#if i said the inspiration for this i would probably get crucified

[returntodreamland]

post-redemption

my brain woke up and told me to draw shopkeeper magolor today and guess what i did

[smileygoth]

8. You Should See Me In a Crown (Inspired By a Song, Month of Darkness 2024)

I'm thinking more of the Otep cover than the Billie Eilish original (just more to my taste), but both are good!

CW: Blood.

Image is of the BEAUTIFUL Dani Divine, found on Pinterest.

Find the Masterlist here!

The next night had Christina wishing she was still on the sofa watching tv with her ghoul. Yet another party at yet another of the capital’s Elysiums, and she was stuck watching one of her clanmates give an incredibly pretentious speech about their latest series of paintings. Paintings that hard clearly been done in their own blood. Christina could tell by looking at the faces of some of the other Kindred in attendance that many of them were doing their best to ignore the tempting smell that permeated the canvases set up all around the ballroom the event was being held in. She was aware that she probably looked the same. She hadn’t fed for a couple of nights and it was all she could do to keep her fangs retracted.

The artist was a skinny woman with long, poker-straight red hair and skin that was pallid even for a vampire. Christina suspected that she hadn’t fed recently either. They’d been introduced, but Christina couldn’t remember her name and didn’t care to. Pretentious milkweeds like that are why other clans look down on us, she thought bitterly. If I ever get like that, stake me out for the sun.

The artist was giving a speech about the symbolism of using her own vitae for paint, something about power and rarity and other such edgy, self-involved blatherings. Christina looked round at all the glazed looks and vacant expressions and decided she could get away with slipping outside. She slid silently behind a large canvas to her left, gritting her teeth as her Beast stirred inside her at the smell of blood. Fucking idiotic idea, putting a bunch of bloody paintings in a room full of vampires. If someone doesn’t kick off tonight I’ll be very surprised. And if they do, I’m going to crucify the Keeper.

She wouldn’t, though. That wasn’t her job. All she could do was yell at them and then report them to the Seneschal, who would decide if it was worthy of bringing up to the Prince. She sighed heavily as she tiptoed to the floor-to-ceiling glass windows that opened up onto a narrow balcony. She needed some air. If it was up to me, the Grand Keeper would be able to make, punish and remove Keepers as they saw fit, she thought bitterly. Instead of being some glorified tattletale. There’s no real power in this position. Damn Prince needs to learn how to delegate. If I were in charge….

She paused, leaning against the stone railing and looking out over the city. This particular Elysium overlooked one of London’s large parks, so the lights of the buildings were more distant tonight. For a while she stared off into the darkness, letting her mind drift, imagining being in charge of the city, all those lights, all those people. One day, she thought with a small smile. One day I’ll run this fucking city.

It was a silly thought, given how powerful the current Prince was, so she indulged it for only a moment longer before dismissing it with a shake of her head. Even sillier considering she’d been a Prince before – not of London but of somewhere far smaller – and she’d hated it. But then she’d been manoeuvred into the position by a coterie of conspirators who wanted the previous Prince removed and someone they could puppet in his place. They’d chosen her to be their puppet, and she’d refused to dance on their strings. It had been a frustrating and ultimately doomed venture, and she’d been lucky to get off the throne with her unlife. But she liked to think she had been quite a good Prince, despite everything, for those few years.

One day I’ll get a chance to do it properly, she thought, tracing the shape of the treetops with her eyes. And no one will ever dare underestimate me again.

‘Penny for your thoughts,’ a voice said behind her.

[valfeathers]

okay... i headcanon that x is a bit... alt. there, i said it, crucify me. i may be projecting but i feel like they were born with a basic name like AMANDA or JULIA but they really go by something cool like PYTHIA!! either pythia or artemis. also, like linda, i feel that x would go on to have a job in something other than detective work. maybe a singer or writer or something!! also, x is def struggling with their gender, sorry. these are all just headcanons i made for them so ‼️ i feel like they’d also have a super emo-ish, cute dress style and everything. an ALTERNATIVE wammy kid. also dyslexia bc i’m projecting again.

they probably have glasses they refuse to wear, probably some weird broken bone they never got fixed, stuff like that. also wouldn’t it be cute if they had a pet lizard??

also bonus!! your description of y gave me ideas for them as well. y’s real name.. something dark and alt LIKE THE NAME THAT X WISHES THEY WERE BORN WITH. and y just uses a shortened version of their real name bc they don’t like how dark and emo cringey their real name actually is. also y and x def have smth going on.

OKOK YOU'RE THE REALEST FOR THESE ! ! ! actually i'll clean up their designs and post them later because your headcanons match mine so closely !!

more infoooo on my own x below!

my x (full alias x-ray) is,, yes,, alternative as hell!! they're an eccentric scientist who wants to go into forensics! they dress in black but accessorize with bright crazy colours! and they constantly wear sunglasses, even inside (i took lots of inspiration from rave culture & fashion magazine covers & stuff!!)

she's kind of out there & knows lots of obscure facts,, she's the most sociable of the trio but she has a short fuse so the other 2 tend to reel her in

they're remarkable at their work and respected in her field,, and she tends to get crazy tunnel vision when working on a project,, not unlike L himself

i also have glasses that i refuse to wear and also possibly dyslexia so absolutely,, x just like me fr

also HOW are you in my head???????? did u READ my mind???!!!! i decided that y & x are lesbians literally last night and then you drop this in my inbox you genius

[starstrucklighttimemachine]

I don't care if religion is real or not and it has probably been said here before, but if I were Mary, I would've stopped believing in God the second I saw my son being almost dragged through the streets by the Romans.

God promised he would be the savior, that I would carry His son and give birth to him.

I gestated him, I felt him in my womb, I felt him kick. Blood of my blood, flesh of my flesh.

And when the time came, I held him when he took his first breaths, when he wailed after being born, when he was still covered in my blood, when he was but a small helpless newborn.

And I comforted him, and I nursed him, I gave him everything he would ever need. I loved him. I raised him.

I tended his wounds while on childhood. Probably taking care of his scrapped knees, maybe some splinters when he was learning to be a carpenter. Cleaning his tears after a nightmare, holding him tight after he got lost in a crowd.

I saw him perform his first miracle, my brain remembering how all those years ago, that angel promised my son to be not only the savior but also the son of God. The happiness of knowing he will be safe because he's the son of God, isn't he? God would never allow anything to happen to him.

See him grow, performing more miracles, watching him gather crowds and followers. Hearing him teach those same crowds, inspire people, help the poor, heal the wounded, resurrect the dead...

After 30 years, I would probably would have felt secure that God would never allow anything to happen to him. To his son. To my son.

I imagine how heartbreaking would have been to Mary to hear that he had been betrayed. That he was imprisoned by the Romans. That he was in danger.

And she probably prayed and prayed, begged God to take care of her son. Her child. Her baby. She was restless, trying to find ways to get to him.

She probably kept her faith and tried to keep a strong belief in God. After all, He's the creator, supreme being that would help keep His son safe.

And then she sees it, the verdict delivered by the hand of Pilate. Her son must die on a cross. And I imagine her faith waver, thinking that no, it has to be a mistake. God will save him. He has to. Her son is not only the savior but also an innocent man.

Yet there he was. Carrying a cross. A crown of thorns over his forehead, the same she had kissed goodnight so many times before. His frame holding the heavy cross, the same frame she had hugged goodbye, probably less than a month ago. His back bloodied by the lashes that the Romans delivered onto him, the same back she rubbed to take the burps out when he was a baby.

And God doesn't help him. He doesn't intervene. He doesn't save her precious little boy. He doesn't hear her begging.

They crucified him, they put nails through his wrists, blood dripping down, the same blood she has running through her veins. And she hears him wail in pain, but she can't hug him and tell him he'll be fine.

She sees him up there, suffering, barely conscious for three consecutive days. Three days when the Romans poked him with a spear, cutting the same ribs, she probably massaged when he was sick as a kid.

And I honestly believe that she would've lost all her faith. She wailed in pain and despair, screaming to the sky in anger, clutching her heart because her baby, the supposed savior, was dead. They took him from her.

She had given her body, her milk, and now her tears, to a God that could not even bother to give her son a merciful end, to take his pain away. She gave everything of her and still lost him.

So I don't think she would've kept being faithful to God or even keep believing in Him. He used her, and it was only then, only when she could see her son being tortured, that she started realizing it.

Birth & Death of Christ

The Virgin of the Lilies † Pietra by William-Adolphe Bouguereau

[clarabowmp3]

No one has ever asked a male musician to give up their no. 1 spot on the charts to allow another artist their time to shine. No one has ever asked it of a female musician either. The only person it's asked of is Taylor. Look at it from her perspective. If she doesn't hold the No. 1 position for a certain length of time, she will have to endure hundreds if not thousands of articles about how she has lost a step. She didn't hold No. 1 for x weeks, so she's on her way out and not as good as X [insert whatever artist from history they want to scream is better]. I'm pretty sure that was what it was about to begin with, but these petty attacks from Billie and her manager probably did inspire her to step on her neck a little harder than she had to. And, I don't blame her, because she really does get crucified no matter what she does. So why not go for complete domination?

you’re so right about Taylor being crucified, damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. I might have misphrased that post but what I’m trying to get at is mostly my personal opinions. Generally speaking (ie not abt my personal opinions but the general consensus), you’re right to say that no one should expect things of taylor that they would not expect of a male artist.

personally, if we were talking about a male artist whose music I enjoyed as much as Taylor’s, I would “expect” the same thing of him. But also I’m not expecting Taylor to do anything as much as wishing she was not caught up in this whole charts thing to the point where she doesn’t let another artist have their moment. I know you didn’t say this in your ask, but since this is how the music industry works, there isn’t anything “immoral” abt this per say, but at the same time I feel like she is in a place where she has the capacity to be the bigger person/let someone else have the spotlight but doesn’t seem to have the willingness, which is a little disappointing.

also so true the media’s consensus does matter a lot to her and I knowww there would be so many ppl gloating/being absolutely horrid if she were to fall off #1, with all this overexposure it would be so harsh. I guess a certain level of maturity/stability is needed to have a thick enough skin to not really care abt what others say/to do the “right” thing when it isn’t 100% beneficial for you which taylor doesn’t have. I am NOT blaming her btw, she is human and has flaws and maybe this is one of her bigger insecurities- that’s perfectly fine, but it is what it is. Same reason why she might have been clamping down esp hard on Billie like you said. Is it a good thing? No, but to me it’s still understandable and it isn’t rlly a major critique imo

Also in the light of Billie’s stationhead comment abt what is likely abt the eras tour, she doesn’t owe Taylor anything and vice versa so they can both act however they wish, but imo some reactions are better than others. For example if someone insults you, you could insult them back, retaliate etc OR you could be the bigger person and walk it off. No one would (reasonably) blame you for retaliating, but at the same time it might not have been the best reaction. Which is also fine, no one has to be 100% moral all the time, we are all human etc

as for why not going for whole domination, a bit off topic but this whole debate kind of reminds me of The Man. she basically says men can get away with ____, but when I do ___ I’m persecuted for it so #girlboss #feminism. But the thing is NO ONE should be excused for some of the actions in the video (flashing dollars etc), including men!! Similarly I don’t think she SHOULD be doing for whole domination, but it’s up to her

Ultimately I think it boils down to what she can/wants to do vs what she should do, but again this is all my opinion and she is not obligated to act ethically, even tho I wish she would

[kaylamae2023]

Virtual Sketchbook 3

Agony in the Garden by Francesco Bassano 

1582-84 

Oil on Canvas 

264.2 cm x 129.5 cm 

In this painting, Jesus Christ is depicted in the Garden of Gethsemane looking up at an angle while preying. The angel is shining and holding a chalice towards Jesus. On the bottom of the painting, three of the apostles John, Peter and James are laying and falling asleep. 

 The painting uses a technique similar to Rembrandt, which is the intense contrast between light and dark to cause dramaticism.  

This painting was commissioned for a church in Brescia, Italy. The scene is based on scripture where Jesus Christ is about to be arrested, and it takes place after the Last Supper. The Garden of Gethsemane was described in all four gospels.  

The painting is balanced in a very stunning way. Christ is in the very center of the painting, and Jesus, John, Peter and James are facing towards the angel which is the source of light. Peter, John and James are at the bottom of the painting, also in the center maintaining symmetry. The light illuminated from the angel shines from the right and highlights the faces and fabric of the apostles and Jesus Christ. 

The most emphasized part of the painting is Jesus Christ and the Angel, because Jesus is in the center and the angel is the only source of light, which highlights its importance in the scene. If the angel wasn’t shining so brightly, it wouldn’t be noticeable, and its role wouldn’t be as relevant.  

As I mentioned earlier, the contrast is a very defining feature in the painting. It adds to the intensity of the scene, and it evokes more sad emotions in the viewer. Even without knowing the specific story that this painting is illustrating, the contrast and lighting creates a sense of despair. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This piece brings out a sense of sadness in me, mostly due to the story and background behind the scene. As most people know, the last supper is the last meal with the apostles and him. In the Garden of Gethsemane, it is right before he gets arrested and eventually crucified. My family is religious and I grew up going to church, so I understand the story well. Although I choose to be agnostic now, I can still feel the emotions this piece is supposed to convey.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using Artstor, Wikipedia, and the book Ringling: The Art Museum 

Francesco Bassano (also known as Francesco Bassano the Younger) is an Italian renaissance painter, born in 1949 near Venice, and died in 1952. He and his family were all painters, and he often painted in the family workshop. He created many paintings, and almost all of them had a religious theme or background. He was prone to depression and passed due to suicide after his father died.  

The painting is from the renaissance period, and this piece was part of a collection of 9 commissioned for a church in Brescia, Italy called Sant’Antonio Abate. The entire Bassano family was religious and centered their practice around it. It is said that Francesco Bassano could have been inspired by the print Agony in The Garden by Benedetto Montagna which was created in 1506. Bassano was trying to illustrate the scene described in the Gospels, while focusing on conveying the agony Christ was going through. Most very religious people would probably recognize the scene, which shows that the message Francesco Bassano tried to incorporate into the painting was executed well. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use what you learn in your research and by looking closely at the artwork to form your own critique of the work (your informed opinion) based partly on the FACTS. Make sure you think about and answer this in your conclusion: based on your research, and everything you have learned so far about art and artists, what is the importance of this work of art to society and/or the world. Be specific. Why did YOU pick it? 

After going to the Ringling Museum and viewing all the pieces, Agony in The Garden stood out to me the most. I am a big fan of renaissance art, so I am already slightly biased. Even before I read the painting description, I could clearly feel the emotional weight it gives the viewer. After reading the description and doing research, it was even more moving to me. The use of color theory even helps bring out that sadness the viewer is supposed to feel, where the scene uses cool shades versus warm shades. My only critique is on how accurate Christ’s appearance is. In the renaissance era, it was popular to make Jesus look more European, even though he would’ve looked middle eastern. However, this version of Jesus is the most identifiable/recognized, so it makes sense.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citations: 

Bassano, F. (n.d.). Artstor. library.artstor.org. https://library.artstor.org/#/search/francesco%20bassano;size=48;page=1;sort=0 

Merling, M. F. (2002). The Garden of Agony. In Ringling The Art Museum.  John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art. 

Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, August 29). Francesco Bassano the younger. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Bassano_the_Younger 

[the-firebird69]

We have a few things going on besides rubbing out these idiots

-firstly we need more construction people than we have. We're using these tractors now and we were getting ready to but he said go in it now and get him going and we are and it's going to help a lot we have other vehicles that we can use from airports and manufacturing facilities that heavy duty and we're going to use them the tractors will last forever it's a great idea and making military equipment and ordinance and we need them there they're steady they don't go wicked fast they pull heavy stuff it's what we need it's a great timing thing too we need a bunch of other items and we're going to go get them and we're going to do raids it's going to attract attention and we have to repel people and it's going to take probably another percentage of the idiots let me down to around 3.5% depending on what happens tonight they might get attacked by everybody and blown to hell because they're an idiots and it's a pain in the ass we are also going to put in New Vegas buildings and I want to mention something these people are very mean to him when we do these things he wants us to counter it that's why he's doing it it's a ploy and it's a game sometimes you guys just sit there and you're doing nothing need to assign people to hit these guys when they pop their head up that's what he's doing it for and I do understand you're waiting for something but really we start hitting they do it we need to have some aggression and it's worrisome I guess I'm going to assign people to it as well it's a different style and now it's called for more aggression he's getting upset and pissed off he says I'm doing all this work and he's just sitting there he's bothering me and getting closer not further away and I'm doing it to hit him that's why I'm doing it. They said we're aware of it and we're doing it too it just doesn't work out the way but we are hitting them and we're hitting him this is going to be a very big hit because of Trump towers and it's going to go in late after he sustained tons of damage and he's going to flip out and we're going to crucify him tons of them will die huge numbers and the electric business the evike business is booming so much nobody can keep up with it mid drives are selling with gears so fast you can blink and it would be another trillion literally there's probably 300 trillion being made globally every manufacturer is switching over to mid drive and using gears it is so fast it's blinding there saying okay MPG started selling BG started selling too many and he was taking over factories and now they're doing it and it is huge very huge also the mini business of Meghan Markle we're building them we're building as many as her competition which is twice as many as her not the same as all of them they started adding factories and they're building a chassis and her father helped out and yes she's a daughter and sister of Lily no it was Jason helping which is not true it's her grandfather which is Brad helped with the chassis design it's simple fast and cost a lot less than a lot of others it's easy to put together. And he built it himself and came up with himself and her son though inspired him a little just positive stuff. So their total number is going to be three times hours and we're adding factories to try and keep up at least the others are growing too in total would be four times hours and the numbers are huge I mean it's like 20 trillion a week. And fat Chow chow fat that is they are increasing production now they'll be at 20 trillion a week today and we are going to try and match and we should be exceeding it which we're not so we have problems and we're bringing them out and we need manpower and that's the solution it always works. These are incredible numbers and we need to hire hours and hours need to sign on right now we need assistance badly especially here I want people to sign on now who have time whether you want to be here or not

And our son and daughter say it's the toughest job you're ever going to love forever it will make you love people who are helping you

Thor Freya

Olympus

Oh that's interesting but it's real this last paragraphs very important Frank Castle hardcastle I'm going to go with it and get it done Duke nukem Blockbuster and we're moving out and we got to hire people now we had our meeting this morning and we can have a follow-up this evening somethings were talking about we're in the meeting and we will do it that way and he appreciates it cuz he needs to have input

[tortoisenottortoise]

Am I the only one who likes seeing muscular women in media more than muscular men?

Alright so, this one will probably end up much shorter and a little more ranty than I'd like, but this is kind of personal so be fairly warned. 

 Recently I've seen a few complaints about the new He-Man show and honestly, I fully understand and empathize with them. Whilst I haven't fully seen the show, from what I've viewed I can personally speaking agree (or at the very least understand) where most criticisms come from. I think it's incredibly shitty that the writer basically lied to his audience about how the show would run. Now normally I'd be fine with a twist such as He-man dying, but he's an important part of the show and the way the marketing & merchandising for it was running kind of comes across as him basically using He-Man's name to get people into the show. I also feel like it's fine to view Teela as obnoxious and annoying, nothing about her personality-wise seems likable to me. I also heard a few complaints about Orko's (I think that's his name, don't crucify me) backstory and how his character was handled.Yet as the title suggests one that didn't stick with me was the criticism of Teela and a general trend towards the criticism of women in media as being "masculine". 

I've heard over and over that Hollywood representing strong women by giving them masculine traits is a bad thing and yet... I kind of don't get it? It feels odd to say, almost like I'm the dumbest man alive for admitting something which most people on the internet seem to be so sure about, yet I just don't understand where this is coming from. I've seen this thrown at She-hulk, Wonder Woman, Abby, and many other characters, yet when inquired it usually loops back around to, "Yeah they have muscles", and that's about it. This type of criticism in specific seems to overly focus on the appearance of said characters. It's the one critique I just can't get behind and it feels like at best it's a shallow criticism that fails to get its point across, and at worst it's actively demeaning to women who desire to or show masculine traits. But first, let me break this down into sections.

Section 1: Muscles =/= Masculinity (In my opinion at least)

Oh boy, I feel like this is a section that might rustle some feathers, but I'm going to try and explain myself best as possible. I simply do not view muscularity as a feature that is inherent to or should be inherent to men. I'm not going to pretend as if muscular men aren't more saturated in media and art, nor as if they're societally treated as masculine, but one of the reasons I fail to understand this criticism is that I see muscles beyond the horizons as being just a masculine trait. 

I believe that muscles should instead be seen as a sign of hard work and determination. As someone who's currently trying (and struggling) to stay healthy and fit, it's much harder than a lot of media portrays it to be. It's a test where you push yourself to the limits, not just for the sake of doing it, but so you can improve as a person. Whenever I go to the gym and see a muscular gal or guy walk by, my immediate thought isn't, "how masculine" or anything like that my thought is, "wow! They worked hard to get like that, I should work hard as well!". 

This interpretation tends to feel like it's just simply taking a piss on people who actively work hard to achieve higher levels of strength. Especially when society places and enforces these unrealistic standards onto people. If you don't have a six-quintillion pack nor can bench press a fucking house then you're worthless, of course, that is unless you actually attempt to pursue said standards which in that case you're automatically dismissed as cheating your way to gaining your muscles instead of putting any work in. And that's just for men who often don't have to deal with traditional idiots who are stuck in the year 1950 where I can't walk on the same street as them. My skin crawls when reading tweets from older men talking about how weightlifting women are "ruining their fertility" and I absolutely hate it when people in my life treat these women as if they're mythical creatures from a fairy tale, or when females who have trained to such a degree are simply dismissed as being inferior. 

Obviously, I don't think the people who say this are like that, but whenever I hear this type of critique I can't help but think of the culmination of all these experiences I've gone through. But then again, this might honestly just be because I'm personally attracted to muscular women.

  Section 2: Body type diversity

  Another reason that I tend to like muscular women in media over muscular men is simply due to the sheer oversaturation of muscular men. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem if anybody likes muscular men. I totally get wanting to shove your face in between some man titties or get inspired by their physiques. In all honesty, almost everything I said earlier can directly apply to men, but one of the reasons I bring up body type diversity is that there tend to be much less muscular women than men. I

f anything, I'd have to say that muscular men are almost treated as the default when it comes to things like superhero comics, movies, video games, anime, etc. In a similar vein, the default for women tends to be slim and curvaceous, you get the drill. Whenever someone who doesn't fit into either body type shows up and isn't treated like a joke/gag or a character to rip on, I can't help but be happy about it. As much as I have no clue wtf is going on with TLOU2, I can appreciate that Abby's portrayal doesn't seem to exist solely as a joke meant to demean women for working out. I'm excited when an anime protagonist is a fat character who can go beyond just being a "fat guy" and is treated the same way a normal person would be.

 Regardless of what you think about whatever trait you're criticizing, there's probably someone out there who fits it. If you're not into it or dislike it, then that's fine, but I'd rather have that expressed than it being actively made out as a harmful trope as opposed to just literally another body type that some women have.

  Section 3: Muscular women inspire me more

Ok so, we've now blown into a full-on personal experience, buckle up boys, girls, NBs, anything in between, and I feel like I'm forgetting someone so apologies! But yeah, muscular women in media tend to be a lot more inspiring than people seem to give them credit for. This comes down to a mix of both the qualities I outlined earlier in what makes the characters inspiring but also plays into the idea of body diversity. 

One of the traits that make amazons seem more inspiring is their inherent rarity/lack of screentime. As I stated earlier, whilst I do enjoy my fair share of man-titties, it kind of gets to a point where it's more depressing than inspiring when all you see is just super-models shoved in your face whenever you walk into a theater. If for every Goku I could find ten other guys who were on the chubbier side then I'd be able to take more from when I see Goku and other characters with his body type, yet it's so saturated that it no longer becomes something to aspire to, but simply the norm.  It's not that you can work to become muscular or skinny with hard work and effort, you have to be muscular or skinny unless you want to be deemed a failure. Being chubby often isn't presented as a starting point but just treated as a defect. As someone who spent years battling with my own self-perception, that's just not a good message to get across.

Now, this obviously isn't to say that people can never make muscular characters. After all, it's their story so they can put whatever they want in it. The aim of the game isn't to stop people from making a specific type of character, but to encourage a diverse set of people to make a diverse set of characters. This is the reason why I view muscular women as so inspiring. Instead of coming across as just "the norm" or "the standard" they stand out from the crowd and despite knowing what they have to deal with, are still ready and willing to work out and improve their bodies. They had a goal in mind and set time aside to achieve said goal, that's something I can get behind.

  Conclusion:

This will be another short section, but I just wanted to mention it because it caps off my thoughts on this post in general. What originally started as me just not getting the reason why people disliked Teela's design somehow turned into a passionate rant and I'm A) not sure if it fits on this particular subsection of the community, B) scared I'm going to get ripped to pieces, and C) somewhat unsatisfied with all that I said. At the end of the day, this probably won't be seen by too many people, but to those who do see it, I hope you have a wonderful day. I just wanted to talk about something that was near and dear to my heart and hoped that I made it clear why I view things the way I do. 

P.S: Can we stop having this double standard where we act like women whose arms show the slightest hint of definition are "unrealistic" whilst men can look like tree trunks and be considered normal and healthy? please and thank you!

[butterflyeffectiveless]

I was inspired to send an ask by one of your latest posts, so I just wanted to fire in and say I'm very grateful for finding your blog. In one of your recent posts you said that you felt that you were criticizing the show too much, but all in all, the show is not without flaws and there's no issue in bringing those out for discussion.

However, I just feel like the show has become basically the punching bag of animation fans, being constantly brought up as an example of 'shit show' in every single discussion on the show itself and beyond. Hell, it makes it even difficult for me, one who overall still liked to show in its entirety, including the ending, to actually enjoy discussions for other shows, when SVTFOE keeps being mentioned as the example of everything that's evil in animation or something.

Sorry for the rant, but all that to say that it's incredibly refreshing, and charming, to find someone who has a more positive look on the show and can discuss things about it without bringing out the same, old discussion about what happened with the last season every single time. Even if I don't agree with everything, it's just interesting to read your opinion pieces.

Also, I never followed a blog focusing on Toffee (and the other monster characters) before, so your content and reblogs focusing on our favorite lizard are appreciated as well :D

Sorry for the wall-text ask, but I just wanted to tell you that. Have a good one!

Oh lord, I’m sorry about that. It is a shame that we got the point of completely demonizing the show we all were fans of. I totally get that it is hard to turn from dissatisfaction and disappointment to acceptance, but I personally felt guilty for crucifying something that may bring joy to other people.. especially children. And the whole “only focusing on what I don’t like and criticizing it” feels like abandoning the good things and making at look as if the crew never made something we liked in the first place. I am not sure, maybe I am being tolerant because I am not an artist nor animator and I just give the benefit of the doubt. I don’t know what is going on there so I just assume they did all they could to make it as best as it was possible.

Also I wanted to add in that post of mine the comment about the show’s OST but I forgot; I feel bad that I never brought it up until now but the composer for the show deserves all praise they could get, because the music in Svtfoe was just so good, and it wasn’t “just good, nice”, it was.. it sort of “made” the show, if that makes sense., it was a huge part of the show. Personally to me, when I think of the title Star vs the forces of evil, the first thing that comes to my brain is the soundtrack. And, well, it wasn’t even like, “the soundtrack is great in the opening and in major episodes but just okay in the rest of the show” it was consistently good, and memorable, even in episodes that don’t seem so important. It’s probably too dramatic and blown out of proportion but its like, if the show was an ice cream, the soundtrack would be its flavor.

Also! While writing out the OST bit, I remembered the opening of the show. Another good thing about that show, and good as in “unique and memorable”. I don’t have any knowledge in animation but I personally noticed something in svtfoe opening that felt Very different from other shows I watched. I only watched a few so my judgement may be not great, but.. For example, in Gravity Falls and Steven Universe, the opening was like “a scene – cut to the next scene – cut to the next scene”. Even in Adventure Time, the opening was kind of similar to that. In svtfoe there were..almost no cuts? The whole opening felt so dynamic and, had such a nice flow, it was so fast-paced but it didn’t feel rushed, and the transition from one place to another was made with the use of dimensional scissors and portals. It felt like Portal, it blew my mind. And what so great about that opening is that the animators used dimensional scissors as a tool for transition from one scene to another which is ..? so clever?? Because dimensional scissors are a huge part of the show’s lore and incorporating it into your animation is a genius big brain idea. Not to mention that the opening of the show, despite being super fast, it didn’t feel chaotic or confusing at all, it actually gave the viewers a gist of the situation. While being to fast paced, the opening clearly showed us

1) Why did Star end up on Earth

2) Her parents’ attitude toward her destructive magic

3) Marco’s interest in karate

4) Star and Marco’s friendship

5) That the show’s universe is basically a bunch of dimensions

6) The show’s mood and atmosphere

Some people say how much the show sucks at executing the “show dont tell” rule but the opening of the show was a perfect example of that exact rule- (although I kinda get that the later seasons the event were mostly delivered through words than actions so yeah..)

A, yes, as for the animation..

I have heard too, that some people dislike the animation in latest seasons. The main argument was that it got more bland than in season 1. Part of me feels the same way, but I feel like I can understand why it changed like that. For example, in season 1, the animation was very fast and fluid and flashy, but I assume (correct me if im wrong..) that it was much more dynamic and flexible because the events of the show just happened quickly? I mean, there were a lot of random things going on (situation comedy stuff-) so it was meant to be fast if that makes sense. Plus if Im not mistaken, all fights in season 1 were short-range, and mostly included fist-fights and punching, which is something animators are more used to drawing I assume. Plus the magic in s1 was mostly blasts. Also , my assumption is, the 1st season being comedic contributed to the animation. In season 1 there were many smear frames and as I know, the smear frames look very silly so the animators could use it as much as possible, which is also why the animation was so dynamic and flowy (bs smear frames give that effect).

In later seasons the events became more slow paced and there were much less randomness going on, so means no room for dynamic flowy animation maybe. Plus the fights in later seasons became much much more sophisticated, because they included elaborate and complex magic spells and also bc the fights happened in wider areas. In season 1 animation included blasting and punching, in later seasons animation included ‘whispering the name of the spell, doing certain moves like in sailor moon, animation of the spell, longer fights because the enemy is much stronger and can put up a fight’.

People say the animation in later seasons was bad, but what about the fight between Eclipsa and Meteora? The animation looked much more restrained but it was fitting for the mood of the scene: it was dark and serious. If people were to use smears and same techniques as in season 1 it would destroy the mood I think

Thank you very much for your ask, that was very nice of you You too

[aboveallarescuer]

Daenerys Targaryen in A Storm of Swords vs Game of Thrones - Episode 3.10: Mhysa (& 5 things to understand why Dany's character and storyline matter)

In this series of posts, I intend to analyze precisely how the show writers downplayed or erased several key aspects of Daenerys Targaryen’s characterization, even when they had the books to help them write her as the compelling, intelligent, compassionate, frugal, open-minded and self-critical character that GRRM created.

I want to make it clear that these posts are not primarily meant to offer a better alternative to what the show writers gave us. I understand that they had many constraints (e.g. other storylines to handle, a limited amount of time to write the scripts, budget, actors who may have asked for a certain number of lines, etc) working against them. However, considering how disrespectful the show’s ending was to Daenerys Targaryen and how the book material that they left out makes it even more ludicrous to think that she will also become a villain in A Song of Ice and Fire, I believe that these reviews are more than warranted. They are meant to dissect everything about Dany’s characterization that was lost in translation, with a lot of book evidence to corroborate my statements.

Since these reviews will dissect scene by scene, I recommend taking a look at this post because I will use its sequence to order Dany’s scenes.

This post is relevant in case you want to know which chapters were adapted in which GoT episodes (however, I didn’t make the list myself, all the information comes from the GoT Wiki, so I can’t guarantee that it’s 100% reliable).

In general, I will call the Dany from the books “Dany” and the Dany from the TV series “show!Dany”.

Because I'm about to review one of the most controversial scenes in show!Dany's journey, I think it's important to take a holistic look into her character and storyline first. So, before I start talking about what happens in the episode itself, I am going to address five key things that need to be understood in order to fully appreciate Dany's character and storyline in the books:

Dany's abolitionist crusade's humanitarian importance.

Dany's character motivations.

Dany's background and identity.

Dany's storyline's historical inspirations.

A holistic view of ASOIAF in order to avoid double standards against Dany.

Ultimately, the show writers didn't understand any of these points, which informs their mistakes in their adaptation of Dany's storyline in this episode and beyond.

1) Dany's abolitionist crusade's humanitarian importance

Time and again in the books (particularly in ASOS and ADWD), GRRM reinforces that slavery is wrong by displaying what became normalized during the thousands of years it persisted. Examples include:

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to say that the Unsullied aren't men and to take measures to dehumanize them.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to force five-year-old children to train every day from dawn to dusk, to the point of only one in three surviving such harsh conditions.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to force the Unsullied to stand for a day with no food or water to prove their discipline and strength.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to change the Unsullied's names every day so that they lose their sense of individuality.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to force the Unsullied to go to the slave marts to kill a baby before its mother's eyes to prove that they are not weak.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to make the Unsullied drink the wine of courage to feel less pain and endure any torture, such as having their nipples cut off.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to give the Unsullied puppies only to kill them a year later (and, if they don't, they are fed to the surviving dogs).

