is eliminated if Will was a girl because.... well it's obvious.

I kind of don't like this argument. Yes, if Will was a girl, people would probably be more receptive to the idea of Byler happening. A lot of the reason people don't see it is because of heteronormativity. BUT a lot of the reason why I think Byler is happening is because MIKE IS QUEERCODED not just because Byler have romantic chemistry. Part of Mike's arc isn't just realising that he's in love with Will, it's realising that he's queer.

This is a gay love story, don't try to water it down by simply asking questions like:

"What if Will was a girl?"

"If Mileven were gay would you like them?"

Ignores the queer building blocks of the story. Byler is the dynamic that it is because they are queer in the 80s. Mileven is the way it is because they are a straight couple pushed together by trauma and guilt.

#sorry for yapping so much #i feel like I lowkey highjacked your post #i just found this post interesting because it's rare to see someone agree with what I think of this topic #byler #mike wheeler #will byers #stranger things analysis #my thoughts

38 notes · View notes

caeslxys · 6 months ago

Text

Something I think is extremely interesting thematically when it comes to connecting what Downfall and the ideas it tackled to the overarching narrative of campaign three is that the things Downfall made a point to showcase of Aeor—Cassida, Hallis, the visual of an aeormaton proposing to her partner, the specific and intentional decision to shed light on a far from insignificant amount of the population being civilians or refugees—is that it plays in perfect parallel across from what is happening (and, really, has been happening) to the ruidusborn on Exandria in present.

Bear with me for a moment. Aeor is ultimately a city that was collectively punished for the decisions of its leadership. We could (and, judging by the amount of discourse around this particular topic already, probably will) argue about what the Gods’ motivation for all of this was—whether it be that they could not, in the end, bear to kill their siblings or that they were terrified at the prospect of mortality—for me it is a very healthy dose of both—but for this I am much more interested in the latter. They were scared. That, really, is the driving force behind both this arc and their role in c3 as a whole.

Why I point this out is: It is far more interesting to me, especially as we go back to Bells Hells this week, to dissect the Gods and their decisions not purely on sympathetic motivation alone but as beings in the highest seat of power in the highest social class in Exandria.

So, having established that the Gods (in relation to mortals) are more a higher social class than anything we could compare to our real life understanding of divinity and that Aeor was eviscerated largely because of their fear—what is the difference between those innocents in Aeor caught in the trappings of their autocratic government leadership and a divine war on the ground, and those of the ruidusborn being manipulated both by Ludinus and by the very thing that inspired such visceral fear in the Gods to start with. I would argue very little.

I think of Cassida, doing what she genuinely thought was right and good and would save people, her son, and the object of her worship—and how that did not matter enough to any of them to spare her because of the fear they held at the very concept of mortality. I think of Liliana and Imogen, one of which we know begged for the gods to help her or send her a sign for years on years, and how every single one of their largest struggles could have been avoided had the gods loved them, their supposed children, as much as they feared what they could be. I think of how the thing that did save Imogen, in the end, was a woman who herself existed in direct defiance of the gods will. I think of that young boy, sixteen years old, that Laudna exalted on Ruidus.

I think it’s completely fair to judge Aeor’s overall society as deeply corrupt—it was!—but its leadership and police force are not a reflection of every one of its citizens. Similarly, it is fair to judge the Ruby Vanguard as corrupt—it is!—but its multiple heads of leadership and even the god-eater further are not a reflection of every one of its members.

Notably, and what I think the Hells will latch onto, this did not matter to the Gods. It did not matter that Cassida was trying to help. She was still too much of a risk. Will it matter, what Imogen does? Will it matter, if that young boy is in the blast radius when they decide to take no further chances?

I’ve seen a lot of people say that the Hells will side with the gods and I don’t think I agree. Especially as Imogen has been scolded and villainized over and over for daring to try and save her mother—who herself has been seen by some as an irredeemable evil in spite of her drive being the exact same—her family—but when it’s the Gods it’s justified? When it’s the Gods, it’s sympathetic? Too sympathetic to criticize further than “they’re family”?

I obviously do not think the Gods should die or be eaten or what have you, and I certainly don’t agree with Ludinus (though I find him much more compelling than just a variation of hubris wizard), but when talking about the Gods in Aeor and in present it isn’t really at all about their motivation or their family. It can’t be. Too many people, including our active protagonists, lives have been effected for it to be as cut and dry as “they’re family”. These are your children. They are your family, too.

#critical role #cr meta #cr spoilers #critical role spoilers #imogen temult #liliana temult #ludinus da'leth #does this make sense. I feel like i lost my initial thread somewhere around the middle bc my brain is currently spread very thin #but tldr: it is extremely interesting to me that the fall of aeor is such a perfect parallel to the ruidusborn #i could also go on endlessly ENDLESSLY about how cassida and liliana play the exact same role #and also i could go on even longer on what divinity as a concept even means in a world like exandria #and how trying to compare it to our real life understanding of divinity is a bit fruitless #on the basis that a person can become a god alone but also that they themselves undeniably exist #but its so good. it ties in so well. brennan did a fucking fantastic job at capturing the abject horror of it all #also aabria iyengar if you can hear me PLEASE bring deanna back i will send you fifty dollars #and also hello i very briefly said hello at the live show and wanted to tell you how incredible i think you are but alas #where did these tags go #anyway #WOAH this is long. I should’ve been writing fic. alas.#really I don't think any of the hells are gonna be able to just. gloss over the casualties of it all. but especially mog and ashton and lau #tal has even already said that downfall made some things better for ash and some things Worse so I know I'm not too far off #I have. many many thought on how laudna will see it all too.#truly think she is going to be the most vocally horrified

124 notes · View notes