#good portrayal of an iconic character

[teegeeteegee]

Super Mario Bros Movie Talk Part 1: Mario

I finally have the time to talk about the movie. As of right now, the plan is to break it up and talk about certain sections of the movie. I may come back and edit these posts here and there, but these posts will mostly consist of what comes to mind at the moment.

With that said, what better way than to start this endeavor than to talk about the main man himself?

The movie did a great job with Mario. In the games, Mario is this mostly upbeat character without a lot of depth. He doesn't get to have any lengthy dialogue and only says a few albeit iconic catch phrases here and there. In the movie, however, he is a determined, brave, and adventurous guy who has a huge chip on his shoulder and wants to prove himself. However, he is made to be small both literally and figuratively as not only is his height the subject of jokes, he isn't taken seriously by everyone around him including his own family.

Having said that, Mario does have his flaws. His main one is his impulsive nature. Although his heart is in the right place, he is so eager to go out and do something that he doesn't think of any potential consequences that may come from his actions. The main one that comes to mind is when he dragged Luigi into the Brooklyn sewers to try to fix the water leak that flooded the streets, resulting in both of them being sucked into a pipe that led Mario to the Mushroom Kingdom and Luigi to the Dark Lands. Him having such flaws make him more relatable rather than him being immediately being great at everything. Despite saving the day at the end, there is this feeling he still has things he needs to improve on.

The last thing I'll talk about is Chris Pratt. There was a lot of skepticism about him when he was announced as the voice for Mario, and the first trailer did very little to ease any of it. Admittedly, I was disappointed Charles Martinet wasn't going to voice Mario, although I was happy he got to take part in the movie. With that said, I wanted to see the movie first before basing my thoughts on Chris Pratt's performance, and I have to say he did Mario justice. That's not to say he was perfect, but he did enough to make Mario believable. Most important, he wasn't awful enough to make me long for Martinet. Pratt has made a living playing or voicing the everyman character roles, and who in the video game industry depicts this more than our favorite Italian plumber?

In the end, one of the main things the movie got right was the portrayal of Mario. Seeing that he's the main protagonist, it would have been a disappointment had he not been rootable. Should there be any sequels, I would be interested to see what they do with him from here.

[angelamooer]

picture this. perfect world. unfortunately girl meets world is still a show. BUT. shawngela together. maya is their daughter

[littjara-mirrorlake]

The Color of Hope: Ambition, Necromancy, and Black Mana

Black is one of the most misunderstood colors in Magic: the Gathering, not least because it appears on the surface to be so straightforward. Look at the most iconic black cards of Magic and you'll see deals with demons, necromancy, mass destruction and cruelty and suffering–the trappings of classic fantasy evil. Even the color's symbol itself is a skull, a universal signifier of death and danger.

And in early Magic that seemed to be all it was. White was the color of Fantasy Good, black was the color of Fantasy Evil, and the rest of the colors were... fire magic? Elves? Whatever odd but intriguing skeleton affairs are implied by Time Walk?

Gradually, though, Magic deepened as both a game and a storytelling medium. The color pie grew into itself as a system of complementary philosophies, archetypes whose associated aesthetics were only part of the full picture. Their arrangement around the wheel, below, is highly deliberate; neighboring colors are said to be allies with a high degree of philosophical and mechanical overlap, while colors on opposite sides of the pie are known as enemies, more likely to disagree on fundamental levels.

Black stopped merely representing capital E Evil and became the color of striving for power; unlike its peers, black felt that nothing, least of all morality, could prevent it from seizing what it wanted. Mark Rosewater's 2015 article about black emphasized the color's focus on the self:

"Black's philosophy is very simple: There's no one better suited to look after your own interests than you... Many costs require the sacrifice of others for your own advancement. Because it puts itself first, black is always willing to make this trade. The weak must fall for the strong to thrive." -Mark Rosewater

At its worst, black is an exploitative, amoral color that prioritizes itself at the expense of all others, allowing the "weak" to fall and scorning the very idea of compassion. Rosewater writes that black is "always willing" to trade others for itself. And these can certainly be parts of black's philosophy, when taken to its worst possible extremes, but they're far from the entire story.

Over time, Magic's outlook on black gained nuance. Magic story introduced protagonists like the necromancer Liliana Vess, whose craving for immortality, seemingly exploitative nature, and demonic deals called back to the oldest portrayals of black–and yet she was not one-dimensionally evil. She underwent character development over the years, learning the value of reclaiming herself and standing beside others, and at no point did she become any less mono-black for it. Remember her; we will come back to Liliana and her story later.

In addition to the usual death and decay, black cards began to feature a theme of relentless devotion. On the plane of Eldraine where each color represents a virtue, black's is persistence, explicitly as important as any other color. On the plane of Ikoria, the love between bonder and beast pulls Winota back from the brink of death. Wherever this Oathsworn Vampire printing is set, its flavor text is quintessentially black. It's the same self-driven attitude as before, but cast in a different light: black is nothing if not persistent when it's got its heart set on something (or someone) it cares about. Nothing, least of all the grave, will keep it down. After all, black will always come back for its own.

These newer cards uncovered the true face of black as a color capable of both great love and harm (sometimes even the latter for the sake of the former), and suggested a tantalizing new thread: perhaps putting yourself and yours first isn't all that bad, necessarily. Black is a deeply protective color; it says you don't just have to accept what you're handed, it's okay even to be furious about it (hello, ally color red), but let that galvanize you to do something about it. 

Vraska, a gorgon who faces extreme discrimination on her home plane of Ravnica, triumphs by reclaiming herself, gorgon powers and all–and even more radically, loving herself. She displays traits often considered the purview of white and green, such as a love of home and a drive to elevate the oppressed, but they are all filtered through the lens of her black alignment. Vraska staunchly refuses to deny herself or her people, the Golgari Swarm, of their value. Nor does she allow law or propriety to prevent her from championing them by any means necessary–even if that means cold-blooded murder, or aligning herself with a villain like the Planeswalker Nicol Bolas.

"[Vraska] thought of Mazirek, of the kraul, of the rest of the Ochran assassins and the malignant Jarad who reigned with casual ruin over the most downtrodden of the downtrodden. She remembered her years of isolation, and the heinous cruelty of the Azorius, and how no group deserved to suffer as much as those who would subjugate her own. Eliminating that hell was all she ever wanted." -The Talented Captain Vraska, Alison Luhrs

Like Vraska, black loves fierce and hard, willing to break any taboo for the sake of those it cares about. And it whispers, the entire way through, you are enough. You deserve better. No matter what others may say or do, you are enough.

"If I am to be met with disrespect, then I must first love myself with a fierceness no fool can take away." -Vraska in Pride of the Kraul, Alison Luhrs

Even black's "ruthlessness" isn't as fundamentally cruel as it appears, centering a passion for problem-solving (shared by its other ally blue) instead of a blunt disregard for others.

"People don’t understand the word ruthless. They think it means 'mean.' It’s not about being mean. It’s about seeing the bright, clear line that leads from A to B. The line that goes from motive to means. Beginning to end. It’s about seeing that bright, clear line and not caring about anything but the beautiful fact that you can see the solution. Not caring about anything else but the perfection of it." -K. A. Applegate

All of this comes together to make a black a color not of evil but of strength, integrity, and persistence. And that's all well and good, but I'm going to take it even further and put forward a new proposition: that black is the color of hope.

Of the nine mono-black Magic cards with "hope" in their names, all but Liliana portray black as an instrument of hope's destruction. This is, once again, black's flaw taken to its extreme–crushing others to achieve its own ends–but neglects black's own relationship with hope.

Black, more than any other color, requires hope to stay alive.

For black to persist, it must believe in a light at the end of the tunnel, a future in which its goals are realized. As long as it does, it will endure any hardship, walk through fire, and turn reality itself upside down on its way there. Primal, desperate ambition is the engine of hope that burns at the heart of black, keeping it always one step ahead of stagnation. Bitter and stubborn, black believes tomorrow will come because there is no other choice. After all, for black to relinquish hope is to let itself wither, regress, and die–an unacceptable outcome. 

Thus, it is monumentally difficult to strip black of hope. That only makes it all the more crushing when it happens, when black contends with the idea that there is nothing it can do.

Black's deepest, darkest fear is helplessness.

Like any mono-black character, Liliana Vess is driven at her core by a seething, desperate hope. When Liliana first unlocks her necromantic power, it is out of a sheer refusal to allow her ill brother Josu to die, even when the esis root that would cure him is destroyed by enemy witches in an undead-raising ritual. She defies her previous training as a healer, which taught her only to take the safe path, in favor of a higher-risk and higher-reward approach: stealing life from the witches themselves to restore power to the esis root she needs. It is her knowledge that her brother needs her, and her sheer stubborn will to succeed, which allows her to defeat the witches against steep odds.

"Six foes, and Liliana stood alone. But Josu's life depended on her, and the power blossoming within her was more than enough." -Liliana's Origin: The Fourth Pact, James Wyatt

Tragically, however, Liliana's attempted cure goes horrifically wrong, transforming Josu into an undead being plagued by eternal suffering. In his pain, Josu attacks Liliana. For a while Liliana holds out hope, finding the power to fight back while she determinedly searches for a spell to reverse the harm she's done. It is when she realizes this isn't possible that her strength falters.

"All this time, she had believed… that she could turn the power of death to the service of life and health. That a healer should use every tool at her disposal. But Josu was the result, a horrible fusion of life and death, and all her spells meant to manipulate the life force of the living could do nothing to harm the dead." -The Fourth Pact

Liliana learns that even her own dark magic, fueled by determination, cannot solve the problem she's created. She discovers the hard limit of her willpower, and the despair of this discovery is what causes her Planeswalker spark to ignite.

At this time Planeswalkers are as gods, immortal and near-omnipotent. Liliana spends decades enjoying this affirmation of her capability before the Mending strips her and all her peers of their power, reducing them once again to mortal mages.

"Then the Multiverse reshaped itself, robbing her—and every other Planeswalker—of the godlike power they once had wielded. Some called it the Mending, as if something broken had been repaired, but to Liliana, it seemed the opposite. It broke her beyond any hope of repair." -The Fourth Pact

Once again, it is Liliana's fear of helplessness and her refusal to accept it that drives her to push beyond the bounds of propriety–this time, to make a pact with Nicol Bolas and four demons to maintain her immortality. It is not enough for her merely to delay death; she requires the security of knowing she is fully beyond its reach, that she will never be helpless before it again as she was with Josu.

"Holding death at arm's length for whatever years are left to me? No, that's not enough. I want to be free of its shadow." -Liliana in The Fourth Pact

Black isn't like its enemy colors white and green, which are superficially associated far more often with hope. Unlike white, it doesn't believe that conviction, justice, and community will bring about rightness. Unlike green, it doesn't trust in the wisdom of the world or the natural order. Black believes that nothing will change unless you make it change; ultimately, black's self is the only one it can trust to bring about the world it needs. In addition, black lacks its enemies' idealism. Instead, it strives to be a pragmatic realist, making a final assessment of defeat all the more definite and crushing.

While white and green are more amenable to finding hope and holding it aloft as a banner, black claws hope desperately to its chest with shredded, bloody fingernails. Every ounce of hope black has, it tore by itself from the clutches of an uncaring world.

Ironically for such a self-driven color, black's fierce hope is the greatest asset it can provide to others–on its own terms, of course. It was Liliana who turned the tide of battle against the Eldrazi titan Emrakul, defiant in the face of cosmic despair. And when Nicol Bolas made his bid to return to godhood, using Liliana's necromancy to command his undead hordes, Liliana finally turned against him. In reclaiming her power, so too did she use it to free her fellow Planeswalkers from Bolas' assault. Her fear of helplessness no longer shackled her to him; agency and autonomy were hers at last.

The triumph of black, its moment of ultimate victory, is the hard-won fulfillment of its hope.

"Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light." -Dylan Thomas

An aetherborn, railing against the shortness of their natural lifespan, constructs a new body for themself with their own bare hands. An artificer's grief over her lost companion causes her to push invention to its limits. A young girl who loves her brother calls on the darkest of powers to save him. As it turns out, necromancy–that original thematic keystone of black–is only one of black's many, many refusals to let go of love and hope once it has them, even in the face of the ultimate end.

Time and time again, black–in love with life, ablaze with hope–looks the Grim Reaper in the eye and tells it: "Not today."