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to casually whip people when they mildly annoy them.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to send a girl of nine to kill bulls and to send three small boys (one rolled in honey, the other in blood and the other in rotting fish) to confront a bear in the fighting pits.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to leave the Astapori starving, which led them to eat cats, rats and leather.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to hunt down the Astapori and burn the entire city.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to open a slave market.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to whip people until there is only "blood and raw meat" in their backs.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to command two dwarves to breed.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to force a teenage girl to be naked publicly so that they can sell her at a better price.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to actively spread the bloody flux through Meereen by throwing infected corpses.

Meereenese slavers thinking that it's okay to burn the fields and crucify one hundred and sixty-three children to intimidate Dany.

Meereenese slavers thinking that it's okay to target and murder freedmen to intimidate Dany.

Meereenese slavers thinking that it's okay to pay freedmen low wages and then complain a) about how there are too many beggars, thieves and whores in the city or b) about how the rights and customs of the craftsmen's guilds should be respected.

Meereenese slavers thinking that it's okay to reopen the fighting pits and abuse the freedmen for the nobility's entertainment.

Meereenese slavers thinking that it's okay to send two dwarfs to "fight" against a lion.

Meereenese nobles thinking that it's okay to scourge and rip out the tongues of people who disagree with or know something that it's convenient for them.

And this list only covers human rights abuses that take place in Slaver's Bay (which was the center of slave trade until Dany's arrival). Unfortunately, slavery is so widespread that it helped to build almost the entire continent's economy. The Dothraki and the corsairs of the Basilisk Isles enslave and sell people from different lands to Slaver's Bay. In Volantis, it's estimated that four of every five men are slaves. People from multiple places of Essos are sold into slavery, from Slaver's Bay itself to Qarth to the Dothraki Sea to Lhazar to the Free Cities.

In such an oppressive and devastating scenario, Dany's abolitionist campaign is essential to guarantee that people are no longer desensitized to and systematically allowed to dehumanize others. In-universe, that's why the vast majority of the former slaves love her and why later we get an entire storyline showing what the slavers would do if Dany chose not to be as forceful as she was in ASOS. Doylistically speaking, that's why her actions against the slavers are linked to her upcoming part in the War for the Dawn and to her messianic role as Azor Ahai (as this edit and its quotes excellently illustrate): Dany's war is one that should also involve all of humanity.

Are the show writers aware of this?

Nope.

They may have succeeded in depicting the amount of brutality and suffering that comes with the training of the Unsullied, but, in light of the show's ending, I think that was accomplished mostly because they were interested in shock value rather than in making the audience recognize that show!Dany's crusade was altruistic at its core. This was clear in their interviews: instead of focusing on how vital Dany's actions were to promoting human warfare, Benioff focused on her so-called ruthlessness and ambition when he talked about why she sought an army in Astapor and Weiss focused on her capacity for cruelty when he talked about her attack against the Astapori masters. I've already addressed in which ways these statements about Dany are inaccurate (and detrimental to the understanding of her storyline) in my reviews of episodes 3.3 and 3.4, so I won't belabor the point; instead, I'm only bringing them up here to emphasize that D&D were never (fully) aware of the humanitarian importance of Dany's crusade. That's why they didn't add the moment where Dany says she remembers what it was like to be sold and feel afraid. That's why they didn't show the Unsullied choosing not to side with the slavers when Dany gave them another option. That's why they didn't include the Astapori freedmen who chose to follow Dany in their adaptation. That's why they didn't remember that Dany's main problem prior to the battle of Yunkai was to find a way to take the city and spare freedmen's lives at the same time. That's why, on season four, they will only bother to depict political decisions that paint show!Dany in a negative light (and leave out all of her successful ones). That's why, on season five, they will make her storyline's lesson be about the need to conform to the Meereenese (i.e. slavers') traditions rather than about the need to carry on with her revolution like in the books. That's why, by the end of the show, they will say that Dany burning of King's Landing and its citizens was "a natural outcome of that [...] willingness to go forth and conquer all your enemies" and how "her brand of revolution" stems from her "not seeing the cost". That's why they think there isn't any negative implication in arguing that burning slavers is a slippery slope to burning innocent people: they completely missed the point of her storyline and turned it into slavery apologism. Dany conquered these cities because there was no other way to free the slaves (as ADWD reinforces). Dany conquered these cities precisely because she saw the cost, even in the show (but then, they are such bad writers that they often misunderstand the implications of what they depicted).

And what I said above doesn't even take into account that they completely ignored (and I suspect probably never realized in the first place) the connection between her crusade in Slaver's Bay and her messianic destiny. It's no secret that they've always downplayed the magical elements of the books in the show as a whole. When it comes to Dany, that removal was particularly detrimental because the magic was used by GRRM to emphasize that Dany's actions were righteous. 

2) Dany's character motivations

Here, I want to explain why Dany a) fought against the Ghiscari slavers and b) will fight for the Iron Throne in Westeros. This will only cover what's necessary to make my point clear; for more on Dany's intentions, see here and here and here and here and here.

a) Why Dany fought against the Ghiscari slavers

I've argued before that Dany is an accident revolutionary for a couple of reasons. She went to Slaver's Bay because she wanted an army (something that her detractors often use to harshly criticize her), yes, but what was primarily driving Dany was not self-interest/ambition (and it wouldn't matter if it were in the grand scheme of things, considering what other Westerosi feudal lords have done in the name of power), but rather her previous experiences with poverty, which understandably enhanced her desire to have agency. Additionally (and perhaps most importantly), she didn't know how the slaves were being mistreated; if she did, she most likely wouldn't have chosen to turn to Astapor in the first place. But that's partly why her storyline resonates with so many readers: as she gathers more information about the world and its problems, her moral and political values change along the way too. In this case, after finally witnessing the Unsullied's training and being confronted with the dilemma of buying them or leaving them, Dany chose another option: freeing the Unsullied and fighting against the masters instead.

Afterwards, Dany stayed in Slaver's Bay solely because she wants to abolish slavery. If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have questioned on what grounds should a monarch rule. If her intentions weren't selfless, she would have taken the Yunkish masters' wealth for herself rather than just demanded that the slaves were compensated for their unpaid labor. If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have been so hard on herself for her mistakes on Astapor. If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have given the nobility and the freedmen equal voice at court (and her desire for equality was pointed out by GRRM himself). If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't be so insistent on reforming Meereen (which is an expensive endeavor). If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have provided medical aid to the Astapori refugees. If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have given food to the poor. If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have sacrificed her own personal happiness and bodily autonomy. And so on. Again, I'm not trying to be thorough here, I'm just offering key examples that prove that Dany's campaign is driven by genuine compassion.

b) Why Dany will fight for the Iron Throne

I've said before that Dany doesn't want power for its own sake, but rather because it's a mean to the ends that she actually desires: home and duty. These two essential goals aptly inform why she wants to take back the Seven Kingdoms.

Dany's sole aim that can be considered selfish (i.e. that only focuses on her own benefits) is her desire to find a home, be it somewhere to belong to or someone to rely on. Even then, though, that's more than understandable considering a) that she is an exile who never got to stay on one place or trust her caregiver, b) that everyone in the continent where she was born believes in birthright and c) that every feudal lord is willing to wage war to retain their influence and wealth (more on that in item 5).

Dany's duty, on the other hand, refers not only to her (self-imposed) duty to the helpless (already laid out above), but to her ancestors too. So, even if her upcoming war in Westeros won't be primarily motivated to help the underprivileged (though she still has them in mind), it is still largely self-sacrificing as well (and far from being enough to describe her as power hungry like her detractors do).

Are the show writers aware of this?

Nope.

When it comes to her fight against the Ghiscari masters, Weiss did say that Dany "is driven by a kind of a deep empathy, a much deeper empathy than probably anybody else in the show" back in season four. On the other hand, that statement is rendered moot by the fact that D&D dismiss her actions in Slaver's Bay as a "willingness to go forth and conquer all your enemies" and as a "brand of revolution" that stems from her "not seeing the cost" by the end of the show. In other words, they a) made her anti-slavery crusade about her so-called ambition, b) downplayed her selfless goals and its humanitarian importance (failure in item 1) and c) turned her storyline into slavery apologism.

When it comes to her fight for the Iron Throne, there's never any interview where they focus on her desire for home and belonging or on her duty towards her ancestors, which also explains why these motivations were rarely shown onscreen. That they villainize her for pursuing the Seven Kingdoms displays their failure to understand item 5 (below).

3) Dany's background and identity

Dany isn't a typical queen. She is the only one who lived in poverty, began the story as a sex slave and then turned into a revolutionary thanks to her own choices. She is the only female character whose power isn't derived from her male relatives; in fact, she is specifically set apart for overcoming hardships that they didn't. She is the only queen whose political power is intertwined with her magical destiny (which is partly realized thanks to her actions). She is the only she-king/queen regnant/independent female ruler of the story. She is the only female ruler a) who received an arc that we got to see unfold through her perspective and b) who was depicted as politically savvy, despite having been thrown in the hardest political scenario of the series.

In relation to the Dothraki, Dany is not just a white woman among people of color. She was a child bride forcefully married to and raped by a Dothraki khal. She, like Irri and Jhiqui, was part of a family that was displaced, which led to their enslavement. She assimilated to Dothraki culture and was able to discern the good (the bond between bloodriders and a lifestyle that allows for a stronger sense of equality) and the bad (rape and human trafficking being normalized in their culture). She was the first example of female leadership to her bloodriders and khalasar and the one who set a precedent that men and women can be equals. She genuinely cares about her khalasar's well-being. She is poised to unite all the khalasars in the future. It's important to discern her character from GRRM's and D&D's writing (more on that in item 4).

In relation to the Ghiscari slavers (and not to the Westerosi nobles), Dany is viewed as a foreign monarch.

In relation to the freedmen, however, there's more to it. Like them, Dany is a former slave who was forcefully exiled from her homeland and now belongs nowhere. Unlike the slavers (who are united by Ghiscari heritage), the actual oppressed group come from many places and have different ethnicities and traveled extensively. Similarly, Dany was born in Westeros, grew up in the Free Cities, spent a significant time in the Dothraki sea and ruled in Slaver's Bay. Dany may be considered a foreigner by the slavers, but not by the freedmen, because they are all displaced people. Their connection (which the author emphasizes in both AGOT and ASOS) further shows that slavery in ASOIAF is not based on race and ethnicity (more on that in item 4).

The reasons above also explain why it is meaningful that Dany is AA/TPTWP/TSWMTW: many men (Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon, Viserys, Drogo, Rhaego) had to die so she could become who she was meant to be, which further emphasizes that, as much as certain people want to pretend otherwise, Dany being the chosen one is not what the readership tends to expect.

I would argue that it's very important to have a basic understanding of various forms of oppression and acknowledge the multiple social groups that Dany belongs to in order to recognize her character's and storyline's significance. By being aware of them, one can understand, for example,

a) why Dany is not "too obvious" a glorified savior for her story not to have a twist by the end (That tends to happen because these detractors only see her as a white noblewoman, but, considering her identity as a whole, she is exactly someone who the readership wouldn't think of as the hero) or

b) why the story would be offensive on many levels if it ended with Dany going mad and/or becoming a villain (Why would GRRM do that to the one character who was exiled and enslaved and who, thanks to her own intelligence and compassion, got to fight against systemic oppression because she herself knows "how it felt to be afraid"?) or

c) why the theory that Dany burns King's Landing is offensive regardless of whether she does it accidentally or not (Why would GRRM have his sole queen regnant, i.e. the only woman whose power isn't derived from a man and who gets to make decisions concerning warfare like men usually do, be overly defined by violence in a way that his kings don't have to be? Why would he use her anti-slavery crusade as a device to make her care less about collateral damage and then be responsible for atrocities of such magnitude? It may still happen, but it definitely warrants criticism if it does)

Are the show writers aware of this?

Nope.

On the one hand, Weiss did previously acknowledge that Dany's past experiences inform her current attitude ("She's always been very negatively predisposed towards slavery because she knows what it feels like to be property, I mean, she was a very fancy slave for all intents and purposes, she was somebody who was sold to another man, taken against her will and I think that her feelings about slavery have started to really inform her reasons for wanting the Iron Throne").

On the other hand, if they really understood the significance of her background, they wouldn't have made the northmen hate her for being a foreigner and portrayed her being in the wrong. If they really understood the significance of her background, they wouldn't have thought that show!Arya killing the Night King (which wasn't supposed to have happened) or show!Sansa becoming queen (which made no sense since that would motivate other regions to demand independence from the crown as well) would be interchangeable with show!Dany's downfall and prevent them from receiving criticism regarding the misogyny in their writing.

4) Dany's storyline's historical inspirations

In the words of the author himself,

The Targaryens have heavily interbred, like the Ptolemys of Egypt. As any horse or dog breeder can tell you, interbreeding accentuates both flaws and virtues, and pushes a lineage toward the extremes. (x)

~

The Dothraki are partially based on the Huns and the Mongols, some extent the steppe tribes like the Alvars and Magyars. I put in a few elements of the Amerindian plains tribes and those peoples, and then I threw in some purely fantasy elements. It’s fantasy.

Are they barbaric? Yeah, but the Mongols were, too. Genghis Khan — I just saw an interesting movie about Ghengis Khan, recently. I’ve read books about Genghis Khan, and he’s one of history’s more fascinating, charismatic characters. The Mongols became very sophisticated at certain points, but they were certainly not sophisticated when they started out, and even at the height of their sophistication they were fond of doing things like giant piles of heads. “Surrender your city to me, or we will come in and kill all the men, rape all the women and make a giant pile of heads.” They did that a few times, and other cities said, “Surrender is good. We’ll surrender. We’ll pay the taxes. No pile of heads, please.” (x)

~

And meanwhile, you've got Daenerys visiting more Eurasian and Middle Eastern cultures.

And that has generated its controversy too. I answer that one to in my blog. I know some of the people who are coming at this from a political or racial angle just seem to completely disregard the logistics of the thing here. I talk about what's in the books. The books are what I write. What I’m responsible for.

Slavery in the ancient world, and slavery in the medieval world, was not race-based. You could lose a war if you were a Spartan, and if you lost a war you could end up a slave in Athens, or vice versa. You could get in debt, and wind up a slave. And that’s what I tried to depict, in my books, that kind of slavery. (x)

These interviews show that Dany's storyline's historical parallels are mainly ancient civilizations (which explains her parallels with Cleopatra or the Ghiscari pyramids' closeness to Egyptian pyramids or how the duels in the fighting pits resemble the Roman gladiatorial games or the similarities between the Unsullied's training with Sparta's training of young boys or why tokars are togas), which, in turn, prove that GRRM is not attempting to write a critique of white saviorism. Indeed, that he reduces the Dothraki and the Mongols to being "barbaric" and refuses to give any individuality to his Dothraki characters confirm that he's the racist one here. Even the parallels that he draws between Dany's storyline and the American Civil War and Reconstruction are non-racialized in nature.

Also, even if GRRM and D&D weren't racists, the racist imagery in Dany's storyline (especially show!Dany's) doesn't make Dany herself a white savior; as @yendany​ explained before, white saviorism is about:

a) glorifying whiteness/western culture or an individual white person at the expense of people of color. Neither version of Dany fulfill this requirement because Dany was raised in Essos and doesn't force Ghiscari people into adhering to Westerosi or Valyrian culture and slavery, again, isn't race-based (which is why the Dothraki are portrayed as oppressors). The show ending only reinforces the latter point (more on that later).

and/or

b) a white person providing help to people of color in order to serve their own interests. Neither version of Dany fulfill this requirement because their compassion and humanitarianism are genuine (and necessary), as shown in items 1 and 2 above.

Are the show writers aware of this?

For the most part, nope.

On the one hand, they were involved in the show's production, so they had to be aware of the obvious parallels between Dany's storyline and the Ancient Mediterranean world (though not enough to hire extras of multiple races and ethnicities or to let show!Dany wear togas). Also, Benioff once stated that "there always seemed to be this sense of manifest destiny with Dany", which implies that they were aware of the white savior criticism surrounding her character and storyline (though probably not enough to question its validity based on her characterization).

On the other hand, they never cared about making any improvements from the racism in the books, and the ending is clear proof of that. Before season eight, I'd seen many people argue that the Unsullied and the Dothraki were used as show!Dany's props to emphasize her "goodness". Instead, it's the other way around: they were never meant to be "good" on their own, in fact, they were only portrayed as "good" because of show!Dany; by the end, when show!Dany was villainized, they were as well. Indeed, people of color like show!Missandei and show!Grey Worm suddenly became more aggressive while the white men in show!Dany's team (show!Jon, show!Tyrion and show!Varys) were portrayed as the rational/pacifist ones, reinforcing that there was never any attempt to provide race-related social commentary in the show (or in the books, for that matter). If there had been an attempt (poor and offensive as it would still be), the Unsullied and the Dothraki would have been depicted as the Mad Queen's victims (which only the Westerosi smallfolk and the Lannister armies (i.e. white people) got to be) rather than the Mad Queen's evil army.

