#for the lotr point an example is in the books when they ride to the gates of Mordor and are being incredibly earnest in being respectful

[frodo-with-glasses]

Also, I dunno if you've done much about Eomer and Eowyn, but I'd love to see 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 12. This game is so much fun! ^_^

Heck yeah, sibling time, let's go! I'll try to keep these answers short, since there's so many of them, but we'll see how well that works, LOL

2. "My favorite scene of them"

It's kinda weird, but I actually really like that moment when he finds out she isn't actually dead and he's immediately like "NO TIME TO TALK GOTTA GO FAST" and just power-walks to the Houses of Healing without another word. You'd think I'd like the reunion better, when Eowyn actually wakes up, but there's just something so compelling about the anxiety beforehand; the sudden surge of "hope unlooked-for", as Tolkien put it, "and with it the bite of fear and care renewed". That odd mingling of love and fear and hope and despair and relief and dread and "maybe I haven't lost everything yet, but I still could", and the raw, instinctual, almost primal impulse of "no matter in what state I find her, I need to be where she is RIGHT HECKING NOW."

Someone else on this site has pointed out that the purest expression of love in LotR is following. I think Eomer running to Eowyn's side is a pretty good example.

3. "A random headcanon I have of them"

Eowyn is notoriously ticklish. Eomer knows all of her best tickle spots and will not hesitate to weaponize them for nefarious purposes whenever she gets too broody.

4. "My favorite thing about their friendship"

~Siblings~ :-D That's it, really, LOL

We don't get a lot of sibling relationships in LotR! Most of the important hobbits—excluding Sam—are all related in some shape or form, but you don't exactly get the same energy of "I grew up with you and have known you all my life and I can't stand your face but also I would commit murder for you" that you get with siblings. It's just a fun relationship dynamic to explore, and a rare one in this book.

(We probably would've seen that energy portrayed EVEN STRONGER with Boromir and Faramir, but by the time we meet Faramir, his big bro is...hm. Yeah. So that's a lot less fun. You kinda need both siblings to be alive to really see how the dynamics play out.)

5. "A scene I wish we had of them"

Just either one of them travelling to the other kingdom to meet their niblings. Bonus points if said niblings had just been born, and are now tiny little wrinkled potato versions of their respective parents. You just know that Eowyn would be the Cool Aunt with all the neat stories, and that Eomer would absolutely melt on the spot every time Eowyn put a newborn child of hers into his arms. T'would be heckin' adorable. I'd love to see it.

(Eomer always threatens to take his new niece or nephew with him, tucked into his coat as he rides, when it's time to go back to Rohan. "This is mine now, I'm keeping it." "NO.")

8. "Who I think is the crazier one"

Eesh, that's a toughie. Eowyn is "will secretly plan to go to war even though everyone else tells me not to" crazy, and Eomer is "will launch a furious assault on the enemy to avenge my sister's death without even checking that she's for sure dead first" crazy. Deciding which of those is the more bat-crap insane comes down, I think, to subjective personal opinion.

I'm gonna take the boring answer and say I have no idea, but in any case it's clear that crazy runs in that family. It's a wonder that Theoden isn't more off his rocker than he already is.

10. "A song that reminds me of them"

Let's go with "Hey Brother" by Avicii! It's one of my favorite songs in general anyway, and even though the lyrics aren't all that complex, it does make me think of their bond and their individual struggles.

(Plus it's just generally a bop LOL)

12. "A word to describe them"

Valiant, adj: “Very brave or bravely determined, especially when things are difficult or the situation gives no cause for hope.”

FRIENDSHIP ASK GAME!

[riverofrainbows]

I've been watching heartstopper for about the seventh time now, and this rewatch focusing mostly on Nick and his face and emotional journey, and I'm at episode 4 rn, so here are some things i noticed and thoughts:

I've been kinda watching it for the first time again, because I've mostly been focusing on Charlie or both of them till now, and its very lovely

Kit Connor really is an amazing actor, his face is very expressive and i can see everything so clearly in his face. Also he looks scared a lot more than I previously realised

I'm kind of reading Nick as autistic:

His sense of justice and almost naive goodness and earnesty, like he just assumes the best, and gets really angry and empathises a lot when people get treated badly

I specifically mean this arthurian attitude thats also seen in Lord of the rings, where they say really knightly stuff and mean it 100% seriously, and its also kind of the things that make people describe him as a golden retriever personality wise too

As I've been watching Nick's face so closely, he always has a specific kind of personable attitude when interacting with his old friends, and imogen too when they're in company such as at the picnic table before school

When he walks around alone at the party/sits at school and thinks he isn't being watched atm, he kind of drops that, and especially when he's worried about sth you can suddenly see it

This might also just be not trusting his friends to be open around them, which doesn't exclude the masking interpretation either tho. And is also very sad and probably sth too many people relate to

When with Charlie he does show his emotions, like joy, worry, insecurity etc (at school too mostly). Also with his mother mostly, with Tara and Darcy, and kind of around Charlies friends

The identity struggle. Not even just his bisexuality, that too, but specifically feeling like your entire life has been not you. I very much relate to this so maybe this is me projecting, but then again for me it was specifically autism and being queer that made me feel this way, and masking can very much contribute to losing your sense of identity.

His mother mentioned that he seems more like himself with Charlie than his old friends, and presumably he doesnt mask that much at home (he also lives out his interests at home with his mother such as watching a specific movie every day for several months)

Watching a specific movie almost every day for a prolonged period of time, something i did with rereading books again and again, or watching a specific youtube video over and over

Pattern recognition: He just kinda goes with the flow for a while, and then there is this specific moment where he realises that his feelings towards/past actions around Charlie are not straight (the evening at Charlies house, when he sits at home and kinda strokes the phone), and draws a consequence by looking up the am i gay quiz etc

More of an observation: I admire his decision making, and specifically his trust in himself and his own decisions, where he comes to a point where the data doesnt match previous conclusions anymore, and then promptly acts on it, which i think is very brave

Examples (so far): realising he is not straight as mentioned. Realising the romantic implications of Imogen/Party and, knowing that he feels some way about Charlie instead, inviting him.

Another point: in the beginning when Imogen (correctly) implied his behaviour was around a crush, and he was texting Charlie at the time and got freaked out a little by this as it goes against regular patterns of his life experience so far

Rugby as stimming/special interest?

Tbh this might be me projecting again, but the clothes formula of wearing one singular piece of trousers shirt and jacket and not doing much with it. And if its layers (such as the party) both are close fitting. He also always only wears his shirt of the school uniform, no jumper or blazer over (the tie is in the rulebook i assume), but this particular point might just be accidental. Anyways this is sth i do too bc layers stress me out so i always wear only one piece each and in the proper way, and while obviously not true for all autistic people, it's at least sth i noticed in several other autistic people.

[fangirleaconmigo]

Still on my LOTR reread and I stg if a woman wrote these books today there would be whole hosts of incels mocking her for making men so openly affectionate, sensitive, and emotionally intelligent. (Female fantasy, they’d call it. They would bemoan the decline of masculinity in modern times. They would wail about softness being prized in men in these dark days.)

Yet here they all are! Our heroes. Being all of those things on every page. Here are just a handful of examples:

Pippin straight up tells Beregond that he feels lonely without with best friend and asks whether he can keep him company. Beregond is like…that’s totally understandable and arranges for his son to take him around. And when Merry thinks of Pippin, he worries about how lonely he must be.

Neither hobbit hesitates to express that they feel sad or lonely (gasp such weak emotions just out in the open) and EVERYONE AROUND THEM, kings, captains of guard, all of these manly heroes, treat this as IMPORTANT INFORMATION and say to them that this is very very understandable. When one of the hobbits is hurt these men call for the other, because they understand that when you are sick or hurt you need your person. They always consider their emotional needs, even amidst a war.

Then there’s Gandalf, the one man Hobbit hype squad (though really they all are) who stays ready to list all their great qualities and express out loud to kings and foes, in front of audiences, how much he admires them and loves them. The minute a single douchebag says like…why is this runt here…you can just hear Gandalf pull in a big breath before he unloads on them.

And these hobbits can annoy him! But being perfect is not necessary to earn his love. (He is the embodiment of ‘I would do anything for you in the universe you just have to ask’ ‘ok can I have an ice cream?’ ‘No.’)

And Aragorn! Aragorn is the warrior king! And he’s always openly expressing his feelings. He expresses the pain he feels at not being able to return Eowyns feelings. He expresses his love and appreciation for his friends when they make decisions to join him in missions. He doesn’t just fight. He heals. He puts stock in what others refer to as “old wives tales” in his healing techniques. This is nurturing.

Gimli and Legolas express their love and loyalty to each other literally every chance they get. Not only do they recognize each other’s cultural differences, but they are both vigilant to see that these differences are accommodated as well as can be on difficult journeys. For example, Gimli hates riding horses and Legolas needs to see the sun from time to time, and they’ll remind the rest of the company of these things on the other’s behalf. They are always looking out for each other’s emotional and cultural needs.

Sam(I mean this whole post could have been just about Sam) literally murmurs “I love him” to himself as he watches Frodo sleep. He thinks to himself how beautiful Frodo looks and he murmurs “I love him.”

Ok I’ll stop but I’m just…I just still love these books and I love all of these characters and no, I’m not the first person to point out how beautiful it is to see a heroic masculinity so devoid of toxicity and so motivated by love and friendship, but I still had to get that all off my chest.

[themoonlily]

I deliberated whether or not to write anything about this, but seems I can't keep silent, so here goes...

There was a post about Éowyn and the culpability of her male relatives in her situation in ROTK, and I must admit it did not sit well with me. I'm all for Éowyn and recognising how miserable she was or how it drove her to seek death on the battlefield, but I don't tolerate the idea that her family are somehow to be blamed for it, nor what it ultimately implies: that mental illness is and must always be Someone's Fault, that you are to be blamed if you don't recognise it for what it is, or that you should naturally know how to deal with it.

Could they have done more to support her? Probably. Did they fail in recognising how depressed and self-destructive she had become? Very much so. Is it somehow because of them? I don't think it's that simple because families rarely are (especially families in a position of power).

You could go all the way back to the death of Éomund and Théodwyn, and how it would have impacted their orphaned children, how they perceived duty to the family while being in the position that they were in: the responsibility of watching over their people. Éomund and Théodwyn's deaths are namely why I can't believe Éomer would not care about his sister or do anything he can for her, if he knew she was in trouble. It's plausible that Éomer didn't even live at Edoras but rather held his seat in Aldburg, which was their birth home and previously the seat of Éomund the First Marshal. He wouldn't have watched his sister daily, and it's very likely Éomer was exceedingly busy with his duties, especially when the situation in the land worsened. Considering we don't see his private interactions with Éowyn, it's impossible to say what she did or didn't tell him, if she was showing signs of where she was headed, or if she was hiding the true extent of her despair from him in order to spare him (which people often do when they think their loved ones have more important things to worry about!). Suicidal people don't necessarily express warning signs that even their family would know to read. To judge Éomer as a careless sibling who never paid attention based just on the scene in the Houses of Healing (when she had already walked over the brink) isn't necessarily fair.

Rohirrim are a warlike culture, which would beg to imply that they valued strength and courage. It's not an environment where a person in a position of power, especially when that position is becoming increasingly challenging and demands more and more sacrifice, can manage well if they're already suffering from personal issues. It's also not an environment where you can easily show that you are suffering. Does family always know what's going on or that one of them is having mental problems? Absolutely not. Even in real life, people conceal their troubles from parents and siblings because they don't want loved ones to worry, and if they are already constantly preoccupied (by trying to lead and defend a falling nation, for example), they are even more likely not to realise what's going on. That individuals of superior experience (like long life or supernatural origin and heightened perception, i. e. Aragorn and Gandalf) notice Éowyn's state right away doesn't necessarily mean that her family don't care or that they are somehow at fault for not realising what was going on sooner. Not to mention, at that point, she had declared her situation plainly so it's not a very fair comparison.  

But there's more. What about Théoden and his depression (which I think is at least implied and more than plausible, considering his comment upon coming out of Meduseld: "It's not so dark here")? What about him actually being an old man, fearing he's falling into dotage while there's an exponentially challenging threat to his land, losing himself to despair, and questioning whether he's a failure in the eyes of his forefathers and his own culture, which places great significance in honour and individual's prowess in battle? What about the grief of losing his only child and heir in a very critical hour partly due to his own actions (or rather, his inaction)? And what about the fact he's actively being manipulated and goaded by Wormtongue into yet worse decisions while he is in this frame of mind? Didn't Théoden ride to meet his end as much as Éowyn did? Why does this old struggling man have to put his 'big girl pants' on more than anyone else and why doesn't anything about his situation call for empathy? But then, comparing mental illnesses and arguing whose condition matters the most is absurd.

(I wouldn't say no magical fuckery was involved in Théoden's behaviour as the crisis escalated - at least in the appendix it's said frankly that he was under Saruman's spells and was healed by Gandalf. The actual scene in the books isn't that straightforward, of course, although there are mentions of Wormtongue using some kind of 'leechcraft' to subdue Théoden, that he wasn’t ‘breathing free air’, and Théoden himself praising Gandalf's skill at healing. But certainly Wormtongue was ‘poisoning’ both Théoden and Éowyn’s thoughts, and that can’t have been helpful with their mental states.)

There was a very good post about how Théoden and Denethor in particular have similar narratives and arcs, and how each is teetering on a fine line between estel (hope) and despair - how one redeems himself and the other is ruined. Their family reflect this struggle in other ways, Boromir dying because his despair drove him to desire the Ring, but redeeming himself at the last moment, and Éowyn almost dying because of her despair but finding again hope in life and the prospect of healing. And that's very much the point here, not Whose Fault Is It: the stories of Théoden, Éowyn and Éomer (and of Denethor, Boromir and Faramir) are about Hope versus Despair, which ties in with the greater themes of LOTR. At least that is my takeaway here because mental illness isn’t anyone’s fault and I very much doubt that was ever Tolkien’s message. 

