#in~universe authorial bias

[ospreyeamon]

Parf Edhellen says Lindórinand is a Nandorian name meaning “Vale of the Land of Singers”. The Nandor is what the Quenya-speaking Amanyar called the elves who broke off from the initial Great March to Aman before reaching Beleriand; the Lindi is what they called themselves. So, Lothlórien has two ancient names given to it by the Silvans’ forebears which we can approximate to “Valley of the Singers (the Lindi)” and “Valley of Gold(en Light)” and Treebeard gives both together because why use a short name when you could use a longer one.

Nearly all the Watsonian written records containing the history of Middle-Earth we have access to were made by Noldor, Númenorians, or hobbits. The peoples of the third tribe of the elves (the Sindar, the Lindi, the Silvans, the Laiquendi etc.) tended to keep oral rather than written histories, so everything we know about them comes second or third-hand. The Noldor and Númenorians both have issues with cultural supremacy; their name for the Nandor means “Those who go back on their decision/word”.

Tolkien Gateway’s page on mellyrn’s source for the story of Galadriel bringing the mellyrn to Lothlórien is A Description of the Island of Numenor’s story about how Númenor’s king gave Gil-galad the seeds which Gil-galad gave to Galadriel who planted them in Lothlórien. It’s a Númenorian account claiming all the mellyrn in Middle-Earth came from Númenor. (The Númenorians would like you to know that their malinorni were definitely taller than the Silvans’ ones. Almost as tall as the ones on Tol Eressëa even though theirs were younger so they totally would have grown taller than the ones on Tol Eressëa eventually).

Frodo, who personally heard Haldir’s words, is the more reliable source.

The Case for the Silvan Mellyrn

I have a post about this in the newsletter tag, but, in fellowship of the ring, Haldir says this:

Alas for Lothlórien that I love! It would be a poor life in a land where no mallorn grew. But if there are mallorn-trees beyond the Great Sea, none have reported it.'

which is odd, because according to Tolkien Gateway, the Mellyrn were brought to Lothlorien by Galadriel from Valinor (via numenor, apparently), which Haldir would presumably know.

And Treebeard calls Lothlorien by an ancient name, Laurelindórenan, which means the valley of singing gold, which, according to Tolkien Gateway, was a Silvan name

The land in which they dwelt (the forest east of the Hithaeglir, above Fangorn and below Mirkwood) became known in the Silvan tongue as Lórinand, or Laurelindórenan.

It would not make sense for this to be the name of the golden wood before the golden trees. Tolkien appears to have adressed this, (at least, according to Christopher) saying:

In a manuscript composed by Tolkien sometime after The Lord of the Rings, Lórinand is said to be a Nandorin name, meaning "valley of gold" (containing the "Elvish word meaning 'golden light'").[1]

However, Christopher Tolkien notes that in a later manuscript the name Lórinand was reconceptualized as "a transformation, after the introduction of the mallorns, of a yet older name Lindórinand"

It is not entirely clear on Tolkien Gateway what Lindórinand means? Maybe someone can help me with that

So the mellyrn are, in one iteration of the canon, introduced to Lothlorien through Valinor. In another, however, and my case is that this is the version of the canon to which The Lord of the Rings belongs, they were always there.

And then if the mellyrn are, in fact, Silvan, than it also makes sense that Legolas would be so excited about seeing them. They're a legend to his people, not an echo of Valinor via Numenor.

'Here is Nimrodel!' said Legolas. 'Of this stream the Silvan Elves made many songs long ago, and still we sing them in the North, remembering the rainbow on its falls, and the golden flowers that floated in its foam.

It definitely seems like the golden flowers predate the separation of the silvan elves from mirkwood from the silvan elves in lothlorien. I like this version of the canon a lot better I think. Not everything beautiful needs to come from Valinor—I like the idea that the world simply has things which are enchanted and beautiful.

[bonefall]

So, I'm writing an essay on the whole STATE of misogyny in WC for one of my university classes, and I was wondering if I could ask you a couple of things! No pressure of course, please feel free to say no!

A) Could I reference your good takes with appropriate harvard referencing and links back to your blog?

B) Are there any specific moments from the books that you think should be covered the most?

C) The end result will be a visual essay, so it's like those fun infographics people on Tumblr make on like ADHD and stuff, so when it's done, would you like to be tagged to read it?

(Sorry for anon, I'm nervous lmao, but if you'd be more comfortable I'll resend this off anon)

AAY good topic! You've got a lot to work with. Absolutely feel free to reference anything I've written, and tag me when you're done.

While you're here and about to write something so legitimate, I'm also going to recommend you check out Sunnyfall's video on gender in Warrior Cats. She breaks down the arcs into numbers, directly comparing the amount of lines mollies have to toms, and examining the archetypes women are usually allowed to be.

I think it's a must-have citation in a paper about WC misogyny.

...and, I think it's insightful to look at the WCRP Forum thread about the video. Note how the respondents immediately come into the thread to complain about how the video is too long so they didn't watch it, dismissing Sunnyfall as not being entertaining enough to hold their attention, even whining that she starts with statistics to prove her point, which I'm convinced she did exactly because they would have cried that she "had no evidence" if she didn't.

I am not a scholar, so I don't know how to document or prove that the books have an impact on the audience outside of anecdotes. But I think if you do write a section about fandom, it would be worth mentioning the in-universe and metatextual apologia for Ashfur and its reflection in the real world discourse, the authorial killing of Ferncloud because of fan complains, and the utter defensiveness against the discussion of misogyny you see outside of Tumblr.

You may also want to check out Cheek by Jowl, a collection of 8 essays about sexism in xenofiction by Ursula K. Le Guin. There's a very unique manifestation of authorial bias in animal fiction, having a lot to do with how the author views "the natural world," and it's worth understanding even though Warrior Cats are so heavily anthropomorphized.

So... Warrior Cats Misogyny

I think discussing individual instances can be helpful, but I'd implore you to keep in mind what's REALLY bad about WC's misogyny is framing and the bigger picture.

Bumble's death is shocking and insulting, but it's not just that she died. It's that the POV Gray Wing sees her as a fat, useless bitch who took his mate so she deserves to be dragged back to a domestic abuser, and he's right because the writers love him so much. It's that Bumble's torture and killing only factors into how it's going to hurt a man's reputation.

It's how Clear Sky hitting, emotionally manipulating, or killing the following women,

Bright Stream (pressured into leaving her home and family)

Storm (controlled her movements and yelled at her in public)

Misty (killed for land, children stolen)

Bumble (beaten unconscious, blamed nonsensically on a fox)

Alder (child abuse, hit when she refused to attack her brother)

Falling Feather (scratched on the face, subjected to public abuse and humiliation)

Tall Shadow (thrown into murderous crowd, attacked on-sight in heaven)

Rainswept Flower ("blacked out" in anger and murdered in cold blood)

Moth Flight (scratched on the face for saying denying medical treatment is mean, taken hostage in retaliation against mother for the death of his own child, which he caused)

Willow Tail (eyes gouged out for "stirring up trouble")

Is seen as totally understandable, forgivable, or not even questioned at all, when killing Gray Wing in an act of rage would have been "one step too far" with the ridiculous Star Line.