[graysoncritic]

A (Negative) Analysis of Tom Taylor's Nightwing Run - Introduction

Introduction Who is Dick Grayson? What Went Wrong? Dick's Characterization What Went Wrong? Barbara Gordon What Went Wrong? Bludhaven (Part 1, Part 2) What Went Wrong? Melinda Lin Grayson What Went Wrong? Bea Bennett What Went Wrong? Villains Conclusion Bibliography

I want to start this essay by admitting I’m actually embarrassed by its length. Why did I spend so much time on something I dislike? The truth is, I did not begin this with the intention of creating such an extensive, formal study of the Tom Taylor and Bruno Redondo’s Nightwing run and how it reflects the wider problems with DC’s handling of one of their most iconic characters. I was just trying to organize the thoughts that came up during discussions with other Dick Grayson fans. Before I knew it, I had enough material, enough desire to challenge myself, and enough frustrations to vent to properly create this monstrosity.

I did not begin this Nightwing run determined to hate it. In fact, I was ready to love it. As Taylor promoted the run before the first issue was officially released, I was so excited for it. As I read short interviews where he discussed Heartless, I could not wait to have a new, incredible villain. Foolishly, I believed Taylor when he said he loved Dick Grayson. 

Needless to say, I was disappointed. Then frustrated. Then angry. The beginning of any story is a period where writer and reader form an indirect bond, and as the story progresses, so do the highs and the lows of said relationship. As such, a reader’s tolerance for negative factors will either increase or decrease depending on their experience up until that point.

In other words, if the writer fails to earn the reader’s trust and instead takes their attention for granted, even seemingly insignificant details become irritating in a way they would not be if presented in a better story. In such scenarios, the reader can no longer overlook those minor moments because there’s little good to balance them out with. It is a death by a thousand cuts. 

In the case of Taylor and Redondo’s run, along with those thousand cuts are also broken bones, internal bleeding, head trauma, and severed limbs. A weak plot, simplistic morality that undermines the story’s stated themes, and, most importantly, a careless disregard for Dick Grayson and everything he stands for utterly destroyed my enjoyment of this series. 

It is still too early to tell what sort of impact Taylor’s (as of time of writing, still unfinished) run will have on Dick Grayson’s future portrayals. But just because we cannot predict its long term significance, it does not mean we cannot critique it. Currently, we simply lack the benefit of hindsight. 

If this essay were to have a thesis, then it is this: Tom Taylor and Bruno Redondo’s Nightwing not only fails to tell a compelling Nightwing story, but it also exemplifies a cynical, self-serving, and shallow approach to storytelling that prioritizes creating hollow viral moments to boost the creators’ own online popularity over crafting a good story, honoring the character in their care, and respecting his fans – fans who have, historically, often been women, queer folk, and other individuals who felt othered by a cisheteronormative patriarchal society. Taylor and Redondo’s thoughtless and superficial narrative not only undermine the socially progressive ideals they supposedly care for by propagating a cisheteronormative patriarchal worldview, but they also demonstrate a lack of love and understanding for the character in their care. At best, Taylor and Redondo have no interest in getting to know Dick Grayson, nor any respect for their predecessor and their contributions to this character. At worst, they despise Dick so much that they wish to reinvent him into something completely different, tossing away everything that was special to his fans in order to appeal to a readership that never cared about Dick Grayson. 

I structured this essay so that, hopefully, each part will build on the ones that came prior. Naturally, because all aspects of a story are interlaced, there will be overlaps between each of the sections. As it may have become obvious from this introduction, I’ll be focusing primarily on the writing of this run. That is not to say that I will not address the art, but writing is the field I know most about, and so it feels only fair to focus my critique on that. 

I hope that by the end of this essay, I will have successfully proved that this run’s mishandling of different narrative elements betray a cynical appropriation of progressive ideology and a disregard and disinterest in what makes Dick Grayson so special to so many people. This is an attitude that is present within DC Comics’ current ethos as a whole.

Now, who is this essay for? Honestly, it’s probably not for Tom Taylor fans. I do not believe I’ll be persuading anyone with my writing, and, to be quite honest, neither would I say I wish to do so. Taylor and Redondo’s run has won numerous awards and has many dedicated fans who adore it for what it is. If that is you, then I’m glad. I wish I could be among your numbers. I wish more than anything that I could love this story. But I do not, and I know many others agree with me, and it is to them, I think, that I’m speaking to. As Taylor’s run is praised to heaven and back, I needed a safe space to voice my thoughts. This essay became this safe space. And to others who also feel unseen by the constant praise this run is getting, I think this could speak to you, as well. To be cliche and cringe, this will hopefully let you know that you are not alone. 

Finally, I want to acknowledge some people whose thoughts greatly contributed to the creation of this essay. For around three years now I’ve been having wonderful interactions with other Dick Grayson’s fans, and those discussions were not only incredibly fun and cathartic, but also provided great insight into what needed to be included in this essay. My best friend especially gave me a space to vent when I got frustrated, and my original outline borrowed a lot from the messages I sent her, as well as notes I took for our discussions.  

I’ll also be directly quoting four different Dick Grayson fans (identified as Dick Grayson Fans A, B, and C in order to allow them to keep their anonymity). Their analyses were so critical to the formation of my thesis and for a lot of what will be addressed in this essay that I actually feel like they deserve co-credit in this essay. Dick Grayson Fan B especially deserves a shoutout in helping me track down a couple of pages used as supporting evidence, as I knew what pages I was looking for but was having a hard time remembering in which issue they were located. I’m quoting them with permission, and crediting their ideas and contributions whenever relevant. 

Now, without any further ado, let’s get started. 

[cy-cyborg]

How your disabled character's allies react to their disability can make or break the representation in your story: Writing Disability Quick Tips

[ID: An image with “Writing Disability quick tips: How your character's allies react to their disability matters” written in chalk the colour of the disability pride flag, from left to right, red, yellow, white, blue and green. Beside the text are 2 poorly drawn people icons in green, one is standing with their hand up to the face of the other, who is in a wheelchair. /End ID]

Something I brought up in my big post about Toph Beifong was how the other characters reacted to Toph pointing out that things were not accessible to her and setting boundaries regarding her disability, which were ignored. I had more to say about it than I thought I did, as it turns out (when isn't that the case lol) but I feel like this is an important aspect of disability representation that is all too often over looked.

You can write the best, most accurate portrayal of a specific disability ever put to screen or page, but it won't mean much if all the other characters, specifically those we're supposed to like and empathise with, treat your character terribly for being disabled and having needs relating to said disability, especially if the story justifies their behaviour.

You see this most often with autistic characters and especially autistic-coded characters. The character in question will be given a bunch of autistic traits, most often traits relating to not understanding certain social dynamics or sarcasm, and when they get it wrong, the other characters we are supposed to like jump down their throat, tease them or outright abandon them. Autism isn't the only disability that gets treated this way, but it is one of the more common ones that get this treatment. It doesn't matter if you do everything else right when creating an autistic character if the other "good guys" constantly call them annoying, get angry at them or laugh at them for the very traits that make them autistic, or for advocating for their needs.

Likewise, if you have a leg amputee character who is otherwise done well, but is constantly being criticised by their allies for needing to rest their legs or taking too long to get their prosthetics on, it undermines a lot of the other work you've done. Same goes for having a wheelchair user who is accused of being a bore or a stick in the mud because they point out the places their friends want to go to on a group holiday have no wheelchair access, or a deaf character who is accused of being entitled for wanting their family to learn to sign, or anything else.

This isn't to say you can never have moments like these in your stories, but its important to remember that a) people with the same disability as your character will be in your audience. If you spend a whole season of your TV show shaming your autistic character for real traits that real autistic people have, they're not exactly going to feel welcome and may not want to hang around. b) it's going to very, very heavily impact people's perceptions of your "heros" who do this, especially in they eyes of your audience members who share the character's disability or who have had similar experiences. This isn't like calling someone a mean name or being a bit of a dick when you're sleepy, it's going to take a lot to regain audience appeal for the offending character, and depending on exactly what they do and how frequently they do it, they may not even be able to come back from it at all. And finally, c) there should be a point to it outside of just shaming this character and saying the other guy is an asshole. Like I said before, you're character is criticising real people's real disabilities and the traits or problems that come with them, things that they often have no control over, it shouldn't be used as a cheap, quick way to establish a quirky enemies to lovers dynamic or show that one guy is kind of an ass before his redemption arc. If you really must have your characters do this, be mindful of when and how you use it.

[jonathan-cranes-mistress-of-fear]

An Honest Opinion on Cillian Murphy and his role as Jonathan Crane

This is gonna be long, so buckle up hroo hraas

Cillian Muprhy was the actor who played Jonathan Crane in the Nolanverse Trilogy. For many fans, if it wasn't btas, it was Nolanverse that introduced them to Scarecrow. Unfortunately, it's a pretty poor introduction.

Don't get me wrong, he's a good actor, but is is NO Jonathan Crane. He actually wanted to be Batman but those in charge saw his pretty blue eyes, became obsessed and basically threw away any previous idea of who their Scarecrow should be so Cillian could act in the movie.

The director goes on to host multiple interviews in which he fawns over Cillian's eyes. This is literally the only thing he has to say about Scarecrow. This is also one of the reasons you see them focused o so much in certain clips, Cillian was actually instructed to take off his glasses as much as possible.

Now, whats the problem? Well, Cillian is first and foremost way too traditionally handsome to be playing such a character, a character that was literally bullied for his looks in ever comic released prior. (and I do realize that handsome men can be bullied for their looks, but the comics only ever describe Crane as gangly and nerdy. Unlikable. Queer Fellow. Etc. And I honestly don't expect that kind of nuance when he was hired for his PRETTY EYES ) I don't even think the movie comments on his looks. Anyhow.

His roles in the movies, for me, are largely forgettable. The only iconic comment is "Would you like to see my mask" That's literally all anyone remembers. Oh and maybe the flaming horse, but that's never talked about by fans. So, it wasn't impactful

I doubt Cillian has even touched a comic book tbh. If he did, he's at least TRY to be scary. His costume---which largely isn't his choice--was uninspired and uncreative. A suit and a burlap mask with some maggots for some reason??? Boring. (Note: even the gotham actor read the comics. It's not hard to do some research into who you'll be acting as)

Compare that to comics out at the time, Year One, Batman Adventures, Batman Annual 19, even Long Halloween predated this movie! They had PLENTY to reference.

And what's worse? the fandom. Oh god the fandom. While I'm grateful many current fans got their start with the Nolan trilogy, they all largely have moved on to bigger and better canons. They're not who I have beef with. It's the Cillian Murphy fangirls. Not Jonathan Crane. Cillian. The tag is largely infested with them, and they often tag any and every photo of the man as Jonathan Crane. This does nothing for me, except annoy. I've blocked dozens of blogs for this. It's petty, sure, but I can guarantee you that tagging your Cillian pictures as every character he's acted as ever, does not mean you'll get more interaction. You'll get the opposite actually.

Do note, fanart and illustrated portrayals of Cillian are the one exception. Artists have taken his very boring interpretation and turned it into something awesome. Y'all keep doing you. You rock.

Cillian is not a bad actor, but he's a bad Crane.

-mic drop-

[varpusvaras]

Winnick will come this close to writing a good, rightfullly angry character with BPD/CPTSD and ruin it by making him his conception of "a dangerous psychopath" because dc's understanding of mental illness begins and ends with the joker.

I like that Jason was angry i'm not gonna lie I enjoy the "bad victim who doesn't accept that they were a necessary sacrifice, who doesn't think what happened to them is something they should be expected to tolerate, like fuck your greater good, you weren't there, it isn't worth this." I think even looking at Jason's past before getting adopted he has reason to be angry, like he is poor af and starving and he had to take care of his mom and his dad is in jail because he couldn't see another way to provide and he gets trafficked -he has so many reasons to be angry. And he's not, and I love jaybin, but I think there are so many ways and things he can be angry about without it feeling classist. And I love that he can't emotionally regulate, that he has so clearly BPD/CPTSD because why the fuck would he not, have you seen his life (and that's not even counting the csa hc, which i am because willfully and consistently implying csa and then not addressing it/denying it feels like feeding into a culture of taboo that ruins lives and getting away with covert victim-blaming at the same time). The issue is that they lack finesse or any kind of understanding of anger. The think anger is a personality trait. They think angry = evil. They think being angry means you're violent at and about everything, that you shoot indiscriminately even though you've known better since you were a kid, that you're suddenly treating women like shit (which, wtf seriously) which okay maybe THEY treat women shitty for no reason when they're angry, but that'd be more of a them problem I'd say. Their portrayal of anger is classist because their conception of emotions hasn't evolved since fucking Descartes. Think anger = bad = poor and not only doesn't it occur to them that this is classist, they so instinctively assign moral value to the concepts of poor and angry that they don't realise it and just conceptualise poor=angry and end up with incredibly classist portrayals of anger. You can write characters that are mentally ill and violent without being ableist, you can write characters that are poor and angry without being classist, but that requires a level of respect for people, introspection, humility willingness to learn about the sensitive topics you are exploring that is simply not accessible to Winnick and so many other dc writers.