[whatevercomestomymind]

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I saw your post about learning calligraphy to better your handwriting? I was wondering if you remember any practice materials or methods you might have used? I have horrible handwriting and am trying to better it, but keep hitting walls on finding any practice materials that aren’t kindergarten level. Again, sorry to bother you on an old post but I thought you might be able to help another in their pursuit for better penmanship.

Not a problem! And I just posted that yesterday, so you're good!

There's an absolute TON of instructional work on calligraphy, and I agree, most start off way too basic, and then just skip through the "practice practice practice" portion, and end up not really teaching the evolution of the letter forms, which is stupidly helpful, especially once you already know the basics of handwriting.

I'll post a list of books I 1000% recommend at the bottom, but there's a few things to know about calligraphy when you start.

Calligraphy and handwriting are seen as 2 different art forms now. They didn't use to be.

There is a HUGE difference between your "daily hand" and "calligraphy."

Learning calligraphy will have a relatively small impact on your daily hand unless you practice a style that is foundationally similar to what you already know.

So, you have 2 goals: learning "fancy" lettering, and improving your handwriting.

If you want to improve your handwriting, you have to go in reverse historical chronological order, so that your hands and eye adapts most naturally, which will give you the fastest results.

So where to start?

First, if you're American, you were probably taught the D'Nealian script (block and cursive) when you learned how to write (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Nealian)

This was derived from the Palmer Script (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Method)

Which is in turn derived from Spencerian script (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencerian_script), and in turn before that, Copperplate (which is more of a font family rather than a specific style, it's most famous offspring being English Roundhand).

If your goal is to improve your daily writing style, practice those hands in that order. DO NOT BE TEMPTED TO START WITH COPPERPLATE, IT WILL MELT YOUR BRAIN. TRUST ME.

I'd start with Palmer tbh. That's probably what your grandparents learned, and have you seen letters from the 1940s? Fuckin beautiful.

The key points are the angle of your paper, the angle of your pen, and your letter spacing. The styles all the way back to Spencerian tend to still allow for you to manipulate the pen with your fingers (like you're used to) rather than your whole wrist or arm (like older scripts like classic italics, copperplate and Gothic styles).

Here's a really old and really fabulous guide to the entire Palmer method: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/gdc/scd0001/2006/20060809007pa/20060809007pa.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjwtLfquYvsAhXydM0KHUpDBCMQFjAbegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3cruMOFNqF4iK6as-toBJN

It's a free PDF. Pay particular attention to the section of scribbles and circles! THESE ARE NOT OPTIONAL IF YOU WANT TO RE-TRAIN YOUR HAND. You have to use muscles in ways they're not used to moving, so get a pad of paper, and in idle down-time (watching TV, riding the bus, on that stupid Zoom meeting that could have been an email), SIT THERE AND SCRIBBLE OVALS LIKE A LUNATIC.

Seriously, this is the single best thing you can do to improve your handwriting. And artwork for that matter. You have to train your hand. You have to start being conscious of how the pen feels, how it scratches the paper depending on how hard you press, how thick lines feel vs thin ones, how a miniscule change in pressure changes the whole line and shape you're doodling.

AUTISM/ADHD NOTE: doing this may make you feel weird, or overstimulated! If it's not something you can keep doing, then DONT. If like me though, you find the repetitive movement and scratchy feel of the pen on paper soothing, you're gonna freaking love this part.

So that covers scripts for the most part (well at least for the past couple of centuries).

ON TO BLOCK LETTERING!

In my research, I found that those annoying bubble letters with the I hearts I despised in middle school actually had a historical precedent: Uncial lettering.

Uncial (and half-uncials) lettering was the signature font of the Kells Monastery, and what we all think of when we thing "celtic/Irish lettering". Famous examples are the way Bilbo Baggins writes in the Hobbit and LOTR films, more pub signs than you can shake a stick at, etc.

Remember what I said about how older scripts require less finger movement and more wrist/whole arm movement? Half-uncial is one of those odd intersectional fonts. Below a 5/8" line height, you'll probably get good results moving mostly your fingers, but as you scale up, you'll get smoother lines by moving larger joints (wrist, keeping fingers in place, and then whole arm for 3"+ line heights).

The foundation of half uncial font is the circle. But it's more of a horizontal oval. Once you can draw a slightly elongated circle, and a straight line, you're ready for half uncials because every other letter is based on the "O". A's? A circle with a stick. D's? 3/4 of a circle with a horizontal ascender.

Now this us where the books I recommend come in.

You're going to want to start with the Celtic Design series by Aidan Meehan. Start with "A Beginner's Manual". It lays out the mathematical and geometric construction behind every major facet of celtic illumination. I particularly like the bit on the geometry of Insular letters at the end.

Then go through "Celtic Alphabets", followed by "Illuminated Lettes" if you're interested in the embellishments and decorated letters, though it does talk about how letter forms are constructed geometrically, which i found super useful.

But the font i use the most on a regular basis is Architects Hand. It's an all caps highly angular and tight, but easy to read and execute hand. Here's an example:

Since its mostly straight lines designed for optimal readability even at the smallest font point sizes, it's a super useful and easy way to write fairly quickly and legibly.

I hope this helps to answer your question and points you in the right direction! Since I moved on to specializing in knotwork and illumination fairly quickly after discovering calligraphy, I have a lot more information about those subjects than handwriting, but if you want more info, by all means, ask away!

[absynthe--minded]

on Fëanáro and Fate

based on this post by @finelythreadedsky who is wonderful and you all should follow her like right now

okay so I’m going to make a brief way too long aside to say: this is specifically about fate in the Silmarillion. fate in The Lord of the Rings is actually a fairly positive thing, way moreso than in the Silm - this is perhaps best demonstrated in a series of choices and interactions that Frodo has over the course of the books. Gandalf, in Fellowship, tells him essentially that since he has the Ring, he was meant to have it, and this is an encouraging thought because all their actions are foreordained by a presumably benevolent power acting in their best interest. Frodo is at first not comforted, but does find himself feeling better in the next book when Sam basically says “hey, we’re in a story, and look at these heroic legendary figures who were ALSO in stories who did way more dangerous shit than we’re doing and who made it out okay!” he takes comfort in the idea that Beren and Lúthien snuck into Angband and stole a Silmaril, because that means that by virtue of still being in the same story as they were, things might work out okay. (”Do the great tales ever really end?” no, they don’t, they just echo back on themselves) you could read Frodo's rejection of arms and armor in Mordor as his ultimate acceptance of the fact that he’s a creature of fate now - he has no real agency, he’s driven on by dooms beyond his control, and he rejects things that give him the illusion of being able to change that. but. like I said, fate in LotR is a good thing, and so Frodo is rewarded for his acceptance with rest and restoration and healing.

anyway. fate in the most famous fantasy trilogy of all time, and being part of a greater narrative with limited agency and little control over one’s actions and ending? this is a good thing, probably because JRRT was a Catholic and God being in control is a good thing.

I tell you that so we can talk about everybody’s favorite walking dumpster fire, Fëanáro “Fëanor” Finwion. this is supposed to have a cut, so if it doesn’t, I’m So Sorry Mobile Users. this was also written in a fatigued haze so I’m Sorry In Advance For That. no sources we die like the Eldar.

I’m actually gonna open with something that @yavieriel brought up in a series of DMs, which is the opening to the 2000s anime Princess Tutu and its arc words of “Those who accept their fate find happiness; those who defy it, glory.”

I do that because glory in Tolkien is a double-edged sword - glorious people go on to die in glorious ways. they usually don’t have long and happy lives. the wisest members of the cast are crotchety old souls who want Zero Adventures Thank You and who get dragged along on greater stories because that’s what must be done to make the world a better place. but this is a good contrasting point between Frodo and Fëanor (I’m going to call him that bc that’s what he’s called in the Silm, hopefully we all know my feelings on Sindarinized names by now) because Frodo does accept his fate and find happiness, and Fëanor... well.

I’m making this post at all because the Great Fate Post (called the GFP going forward) pulls a lot of examples from Western literature of characters being aware they’re in a story but being unable to do anything about it, or being guided to an inevitable end. and it’s a great post! it talks about Hadestown and Hermes and it’s a good post. I agree with everything in it. except for the fact that the quote from the Silmarillion that was used to showcase this sense of greater acceptance of one’s limited agency (even through terror/being driven on to a bad end) was an excerpt from this line: 'We have sworn, and not lightly. This oath we will keep. We are threatened with many evils, and treason not least; but one thing is not said: that we shall suffer from cowardice, from cravens or the fear of cravens. Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days of Arda.'

Now. The guy saying that is Fëanor. Currently, he and all his people are in deep shit with the gods because they committed kinslaying. Like, serious kinslaying. we never get an in-universe body count but it’s severe enough that everyone even tangentially involved gets cursed by the resident god of death. this is called the Doom of the Noldor, which is the ethnic group whose members committed the atrocity. it’s a big fucking deal. it essentially says that you’re doomed, you will die, and all your works will come to nothing, and the gods will not look on you with pity, and thanks to your stupid choice to do the murder thing you’re all going to come to sorrows so great that the tears you shed will be unnumbered due to their ubiquity. and for a race with no natural death, being told outright “you’re going to die” is terrifying! elves are so immortal that the halls of the dead aren’t actually an underworld you stay in they’re a respawn point - you go, you heal from the pains of life, and then you get a new body and you get to go forth into the world again. the only way you opt out of this is either by opting out of the summons to the halls of the dead or by opting out of leaving entirely, both of which you can totally do. and being immortal and knowing that all your works and efforts will ultimately be destroyed and meaningless? well fuck.

Fëanor’s response is the above quote. He says this immediately after his people have been told by a literal god who can see the future “hey, assholes, you’re fucked.” He’s staring down the barrel of the gun marked “fate” and he says “actually, you know what? no. you’re wrong. even if you’re right about some aspects of this, I still have control, I still have agency. We will not be forgotten, our works will not come to nothing. History will remember us, and only history can judge us.” And it’s interesting to examine this in the greater context of the GFP because unlike other characters that are cited there, and even unlike his own sons, Fëanor doesn’t feel the weight of doom upon him. He assumes he’s the protagonist of this story, and as a result anything and everything he does will turn out okay. He’s perhaps the smartest incarnate being to ever have lived. He’ll think his way out, or demand his way out. It’s worked before and it will work again.

And the signs are there that he’s wrong, even as they’re subtle. It’s a bit like playing on long-abandoned train tracks. Someday, there will be a train, even if you’ve never seen one yet.

Fëanor dies in a spectacularly disastrous fashion almost immediately after this. Like. It can’t be more than a year later, and for immortal elves, that’s a blink of the eye. he’s the only elf, really, to have this defiant “fuck you” approach to doom. everybody else who comes under the weight of it either accepts it without causing a fuss or tries to resist it before ultimately failing and giving in. elves are bound to the world, to its circles and its story. they cannot jump the track of fate, they must ride the train to the station, regardless of whether or not the bridge is out.

and ultimately, despite his defiance and his frustration, Fëanor is no different from any of them.

[sidras-tak]

stuart hill’s Icemark Chronicles series is a really great series for beginner fantasy readers. it’s like Baby’s First LOTR in that it’s a trilogy of long, middle-grade fantasy novels (each book is about 500 pages), mainly about war, that juggles multiple viewpoints and tons of characters. but it’s written in a way to support and scaffold understanding of such complex stories and make them accessible to new readers. for example:

each character who has a long title and name, which are used repeatedly and interchangeably, and written in a way that the reader understands who the character is even if they don’t remember exactly. Thirrin Freer Strong-in-the-arm-Lindenshield, Wildcat of the North? no confusion whatsoever that she’s the fierce, strong warrior queen the series is based around. 

each character who does not have a long title or name is given a descriptor to remind the reader who they are (Maggiore Totus is the tutor of the royal children)

hill uses signal words and theme words, or, if you want to get technical, epithets, to draw your memory to other moments in the story. Thirrin has her fiery halo of hair, which is mentioned multiple times when she is particularly passionate during diplomatic meetings. during battle, the story always notes the “strange coughing bark” of the Snow Leopards. the villain always rides his horse into battle with “arrogant hand on arrogant hip”

each species/people have their own battle cries that serve as a quick reminder of who is fighting and for what. i can’t tell you how many times Thirrin and her army have shouted the battle cry of the Icemark (“the enemy is upon us! they kill our children, they burn our houses! BLOOD! BLAST! AND FIRE! BLOOD! BLAST! AND FIRE!) and how it legitimately sends shivers up my spine every time. in contrast, the main enemies, the Polypontians, cry “Veni, vidi, vici!” (I came, I saw, I conquered).

deaths of characters are frequent but almost never a surprise. in the second book, Their Vampiric Majesties mention at least five times that they could not bear to face the endless centuries without the other, making it very, very clear to the reader that one of them will die before the end. and he does and it is not a surprise. 

for that matter, you can go into a battle scene knowing who will survive. a character will mention that they feel strangely certain the Mother Goddess has other plans for them, comment on how calm/strong/ready they feel, or make plans for a drinking contest with their friend after the battle, and you can be sure they will come out alive. 

the plots are pretty simple overall, but enough events get added to keep the pace moving and interesting. here’s how the first book goes: Icemark gets attacked -> Thirrin becomes queen -> Thirrin searches for allies -> the Icemark defends its home. that’s it! but there’s so much more going on with character development and some really delicious writing that never once in the 500 pages did i feel bored or that it could be shorter.

this is not so much an accessibility thing, but i think it’s extremely cool how hill meshes barbarity and nobility. the icemark is a “barbaric” country and Thirrin is often referred to as “the barbarian queen”. it’s true the people of the icemark are loud, passionate, rowdy, and even violent, drinking and eating to excess and enjoying fighting almost too much. they ally themselves with monsters: werewolves, vampires, Snow Leopards, the Holly and Oak kings, Oskan Witchfather and his White Witches, anything from the Land-of-the-Ghosts that will listen to them. but they are also shown to be noble people who defend fiercely because they have people they want to protect. each species of the alliance has leaders who are kind, just, wise, powerful, or just plain nice, and each species’ culture is shown as complex and interesting. they fight with honor and avoid unnecessary cruelty. contrasted to that, the polypontians are called “civilized”, running their empire with science and rational thought and employing much more advanced technology, but they are cruel, dishonorable, and arrogant.

if i had a criticism for the series (actually i have several dont worry) i would say that hill buys in too strongly to the idea of “the divine right of kings” (or in this case, queens and monarchs) as every monarch on Thirrin’s side is a good ruler, a good person, and exceptionally talented/strong/powerful/beautiful as compared to the rest of the characters. many of the characters are given epithets like “beloved of the One” (Sharley, Mekhmet) or shown that the Goddess loves them more than other, less important characters (Thirrin, Oskan). 

oh! also cool that the “barbaric” society has no problem with a queen instead of a king (even after Thirrin gets married, she’s the leader, not her consort) and Thirrin’s mother was from a matriarchal tribe, the Hypolitan, led by a female Basilea, that allies itself with the Icemark at various points. they also worship the Mother Goddess, though religion is based around magic and nature rather than churches. i don’t think there is a religious leader in the story at all. (Other species worship other gods: the werewolves worship the Blessed Moon and the Desert Kingdom worships a male god called the One)

i think i lost the plot of why i wanted to write this post but this is a good book series, okay? it’s written for middle schoolers but it’s still good to an adult. please read it.

