#he's just such a good character...love a lawful neutral! love the moral greyness of a character who staunchly stands for what is Right

[ruedesfillesducalvaire]

real

Javert is NOT a rich white cop, he's a poor Romani man born inside a jail. When I first joined the Les Mis fandom about a decade ago I remember there were a lot of people who made Javert a rich white policeman. Which, hey, I do kinda get it, especially when you're contrasting Javert to characters like Valjean or Les Amis. I totally get why people would want that story to exist within Les Mis fanworks. But also, that is not Javert whatsoever. He's canonically half Romani, born in a prison.

Javert being a class traitor actually means so much more to the story than Javert being some random privileged asshole pig.

[hallowedhuntress]

8. book or movie moments that made you the most mad? This is such a fun question!

My top #1 pet peeve is inconsistencies in general. And especially those regarding the Volturi. Did you know they’re actually the reason I started reading the books? It’s a really funny story. But I’ll save that for later.   

1. The books insisted over and over and over that the Volturi “love their rules” and are, if not the good guys, at least a neutral force of necessary order. And I honestly loved that moral greyness. I might do a whole post about this, because Lawful Neutral aligned Volturi is the best. But then Smyer is just like “lol no” and throws that away at the very end of the last book, Flanderizes the Volturi into Bad GuysTM to gear up for a fight that never happens. Ugh.

(on a related note, I actually liked the controversial BD2 movie battle scene because I may not have liked the “lets make the Volturi unambiguous villains now! thing, but that narrative was just begging for a fight. I could nitpick about things like how the Volturi in that scene fought with no strategy (which is weird because they’re supposed to be trained???) Or how Aro himself would never be the one to kill Carlisle. But overall I think the effect of that scene was good.) 

2. If Aro is nice enough to let Eleazar go without a fuss, then he’s nice enough to let Marcus go and wouldn’t freaking murder his own sister just to keep him around. I know its been thousands of years between those events, and character development can happen, but it just seems inconsistent to me. And it’s insulting to Aro’s intelligence. I mean if he’s willing to “play the long game” in order to recruit Edward and Alice, you bet your ass he’s willing to be patient and scheme to convince Marcus to stay in Volterra, rather than resort to sororicide. 

3.  On a non-volturi related note, Jacob getting absolutely no flack from Charlie for kissing Bella against her will. Like what the hell, Charlie? I know you don’t like Edward, but damn you don’t have to be such a horrible person about it! 

4. Most of Jacob’s behavior in eclipse. Actually, scratch that, most of everyone’s behavior in eclipse. Why is Edward so controlling? Why is Jacob so pushy? What happened to the romantic “what ever you want, I’ll support,” sort of feelings expressed by both parties in New Moon? I mean, I think Edward has a throw away line to this effect after Jacob threatens suicide to coerce a kiss out of her . But he hardly demonstrates that he really believes that. Ugh. 

5. Sometimes I feel like the characters change so much from book to book that it’s a rare case of Depending on the Writer, with the same writer. 

6. Back to the Volturi, SMyer needs to work on her timeline. How in the hell did Jane never meet Carlisle until Eclipse if she was recruited in 500AD? Um… was she on sabbatical for the 20 years Carlisle spent in Volterra?