And here comes my very hot take that I'm too cowardly to say off anon: the pit shouldn't have healed Jason's malnutrition. Like, outside of canon I love big jay, I love big men who are emotionally vulnerable and need comfort etc. but in canon? It just comes off as another way to adultify Jason, and make the horrible things that happen to him acceptable. Jason "sleeping with Talia because he is fucked up about Bruce" because they both look like adults until you realise this is actually just rape and you can't put any responsibility of Talia taking advantage of the kid under her care (very ooc of course) on the child himself. Jason fighting Mia looking like a 40 years old beating up a teenage girl when they're the same damn age. Fucking Ethiopia 2.0. And Jason's murders as well, for the matter. Like don't get me wrong the duffle bag of doom is an iconic villain move, but it's just that: a massive shock effect and a "psychopathic" move. We shouldn't need Jason beheading anyone to be horrified, because just one murder, if written correctly, should be enough. A child killing someone is a terrible thing. A child being put in a position where they think killing someone is the only solution to ending suffering (thinking about the Garzonas case) is a terrible thing. A kid trying to kill his murderer (because fuck his death has to matter it has to) and only begging to be allowed it should be horrifying. Jason, with his unhealed malnutrition making him look a couple of years smaller and younger than his physical age, should look his mental age. It should be impossible to look away from the reality of what he is: a traumatized teenager who wasn't allowed to grow up. And he has a gun. This is already a horror story.

Make utrh!Jason a villain if you must, but have the guts to sit with it. Don't shove the fact that he was a hero and a victim under the rug because it's uncomfortable. Sit with the unease that sometimes someone is doing something bad and is suffering a lot, and maybe they're doing the bad thing because they don't know how to survive the suffering, and suddenly it's not easy separating hero from villain from victim. Your imaginary lines in the sand will not protect you from the crude reality of the complicated and shitty situations you have chosen to depict; you open the can of worms now you can't look away and let the worms roam free just because you're squeamish.

How does it feel to be psychic and be in my head and write part of my essay on Jason for me? Fuck, I have so much to say about this but I need a good night of sleep to formulate it correctly. Look for a longer answer tomorrow, but in the meantime, everyone sit down and look at this and look at it hard. Thank you.

[the-monkey-ruler]

Which translation/adaptation of JTTW is best for beginners? Besides maybe Dragon Ball (doubt it counts)

Heh yeah I mean it’s a great anime but I don’t think you would have a good Xiyouji experience per se. Usually, I see Dragon Ball used as a gateway for people to THEN read/watch Xiyouji content but like it doesn’t really have much Xiyouji plot wise even if the characters are homages.

I would say that if you want an ACCURATE Xiyouji experience then you can choose between three shows. That being the classic 1986 which is many people's first Xiyouji experience as the cast is so iconic you see these designs in dozens of movies and their influence in future performances. The second is more family-friendly but still one of the most charming and fairly accurate portrayals is the 1999 Xiyouji animation, I would say far more younger people's first piece of media and without a doubt the best Xiyouji animation series thus far personally. That last I would suggest is 2011 Xiyouji series which is one of the more newer shows and I would say I would that if you want more modern effects and humor than this might be a preferance to the 1986 version. They both have their own charm but just depends on what you are looking for!

Now while these are the most accurate there are some Xiyouji media I would still recommend even if they take far more liberties.

This without a doubt being the 1996 tv series. This is portrayed as more of a drama but between the characters and the pure HEART AND LOVE that is in this show that you will be falling in love with the characters. It vaguely follows the Xiyouji monster of the weak formula but taking far more time to humanize each enemy and having our main cast overcome not only physical obstacles but also their own emotional obstacles as well. Fantastic show. Another is Chinese Odessey (please note this is a two part movie)! This does NOT follow the journey at all instead more of an introspective of the character Wukong. This is more of comedy but this is a cult classic as one of the first romance films with Wukong to show him as more of a complex hero which was a deviation from how he was portrayed in media for years as this point. This movie is silly but it is actually very heartfelt and makes you feel for these characters's plights. If you don't know Xiyouji I would say you will be confused, but you can fall in love with these characters anyway! Whil I can't suggest Dragon Ball I can suggest another Son Goku from My Son Goku! This is a Japanese production but the animation is so fluid and the characters are not only charming but there are some heart reaching scenes in this very cute art style! I would say give this a watch if you enjoy anime but also can appreciate angst even in a cute style.

If you are looking for more just great Xiyouji movies that you can pop in and a fantastic one is the 2015 Hero is Back! This was the Wukong come back animation-wise since 1999 and a lot of people first Wukong in the big screens! Does take liberties story wise as we don't see Sha Wujing or any of the journey really, but the HEART and soul of Sun Wukong is there. Another great one is just watching the first and classic 1961 Havoc in Heaven! This was the staple of Wukong iconics for decades and even now you see this Wukong in commercials! This is just a beautiful art style and without a doubt charming and feel good vibes. This one is surprising but actually Nezha Reborn where Sun Wukong actually makes a cameo appearance, but I hear so many people got into Xiyouji just cause how much they love him. So while it's not Xiyouji I would say give it a watch if you are a die hard Sun Wukong fan.

There is also Monkey King Reborn which while less known I still think is wonderfully popular and shows both great animation and also how all three characters of Wukong, Bajie, and Wujing interact in a movie. There is also Monkey King 2 which I know that usually I would say which the first movie but honestly the second movie is my personal fav. You don't miss much without watching the first as the second starts right at the begging of the journey and we are introduced to some of the best designs for these characters in my opinion. This last one is kinda of a hit-or-miss but Conquering the Demon! This one follows Sanzang as a demon hunter in a loosely based story of him finding his disciples, each more monstrous than the last in a dark-comedy! If you enjoy Stephen Chow films then you know what kind of humor you are going to get but it is new take on Xiyouji films in a unique but still entertaining manner! They really make you feel for Sanzang as a character and one of the best humanizations of him really as a man still learning about the world himself.

There some other that are great but I would suggest more on a second watch or if you know the story more! Saiyuki / The Great Alakazam was the first eng dub saiyuki piece of media that came to the USA and still had a lasting influence with the beloved character Rinrin! There is also Monkey King 2009 that only looks at the story BEFORE the journey, adding so many elements to Wukong's childhood and his relationship with the Six Eared Macaque. I would also suggest the Monkey King Netflix Movie as while it is fast-paced it really makes you understand how dangerous but also how complex Sun Wukong is. I think it was a charming movie so give it a watch!. Last is Immortal Demon Slayer! This movie was based on a web novel that was extremely popular in the early 2000s which was based off Chinese Odessey funny enough! This is a movie I would suggest if you know Xiyouji already but it such a tragedy I have to share if you love angst.

If anyone wants to share their what was their first Xiyouji or their favorite Xioyuji please let me know!

[kingoftheclaudes]

Welcome to the King of the Claudes Tournament!

A silly little place with polls about our favorite silly little actor, Claude Rains!

Prior to the creation of this blog, we were shocked (shocked!) to find that across the Tumblrverse, time and time again, Claude Rains would be beaten by fearsome opponents in the race for the crown of various hottest/scrungliest/what-have-you titles. So, we've decided to take matters into our own hands to give some well-deserved love to this beloved character actor through various polls!

The King of the Claudes Tournament has begun! Polls will be posted once daily at 7PM EST!

We're going to be matching up all (and we mean all!) the roles Claude has played over his decades of acting to decide which one of them will be The King of Claudes! All characters(we're talking the famed Captain Louis Renault, the mad scientist Jack Griffin, as well as other lesser-known portrayals like the kindly Mr. Jordan and the cankerous Professor Benson) will be submitted by default and it's up to the voters to send in their favorite propaganda(pictures, GIFs, stories, video clips)!

Our list of active polls can be found HERE!

As of this time, we're only going to be looking at Mr. Rains' film career, so no TV, stage, or radio portrayals will be in the running this time around. This goes for propaganda, too, so please don't send in entire radio broadcasts as propaganda(we know they're great, you don't have to tell us!).

FAQs

Who's Claude Rains? Great question! William Claude Rains was a British screen/stage/radio actor who was primarily known for his character acting and there was never a role he couldn't seem to play (When asked about his versatility as an actor, he replied that he "can play the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker"). He was a frequent collaborator with stars such as Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart, and Cary Grant, among others and worked with directors such as Michael Curtiz and Alfred Hitchcock. He was nominated for four Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor and won a Tony Award for his role in Darkness at Noon. Oftentimes, people know him as "that guy" when talking about his roles in iconic films (such as Casablanca, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Invisible Man, and Lawrence of Arabia). He also served in WW1 (even fighting alongside individuals such as Basil Rathbone and Sir Cedric Hardwicke) and called himself a "gentleman farmer", often returning back home to tend to his farm in between shooting for films. Also, if you search up the term character actor, you see a lovely still of him in Sons of Liberty!

Why is this blog a thing? Because it has been a deeply saddening affair to watch Claude Rains get stricken down during various polls (and we mean every. single. one. [although, we had a grand Round One victory over on @vintagetvstars!]) and we feel he deserves to win something! Also, this blog hopes to bring more recognition to his great work! We'd also like to thank @hotvintagepoll for directly inspiring us to create this blog and if you haven't already, please go check them out!

Who should I vote for? We are judging the portrayal of the character here, not the characters themselves. Claude played a lot of baddies (some worse than others) but we are not judging how good or bad a character is morally, only on the portrayal. Who will be the winner? That's up to you! Which of these Claudes deserves to be crowned the King of them all? What makes them the King in your eyes?

How can I submit propaganda? Before the tournament starts, we will be accepting propaganda through a Google Form and we will be accepting written and visual propaganda(pictures, GIFs, and video clips) to go along with each character. We're also only looking for propaganda from the particular film a character is in, but we're open to headshots/professional stills from the time it was filmed! Please only submit propaganda for one character at a time and don't hesitate to send in multiple submissions! We'd like for each character to have propaganda, so go nuts in your submissions! Tell us why you think your Claude should be crowned King of the Claudes! Again, we are not looking for character submissions, only propaganda for that character! Don't fret, every Claude from a film will be submitted! Here is a list of all the possible characters to send propaganda in for!

Additional Propaganda? We encourage additional propaganda through our ask system or by tagging us @kingoftheclaudes. As previously stated, we will only be accepting/boosting propaganda from Mr. Rains' film career, so no GIFs from his various Alfred Hitchcock Presents or radio snippets from his various Lux Radio Theatre broadcasts. We also tag each film and each Claude in an effort to make things easier when searching through the taglist. We also will not be boosting propaganda until the tournament starts. You can start compiling now but be aware it will not be reblogged/posted until then.

These polls are mean to be short 'n sweet (much like Mr. Rains!) and not meant to be taken seriously! We just want to have a good time enjoying the many works of Claude Rains and all views expressed in propaganda and tags are not our own!

The tournament is scheduled to kick off on Sunday, November 10th (coincidentally[or perhaps, not] Claude Rains' birthday!) and will compile of 28 matchups of 56 characters (since the character of Adam Lemp appears in three movies [Four Daughters, Four Wives, and Four Mothers], we are combining all his appearances into one and, contrary to Wikipedia's listing, Mr. Rains did not provide the voice of Jacob Marley in Scrooge. We are also opting to omit the character of Clarkis from Build Thy House, since there is limited knowledge on the film available, as well as omitting the character of The Mayor from The Pied Piper of Hamelin, since despite it later being released in theatres, it debuted as a TV special). We're tentatively planning on scheduling 5 polls a week to make this tournament last longer and each poll will run for one week!

What happens after the polls end and the crown is handed off? We may be open to doing a series of mini-polls, such as 'Best Father', 'Best Villain', 'The Battle for Science', 'King of TV Land' and 'Historical King of the Claudes' among some others. If you have some more ideas, let us know!

My question isn't answered! Feel free to send in an ask but always check the FAQ before, since your question may have already been answered!

We hope you enjoy our fun little polls and wish all the Claudes the best of luck!

(sneaky @tournament-announcer tag and a bonus Claude as a thanks for reading this far! :))

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

Of Lust and Sex on Tolkien lore: Sauron x Galadriel in “Rings of Power”

Many fellow fans have complaint there’s a trend among the Tolkien fandom to de-sexualize Galadriel, but folks, this is not exclusive to her character. This is, actually, an on-going theme on how many see Tolkien’s world and work, in general, and it runs deeps.

There’s this weird headcanon that, just because Tolkien was catholic and a “gentleman”, the world he built is somehow devoid of sexuality or sexual matters, and asexual in itself. Nothing wrong with that, except we have countless examples of “sexual stuff” happening in the legendarium, from characters lusting after each other, to actual sexual assault. Just because Tolkien didn’t write explicit sex scenes (let’s say like George R.R. Martin, who devoted himself to try subvert Tolkien) doesn’t mean is not there. Not everything needs to be “in your face” meaning explicit.