5) A holistic view of ASOIAF in order to avoid double standards against Dany

I could mention more double standards than the four below, but my intention here is not to be comprehensive, but rather to provide some of the key examples of double standards used to criticize Dany's eventual campaign in Westeros and to accuse her of white saviorism.

Yes, Dany wants to wage a war to take back her homeland, but so did Robb when Winterfell was taken. (Unfortunately, Stannis may do the dirty work for the Starks in TWOW.)

Yes, Dany wants to take the Seven Kingdoms and the Starks "only" want Winterfell, but what matters is not the size of the area they are claiming, but rather the fact that the system that they are all working under (i.e. pseudofeudal monarchy) rewards birthright, exploits the labor of the peasants, encourages wars for petty reasons and perpetuates social inequality.

Yes, Dany will eventually be willing to use dragonfire to accomplish her goals, but fire was used by several parties against their enemies. The Ghiscari slavers used it. Stannis Baratheon used it. Tyrion Lannister used it. Jon Snow used it. The brotherhood without banners used it. If they had dragons, you can bet that they would have used them (and probably would have been less reluctant about it than Dany).

Yes, Dany's storyline has racist elements, but so does the Starks' origin story and Tyrion's storyline and the Martells' creation. In fact, if we're talking about racism, it can't be overlooked that Dany is the only white main character who interacts with, cares about and fights for people of color, while the other white characters remain isolated in Westeros and ignorant of their struggles. It can't be overlooked that GRRM wishes he had made Dany (and none of the other main characters) a Black woman. That people of color aren't given more prominence in the narrative is GRRM's fault (see item 4), not Dany's.

When all's said and done, Dany is not doing anything that could be considered morally wrong that other people didn't do, but she is taking large-scale actions solely due to her compassion that no one else is. That's because GRRM chose to set her apart from the other claimants by placing her in a storyline where she gets to advocate for the oppressed and have larger concerns than her claim or how her family was wronged. Does that make her look "too good"? Well, you just have to look at Jon to see that that's not true; both are flawed and imperfect, but still compassionate, intelligent and, ultimately, not as morally grey as most of the other characters of the series.

Are the show writers aware of this?

Nope.

I would say that the root of the problem in the show writers' depiction of show!Dany stems from the fact that they don't look at the events from the perspective of the lowborn.

If they would look at her actions in Slaver's Bay from the point of view of a freedman, they would understand why they were righteous (failure to comprehend item 1); instead, they talk about how her cruelty "grows" because she hurt people who hadn't done anything to her personally (which shows how easily they empathize with the slavers) and focus on how she is becoming a threat.

If they would look at her actions in Westeros from the point of view of a peasant, they would understand that a) every single lord exploits their labor, b) that Dany is not doing anything that the the lords wouldn't do (which is why the kingdoms constantly warred with their neighbors before Aegon's Conquest) and c) that the lords never waged war specifically to protect the oppressed like Dany did (see items 1 and 2), which is why Northern independence (or Robert's Rebellion) is not morally superior to Dany's campaign for the Iron Throne.

Because they couldn't understand any of this, they portrayed show!Dany's war effort as worse than the other characters' and ended up villainizing her for her ambition and use of violence when they never did so with the other characters, which creates offensive double standards and highlights the misogyny (i.e. controlling and punishing women who challenge male dominance) in their writing.

Now I'm going to go to the scene itself in order to demonstrate how it particularly exemplifies the show writers' failure to understand these five key things about Dany's character and storyline.

Scene 13

BARRISTAN: They will come, Your Grace. When they’re ready.

DAENERYS: Perhaps they didn’t want to be conquered.

JORAH: You didn’t conquer them. You liberated them.

DAENERYS: People learn to love their chains.

In the books, there's never any suspense about whether the newly freedmen will come out or not:

On the morning of the third day, the city gates swung open and a line of slaves began to emerge. Dany mounted her silver to greet them. As they passed, little Missandei told them that they owed their freedom to Daenerys Stormborn, the Unburnt, Queen of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros and Mother of Dragons.

“Mhysa!” a brown-skinned man shouted out at her. He had a child on his shoulder, a little girl, and she screamed the same word in her thin voice. “Mhysa! Mhysa!” (ASOS Daenerys IV)

As we can see in the quote above, not only there's no suspense, Dany is mounted on her silver and doesn't have to make a speech to make sure that the former slaves can trust her and hail her as mhysa. Indeed, that's my biggest issue with the speech: it's built on the show writers' assumption that show!Dany needs to "[wait] to see if she is a conqueror or a liberator" in the eyes of the former slaves.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are people who dismiss Dany as a violent conqueror in the books. The Meereenese slavers (i.e., the ones who think they have the right to sell people and exploit their free labor and who suffered a major blow when Dany challenged their way of life, which doesn't exactly make them a reliable viewpoint in a storyline with something meaningful to say) do so:

“...When my people look at you, they see a conqueror from across the seas, come to murder us and make slaves of our children. A king could change that. A highborn king of pure Ghiscari blood could reconcile the city to your rule. Elsewise, I fear, your reign must end as it began, in blood and fire.” (ADWD Daenerys IV)

The Yunkish slavers (i.e., the ones who think they have the right to sell people and exploit their free labor and who suffered a major blow when Dany challenged their way of life, which doesn't exactly make them a reliable viewpoint in a storyline with something meaningful to say) do so:

“If even half the stories coming back from Slaver’s Bay are true, this child is a monster. They say that she is blood-thirsty, that those who speak against her are impaled on spikes to die lingering deaths. They say she is a sorceress who feeds her dragons on the flesh of newborn babes, an oathbreaker who mocks the gods, breaks truces, threatens envoys, and turns on those who have served her loyally. They say her lust cannot be sated, that she mates with men, women, eunuchs, even dogs and children, and woe betide the lover who fails to satisfy her. She gives her body to men to take their souls in thrall.” (ADWD Tyrion VI)

Dany herself (who, we shouldn't forget, has a tendency to be self-deprecating) also does so. It's the reason why she thinks it's her duty to stay and rule Meereen:

“Aegon the Conqueror brought fire and blood to Westeros, but afterward he gave them peace, prosperity, and justice. But all I have brought to Slaver’s Bay is death and ruin. I have been more khal than queen, smashing and plundering, then moving on.” (ASOS Daenerys VI)

However, the Yunkish envoy's vicious reaction (in both canons) to Dany's request that the Yunkish nobles free their slaves shows that Dany couldn't have freed the slaves (and become a liberator) if she hadn't taken the city (and become a conqueror). She is both conqueror and liberator and these titles don't contradict each other, they inform each other (just like mhysa and mother of dragons). That's something that the former slaves are aware of, because the vast majority of them do want freedom and are grateful that Dany intervened - we see it in Astapor, where the Unsullied chose not to obey their former masters while they were attacked because Dany gave them a choice to fight for their freedom, which they took (and the show didn't depict); we see it in Yunkai, where the former slaves embraced and hailed Dany as their mother right after they met her (and she didn't have to make a speech to prove that they should be freed because they themselves wanted to be freed); we see it in Meereen, where "the fighting slaves [...] led the uprising that won the city for her" and "cheering slaves lifted bloodstained hands to her as she went by"; we see it on Tyrion's POV, where many slaves doubt that Dany would make peace with the slavers and want her to smash the Yunkai'i. To portray them as gullible and dependent on show!Dany's speech in order to embrace freedom (when, again, that was never a question for them in the books) means:

Overlooking their motivations in the books.

Giving them less agency in comparison to the books.

Downplaying the level of human destruction that the slavers perpetrated (and which led the slaves to want to rebel), which shows their failure to understand item 1.

Equating show!Dany to the slavers as a foreign monarch in the former slaves' eyes when, in the books, she became a cult figure right from the first moment that they saw her. This also shows their failure to understand item 3; as I said above, she is not just a ruler, she is also a former slave who was banished from her homeland and doesn't belong anywhere. That makes it all the more meaningful that she, thanks to her own actions and principles, ended up becoming  a revolutionary. Failing to understand this is why the show writers felt that she had to make a speech so that she could "compensate" for her actions as a conqueror (which were righteous to begin with).

Now, one might argue that I'm being too nitpicky here, but I didn't make it a secret in the introduction to these books vs show reviews that they are being written with the hindsight knowledge that the show writers will attempt to vilify show!Dany. One way that they will do so is to turn the freedmen against her in the later seasons, which is something that never happens in the books (which is why I'm wary of how her speech here already indicates that her connection to the freedmen is being downplayed). As I just said above and will reiterate: the show writers never really grasped the humanitarian importance of her crusade (item 1) or why she's seeking the Iron Throne in the first place (item 2). The show writers never really understood that the former slaves weren't united by culture or race or nationality and that they still had a connection with Dany as exiles sold into slavery (item 3). This is why they thought it was okay to make her the final villain of their series.

*

JORAH: You didn’t conquer them. You liberated them.

DAENERYS: People learn to love their chains.

First, show!Jorah being the one shown explaining to show!Dany that she is a liberator is really annoying since she is the former sex slave who chose to become an abolitionist and he is a slaver himself who is an apologist even in show canon.

Second, there are different ways to interpret show!Dany's line above. @daenerys-targaryen​ interpreted it as show!Dany referring to herself and how she fell in love with Drogo while she was his slave. @queenaryastark​ interpreted it as a way to express Tyrion's thoughts about how it's easy to grow accustomed to being a slave in ADWD. These are all valid readings that can coexist with my own: that the show writers only added this line in order to make show!Dany's storyline "more complex" (in their eyes). We see show!Dany having to "[wait] to see if she is a conqueror or a liberator", after all, which is a question about her "internal struggle" (which, again, makes no sense to overfocus on since Dany wouldn't be a liberator if she weren't also a conqueror) that the show chooses to hammer home in comparison to the books (where it's made clear that most of the former slaves know that they want to be freed). This added question a) undermines how significant it is that Dany is an active hero who chose to fight for the slaves when she didn't have to in a time and place where no one else cared about their plea and there was no conception of universal human rights (failure to understand items 2 and 5), b) downplays the message that the use of violence can be morally righteous (because it creates a false dichotomy between conqueror and liberator, like the fandom does with mhysa and mother of dragons; unfortunately, both showrunners miss the point - Weiss thinks that show!Dany's empathy and cruelty grow in Astapor and Benioff focuses on how she's becoming a threat; failure to understand items 1 and 2) and c) equates show!Dany to the slavers as another foreign monarch in the slaves' perspective (failure to understand item 3), which, in turn, portrays slavery as if it was merely a typical cultural practice rather than a crime against humanity like how it's portrayed in the books (failure to understand item 1). Things are definitely going to get worse in the next seasons (e.g. "mhysa is a master", the addition of a prostitute who hates show!Dany because she's "ruining" Meereenese "traditions", etc), but the cracks were already apparent in season three, which is arguably show!Dany's best season.

*

MISSANDEI: This is Daenerys Targaryen, the Stormborn, the Unburnt, the Queen of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros, the Mother of Dragons. It is to her you owe your freedom.

DAENERYS: No. You do not owe me your freedom. I cannot give it to you. Your freedom is not mine to give. It belongs to you and you alone. If you want it back, you must take it for yourselves. Each and every one of you.

This scene plays out differently in the books:

On the morning of the third day, the city gates swung open and a line of slaves began to emerge. Dany mounted her silver to greet them. As they passed, little Missandei told them that they owed their freedom to Daenerys Stormborn, the Unburnt, Queen of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros and Mother of Dragons.

“Mhysa!” a brown-skinned man shouted out at her. He had a child on his shoulder, a little girl, and she screamed the same word in her thin voice. “Mhysa! Mhysa!” (ASOS Daenerys IV)

As we can see, a) Dany is not shown correcting Missandei on what freedom entails like it happens in the show and b) Dany never has to give the former slaves a speech in the first place.

I'm of two minds about this speech. On the one hand, show!Dany's speech does highlight her humanitarian intentions in this endeavor: instead of seeing the freedmen as things to be sold like the slavers did, she views them as people who are able to make their own judgments and choices.

On the other hand, a number of issues were caused by the show writers' inability to be faithful to the books. The intentions behind this speech are distasteful since it seems like (the show writers think that) she needs to persuade the former slaves to follow her, which takes away their agency in comparison to the books (where, as I've repeated numerous times by now, they wanted to be freed; failure to understand item 1) and holds show!Dany to a higher standard than the other characters of the series (who, either in Westeros or Slaver's Bay, all believe in and live under an absolute monarchy, with the only difference being that their dominance over the lowborn became normalized over time in a way that show!Dany's didn't, which causes her to be judged by today's moral standards by the show writers; this failure to understand item 5 will only get worse over time, as we all know), which is particularly aggravating because it undercuts the fact that show!Dany is the only one who cares about and fights for the former slaves (failure to understand items 2, 3 and 5).

*

DAENERYS: No. You do not owe me your freedom. I cannot give it to you. Your freedom is not mine to give. It belongs to you and you alone. If you want it back, you must take it for yourselves. Each and every one of you.

Another thing that makes me bitter about this speech is that, despite portraying show!Dany positively, it will be used (alongside all of her other speeches), in retrospect, as evidence that she was always set up to burn thousands of innocents in King's Landing:

BENIOFF: What's interesting about it is that she's been making similar kinds of speeches for a long time and we've always been rooting for her and this is kind of a natural outcome of that philosophy and that willingness to go forth and conquer all your enemies and it's just not quite as fun anymore. (x)

Much has been said about how the show fell right into slavery apologism by supposing that burning slavers is a slippery slope to burning noncombatants (failure to understand items 1 and 2) and about how offensive it was that it villainized the one queen who had a particular place in the narrative due to being an exile, a former sex slave, a revolutionary and the only independent female ruler who wasn't depicted as evil (failure to understand item 3). I would also add that the vast majority of the evidence about show!Dany's "villainy" (which betrays a failure to understand item 5) was either exaggerated or invented. For example, aside from the speech that she gave to her khalasar in the first season, all of show!Dany's speeches were added by the show writers, including this one. In fact, it's ironic that, throughout the course of AFFC/ADWD, Dany was the only one of the three main political leaders who was not shown by GRRM giving speeches to the unprivileged:

Jon waited until the last echoes had faded, then spurred his palfrey forward where everyone could see him. “We’re feeding you as best we can, as much as we can spare. Apples, onions, neeps, carrots … there’s a long winter ahead for all of us, and our stores are not inexhaustible.”

“You crows eat good enough.” Halleck shoved forward.

For now. “We hold the Wall. The Wall protects the realm … and you now. You know the foe we face. You know what’s coming down on us. Some of you have faced them before. Wights and white walkers, dead things with blue eyes and black hands. I’ve seen them too, fought them, sent one to hell. They kill, then they send your dead against you. The giants were not able to stand against them, nor you Thenns, the ice-river clans, the Hornfoots, the free folk … and as the days grow shorter and the nights colder, they are growing stronger. You left your homes and came south in your hundreds and your thousands … why, but to escape them? To be safe. Well, it’s the Wall that keeps you safe. It’s us that keeps you safe, the black crows you despise.”

“Safe and starved,” said a squat woman with a windburned face, a spearwife by the look of her.

“You want more food?” asked Jon. “The food’s for fighters. Help us hold the Wall, and you’ll eat as well as any crow.” Or as poorly, when the food runs short. (ADWD Jon V)

~

“What is the meaning of this?” Cersei demanded of the crowd. “Do you mean to bury Blessed Baelor in a mountain of carrion?”

A one-legged man stepped forward, leaning on a wooden crutch. “Your Grace, these are the bones of holy men and women, murdered for their faith. Septons, septas, brothers brown and dun and green, sisters white and blue and grey. Some were hanged, some disemboweled. Septs have been despoiled, maidens and mothers raped by godless men and demon worshipers. Even silent sisters have been molested. The Mother Above cries out in her anguish. We have brought their bones here from all over the realm, to bear witness to the agony of the Holy Faith.”

Cersei could feel the weight of eyes upon her. “The king shall know of these atrocities,” she answered solemnly. “Tommen will share your outrage. This is the work of Stannis and his red witch, and the savage northmen who worship trees and wolves.” She raised her voice. “Good people, your dead shall be avenged!”

A few cheered, but only a few. “We ask no vengeance for our dead,” said the one-legged man, “only protection for the living. For the septs and holy places.” (AFFC Cersei VI)

In fact, the Dany of the books is never shown giving a speech after AGOT. This is not to say, of course, that making speeches on its own makes show!Dany "darker" (indeed, the show writers were often unaware of what they were writing) than Dany, I'm only pointing out that they never existed in the books.

*

DAENERYS: No. You do not owe me your freedom. I cannot give it to you. Your freedom is not mine to give. It belongs to you and you alone. If you want it back, you must take it for yourselves. Each and every one of you.

Mhysa!

DAENERYS: What does it mean?

MISSANDEI: It is old Ghiscari, Khaleesi. It means “mother.”