"Kill me and live with the memory, and then let the stars know it would only matter if a single one of your murder victims was a man."

It's the way that fathers who physically abuse their kids out of their ego (Clear Sky, Sandgorse, Crowfeather) aren't treated anywhere near the same level of narrative disgust and revulsion the series has for "bad moms", even if they're displaying symptoms of a post-partum mood disorder (depression, anxiety, and rage), an umbrella of mental illnesses 20% of all new mothers experience but are heavily stigmatized with (Sparkpelt, Palebird, Lizardstripe).

It's Crookedstar's Promise giving him two evil maternal figures in a single book, while bending over backwards to make every man in a position of power still look likeable in spite of the fact they're enabling Rainflower's abuse. Leader Hailstar is soso sorry that he has to change Stormkit's name for some reason, in spite of leaders being unaccountable dictators the other 99% of the time, and Deputy Shellheart functionally does nothing to stop his own son from being abused or even do much parenting before or after the fact.

It's the way men's parental struggles are seen sympathetically, and they don't have to "pay for it" like their female counterparts (Crookedstar's PPD vs Sparkpelt's PPD, how Daisy and Cinders are held responsible for Smoky and Whisper being deadbeats, Yellowfang's endless guilt for killing her son vs Onestar's purpose in life to kill his own), even to the point where a father doesn't have to have raised their kids at all to have a magical innate emotional connection to them (Tree's father Root, Tom the Wifebeater, Tigerstar and Hawkfrost).

It's less speaking lines and agency for female characters, being reduced to accessories in the lives of their mates and babies, women getting less diversity in their personalities, with even major ex-POV characters eventually becoming "sweet mom" tropes.

You could zoom in on any one of these examples and have an amoeba try to argue with you that "Oh THIS makes sense because X" or "Ah well my headcanon perfectly explains this thing" or "MY mother/girlfriend was abusive/toxic/neglectful and I've decided that you are personally attacking ME by having issues with how a character was written or utilized," but the beleaguered point,

That I keep trying to hammer in, over and over, across books worth of posts,

Is that these are trends. More than just a couple one-off examples. It's the fabric that has been woven over years, showing a lack of interest in, or even active prejudice of, women on behalf of the writers.

LONG STANDING trends, which have only gotten worse as the series progressed. From Yellowfang being harshly punished with a born evil son who ruins her life in TPB and the mistreatment of Squirrelpaw that begins in TNP, all the way up to the 7 Fridgenings of DOTC and Sparkpelt's PPD being a major character motivator for her son Nightheart.

So, I would stress that in your paper, and structure it less as "the Sparkpelt slide" and "the Yellowfang slide," and more as "The paternal vs maternal abuse" slide, and "the violence against women" slide. They're really big issues, there's tons of examples for each individual thing.

Anyway to leave off on a funny, look at this scene in Darkest Hour that I find unreasonably hilarious,

"Everyone who matters to me; my truest friend, my sensible and loyal warrior, the wisest deputy I've ever known, and 2 women." -Firestar, glorious idiot

He can't even think of a single trait for either of them what the hell does "formidable pair" mean lmaooo, when I finished a reread about a year ago this line killed me on impact.

[queenvhagar]

I think what makes the authorial bias of HOTD so disgusting is just how blatantly obvious it is. Sure, I would undoubtedly expect this from the marketing department, but not from a team of supposedly "professional" screenwriters.

Authorial bias to the point you straight up tell the author of the story you're adapting that he was wrong about his own story's characters, plot lines, and themes. Like be so for real 😭

I'm seeing takes of people defending the writing and comparing GRRM, explaining the stylistically vague story he wrote and expanding on parts that had less information to go off of, in order to clarify actual events and flesh out character motivations that are happening in the main story, and in order to reiterate themes he wrote into the narrative as an adaptation for the second time has co-opted his ideas and disregarded his intentions... to JK Rowling unprompted revealing her head canons about Harry Potter after the books and movies were finished in order to... virtue signal? Maintain relevance? Who knows.

Like big YouTubers who are deep into the ASOIAF lore usually are going on their channels, defending the show's handling of the story and denying the validity of GRRM's criticism of how the story is breaking the logic of his universe... I truly do not get how they can just decide to suddenly reject the words of the author when he is explicitly telling you how it is? Especially when so many videos they make, especially about upcoming books or in-universe lore, are solely based on GRRM's thoughts and interpretations of his own story and the expansion of the story that he wrote into words and is now explaining to you again? I don't get it.

[gayleviticus]

broke: approaching continuity errors from a doylist out-of-universe perspective, e.g. "Well clearly the writer forgot this character is dead at this stage in the timeline."

woke: approaching continuity errors from a watsonian out-of-universe perspective, e.g. "Well maybe it was actually this character's identical twin brother disguised as him who died."

bespoke: approaching continuity errors as if canon works are in-universe historical records and you're a historian carefully shifting through authorial bias, misunderstanding, literary additions, and legendary accretion, e.g. "It's likely that the story of this character's death was not a historical event and absent from the earliest layer of the oral tradition; it was invented several decades later by redactors who wanted to both present this character as a heroic martyr and plug the gaps of their later mysterious absence from the narrative."

[vriskaserketdaily]

I think so many people think vriskas #cool and #popular and #theunderdog because that's like, how she sees herself, and due to the nature of the way homestuck narrates in second person we take what she says at face value because its like were in her head almost, we only know what she shows us whenever shes narrating. but when we take a step back to look objectively shes actually a huge girlfail

i mean yeah vriska being a huge failure is indeed canon

& to me that's what really makes her so compelling and tragic. she just keeps trying and trying and upping the stakes with every successive attempt until the lives of entire universes (and her species' last survivors) are on the line & then she's put down like a sick dog and forcibly removed from the limelight . . .

only for authorial bias to render all that moot even though other more interesting avenues were possible.

i dont even think vriska thinks she's popular---she knows full well that her actions were/are unforgivable and that the majority of her "friend" group despises her or at best tolerates her as a nuisance. she THINKS she wants people to think she's cool, but she also wants people (*cough* aradia, terezi) to punish her the way she thinks she deserves. queen of containing multitudes

[luxe-pauvre]