Firstly, Tolkien cared enough about sexuality to write several essays on the matter, namely about the Eldar sex culture and customs. It’s clear that the Elves try to be the “perfect Catholics” on his lore, and this reflects on their views of sex = marriage, premarital sex is frowned upon, repression of sexual desire, adultery is unthinkable, and divorce is forbidden. The Eldar sex culture is purity culture in a nutshell. And it reflects Tolkien’s own views on the subject:

Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur [...] Faithfulness in Christian marriage entails that: great mortification. For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify & direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains. It will not satisfy him – as hunger may be kept off by regular meals [...] No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial.   [...] Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament [Marriage].... There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves upon earth, and more than that: Death: by the divine paradox, that which ends life, and demands the surrender of all, and yet by the taste (or foretaste) of which alone can what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man's heart desires.  Tolkien Letter 43

In Tolkien lore, there’s a strong connection between sex and morality. This is clear on the most iconic romances on his legendarium: Beren and Lúthien, Aragorn and Arwen, etc., which follow the medieval tradition of Chivalric romance: adventures of knights, courtly love, codes of honor and chivalry, trials and tribulations in the pursuit of love and glory.

“Courly love”, in the European tradition, is a highly idealized portrayal of human romantic relationships, that emerged in the medieval courts of the continent. Is a form of ritualized love between a knight (Beren/Aragorn) and his lady (Lúthien/Arwen), characterized by restrain, discretion and devotion.  Tolkien himself talks about this, as well: 

It idealizes ‘love’ - and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service’, courtesy, honor, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. 

It’s clear Tolkien sees the lustful side of relationships as something sinful, but does this equal “evil”? No, because his characters (including the Elves) and the legendarium are complex, and this is not a pure Good vs. Pure Evil world, as Tolkien says himself: 

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only a fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Tolkien Letter 154

For Tolkien, is more about being on the “right side of History” (let’s put it this way) than being an immaculate hero. His characters are complexed and nuanced:  

There are also conflicts about important things or ideas. In such cases I am more impressed by the extreme importance of being on the right side, than I am disturbed by the revelation of the jungle of confused motives, private purposes, and individual actions (noble or base) in which the right and the wrong in actual human conflicts are commonly involved. If the conflict really is about things properly called right and wrong, or good and evil, then the rightness or goodness of one side is not proved or established by the claims of either side; it must depend on values and beliefs above and independent of the particular conflict. A judge must assign right and wrong according to principles which he holds valid in all cases. That being so, the right will remain an inalienable possession of the right side and Justify its cause throughout. (I speak of causes, not of individuals. Of course to a judge whose moral ideas have a religious or philosophical basis, or indeed to anyone not blinded by partisan fanaticism, the rightness of the cause will not justify the actions of its supporters, as individuals, that are morally wicked. But though 'propaganda' may seize on them as proofs that their cause was not in fact 'right', that is not valid. The aggressors are themselves primarily to blame for the evil deeds that proceed from their original violation of justice and the passions that their own wickedness must naturally (by their standards) have been expected to arouse. They at any rate have no right to demand that their victims when assaulted should not demand an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.) Similarly, good actions by those on the wrong side will not justify their cause. There may be deeds on the wrong side of heroic courage, or some of a higher moral level: deeds of mercy and forbearance. A judge may accord them honour and rejoice to see how some men can rise above the hate and anger of a conflict; even as he may deplore the evil deeds on the right side and be grieved to see how hatred once provoked can drag them down. But this will not alter his judgement as to which side was in the right, nor his assignment of the primary blame for all the evil that followed to the other side. In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil.  Letter 183 

This is why, in "Rings of Power", Sauron can be in love with Galadriel and still be the villain he is. Tolkien doesn’t deal in absolutes, and Sauron is not pure evil, either.

And if people can’t wrap their head around nuanced and complex ideas, it’s not Tolkien's fault, really. This concept that “evil can love” (and it doesn’t make it any less evil) is absolutely fascinating to me, because I wholesome agree with this. Folks have this idealized notion of love (even Tolkien himself talks about this), like it’s only valid if it’s Beren and Lúthien. When it’s not. “Lord of the Rings” is meant to reflect our “fallen” world; and, in our world, tyrants and dictators can love, and have families, and still be genocidal monsters. Their ability to feel romantic love has no direct connection in how they treat their subjects. This is why Tolkien says that “good actions” on the wrong side don’t excuse it nor make it any less evil.

This is not “Harry Potter”, and Sauron is not “Voldemort” that can’t never “know love”. Tolkien was a college professor at Oxford, a renounced linguistic, the father of the modern fantasy genre, and a classic of World literature, he would never write just a basic concept.

This leads me to the idea that “Elves are not wholly good”, and that, they too, can be sinful, and that doesn’t make them “evil” (= on the wrong side). We see this with Galadriel in Tolkien legendarium; not only she commits the sin of pride, and greed, but also lust.  

In "Unfinished Tales", Tolkien tells us: Celeborn was the lover of Galadriel, who she later wedded. In Letter 43, Tolkien defines what he means by “a lover” (in general): “engaging and blending all his affections and powers of mind and body in a complex emotion powerfully coloured and energized by sex”.

So, it’s safe to assume that Galadriel was having sex with Celeborn before they were even married (premarital sex). Probably that’s why he had no quarrels with the wild John Boorman script of her and Frodo f*cking in the middle of the woods.

Galadriel doesn’t care about the Eldar sex customs, because, of course, she doesn’t, she's above that, being Noldor royalty and her own authority. Which makes sense with her “repentant sinner” character arc in the legendarium, actually.

Because, as Tolkien, told us: “in The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour” (Letter 183). And “sin” is considered a transgression against divine law (aka God); an offense against religious and moral laws.

Tolkien was religious, but he wasn’t a Catholic priest, and he was well aware that women have sexual desire, and some are, indeed, promiscuous and have no problems acting on it: “You may meet in life (as in literature) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don't refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy 'conquests', or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them” (Letter 43). Pardon the language, but Tolkien was, after all, a man of his time. 

The “Higher Beings” Nonsense 

This is one of the occasions I completely disagree with Charlie Vickers when he calls Sauron a “higher being”. He probably means it in sense he’s a Maia, a demigod or an angel in Tolkien lore, but his use of words can cause some confusion. Sauron is, in no way, shape of form, an “higher being” (in the Christain sense): he’s a literal demon, a satanist, a follower and a servant of Satan himself, in Tolkien legendarium. Demons exist in the lowest frequencies of existence in Christian theology.

Tolkien makes this very clear on his letters: Melkor/Morgoth is Lucifer/Satan on his myth, he straight-up calls him “diabolus” (Letter 153). It should be obvious enough on his entire character: he’s the one who corrupts God’s creation and is the symbolic archangel/Valar (like Lucifer was). Him being dragged in chains and imprisoned until the end of time also parallels a biblical event.

Sauron is the chief satanist demon in the lore, the #1 servant and follower of Morgoth/Satan: Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron; in which Evil is largely incarnate, and in which physical resistance to it is a major act of loyalty to God (Letter 156).

And here, too, there’s a weird attempt of de-sexualizing these characters (mostly Sauron) in the Tolkien fandom. Despite the fact almost everyone recognizes the Christian inspiration here, and the Devil being seen as the creator of all kinds of sexual depravity, deviation and promiscuity in the world (according to Christain faith); the same way Morgoth was responsible for "corrupting" Arda. Apparently, sex had nothing to do with this corruption, according to some. Odd, to say the least, when Tolkien gives us descriptions of “indominable lust” on both characters (Morgoth and Sauron).

Them being magical and demonic creatures might indicate they have the ability to control whenever they want to reproduce or not. We know from the lore that Morgoth bound himself to his physical form because of his non-stop corruption of Arda. 

On Note 5 (“Vinyar Tengwar”) of “Osanwe-kenta", Tolkien writes: 

The things that are most binding [to Valar and Maiar] are those that in the Incarnates have to do with the life of the hroa itself, its sustenance, and its propagation. Thus eating and drinking are binding, but not the delight in beauty of sound and form. Most binding is begetting or conceiving.  We do not know the axani (laws, rules, as primarily proceeding from Eru) that were laid down upon the Valar with particular reference to their state, but it seems clear that there was no axan against these things. Nonetheless it appears to be an axan, or maybe necessary consequence, that if they are done, then the spirit must dwell in the body that is used, and be under the same necessities as the Incarnate. The only case that is known in the histories of the Eldar is that of Melian (...)  'The great Valar do not do these things: they beget not, neither do they eat and drink, save at the high asari, in token of their lordship and indwelling of Arda, and for the blessing and sustenance of the Children. Melkor alone became at last bound to a bodily form...' 

This might suggest that Morgoth became bound a physical form because of his “great lust”. "Begetting and conceiving” might, indeed, mean more than just standard reproduction, because Morgoth did “begot” with creation and mastery of several races and creatures. However, the only other example of a Ainur (in this case a Maia) getting bound to a physical form in the lore is Melian, when she became pregnant with Lúthien (after reproducing with her Elf love, Thingol). 

* Trigger warning: Mentions of Sexual Assault *

Then we have the fact that Morgoth might have been a serial r*pist. In “Myths Transformed” section of “Morgoth’s ring”, Tolkien has Morgoth r*ping Arien, the Maia who ruled the sun, and was “the most ardent and beautiful of all the spirits that had entered into Eä with [Varda]":  

. . . afire at once with desire and anger, [Melkor] went to Asa  [The Sun] and he spoke to Arie, saying: 'I have chosen thee,   and thou shalt be my spouse, even as Varda is to Manwe,   and together we shall wield all splendour and majesty. Then the kingship of Arda shall be mine in deed as in right,  and thou shalt be the partner of my glory.'  But Arie rejected Melkor and rebuked him, saying:  'Speak not of right, which thou hast long forgotten.  Neither for thee nor by thee alone was Ea made; and  thou shalt not be King of Arda. Beware therefore;  for there is in the heart of [Asa] a light in which  thou hast no part, and a fire which will not serve thee.  Put not out thy hand to it. For though thy potency  may destroy it, it will burn thee and thy brightness   will be made dark.'    Melkor did not heed her warning, but cried in his wrath:  'The gift which was withheld I take!' and he ravished Arie,  desiring both to abase her and to take into himself her powers.  Then the spirit of Arie went up like a flame of anguish and wrath,  and departed for ever from Arda; and the Sun was bereft  of the Light of Varda, and was stained by the assault of Melkor.  And [the Sun] being for a long while without rule . . . grievous   hurt was done to Arda . . .  until with long toil the Valar made   a new order. But even as Arie foretold, Melkor was burned   and his brightness darkened, and he gave no more light,   but light pained him exceedingly   and he hated it.    Nonetheless Melkor would not leave Arda in peace . . . 

So, yes, Tolkien really had the Devil r*ping the Sun... Can this be a parallel Sauron and Galadriel’s scene in “Rings of Power” Season 2 finale? When Sauron ravishes Galadriel's soul using Morgoth's crown? Since Sauron said he would make Galadriel a “queen as fair as the sea and the sun”, in 1x08? No quite. But more on that later.

Then we have the infamous Lúthien episode. There is an on-going debate on Morgoth’s intentions in this scene, but, in my opinion, and taking in consideration the incident with Arien, the “since he fled from Valinor” bit might indicate his intention was, indeed, to r*pe Lúthien. 

Then Morgoth looking upon her beauty [Lúthien] conceived in his thought an evil lust, and a design more dark than any that had yet come into his heart since he fled from Valinor. Thus he was beguiled by his own malice, for he watched her, leaving her free for a while, and taking secret pleasure in his thought. The Silmarillion [Lúthien dances for Morgoth on his Dark Throne, before she puts him and all the host of Angband to sleep with her magic singing]

Tolkien comes back to this “evil lust” Morgoth felt for Lúthien on several works:

…Yet I will give a respite brief, a while to live, a little while, though purchased dear, to Lúthien the fair and clear, a pretty toy for idle hour. In slothful garden many a flower like thee the amorous gods are used honey-sweet to kiss, and cast then bruised, their fragrance loosing, under feet. … A! curse the Gods! O hunger dire,O blinding thirst’s unending fire! One moment shall ye cease, and slake your sting with morsel I here take! In his eyes the fire to flame was fanned,and forth he stretched his brazen hand.Lúthien as shadow shrank aside. ‘Not thus, O King! Not thus!’ she cried. … …And her wings she caught then deftly up, and swift as thought slipped from his grasp, and wheeling round, fluttering before his eyes, she wound a mazy-wingéd dance… The Lay of Leithian, The Lost Road and Other Writings

“Nay,” saith Melkor, “such things are little to my mind; but as thou hast come thus far to dance, dance, and after we will see,” and with that he leered horribly, for his dark mind pondered some evil.  Book of Lost Tales vol.2

Then Morgoth laughed, but he was moved with suspicion, and said that her accursed race would get no soft words or favour in Angband. What could she do to give him pleasure, and save herself from the lowest dungeons? He reached out his mighty brazen hand but she shrank away. He is angry but she offers to dance. Commentary to the Lay of Leithian (The Lays of Beleriand)

Almost every servant of Morgoth either came to resent him or were absolutely terrified of him. The most notorious case being Sauron himself, as he went into the hiding after his spectacular defeat in Tol-in-Gauhoth (at the hands of Lúthien and Huan, the Hound of Valinor), probably to escape being punished by Morgoth.