First, unlike in the show (where the freedmen only shout "mhysa!"), the freedmen of the books call Dany "mother" in lots of different languages:

“Mhysa!” they called. “Mhysa! MHYSA!” They were all smiling at her, reaching for her, kneeling before her. “Maela,” some called her, while others cried “Aelalla” or “Qathei” or “Tato,” but whatever the tongue it all meant the same thing. Mother. They are calling me Mother. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

It's only fitting that the freedmen of the books come from different places and have different races and ethnicities (which the scene above reinforces); not only that connects them to their mhysa (in that they are all people exiled from their homelands and forced into slavery), it is a culmination of Dany's tendency to culturally assimilate, which was already noticeable with the Dothraki. Unfortunately, this doesn't come across in the show because they hired local extras from Morocco (failure to understand/depict items 3 and 4).

Second, as @rainhadaenerys​ pointed out to me in a conversation, show!Dany makes a speech (which, again, was added by the show writers) in Valyrian in this scene and all the freedmen understand it, which can make sense since most modern Ghiscari continued to speak in the language of their conquerors and the former slaves all probably stayed in Yunkai long enough to learn the language. On the other hand, this will later be contradicted in episode 4.6 when show!Dany will need show!Missandei in order to communicate with a goatherd. In the books, she interacts directly with all of the freedmen, to give some examples:

In the afternoon a sculptor came, proposing to replace the head of the great bronze harpy in the Plaza of Purification with one cast in Dany’s image. She denied him with as much courtesy as she could muster. A pike of unprecedented size had been caught in the Skahazadhan, and the fisherman wished to give it to the queen. She admired the fish extravagantly, rewarded the fisherman with a purse of silver, and sent the pike to her kitchens. A coppersmith had fashioned her a suit of burnished rings to wear to war. She accepted it with fulsome thanks; it was lovely to behold, and all that burnished copper would flash prettily in the sun, though if actual battle threatened, she would sooner be clad in steel. (ADWD Daenerys I)

So, while here she and her people are at least connected by the fact that they understand what she is saying, even this will be undermined later (and they don't have the budget as an excuse for this one; failure to understand items 3 and 4).

Third, as I noted in episode 3.5, why the heck do they have show!Missandei call show!Dany "khaleesi"? It makes no sense since she's not familiar with Dothraki culture and never knew Dany when she was Khal Drogo's wife.

*

DAENERYS: It’s all right. These people won’t hurt me.

~

DAENERYS: Fly. Let me pass.

There are differences in the execution of Dany's meeting with the freedmen of Yunkai from books to show. She mounted her silver to meet them and the crowdsurfing never happens:

On the morning of the third day, the city gates swung open and a line of slaves began to emerge. Dany mounted her silver to greet them. [...]

The chant grew, spread, swelled. It swelled so loud that it frightened her horse, and the mare backed and shook her head and lashed her silver-grey tail. It swelled until it seemed to shake the yellow walls of Yunkai. More slaves were streaming from the gates every moment, and as they came they took up the call. They were running toward her now, pushing, stumbling, wanting to touch her hand, to stroke her horse’s mane, to kiss her feet. [...]

She laughed, put her heels into her horse, and rode to them, the bells in her hair ringing sweet victory. She trotted, then cantered, then broke into a gallop, her braid streaming behind. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

What we also miss onscreen is that, onpage, Dany sees the freedmen as her found family and realizes that the moment fulfills a prophecy that she saw in the House of the Undying. I'm going to talk more about this moment later in the section where I comment on D&D's Inside the Episode, though.

*

Now, we get to this moment, which was (and still is) heavily criticized due to its racism.

An in-depth discussion of the racism in Dany's storyline and in ASOIAF in general goes beyond the scope of this meta; I recommend that you read @yendany's metas instead. It must be acknowledged, of course, that this is a racist scene for employing Moroccan extras as former slaves in order to prop up a British woman and being completely insensitive to Africa's colonial history. However, that's the show's production's fault, which continued to be tone-deaf about race-related issues and diversity in general through the years.

That being said, my main purpose here is to address in which ways the TV series diverged from Dany's character in the books and, consequently, undermined show!Dany. So, instead of talking specifically about the racism in Dany's character and storyline (about which people have already discussed a lot elsewhere), I want to focus, instead, on the ways that the discussion centered around the racism in Dany's character and storyline tends to be uninterested in analyzing the merits of Dany's character and storyline. This reinforces that these detractors' problems most often relate to a) either GRRM and the show's writers and producers rather than to Dany's character herself or b) their own biases:

Dany's abolitionist crusade's humanitarian importance: Do they remember in which ways the slaves were being mistreated, exploited and dehumanized before Dany's interventions?

Dany's character motivations: Do they know that Dany conquered cities just so that she could end slavery rather than because she wanted to exploit Slaver's Bay in any way? Are they aware of the many sacrifices that Dany made in order to free the slaves and rule in Meereen? Do they know that Dany doesn't want the Iron Throne for its own sake, but rather that she wants it so that she can find a home and fulfill her duty towards her ancestors?

Dany's background and identity: Do they take into account that Dany is not just a white woman, but also a former sex slave and a refugee who was forced to culturally assimilate in order to survive and who now belongs nowhere just like the people that she's freed?

Dany's storyline's historical inspirations: Do they know that the slavery that GRRM wrote is primarily inspired by the ancient world and, therefore, is not race-based? Do they know that GRRM himself is tone-deaf about race-related issues and that this is apparent in all of his story?

A holistic view of ASOIAF in order to avoid double standards against Dany: Do they take prevailing cultural norms and other characters' actions into account when they judge Dany's ambition and use of violence negatively? Do they also take into account how Dany's selfless deeds compare to most of the other characters'? Do they also acknowledge and criticize the racism in other characters' storylines?

The vast majority of Dany's detractors (which include D&D) don't take these questions (which do not exhaustively cover all of the misconceptions surrounding her character by any means) into account and/or don't know the text well enough to answer them properly, which means that they are prone to grossly distorting her motivations and/or her storyline's thematic messages in order to address racial issues that should not be used to judge Dany's character because the author himself is unaware of them and does not intend for them to come across. As a result, people lose track of Dany's actual characterization and her storyline's intended social commentary and forget that she is a part of several marginalized groups herself, leading to pretty nonsensical takes in the fandom, such as "Rhaenys should have been Dany".

So, because a) the issue of racism in Dany's storyline was already well-covered elsewhere and b) fandom climate has proven that many people who talk about this issue tend to do so in bad faith, I consciously decided to focus on these five things that should also be remembered in this discussion (and that have more to do with the purpose of this meta anyway).

My comments on the Inside the Episode 3.10

Benioff: We see her get an army in episode four, and here in the finale you see her get her people, really, because she's got, she has her Dothraki followers that don't number very many, and she's got the people she's freed from the other cities, but now she is, it's not just - it's something even more, something almost even more religious about it than just a queen, I mean, she's the mother of these people.

Weiss: And it creates a whole new dynamic between her and the people that she's fighting for that she's gonna have to deal with in the future.

Benioff: The way they treat her, the way they lift her up and she is...  something that has its... A revelation from a prophecy and that glorious destiny is coming true.

Weiss: Here it seemed like it was really important to let us know just how many people were counting on her to see the full extent of, mostly, the full extent of her army and the tens of thousands of people who flooded out of these gates to pay tribute to her. And then, keeping the dragons in play because they're always such an important part of her identity, we just want to tie all of that together in one great shot.

There's a lot of wrong here, so let's unpack this statement by statement.

We see her get an army in episode four, and here in the finale you see her get her people, really,

As I already noted in episodes 3.4 and 3.5 and will repeat: the show writers seem to have forgotten that thousands of refugees from Astapor chose to follow her to Yunkai, so she had already "[gotten] her people":

Yet even so, tens of thousands preferred to follow her to Yunkai, rather than remain behind in Astapor. 

[...]  Dany could not bring herself to abandon them as Ser Jorah and her bloodriders urged. I told them they were free. I cannot tell them now they are not free to join me. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

Indeed, her main struggle during the battle of Yunkai was to find a way to take the city and free its slaves and prevent too many of her freedmen from becoming casualties:

Dany considered. The slaver host seemed small compared to her own numbers, but the sellswords were ahorse. She’d ridden too long with Dothraki not to have a healthy respect for what mounted warriors could do to foot. The Unsullied could withstand their charge, but my freedmen will be slaughtered. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

*

she's got, she has her Dothraki followers that don't number very many,

Dany still considers her Dothraki followers a khalasar in the books and finds their support invaluable despite its small number and what the show writers had her think in the S3 premiere (i.e. that she doesn't have a true khalasar):

Her khalasar was tiny, some thirty-odd mounted warriors, and most of them braidless boys and bentback old men. Yet they were all the horse she had, and she dared not go without them. The Unsullied might be the finest infantry in all the world, as Ser Jorah claimed, but she needed scouts and outriders as well. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

*

she is, it's not just - it's something even more, something almost even more religious about it than just a queen, I mean, she's the mother of these people.

And it creates a whole new dynamic between her and the people that she's fighting for that she's gonna have to deal with in the future.

Dany was already acting as mhysa way before she was considered one, which we saw from the way she cared about the Lhazareen women to her bloodriders to the slaves in Astapor:

“You heard my words,” she said. “Stop them.” She spoke to her khas in the harsh accents of Dothraki. “Jhogo, Quaro, you will aid Ser Jorah. I want no rape.” (AGOT Daenerys VII)

~

“Sheath your steel, blood of my blood,” said Dany, “this man comes to serve me. Belwas, you will accord all respect to my people, or you will leave my service sooner than you’d wish, and with more scars than when you came.” (ACOK Daenerys V)

~

“...Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can’t protect themselves?”

“Some kings make themselves. Robert did.”

“He was no true king,” Dany said scornfully. “He did no justice. Justice ... that’s what kings are for.” (ASOS Daenerys III)

One might argue that this event strengthens the sense of responsibility that she already had for these people, but it's not true that there was a radical change in their dynamic after this moment... In the books, it was simply a culmination of what Dany was already doing the whole time.

*

The way they treat her, the way they lift her up and she is...  something that has its... A revelation from a prophecy and that glorious destiny is coming true.

The way that Benioff puts it makes it seem like show!Dany expected the devotion of these people (in a way that seems related to what they assume to be her self-interest and entitlement), which irks me in hindsight knowing that a) they will use this assumption to tear her apart in the last season (after all, one reason why they had show!Dany fall was that she found no love in the North)  and b) it's not accurate for her book counterpart.

Is it true that she notices that one prophecy was realized in this moment in the books? Yes.

Ten thousand slaves lifted bloodstained hands as she raced by on her silver, riding like the wind. “Mother!” they cried. “Mother, mother!” They were reaching for her, touching her, tugging at her cloak, the hem of her skirt, her foot, her leg, her breast. They wanted her, needed her, the fire, the life, and Dany gasped and opened her arms to give herself to them ... (ACOK Daenerys IV)

 ~

Ser Jorah urged her to go, but Dany remembered a dream she had dreamed in the House of the Undying. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

When it comes to Dany's motivations, though, one must take into account that a) Dany herself is not aware that she has a great destiny (nor does she want to have one) and b) the prophecies are most often intertwined with her desire to find a home, a family, companionship, belonging. This scene is no exception; before it happened, Dany had reflected on how her House would end with her due to her infertility:

She felt very lonely all of a sudden. Mirri Maz Duur had promised that she would never bear a living child. House Targaryen will end with me. That made her sad. “You must be my children,” she told the dragons, “my three fierce children. Arstan says dragons live longer than men, so you will go on after I am dead.” (ASOS Daenerys IV)

Fittingly, then, the chapter ends on a more positive note: her found family is now not only composed of dragons, but of thousands of people who she is delighted to meet:

“What are they shouting?”

“It is Ghiscari, the old pure tongue. It means ‘Mother.’”

Dany felt a lightness in her chest. I will never bear a living child, she remembered. Her hand trembled as she raised it. Perhaps she smiled. She must have, because the man grinned and shouted again, and others took up the cry. [...]

Ser Jorah urged her to go, but Dany remembered a dream she had dreamed in the House of the Undying. “They will not hurt me,” she told him. “They are my children, Jorah.” She laughed, put her heels into her horse, and rode to them, the bells in her hair ringing sweet victory. She trotted, then cantered, then broke into a gallop, her braid streaming behind. The freed slaves parted before her. “Mother,” they called from a hundred throats, a thousand, ten thousand. “Mother,” they sang, their fingers brushing her legs as she flew by. “Mother, Mother, Mother!” (ASOS Daenerys IV)

As I said before, this scene is interesting because it associates Dany's role as a queen to her role as a mother. This connection arguably not only relates to gender issues, but also to how Dany's empathy runs so deep that she goes as far as to consider all of the ones who can't protect themselves her children: because she knows what it is like to be in their position, she will be the one who, instead of focusing on heritage and feudal ties and lands, empowers them and keeps them safe as best as she can.

Unfortunately, the show writers never understood any of this because of a) their lack of knowledge of the source material and, in particular, Dany's character, and b) their misogynistic assumption that a powerful and revolutionary woman must be, deep down, vain, selfish, unhinged and reliant on the men around her (even while they're unable to depict her as one).

*

And then, keeping the dragons in play because they're always such an important part of her identity, we just want to tie all of that together in one great shot.

While it's not untrue that the dragons are an important part of Dany's identity, I can't help but look askance at this statement. D&D thought that it was important to portray show!Dany as helpless without her dragons in season two, after all:

Benioff: Dany is so defined by her dragons, they're so much a part at this point, they define her so much that when they're taken from her, it's almost like she reverts to the pre-dragon Daenerys, you know, everyone is a bit defined by who they were when they were an adolescent, you know, no matter how old you get, no matter how powerful you get, and Daenerys was a scared, timid, abused adolescent and I think when her dragons are taken for her, all those feelings, all those memories and emotions are triggered and come back and all the confidence that she's won over the last several months, it's as if that just evaporates and she's back to being a really frightened little girl. (x)

In the books, Dany doesn't need to be humbled by having her dragons taken from her. Her lesson is the opposite one: she learns that, despite having dragons (which are never taken from her), they are not going to be of help if she wants to gain people's loyalty. Instead, she is going to have to earn people's loyalty, which is why GRRM has Dany's perspective front and center in the books - she is the one who deeply empathizes with the slaves based on her past experiences, she is the one who chooses to start an anti-slavery campaign, she is the one who concocts the battle plans to conquer the cities, she is the one who decides to stay and rule Meereen and so on. The dragons served as the bait to deceive the Astapori masters, but her plan went way beyond the dragons, as well as the ones she made in Yunkai and Meereen.

On HBO, they think that show!Dany is "so defined by her dragons" and that "they're such an important part of her identity" to the point of portraying her as incompetent without them, which they will do again in seasons four and five with their poor adaptation of her ADWD arc (where the dragons were shown as a hindrance and Dany still held things together really well considering the huge problems that she was dealing with). And then, in the end, as we know, they will turn the draconic imagery that once meant freedom in the books (and arguably in this scene as well) into another sign of her villainy in a wing shot that, iconic as it has become, is as subtle as adding devil horns in her head.

Show!Dany's clothes

Does anyone know why is show!Dany using this accessory with her dress? I assume it's a chest pad, but I'm not sure. If anyone has any ideas, please share them with me.

[hamliet]

I think your blog is one of the best out there. Maybe becuase of this , maybe because of your awesome takes... I find it hard being in the fandom. And I wanted to share this very unpopular opinion. The more it goes on the more I wonder : how did Enji turned into this? Most of all in fandom tends to justify touya because he’s the result of Enji’s abuse. However Enji isn’t a natural born abuser. I’ve read and saw plenty: he has not manias of control. He accept easily his wife to leave him (he wanted to build an house for her and since Shoto’s accident he hadn’t forced himself on her). He wanted an heir, true and he was more neglecting (which is a form of abuse). But many time were found evidences in studies neglecting parents have issues of their own. Which can be found in their original family and / or society (if no mental illnesses are implied).

This made me wonder. I love Japanese culture , novels and society. And one of the most recurrent theme , especially some decades ago, is the high pressure people are exposed. It was and sometimes still is a nichilist model in which you die or fly and sometime you can’t hope to Rise once again when you fail. For example the concept of “you need to go at a go prek to get in a good university and find a good job” is often depict and put to extreme in many media. This inspire even books in which families are up for anything to push their children and they are under great pressure. Since Enji seems a not so bad man per se, has no mental illnesses , the only thing left is his immense obsession that must come from something. And the fact that in society a man must be successful... I think here it is.

The fact he can’t express his feeling correctly for the most of MHA , neither he can’t read them at the point of being perceived “with no compassion at all” comply the stereotype of the father with way too high standard , this can’t come from nothing. It’s not hard unreasonable thinking he was most likely pressured as much when younger , and that broke him at some point (which is a recursive theme in many others novels). This doesn’t justify him, but it might explain why he ended up like this.