There was a time not long ago when our news sources seemed monolithic, authoritative and trusted. It’s odd to reflect how much we once craved more information on subjects of interest to us: there was ultimately less of it about. Somehow, we were happy to accept that the vastness and complexity of humanity’s last twenty-four hours could be summarised in a handful of curated articles or reports from the studio. Then in the late 1990s came the first blogs, and Wikipedia a little later; soon old-fashioned journalism was all but crushed under the weight of information’s democratisation. The old behemoths started to look biased, elitist, or at best arbitrary in terms of what they chose to report. Newspapers seemed out of touch and were a day late with everything. At least the establishment had a budget: glossy production values allowed us for a while to distinguish between professional news and amateur. But with fewer technical and financial barriers to film-making, even that visual distinction has disappeared. I’ve watched documentaries that have successfully turned me from much of the meat market, but now films about dolphin genocide and the iniquities of the fishing industry leave me confused and guilty when I scan the weekly deli counter. I have no context in which to assess the damning information I receive about the slabs of salmon and tuna that denounce me glassily from the ice; there is no equivalent of peer review for these authored and passionate documentaries. When I read accusations of deliberate one-sidedness I wonder if such criticism is tainted by the financial interests of dark conglomerates, or whether bias even matters much any more. It seemed to matter when Michael Moore made Fahrenheit 9/11, criticising Bush and his War on Terror: I remember the accusations of propaganda and the queasiness they produced in me after watching it. But now, partisanship is a given, and a lack of a strong authorial voice only has the old-fashioned and troubling effect of making us think for ourselves. All I have instead to guide me is how the programme made me feel, which means I am entirely in the hands of how shrill its tone was, how much it seemed to engage with conflicting viewpoints, and technical considerations such as the quality of editing. I am clueless as to how I should judge the fairness of the content. I turn from the tuna and consider the neighbouring arrangement of cheese with as much disquiet, aware that the next devastating exposé will target the violence and misery of the dairy industry. I glance hopefully at the veg, and then recall a report from Tel Aviv University in which researchers had recorded ultrasonic distress signals from tomatoes that were left unwatered or had their stems cut. The result of this avalanche of modern information and the canniness of communication and marketing surrounding it has been a disconcerting lack of confidence in any information source at all. And we are left to respond to that perpetual mode of uncertainty with only anxiety or indifference.

Derren Brown, A Book of Secrets: Finding Solace in a Stubborn World

[skyllion-uwu]

Saw that spiderman post you reblogged, and you're so correct cause like--crucial part of Spiderman is he's a snarky sarcastic little guy who's also poor and scraping by and helping his community while also struggling with resources.

Tom Holland Spider-man is boring in that aspect because Peter has this rich billionaire with extremely militarized equipment lmao, an upgraded spider-suit, it's annoying and takes the heart out of what's supposed to be an everyman super-hero

LITERALLY, I HATE TOM HOLLAND SPIDER-MAN SO MUCH ONCE I STARTED LOOKING AT NON-MCU SPIDER-MAN STUFF. There's a really good post (I think it was one anyway) about that's basically about how MCU!Peter is a parallel to Harry since they both were raised by mega billionaires and groomed to take said mega billionaire's spot. But yeah in my eyes, MCU!Spidey is not Peter Parker. He is a whitewashed Miles combined with Harry Osborn and Tony Stark with none of the flavor of those characters in their original appearance. I don't even care about Iron Man but he is so sanitized in MCU. Like take Civil War. In the comics, Tony recruits Peter for his side (heroes should be forced to disclose their identity to the public) and has Peter reveal his identity to disprove that it's unsafe to do that. OOPS Aunt May has been murdered because of this. Great job Iron Man. But in the movies he's completely in the right for getting this teenager he just met to fight FULL FLEDGED HEROES LIKE CAPTAIN AMERICA AND SCARLET WITCH. AND THEN HE IS GIVEN EVERYTHING TO BE TONY IN A DIFFERENT SUIT. I only saw up to No Way Home (in terms of movies; I watched the Loki show and swore off MCU for good partway through Falcon and Winter Soldier) and I refuse to see how it concludes. No more MCU. They can't portray the characters accurately (neither can a lot of comics but comics are loose, written by a bunch of different people at once, and retcon shit at the drop of a hat. MCU is super strict with its universe and doesn't allow retcons to just happen) and just pump in military propaganda into EVERYTHING which is studio and government sanctioned vs personal authorial bias

I'm normal about comics and superheroes okay

[softgrungeprophet]

been thinking about, conceptually, how to be good at reading and how to think critically in a constructive way, recently (or at least, how i personally try to do so), just in light of lots of interesting movies and so on, and ways in which people may struggle with that—

i do think more people would benefit from learning to read stories with the understanding that the protagonist is not omniscient like the reader, 'cause a lot of people seem to be overly critical of characters responding to situations w/o full knowledge (i saw this a lot when reading venom comics tbh, but various movies in the past 5 years as well)

When processing a story, some useful questions to ask oneself:

Does the character have all of the information that you, the reader, have?

Why or why not?

How might this affect their understanding or interpretation of events?

How would you respond in a similar situation, with a similar amount of information (not omniscience)?

Are there elements of the character's past or present that may influence their decision-making or make them respond differently from how you might? (trauma, preconceived assumptions, biases, disability, marginalization, stress, etc.)

Relatedly: Are there elements of their personality, upbringing or education that may affect theit behavior? (are they inattentive? are they missing specific expertise? were they raised by wolves/monks/a corporation/etc.? are they prejudiced?)

That's not like the end-all, be-all, obviously and I am very much of the opinion that you have to also think metatextually rather than being solely focused on in-universe justification, because the writer is not separated from the work (death of the author aside) and sometimes the answer is authorial negligence, disregard, bias, etc. but in some ways thinking a story through in the context of character and that particular understanding can also guide you to the metatextual analysis as well, or vice versa.

Plus elements like, less about various qualities of the writing and more about metatextual authorial intent wrt for example, deliberate metaphors or comparisons to some specific thing (like a historical event, an illness, a painting, etc.)

But like just at the most basic I think it's good to ask yourself not just "what" is happening but "why?" and try to approach story and characterization in that regard to see if there is a logic of some kind underlying it (or if it really feels out of character etc.) and whether there's a goal being accomplished by these things happening, etc etc etc

[wisteria-lodge]

Really really interesting read, I massively enjoyed this. Our biggest explicit marker of in-universe Wizarding World sexism (as opposed to authorial bias) is definitely the way that Hermione and Ginny get policed and judged by the other characters, for dating too many guys in too short a time. In this case, the authorial voice actually is on their side... the text thinks it's fine that Ginny is popular, and also thinks that Rita and Molly are out of line. And Merope Gaunt... that's kind of a whole can of worms, because I would say the text comes down harder on Tom Sr. for *leaving* her... still, *in universe* we do get this through line of "too much female sexuality" being treated as a problem.

Which is wild. And kind of maddening, because it IS consistent with JKR's stealth "the wizarding world exists in 1700" thing. That is what 1700 sexism looked like, the "women have very little sexual desire compared to men" thing came later. Also the weirdly young marriages - early 20s marriages were at lot more normal for women in 1700. (JKR just narrows the gender gap by saying that Everyone gets married early.) Like it *makes sense,* but is it on purpose?