“Rings of Power” already had Sauron talking about the unbelievable tortures he endured at Morgoth’s hands, and taking into consideration all of this… well, those “r*pe of Mairon” dead dove fanfictions might be on to something here.

Do you know what it is to be tortured at the hands of a god?

Sauron’s entire dialogue in this scene can be interpreted as that of a r*pe survivor, actually: we have the dissociation element of “sometimes, the pain almost became a reward. Became a game"; and the self-guilt of “no, you chose it” (which is something many victims of sexual assault go through).

And then, we have the fact that the “feminization of hyper-masculine Mairon” was a consequence of his corruption by Morgoth, as I’ve already talked about in this post.

Tolkien himself talks about the Christian devil in terms of sex and lust, so it’s odd why the Tolkien fandom plays mental gymnastics trying to equalize Tolkien’s use of the sin “lust” with “greed” (these are two different sins in Christian theology, even though they are connected). 

The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favorite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. Letter 43

Greed vs. Lust in Tolkien Lore

Indeed, Tolkien uses the sin “Lust” in connection with "Power" and "Jewels" (Silmarils/One ring/gold), but this might be a metaphor for sexual temptation, as well. Mainly because of his Christian inspiration behind the whole story.

Some examples of Tolkien’s usage of the word “lust”, that might be interpreted as “greed”:

The oath of the sons of Fëanor becomes operative, and lust for the Silmarils brings all the kingdoms of the Elves to ruin."  "But also they [rings of power] enhanced the natural powers of a possessor – thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination."  "Very slowly, beginning with fair motives: the reorganising and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle-earth, 'neglected by the gods', he [Sauron] becomes a reincarnation of Evil, and a thing lusting for Complete Power – and so consumed ever more fiercely with hate (especially of gods and Elves)."  Now Sauron’s lust and pride increased, until he knew no bounds, and he determined to make himself master of all things in Middle-earth, and to destroy the Elves, and to compass if he might, the downfall of Númenor

"Also so great was the [One] Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it..."  The Númenóreans attempted to take the Undying Land by force of a great armada in their lust for corporal immortality.

“Greed” is the disordered desire to consume (wealth, power); while “Lust” is the disordered desire to possess (something or someone). Lust is “consumption” and “action”, while greed is “hoarding” and “possessing”. Someone who is greedy wants more and more of something (not necessarily do anything with it); while someone who is lustful wants to do something with the thing it desires.

But “desire” that is not acted upon in Tolkien lore is not sinful, nor it’s a transgression of God’s (Eru) laws.

“The Original sin” (or “The Fall") is central to Tolkien world-building: “The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall [of Adam and Eve]”. And this means is that Lust is the “original sin”, and the gateway to sin, and from where all other sins originate.  

St. Paul writes "cupiditas radix malorum": “the root of all evil is cupidity". This is motivated by the fact that Eve ate the forbidden fruit because "she saw it, was beautiful". This explains why Christians have such a bad view of sex, especially when it’s not restrained by marriage.

There is lust for the forbidden fruit (the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve were instructed not to eat in the Garden of Eden). This is when “sin” is first introduced into the world, leading to their banishment from paradise. The themes here are: disobedience to God, and succumbing to temptation (Devil).

And it’s the serpent that inflames Eve's lust, and "Rings of Power" wasn't even being subtle here (even the OST for this scene is called "The Fall of Galadriel"): 

“Lust”, in his biblical/catholic sense, is the misuse of the body, sexually. The opposite of “lust” is “temperance” and “chastity”. “Lust” is disorderly sexual desire, and the subordinated enjoyment of sexual pleasure (against God’s law). It’s not just promiscuity, but extra-marital sex, as well.

In the Bible, “lust” is thematized by adultery (because marriage is a sacred sacrament, and acting against it, it’s breaking God’s laws, hence being a “deadly sin”). We also see this sin in connection with “idolatry” (one of Sauron’s crimes in Tolkien lore), when characters (such as Solomon) take foreign wives, symbolizing the forsaking of one’s partner for another.

But the catch here is: Eve wanted to eat the forbidden fruit. She wanted to bite into it, it was consensual. She was tempted, and she succumbed to temptation, to lust.

This pretty much goes hand with hand what I wrote on my “Of sin and sinners” post, that made the purity police gone wild. Galadriel and Sauron’s dynamic is not only hyper sexual, but it’s being consummated as well, and that’s why Galadriel gets banish from Valinor.

Sauron ravishing Galadriel using a sharp object parallels another Christian event (demonic version): the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa.

Beside me, on the left, appeared an angel in bodily form…. He was […] very beautiful; and his face was so aflame that he appeared to be one of the highest rank of angels, who seem to be all on fire…. In his hands I saw a great golden spear, and at the iron tip there appeared to be a point of fire. This he plunged into my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he pulled it out I felt that he took them with it, and left me utterly consumed by the great love of God. The pain was so severe that it made me utter several moans. The sweetness caused by this intense pain is so extreme that one cannot possibly wish it to cease, nor is one’s soul content with anything but God. This is not a physical but a spiritual pain, though the body has some share in it—even a considerable share.

This is, essentially, a description of a Catholic saint having an orgasm. The “lorebros” wanted the Virgin Mary that never was, and “Rings of Power” delivered. Iconic. And that probably provides the subtext to this unhinged expression over here:

Happy with ourselves, are we?

So, yes, in the end, Sauron did take Celeborn’s woman as foreshadowed by Season 1 with the “clams” scene in Númenor (1x03). And now that his blood is inside of her, stuff is about to get wild.

[genoskissors]

My Ranking of Genocide Jack Sprites

IMPORTANT!: I love each and every sprite she has, so when I rank one low, it's still a 10/10, I just like the others more. Please do not misinterpret this as anything other than Genocide Jack appreciation.

Honorable Mention: Empty Eyes

- I cannot consider it to be an official Genocide Jack sprite, but this is most certainly her. The iconic tongue and eccentric behavior can’t be confused for anyone else but the glorious Genocide Jack.

12) Frustrated

- Looking as gorgeous as ever, it does bring some pain to my heart to see a lack of tongue. However, I understand the sacrifice. Hopefully her frustrations will be resolved soon, it’s nice to see a smile.

11) Agreement

- Nodding her head. It’s always good to see Genocide Jack coming to an understanding with her classmates. The bonds she forms allow her to open up more, revealing her complex emotions.

10) Agreement (Eyes Open)

- A step up from 11, as in this, you can see her eyes. They say that eyes are the windows to the soul. Is Genocide Jack’s soul black, often associated with death, or pink, like the blood she happily sheds?

9) Surprised

- Due to her personality, she feels more silly than surprised, but not everyone displays emotions the same. It’s important to understand that the beauty of Genocide Jack comes in more than one form.

8) Enchanted

- While she is a bit riled up, she is capable of reaching higher extremes, but this lighter excitement is just as thrilling. She can’t help but hold her face to contain her dirty comments. It’s good to be comfortable.

7) Serious

- A calm yet stern sprite. While relaxed, the feelings her demeanor gives off do not disappear. She carries herself with dignity and bravery, in both expression and stance. It’s a good choice for her default.

6) Intense

- Someone’s pissed. I hope she is able to overcome the obstacle blocking her from her goal. This sprite also shows her tongue is longer than first suspected. It adds a lot to her design and I love it.

5) Smile

- This sprite oozes with confidence. The hand she holds up has killed 37 boys and men. Even without holding scissors, you can sense her strength. While introducing herself, she presents a huge smile!

4) Throbbing

- What is Genocide Jack if not a maiden who follows her heart? Her squinted eyes full of passion look beautiful. Whether it’s yaoi, yuri, or murder, it gets Genocide Jack all excited, it’s very cute.

3)🥉 Scissors

- Genocide Jack in her element, with her trusty scissors by her side. The predatory look and the positioning of the weapons puts you in the scared perspective of her victims. Her braids flow well here.

2)🥈 Smiling Face (Refreshing)

- A warm and wholesome sprite capable of purifying even my darkest days. A face showing not only a big smile, but a satisfied individual. The hands held and the slight head tilt add to the overwhelming charm.

1)🥇 Smile (High Tension)

- An undeniable classic. It’s power is simply unmatched when it comes to the most authentic portrayal of Genocide Jack as a character. It’s impossible to look at such a big smile and feel any sorrow.

[shuinami]

Part 1: What Exactly is Hobie’s Accent and Who Has It?

Part 2: When, Where, Why (Black Londoner Culture since Windrush) | Part 3: How (Writing Tips)

As a black Londoner, a large reason Hobie is so special to me is because I really saw and heard myself in him, while also not seeing a stereotype or typical, lacking in nuance portrayal of a black Londoner.

A lot of people have given great advice about how to write the dialogue of a British person; however, though the U.K. is a small place, different areas, like anywhere, have very different cultures and accents. Even somewhere as geographically small as London has a few different native accents, as many of you have picked up on, Cockney is one but there is also Received Pronunciation (RP), Estuary English and the one Hobie uses for most of his intro: Multicultural London English (MLE). 

I’m an MLE user myself, as are most black Londoners, including Daniel Kaluuya (who voices Hobie and was asked to make the dialogue sound authentic). Aside from tilting my head in slight confusion at some of the slang floating around the fandom, one of the last times I rewatched the movie, I noticed Hobie actually only uses one relatively ubiquitous Cockney phrase… and apparently, it was used inauthentically? On the other hand, he uses quite a few MLE phrases and constructions but it seems few people represent that in their fan content. 

It made me want to give my two cents and some advice on how to write the dialogue of an MLE user since I haven’t seen anyone do something like this yet.

In addition, I wanted to give a little bit of context about life as a black Londoner, since Windrush brought the first mass migration of black people to England in 1948 until now, since it’s another thing that I haven’t seen anyone talk about how it differs from the typical depictions of British life. And also how that intersected with punk culture and what it says about Hobie. Everyone is entitled to their personal interpretations but, of course, as someone who Hobie’s a bit closer to home for than most, I felt a lot of people are missing a key part of who he is without understanding the youth culture of black Londoners.

To answer these questions, I think it would be good to put names to the four main London accents so you can understand exactly what Hobie’s purposefully mixed accent is made up of and the one thing it is not.

I also want to say before we get into it that some people have unique accents/accents that may not seem to match their status or ethnicity, etc. so it’s not that nobody speaks using other accents but if we hear it, it would be noticeable.

Starting off, we have Received Pronunciation which is that posh, fancy and stuffy accent you probably first associated a British accent with. This is the accent of the rich, associated with types who go to private schools like Eton, with the royals’ accents and political figures. Nothing to do with Hobie.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there’s Cockney. Cockney is an interesting one; it’s a term referring to people that are from East London, and according to Google “traditionally one born within the hearing of the Bow Bells” which means in earshot of the bells of St Mary-le-Bow Church. 

The term is also used to cover the accent and slang; the Cockney accent is not necessarily exclusive to Cockney people but rather is one that, nowadays, floats around the working class. The culture, on the other hand, such as familiarity with rhyming slang and stuff like eating jellied eels is not so ubiquitous amongst the working class not from the area. An example of a Cockney with this accent would be Danny Dyer, who plays Mick Carter in EastEnders and some of the other characters also have a proper Cockney accent. Here’s an iconic clip from EastEnders that showcases the Cockney accent lol

However, there is a more general accent, which refers to the varying mixtures of RP and cockney that most Londoners have: Estuary English. The estuary in the term refers to the Thames Estuary in the South East of England, near but outside of London. The accent is not locked there, however, and extends to London, especially as people have tended to move further out from London with time due to housing prices and thus accents of outer and inner parts of London mix. It’s not associated with class the way the other two previous accents are.

There are no clear boundaries between Estuary English and Cockney, mainly due to upward mobility and movement around London. I’m not a linguist so it’s hard to describe but I would personally say that proper Cockney has some ways of pronouncing things that even Estuary English speakers on the Cockney end of the spectrum don’t typically do. 

Some examples I would consider Estuary English or more typical accents would be those of people like Amelia Dimoldenberg (chicken shop girl 😂) and Tom Holland; on the more Cockney end of this accent, you’d have people like Adele (who I’m pretty sure has Cockney family members).