But while everyone seems to be able to... forgive dabi , justifying his doings becuase of how he was raised while condamning 100% Enji. However the lingering theme of my hero’s villains is that they aren’t a monster , they’re turned into one; and society played a huge role. I don’t stand for Enji’s actions (who would) but ultimately? If all villains were broken by society at some point (being AFO the only exception for now) why can’t be him too? Broken by a society that demands from heroes to be perfect , to never be weak, even through total desperation? Society even made a joke of all might who gave his life entirely and part of his organs for Japan. Rather than only condemning Enji for his doings , much like is doing with Dabi, the spotlight should be society again.

He did wrong. Terribly wrong. and now everyone is ready to crucify him. But how society taught him better ? How society perceive heroes as humans , how far they can be weak and fails and not be blamed? Like father , like son. Touya is the result of his family , I think it should be considerated Enji was the product of a corrupted society. Which never correct itself , never tries to change... they just discard heroes and villains alike just for not being “perfect”.

Hi! Aw, thank you for your kind words <3

So, I’ll break this down a bit, because I think this discussion needs a lot of nuance. I agree society affected Enji, but I don’t quite think that a victim of society is remotely comparable to being a victim of parental abuse.

To start with, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that abusers are born, and hence don’t buy that Enji is somehow different (or better) because he wasn’t born that way.

To note, I talking specifically about physical/emotional/spiritual domestic abuse, not about sexual abuse (and I don’t wanna talk about that because it’s not relevant here, so no one send me asks about it, thanks).

Abuse is a description of an action and its affects. I’ll quote @linkspooky’s meta on Hawks last week: abuser is not a bad word, it’s not just something that bad people do. It’s an unhealthy relationship dynamic that even good people, even sympathetic people can participate in. It’d be great if we could just do a genetic test and determine if someone is an abuser (actually it wouldn’t be great; it’d be dystopian and terrifying), but that’s not how people work.

However, “abuser” is seen as a bad word, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing (nuance/abuse is horrific and takes such a toll on people that I’m glad it is given serious weight in some respects, although imo it’s overemphasized in fandom places and underemphasized in real life) and I’m not getting into good/bad/pluses/minuses of linguistic connotations here.

Hence, I would actually categorize what Rei did to Shouto as abuse, and I do think the story indicates she was neglectful towards her other children. However, I have never labeled her an “abuser” because of the negative connotation as is clear she is not a repeat offender and Shouto doesn’t even blame her--he blames Enji, and I don’t think that’s an incorrect assessment either. It’s complicated. Abuse victims can be abusers at the same time as they are victims (ask many a kid of an abusive dad what their mom was like; at best if they didn’t intervene it’s usually neglectful and often people go no contact with both parents). People we love and care for can participate in abuse.

Mental illness is also complex in its relationship to abuse. Mentally ill people are far more likely to be victims of abuse than perpetrators, and  mental illness doesn’t make someone predisposed to being a bad person. Mental illness does affect how I see Rei’s actions, because she was clearly out of her mind at the moment she burned Shouto’s face; at the same time, mental illness doesn’t erase harm done even if the person can’t be held super culpable. Enji on the other hand was not mentally ill in the same way; he was able to think logically and separate right from wrong even within society (because society clearly still views beating your kids as bad).

It’s actually not really accurate to say that Endeavor didn’t try to control Rei and just let her go--he put her in the institution to keep her away from Shouto, which may have been motivated of course by trying to protect Shouto, but was more likely “trying to protect his masterpiece.” Rei instantly regretted what she had done; Enji didn’t show regret until after Kamino. Also, Shouto himself views it as taking their mother away, not as protecting him. In fact, he sees it as removing his protector and leaving him with just the abusive dad. Plus, Rei’s doctors probably wouldn’t have let him see her. So I absolutely do think Enji is a control freak.

For Enjii, there’s no indication of prior trauma besides just not getting what he wanted. But, as you say, I do think Enji was absolutely a product of society--culturally, though I’m not qualified to comment on that, and within the manga’s own framing of that culture. However, while Enji is a product of society, he is not framed with the child framing that is present around Touya; hence, why he’s not a victim in the same sense. He was an adult when he started doing bad things, capable of reason, as far as we know and there’s no indication this isn’t the case. He was ~20 when Dabi was born, so that means he was looking for a quirk marriage at the very latest by 19. That’s like starting your career as an administrative assistant and being pissed you’re not CEO like, a year after starting! That implies that he had a sense of entitlement at a very young age, entitled to the point of believing kids were not full people but instead extensions of himself to ignore, beat up, and cast aside as he pleased. Every aspect of Enji’s personality screams of toxic masculinity as well.

Also, almost every person who has ever done something wrong (and those who haven’t!) is a product of their environment as well as of their genetics, but I wouldn’t classify everyone as a victim--even though technically I suppose they would be, but the connotations are just not particularly fitting--and I wouldn’t call Enji one. Enji might be a product of society, but his kids are victims of a deliberate choice he had to be a terrible parent. Society sucks, but we don’t choose it and it doesn’t choose us in the same sense a parent chooses to treat their kids a particular way.  So, rather than saying Enji’s a victim of society, I think it’s more of society reaping what they’ve sown in terms of their #1 being revealed as a mass abuser; it’s karmic.

So to return to his character and Enji is also a representation of toxic masculinity--that is why for me personally, his crying this chapter  actually resonated. Like, I think it was well-framed in that his victims didn’t feel sorry for him and he cried before he knew they were coming, and while I get that people think he has no right to cry (as Rei and Natsuo said!). I see why people interpret that as manipulative, and while I absolutely think it was self-pitying, I also personally see it as human and realistic, and perhaps as a slight chipping away of the toxic masculinity that he embodies. We’ll see. I’m still no fan but that was the first moment in his redemption arc that struck me as sincere.

[giftofshewbread]

The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion: By Dr. C. Truman Davis A Physician Analyzes the Crucifixion. From New Wine Magazine, April 1982. Originally published in Arizona Medicine, March 1965, Arizona Medical Association. Crucifixion was invented by the Persians in 300 BC, and perfected by the Romans in 100 BC.

 1,It is the most painful death ever invented by man and is where we get our term “excruciating.” 

 2,It was reserved primarily for the most vicious of male criminals. Jesus refused the anaesthetic wine which was offered to Him by the Roman soldiers because of His promise in Matthew 26: 29, “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

 3,Jesus was stripped naked and His clothing divided by the Roman guards. This was in fulfilment of Psalm 22:18, “They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” 

 4,The Crucifixion of Jesus guaranteed a horrific, slow, painful death. Having been nailed the Cross, Jesus now had an impossible anatomical position to maintain. 

 5,Jesus’ knees were flexed at about 45 degrees, and He was forced to bear His weight with the muscles of His thigh, which is not an anatomical position which is possible to maintain for more than a few minutes without severe cramp in the muscles of the thigh and calf.

 6,Jesus’ weight was borne on His feet, with nails driven through them. As the strength of the muscles of Jesus’ lower limbs tired, the weight of His body had to be transferred to His wrists, His arms, and His shoulders. 

 7,Within a few minutes of being placed on the Cross, Jesus’ shoulders were dislocated. Minutes later Jesus’ elbows and wrists became dislocated. 

 8,The result of these upper limb dislocations is that His arms were 9 inches longer than normal, as clearly shown on the Shroud. 

 9,In addition prophecy was fulfilled in Psalm 22:14, “I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint.” 

 10,After Jesus’ wrists, elbows, and shoulders were dislocated, the weight of His body on his upper limbs caused traction forces on the Pectoralis Major muscles of His chest wall. 

 11,These traction forces caused His rib cage to be pulled upwards and outwards, in a most unnatural state. His chest wall was permanently in a position of maximal respiratory inspiration. In order to exhale, Jesus was physiologically required to force His body. 

 12,In order to breathe out, Jesus had to push down on the nails in His feet to raise His body, and allow His rib cage to move downwards and inwards to expire air from His lungs. 

 13,His lungs were in a resting position of constant maximum inspiration. Crucifixion is a medical catastrophe. 

 14,The problem was that Jesus could not easily push down on the nails in His feet because the muscles of His legs, bent at 45 degrees, were extremely fatigued, in severe cramp, and in an anatomically compromised position.

 15,Unlike all Hollywood movies about the Crucifixion, the victim was extremely active. The crucified victim was physiologically forced to move up and down the cross, a distance of about 12 inches, in order to breathe. 

 16,The process of respiration caused excruciating pain, mixed with the absolute terror of asphyxiation. 

 17,As the six hours of the Crucifixion wore on, Jesus was less and less able to bear His weight on His legs, as His thigh and calf muscles became increasingly exhausted. There was increasing dislocation of His wrists, elbows and shoulders, and further elevation of His chest wall, making His breathing more and more difficult Within minutes of crucifixion Jesus became severely dyspnoeic (short of breath). 

 18,His movements up and down the Cross to breathe caused excruciating pain in His wrist, His feet, and His dislocated elbows and shoulders. 

 19,The movements became less frequent as Jesus became increasingly exhausted, but the terror of imminent death by asphyxiation forced Him to continue in His efforts to breathe. 

 20,Jesus’ lower limb muscles developed excruciating cramp from the effort of pushing down on His legs, to raise His body, so that He could breathe out, in their anatomically compromised position. 

 21,The pain from His two shattered median nerves in His wrists exploded with every movement. 

 22,Jesus was covered in blood and sweat. 

 23,The blood was a result of the Scourging that nearly killed Him, and the sweat as a result of His violent involuntary attempts to effort to expire air from His lungs. Throughout all this He was completely naked, and the leaders of the Jews, the crowds, and the thieves on both sides of Him were jeering, swearing and laughing at Him. In addition, Jesus’ own mother was watching.

 24,Physiologically, Jesus’ body was undergoing a series of catastrophic and terminal events. 

 25,Because Jesus could not maintain adequate ventilation of His lungs, He was now in a state of hypoventilation (inadequate ventilation). 

 26,His blood oxygen level began to fall, and He developed Hypoxia (low blood oxygen). In addition, because of His restricted respiratory movements, His blood carbon dioxide (CO2) level began to rise, a condition known as Hypercapnia.

 27,This rising CO2 level stimulated His heart to beat faster in order to increase the delivery of oxygen, and the removal of CO2 

 28,The Respiratory Centre in Jesus’ brain sent urgent messages to his lungs to breathe faster, and Jesus began to pant. 

 29,Jesus’ physiological reflexes demanded that He took deeper breaths, and He involuntarily moved up and down the Cross much faster, despite the excruciating pain. The agonising movements spontaneously started several times a minute, to the delight of the crowd who jeered Him, the Roman soldiers, and the Sanhedrin. 

 30,However, due to the nailing of Jesus to the Cross and His increasing exhaustion, He was unable to provide more oxygen to His oxygen starved body.

 31,The twin forces of Hypoxia (too little oxygen) and Hypercapnia (too much CO2) caused His heart to beat faster and faster, and Jesus developed Tachycardia. 

 32,Jesus’ heart beat faster and faster, and His pulse rate was probably about 220 beats/ minute, the maximum normally sustainable. 

 33,Jesus had drunk nothing for 15 hours, since 6 pm the previous evening. Jesus had endured a scourging which nearly killed Him. 

 34,He was bleeding from all over His body following the Scourging, the crown of thorns, the nails in His wrists and feet, and the lacerations following His beatings and falls. 

 35,Jesus was already very dehydrated, and His blood pressure fell alarmingly.

 36,His blood pressure was probably about 80/50. 

 37,He was in First Degree Shock, with Hypovolaemia (low blood volume), Tachycardia (excessively fast Heart Rate), Tachypnoea (excessively fast Respiratory Rate), and Hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating). 

 38,By about noon Jesus’ heart probably began to fail. 39,Jesus’ lungs probably began to fill up with Pulmonary Oedema. 

 40,This only served to exacerbate His breathing, which was already severely compromised. 

 41,Jesus was in Heart Failure and Respiratory Failure. 

 42,Jesus said, “I thirst” because His body was crying out for fluids. 

 43,Jesus was in desperate need of an intravenous infusion of blood and plasma to save His life 

 44,Jesus could not breathe properly and was slowly suffocating to death. 

 45,At this stage Jesus probably developed a Haemopericardium. 

 46,Plasma and blood gathered in the space around His heart, called the Pericardium. 

 47,This fluid around His heart caused Cardiac Tamponade (fluid around His heart, which prevented Jesus’ heart from beating properly). 

 48,Because of the increasing physiological demands on Jesus’ heart, and the advanced state of Haemopericardium, Jesus probably eventually sustained Cardiac Rupture. His heart literally burst. This was probably the cause of His death. 

 49,To slow the process of death the soldiers put a small wooden seat on the Cross, which would allow Jesus the “privilege” of bearing His weight on his sacrum. 

 50,The effect of this was that it could take up to nine days to die on a Cross.

 51,When the Romans wanted to expedite death they would simply break the legs of the victim, causing the victim to suffocate in a matter of minutes. This was called Crucifragrum. 

 52,At three o’clock in the afternoon Jesus said, “Tetelastai,” meaning, “It is finished.” At that moment, He gave up His Spirit, and He died. 

 53,When the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, He was already dead. Not a bone of His body was broken, in fulfilment of prophecy (above). 

 54,Jesus died after six hours of the most excruciating and terrifying torture ever invented. 

 55,Jesus died so that ordinary people like you and me could go to Heaven. All He Asks You is to Love Him, Your Lord, Your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’!!

[frmartinshomiliesandreflections]

29th June >> Fr. Martin’s Gospel Reflections / Homilies on Matthew 16:13-19 for the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles: ‘On this rock, I will build my church’.

Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles

Gospel (Except USA)

Matthew 16:13-19

You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi he put this question to his disciples, ‘Who do people say the Son of Man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say he is John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ ‘But you,’ he said ‘who do you say I am?’ Then Simon Peter spoke up, ‘You are the Christ,’ he said ‘the Son of the living God.’ Jesus replied, ‘Simon son of Jonah, you are a happy man! Because it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven.’

Gospel (USA)

Matthew 16:13–19

You are Peter, and I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Reflections (8)

(i) Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles

If you ever get to go to Rome, you will probably visit the Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican. You may be less likely to visit the Basilica of Saint Paul outside the Walls, which is a little outside the historic centre of the city. Yet, both basilicas have been places of pilgrimage because they were built over what is believed to be the tombs of Peter and Paul. In the early centuries of the church, pilgrims went to Rome, not to see the Pope, but to pray at the tombs of the early apostles and martyrs and the most important of these were the tombs of Peter and Paul. Early written tradition from the early years of the second century states that both were married in Rome during the persecution of Nero. In the first reading, Peter’s imprisonment by King Herod is a foretaste of his execution by the emperor Nero some decades later. In the second reading, Paul senses that his death is immanent and declares, ‘I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish; I have kept the faith’. Peter could have said the same. They were very different characters who didn’t always see eye to eye. According to Paul’s letter to the Galatians, they had a stand up row in the church of Antioch about whether or not pagans who came to believe in Jesus needed to submit to the Jewish rite of circumcision. Even saints have rows with one another. They had very different background. Pet was a fisherman from the relative obscurity of a town on the Sea of Galilee. Paul was a man of great learning from the university city of Tarsus. Peter’s mission was to Jews and Paul’s mission was to pagans. Yet, the Lord worked powerfully through both of them for the spread of the gospel and they were united in their love for the Lord and the church. They remind us that the Lord works through us as we are in all our uniqueness and differences, and he needs each one of us in our uniqueness and distinctiveness. The Lord does not look for uniformity but for unity in diversity.

And/Or

(ii) Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles 

In many respects Peter and Paul were very different people. Peter was a fisherman from Galilee. His world was the Sea of Galilee and the hilly countryside that surrounded it. According to John’s gospel, he was from Bethsaida, a small town on the Northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. He would have had a basic education and his first language was Aramaic. Paul was from the university city of Tarsus, the capital city of the Roman province of Cilicia, on the south-east coast of what is today Turkey. He seems to have been educated to a high level. He wrote fluently in Greek. His family appear to have been well-to-do as his father was a Roman citizen. He was a zealous Pharisee, who declared himself blameless with regard to the keeping of the Jewish Law. If the two of them had met before they came to faith in Jesus, one senses that they would have had little in common. Yet, today, the church throughout the world celebrates their joint feast day. It is Jesus who brought them together. Yet, he touched their lives in very different ways. Peter heard the call of Jesus by the shore of the Sea of Galilee as he engaged in his daily work of fishing; Paul heard the call of the risen Lord somewhere in the vicinity of Damascus where he was heading on his mission of persecuting people like Peter who were proclaiming Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah. Jesus called Peter to be the rock on which his church would be built; he called Paul to be the apostle to the non-Jewish world, the pagans. Each of them gave their lives in responding to the Lord’s call; Peter was crucified; Paul was beheaded. They were both executed in Rome, a long way from Galilee and from Tarsus. Their tombs have been places of pilgrimage to this day and two of Rome’s four great Basilicas are built over their tombs, Saint Peter’s in the Vatican and Saint Paul’s outside the walls. We celebrate their joint feast today, giving thanks to God for their generous and courageous witness to their faith in the Lord. From its beginnings, the church has worked to be true to the faith of the first apostles, especially the two great apostles Peter and Paul. That is why we speak of the faith as apostolic. Today, we too try to be true to the faith as lived and articulated by those two great pillars of the church. This apostolic faith finds expression in a special way in the New Testament. We keep returning to the gospels and letters and other books that are to be found there so as to remain connected to the faith of those early preachers of the gospel. The Lord continues to speak to us through their lives and through the sacred literature that they inspired. The Lord calls out to each of us today, as he called Peter and Paul. He wants to work through us in our distinctiveness, as he worked through the very different people that were Peter and Paul. We each have a unique contribution to make to the coming of the Lord’s kingdom. In our efforts to respond to this call, Peter and Paul can continue to be our inspiration.