[normal-thoughts-official]

Fandom racism anon here and yeah absolutely (I didn't realise I had anon on lol)

Because while LOTR has problems within its themes (ie the orcs can be seen as to be coded as people of colour, especially since they ride elephants) the explicit message of the book is evil bad

Because the only people who work for sauron are evil. There are no morally grey people, they aren't misguided or tricked they just are evil and want to take over the world

And yeah I totally agree that this is more of a literal take on like empirical war (is that the word) and that makes total sense considering Tolkiens history

Whereas I would say that the allegories in shaowhunters is way more based on racial conflict within a country itself especially slavery, I can't remember if this is show Canon but is it that they have the warlock tropheys? I remember that in the books magnus talks about shadowhunters hanging warlock marks on their walls? (sorry to bring the books up)

Idk it's very hollow to me, unlike with LOTR though it's a different allegory it's totally irritating to show many of these supremecists as morally misled. LOTR says bad guys are bad guys, shadowhunters says well yeah they did follow a guy which thinks that downworlders are subhuman and should be eradicated but they just made a mistake

I want to compare this to tfatws which while it isn't really fantasy I just feel like it shows how the priorities of the writer can impact the message of the show so powerfully (I know u aren't up to date so I'm gonna be pretty vague)

There's a scene in tfatws where the new white perfect captain America does something bad and doesn't pay for the consequences - done to comment on white privelege and how America condones white supremacy and how Sam is in comparison to that

Mayrse and Robert revealed to be part of the circle! And paid no consequences Shock horror my parents were the bad guys (even rho they were either implicitly or explicitly extremely racist the entire time) also I haven't finished the seires but do the lightwoods ever try to get their parents to face the consequences?)

Only one actual really critiques the situation and the reality behind it whereas the other one is just to centre the white characters once again and present them in a further sympathetic light

AND ANOTHER THING! I was mostly talking about show Canon here and I'm sorry to bring up the books but I literally can't believe I hadn't picked up in this before.

So like downworlders = people of colour, Simon is a vampire so is coded as a person of colour. However in the books in the last one he stops being a vampire and becomes a shadowhunters instead, coincidentally that's also when he starts dating Izzy HOW IS THIS ABLE TO HAPPEN!!????

I mean I know cassandra clare is lazy right? The original seires is by far the worst of all her writings but come ON!!!!! By the allegory has he become the white man!????? These books made no fuckin sense when I read them at 15 and they make no sense now I'm digressing anyways

I don't know man I wrote this ask because I was trying to find some fantasy book recommendations on booktube and SO MANY of them were about slavery or general ly extrême préjudice with à White protagonist to save this 'poor souls'.

Also I was watching guardians of the galexy the other day and realised nearly every movie set in space is just bigger stakes imperialism - planets instead of countries. Literally star wars, star trek, guardians of the galexy 2, avengers infinity war - all are facing genocidal imperialistic villains without actually paying much, if any attention to those effected

Just writing this ask made me exhausted I'm so tired of lazy writing and exploiting other people's struggle. I'm white and I'm trying to be more critical about the movies, shows and books I watch and read but let me know if I said something off here❤️❤️ you gotta get up to date with tfatws man, Sambucky nation is THRIVING!!!!

i'm not sure i agree that the whole "the evil people are evil" thing is a good thing, because i feel like more often than not making the bad characters just like... unidimensionally evil just means that the reader will be like "lol i could NEVER be that guy" and when it comes to racism that is a dangerous road to take because white people already believe that racism is something that Only The Most Evil People, Ergo, Not Me, Can Do, which makes discussions of stuff like subconscious racial bias and active antiracist work become more difficult because people don't believe they CAN be racist unless they're like, Lord Voldemort

which is not to say that racism should be treated as morally ambiguous, just that the workings of racism should be represented as something that is not done only by the Most Hardcore And Evil, but rather as a part of a system of oppression that affects the way everyone sees the world and interacts with it and lives in it

yes the warlock trophies are mentioned in the show, albeit very quickly (there is a circle member who tells magnus that his cat eyes will make "a nice addition to his collection" and then it's never mentioned again because this is sh and we love using racism for shock value but then not actually treating it as a serious plot point or something that affects oppressed ppl). and you are absolutely right, shadowhunters (and hp, and most fantasy books) has genocide as its core conflict and treats it, like you said, in a very hollow way, treating racism as both not a big deal and not something that is part of a system of oppression, but really the actions of a few Very Bad People. it's almost impressive how they manage to do both at the same time tbh

i think you hit the nail right on the head with this comment, actually. for most of these works, racism is SHOCK VALUE. it's just like "lol isn't it bad that this bad guy wants to kill a gazillion people just because they are muggles? now that is fucked up" but it's not actually an issue. in fact, when this guy is defeated, the whole problem is over! racism is not something that is embedded into that world, it's not a systemic issue, it's not even actually part of what drives the plot. the things that led to this person not only existing but rising to power and gathering enough followers to be a real threat to the whole world are never mentioned. it's like racists are born out of thin air, which is dangerously close to implying that racism is just a natural part of life, tbh

anyway my point is, it is never supposed to be questioned, it is never part of a deeper plot or story, its implications are barely addressed except for a few fleeting comments them and there; so, it's not a critique, it's shock value, even though it is frequently disguised as a critique (which is always empty and shallow anyway. like what is the REAL critique in works like hp or sh/tsc other than "genocide is bad"? wow such a groundbreaking take evelyn)

about simon and the book thing: i actually knew about this and the weird thing about this is that, like... simon is jewish, and he's implied to be ashkenazi (calls his grandma bubbe which is yiddish, which is a language spoken by the ashkenazi ppl), and it seems like cc is always toeing the line between him being accepted by shadowhunters and then not accepted by them, which sounds a lot like antisemitic tropes and history of swinging between (ashkenazi) jewish ppl being seen as the model minority myth and thus used as an example by white christians, and being hated and persecuted. i'm not super qualified to talk about this since i'm not jewish and i'm still learning about/unlearning antisemitism and its tropes, and i don't really have a fully formed thought on that, tbh; it just reminds me of the whole "model minority" swinging, where one second simon is part of the majority, the other he's not, but always he is supposed to give up a part of himself and his identity in other to be "assimilated" by shadowhunter culture. this article (link) covers a book on jewish people and assimilationism into USan culture, this article (link) covers british jews' relationship with being considered an ethnic group, and this article (link) talks a bit about the model minority myth from the perspective of an asian jewish woman

it just really calls to my attention that cc chose to make her ashkenazi jewish character start off as a downworlder and then become a shadowhunter. i don't think she made that decision as a conscious nod to this history, because it would require being informed on antisemitism lol but it's incredible how you can always see bigoted stereotypes shining through her narrative choices completely by accident. it just really shows how ingrained it is in our collective minds and culture

and anyway, making a character go from the oppressed group to just suddenly become the oppressor is just. wtf. not how oppression works, but most of all, really disrespectful, especially because she clearly treats it as an "upgrade"/"glowup" that earns him the Love Of His Life

also, out of curiosity, are you french? it seems like your autocorrect changed a few words and i'm pretty sure extrême and préjudice are the french versions of these words, and since u said ur white, that's where my money would be lol

[pythonixxam]

♡ ( evangeline lilly, she/her, 1000+) - is that TAURIEL seeking shelter in mystic falls ? i heard that SHE are from THE HOBBIT. they’re usually known as PASSIONATE & NAIVE. people often associate SUN KISSED HANDS HOLDING CARVED SILVAN DAGGERS, FIERY LOCKS CASCADING BEHIND LITHE FORM, FLUID AND DESTRUCTIVE MOVEMENT AGAINST CANOPY OF GREEN. when they look at you. whispers around the town say that they DO remember who they are.

Canadian Trash back at it again !

Given that the canon point of Mirkwood, Thranduil and for that matter Tauriel is kind of HARD to pin point if you leave the Hobbit I’m saying she’s from about three months AFTER the last hobbit movie -- for book reference that’s three months after the battle of the five armies. (When the line of Durin was killed)

Essentially she went back to Mirkwood with Thranduil to help him rebuild and in a sense, to help both of them rebuild the loss they felt. Between the Dwarves dying, COUNTLESS Elves, and then Legolas leaving it’s fair to say there was a lot of anguish to try and counter act.

According to the movies Tauriel is young for an elf. Legolas at one point says for 600 years that Thranduil has protected her. Keep in mind that she was taken in by the people of Mirkwood when she was probably around 600-700 years old which was considered a child or young teenager in Silvan Elf years. Meaning that Tauriel at the end of the Hobbit is probably around 1200-1300 years old. 

The ENTIRE population of Silvan elves have been wiped out next to Tauriel and some others, so there’s an overwhelming amount of guilt and night terrors that still remain from that.

Let alone watching the sickness take over the Greenwood (Mirkwood), and the evil that came with it. PLUS SMAUG AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAPPENED IN THE HOBBIT.

One of the best fighters amongst the Elves in Mirkwood, hence the high honor she was bestowed of being the Captain of the Guard of Mirkwood. Meaning this QUEEN was in charge of an entire god damn army of Elves. Despite being young.

For comparison Thranduil the King is expected to be six thousand during the Hobbit and even elder in LOTR. Where as Legolas is also around 3000

She had never truly felt love until she met Kili, and thusly when he died it broke her. To finally feel something that strong and have it snuffed out so swiftly is alarming for an Elf. Given that Elves RARELY feel bursts of emotions. Example -- Legolas being drunk in LOTR despite the elves of Mirkwood being constant wine drinkers.

That being said since it’s been three months since this has happened she has attempted to steel her heart and build back the stone façade.

Mystic Falls

Finding yourself in a modern time so vastly different from where you’re from is INCREDIBLY hard to get used to. Though she has tried. The majority of the time she’s as close to nature as she can be, usually in parks or around large trees.

With her curious nature she has branched out and explored a good portion of Mystic Falls. It astounds her that there can be so many people from so many different places, that the magic here is so different from what she knows.

It’s her curious nature and thirst for knowledge that has her wanting to make as many friends as possible; as long as she can’t sense an air of danger or threat about them. 

With modern advancements, it calls for a more modern approach over all and thusly Tauriel made the decision to cover her past. Her hair is no longer near reaching her thighs but just below her shoulders. Auburn doesn’t float in the breeze anymore, but umber in its place.  (think Kate from LOST honestly.)

She somehow managed to land a job at Mystic Falls High as a gym teacher. Probably because of her athletics. 

Fun stuff

Favorite Tauriel video

Tauriel akin to most Elves, is fluid when it comes to sexuality and romantic interests. That being said, I quite literally ship her with EVERYONE under the sun. Legolas, Thranduil, Kili, the other Dwarves, Bilbo, SMAUG in human form, Arwen, Aragorn. Would also DIE for a human Sauron because Tauriel has NO IDEA what he ever looked like.

If anyone is interested, yes I have favorite ship videos and yes I will 100% show you them. 

Wanted connections

Friends. Older and younger she’ll take to anyone

LORD OF THE RINGS AND HOBBIT BABIES PLEASE I BEG.

anyone that might have a similar fc to who she knows back home.

people that she doesn’t trust

someone willing to show her the good in the modern world.

SOMEONE TEACH HER HOW TO RIDE A BIKE OR DRIVE A CAR OH MY GOD

[p-and-p-admin]

Interview given to The Severus Snape and Hermione Granger Shipping Fan Group.  (sharing here Admin approved)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/199718373383293/

Hello Ciule and welcome to Behind the Quill, thank-you for sitting down with us for a chat.

SS/HG readers might be familiar with your stories “Awkward” and “Headmaster’s Wife”. 