(who am I kidding. if it were consistent the boy's dorm would have been bewitched to keep out girls, instead of the reverse.)

What are your thoughts on gender in the wizarding world? Do you think there’s a strong patriarchy, and if so how do you think it formed?

I feel wobbly about how powerful patriarchy would be in the wizarding world before answering this question. let's see what conclusion i come to lol

table of contents—you could skip to gender in the text if you don't want the connections to the real world and don't need the foundational ideology of my argument

1: where did patriarchy originate in the real western world? & what assumptions am I working off of?

2: gender in late medieval and early modern england & western europe

3: gender in the text 3.1: younger women 3.2: older women

4. conclusions

1. where did patriarchy originate in the real western world? & what assumptions am I working off of?

mona eltahawy called patriarchy "the oldest form of occupation", speaking to the way women & people classed as women (or gender deviant or ungendered) are treated as commodities to own. this BBC article argues that patriarchy was created as a way for the proto-state to leverage control over the population. the enforced social roles of males soldiers & female reproducers made groups bigger & more powerful.

I will take the article's assertion (it's very well sourced) that one of the first instances of patriarchy developing starts about 5,000 ago in Mesopotamia, when records show women disappearing from public life, at face value. then, ofc, in the mediterranean world we "soon" after see the Mycenaeans & Greeks & Romans, in that order, develop, all of which had patriarchal societies—tho to different extents.

as I have stated previously, the wizarding world loves Greek & Roman shit, as does the real western world (and we have! for centuries!). I like to consider their cultural norms, especially as they were interpreted during the Renaissance, when thinking about wizarding culture.

so, yes, the WW is patriarchal, since for at least 1,500 years, but probably more like 4,800 years. and for most of that time there was no wizarding world, just the World, and the WW had the same histories as the muggle world.

2. gender in late medieval and early modern england & western europe

so sorry, you've unlocked an info dump cutscene. it can be skipped.

I want you to imagine the traditional gender roles for men and women in western society. write them down, even. what should women be like? what is the inherent nature of women, if one exists, according to traditionalists? according to society at large? according to you?

in early modern england there was a HUGE shift in the perception of women and gender roles.

in "'The Good and Bad of that Sexe': Monstrosity and Womanhood in Early Modern England," by Alletta Brenner, the epistemological history of womanhood in the middle of the sixteenth to the end of the 17th centuries, is analyzed.

epistemology is about the study of knowledge, so think intellectual history, a history of what ideas and thoughts people are sharing and the patterns of those ideas and thoughts.

long story short: for about 1500 years, western culture regarded women as lesser versions of men, who are the perfect form of humans. male and female were not regarded as opposite, but two versions of the same thing. eve was made from adam’s rib, she’s a knockoff.

“Monstrosity and Womanhood” discusses two cultural differences between then & now that are significant to my argument. 1: people of the middle ages & early modern europe regarded the monstrous as a part of God’s creation, possibly frightening, but not unnatural. 2: women were regarded as too sexually driven, lustful temptresses. this is a stark contrast to the Cult of True Womanhood that we see in the 19th c, submissive, gentle, spiritually included, a soft place for her husband to find comfort in after being in the chaos of the outside world.*

(lily kind of embodies the late middles ages dangers of womanhood & it’s monstrosities in earth after rain.)

so, the answer to “what is a woman?” is changing rapidly right before the WW cuts itself off from the MW. I expect that, since the bio-essentialism of today started in the 19th century, post SoS, there is a significant difference in what the WW settles on.

the changing views on women in the MW are also influenced by and/or create the atmosphere wherein the witch trials are born. midwives and other women who transgressed their gender roles were targeted in the witch trials. the WW reacts to the witch trials by going into hiding (I don't believe this, I think it's part of the WW historical mythos used to uphold their society & it's fucking issues)

*this ideal of womanhood is only accessible by white middle and upper class women. other women are in many ways, monstrous, but they are also degendered.

3. gender in the text

in the books we see multiple examples of sexism, and a large chunk of these examples involve over-sexualization or sexual policing. our entry into WW culture, ron weasley, displays these views multiple times. he does not seem to believe that women are less intellectually or even less physically capable. he also doesn’t have a problem being defended by harry potter or hermione granger, or defending harry or hermione.

3.1 younger women

the threat of love potions is also brought up a few times throughout the books, and they are solely seen as a woman's weapon.

in Goblet of Fire, once skeeter turns on hermione, she asserts in a PUBLIC NEWSPAPER that hermione is possibly using love potions to seduce powerful men (pg 357). this is after harry's friendship with hermione is portrayed, again, in a public paper, as a romance (pg 225). hermione is pretty and smart when she's "with" harry, but when she is associated with a second man, thereby betraying the englishman who must be the hero of skeeter’s stories, she's ugly and smart enough to drug him. mrs. weasley, an adult woman and frequent caretaker of hermione, believes this and is cruel to her, a child.

over sexualization is used as a highly effective weapon against hermione. the WW easily accepts a young woman's sexuality as a threat to the men around her; she is voracious. i'm sure hermione being muggle born does not help.

merope gaunt is also accused, by dumbledore, of drugging tom riddle sr. with a love potion (pg 154 HBP). no evidence is given. we, the reader, are meant to assume the accuracy since dumbledore is making the claim. once again the sexual appetite of a young woman is dangerous. her misdeeds, brought about by choices made clouded with lust, only the short term considered, end up creating a fucking super villain. what's interesting is that this isn't only a belief of the characters in-text, it's the perspective of the author. nonetheless, dumbledore's quickness to blame a young woman's desire for driving her to violence and bringing misfortune, indicates that the sexuality of women in the WW is easily seen as dangerous.

i think this well establishes women's sexuality as a dangerous, insatiable threat in the WW culture. this is clearly a patriarchal ideology. the systematic reinforcement at the nuclear family level becomes clearer when we look at how the weasley brothers treat ginny's sexuality. they, just as men in the MW do, see their sister's sexuality as their business. however, this is not because men are a threat, but because ginny is unrestrained in her expression and exploration of her sexuality. I do not recall anyone ever worrying for ginny’s safety—women are competent and intelligent enough to defend themselves. 

here are two instances from HBP where we see the brothers judging their sister and trying to control her sexuality:

fred and george are selling love potions, but not to ginny, because she's used her wiles to collect enough men. ron is also reporting on ginny’s romantic endeavors to their older, of age, brothers (pg 91 HBP). Is this to leverage additional power and to control her? Later in the book ron doesn't want people to see ginny engaging in sexual behavior because of what they might think of his sister (pg 204). being a slut is bad in the WW too. :/

So, the two young women we focus on the most have their sexuality picked apart and policed.

3.2: older women

What of the older women? 