 And/Or

(iii) Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles 

Today we celebrate the feast of two of the great pillars of the church, Peter and Paul. They came from very different backgrounds. Peter was a fisherman from rural Galilee. Paul was a learned Pharisee from the university city of Tarsus. Peter’s first language was Aramaic; Paul’s first language was Greek. Peter knew Jesus from the time of Jesus’ baptism and was with Jesus until the time of Jesus’ passion and death; Paul only ever met the risen Lord, in the vicinity of Damascus. For all their differences, they had at least one thing in common. Both of these men found themselves at odds with the Lord. Peter denied Jesus publicly three times. Paul violently persecuted the followers of Jesus, and thereby persecuted Jesus himself. Yet, their resistance to the Lord did not prevent the Lord from working powerfully through them. Peter was chosen to be the leader of the twelve, the rock on which Jesus would build his church. Paul was chosen to be the great apostle to the pagans. We know from the letter to the Galatians that Peter and Paul had a serious disagreement at one point about the direction the church should be taking. They were very different people and the Lord worked through each of them in very different ways. They were certainly united in death. Very early tradition recalls that both were executed in Rome by the emperor Nero who blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome. Today’s feast reminds us that the way the Lord works through us is unique to each one of us. The feast also reassures us that our many resistances to the Lord need not be a hindrance to the Lord working through us. Peter who denied the Lord and Paul who persecuted the Lord went on to become great servants of the Lord. Our failings do not define who we are. Paul would go on to say, ‘the Lord’s grace toward me has not been in vain’. The Lord’s grace towards us in our weakness and frailty need never be in vain if we continue to open ourselves to the workings of that grace, as Peter and Paul did.

 And/Or

(iv) Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles 

According to the gospel reading, what singled Peter out from the other disciples was his God-given insight into the identity of Jesus. It was because of his unique insight that Jesus gives Peter a unique role among his followers. He is to be the rock, the firm foundation, on which Jesus will build his church. Peter’s role is further spelt out by Jesus giving him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The image of the keys suggests authority. The nature of that authority is expressed in terms of binding and loosing. This refers to a teaching authority. Peter is being entrusted with the task of authoritatively interpreting the teaching of Jesus for other members of the church. Yet, this same Peter immediately tries to deflect Jesus from taking the way of the cross, and when Jesus did take that way, Peter would deny any association with him. Jesus gives a significant role to someone who remains very flawed. If the gospel reading associates teaching with Peter, the second reading associates preaching with Paul. In that reading Paul refers to the Lord who ‘gave me power, so that through me the whole message might be preached for all the pagans to hear’. Paul was the great preacher of the gospel to the pagans throughout the Roman Empire. He preached it for the last time, in the city of Rome, where, like Peter, he was martyred for his faith in Christ. Our second reading today may well have been written from his Roman imprisonment, ‘I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish; I have kept the faith’. The image of the fight and the race suggest that ‘keeping the faith’ was a struggle for Paul; it did not come easy to him, just as keeping the faith did not come easy to Peter either. Keeping the faith does not always come easy to any of us. Paul was very aware that keeping the faith was not due primarily to his own efforts; it was the Lord who enabled him to keep the faith. As he says in this morning’s second reading, ‘the Lord stood by me and gave me power’. It is the Lord who empowers all of us to keep the faith; his faithfulness to us enables us to be faithful to him. The faithful witness of Peter and Paul speak to us ultimately of the Lord’s faithfulness to us all.

 And/Or

(v) Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles 

The two saints whose feast we celebrate today were key members of the early church. Peter was the leader of the twelve. According to the gospel reading, it was to Peter that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, a symbol of Peter’s authoritative role in the early church. Paul never met Jesus before Jesus’ death. Whereas Jesus called Peter by the Sea of Galilee, it was the risen Lord who called Paul on his way into the city of Damascus. Whereas Jesus called Peter to be the authoritative rock on which he would build his church, the focal point of the church’s unity, the risen Lord called Paul to be the apostle to the pagans. Each of these great disciples had very different experiences of Jesus and each received a very different mission from Jesus. Yet, it is clear from today’s first reading and second reading that both Peter and Paul had one thing in common. They both suffered in the exercise of their mission. The first reading tells us that King Herod Agrippa imprisoned Peter and in the second reading Paul writes from prison to Timothy in the awareness that his life is coming to an end. Indeed, both men were executed because of their preaching of the gospel. The two basilicas of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in Rome today stand over their tombs and are places of pilgrimage. The particular way the Lord calls us to follow him will be unique to each one of us. Yet, what we can all have in common is a dedication to the Lord’s way, even though it may mean the way of the cross. When Peter and Paul took this way, they both discovered the Lord was supporting and sustaining them. Peter says in the first reading, ‘The Lord has saved me from Herod’, and Paul declares in the second reading, ‘The Lord stood by me and gave me power’. When we try to be faithful to the Lord’s way, we will make the same discovery of the Lord’s sustaining presence in our lives.

 And/Or

(vi) Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles 

Rome has been a place of pilgrimage since the very early years of the church. In earliest times, Christians went on pilgrimage to Rome to visit the tombs of the martyrs, in particular, the tombs of Peter and Paul. Both of these great apostles were martyred in Rome during the persecution of the church under the emperor Nero in the year 64 AD. The two basilicas of Saint Peter and of Saint Paul outside the Walls were built over their tombs. Those basilicas, especially Saint Peter’s, remain places of pilgrimage to this day. If Peter and Paul were alike in death, both martyred in Rome, they were quite unalike in life. Peter was a fisherman from Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee; Paul was a very well educated Pharisee from the university city of Tarsus. Peter was called by Jesus as he was fishing by the Sea of Galilee. Paul was called by the risen Lord as he approached Damascus in pursuit of his mission to persecute the church. Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus would build his church; he was to be the focal point of the church’s unity. Paul was commissioned to proclaim the gospel to pagans throughout the Roman Empire. Yet, for all their differences what they had in common, apart from the circumstances of their death, was their faith in the Lord, their willingness to give their lives in his service. The gospel reading gives us Peter’s great confession of faith in Jesus, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’. Paul expresses his faith in the Lord in today’s second reading, ‘I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish; I have kept the faith’. The feast of these two great followers of the Lord reminds us that our faith in the Lord can bind together people who otherwise might have little in common. Our background, gifts, personality, can all be very different, and, yet, we can be one in the Lord. Paul uses the image of the human body to express this unity in diversity of the church. We give expression to our faith, our relationship with the Lord, in a way that is unique to each of us. Uniformity is not a mark of the church. The Lord’s rich and mysterious identity can only begin to find expression in the many and varied members of his body. As we celebrate the feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, we give thanks for our own distinctive faith journey which the Lord is always calling us to take.

 And/Or

(vii) Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles 

Peter, the leader of the twelve, and Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, have been remembered together on this date since ancient times. According to very ancient tradition, both were put to death for their faith in Jesus during the persecution of the church in Rome by the Emperor Nero in 64 AD. Successive generations of Christians remembered where the two leaders of the early church were buried and, when Christianity became legal under the Emperor Constantine, a basilica was built over the tomb of each of them, the Basilica of Saint Peter on the Vatican Hill and the Basilica of Saint Paul outside the Walls. Both Basilicas remain places of pilgrimage to this day. Peter and Paul had very different backgrounds. Peter was a fisherman by the Sea of Galilee in modern day Israel. Paul was a learned Pharisee from the university city of Tarsus in modern day Turkey. Peter journeyed with Jesus from the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry until the time of his passion and death; the risen Lord appeared to Peter. Paul had never met Jesus until the risen Lord appeared to him on the road to Damascus in modern day Syria. According to Paul’s letter to the Galatians the two of them met in the city of Jerusalem probably less than twenty years after the death and resurrection of Jesus and they went on to have a major disagreement in the church of Antioch about the terms on which pagans should be admitted to the church. Even great apostles and saints can disagree over matters of fundamental importance. However, what united them, their faith in and love for the Lord, was far more significant than what divided them. They were very different people and they didn’t always see eye to eye, but the Lord needed both of them. He had a very different but equally vital role for each of them to play in spreading the gospel. Today’s feast reminds us that the Lord has a role for each of us to play in his work today. Our very different backgrounds, and even our disagreements over church related matters, is not an issue for the Lord. Rather, it is our very diversity which allows the Lord to work through us in a whole variety of ways. The church is never uniform, but the Lord asks to be united in our faith in and love for the Lord, as Peter and Paul were.

 And/Or

(viii) Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles

I would like to welcome you back to our first celebration of a public Mass since the middle of March. We have been through a difficult time together and hopefully we are beginning to emerge from our social isolation. Today we celebrate the feast of Saint Peter and Paul. Each of them went through their own times of confinement, of social isolation. There were each imprisoned for their preaching of the gospel. In the first reading, we heard that King Herod arrested Peter and put him in prison. Yet, according to that reading, Peter in prison was supported by the prayers of the church, ‘the church prayed to God for him unremittingly’. The Lord came to him in his imprisonment through the prayers of the faithful. The Lord came to him in an even more dramatic way through an angel who delivered him from his confinement and restored him to the community of faith. Peter declared, ‘The Lord really did sent his angel and has saved me’. Hopefully, the story of Peter reflects our own experience. When we are confined, socially isolated, the Lord does not isolate himself from us. Even when we cannot come to church, the Lord comes to us. The Lord knows nothing of social isolation. He has been with us all this time, and he remains powerfully present to all who continue to stay put in their homes for their protection. Even when we cannot receive the Eucharist, we can say in the words of today’s responsorial psalm, ‘Taste and see that the Lord is good’. This was the experience of Saint Paul as well, the other great pillar of the church. In today’s second reading, he writes from prison, fully expecting that he may not get out alive, ‘the time has come for me to be gone’. It was a very isolating experience for him. He writes in a verse omitted from our reading, ‘all deserted me’. Yet, like Peter, he experienced the Lord’s powerful presence. As he says in today’s reading, ‘the Lord stood by me and gave me power’, and he goes on, ‘the Lord will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom’. Like Peter, he experienced the Lord’s sustaining presence when he was at his weakest and most isolated. This is one of the lessons these two great preachers of the gospel can teach us today. The Lord comes to us in our times of weakness and stands by us in our moments of isolation. No matter what distressing situation we may find ourselves in, the Lord is with us to strengthen and sustain us. Even when we are cut off from those who matter most to us, we are never cut off from the Lord, because he is always true to his name of Emmanuel, ‘God with us’. That is why, in the words of today’s psalm, every moment of every day, we can ‘look towards him and be radiant’.

Fr. Martin Hogan.

[under-the-blue-sun]

come through ('cause I just want to be with you) - chapter one

story summary: Dan is half-angel half-demon whose parents sent him to earth to try and live a normal life when he turned 18. In doing this, he lost any power he had, if proven he could live among them normally. The only rule? He couldn't fall in love with a mortal. Fast forward 5 years later, just before his 23rd birthday, when things go downhill once he meets a barista in a coffee shop who he befriends and falls for.

chapter word count: 844

rating: teen & up audiences

warnings: profanity 

song of the chapter:  Never Let me Go - Florence + The Machine

note: I am so glad to finally post this! This fic was written for the Phandom Reverse Bang, and one of my first two chaptered fics I'm posting.Before you read this fic, I would like to thank the two awesome people in my team. Firstly, I send my love to my artist, Alex ( @flymetomanchester ) who was absolutely amazing and supportive, and made this awesome prompt which inspired me so so much! I can only dream to create moodboards that awesome. Secondly, my beta, Ky ( @enby-lego-dinosaur ), was simple fantastic, editing my muddled words and editing my fic so nicely! I honestly couldn't have done this without your help. Thank you so much! I will be updating this fic every 10 days, so let's see how quickly I mess up the schedule! Thank you for reading this, and I hope you enjoy my (very short) first chapter of "come through ('cause I just want to be with you)".

link to ao3

Chapter One: reflections still look the same to me (as before i went under)

“Sir? Sir!”

Dan blinked, and looked up towards the ceiling. “God?”

God laughed awkwardly. “My name’s Pete, actually. I’m a library assistant. The library’s closing in five minutes.”

Dan flushed pink. “Sorry, Pete. I’ll, uh. Ready my things.”

“Thanks.” Pete said, walking away. “I like your bag, by the way.”

Dan glanced at his special edition Final Fantasy 7 tote bag and smiled at the library assistant. “Thanks.”

He softly groaned as he sat upright, the bones in his back cracking as he straightened his body. He had no idea how humans could stand such a fucked-up body for their entire life. Rubbing his eyes, he quickly shoved everything in his bag and headed to the library exit.

He nodded at the blonde library assistant before leaving the library. “Thanks, Pete.”

“No problem,” he replied, a smile playing on his lips. “See you around.”

“See you around,” Dan replied, even though he probably wouldn’t see him around. He could already see Chris crucifying him for not getting Pete’s number. 

Dan turned back around. “Have a good evening.”

Before he could hear Pete’s reply, he wrapped his scarf around his neck and plunged himself into the dark atmosphere of the English night.

--

It’s been four years since he found out he was going to be sent down to Earth for the safety of himself and his family.

Four years ago, he was in heaven walking on sidewalks of gold, not really giving a shit about God. Now, he lived in a tiny flat in England, praying every day for his landlord to not kick him out. He couldn’t say if that was for better or for worse. When he left, he thought that he would miss his home but after four years, he’s more glad than upset that he left that place for good.

Dan chucked his keys on the counter and swung his tote bag over his slowly-breaking butt chair. He sighed loudly as the landline rang from his kitchen.

“Dan Howell speaking,” he said in a flat voice, grabbing his two-minute noodles from the cupboard.

“Dan,” a gruff voice said, and Dan immediately placed his noodles down on the counter.

“Oh,” Dan said. “Dad. Hi.”

He wasn’t the only one thinking about what had happened four years prior, apparently. Well, it was either that, or Dan had somehow fucked up. 

“Just wanted to check in. How are you doing?”

“Good. I was just studying for my philosophy test next week in the library.” Dan said.

“Good. That’s good.” 

There was a brief silence as Dan waited for his Dad to say something.

“Look, is there a reason to why you’re calling or-”

“PJ wants to talk to you. His phone went out of charge.”

Dan breathed a sigh of relief. That made more a lot more sense than the two options he was envisioning.

“Oh, okay, cool. Uh, see you, Dad.”

“See you, son,” Dad replied awkwardly, as he passed the phone to PJ.

PJ cleared his throat dramatically. “So I was thinking.” 

Dan rolled his eyes and smirked. “What a miracle.”

“The more effort you put into how well you dress, the more people want to see you without all your clothes. So, we should all just walk around naked.” PJ concluded.

Dan blinked. “That’s what you wanted to use my dad’s phone to tell me?”

“Pretty much.” PJ said.

Dan sighed. 

“You know, before, I never really understood why people on Earth were so confused and scared of angels.” Dan nodded. “I get it now.”

PJ laughed. “How are you?”

“Yeah, okay. You?”

“Same old, same old. Heavenly, you know?”

Dan rolled his eyes. “You know, in twelve days it will have been four years since I was sent down to Earth.”

“Wow,” PJ replied.  “Seems like yesterday.”

“I know, right? Dude, I gotta eat dinner. Call me tomorrow. And please don’t use my dad’s phone.”

PJ snickered. “Yeah, I’ll try, Mr Howell.”

“Shut up.”

“I can’t believe your name is Daniel Howell. Of all the Earth surnames you could have had, and you got stuck with Howell? What does that even mean, howell-ing to the moon?”

“I wish.” Dan sighed. “It’s named after a mound in Lincolnshire.”

“Oh my god. Dan Mound? I’m so calling you that from now on.”

Dan huffed. “I-”

“Goodbye, Daniel Mound. Good talk.”

“No, wait-” Dan began, but was interrupted by the beeping of a hung up call.