Then there’s Multicultural London English, influenced mainly by the dialects of the ethnic immigrants that have come to the U.K., most notably Jamaican Patois but also, more recently, borrowing a lot from West African Pidgin languages, as well as some words and phrases here and there from other immigrant communities. Most black people speak MLE and many other ethnic Londoners do too, as due to the effects of colonization and structural racism, many are relegated to the working classes and live in community together. Examples of this accent would be John Boyega, Jasmine Jobson, Letitia Wright and, of course, Daniel Kaluuya.

Now that we’ve got the accents down, which does Hobie have?

While the term Cockney is thrown around a lot, there is a strong implication that Hobie was born and raised in Camden, especially given the casting of Daniel Kaluuya, who was born and raised in that area himself. 

Here’s a map of London, I split us up based on how I understand people typically refer to it, which is a mix of geography, government designation and postcodes. The rainbow in the middle is considered Central London, it’s a very commercial and touristy area, where all our classic landmarks are and it’s very expensive to live there. 

Part of the borough of Camden is in central London and, currently, it starts to get more residential near Camden Market, which is 3 miles away from St Mary-le-Bow-Church, aka. The Bow Bells. A true Cockney is said to be within 3 miles or earshot of the bells (for geographical reasons, the sound carries more East). I’m not sure about the balance of residential to commercial areas in the 70s, although apparently, the area near Camden Lock was industrial. London has changed and expanded over time so someone from an east-most part of Camden at a point probably would have been easily counted as Cockney but I have no clue about the timeline. It’s uncertain whether or not Hobie would fit the criteria but if he was born today, Hobie definitely wouldn’t be considered or consider himself a Cockney. 

So again, while there’s no clear distinction of what makes a Cockney accent, Hobie is probably not a Cockney (unless you hc as such).

Does that mean he uses Estuary English? I would say no. I think his accent is predominantly Cockney and he uses some of the slang, as most Londoners do, but being black and not from East London, he mostly uses MLE slang and sentence constructions.

I believe this was the creative intention, given the casting of Daniel Kaluuya, most known for his roles in movies tackling black issues, and the freedom he was given to make the dialogue authentic, meaning Hobie’s blackness is a core part of his character design for Spider-Verse. You can also hear Daniel exaggerating the accent for Hobie at points; as he’s said himself, it’s not just his regular accent, which might not be too obvious to those not so used to London accents. It's a more Cockney accent, particularly in the intro, that he’s putting on instead of speaking normally, despite not necessarily using much Cockney lingo. Bear in mind, that Daniel naturally has a stronger Cockney twang to his natural speaking voice than a lot of MLE speakers.

Returning to the point that the one Cockney phrase, “scooby doo” was used inauthentically; it’s worth noting that you’ll be hard-pressed to find an up-to-date and thorough reference or guide on how to write the use of Cockney slang authentically because Cockney is a somewhat dated culture. For example, jellied eels? Not a common thing anymore, Some people, probably older East Londoners, still do eat them but extremely few places sell them and most of us will have never even seen them in our lives. As mentioned above, upward mobility along with people moving around means that the accent, slang and general culture have been watered down over time. On top of that, a lot of East London has been gentrified, such as the Isle of Dogs (in Tower Hamlets), which has had Canary Wharf transformed - a mall, a business centre and a major transport link and Stratford (in Newham), which has similarly had a giant mall and major transport links added to it.

Some Cockney rhyming slang stuck and is known to all Londoners, such as “telling porkies/porky pies” and “copper”. “I ain’t got a scooby (doo)” is a more common one, although not even that is known to all. Typically, Cockneys only say the first half of the rhyming slang phrase (even if it no longer rhymes). I couldn’t tell you which Cockney rhyming slang phrases have been absorbed into more general London vocab other than those, because again, it’s not used as most lists you could probably find online have it written out in full but know that a lot of phrases have been absorbed. 

Cockney slang is an oral tradition of the working class and so until more recently, when literacy rates went up, probably wouldn’t have been written, on top of people tending to write in standard English instead of using slang when writing. Unless you’re talking to a boomer/gen-x/older millennial from East London, it’s not so likely that you could read off a list of cockney phrases to a Londoner and they would be familiar with them. Because Daniel Kaluuya and I’m guessing the other people involved in writing Hobie’s dialogue aren’t Cockneys, well, that’s how we ended up with what we got.

So, whilst a dated dialect probably would be perfect for Hobie, it’s hard to get right or for it to read as natural to a Londoner because it’s difficult to pinpoint people that still talk like that on a regular basis, even in East London and it’s ESPECIALLY not black people/MLE users that talk like that these days. Cockney Rhyming slang was code language, after all so it figures that it’s a bit elusive.

Funnily enough, Hobie’s use of MLE is probably a slight anachronism, a little ahead of his time. Because the mass migration of Caribbeans began in 1948, by the 70s, most young black people would be the first big wave of second gens or immigrants themselves; ‘Black British’ culture would’ve still been quite young and not had enough time to carve itself as its own thing. The MLE we (including Hobie in the movie) use today started to really be what it is today in the 90s. Point being, you’re not going to find documentation of black Londoners from the 70s or early 80s who talk like Hobie.

Basically… Hobie’s accent is not authentic to the time period so if you wanted to write a historically authentic accent/slang… then you probably wouldn’t really write one… buuut it’s less fun and less Hobie! So let’s learn about black British youth culture and racism in London since the 70s, then we can understand the context in which the language is used before we learn the lingo + how to use it 😎

[icyg4l]

Pick-A-Child Star: Inner Child Messages

In honor of Black History Month, I am continuing the series of highlighting Black icons while prioritizing the spiritual needs of Black Americans. Pick the image that resonates with you most.

Left-to-Right (1-3): Keke Palmer, Aleisha Allen, China Anne McClain

If you chose Pile One, you resonate with the energy of Keke Palmer. As we all know, she is a multi-talented human being. She is a singer-songwriter, actress, dancer, talk show host, podcaster and model. Her name is synonymous with the phrase 'busy bee'. Her infectious personality has followed us through movies and tv shows like True Jackson VP, Scream Queens, Akeelah and the Bee, Nope and much more. She continues to grace the screens with her charismatic nature.

"You're always wondering what you're not, can't you be happy with what you've got?"

When you were younger, you may have watched the tv show, 'How to Rock', starring Cymphonique. The premise of the show is navigating the social castes of high school. I channeled the theme song for this show. You really need to show some more gratitude, man. What's in your imagination is being reflected on the outside world; just enjoy the moment. Your brain is on overload all the time and you really need to rest. On Valentine's Day, you should give yourself some 'me time'. Another message that I get from your inner child is that you need to go play! For some of you, I sense that you're reluctant to let someone into your life when they have good intentions. I think high school plays a big role into why you navigate the world the way that you do. You are not in high school anymore! You are officially responsible for your own shit (that means the emotional trauma too, boo). Your inner child also wants you to know that you should take up some karate/self-defense classes. It is imperative that you learn how to stick up for yourself physically, not just verbally. Lastly, if you have lost a father figure, you should do that thing to honor his legacy such as getting a tattoo of him, getting a portrait painted of him, starting that company and naming it after him. You are your father's offspring, you know?

If you chose pile 2, this means you resonate with the energy of Aleisha Allen. She is most famously known for her roles in the 'Are We There Yet?' film series and School of Rock. Her cheeky portrayal of these characters solidified her as a Black child star icon. After starring in these classic films, she took on smaller roles in 'The Electric Company' and indie films. Since then, she has acquired a Bachelor's degree at Pace University and a Master's degree at Columbia University in Communication Science and Disorders to fulfill a career as a speech pathologist.

“I gets down, I don’t play”

Some of you may be in the midst of choosing a major after being undecided for so long. Some of you may switch majors a lot. Your inner child wants you to choose something that makes them come alive this time. In other words, choose a career path that's not boring to you. You could have ADHD/ADD or some type of learning disability. You need to slow down because you’re inviting some disingenuous energy. Your inner child does not trust the people that are around you. Your light shines too bright to be staying in spaces where you're not celebrated. This made me think of a video of Megan Thee Stallion talking about walking out of rooms where you don't feel comfortable. Do exactly that, my love. Everything will work out just fine if you believe that it will. Your inner child wants you to be as optimistic about this transition as possible. And lastly, you don't have to tolerate anyone's behavior, or quite frankly anything. If you feel like you have to put up with someone's bull, then you need to leave. You guys were quite the sassy kids, weren't you? Now, where did all of that energy go? Why are you dimming yourself down just to appeal to others? It doesn't matter if you're in a corporate meeting or a classroom filled with white people, you speak your mind. You know what's going on, don't be intimidated.

If you chose Pile 3, you resonate with the energy of China Anne McClain. She is known for her roles in Daddy’s Little Girls, A.N.T. Farm, the Descendants series and Black Lightning. Her range in roles highlights her witty, yet dramatic personality, which is the reason for any drawn interest in her. She is also a singer-songwriter who was once in a girl group with her older sisters, Lauryn and Sierra. Since then, she has documented her spiritual journey on social media after quitting acting.

“I’ve got friends on the other side”

This is the pile that I would probably choose. This is the pile of the hoodoos/witches/spiritualists/occultists. Your inner child wants you to know that the spells you’ve been casting have been working. As a child, you may have had some experiences with ghosts/spirits. Nobody believed you but who cares? They’re your friends now. There may be a cousin that you haven’t seen/talked to in a while. Please talk to them! Your inner child misses them so much! It doesn’t matter if you’re not on good terms with them, please go do it. For some reason, you should go play hide and seek. This could also mean that you should prepare for an item of yours to go missing temporarily. It could also mean that you will find out some information that you’ve been searching for. Finally, if you feel like you have nowhere to go, think again! Your inner child wants to go to place where you once frequented. This could be the beach, an arcade or the park. Go have a picnic. Go insert those coins/swipe that card into your favorite apocalypse game. Go dig your toes into the sand! You are going through self-actualization and it is important that you stay grounded. Be prepared to step into uncomfortable positions. Connecting with your inner child is a way to do so. It is essential for your growth as a person.

[pendragonsclotpole]

I need to preface this post with the fact that I’ve been aware of Supernatural for as long as I’ve known what the terms fanfiction and fandom mean. It’s one of those pop culture moments that’s existed on the periphery of my mind as something really beloved and bemoaned about by people on the internet, but it’s never been something I really cared about outside of some iconic memes.

For the past four days, I’ve been watching Supernatural non-stop in my free time. I think I sat through eight episodes straight on one of those days, and I just have to say, the show is phenomenal.

I don’t know where to start, I could make a dozen of these posts about various points throughout the first two seasons and it still wouldn’t be enough. I’ve now taken a break at episode one of season three, because now that it’s a weekday I have work and can’t dedicate the time I could on the weekend.

First, Jared Padalecki’s acting is so beautiful and poignant and emotional. He really makes Sam Winchester into the bleeding heart of the whole show, and the entire time he’s on screen I worry about Sam. His portrayal of Sam’s heartbreak and desperation at Dean’s impending death after the car crash, as well as Sam’s horror at the reveal of what John told Dean before dying held a tragic desperation and denial that really embodied what the character represented in the first two seasons. Even as a hunter and with his special abilities, Sam felt like a quasi self-insert for the audience. I don’t mean that in a bad or overly tropey way, but in the way that he felt robbed of a proper childhood in favor of his father’s crusade. Sam is the angry, indignant younger sibling who never bore the brunt of responsibility like the older sibling did and it shows. In some ways, it makes him more entitled—I don’t mean that Sam does not have the right to be angry with John Winchester. He does. Fuck John Winchester. I mean entitled in the unintentional, coincidental way that your little brother or sister always demands the things you never had or rebels against the authority of the parent without ever dealing with the consequences you did as the older sibling. It reveals the veneer of freedom he had and the protection he received by virtue of his place in the Winchester Family. For me, it made him unbearably real, and this feeling of realness was made worse by the genuine naivety and innocence he keeps even as he continually gets screwed over by the demons. There’s a steadfast belief in the goodness of others within Sam that often conflicts with the sense of goodness he believes he lacks.

Sam trusts so easily, but he understands people in ways that should be antithetical to his upbringing. It took me forever to reconcile why he seemed so familiar, until I realized that Sam Winchester, for all that he was one of John Winchester’s son, had received the unconditional love of an older sibling for his entire childhood.

I don’t mean the perfect, kind, healthy love that often exists between fictional siblings. Too often I’ve watched media that makes me wonder how siblings like that even exist, or conversely, made me glad my siblings weren’t so fucked up.

I mean the kind of platonic love that exists between siblings living in the liminal space of love and hate thanks to the single fucked up connection that draws them back together continuously out of some sense of duty or commiseration or the need to be understood.

I mean the kind of love between siblings that would wither away when in a perfect world that does not stake their survival on their codependence of each other, but that in an imperfect and real world is equated to familiarity. Sam and Dean against the world—against John Winchester.