There are women in positions of authority in the WW, but most of the women who work and have positions of authority are not mothers in canon. The women with the most authority, mcgonagall, umbridge, arguably amelia bones though she is tertiary, are not mothers and remain, in canon, romantically unattached. pre-fudge there is a woman minister, who i imagine was put into power as a part of the glass cliff phenomenon, when shit hits the fan, women are more likely to be hired to oversee the shit hit everyone, and then be blamed. 

Marriage & motherhood remove agency. The important mothers of the series, lily, petunia, narcissa, molly, to a lesser degree alice and tonks, do not have children until they are married. Half of them definitely do not work. two have jobs, tonks and alice, and they + lily are in the order, activities unspecified. 

The lack of women occupying both domestic and public spaces indicates patriarchal control. There are two options. The married mothers we see occupying both spheres are all taking part in the public sphere with their husbands. Even tonks, who works were remus does not, is in the order with him. Mothers & wives are not unchaperoned.

It is also notable how young people are when they get married and have children. This is explained by war in the text. I posit that it’s actually another element of the patriarchal control of women’s sexuality. Since women are insatiable, those that are linked to a man must be kept under a higher level of control to ensure she stays loyal to her husband. Marriage in the teen years is younger than the average in MW in the 1970s (22.8 for women, 25.1 for men). the average age of women entering into their first marriage has consistently been 24 or older in england and wales since the 1550s—it dropped in the 1950s and 60s. 

Sidenote—during WW2 the age of marriage in the UK seemed to stagnate, and then it dropped at the conclusion of the war. 

We don’t have the stats for the WW, but we know james and lily married and had harry before 21, we know from the black family tree that narcissa had draco at the average age of marriage in 1970s MW UK, which indicates a younger marriage. We do not know alice and frank’s ages. tonks actually meets the average age for women in the UK in the mid 90s, but her husband and she are half bloods. it is possible that the average age of marriage in the WW is younger than the MW, especially among the upper classes. 

4. conclusion

The main element of patriarchy in the WW is control of women’s sexuality, because women are too promiscuous to control themselves, and this poses multiple dangers. Love potions, pursuing a man to near death, tarnishing the family name, etc. This has created cultural norms of younger marriage and women, especially upper class women, not working outside of the home once they are married. Women who choose not to tie themselves to a man through marriage may be seen as inherently less sexual, as adult women who do not marry are not put through the same scrutiny as women who express sexual inclinations. 

It is possible that we don’t see the scrutiny adult, unmarried women endure because harry is a child the whole time and does not think about his professors getting their backs blown out on the weekends. It is also possible that the women we see, namely umbridge and mcgonagall, put up a non-sexual persona to avoid this scrutiny, a childish feminine and de-sexed school marm respectively. I’d edge my bets towards the latter. 

Magic allows a significant portion of reproductive labor to be automated, and in the MW reproductive labor is designated to women and made invisible as an element of maintaining the nuclear family to uphold capitalism. Therefore women in the WW are partially freed from this element of capitalist patriarchy. 

Women are not seen as less capable with magic, intellect, or physically, so their voracious sexuality creates a greater threat. The patriarchy in the WW seeks to control their sexualities, but not much else. The desire to keep pure blood families “pure” likely increases the drive to control women’s sexuality in the upper classes. I’m not seeking to make this argument here, but I believe this element of policing would have evolved in the 19th century, parallel to the evolution of the bio-essentialist ideal women of the MW. the reason I am not making this argument here is that this post is long as shit, and making the point requires a lot of details about fascism and the history of the WW and MW.  

I do think patriarchy is “weaker” in the wizarding world, but still exists. Due to the SoS and magic much of the modern elements of capitalist patriarchy did not develop in the WW, instead, elements of the early modern patriarchy were carried over and intensified. At the same time, women in the WW always had a level of agency and power unreachable to muggle women, which carried over to the SoS society. Perhaps magical men treated muggle women how we treat marginalized women in the real world, and continued to do so after the SoS ended. Perhaps the WW is a secret upper class that exploits the MW without muggle’s knowledge. Perhaps.   

I can’t believe I didn’t talk about the witch trials at all. I have thoughts on those! They are forthcoming when i finish the wizarding world & colonial era meta.

[david-talks-sw]

George Lucas & Karen Traviss' visions of Star Wars are NOT the same...

So whenever I come across this image:

I keep in mind that it's from a book written by Karen Traviss, who is a brilliant author (I adored Legacy of the Force: Bloodlines and Sacrifice) but whose stance on Anakin, Yoda & the Jedi and Star Wars morality is this:

As opposed to George Lucas' stance on Anakin, Yoda & the Jedi and Star Wars' morality, which is this:

In a children's story about Light and Dark, good and evil, selflessness vs selfishness, George Lucas marks the Empire as absolutely evil and the Rebels as absolutely good, in the Original Trilogy.

In the Prequels, the situation is more complex (the Jedi are drafted into a war and forced to do things they know they shouldn't be doing, but have to for the greater good; the Sith bring about order to a corrupt government) but the morality stays the same... the selfish, greedy Sith are absolutely evil and the selfless, compassionate Jedi are absolutely good.

That's George's thesis.

And, as a character, Yoda's function is to deliver that thesis. It's no wonder why Lucas treats Yoda's words as absolutely correct:

Yoda is Lucas' mouthpiece in the Prequels, his self-insert.

George Lucas' narrative frames Yoda as objectively right.

So when Karen Traviss questions the Jedi, particularly Yoda's character and wisdom, she's disagreeing with George Lucas' thesis.

Which is fair. Traviss, is a different person than Lucas, she's an ex-journalist with a more "grey" view of the world and a different philosophy re: fiction aimed at children. "Death of the author" and all that. Again, fair enough.

And if you like Travis' interpretation and philosophy more than George's, if her read resonates with you more... also fair enough.

But the EU is not a reliable source on Lucas' vision.

I've talked about this in MUCH more detail here, but if you do care about George Lucas' vision, then maybe don't draw from the Expanded Universe, which includes content written by authors who expressly disagree with him, like Traviss.

Sounds logical, but for some reason people will read the above-posted Dooku quote and treat it as reflective of Lucas' vision, when it's not the case.

George Lucas' Dooku doesn't have an issue with Yoda or the Jedi (at least not openly, as Darth Tyranus, the Sith Lord he wants them all dead). Dooku's issue is with the Senate and the Republic.

George Lucas specifically added that most Jedi share Dooku's concerns. Before he's revealed to be a mass-murdering, Sith who enslaves neutral systems, the Jedi think he makes a good point and are even reluctant to consider him a murder suspect.

But let's not start saying that Lucas' Prequels are meant to be about "the Jedi's failure" and "Dooku being right that the Jedi are corrupt.

Because that's not the case.

If that's how you see them, great. It's certainly how Traviss saw them. To each their own, authorial intent be damned.

But it's not what they were about, to Lucas. Stating the contrary is... I dunno, lying? Rewriting history?