Okay, let’s jump right in. What's the story behind your pen name? Well, I sort of took one of my real names, swirled the letters around in the air with my imaginary wand, and I ended up with this. Can’t begin to imagine where I got the idea from... ;-) Later on, I realized that Ciule is actually a name in Romania. I had no idea, but there are people out there carrying this name for real. I guess I’m #sorrynotsorry?   Which Harry Potter character do you identify with the most? To be quite frank: No one, really. This is more about the characters I like, than truly identifying with them. I can relate to parts of some of them, but not the whole package. Primarily, I write about Hermione, Voldemort and Severus, and the one common thread between those three is the search for knowledge. That’s a trait I can identify with, but I’m neither an evil bastard, a grumpy protector nor a fretting, intelligent activist. I am, however, a swot. If you had asked who I’d want to be, the answer is clear. I want to be Albus Dumbledore. Though I can’t agree with the things he did, I feel absolutely certain that he’s the one who has the most fun during the books. I want to have that twinkling fun in face of absolute chaos.   Do you have a favourite genre to read (not in fic, just in general)? Fantasy! Definitely fantasy. While growing up, I read ‘everything’ in every genre, and in my twenties, I decided I’d spend my time reading what I loved the most. So, fantasy it is. Do you have a favourite "classic" novel? You landed me in an existential crisis right there. I mean, there’s so many to choose from! ‘Wuthering Heights’, I think. It hurts so good. Or maybe ‘Rebecca’, at least, I loved that when I was younger. Or the fairly obscure ‘Lorna Doone.’ When I was a kid, I wanted to be a film director, shooting Lorna Doone into an epic film. Oh well, there might be a theme in this selection of books which reflects in my writing… At what age did you start writing? The creative process has gone on since forever. I’ve told myself thousands of stories in my head, but rarely written anything down. At the age of ten, I had a co-writing project with one of my friends. We created this secret room in her basement, and painstakingly wrote a ‘novel’. It was fun, though the writing ended as it became too cold down in the basement during winter. How did you get into writing fanfiction? In 2009, I became completely obsessed with a TV-show in the last episode. I was watching the entire series, casually enjoying the murder mystery, and in the last episode, the villain said: “I can do the math,” and I was literally gone. That obsession sparked writing my first fanfic stories. Those stories are still on FFnet, but they aren’t any good. *shrugs* What's the best theme you've ever come across in a fic? Is it a theme represented in your own works? Compromise. The world isn’t a perfect place, and will never be. You can, however, make it more to your liking. It may not be perfect, but if you play the cards you are dealt, you might improve something. In Robert Jordan’s “the Wheel of Time”-series, one of the characters goes through a test in a parallel universe of sorts, and she thinks: “The world was not what she wanted, not anywhere near it.” I loved that: trying your best to make things as you want them to be in the face of dangers and difficulties.   And then there’s time travel! I love messing with time, and there are so many great Time-travelling fics. Plus, I have to say I have a certain love for the villains...   What fandoms are you involved in other than Harry Potter? Currently, I’m not writing for any other fandoms. I read Star Wars, GoT, POTO and LOTR, and in the past I read Smallville. Though it’s more of a type of ship for me, because I only read Reylo, SanSan, Erik/ Christine, Lex/Lana and ….drum roll… the extremely small and quite oddball ship of Eowyn/ Grìma Wormtongue. If you’ve never tried the last one, go search for the fantastic stories by auri_mynonys. If you could make one change to canon, what would it be? Do you have a favourite piece of fanon? One change: duh, that’s easy, isn’t it? Severus lives. Or, maybe Dumbledore acting more rational, not keeping so many secrets. Maybe telling McGonagall that Severus is on the Order’s side… (Interviewer is laughing - ”NOT so easy”) I do write Voldemort wins AUs, but I wouldn’t want canon Voldemort to win. I prefer him to be more sane than in canon. My absolute favourite piece of fanon has to be the Black library. I thought it was canon, but it’s not. This is a thing that really, really should exist in canon! Do you listen to music when you write or do you prefer quiet? I’m very much inspired by music, and sometimes I listen as I write, but not always. Some fics are heavily inspired by music, such as ‘Absence’ and the last epilogue to ‘The Manipulation of Time and Matter’. What are your favourite fanfictions of all time? Definitely ‘Two Steps from Hell,’ by the amazing Ssserpensssotia, but that’s a Volmione. This was such a wild ride, I felt like I was on the edge of my seat, holding my breath the entire time. Those twists and turns were so unpredictable and … Well, I’m in awe. The SS/HG fandom is so massive, there’s a plethora of great stories out there. The unfinished ‘Self-Slain Gods on Strange Altars’ is a wonderful story by scumblackentropy, and I love Slytherpoufs stories, especially the wip ‘Ghosts’, but also ‘Angels to Fly’. And then there’s the one that got away - it means, I can’t find it. In this story, Severus watches the thestrals, befriending one of them, I think, but they’re unpredictable and maybe even dangerous. He’s heartbroken, and knows how it all will go down, having bitterly accepted his role. It made me cry. And then there’s the works by Aurette, and lena1987, Subversa, Kittenshift… Are you a plotter or a pantser? How does that affect your writing process? I need (strike that: want) to draft the entire story before I post, to have some idea on how it goes. That makes it easier to write, but if it’s a long story, I’m happy as long as I know the general direction. This year, I finished a story that was on an unintended hiatus for two years, and I think part of my problem on getting back into writing it up was a too vague idea for the ending.   What is your writing genre of choice? Uh. I don’t know? Basically, you could argue that I’m a porn writer, or at least it’s fuelled by sexual tension and angst. So, romance or drama, bordering on erotica might be correct. To be frank, I haven’t really thought about categories after I started posting on AO3. Which of your stories are you most proud of? Why? Hard to say. I might go with “the Manipulation of Time and Matter,” because I think it’s the best plot I’ve created. Besides, I managed to write Hermione having a relationship with both Severus and Voldemort in the same fic. My favourite “clean” SSHG would be the short story ‘Grimmauld’. Did it unfold as you imagined it or did you find the unexpected cropped up as you wrote? What did you learn from writing it? In Grimmauld, the house became a character. That was unexpected, and not something I had planned from the beginning. So the lesson would be “don’t start posting until you know what’s going to happen.” Or else, this story might have turned out very much different. I had to throw in a little made-up lore on how you set blood wards on a house too to make it sentient. That proved to be a quite chilling piece of magic.   How personal is the story to you, and do you think that made it harder or easier to write? I love old houses. Exploring abandoned houses, going inside to see what remains of furniture, tapestries and everything is so exciting. (It can also be dangerous, but that’s another matter). Such houses makes me feel .. nostalgic, plus I get those nice little shivers down your spine that is a little like a horror story. So, I wanted to use Grimmauld as a setting to explore that in a fic, to really dig into the aching loneliness of a lost house. The story came very quickly to me, so I guess that helped me.   What books or authors have influenced you? How do you think that shows in your writing? Big question there. Hmm, I think … it’s hard to say. I’m a reader, really, and I couldn’t easily pick apart any influences. Though I have to say that one of the things I enjoyed when reading ‘Two Steps From Hell’ was the attention to magic. I think it’s important to include spells, rituals and the use of magic in my fics, because that’s what sets it apart from a Muggle AU, for example. That’s an important part of the world-building.   Do people in your everyday life know you write fanfiction? My significant other knows. I didn’t tell him, but he found out for himself, probably by spying on me. When he told me, I almost couldn’t stop laughing, because he… erm, he said he had thought about reenacting a scene in my PWP ‘Twenty Points to Gryffindor’, where Severus shouts the title as he… well… you get the gist. If he had done that, I’d have had a heart attack. I would literally be dead. Instead, I laughed non stop for an hour.   How true for you is the notion of "writing for yourself"? Haha, so true. You spend all those hours in front of your laptop - and if I wasn't motivated by doing it for myself, I can’t even see how I’d force myself through all those hours. It’s fun, though. I do this because I love it.   How important is it for you to interact with your audience? How do you engage with them? Just at the point of publishing? Through social media? Very important. I'm on the publishing sites (visible interaction is why I prefer AO3 instead of FFnet) and on Facebook, mainly. I love feedback (as all authors do), and when people form theories or make comments, I get an insight into my own writing. I know how it’s going to pan out, but the audience doesn’t, and how they perceive things might be different from how I think it is. At times, it influences how I go forward, mostly because I need to add things, to explain what’s going on. What is the best advice you've received about writing? Don’t post until you know the ending, and remember: the devil on your left shoulder will be at war with the angel on the right side. Listen to the angel telling you to wait a little longer, and not to the devil chanting: ‘Post, post, post!’ In the end, of course, you’ll give in to the devil, regretting it until you’re done. What do you do when you hit writer's block? Read. Read a lot. And read some more. Has anything in real life trickled down into your writing? Certainly. I’m a foodie. For example, everything that Voldemort eats is stuff I love. His food habits are primarily mine, and I love cooking.   Do you have any stories in the works? Can you give us a teaser? It’s a short piece, maybe three or four chapters, with the title ‘Transference’. The point of departure from canon is during their time in the tent at DH. Hermione wakes up in a bed, in a room she doesn’t recognize, having no idea where she is, but she spots a large, moving picture on the drawer:  Feeling panic rising, she stared hard at the moving and smiling pictures, and her heart leapt into her throat, pulse hammering as she recognized herself in the largest picture. A slightly older Hermione, in a white wedding dress, kissing and laughing at someone who simply had to be a much younger Severus Snape. It had to be him: Long black hair, hooked nose, sallow skin - but then he looked so young, carefree and happy - expressions she had never seen on her dour Professor's face. Beside the picture, there were numerous cards, greetings and well-wishings for their wedding - the date an impossible 21 August 1982, and amongst the cards, the largest one stood out, the black ink showing an elegant handwriting: “Dear Hermione and Severus! Best wishes for your wedding, Lord Voldemort.” Any words of encouragement to other writers? Read and write, in that order. Don’t worry about trolls, because when you contribute something that you created, it makes you so much more than people spending their time just raining on anyone’s parade. You brought something new to the world, they’re just reacting to things. If someone accuses you of a self-insert, go ahead and lecture them on the intentional fallacy. I promise, you won’t regret looking it up. ;-)   And please, mind the normal physical limits when you’re writing smut. Unless you give the male a stamina potion or put him under the Imperius, it’s unlikely that his refractory period allows him to come five times in one hour. Realistic smut is so much more sexy, lol. Thanks again for speaking with us Ciule.

[thegreatdivorce]

There and back again...

This post is about a lot of things, but it’s mainly about my love for Faramir and Eowyn… and about how the book is always better than the movie. But we have to go back a lil before we can start. 

I read Lord of the Rings for the first time when I was 14 years old. It took me a long time to get through it. I think a whole year, maybe more. I had trouble for a few reasons: one, it’s a big story for a young reader, and two, my motivation was probably in the wrong place. I grew up on a healthy diet of C. S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, my dad read the Chronicles of Narnia series to me as a kid and I read The Hobbit (on my dad’s special collectors edition) not long after that, but I never made it to Lord of the Rings until the films came out. And I only really read the books then because I loved the films so much. Let me repeat that with more emphasis, I loved. these films. so. much. I could recite lines from the movies, yes, but I could also recite lines from the commentary the cast created for each extended edition. I can still recall the jokes, pranks, and memories the cast hold dear almost as if I had lived through them myself as the 10th member of the fellowship. I still call David Wenham ‘Daisy Wenham,’ and if the word ‘wig’ appears in conversation my brain immediately goes to, “your hair changes dramatically from short to long… do you wear wigs?” If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you are not a true fan of the film series. It meant so much to me when I was younger that I think I started the books as a way to stay in that world a lil longer. And I guess constantly comparing the books to a beloved film series is not the best way to read because I didn’t enjoy them as much as I thought I would. To be clear, I didn’t dislike the books, Return of the Kings marks one of the few books to make me cry (Theoden’s death got to me), but the books didn’t impact me in the same way the films did. 

Fast forward some 13 years later and something, I’m not exactly sure what, convinced me to read the books again. I have a long book list, one that I am sorely behind on, so choosing a 1000+ page saga (one that I’ve already read before) while other books are waiting to be cracked open for the first time was probably not the most productive decision I’ve made, but I regret nothing. I still own the same copy of LOTR I owned when I first read the series and man, there’s something about the smell of a book that can bring you right back to where you were when you first opened it because that’s exactly what happened when I started re-reading it. There is something nice about feeling like you’re 14 again… feeling like your whole life is ahead of you, but the only thing you have to worry about is reading this one book. 

Although the smell of the book felt the same, other things felt different. Aragorn does not struggle at all with the idea of his kingship like Viggo does in the film, Sam feels a bit more of a simpleton in the books, and Frodo seems older and wiser than the 19-year-old Elijah Wood feels in the movies. All of these things are small differences and as I was reading book one and book two, I found I still liked the movies for what they are and tried to be (although that scene where Frodo tells Sam to leave just before Shelob’s lair, that he doesn’t need him anymore, will never make sense to me), but for the most part I liked both film and book fairly evenly. But entering into book three, I realized how certain characters got the short end of the movie stick. Particularly Eowyn and Faramir. I’ll be frank, I don’t know how you would have written more of them into the story without bogging down the pacing of the rest of the movie, but that’s kind of my point, Eowyn’s story is so good she needs her own dang movie so everyone can discuss how amazing and complex she is. And Faramir too, but we’ll get to him in a moment. 

Eowyn in the movie is played wonderfully by Miranda Otto. Seriously, the casting of this series is pretty near perfect. Her part is relatively small, but they touch on all the main points of her character. She’s a fierce warrior, but she feels stuck in a cage staying at home having to care for her people and the man she considers a father all by herself, she falls for Aragorn, he doesn’t return her love, she wants to ride to war, she does so secretly, she kills the Witch-King, she receives the honor and valor she has always wanted, she marries Faramir, bada bing, bada boom, done. It’s a nice lil package, but it’s the highlight reel because there is so much more to Eowyn than that...