It was a funny image. An angel, hanging up a call. It was funny to imagine angels the way humans envisioned them, armed with a cell phone and a sharp sense of humour.

Dan sadly watched as the noodles slowly boiled, and watched the television thinking about all the things he should be doing. He jumped in the freezing cold shower and made a mental note to ask Chris whether he could shower at his place.

When he finally collapsed in his bed, he was somehow exhausted.

“Good night,” he said quietly to no one in particular, and shut his eyes to drift into a troubled sleep.

[pianoandcookiedoughlover]

*grabs a tissue and wipes at tears*

that’s the end of s5 folks

we’re just gonna do this chronologically because i don’t even know where to begin besides the start so . . . yeah

starting off with this shot

(sorry it’s such bad quality)

i almost fell off my bed

enough said

oof, okay, jamie vs mike. 

i may be crucified for this, but i actually think there’s some truth in what jamie said about mike wanting him to go to hawkstone because he couldn’t. 

mike has always been very invested in jamie’s football/soccer career, always helping him train, buying him equipment, offering to coach. and yes, of course, having a supportive parent/guardian is amazing and not everyone is lucky enough to have that. but as the seasons have gone on, some of the things mike says/does makes me think his intentions aren’t simply: “i want to be supportive for jamie.” 

i first think of that time that jamie was planning to go to foxborough (that’s such a weird sentence, oh my god). the coaches there didn’t want their players to have any outside coaching, and mike got pissed at that. now why would someone who’s been such an advocate for jamie getting proper coaching and becoming a professional get annoyed at a club who is offering to get him to that point (now, that isn’t to say foxborough are angels. i have issues there as well)?

and what sort of solidified this for me was his reaction here:

saying that he’s supported him through everything may be true, but it’s all been in the realm of football. jamie has never been interested in anything else (whether he’s been exposed to anything else and encouraged to do anything else is unknown) and so mike really has only been able to support him in football. he doesn’t do anything else.

and now that he’s found something that he wants to do (or thinks he does, but i’ll get onto that) that doesn’t align with football, mike’s hands off. not, in fact, because he thinks jamie is throwing his career away, but because he thinks he’s throwing HIS career away. he’s lived vicariously through jamie and his successes and now that jamie is going after something that isn’t “real football,” he can’t support it. because he doesn’t really support jamie. he just wants him to do the things he didn’t get to do.

even more so, his reaction to this i thought added to this:

hearing that howard royale was going to let him go anyway, he’s shocked. and i think he’s always thought in his head that jamie’s been a literal prodigy, someone unbeatable. yes, jamie is a wonderful player. but he’s not unstoppable. and so when karen logically points out how hawkstone are not going to put all their eggs in jamie’s basket, he starts to realize that jamie’s just a kid. an amazingly talented kid, but not a medium he can reverse his regrets through. and i think that this is what inspires him to go and support him at his competition: he’s his grandson first, and a football player second.

i just have to ignore ian at this point because . . . he sucks

dillon thinking the vibes are off at foxborough, providing an opportunity for him to stay at northport . . . 

(i am so sorry this is such an ugly screenshot)

i also couldn’t help but think of andi mack when dillon talked about coming out to phoenix:

soft girlfriends stretching together

i thought the moment between alba and zoe was really sweet actually - maybe in s6 they’ll get alba another girl to play with?

duncan turning over a new leaf and being not an asshole? we like to see it. also i really liked this shot for some reason

i’m really excited to see dillon at northport and see what he gets up to there. hopefully duncan hasn’t fooled us all and he’s really being genuine. 

okay, guess we have to talk about the world fifa cup (i’m sorry, but i can’t believe that freaking jethro and jamie are the best in the world. but i digress)

the interactions between jethro and jamie were kind of weak in my opinion - like, you’re also a failed footballer, jethro, don’t know what point you’re trying to make with that. it just felt very . . . weird. rehashing something that really didn’t need to be brought back.

the whole auditorium and everything felt more for cinematic effect, trying to have some big venue for the finale. unfortunately, from what i know in this tumblr community, this was the storyline we were least interested in, and yet they put (probably) the most money into it. kind of unfortunate.

i think i saw someone mention this but i thought i’d bring it up again: the game switching between fake players and then the actors actually playing.

so, you know, kind of odd.

there were a lot of moments in this entire event where they were building up certain things, but i think it doesn’t have a remotely comparable intensity as to when the gang were all playing together in, say, the gothia cup. i think the issue is that we have no attachment to the video game, the players (even though sometimes they’re the characters), or jamie at this point, honestly. so while i get what they were going for (i think), i think both the way they went about it and the characters they did it with led to it being kind of a flop, at least for me. 

let’s just say, i wasn’t jumping out of my seat waiting to see if a character that has been an asshole to a lot of his friends and ignored his family for multiple episodes can score a goal on a random video game.

i need to make a post about jamie (i’ll do that next) because this is way too long already to fit that in. essentially, though, i think that jamie never really liked playing this video game.

controversial, i know.

i’m sorry, but

why the fuck is karen letting ian take jamie literally anywhere

when i saw this i genuinely thought jamie was gonna jump out of the goddamn plane and break his entire body but obviously that didn’t happen

we don’t talk about the flashbacks to all of his wins because that just makes me sad and want to cry and they grew up so much and-

rewind a bit for dillon’s storyline

dillon’s dad goes from this:

to this:

which was a bit of a 180 but i also get that we needed resolution with their storyline. i guess my only criticism is that some of the things that his dad says are so intense and extreme, that a redemption arc afterwards is difficult. 

i was really proud of dillon for this:

i am genuinely so excited to see what happens in s6, his storyline is something that not only i am passionate about, but i think has been done with the most care and emotion. i think this whole thing has so much more room for development so fingers crossed we get to see that in s6 

i was so happy to see this as well:

he gave him TWO kisses!!!! it was just very wholesome, and while i haven’t forgiven him completely (this literally has nothing to do with me, lmao, but i assume dillon hasn’t either) i think (i hope) he’s really trying to change and be a supportive figure in dillon’s life for once.

and liam teasing him was cute

we are NOT crying

ahh this is such bad quality but that little tap on the stomach (see right)

and then this.

and then the turn of the camera from him to everyone else  . . i just can’t deal. that was really beautiful actually.

we have a whole load of feelings but maybe i’ll save that for another post.

but also:

*approves in lesbian*

and then the music and the shotsssssssssss

and then

s6 finale?

i’m just a mess and i was begging to my phone, “no, don’t leave me” so at least we know where i stand

i swear to fucking god if we don’t see zoe and kat in season 6 i’m throwing hands

they’re gonna have to do some work on jamie’s character because right now, it’s not looking good

elliot please come back

follow up on boggy’s anxiety/panic attacks

we should make a list of things we want in s6 and send it to bbc

i really liked this finale and i’m just so excited for more. just a big thank you to the cast and crew on this season because it has been my favorite of this show and i think they’ve done an incredible job overall. they’ve put in a lot of effort and i think we all appreciate it a lot.

i also don’t think i did this on my 5x11 review/analysis/shit writing, but i’d really like to thank @jonnie-kimmins for his acting in especially that episode. it was amazingly done and it didn’t feel over sensationalized or anything, at least from my experience with panic attacks. it felt very raw and real and i really commend everyone who was a part of that. 

i would tag the other actors but i think jonnie is the only one that’s cool enough to have made a tumblr account and then come and vibe with us hahaha

this was so long and i really didn’t analyze anything i just panicked (how on brand for me) so i hope you could bear to read it and yeah . . . let’s hope they can start/continue filming s6 soon!

[invisibleicewands]

Michael Sheen (old) interview

He’s played the prime minister and the messiah – now Michael Sheen is plumbing the psyche of the original man in black. Caroline McGinn asks him about the dark side.                                                                                  

It’s been a big year for Michael Sheen. A lifechanger, in fact. The   42-year-old actor is widely admired for his uncanny ability to play   real-life characters: a Bambi-ish Tony Blair in a trilogy of films that   included ‘The Queen’; David Frost for Peter Morgan’s play-turned-movie   ‘Frost/Nixon’; and most recently, a demon-ridden Brian Clough in ‘The   Damned United’. But no previous role has come close to the Christ-like   leader Sheen played in ‘The Passion’ in his South Wales home town this   Easter: an epic 72-hour piece of community theatre which ended in Sheen being crucified on a local roundabout.

‘The Passion’, a local take on the Gospel commissioned by the storming new National Theatre of Wales, was more than just a play. It was a collective story that Sheen probably couldn’t have told anywhere but in Port Talbot, a town divided by the roaring M4 and dominated by a giant steelworks that was once the largest employer in Wales; a place where churchgoing and storytelling are still alive. It’s also his parents’ home. Sheen was so moved that talking about it makes him choke up. ‘I did this seven-mile procession with the cross,’ he recalls, wiping his eyes with the back of his hand. ‘It was boiling hot. There were 12,000-15,000 people. And I was seeing these bare-chested tattooed blokes standing outside pubs with pints, with kids, with tears in their eyes going, “Go on, Michael, you can do it!” It’s quite rare to be in the middle of an experience knowing it is probably the most meaningful one I will ever have in my life. Something in me relaxed after that, I think. I could say, “If I died tomorrow, I did that.”’

Over a glass of red wine in the bar at the Young Vic, where he is about to play Hamlet, Sheen does seem completely relaxed: eager, open and very Welsh, with his squiggle of dark brown hair and his neat, expressive hands. He has a shapeshifter’s face: mobile, not memorable, too blurry and mercurial for a romantic lead. And it is a pleasure to hear his real voice: un-damned by Clough’s nasal, northern scorn or Blair’s prim inflections, it is a gloriously unstoppable lilting flow which seems, to my English ears, to come straight from the Valleys.

Sheen currently lives in LA to be close to his 12-year-old daughter with ex-partner Kate Beckinsale. He is an unlikely denizen of La La Land, with his bike helmet, his puppyish friendliness and his lack of pretensions. His spectacular return to his roots at Easter has, he says, redefined who he thinks he is, and what he wants to do with his work: something which he expresses in probably the longest sentence I’ve ever heard anyone deliver. ‘“The Passion” did for me what I hoped it could do for everyone in the town, potentially, which is to experience your life and your home in a different way, because I think there is a tendency – and I have it, and I notice other people have it too, probably everyone has it but certainly people who come from quite challenged areas – there’s a sense that your life is of no interest, that your story is mundane and there is no, for want of a better word, numinosity, no transcendence, and so to be able to tell a story about the biggest things there can probably be, a version of the “greatest story ever told” in the town that is seen to be the least likely town for that to happen in, then the people in that town, every time they go around that roundabout, which is many times, can go, “Not only is that where I get fish and chips, it’s also where the crucifixion happened,” and the everyday becomes transcendent – to something that is miraculous.’

Thanks to Sheen’s great-grandfather, street preaching runs in the family. But the starry-eyed idealism behind doing a passion play in Port Talbot, to reach thousands of people who would never set foot in a theatre, might easily have backfired. It was an unglamorous risk for a local bloke-turned-Hollywood big shot to take. You can’t imagine the area’s other famous filmmaking sons, ultra-cool customer Antony Hopkins or hard-living Richard Burton, pulling it off – though Burton did enjoy making a splash on the local beach with Liz Taylor and his private helicopter. ‘The Passion’ was supposed to shine a light on the miracle workers who do what Sheen calls the ‘unseemly’ work of care: for the old, the sick, the battered wives and the young offenders. For it to work, its makers had to gain the trust of the town.

‘After the Last Supper, when the Manics played, I was put on trial on the back of a truck and the crowd took over,’ he says. ‘It was at that moment I realised they understood it was their story. It was frightening and exhilarating. We didn’t know what was going to happen. Along the procession route people put photos of things they’d lost. Then, on the cross, I did a litany. Of things I remembered, or that I’d gathered from people, of people and places that don’t exist any more.’ It was Sheen’s epic personal connection to South Wales, where his dad once worked as a Jack Nicholson impersonator, and where his great-grandfather got rich when God told him to buy a tin mine. Sheen’s codirector Bill Mitchell and writer Owen Sheers spent a year getting stories from locals, and fed them into the piece. ‘I was just a participant: we all were,’ he says. ‘My mum and dad said a woman came to their house and told them I’d called her mother’s name when I was on the cross, and it had changed something for her. The need that drama first came from was community, witness, celebration and catharsis. We were trying to find a way for that to happen on a large scale.’

The Port Talbot ‘Passion’ has already gone down in theatre history. So where do you go after scaling the twin messianic peaks of Blair and Christ? Down into the doubt-ridden depths of Hamlet, naturally, the biggest role that a young (or young-ish in this case) actor can play. Judging by Sheen’s wordflow, those famous soliloquies won’t be a problem. After all, the actor made his name on stage: he won his first professional role at the Globe opposite Vanessa Redgrave in 1991 before he had graduated from Rada.

His CV is full of monster roles: Caligula, Peer Gynt, Amadeus (playing  Mozart was his break into Broadway in 1999). Clough, and even Blair and  Frost, creep into that list – though he’s obviously bored of talking  about the factional film roles that made him famous: ‘I’ve done  relatively few characters based on real people,’ he protests, just a  little bit too much. ‘I’ve been working on stage now for more years than  I care to mention.’

‘Project Hamlet’ has been on the cards for a while, but Sheen was waiting ‘for the right director and the right theatre’. Unlike recent celebrity Hamlets David Tennant and Jude Law, he didn’t want to do conventional West End Shakespeare, hence the Young Vic, with its younger, mixed audience and its imaginative approach, which includes – mysteriously – reconfiguring the playing space so that ‘Hamlet’ audiences must arrive 30 minutes early to take a ‘different route’ in. Sheen’s director of choice is Ian Rickson, the ex-Royal Court boss who has helped actors achieve career-defining roles (Kristin Scott-Thomas in ‘The Seagull’; Mark Rylance in ‘Jerusalem’). Hamlet tends to demand something very personal from actors: one reason why so many of them crack up over it, though Sheen seems remarkably unfurrowed by the prospect. ‘It is,’ he says, ‘good not to have to worry about people saying, “He doesn’t sound like Hamlet.” It’s me: I’m not doing a voice or playing a character, so to speak. It’ll sound like me and look like me, a bit of Welsh mixed with a bit of posh.’

Sheen sees ‘Hamlet’ as ‘like a portal. Or a living organism in some way. Other Shakespeare plays don’t have that quality of seeming to change. “Hamlet” works on you and sucks up everything you have. It’s a bit like looking into the abyss. What “Hamlet” makes everyone confront are all the things that are most frightening: irrationality, betrayal, madness and abandonment. It is very, very dark, and it dances along through that darkness.’

Sheen’s prince promises to be darker than most. Not just a mad Hamlet, but maybe even a bad Hamlet. ‘Me and Ian have taken a completely different approach,’ he explains. ‘The most interesting way to approach it is not to trust anything that Hamlet says, to assume that he’s an unreliable narrator. And once you do that, you realise how many assumptions there are about the play.’ Sheen cites Philip K Dick, David Lynch and Edgar Allan Poe as influences. The production will be set in a world ‘that feels as if we’re in some sort of institution’. Madness will be the keynote: ‘I discovered when working on it,’ says Sheen, ‘that it’s the first time anyone used the phrase “the mind’s eye”.’ Horatio says, “A mote it is, to trouble the mind’s eye.” Meaning a piece of grit. It sums up what I think the play is. It’s a bit of grit in the mind’s eye of the Western world. We’ve tried to expel it, by smoothing out its inconsistencies and by stopping it from being irritating. That’s a way to neutralise it and make it safer. But actually it’s the most dangerous of plays.’

Rickson and Sheen have found unorthodox inspiration in anti-psychiatrist RD Laing and G Wilson Knight, the twentieth century scholar who wrote an off-beam but brilliant essay on Hamlet, the ‘ambassador of death’ in the land of the living. ‘Laing said that if you take mad people on their own terms then maybe they’re just talking in a sort of heightened language about their lived experience,’ says Sheen. ‘And our take on “Hamlet” definitely questions the boundaries of what you would consider madness to be.’

So where do you go as an actor, after the heights of being crucified, and the depths of Hamlet’s psyche? ‘The answer to that is that I just don’t know,’ says Sheen. There are a couple of projects: Sheen says he was ‘roped in’ on a set visit to a new untitled film by cinema’s man of mystery, Terrence Malick, starring Sheen’s girlfriend and ‘Midnight in Paris’ co-star Rachel McAdams. And there’s also Wales-set thriller ‘Resistance’, out this month. But he has his heart set on directing a film about Edgar Allan Poe. ‘He was an extraordinary character. Very dark.’ The legacy of this life-changing year is a sharper, stronger passion for a live Welsh tradition: storytelling. ‘I just don’t know where you go after “The Passion” and “Hamlet”,’ says Sheen ‘But I do know that I want to tell stories that are powerful, that can reach people and equate to Greek theatre now. People still do need that. They respond to it. But you have to take risks to find them.’

(x)