It's as if I got hired to write a Lord of the Rings prequel seen from Gandalf's POV. And y'know what, maybe I don't like Gandalf. So I write him as a scheming asshole going “myahahahah, fuck hobbits! I’m gonna let them keep the One Ring so a bunch Nazgûl will swoop through the Shire and murder them!” and suddenly, everyone starts writing posts about the notion that “Growing up is realizing that Tolkien always intended for Gandalf to be the secret villain of LOTR!” as if that had always been the case and I didn't just reframe him that way retroactively.

Finally, I'd also encourage you to read @rendar-writes' well-made point here about the fact that, while claiming she "doesn't give the answers", Traviss nonetheless shows a clear anti-Jedi bias.

[lemonhemlock]

Something that's been weighing on my mind.. As a team green stan through and through, I tend to defend Alicent's actions. But I'm trying to make sense of this: Aegon is opposed to be King but he has no choice in the matter. He's forced into a position that will eventually lead to his demise, after suffering as a cripple with burns etc. Alicent was also forced to be Queen, she was put thrust into the role with little regard to her mental well being. Both of them had no choice. Is Alicent doing the same to Aegon as was done to her? I mean I know Alicent doesn't have a choice, war and all, and Aegon doesn't have a choice either unless they submit to Rhaenyra, but seeing as what's in the future for Aegon, and his complete unwillingness to rule, isn't it just repeating what Otto did to Alicent, through Aegon.

I hope this makes sense it's been nagging me and you're so good at extrapolating logic in the show and books and rationally (and objectively) giving an expressive opinion without the bias of teams. :)

Green greetings, houseicedragon, and thank you for the vote of confidence in my abilities. 😅

I think that, externally, it does seem like that - that Alicent is doing to Aegon what Otto did to her, perpetuating the cycle of abuse etc - and, from a practical point of view, the effects are more or less the same. But, at the same time, there are important distinctions to be made here.

I have spoken extensively by now as to why I believe Rhaenyra's claim to the throne to be weak (as always, I have the succession for the iron throne and bastardposting tags for anyone interested). This creates a fundamental split when it comes to assessing "right" or "wrong", at least for me, in that I really cannot take the blacks seriously.

This is partly authorial fault, because GRRM tried to eat his cake and have it, too, by inserting two distinct Anarchy knock-off plotlines: one with Rhaenys and one with Rhaenyra. The problem is that, if he really wanted to have a proper Matilda stand-in, he should have went with Rhaenys, since she, like Matilda, had the stronger claim. The eldest daughter and only child of the first son vs her cousin: it's almost literally Matilda v Stephen, but one generation down, because they are the king's grandchildren, not the daughter/nephew.

But, for some reason, George decided to hold off on the Dance (maybe because Daemon would have been perceived more readily as an all-out bad guy by opposing the female claimant). Instead, he went with Rhaenyra, to whom he gave a very shaky claim. Many fans, even greens, are reluctant to accept this, but I think we should try to appraise this succession crisis through the lens of the actual historical events that inspired this story. I am not speaking of what-ifs, I am referring to genuine developments in our real-world history, not some hypothetical scenario created to uphold random biases. So, for the fictional Dance of the Dragons, instead of daughter vs nephew, we now have the ridiculous situation of daughter vs son, which no one in 12th Century England would consider seriously. It's hard to tell whether this was just an oversight or whether George actually intended to make a point that Rhaenyra was truly delusional. But it's important to note that he has Stannis, the rightful king in the main series, specifically denounce Rhaenyra as a traitor. So that must count for something.

Now, coming back to our in-universe scenario. After Queen Aemma dies, most, if not every lord in Westeros with a daughter would be interested in advancing said daughter as a potential wife to King Viserys. This is not evil in and of itself. It's pretty normal behaviour that would happen in any situation, even in real life history. Otto is not doing this because he intends to place Alicent and her future children in a life-threatening situation and invite suffering and despair upon them. He (and every other lord in the realm, like Corlys, like Jason Lannister) fully expects that Alicent's son will naturally supplant Rhaenyra and become King, no question about it, no further drama. Viserys just killed his wife trying to get a son out of her; from Otto's (and everyone else's) POV, it would be really fucking bizarre for him to refuse to formally acknowledge a potential son of his as heir.

What causes this entire mess is precisely Viserys' refusal to do just that. He is a man of half-measures. He wants to keep Rhaenyra as his heir, but he still marries another woman and has children by her, therefore weakening the claim of his preferred heir. For the other characters surrounding him, this is irrational behaviour. I cannot stress this enough. This never should have happened in the first place. When Aegon survives his infancy and Viserys still pretends like Rhaenyra will succeed him, Otto is forced to re-assess his position and make a new cost-benefit analysis, because he realises that his daughter and grandchildren are now in mortal danger. Why? Well, because they have the better legal claim. He is not bullshitting Alicent when he tells her Rhaenyra will have to put her (male) children to the sword if she wants to secure her throne. Again, this was not something that he expected to happen. He couldn't have read Viserys' mind or understood that his guilt over Aemma's death was so great that he never budged from advancing Rhaenyra's claim.

So, at this point, Otto and Alicent are kind of stuck, actually. Sure, Alicent is only in this position in the first place because Otto placed her here, but Otto couldn't have foreseen that Viserys would cause a succession crisis. Temporary heirs are a thing, even in ASOIAF. Aerea was both Maegor's and Jaehaerys' heir for a while, for example, but no one expected her to actually become Queen if these kings had any sons of their own.

To answer your question, Alicent is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place here - she can't let Aegon do whatever he wants because she first and foremost wants to keep him alive. I think that's pretty understandable behaviour from her part. Sure, you can argue that there was no need for Alicent to become Queen; she only did so at her father's behest, but her life could have taken a very different turn, if not for Otto's ambitions. However, in Aegon's case, the Hightowers don't really have much of a choice anymore - they can't prioritise Aegon's personal preferences because this is a matter of life and death. It's honestly not even about personal ambition, like in the first situation. If push comes to shove, the lives of Aegon, Aemond, Daeron, Jaehaerys, Maelor and Otto are on the line. That's a lot of people. At this point, that crown is going on Aegon's head whether he likes it or not.

And this narrative would have carried out this same way regardless of who Viserys' second Queen was, whether it would have been Laena or anyone else. The fact of the matter is that, if Viserys wanted Rhaenyra to succeed him, he never should have remarried in the first place and he never should have had additional male children.

[liesmyth]

i always figured that the glossaries are supposed to be from the pov of muir - iirc there's comments about other potential names of some characters, which to me confirms that its muir talking, who is by default omniscient about the setting

yesss I love the naming guide trivia!!! Gideon "someone named her demise in her"!! John deciding to go by Gaius when Alecto was still around!! Also: this lovely River factoid that I'm taking as confirmation of my ‘John stashed the extra souls in the stoma theory’ until I'm inevitably proven wrong!!