So to know Eowyn, we have to know the people of Rohan. Faramir does a nice job summing them up when he refers to them while talking to Sam and Frodo in The Window on the West, “If the Rohirrim are grown in some ways more like to us (the people of Gondor), enhanced in arts and gentleness, we too have become more like to them. For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valor as things good in themselves, both as a sport and an end. We esteem a warrior, nonetheless, above other crafts.” Faramir continues to talk of war “as is the need of their day,” a necessary evil, but you can tell... he’s really not into it. This is shown in a few different ways throughout the books (his relationship in contrast with his brother/father as one example), but the place it really hits home happens earlier in the same chapter when he states this zinger, “War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.” (Side note, Faramir is the best and I know everybody loves fawning over King Viggo Aragorn, but y'all are sleeping on the best man in the whole series! Faramir is where it is at. He’s far more complex than Aragorn and I will fangirl over him more later on, but we’re still on Eowyn, so I’ll continue.) So the people of Rohan are a proud, fierce, war-loving crowd. They actually sing songs as they are killing people in battle. Think “whistle while you work,” but fiercer and more insane. But Faramir is not dissing them; he is not implying they are war-hungry, or war-mongers, simply the Rohirrim believe proving themselves in battle is a right they deserve. 

Enter Eowyn. In contrast to Faramir, who seems to have a sober understanding of war and battle, Eowyn finds her worth in it. We can see this most obviously in her attraction to Aragorn. In the movie, their attraction seems to develop in a natural, innocent way. I vaguely remember Miranda Otto mentioning in some interview for the DVD special features that part of the reason why it’s so tragic that Aragorn turns Eowyn down is that he knows they would make a good match. Essentially if Aragorn hadn’t met Arwen first, Aragorn and Eowyn could be together. Honestly, with how the movie presented their relationship, yah, I get it. Except that’s not how it is in the books. Aragorn, in The Houses of Healing, looks to Eomer and says, “I say to you that she loves you more truly than me; for you she loves and knows; but in me she loves only a shadow and a thought: a hope of glory and great deeds, and lands far from the fields of Rohan.” Eowyn desires the great deeds of war, not like Faramir does: as a means to protect a people, but as a way to prove herself. Faramir seems to find an honor in all crafts and positions, but Eowyn, although protective of them, talks lowly of her own people, consistently stating she is not a “dry-nurse” or a “serving-woman” but higher above them as a member of the House of Eorl. Eowyn speaks of a hierarchy within Rohan, consistently placing herself above the other women who are care-takers or mothers. What makes this even more tragic is that it’s not entirely her fault that she has come to this thinking. Gandalf, again in The House of Healing, explains to Eomer, “Think you that Wormtongue had poison only for Theoden’s ears? ‘What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll on the floor among dogs?’ Have you not heard these words before? My lord, if your sister’s love for you, and her will still bent her duty, had not restrained her lips, you might have heard even such things as these escape them. But who knows what she spoke in the darkness, alone, in the bitter watches of the night, when all her life seemed shrinking, and the walls of her bower closing in on her, a hutch to trammel some wild thing in?” It’s tragic. And what’s worse is Eomer’s shock in thinking about his sister in this light. He never really knew her. No one did. Eowyn has always been fighting alone. Which is what makes her conclusion so satisfying... 

Eowyn rides into the Battle of Pelennor and kills the Witch-king (with the help of Merry). As I mentioned before, this is covered very well in the film, there is the great “I am no man” line which is taken from the book and although Eowyn is injured it seems she finally got her chance to defend herself in battle, like the other able-bodied men, so we’re meant to rejoice at her triumph, which I did when I saw the film. Except, again, that’s not the point in the book. Obviously, it’s great that the Witch-king is dead, but that event is the rising action leading into Eowyn’s healing, not her resolution… because Eowyn still wants to die in battle. She survived the Witch-king, she is being forced to heal her wounds in the House of Healing, but all she wants to do is die. Die as King Theoden has just done in battle (crushed by the body of his own horse) because this is the only way she can achieve the honor she feels she deserves. Because, again, Aragorn won’t give her that honor. And Faramir challenges this notion directly to Eowyn when they meet each other in the House of Healing, “You desired to have the love of the Lord Aragorn. Because he was high and puissant, and you wanted to have renown and glory and to be lifted far above the mean things of that crawled on the earth. But when he gave you only understanding and pity, then you desired to have nothing, unless a brave death in battle.” And it is only here, with Faramir, the first person to really see Eowyn and challenge her openly, does she acknowledge the truth, and her darkness (her desire for death) passes. It’s so beautiful. Eowyn exclaims, “Behold, the shadow has departed! I will be a shieldmaiden no longer, nor vie with the great Riders, nor take joy only in the songs of slaying. I will be a healer, and love all things that grow and are not barren.” And if you find a sadness or a disappointment in Eowyn’s proclamation of a life of peace than you are not paying attention to what Tolkien is putting down.  

This is important because I’ve heard this complaint before… Tolkien is not saying that it is wrong for Eowyn to participate in battle, to be a shieldmaiden, because she is a woman, (there are multiple instances in the book where Eowyn is described as a worthy warrior alongside her male companions. Hamma, may he rests in peace, nominates Eowyn as the person to manage the. whole. kingdom in place of the king when Theoden and Eomer leave for Helms Deep. So there’s that.) Tolkien is saying it is wrong to glorify battle, death, and destruction. full stop. No matter who you are. It is a point that is continually being made time and time again throughout the whole series by almost every character. And it should be no surprise coming from a man who fought in the first world war and then lived through the second. “I will not take joy only in the songs of slaying,” is really what Tolkien is trying to drive home here. Eowyn is still a warrior. Right after she accepts Faramir’s proposal and Aragorn is crowned king, Eowyn is like, “Faramir, I love you. I’m gonna marry you. But I have some important business to take care of back in Rohan with my brother, so I’m gonna leave… I’ll be back in like a month probably. Bye.” Yes, girl! That is the moment we should be applauding. Not the moment where Eowyn kills the Witch-king, but the moment where Eowyn realizes herself as a warrior but also a healer and there being a time and honor in both of those crafts if they have a proper foundation. It’s the moment when Eowyn finally sees and knows herself. And you know what Faramir says in response to Eowyn’s leaving? Nothing. He lets her go to do her thing because he is the best and I love him.

On to Faramir!

Ok. So. I’ll be brief here. Or I’ll try to be. One, because I think I’ve already shown a fair amount of Faramir’s great qualities, but also because I think his character in the film shows a stronger resemblance to the book than Eowyn’s. If we can all ignore that scene where Faramir drags Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath (because that never happens *eye roll*), and focus on the dialogue dealing with his dad, we’re getting pretty faithful Faramir content as pretty much all of the Faramir - Denethor dialogue is taken directly from the book, and it’s all golden. And when I say golden, I mean deadly. The, “‘Since you were robbed of Boromir, I will do what I can in his stead. If I should return, think better of me, Father.’ - ‘That will depend on the manner of your return.’” exchange between Faramir and Denethor is brutal. To say that Faramir has daddy issues is an understatement. But that brings us up to an important point. Faramir is just as broken as Eowyn is and their meeting is not so much so Faramir can save Eowyn but for them to find healing in each other. 

Faramir’s dad is insane. Literally. By the end of the book, Denethor loses his mind and tries to kill both him and his son by burning them alive. Faramir is not fully aware his dad is trying to kill him because by the time Denethor is building a funeral pyre, Faramir is slipping in and out of consciousness due to his battle wounds (to clarify, Denethor thinks his son is already dead, which is why he wants to share the funeral pyre with him. It doesn’t make it better, but it’s the facts). So the last thing Faramir hears, in full conscience, is that his dad wishes that he had died in his brother’s place and the only way he can prove his worth is sustaining victory in battle. Which he knows he cannot do. So Faramir goes to battle, is injured, and ultimately wants to die. Sound familiar? But he doesn’t. Aragorn calls him back to health in the House of Healing and he meets Eowyn. 

Faramir likes Eowyn from the moment they meet but can see she is struggling and doesn’t know the exact cause of her pain. So he talks to the best wingman in Middle Earth, Merry, and puts all the details together that Eowyn is still pretty hung up on Aragorn, and for all the wrong reasons. Faramir decides to gently pursue Eowyn which, if you think about it, is quite the courageous thing to do considering Faramir’s past. Faramir’s whole life consists of being left behind, the man that is not chosen. As we established above, his own father chose and loved his brother, Boromir, over him. Boromir was chosen to join the Fellowship of the Ring, not Faramir. It’s even in his job description to be picked over. Faramir is a Steward of Gondor, he’s to hold court until the proper king appears and then literally step out of the way. Here is another area where potentially someone is going to choose someone else in place of him. Faramir questions Eowyn about her love for Aragorn asking, “[I’m assuming] you cannot choose between us. Eowyn, do you not love me, or will you not?” Ugh, tragic. She admits, “I wished to be loved by another, but I desire no man’s pity.” Faramir clarifies, “I do not offer you my pity. For you are a lady high and valiant and you yourself won renown that shall not be forgotten; and you are a lady beautiful, I deem, beyond even the words of the Elven-tongue to tell. And I love you. Once I pitied your sorrow. But now, were you sorrowless, without fear, or any lack, were you the blissful Queen of Gondor, still I would love you. Eowyn, do you not love me?” 

It’s actually nerve-wracking when you leave out Eowyn’s response to this question; to know Faramir is asking someone he loves dearly for love in return, something he was rarely afforded in his life, especially in the beautiful way in which he asked it. He sees Eowyn for who she truly is, someone even she doesn’t fully recognize yet, and who she can be: a valiant queen. And not just any queen, Faramir says the Queen of Gondor, Aragorn’s wife. Faramir basically admits, “I know there’s a chance you could still be with Aragorn, but even if you did, I would still love you regardless.” It’s so courageous and beautiful, and in a lot of ways, the ultimate test to see if Faramir has really healed over the wounds his father has left. The wounds of being left unchosen. But Eowyn does choose, she chooses to be with him, and they ultimately provide healing and understanding to each other. 

And that’s all left unsaid in the films. None of it is really in there which is such a bummer because it’s so good. And this whole story has been waiting for me to re-discover it on my shelf for the past 13 years and I’ve finally made my way back. Can’t believe I almost missed it.

Anyhow, thank you for coming to my TED Talk on why Faramir and Eowyn are the best and why reading books is cool. 

I probably could write more, but I’ve taken a brief break in reading the dang book to write this essay and I still have a few more chapters to go to finish the whole thing. 

Good day.

[remington-zero]

Your costume and outfit design is always so incredible. Do you use any references when designing them (such as an insp blog) or is it just pure creativity?

hi anon! thank you for the compliment

i do use references as a starting point in the actual design itself, and rely on a knowledge base; i follow a bunch of fashion blogs (i’ll put up a list when i have the time) and absorbed a lot from concept art books, what other media gets reblogged onto my dashboard, and the artists i follow

a lot of design hangs on what effect/look you want or what you think is necessary for the character/their role in any plot, but once you have that it’s really important to go look at refs and use it to give believability to your design while incorporating what you like personally + what you liked from other designs you’ve consumed from other media

example:

i wanted to give my d2 exo warlock an elegant, 19th century aristocrat kind of aesthetic to fit in with the huntsman theme/their hound

since the design had to be at least somewhat athletic, i decided to look at riding outfits; i liked how they looked from watching the occasional horse show, and they have an association of ‘fancy’ with me from the agatha christie books i used to read, and overall they look pretty sharp

i googled riding outfits from different time periods and chose one i liked, then structured the general outfit from that (long boots, pants, that weird short jacket)

i needed the design to be Extra because of who the character is, so i decided to incorporate some gothic cathedral looks for the armour (which is a relatively short leap from 19th century europe) and then ringwraiths from lotr/the general spiky fantasy aesthetic (which is a relatively short leap from gothic cathedrals)

i settled on colours and detailing based on the general aesthetic i built from my references, and since i wasn’t going for any aesthetics clash in the outfit itself i used relatively dark harmless colours (black, burgundy, brown, gold)

there’s usually a lot of research involved especially in designing a fandom oc, because you have to look at the existing visual language and adjust your oc to fit (e.g. overwatch and destiny are different flavours of futuristic armour that rely on different shapes and structure/layering to communicate different things)

basically it’s best to look at what already exists and use it to communicate your design to your viewer. a shirt is a shirt and only has so many variations in structure/shape, but the way you drape it, whether you add a print or physical extras like beading/etc., where the seams are/aren’t and what materials it uses will affect what effect it creates by affecting how it plays against what the viewer is willing to accept as a shirt/their suspension of belief. and you’re not limited to just clothes for this either! you can look at architecture, you can look at shoes and bags and other non-clothing fashion items, you can look at nature, you can look at household objects, etc.

[sheikah]

i know people are saying the ending will be bittersweet and what that could mean, but I think it will end with jon, dany, and their heir ruling over a new form of the 7 kingdoms (breaking the wheel). As for the bitter part, I think perhaps all of the dragons die, but right at the end we see more eggs, signaling that they will live on in the future

I agree with most of this! I think that most of us in the fandom are programmed to expect the worst ever since book/season 3 because of the Red Wedding. That’s why there are so many doom and gloom theories about the ending. 

That being said, I do understand why so many people readily assume Jon, Dany, or both will die. I don’t think both will, but I would not be a bit surprised if one of them does. But the more I think about it, the more I’m starting to think they might both make it out alive. 