Out of all of the episodes I’ve watched in the last day and a half, perhaps the one that struck me most was episode 20, Season 2. What is and What Should Never Be. Not only was the title a bit of emotional whiplash—the juxtaposition of Should and Never lending a finality or a sense of wrongness that can’t be replicated by the words “Could Never—but we see Dean and Sam in a world where their one connection, hunting, has completely vanished and at a high cost to all the people they’ve saved, but mostly to Sam and Dean themselves. They’re connection as ride or die brothers is gone, replaced by an ostensibly better, healthier, more normal future liberated from the expectations of the rest of the world.

Without the death of Mary Winchester, Dean and Sam are no longer Dean and Sam. They’re just two people, connected by the two people that raised them, and likely to drift apart after that connection dies—frayed ends of a tapestry pulling apart and unraveling. Dean gains a mom and a normal life, but metaphorically loses a brother and a sense of purpose. Who is Dean Winchester if he’s not a hunter and Sam’s brother? And the sad thing is, neither of these are traits Dean ever chose. They are conditions foisted upon him, perhaps not intentionally, such as in the case of Sam, but ultimately placed on his soul until they tethered themselves to the very core of what being Dean Winchester is supposed to mean. The end of the episode, and Dean’s choice to return to the real world, regardless of Sam waking him up, is Dean fully giving up his dream in order to save Sam and be a hunter. The fallacy of the episode is in the choice Dean makes, which the more I think about it, feels less like a choice and more of an inevitability but one compounded by Dean’s readiness and willingness to go with it.

This is where I get to the crux of my surprise with these first early seasons of Supernatural: Dean Motherfucking Winchester.

I don’t know what I was expecting from early seasons of Supernatural, especially with the context of the later seasons. Maybe an overly cheesy, early 2000s ode to roadtrip Americana with a self-reverential take on the classic gun slinging frontiersman of the Wild West and bad supernatural CGI. Not to say it isn’t that (shout out to Sam’s comment on Dean’s particular brand of butch), but what surprised me was how real the connection between the characters was manifested on screen and how much good will the show built up in the audience. There came a point where I sided with Dean so much in the events of the show that I felt like I was riding shotgun in the impala. I saw it with every compliant “yes, sir” he gave to John, with every teasing comment he threw at Sam, and with every act of selflessness he exhibited by protecting other people. This isn’t to say that Dean is perfect. Sometimes he doesn’t take things seriously enough, or he’s willing to sacrifice people for some misguided greater good, or he’s obsessed with saving Sam even when he wouldn’t be if it were anyone else, but Dean has a conviction so many people lack. He has the capacity to love at a great cost to himself, either because he believes himself unworthy of being loved or because he’s not used to anything else.

Jensen Ackles does such a good job at this portrayal and with such a different technique than Jared Padalecki. Ackles embodies the desperate need for self-assuredness that Dean breathes, as well as the genuine fear he has of being seen. I love laughing with Dean as much as I love screaming at him for how stupid he’s being. If Sam is the self-insert, then Dean is the tragic hero, although that comparison feels like a poor facsimile for what Dean Winchester truly is because I don’t particularly feel an overwhelming sense of pity at his state or at his hinted downfall with that demon deal. If anything, I feel a sense of indignation mixed with understanding and frustration that Dean can’t catch a break but at the end of it all, is just how he prefers it.

It shouldn’t be a shock to admit that even without knowing what happens from seasons 3 to 15, I know how Supernatural ends. Just thinking about the ending makes me wonder if I should even continue it past season 5, but that’s a decision for another time.

For now, there’s something unbearably tragic in seeing Dean Winchester so close to a chance of a normal life and apple pie happiness (something he really seems to desire no matter how much he denies it) and then having to give it up, not just because it’s not real, but because he believes it should never be real.

Dean Winchester deserves better.

[applepie2523]

" HOTD's Issues Writing Women Part 1: The Character Assassination of Alicent Hightower

**Just posted part 2 where I analyze the issues in the writing of Rhaenyra! You can find it on my profile.**

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

This first post is my analysis on the issues of writing Alicent Hightower in HOTD.

\***Some disclaimers: This is no issue with the actress herself. Olivia Cooke while I may disagree with her opinions from time to time, is a wonderful actress who is doing the best she can with the scripts she's given, so this is by no means a critique of her. I am going off of the show canon although the book will be mentioned.**

**So firstly... What is character assassination?**

While Alicent does at times suffer from white washing, she mainly suffers from character assassination. Character assassination is very sudden and almost inorganic changes are made to a character that makes them even worse; harming that character's impact and reputation. Many negative traits or changes have been made to Alicent's character that she is become completely different from her season 1 self (in a bad way) and her book counterpart.

**I will say not every change made to Alicent's story arc and personality are necessarily all bad. Some are decent or even good ideas, just poorly executed (ex - aging down Alicent) and others are just good changes in general.**

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

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

*2. Alicent's Negative Portrayal: Motherhood, Loyalty, and Manipulation to Child Neglect, Betrayal, and Idiocracy*

In the show, I feel much of Alicent's traits have either been changed, ignored or downplayed. Alicent I think was the epitome of the medieval woman who used the patriarchal system to her own advantage. Who sought power for herself and her family/house through manipulating/influencing the men around her. The men also respected her to a much larger degree than the show implies, she isn't dismissed because she's a woman so much. While I do think in the show Aemond dismisses her from the council because he just didn't want his mommy scolding him in front of everyone, I think the show framed it more so to make it seem Alicent is dimissed due to sexism and "that's what she gets for betraying feminism" or something like that. Something about her learning that the patriarchy and siding with it is bad.

I found Book Alicent reminding me of Margaret Beaufort. She was the mother of King Henry VII, who advocated for him to be King, despite herself off of blood ties alone having the better claim to the throne than him. She manipulated men and women around her to gain supporters and more influence for him and by extension herself. She was fiercely loyal to her faction, the Lancastrians and Tudors. Strong and intelligent and pious and at times very immoral. Loved her son more than anything in her life. She even played the long game, playing nice but still subtly undermining the "enemy faction" (The Yorks). She also understood that because of his claim, despite being slightly distant, was strong enough for him to be a danger to the York faction hence she knew he had to get one the throne in order to be safe versus just renouncing his claim (like Aegon). She never stopped advising him or advocating for him. While Alicent Hightower isn't exactly like Margaret Beaufort, they exhibit many similarities.

Alicent loved her boys and would never choose Rhaenyra over them. For example, after her life was sparred when Rhaenyra took Kingslanding and her father was executed... she found out Rhaenyra planned to go after Daeron and Aemond. Alicent begged for them to be sparred, even offering a truce where the kingdoms would be split between Aegon II and Rhaenyra. She even states to Rhaenyra after surrending that Rhaenyra may enjoy her throne for as long as it lasts, until her son Aemond sets her free. She loved her Aemond and had so much hope that he would rescue her and avenge their family. She loved Aegon so much that his murder was her straw on the camel's back and she descended into full-on madness, spending the rest of her days mourning her children and grandchildren and remembering her time with King Jaehaerys. She was so loyal to her faction that in her madness after losing all of her children, she ordered her granddaughter then Queen Jaehaera, child-wife to child-king Aegon III (Rhaenyra's son) to slit her child-husband's throat. She stayed loyal to the Greens for life.

In the show we get neither an intelligent, scheming, manipulative, deeply ambitious, loyal, or mothering Alicent. In fact we get an exact opposite: bystander, unintelligent, unambitious, flaky, betrayer, and neglectful. Alicent didn't scheme herself to become Queen, rather that whole plot was taken away from her and placed fully onto Otto who is now nothing but a pimp when he is like any other self-serving ambitious lord who desires glory and power to his name and that of his house. Who does what any other lord of Westeros would do if a King is widowed with no male heir. I mean even Corlys did it with Laena! We hardly see Alicent begin her true influence on the court in Westeros while young in season 1 and older. When we do see her scheme, its through her degrading herself through medieval foot fetishes when she would never do that. Why couldn't Alicent scheme and manipulate using her words, threats, and her title like Rhaenyra should be doing in the books? Why must the few times we see her scheme include sexual humiliation. We don't see the Queenship of Alicent who wasn't just "baby-maker 2.0" but someone who had significant power and influence at court. The only time I feel I got a true hint of the power of book Alicent was when she wore Green the first time. But then they abandon her resolve and make her a Rhaenyra simp.

Alicent's desire for power and for her children safety is also downgraded. She only makes Aegon king because of a stupid prophecy, taking away more of her agency and intelligence. She schemes alongside her father and the Green council to put Aegon on the throne, not just mishears her dying husband and then goes along with it. She wasn't shut out by the men in her house and council, she was heard and respected. They took away so much of that I think to put out a message that Alicent is oppressed by the patriarchy. Was she in the book? Absolutely every woman in Westeros is to varying degrees, but that doesn't mean Alicent had no power! Alicent was motivated out of a desire for power and need to keep her children safe which she felt wouldn't have happened if Rhaenyra was Queen. Was she wrong for thinking that? Maybe, maybe not, but I feel like that was taken away.

I also dislike how they spit on her motherhood. Alicent by our standards was not mom of the year in F&B. However, we see that regardless of her wrongs and the fact that yes she loves her kids because of the power they grant her, that no matter what she would never choos Rhaenyra over them and loved them regardless of how they disappoint or anger her. That's what I loved about parenthood in Martin's work. We see how parenthood offers layers into the characters and gives them depth. Characters who are naturally seen as more villainous and/or violent or ambitious are given softer sides and layers through their fatherhood or motherhood. We should have seen some of that with Daemon and with Alicent. We saw it with Cersei Lannister. Cersei was not mother of the year in terms of her parenting and child rearing skills, but she loved her children more than life itself and makes it not secret. No matter how much they may anger or disappoint her she'd never betray them. That's what I wanted for Alicent. A manipuative, at times immoral, ambitious, and intelligent woman whose softer side is shown through her motherhood and devotion to her children. It gives her layers. Just as if they showed Daemon taking pride in his sons or spending more time with his daughters, we would have gotten more layers.

Instead, Alicent neglect and is emotionally distant towards all of her children to the point they have serious mommy issues. The Green children already had a complicated relationship with their father. Viserys wasn't as neglectful in the book to his green children as the show, but there was an intense favoritism of Rhaenyra that affected his kids. However, they all at least had their mother who would put them first. Alicent was cold and distant and downright hateful towards her sons at times and distant from her daughter and grandchildren. Her kids then hardly like her in return. Alicent even betrays all of them by going to Rhaenyra and essentially offering up their lives. Offering the life of her son Aegon isn't enough and anyone would know it. Rebellion at this point and war and Green forces would then go to Aemond who will now also have to die, then Daeron the son she gushed over with Gwayne. So she then offers up her house, father, and three sons to Rhaenyra's faction's mercy which wouldn't end well for them as this is war at that point and it would stupid of Rhaenyra to spare any of them even if they swear fealty. She saves Helaena and Jaehaera? No! They are still of the green faction. If Helaena remarried and/or Jaehaera married and had sons, all it takes is either those sons or their families to be ambitious enough... more war! Alicent as well had a great relationship with her grandchildren. She loved to spend time with them. In fact, the night Viserys died he played with Jaehaera, Jaehaerys, and Maelor. Alicent was ambushed and victimized by B&C first because they knew that Helaena brought her children to visit her in the evening. Plus she was living in the less guarded Tower of the Hand. Alicent was bound and gagged, pleading for mercy for her grandbabies, not having an affair! In fact, Aegon even gave Maelor to Alicent to raise correctly because Helaena was falling in madness.

Most of all, I dislike the Criston affair. It went very off-book to give Alicent a lover. However, with what they changed in her relationship with Viserys, I didn't fully hate this change, just the way they executed it was wrong. I could buy Alicent and Criston having intense, deep, feelings for one another. However, I felt having a physical affair versus just an emotional one was very off-character. After Criston's incident with Rhaenyra and Alicent's trauma regarding marital rape on Viserys's end (hated that they made Viserys rape her maritally when the two had a much better and loving relationship in the book), it makes more sense for them to be rather traumatized or awkward regarding sex. I feel like an emotional affair where there is a lot of sexual tension and desire for more but because of social circumstances, they can't have more. Maybe romantic and heavy kissing scenes only to stop out of guilt and shame. They make her so hypocritical by giving her a physical affair. I feel book and show Alicent is pious for sex outside of marriage due to her upbringing and love for the Faith (she's not a religious fanatic, just someone who finds comfort and control in religion). They could have also used such scenes to showcase even more conflict between the factions. Alicent and Criston could be resentful of the fact Rhaenyra was able to be with whomever she wanted while Alicent cannot. Alicent whom is Dowager Queen is far too above Criston whom is also a Kingsguard and bound to celibacy. Plus, they always make her sex scenes be as unromantic and poorly timed as possible. Yes, Rhaenyra and Daemon having sex on a beach the night of the latter's wife's funeral is poor timing but because of the actor chemistry, romantic music, and tender movements and choreography it feels very romantic and loving. We don't get any of that. Alicent and Criston's feelings (which may not be love, but most certainly are hinted in season 1 to be a deep trust, understanding, and affection) are cheapened and made to be almost like two people scratching an itch versus two people who have genuine trust and affection for one another. They never show any tender aftermath with their love scenes, no soft hugs or cuddles or caresses. They never use any romantic settings or music (unlike for Criston and Rhaenyra's scene which was nothing more but a one-night-stand) and they showed it right after B&C of all things!