I’m less sure about the glossary because it’s less blatantly Muir than the guide so I'm not100% sure what it says is factually true (from an authorial intention POV) or just “regarded” as true in universe. Either ways it has "been observed" that Varun went into slumber after Cassiopeia so I'm inclined to believe 1) she is dead, didn't fake it and 2) what the glossary says about the RB going after the Lyctors is true, and it's not just John they're tracking.

None of these things are groundbreaking info but it’s nice sometimes to have some vague factual truths among the sea of unreliable narrator bias :D

[iamnmbr3]

@kryspiny I disagree with most of what you've said here, but I think this makes for fodder for an interesting discussion so I'm going to go through my thoughts here. Before I get into them though I will add the caveat that these are just my own views and interpretations and there is no one right way to interpret a story or engage in fandom. Everyone is free to have their own views. Also while a lot of my Harry Potter analysis places very little weight on authorial intent and a lot more weight on what is actually on the page, people who simply want to go "yeah maybe the author didn't do a great job of conveying it but I want to just go with what the author meant not what they wrote" are totally valid and free to read in that manner.

I would also add that I get into a lot of the points you raised in even more detail (including a fairly detailed discussion of why I think Dumbledore's behavior when he first met Tom was so egregious Here).

Context: What was the original joke even saying?

Although it's a joke post it does indeed play on several themes that I have discussed more seriously in meta elsewhere as you correctly note. The central aspect of the post is that it highlights in a humorous manner the fact that contrary to what Dumbledore (and the narrative) presents to us, given what we know about the universe of Harry Potter Tom getting sorted into Slytherin would probably have led to a lot of problems and integration difficulties for him. It further pokes fun at the fact that Dumbledore ignores the obvious struggles that an impoverished presumed muggleborn in Slytherin would have had and at the general anti-Slytherin bias in the books (both on the part of Dumbledore and the narrative) exemplified by the fact that in book 2 Dumbledore contrasts Harry's choice to not go to Slytherin with Tom Riddle, the evil heir of Slytherin who was sorted into Slytherin and is therefore presumed morally inferior for that fact. And it also mocks Dumbledore's penchant for being self congratulatory about his own intelligence and having difficulty admitting when he is wrong (especially about Tom).

It also points out, in an exaggerated manner, at Dumbledore's tendency to interpret everything Tom does as evidence of latent evil just waiting to emerge and his failure to acknowledge surrounding context (like the fact that going into Slytherin would not exactly have been a cake walk for him) or the way his own actions impacted his relationship with Tom. It does this by using as a setup scenario a headcanon to which I am deeply attached - that in a parallel to Harry, Tom also chose his House but made the opposite choice that Harry made. I think there is actually some reasonably strong textual evidence to back up this headcanon but it's still just a headcanon.

Dissent

Ok now that we've established that context, let's get into what you actually said.

"I think it's worth noting that nothing in canon actually suggests that Dumbledore had it out for Tom Riddle since Day One."

Albus turns against Tom after their first meeting before school even starts. He never considers for a moment that his first impression maybe have been wrong, offers Tom any sort of second chance (which he is so fond of doing with others) or considers that Tom might be capable of change (which again, he seems to believe about pretty much everyone else).

He immediately decides Tom is an inherently evil lost cause (unlike James who stripped a student naked and choked him for sport or Draco who plotted murder and nearly killed several people or Sirius who tried to send a classmate to his death) and that he must be closely watched to thwart his evil ways. No thought of giving him support or guidance or a way out is ever spared at all.

To me that suggests bias, and while we don't know how Dumbledore treated Tom during Tom's school years, given this bias and given the unhinged behavior from Dumbledore during the interactions we see between him and Tom in the Pensieve and the fact that he sabotaged Tom's job prospects at school (and quite possibly elsewhere as well) I doubt his treatment of him was all that great.

Dumbledore acts as the voice of reason in the narrative (lol) presenting readers with what we are supposed to understand about the story's villain Lord Voldemort from the flashbacks we see of him in book 6. Through Dumbledore, JKR is trying to tell us that Voldemort was a creepy and evil kid who tricked and charmed everyone except for brilliant and noble Dumbledore, who saw right through him, and who inevitably grew up into an evil villain who needed to be put down.

The problem is, that's not what she wrote. And so therefore Dumbledore comes off in a way less positive light than intended because he acts as though he has already read the books and knows Tom is destined to be the series villain when he hasn't even done anything yet. That's why Tom never gets the benefit of the doubt - because he's the villain of the story. In-universe however Dumbledore can't know that, so his actions are biased and unfair.

Especially in the context of him forgiving some pretty egregious actions on the part of other characters, it comes across pretty clearly as him singling Tom out. He never views Tom as a tragedy - as someone who could have been and done so much better - but rather an an inevitability. Which is unfair. This probably reflects some very black and white and unappealing thinking on JKR's part irl that is then incorporated into the intended reading of the narrative. I reject that view.

When you look at Tom's circumstances, the way he is treated by Dumbledore from day 1 - with no understanding or empathy - and the way he is given no chance to improve or any support or guidance of any time and the way he is instead shut down and treated to immediate harshness and threats is quite simply wrong. It's unkind. It's unfair. And it's immoral. JKR doesn't think so but I disagree with her. Dumbledore's actions are appalling and her uncritical positive presentation of those actions is wrong.

I believe the fact that Dumbledore being in the right is the intended narrative reading is why your own post contains unexamined contradictions. You say Dumbledore wasn't biased against Tom from day 1, but then you say

"Yes, he was a teacher at a school and he was aware that one of his new students has a history of being a bully. So yes, he was mindful of this fact while Tom was his student...Tom Riddle was however aware of the fact that Dumbledore is aware of his history and cannot take back the first impression that he had made on him that was... bad. So yes, Tom was uneasy around Dumbledore, but not because Dumbledore bullied him, but because Tom had malicious intentions, and he know he would have to try extra hard to hide his actions from Dumbles."

In other words, you are saying that Tom was evil from day 1 and that from the first time Dumbledore met him he revealed himself to be an evil lost cause who needed to be watched and controlled for the sake of others (but not helped or supported because he's just inherently evil not a person who could need help or be vulnerable) and that Tom obviously had malicious intentions from the get-go. This is exactly what Dumbledore believed about Tom - the very bias that so colored his treatment of him right from day 1.

Perhaps the reason repeat it even though it contradicts the idea that Dumbledore was not initially biased against Tom is that the narrative presents this obvious bias as fair and just. The narrative tells us that of course Tom is inherently evil and so is deserving of such treatment and never of help or support or empathy.