After reflecting more about LOTR (which GRRM frequently compares his work to) and GRRM’s assertion that he thinks readers will find his ending to be just as happy as it is bitter

“I’m not going to tell you how I’m going to end my book, but I suspect the overall flavor is going to be as much bittersweet as it is happy.”

(Source)

I feel that we can reasonably expect Jon and Dany’s survival. I think that because if we connect it back to LOTR, the principle characters in that series do live, even if it’s not all happy. GRRM had this to say about it: 

“It’s no secret that Tolkien has been a huge influence on me, and I love the way he ended ’Lord of the Rings.’ It ends with victory, but it’s a bittersweet victory. Frodo is never whole again, and he goes away to the Undying Lands, and the other people live their lives. And the scouring of the Shire —brilliant piece of work, which I didn’t understand when I was 13 years old: ’Why is this here? The story’s over?’ But every time I read it I understand the brilliance of that segment more and more. All I can say is that’s the kind of tone I will be aiming for. Whether I achieve it or not, that will be up to people like you and my readers to judge.”

(Source)

And so even though the overall tone of GOT/ASOIAF has been a bit pessimistic, and even though the the book and the show (until season 6, anyway) have been basically a practice in overthrowing expected tropes and “happy endings” for character arcs, I think we can see all of that having been an exercise in preparing the characters for their final trials. And I think that in the end, they can overcome that and be allowed to live, even if not altogether “happily.”

After all, ASOIAF is his life’s work. Who wants to spend all of this time and energy writing a series that ends tragically, even after years of tragedy? What would be the point? The theme? The message? The takeaway? If all of our heroes die, what is the reader to take from ASOIAF? 

Because if we look at other “everybody dies” narratives, there’s a clear reason why. Hamlet, for example, has a pretty unsatisfying ending in that all of its main characters die. Horribly. But we can trace the reason why for all of these characters. Hamlet himself suffered from indecision and inaction. Ophelia ignored her brother’s advice and got too swept up in romance with the unavailable Hamlet. Gertrude fell for her husband’s brother and murderer, betraying his memory. Laertes was a hypocrite–engaging in reportedly raucous and disreputable behavior in France yet trying to control his sister’s life and scold her for being potentially reckless by pursuing Hamlet. 

So it was sad when all of these characters died but we could take lessons from how they acted.

Same with other Shakespearean tragedies. In Macbeth, the title character and Lady Macbeth die because of their “vaulting ambition” to overthrow the king, stepping out of the sacred social hierarchy and trying to seize rather than inherit royalty. And Macbeth himself also paid the price for trusting in the fickle nature of prophecy by misinterpreting the words of the Weird Sisters and believing that he would be safe from traitors. 

Now let’s look at ASOIAF. Many of the characters who have died, died for arbitrary reasons. We can’t always easily trace a cause like we could with other tragedies. It’s easy to write Ned off as “too honorable” as I see many people do. But ultimately he was willing to sully his own honor in order to protect Sansa. He still died even when he sacrificed his ideals, abandoned the “right thing” of opposing Joffrey. There isn’t an easy solution to his death. 

Margaery also did everything right. She was a master of manipulating the men around her to protect herself and her family, all the while elevating the Tyrell family name. But still she was murdered. 

Deaths like Robb’s, Catelyn’s, and Oberyn’s can easily be traced to a character flaw. But that’s not the case for all of the big ASOIAF deaths. And it wouldn’t be the case if our remaining heroes were to die in the war.

Even Jon, who is constantly at the heart of the love vs duty conflict, should at this point be allowed to survive the series. He chose duty over love, chose the Watch over Ygritte. He was loyal to his men and his responsibility even when they weren’t loyal to him. He still died. 

So if characters like Jon or Dany, who have made mistakes in their arcs already and already paid the price were to die in the end, what is the point? What is Martin really trying to say about the human experience or human nature or war?

I think the characters need to live, even if things go wrong, that way at least there has been a point to all the suffering. This is especially true when we look at LOTR as a comparison piece. 

Sam’s famous speech comes to mind: 

“It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end… because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing… this shadow. Even darkness must pass.”

The same has got to be true in Planetos. I have to believe that. And I think Martin does, too. So that his story can show that even in the worst of times–like the times our world is facing now, for example–humanity can find it in themselves to persevere. Martin even said recently that the White Walkers are like a metaphor for climate change. This makes sense considering the wonky seasons in Planetos. So if that’s true, then we know that modern, topical issues and themes are part of this story. And what would be the point of suggesting that humanity will succumb and fail at combating climate change? Why suggest that we would fail at or die in the process of overthrowing despotic rulers? Why write a story that doesn’t teach or encourage its readers?

Even with the negative tone throughout, I don’t believe GOT or ASOIAF are nihilistic. I think we can expect a more positive ending. This quote says it better than I could:

“Needless to say, it doesn’t really make much sense with what we’ve seen so far that the ending of A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones would echo Lord of the Rings’ relatively happy conclusion. Though it could be the case that Martin has been saving up years and years of pain and misery for a grand turnaround that does indeed lead to a somewhat uplifting ending.

All the years of pain and suffering may indeed be building to some enormous payoff. Jon Snow will likely survive his own death and live to become Azor Ahai reborn, as the prophecy foretells. Dany will find her dragon-riding support staff. Arya will become the most badass assassin in the realm. Even if (when) more beloved characters die, at least a few should survive until the end (smart money says Tyrion will go the distance), and perhaps the realm won’t be completely frozen and shattered when the last page of the series is turned.”

(Source)

So, yeah–I think we’ll have plenty of sweet to combat what was already a very bitter story so far. However, I don’t think we will see more dragon eggs. 

Magic going out of the world was a theme in LOTR and I think it’s a theme in ASOIAF too. The Children of the Forest have now died out. Until recently, everyone in the realm believed that the White Walkers/Others were already gone. They believed dragons were gone. And the supposed abilities of people like Melisandre and Thoros are met with suspicion and skepticism/doubt. 

So I think that magic has only really returned as a way to balance the fight and help humanity face the Long Night. That’s the only reason why. And once they’ve had the Battle for the Dawn, the dragons will likely be the price paid for peace.

[avelera]

Avelera’s epic “Why I Love Boromir” post aka

Boromir. So much more than a meme. 

Agarlandoffreshlycuttears asked me to talk about my love of Boromir since I have a few Aragorn hate posts out there and boy does this topic of discussion take me back. 

(For the record, a lot of my earliest opinions of Boromir was formed as an impressionable 14 year old experiencing her first head-over-heels male crush (I mean seriously, look at this guy:

) but people aware of my love of Thorin have probably noticed I tend to have a thing for complicated characters who experience a fall from grace. I find them much more interesting than characters who never need to struggle with morality or see a serious risk to their soul. I don’t hate Aragorn as such, but I have a lot of issues with the way his character was handled, so I hope the negative stuff comes across as more tongue-in-cheek and critique-oriented rather than bashing.)

So let’s begin from the beginning with some very Nuanced and Intellectual™ reasons to love Boromir.

- In Rivendell, Boromir first shows us how awesome he is by riding in on a horse like a goddamn Disney prince *swoon* 

(damn-you-why-can’t-i-find-a-gif-of-this.jpeg)

With that out of the way, let’s list his many virtues:

Boromir is practical. 

During the Council he proceeds to bring up some rather valid points about the risk of the whole “the Hobbits are bringing the One Ring to Mordor” thing. We, as viewers, know they’re the main characters so the hobbits will probably succeed. But from an objective viewer within the Middle Earth universe, this plan to destroy the Ring is batshit crazy from the outset and it only gets worse when we decide hobbits are the ones to do it. We’re literally going to take some of the weakest, smallest, least experienced creatures no one has ever heard of in the world, give them a super weapon, then have them go with an honor guard of 5 effective fighters (including Gandalf who has been known to fuck off at random intervals when escorting hobbits on dangerous quests) to the only place in the world where, if the Ring goes there, Sauron wins. Game over. He gets his lich-y phylactery back and gets super powered like it’s goddamn Mario Star Power. Everyone dies. Boromir’s people in Gondor (and Aragorn’s people, if he ever gets around to it) will die first. Horribly.

But, y’know, the power of love and friendship will somehow win the day so once literally 4 guys decide that this admittedly horrendous plan is the only one they’ve got, Boromir gamely comes along. He can’t even pledge his sword because Aragorn took that line already, thanks Aragorn. 

Why not just take my kingdom I’ve been training to rule my whole life while you’re at it. OH WAIT.

Boromir is kind. 

As the Fellowship cross Middle Earth, climb the mountain, the shots of Beautiful New Zealand are endless, we get the freakin adorable scene of Boromir training Merry and Pippin to fight (thanks for nothing Aragorn, I guess giving them swords was as far as you thought out how helpless these guys are). If this smile doesn’t melt your heart I’m not sure we can be friends anymore. 

But seriously, everything about the friendship of Boromir with Merry and Pippin gives me happy smiley tears.

Boromir is human. 

They climb some more mountains, Boromir has one of the most freaking amazing scenes in the whole movie where he picks up the Ring and is clearly hypnotized by it, illustrating its danger and the danger he poses to the Quest as a result. 

I’m going to leap ahead here and say why I love this scene, and that’s because Boromir actually faces the threat of the Ring, unlike Aragorn. We do have a moment between Aragorn and the Ring later when Frodo (recently traumatized by Boromir’s freak out) asks Aragorn if he can protect Frodo from himself. The fear of being like his 2,000-years-dead ancestor flashing in his eyes, Aragorn sends Frodo along (to almost certain death). 

But the thing is, the Ring was never really a threat to Aragorn, we never really got a scene of him struggling with it at all. It’s what makes his “fear of being like Isildur” so baffling and annoying. At no point does Aragorn actually struggle with that risk. Unlike Thorin (and I’m gonna have to Thorin-stan here for a moment because my love of Thorin is intimately tied into my love of Boromir) who fears the hereditary madness of his family for good reason because he does succumb to it and then break free, Aragorn’s fear comes across as whiney (and even carrying borderline internalized hatred of Men given to him by movie Elrond) given its lack of justification within the films. Told to us as Aragorn’s main emotional motivation and fear, besides that of annihilation if the Ring isn’t destroyed, it ends up being extremely weak that he supposedly fears this ancestral corruption which never has any tangible impact or risk to him. Frankly, the only time it really comes up that Aragorn is related to Isildur are both times pretty freakin’ awesome for him because they involve raising a ghost army to Deus Ex Pulverize Sauron’s forces and becoming king of a frickin’ wedding cake of a multi-tiered beautiful city that Boromir had to talk him into liking in the first place.

*Ahem*

But anyway, that scene on the mountain is super creepy and gorgeous and I love it. 

Boromir is hilarious.

Boromir is empathetic. 

Boromir is the one who spots the trauma that the Fellowship has just gone through by losing Gandalf (and Gimili is no doubt still reeling from the revelation of his family members’ deaths in Moria) and calls for a quick rest now that they’re out of the mines. If I hadn’t already been in love him from the training scene with Merry and Pippin, I probably would have fallen even harder at that scene. He’s empathetic in a way a good leader should be. While Aragorn’s point is valid about the arrival of the orcs and their lack of time, he comes across as kind of a dick about it and I can’t help but be uncharitable in my view of him as a result. It feels like the threat of the orc’s pursuit is set up just to make Aragorn right and Boromir wrong, since without that threat Aragorn would very clearly be the bad guy in that scene. Would 5 minutes have really made that much of a difference?

Boromir loves his people. 

Probably THE moment that won me over about Boromir was the moment in Lothlorien when he gives his worshipful account of Gondor to Aragorn.  In the extended edition the scene continues to one where he chastises Aragorn for not showing more interest in Gondor. 

(Also, look at him in that scene, GAWD)

I think this pinged me at a young age for several reasons. 

- First, a love of the wider “off screen” world. LotR is a sprawling book, but a film can’t always show what’s going on outside the narrator’s view. Through Boromir in this scene and several others, we get a sense of what our characters are fighting for. It would have been easy for the stakes of LotR to remain the lives of the Fellowship members, certainly they are the ones in the most immediate peril. But Boromir’s speech reminds us of the wider world and the threat it faces, the nations that will fall and the lives that will be ruined if Sauron wins. It re-frames his reasons for wanting to use the Ring - he feared the argument against using it was just a matter of moral purity, at the risk of Gondor falling and with it that everyone he knows and loves will die. 

Can Boromir truly be blamed for not understanding the threat of the Ring? I think even the most ardent fans are sometimes puzzled over exactly what the Ring does, and what it would do should it fall into the wrong hands. Throughout a story based around the threat of the Ring, the Ring itself and its powers remain strangely abstract. So I don’t think Boromir’s view of the debate as an unconvincing one between the very tangible threat of lives lost vs. the more abstract risk of moral corruption that even Elrond and Gandalf never clearly express is understandable. We as the audience have greater perspective on the threat of the Ring, and by the end Boromir understands that threat too, how at the very least the Ring will turn friend against friend in the pursuit of its power, and he fully repents. 

- Second, Boromir’s love for his people highlighted Aragorn’s failing, which lead me to the heart of much of my dislike of Aragorn’s character. As someone who read the books before seeing the movie, I was rather annoyed by the whole “reluctant king” trope that was shoved onto Aragorn for a modern audience. It is a rather cliche moral imposed by PJ that we see throughout his Tolkien works, that those who want to be king will be necessity be bad kings, and that tropes annoys the fuck out of me throughout fantasy in general. 