Almost all of these changes assassinated Alicent's character, made her less compelling, more unlikable, and untrue to her book self. They tried to create an Alicent whose story was victimized by sexist maesters and only created a character who is neither likable nor true to the narratives Martin creates.

*3. Women Must Stick Together? Fight the Patriarchy in Westeros?*

I've been asking myself... **why did Condal and the HOTD writers choose to go completely off book and have the two other main women, Helaena and Alicent, choose to abandon the Greens in favor of Rhaenyra and her faction?** I mean this is a change that is 100% off book and in major disservice to the original narrative. By surrendering to Rhaenyra, Alicent is essentially offering up the lives of her father, lover, house, supporters, and all three of her sons to the mercy of the Black faction which isn't exactly a merciful faction. I would be just as appalled if Rhaenyra or Daemon surrendered themselves, their children, and supporters to the Greens at this point in the story.

Then, the story became clearer when I watched Condal reviewing the scene with Alicent and Rhaenyra where he says it just all comes down to these women. That's when it became clear to me! Condal wanted to show a story of two medieval women and medieval system: one who seemingly opposes the evil patriarchy, and one who submits to it. He wanted a story centered on two women who were friends but were torn apart by evil men and the patriarchy who have to come together in the end. He wanted a story that sort of relates more so to 21st century feminism. He wanted a story where the women have to get together at the end which is Helaena, Jaehaera, and Alicent, the remaining main women not aligned with the Blacks defect to Rhaenyra's side. It's not bad to want such a story! If written well, that kind of story can be good. However, the issue is he doesn't choose to write his own story in his own fantasy world. No! The HOTD team picks F&B which is not that kind of story to write a poorly written fanfiction. It's a disservice to any fans of GOT, ASOIAF, F&B, or anyone who just wants faithful adaption or a good show. It doesn't fit with the narratives and themes of Martin's work. It doesn't fit with the original story.

The original story of the Dance was the story in which a dynastic civil war between two factions of the same royal family fueled by revenge, anger, resentment, fear of the opposing side, and ultimately a desire for power and control of Westeros tore themselves apart resulting in the destruction of the main source of their power that they never fully recover from that is step one towards them being overthrown. It is the story of the death of the last of Valyria's magic: the dragons. It is a story about how the central theme that connects every character in Martin's Westeros: ambition and desire for power, changes and destroys people when they pursue it. It is a story where two morally ambiguous factions backing two morally ambiguous claimants dividing the realm; believing their own side to be right when both sides are both right and wrong. It is a story that should center Rhaenyra AND Aegon with all their supporters, everyone getting equal screen time and perspective with a special focus on Rhaenyra and Aegon. It is a story about a realistic medieval conflict in an unrealistic world. It's a story about how the violent petty conflicts within a too-powerful royal dynasty in sole control of their world's equivalent to nuclear bombs ultimately effects and harms the nobles and smallfolk caught in between.

This is the story we should have had and this is the story that Martin sought to create that fans were expecting. The kind of story Condal wanted to create with his team is not congruent with the centrality of Martin's themes. Could feminism been included? Perhaps! I mean this is a medieval setting that 100% oppresses women and everyone who watched GOT or read ASOIAF knows it. Sexism and misogny certainly relates to the story, but it should not be the central focus. This kind of theme and focus was not executed and implemented properly, resulting in very negative changes.

It is also must be noted that the writers should have analyzed and understood the characters primarily through a medieval lens of Westeros versus just analyzing via modern 21st century pro feminism lens. It's fine to analyze Westeros using modern beliefs and terms, as long as, you couple it with a whole lot of understanding and analysis from their persepctive, otherwise you won't get the full picture. Like nearly every medieval woman of power in Medieval England, Rhaenyra and Alicent are not feminists by our standards and are not advocating for women's rights. In part 2 where I focus on Rhaenyra's whitewashing, I will talk about how she in many ways like Alicent gains power from, submits to, and operates within the patriarchal system like most medieval women.

*4. Too Much Focus on the "Friendship of These Women"*

I think the aging down of Alicent (she and Viserys actually had an 11 year gap versus decades) was intially a decent idea. However, the issue that character assassinated Alicent is that they executed it poorly. In the book, Rhaenyra is still a child when Viserys marries Alicent. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, her and Viserys had a very warm marriage. Arguably, I would say he loved her more than Aemma, but he did care for Aemma and felt guilty for her death. Alicent being aged down was to establish the complicated, deep, and almost secretly romantic friendship with Rhaenyra versus Laena Velaryon.

I didn't intially hate this change, but like I said, it's the execution of this change that made it bad. I wouldn't have minded Alicent reluctantly going to seduce Viserys after Aemma died, after all it was on her father Otto's orders, not did I mind Rhaenyra having a problem with this marriage. Ultimately, Alicent and Rhaenyra each had a competition and they wanted to be the chief first lady of the Realm in the book. They each respectively wanted to be the most powerful woman in Westeros and most important to Viserys as he is where their power stemmed from. I think we should have seen the days leading up to as well as the wedding itself. What the writers should have done to portray a more book-accurate Alicent and real conflict between the women isn't just make Rhaenyra resentful but still loving deep down to Alicent.

They could have had Alicent transition to her more book self; an ambitious, intelligent, scheming woman despite being aged down. Instead of having Viserys just choose her out of grief for Aemma, have him choose her out of genuine affection and perhaps even lust/love as I interpreted in the F&B. They could have kept Alicent unwillingly seducing Viserys and reluctantly marrying him, beginning the tension on Rhaenyra's end. However, after their wedding and after she gives birth to her son Aegon, they begin to slowly transition her to her book self especially after its clear that Rhaenyra is remaining heir. They could have created true and book-accurate conflict if they made their Alicent begin to enjoy Queenhood a little too much (as power changes and corrupts people) and beginning to have more and more influence over Viserys (as her relationship with Viserys in the book wasn't nearly as creepy or neglectful. In fact I think book Viserys may have loved Alicent more than Aemma, but still wanted Aemma's blood on the throne out of guilt). He chose Alicent regardless of better political choices or the protest of his council. They could have had Alicent and Rhaenyra beginning to compete for the attention of and influence on Viserys, Alicent subtly advocating for her newborn son to be named heir, Alicent enjoying her Queenhood and the power that comes from it, and leading to the real souring of her and Rhaenyra's relationship: both competing to be the most powerful woman in Westeros. The Crown Princess vs. the Queen. This way they still started off with the friendship, but Alicent's budding relationship with Viserys and birth of her children giving her more power as Queen making her relationship with Rhaenyra sour. Essentially, as Alicent continues to rise in power and bask in Viserys's attention/affection and enjoy her newfound role/power as Queen, real conflict and competition between her and Rhaenyra would show.

We'd have the competition, tension, and anger that gradually built up to help foster the eventual war either way as well as a chance to show the real political intrigue characteristic of GOT. However, for the sake of friendship and the false narrative Condal wanted to create, we don't get what I suggested that would have been the proper way to execute Alicent's aging down and friendship with Rhaenyra. Alicent can't truly and fully enjoy her Queenhood, take advantage of her power fully to its extent, or have relationship with Viserys. She can't be ambitious or compete with Rhaenyra. She has to have this complicated friendship, advocate for Rhaenyra while she was still young, be thankful of Rhaenyra's "compliments" at the dinner and even continue advocate after her children's birth to her father that Rhaenyra is the heir and only want Aegon to be heir out of just fear and her father's manipulation, rather than desiring power and believing Aegon to be the rightful heir. They have to have her say 'Rhaenyra will be a great Queen' and stuff like that.

Of course, Book Alicent advised with Queen Helaena for Aegon to send generous peace terms to Rhaenyra, but it wasn't out of love for her stepdaughter or "friend" in this show.. but because she didn't want her to son be labeled a kinslayer just yet as that would forever damage his image and he would be seen as cursed.We get scenes after scenes of their weird friendship dynamic all the way up till Alicent going Black. Scenes that ultimately distract and take away from the narrative. In fact, we should see more anger and resentment between these women that is taken away in favor of this friendship. For example, peace may have occurred between the warring factions early on when Aegon sent those peace terms. However, once Aemond murders Lucerys and then Daemon sends B&C who murder Jaehaerys in retaliation, any hesitation towards war and any lingering affection the factions and two women must have harbored for one another should be gone! Luke and Jaehaerys's murders highlighting two innocent lives lost on either side were the breaking point that put the Greens and Blacks at full on war. They were points of no return. However, not only do we see Rhaenyra never be outwardly angry and resentful of Alicent when they finally do reunite, but Alicent defects to the side who murdered her grandson. We see Rhaenyra grieve her loss, but we don't ever see it again after that one episode nor her anger and resentment and vengefulness that should come afterwards. We don't see Alicent grieve her grandson who was supposed to be murdered in front of her. Instead, the women are still complicated friends who don't even seem that angry at each other.

**My Takeaway? The Writers are Biased and Fail to Understand the Medieval Context of Westeros and Martin's Female Characters**

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

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

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

**Stay tuned for my part 2 of this post where I examine writing flaws and white washing of Rhaenyra Targaryen!** "

[cleabellanov]

Fighting for good, one widow bite at the time: Black Widow's cultural impact

Critics scoff when I call the Black Widow movie a favorite, but hear me out. It deserved a better release window, maybe at an earlier time, when things would've been viewed differently. Sure, it doesn't rise up what it could've been, leaving so much lingering dreams in the hearts of us, fans. So much potential remains untapped, so many questions unanswered... but Natasha Romanoff? She rises above it all. If you doubt her power, think again, and as I said, hear me out.

Black Widow, the assasin with steely eyes that hide and protect a heart of gold, has transcended the screen to become a cultural icon. From her first appereance in the MCU in Iron Man 2 (2010) to Black Widow (2021), she truly went through a lot, took us with her, and thaught everyone some lessons on the way.

Shattering the mold of the damsel in distress: She's no sidekick, she's a strategist and a fierce fighter. She is a vital member of the Avengers, that's a fact we saw in the 2012 movie. After all, how many characters can you name that tricked the God of Mischief? Nat didn't only do it exceptionally, she is the first we saw doing this on screen.

Reclaiming Narrative: Unlike many superheroes defined by singular origins, Black Widow carried the trauma of a dark past, manipulated by the Red Room, a notorious spy program. Her movie explored this narrative, acknowledging the exploitation and abuse she endured. This resonated with survivors of violence and abuse, offering validation and representation. Her journey of breaking free from her past resonated on a broader level, highlighting themes of resilience, empowerment, and overcoming hardship. Furthermore, she hasn't always been a hero, an avenger. "Regimes fall everyday. I tend not to weep over that, I'm russian" and "I've got red in my ledger. I'd like to wipe it out" show how she's not just using the power she already has, but has the power to change as well. This isn't about brute force, it's about internal struggle and choosing to become a better version of herself despite her history.

Sisterhood and Solidarity: Black Widow's story wasn't solely focused on herself. In "Black Widow," she teams up with other women who share similar experience, even if at first this doesn't seem to work, indoctrinated as they are in the Red Room programme. This depiction of female solidarity resonated with audiences, particularly feminist movements advocating for women's support networks and collective action.

Representation Matters: Black Widow's portrayal as a skilled leader and strategist challenged existing portrayals of Russian characters in Hollywood. They are often depicted as villains or stereotypes, but her complex identity sparked conversations about diversity and representation within the superhero genre.

Defying stereotypes: As the sole original female Avenger, Black Widow carried a unique weight. She didn't need superpowers or a revealing suit — her determination and arsenal spoke for themselves. That's true power. I mean, in some situations she only had two cool firearms, but did better than Captain America with a vibranium shield! I also love how her costume evolved over time, prioritizing functionality over sexualization. Ditching the impractical neckline in her solo movie? A much-needed win! It shows that Black Widow commands respect through her actions, not her body.

Her impact and importance punches like her combat skills, if you ask me.

So, the next time you see the Black Widow, remember, she's more than just a character. She's a symbol of strength, resilience, and the unwavering human spirit. Thanks for being a constant source of inspiration, Nat ❣️