Never mind that being sorted into Slytherin with his background would have been a tremendously difficult experience, never mind that he grew up surrounded by want and privation, never mind that many children in his circumstances present some behavioral difficulties and that doesn't mean all those children should be written off and condemned, never mind that he is hated by everyone around him in his orphanage, never mind that he seemingly has never had an adult that he could trust and didn't have to fear, never mind that most of Dumbledore's information about Tom comes from Mrs. Cole - a woman who neither likes him or understands what he is, never mind that he has lived his life in terror of being dragged off and institutionalized.

Also, we only have Mrs. Cole's word for a lot of this stuff. Was Tom a bully? She and the kids who hate and fear him say he was. But we never actually find out what happened. Dumbledore certainly doesn't bother to look into it. (And keep in mind, Petunia probably would've said similar stuff about Harry - "He set a snake on my son at the zoo and tried to kill him for no reason." Doesn't mean it would be true.) What happened in that cave? Don't know. Did Tom actually kill that rabbit? Don't know. Why did he and Billy Stubbs even argue and was Tom defending himself? Don't know. How many of these acts were intentional vs accidental uncontrolled magic typical of children? Don't know. Prior to opening the Chamber what malicious things did Tom actually get up to at school? Don't know. Dumbledore's just sure he was Up To Things TM.

This is not to say that none of these things happened. (Do I personally think Tom killed the rabbit on purpose? Yes. But based on that first interaction Dumbledore can't know that etc.) Dumbledore never bothers to get Tom's side of the story or look into any of this stuff or give him the benefit of the doubt. He just takes one look at Tom, decides he hates him, sees everything Tom does (including adopting a hyper respectful, subservient tone at Dumbledore's specific request) as further evidence of evil and doesn't bother to look into it further or try to offer and guidance or support or help or model any type of good behavior because obviously Tom is just THAT evil.

According to Dumbledore and the narrative he's evil. He deserves nothing but harsh treatment, to be made to feel small and powerless and afraid. Because he clearly hasn't had enough of that in his life. That will teach him. No. No it won't.

"This does not make Dumbledore morally responsible for Tom Riddle the Bully turning into Tom Riddle the Murderer"

I never said this. If Dumbledore had been different would Tom have turned out the same? Maybe. Maybe not. He is still ultimately responsible for his own actions. But so is Dumbledore. And many of those actions - regardless of ultimate outcome or what Tom later became - are wrong. And in my opinion, so is JKR's presentation of those actions.

Sorting Hat: So do you want the House where your classmates will hate you because of your poverty and presumed blood status or the one where your head of House thinks you're the spawn of Satan?

Tom Riddle: ... The first one?

Sorting Hat: Slytherin it is!

Dumbledore: I knew he was evil. Right again as usual.

[sophitz]

My take on homophobia in the Lost Cities is that it exists, but not for the same reasons as it does in human society.

We know the elves have a worrying track record of societal taboos that toe (scratch that, cross) the line of eugenics. They frown upon multiple births because they "dilute" special abilities, those without abilities are confined to the working class, and anyone who marries a Talentless or anyone outside their 500 Government Assigned Matches becomes a pariah.

Essentially, anyone who gets in the way of increasing the genetically-desired Elvin population is looked down on.

Homophobia in human society stems mostly from the patriarchy, which does manifest itself in KOTLC, but likely only from unintentional authorial bias—so we can assume its influence is negligible in this scenario.

I feel like in-universe homophobia would thus present similarly as the stigma surrounding Bad Matches. Since the couple, especially if both have special abilities, is losing out on the opportunity to procreate, they could be seen as non-contributors to society. This is contrary to child-free couples, who hypothetically could have children if they wanted to.

Given this unique facet of Keeper's worldbuilding, homophobia would honestly make a fascinating topic to address and explore in canon. Realistically, it probably won't, and at best we'll get a one-off mention of Elvin surrogacy technology for gay couples.

[alliluyevas]

im doing a social experiment

do you think the show is biased towards blacks or greens or specific characters

do you think daemon is being whitewashed or being portrayed worse than in the book

this feels a bit like a distillation of all the discourse topics that are most likely to get me headhunted by somebody or other...that being said, here goes:

regarding show bias, I think the fact that I've seen both "team green" fans yammering about alleged pro-team black bias in the show and "team black" fans yammering about pro-green bias is pretty telling lmfao, and i think a lot of fans are not approaching this in good faith themselves. there's a lot of black-and-white (black and green?) thinking in this fandom and a lot of people who think you can't have sympathy or interest in multiple opposing perspectives. like...if you think that nuance is an attack on your fave, you'll see bias everywhere!

personally, I think the show presents a much more sympathetic version of Alicent and by extension Team Green than exists in Fire and Blood, which frankly imo generally enriches the story bc F&B Alicent is a really flat character, but overall still primarily presents Rhaenyra as the main protagonist. I don't have a problem with either of these things. (I do think that Rhaenyra's writing was stronger and more interesting in the first half of the series before the casting switch time jump, because they let her be a bit more assertive and impulsive and later Rhaenyra feels a bit washed out to me, but I don't think that's a case of deliberate authorial bias it's just a writing decision I don't agree with)

I think show!Daemon is less sympathetic than book!Daemon but that's more a function of POV than his actual actions, or rather of lack of POV. Fire and Blood is explicitly written as a biased text as a way of examining how history is constructed, and has in-book authorial bias(es), in addition to the conscious or subconsious choices GRRM made writing it. The show doesn't have that--I mean, it has the decisions the writing team has made and the baggage they bring to it, but it's not a work with in-universe authorial POV, it's a more straightforward narrative. I think Fire and Blood as a pro-Targaryen history is invested in portraying Daemon as a glamorous and heroic figure in a way that the show kind of strips away. I think the show makes a lot of the issues in Daemon and Rhaenyra's relationship, for instance, much more obvious because it strips down the layers of romanticization and normalizing Targ incest that are present in the in-book narrative of Fire & Blood. I personally don't find Daemon an appealing character at all in F&B either, but I think the show taking away that in-universe narrative makes it easier for him to be seen as what he is, if that makes sense.

[tolkien-feels]

If Feanor were to make a movie about the events of the First Age (or even the Second), but be Extremely Petty About Everything, what would be different?

That is... A very good question. Because my gut feeling is to say it'd be a hot mess (pun unintended) but could it maybe be a persuasive hot mess? It'd actually be a very good opportunity to see how much of Feanor's persuasion comes down to his words and how much comes down to how (to use a Tolkien expression) his will constrains others. I'm sure it's a mix of both, of course, but we could still learn a lot about the role of Feanor's personal magnetism.

...although then again, Feanor would probably not only write and direct, but also act. So maybe we'd get persuaded by character!Feanor and my thought experiment is meaningless.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what the movie would look like, actually! I don't spend too much thinking about in-universe authorial bias, and I'm sure people who do could answer this question way, way better than me. My one take is that Feanor would probably portray all hidden realms of the elves as A Cowardly Strategy, but that's really as far as I can go. I do welcome other people's takes though 👀👀👀