(Certainly there is the risk of the power-mad, but I think that puts us at risk of one of our current issues, the paradox that those who want power in order to good are therefore under suspicion and those with greater experience at governing are seen as a threat so we should only allow the incompetent BUT ANYWAY)

Aragorn in the books wanted to be king. He worked hard to be worthy of the people of Gondor by serving in various militaries such as Rohan’s throughout his younger days. He wanted to be king in part to be worthy of Arwen, but also because he loved the people of Gondor. His avoidance of the throne was about building up the necessary skills to be worthy of it. By throwing out that aspect of his character, and replacing it with a nebulous fear of being like Isildur, an ancestor that died two thousand years ago (which is like someone fearing they’ll be just like their ancestor, Julius Caesar, or Elizabeth II fearing she’ll be just like Henry VIII if we want to take Numenorean life spans into account by which I mean completely batshit crazy example of a fear BUT ANYWAY). This alteration to Aragorn wreaked quite a number of consequences. 

For example, it kinda makes his attitude towards Arwen seem kinda shitty because instead of working hard to be worthy of her he’s kinda just a smelly ranger who is actively avoiding his responsibilities in order to traipse around the wild and serve in random militaries like Rohan for funsies and while I respect Arwen’s choice to love whoever she wishes, it kinda makes Aragorn the deadbeat in that relationship.

But the major consequence of reluctant king Aragorn is that, yeah, I kinda gotta agree with Boromir - his lack of interest in the people of Gondor is really troubling. It wouldn’t be hard to see Aragorn as someone who prefers the elves (who raised him) and generally from his actions and his words sees Men as a lesser people. That’s not someone I would want as my king, quite frankly, if I were a Gondorian. 

In addition, we have the fact that Boromir’s family the Stewards have been ruling Gondor for centuries. It would literally be like the aforementioned descendant of Julius Caesar showing up in Rome today and saying they have an ancestral right to rule there, ie it’s batshit crazy but we’re living in a fantasy world SO ANYWAY. Boromir (and Faramir) have more experience and arguably a better claim that Aragorn in the films. Denethor was a good ruler until he got his hands on a Palantir, but even if Denethor is now a poor ruler, I still have a lot of sympathy for him because this was done to him by evil forces beyond his control (in parallel to what happened to Gollum and to Bilbo and Frodo through the One Ring. Literally. The Palantir and the One Ring are both connected to Sauron who is actively corrupting them. So anyway, all the Denethor hate makes me sad and I’m probably the only person in the whole fandom who actually has a soft spot for him.)

So to recap, that conversation in Lothlorien to me showed that Boromir 1) cares about a wider world than the Fellowship, and that the Fellowship isn’t the only thing going on. 2) That he’s a pretty damn good leader who cares about his people, in contrast with Aragorn. Even if we accept that “Learning to love the people of Gondor” was part of Aragorn’s character arc, and Boromir’s fridging death demonstrably pushed him in the direction of “learning to love the people that he’s “destined” to rule” can I just point out Holy SHIT Aragorn why do you need your friend DYING to figure out why maybe you should care about the people you’re supposed to rule????

But back to Lothlorien: Boromir feels the increasing presence of the Ring. He is shamed by Galadriel’s scrutiny, she scares the shit out of everyone, particularly him but the reason she so quickly identifies the threat Boromir poses is because she feels that threat as well. Both Galadriel and Boromir share the quality of protectors of their people who have a Ring freakout in front of Frodo (though Boromir gets a lot more flak for it than Galadriel). 

I don’t think that point can be overstated. Boromir’s vulnerability to the Ring comes from his love of his people, not from personal ambition or love of power, except in how that power can protect others. It’s one of the evils of the Ring that it takes that which is good in people and twists it to evil purposes. (One could even argue that the Ring did this to Frodo as well, using his love and protectiveness of the Shire to make inroads into his mind and heart, when as a result of agreeing to carry it to Rivendell to get it out of the Shire he ended up being that much more exposed to it.)

Boromir is remorseful.

To be honest, the scene of Boromir succumbing to the Ring’s call is one of the greatest emotional beats in the films. I don’t feel any need to defend Boromir’s actions, they’re obviously terrible there, but godDAMN do they drive home the threat of the Ring. And here’s the thing, that threat wouldn’t be nearly so scary if it didn’t happen to such a demonstrably good person who clearly cared so much about the hobbits that he was willing to die for them. Even without his guilt over his attack on Frodo, you know he still would have gladly died saving Merry and Pippin’s lives.

Let’s not even go into how fucking heartbreaking everything about his death is because I might burst into tears right here. Suffice to say, Boromir’s death was heroic. He didn’t need to die to redeem himself, he deserved to live, that argument in general is stupid. His death is tragic because of what a great person he was, and the Ring is terrible because of what it did to such a great person.

Boromir was a hero.

We do get that one shining, gorgeous moment in The Two Towers EE with the retrospective on Boromir. Standing by his brother, surrounded by his men, we get a glimpse of the leader he was before he faced the corruption and deprivation of the quest. For all that Boromir is often used as an example of the corruptibility of Men in the narrative, it is clear that he was always a hero, and that the reason the threat is so fearsome is because of the heights he fell from in his moment of doubt, and how brief that fall was speaks to the strength of his will. 

Boromir for me into the category of fascinating Tolkien characters who truly struggle with evil. Frodo, Bilbo, Thorin, Galadriel, Theoden, Denethor, and Boromir all go head to head with the corrupting powers of Sauron (and Sauron-like forces) and risk losing their soul to them. Some fail. Some do terrible things while they’re fighting off that influence. But for them the risk is real, what will happen if they don’t throw the influence off is clear, and the avenue into their hearts is often their love of their people and those dear to them in life. That makes them complex, interesting characters. It’s the reason I find Aragorn’s flirtation with corruption to be unconvincing, because he never seems truly at risk and there was never a real moment where it seemed he might give in or what the consequences would be if he did. By contrast Boromir did show us the risks. He was complex, he showed us the world beyond the narrow scope of the nine members of the Fellowship, he showed us what was at stake both on a global scale and on a personal one. As a result, he was one of the most fascinating characters in the film trilogy and I love him to this day. 

Some Boromir fic recs, if you made it this far 

(Both are non-shippy/Gen because the only person I ever wanted to ship Boromir with was me, and goddamn the LotR fandom had some great gen fics)

Boromir’s Return, by Osheen Nevoy - in which Boromir returns to life and must struggle with his own redemption, and the strange creature that resurrected him (not a Mary Sue), one of the most complex and well-written fanfics I’ve ever read.

Veiling of the Sun, by @thegraytigress​ - Boromir succumbs to the Ring for more than a few moments, joining forces with the orcs sent to collect Frodo, and everything that can go wrong does go wrong. He eventually wakes from the haze to see with horror what he has done, and must set out on the road of his own redemption while the Fellowship tries to put back together the broken pieces of a quest gone horribly wrong. Heart-wrenching, one of the greatest LotR angst fics I ever read. 

And the greatest gif ever made:

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

@ainedubh​ asked:

Regarding your tags on the Lady Stark interiority / Tolkien thing, I feel like if Tolkien was ASKED about Bard or Thranduil's wives he would absolutely want to talk about them. "Oh, these are their names, and they mean this, and this is their entire ancestral line, and they met like this and their courtship went like this and..." Like, he wanted every detail fleshed out, and would never blow off a fan asking for them, even if he had to make it up then and there.

Hey, @ainedubh​! @joannalannister​’s a little overwhelmed with asks at the moment, and as your question was in reference to the tags she wrote in reply to my post and tags about Tolkien and female representation, she forwarded it on to me, hope you don’t mind! Note, she also deleted that post (because she reblogged another one with a further reply), so I can’t recall exactly what they said, but IIRC in reply to my tags:

#jrr tolkien #may have an awful proportion of female characters but every single one of them has interiority #that grrm is a tolkien fan makes me facepalm every time i read that interview

she wrote something wondering about Bard’s dead wife and Thranduil’s dead wife, both of whom are non-existent (except for Thranduil’s being used as a manpain plot device in the Hobbit movies), and are something she’s groused about before in reference to the Dead Ladies Club.

Now, I pretty much agree with you regarding Tolkien probably responding with lots of details if anyone asked. (I haven’t read most of his letters, but they’re quite educational and entertaining.) But the thing is, well, the problem of the missing wives is really a movie problem, not a book problem? That is to say, it’s a function of Peter Jackson’s adaptation, rather than a problem innate in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit (except for certain elements I’ll get to in a moment).

See, in The Hobbit (the book), Bard isn’t a father, and neither is the Elvenking. (Who isn’t named Thranduil in the book; he’s not given a name or history at all.) Oh, we learn in LOTR that they are fathers, sure, because Brand son of Bain son of Bard is said to be ruling Dale, and Legolas son of Thranduil is a messenger to Elrond (and of course becomes a major character in the trilogy). But in The Hobbit, these men are barely sketched out. They have no known family, no known children, no known wives... and that’s pretty typical of almost all the non-central characters of the book. They exist to play roles, they have a certain amount of characterization and interiority, there are sometimes brief references to ancient history, but other than that they’re barely people, they’re just kind of there.

Elrond, for example, hosts the dwarves and finds the moon-letters on the map; but he has no children (Elladan and Elrohir and Arwen), he has no wife (Celebrian, who went to Valinor for solace), he has no parents (Earendil and Elwing), he has no in-laws (Galadriel and Celeborn) -- he just is, merely Elrond master of Rivendell, “noble and fair and wise”, who “comes into many tales”, but only has a small part in Bilbo’s. And that’s because, (a) The Hobbit is a children’s book, with a first-person narrator telling the story, far less complex and developed than the later Lord of the Rings, and (b) The Hobbit was written fairly early on in Tolkien’s works, before he’d even created most of Middle Earth and its characters. (And the information Tolkien had developed already, he wisely left out of The Hobbit for simplicity’s sake, except for the occasional tantalizing reference to the legendarium here and there.)

So it was with Bard and the Elvenking in the book. Bard is a “grim-voiced” descendant of the last king of Dale, he doesn’t think the dwarves’ adventure will bring gold to Laketown, he can understand the speech of thrushes, he has a lucky black arrow that he uses to slay Smaug, he helps lead the people of Laketown after its destruction and during the Battle of Five Armies, and becomes king of the rebuilt Dale at the end. That’s it. The king of the elves of northern Mirkwood hosts feasts in the forest, gets ticked off when the dwarves keep flailing into them (because they’re lost and starving) and disturb the giant spiders, gets further annoyed when the captured dwarves won’t explain what their mission is, has another feast during which Bilbo helps the dwarves escape, helps the people of Laketown after its destruction, loves jewels and has an old grudge against dwarves (not the dwarves of Erebor, probably related to the Elf-Dwarf enmity of the First Age), leads the Elves in the Battle of Five Armies, etc. But both these men are just simple characters, with no connection to any other characters other than being a member of a race and their leadership, they have no families, barely any background.

However, because Peter Jackson’s adaptation of the Hobbit became three movies, putting a 300-page kids’ book on the same epic level of the 1200-page LOTR, the simplicity of those characters was no longer enough. Legolas becomes a major character in the story, as does Thranduil, and their relationship is prominent. Thranduil gains a deeply personal motivation for his enmity with Thorin’s people and his desire for the Arkenstone (he contracted a necklace from Thorin’s grandfather for his wife, and was cheated out of it), a reason to keep Legolas out of the fighting (his wife was kidnapped by orcs and tortured to death), an angsty thing about love, and much more. Thus the fact that his wife isn’t even named makes her very much a Dead Mother trope and Dead Ladies Club member (LOTR edition). Bard’s example is much less egregious -- however, he too was far more developed with a much greater heroic role, and given three children who also play roles in the story (the daughters are wholly inventions of the movies, as is the son’s personality and actions), and a prominently nonexistent dead unnamed wife. 

So to be quite honest, these Dead Ladies of the Hobbit movies are Peter Jackson’s fault, not Tolkien’s. (Or Guillermo del Toro, or whoever wrote those parts of the scripts, but I’m going to assume PJ.) Yes, it is Tolkien’s fault that by LOTR Legolas is introduced and we know that he’s the son of Thranduil son of Oropher but his mother isn’t mentioned at all -- but hell, if PJ could invent Tauriel, could invent so much about movie-Thranduil (elk riding! dragonfire burns on his face that he hides by magic!), the fact that he made Thranduil’s wife a huge part of his backstory but didn’t bother giving her a name... that’s all on him, sorry. As for Bard’s son Bain, he’s only mentioned in LOTR because humans aren’t as long-lived as dwarves and hobbits and therefore the king of Dale by that point had to be Bard’s grandson, and Brand barely exists but to be in Gimli’s reports that the Black Riders had asked him questions, and to fall in battle in the northern front of the War of the Ring. (Alongside Dain; and that story is only briefly mentioned in the ROTK appendix.) That is to say, yes Tolkien didn’t create Bard’s wife either, but lbr he barely created her son. The fact that in the Hobbit movies Bard’s a widower with 3 kids with no mention of his wife’s personality or name or what happened to her is, again, all on Peter Jackson.

Now, I’m not excusing Tolkien for his severe lack of female characters, especially in the Hobbit. (I think Tauriel’s a great addition to the movies, and only wish they’d gone further with more.) But to reiterate, when Tolkien does have female characters, they all get stories, or close to it in the case of very minor background characters. In the Hobbit consider the “remarkable” Belladonna Took, Bilbo’s mother (who should have been developed in the movies more since they were adding so much already I’m just saying). In LOTR, besides Gilraen, even dead mothers such as Finduilas, Theodwyn, and Morwen get personality sketches. And the Silm goes much much further with women, there’s a huge variety there, minor and major.

Aaaanyway, yes. I do think that if asked, Tolkien would have given tons of details about Legolas’s mother, her history and lineage. (And whether she was still living at the time of the Hobbit and LOTR -- I very much doubt that whole captured by orcs thing would have been part of it, as that’s pretty much a copy of poor Celebrian’s story.) Maybe not so much detail in the case of Bard’s wife (I’d imagine she was also a descendant of the men of Dale), but probably a name at least. But I really don’t think that Tolkien would have ever done the GRRM sort of answer of “Lady Stark. She died.”, or a “I don’t know, probably dead by that time” (re Sandor’s mother’s whereabouts at his burning).

Ah, if only Tolkien had done that 1960s rewrite of The Hobbit (to bring it more in line with the style of LOTR) and not abandoned it...

[evilelitest2]

Debunking Stupid Christopher Hitchen’s Quote

     I don’t think this is going to be like a reoccuring thing, but may be every so often I should take a statement made by somebody and just delve into how wrong it is.  Today’s offering comes from @datablossom in defense of Christopher Hitchens.  Only context you need, I was saying that reductionist views towards your opposition leads to extremely stupid decision making, like Christoper self describing himself as a single issue voter in regards to the War on Terror and how dumb it is, and this quote is suppose to debunk my claim.  Now for a bit of context. Christopher Hitchens was an atheist Philosphy of the “New Atheist” movement, one of the supposed Four Horsemen, and cards on the table I just can’t stand the New Atheist philosophy at all, I find it trite, smug, and extremely intellectually vapid, its Voltaire without the humor. But beyond that, I find it very much like the Free Speech Warriors, where they start out as a group using questionable methods to oppose an actual right wing evil force (The Religious Right and the Fox News culture Warriors) only to immediately ally with those exact same people and support their world view in a moment’s notices.  Its like a LOTRS thing, they use the methods of the Enemy and almost instantly become the enemy.  Cause remember, Christophen Hitchen started out as an opponent to Fundamentalist Christianity, and then once you introduce Islam into the mix, he quickly winds up supporting those same people 

So here is the quote, as well as the commentary of @datablossom which will be marked in Italics 

Here’s Hitchens’ actual words, not some truncated quote that explains nothing, it’ll just boil my guts if I don’t bring them to the forefront:

“There is a widespread view that the war against jihadism and totalitarianism involves only differences of emphasis. In other words, one might object to the intervention in Iraq on the grounds that it drew resources away from Afghanistan - you know the argument. It’s important to understand that this apparent agreement does not cover or include everybody. A very large element of the Left and of the isolationist Right is openly sympathetic to the other side in this war, and wants it to win. This was made very plain by the leadership of the “anti-war” movement, and also by Michael Moore when he shamefully compared the Iraqi fascist “insurgency” to the American Founding Fathers.”

Ok right off the back, we have Hitchens utterly failing at his supposed goal to be rational and engaging in the type of hyperbole simplistic thinking that he himself smugly mocks in his other books (I had the misfortune of raeding Hitch 22.  Lets break this down 

1) Ok so firstly, Hitchen is doing a really classically stupid thing of buying into simplistic black and white paradigm created by the duplicity  and believed by their ignorant, because in case you haven't noticed, the War on Terror isn’t a war with a single force.  Jihadists and Totalitarianism aren’t like...singular things.  Hell they are actually two very different entities and it is really evident that Hitchens hasn’t read Arendt.  The War on Terror isn’t with a singular opponent, that is why it is such a clusterfuck.  Here let me use an example of a normal war as a contrast.      WWII was a battle against the Axis powers, who were three countries and their associated Vassal States.  They had capital cities, heads of states, armies, forms of goverment and a physical location that they occupied.  Nazi German controlled this land mass 

So if you send an army in and take over the territory in red, guess what, you’ve won, you have eliminated Nazism.  Which we you know...did.  There is a clear war end with a clear victory condition.      But Terror isn’t like...a nation.  There is no Terrorstan with its capital city of terovania ruled by the King of Terrorism who we can go in and kill, because this isn’t a conventional war.  Like what is the end goal of the War on Teror, how do we win?  Are we fighting to eliminate Bin Laden and Al-Quedi?  Well in that case, then why invade Iraq, because if anybody actually understood anything about the period they would know the two men detested each other and opposed each other politically.  Is the goal to wipe out islam?  Well that means that you are talking about the largest genocide in all of human history.  Is it to try to eliminate Fundamentalist militant Islam? Well then the best way to do that historically has never been through war which only strengthens Islamic extremism (you know how since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq we have seen Islamic fundamentalist get only more powerful?)  The thing about the War on Terror and the War on Drugs is that they are these huge international utterly mismanaged fuck ups which not only cost an inordinate amount of blood and treasure, but also can’t really be won because they are by their nature unwinnable, how do you fight a fucking concept? And Hitchens is just sort of accepting this premise that the War on Terror is like a thing, he is just kinda unquestioningly going ‘Well this paradigm totally exists and lets run with it”  Terms like “The Enemy” or “The other side”.  What is the Other Side Exxactly?   2) I mean going off the mindless Assumptions that HItchens is making, who are we fighting exactly?  LIke ok, if you aren’t 4 years old, you should know that the Middle East isn’t a singular faction of unified peoples who all agree on stuff.  I mean lets do a quick list of factions in the middle east The Saudi Royal Family The Saudi Wahhabist Clerics The Pakistani Goverment The Pakistani Military Saadamn Hussein’s Iraq (at the time of this writing) Al-Queda Hamas Hezbollah The Theocracy of Iran The Goverment of Turkey The Kudishistan Fighters The Government in Egypt The Muslim Brotherhood The Dictatorship of Syria The Goverment of Lebenon The Monarchy of Jordon The Palestinian Leadership The nation of Israel (with all of the factions contained there in) The various sub states that make up the UAE The goverment of Qutar The Dictatorship of Kuwait The Dictatorship of Libya The Dictatorship of Tunisia The Dictatorship of Yemen The Dictatorship of Oman The Governments of the US, France, Britain, Russia, India, and their Allies The various exiles and rebels from all of those countries And that is just a short list.  None of those groups are unified with the others, they might be allies or share common interest, but they aren’t the same thing, I mean the Sunni Shia division is just one big part of this.   Again its one of those things that if you are you know....stupid it seems simple but the moment you try to understand the details, the whole thing falls apart, and as evident from this and other writings by him, Chris really doesn’t actually know anything about middle eastern politics like...at all.   3)  Speaking of unquestioning assumptions HItchens is oh so fond off, even if we are going to fight against radical Islam, he just kinda accepts that direct military intervention is going to work, because...look its gonna work ok, it just is.  And this is one of those things that if you actually you know...studied the history of the region and the politics or just occupation in general, you’d immediately know how stupid that is, but again, Hitchens is basically going with military approach because it feels emotionally correct, but because it feels emotionally correct and seems simple.  ‘argg, goes guys are bad, lets send troops in and stop them’ which of course...no, that doesn’t work.  Because when you bomb somebody’s house, they aren’t inclined to listen to you, and imposing democracy at Gun point doesn’t have a history of working.  LIke if he knew anything about the history of the region he could have studied the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan or the fall of the Ottoman Empire and maybe conclude ‘oh wait, just going in their guns blazing just doesn’t work”   4) Now mr. Rational here supported the Iraq War, and thought that was a capital idea, only for it to fail disastrously.  And his argument was “Well its a Muslim dictatorship, lets get ride of it”  And no where in his article does he go “Oh lets also invade Saudi Arabia, you know, the Muslim Theocracy which provides most of the funding for Islamic fundamentalism?”  But again, that just goes unquestioned cause you know...he doesn’t actually know anything about the region beyond some vague stereotypes 5) Also Jihadism and Totalitarianism are different concepts, Christopher you fucking idiot.  If we are fighting against Totalitarianism, then we should be invading China, Russia, North Korea, Totalitarianism is a sytem of goverment, Jihaadism is a militant practice, they are sometimes linked but they aren’t always the same thing.   6) So when Hitchen says “Oh the Left wants the Other Side” to win, what does he even mean? Again, this isn’t a two sided conflict, is like...39 sided conflict and some of them keep switching sides.  So which “other side” does the left want to win?  Do his think that Moore wants Bin Laden to create a new caliphate because you know...that never happened.  or does he mean like leftists wanting Palestine to get its own state, because yeah, a lot of leftists do want that. but he doesn’t really argue how that helps “The Enemy” or how the one state situation helps weaken Islamic fundamentalism.  But no, this is just the same Red Scare bullshit of “Oh if we don’t even try to understand why people are trying to kill us, that means we win the war right?” bullshit that didn’t work then, and isn’t working now.  For example, if Hitchen understood like...anything about the region he’d know about the 1953 Iranian Coup and how that didn’t weaken Muslim extremism but only made it worse.   7) Also, I hate defending Michael Moore of all people, but no, he didn’t say he wants Muslim extremism to win, he said that the war is immoral, unjust and doesn’t work, creating more problems than it solved.  The point of the founding father’s comparison is that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and to the Iraqis the insurgents, they are trying to get foreign invaders out of their country.

Ok next quote 

“To many of these people, any “anti-globalization” movement is better than none. With the Right-wingers it’s easier to diagnose: they are still Lindberghians in essence and they think war is a Jewish-sponsored racket. With the Left, which is supposed to care about secularism and humanism, it’s a bit harder to explain an alliance with woman-stoning, gay-burning, Jew-hating medieval theocrats. However, it can be done, once you assume that American imperialism is the main enemy. Even for those who won’t go quite that far, the admission that the US Marine Corps might be doing the right thing is a little further than they are prepared to go - because what would then be left of their opposition credentials, which are so dear to them?…….” 

Lets switch to letters for this one 

A) Yes it is true there is a racist America First anti War Right wing element, but...the left never really embraced them.  In contrast, it was the right who really came to love them and then elected one of these Lindberghians president, good job 

B) Evidently it is really rational to assume that there are only a few sides in very argument, it doesn’t seem to occur to Hitchens that you might oppose Islamic fundamentalism and also not think that invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 are both wrong because nuanced thinking is rejected by the new atheists evidently.  You see why I am never impressed  by the so called New Atheist Rationalists, because they are really shitty about being rational, they take the rhetoric and shallow trappings of rationalism and use it to cover opinions that are coming from anti intellectual reductionist bigoted places and say “look its rational”...actually very similar to how muslim fundamentalists acts towards Islam.    

Reading Hitch 22 for me was a lot like watching Citizens Kane but without awareness, because every single thing he condemned he inevitably wound up doing himself.  

C) Also if you are talking about getting into bed with people they should oppose, lets talk about the fact that Hitch here became a surrogate for a Right Wing movement led by a Fundamentalist Christian who opposed Stem Cell Research, denied Global Warming and has a mixed record on evolution...and Hitch gets into bed with them.  And for all of his talk of Human rights, democracy, and feminism, he winds up working with people who hate feminism, who violate human rights regularly (you know...torture), and who support dictatorships abroad.  Again, the only way the rationality of Hitchens seems remotely consistent is if you are...stupid and don’t know any of the details.

This is why the New Atheist almost always wind up working with the religious Right, and why the people who opposed Republican attempts to demonize video games winded up part of the Right Wing machine, because if your core intellectual methodology is simplistic, then you are going to always be attracted to simplistic people.  

“………And this is the religion that exhibits the horrible trio of self-hatred, self-righteousness and self-pity. I am talking about militant Islam. Globally it’s a gigantic power. It controls an enormous amount of oil wealth, several large countries and states, with an enormous fortune it’s pumping the ideologies of wahhabism and salafism around the world, poisoning societies where it goes, ruining the minds of children, stultifying the young in its madrassas, training people in violence, making a cult of death and suicide and murder. That’s what it does globally, it’s quite strong. In our societies it poses as a cringing minority, whose faith you might offend, who deserves all the protection that a small and vulnerable group might need. Now, it makes quite large claims for itself, doesn’t it? It says it’s the Final Revelation.”

Lets go Roman Nummerials this time 

I) Globally its a giantaic power, I love this bit, because Hitch just spilled his hand and revealed to the world that he honestly thinks the Muslim powers are all one thing.  Cause....no....no they aren’t.  Three of the largest oil producing countries are Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and guess what, they all hate each other.  Iran is Shia, Iraq was secular, and Saudi Arabia was a Sunni Fundamentalist State.  

II) OK he is talking about the mass funding of madrassases with Whahabism and yeah, thats a problem...How is invading Iraq solving that problem Hitch? Cause while Saadam Hussein was an evil terrible person, he wasn’t really big with Muslim fundamentalism, he was more secular, and into nation building.  Wouldn’t Hitch want to like, invade Saudi Arabia instead?  It honestly feels like he doesn’t know the difference between Iraq and Saudi Arabia 

III) Which makes his alliance with the Bush administration all the more ironic because you know who has massive ties to Saudi Arabia?  Oh right, the oil industry which is in bed with the Bushes and the Republicans party

IV) So you are just kinda left with a man who will abandon all of his principles (again he voted for Bush) if they appeal to his single issue

“I'm a single-issue voter, to get straight to the point. I'm really only interested in the candidate who's toughest and least apologetic when it comes to the confrontation with Islamic Jihadism.”

So you know...a moron 

Hitchens’ single issue was the fight against totality. Whether it comes from the madmen of jihad, the brutal fascist conservative windbags of the world, or the stilted leftist wignuts that pretend video games turn normal boys and girls into women hating sociopaths.

It seems like Hitchen’s point is “I don’t actually understand these issues, but I am going to rely upon broad generalizations to make it seem like my opinion on the matter actually is important.”  And that is generally what you get from Hitchen’s work, self important preening and fertilization of intellectual standards that he will never hold and will abandon in an instant if something appeals to his bigotry or xenophobia.  But I see why he is so popular with teenage boys, because the childish inflated sense of self worth is very telling, and I still think he hasn’t actually read Orwell.

“Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.”

Good Advice, would be nice if the man actually followed it for once.