#just to ignore the children they had

[alicentsgf]

Maybe its because im the middle child but the way people romanticise Viserys only caring about and truly acknowledging Rhaenyra to the detriment of his younger children makes me see red. even Rhaenyra looked horrified when he called her his 'only child', so fans reveling in it irks me. people love to blame Alicent for the way her children turned out and on god she is not a perfect mother but Viserys is by far presented as the reason they're so fucked up.

Past Aegons infancy we never see him interact with his sons except to yell at them. Aegon literally says he always felt his father didnt like him, let alone love him. and sorry but Viserys was so inadequate in the aftermath of Vhagars claiming. Aemond was plenty in the wrong but not even nearly as much as other children, he WAS attacked first and only hit back once he was hit. plus it was 4 on 1. but Viserys never chastises his grandsons directly for any of it. imagine how unloved Aemond must have felt... is it any wonder Luke and Jace are better men when they had not 1 but 2 or 3 loving father figures to Aemond and Aegons 0.

And then theres Haelena. im not sure Viserys is even aware he has another daughter he only acknowledges her existence in the scene where Rhaenyra suggests the betrothal to Jace. meanwhile Alicent (who was a teen mom with preganancies forced on her via marital rape btw) is judged for struggling to be a good mother to these children her husbands actively destroying with his neglect. she doesnt understand Haelena but she sits and listens and tries to connect with her. she is the only one who fights for Aemond (even if her outburst did more harm than good). and while her treatment of Aegon as a teen leaves a lot to be desired, he clearly feels like she is the only one who actually loves him, despite not rly liking him a lot of the time.

Viserys was not a good king or father. he failed all his children, including Rahenyra. he was weak and selfish and easily led. he put Aemma through unimaginable pain without her consent even though she was definitely lucid enough to make a choice herself all because he wanted a son. then he named Rhaenyra heir because he wanted to make himself feel better about it. he trapped Alicent in a marriage purely because he wanted the 15/16 yr old best friend of his daughter, he literally admits this to Rhaenyra - that he chose Alicent over Laena because he /wanted/ her. only to neglect the children they had together because he couldnt be bothered with them. the sucession crisis could have been avoided if he'd actually cared about anything other than his own feelings and desires.

[youweremyversaillesatnight]

tula and her journey

(as a note, this is incredibly long so i've put the vast majority of it under a read more. please open it all the way if you want to see the whole thing)

@/atticfish // The Oresteia, Aeschylus // C.S. Lewis // Clearest Blue, CHVRCHES // Howl’s Moving Castle (2004) // I See Boats Moving, Fernando Pessoa // Deep End, Holly Humberstone // The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge, Rainer Maria Rilke // Tired, beabadoobee // Sarah Kay // Half-light: Collected Poems 1965-2016, Frank Bidart // (could not find) // Zinaida Gippius // Grief Lessons: Four Plays by Euripides, Anne Carson // Don’t Swallow the Cap, The National // When Did It Happen?, Mary Oliver // Holy Wild, Gwen Benaway // Manhattan is a Lenape Word, Natalie Diaz // Dead Stars, Ada Limón // The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell (1988) // How to Cure a Ghost, Fariha Róisín // @/CrowsFault (twitter) // Spring, Mary Oliver // @/jb-blunk // (could not find) // @/roach-works // Tales From Earthsea: Dragonfly, Ursula Le Guin  // Some are Always Hungry, Jihyun Yun // All About Love: New Visions, bell hooks // Notebooks 1951-1959, Albert Camus // @/podencos // The Bell Jar, Sylvia Plath // Waiting, Marya Hornbacher // The Summer Day, Mary Oliver // Burrow’s End (2023)

and, as a bonus if you made it this far:

[autisticrosewilson]

So do you guys actually think that Jason's entire story, relationship to the others, and philosophy amounts to him being a rebellious teen who wants his dad's attention? Like are you 100% serious? I thought you were joking about that but too many of you are saying it with your whole chest.

And what the fuck is this "Bruce antagonizing Jason is fanon!" Shit I've been seeing? You guys are aware that a parent can love their kid and still be a shit parent right? I know you guys don't want to fathom the thought that maybe your blorbo might also occasionally have to face responsibility for consistently endangering children but let's not start being delusional now.

Bruce does love his kids, that doesn't mean that he hasn't hurt them. And I'd also argue that for the most part he feels in the right for it, and he's said multiple times that he believes it's for their own good, so you can't even argue that he's sorry about it. It's okay for you guys to admit that your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the character wouldn't do that but don't sit here and pretend that it's not a facet of the source.

[chirpsythismorning]

There isn't much discourse about how Mike went from saying that El was a weapon in s1, even encouraging the others to use El's powers when she was still recuperating after finding Will in the void, to then in s3 accusing the others of being reckless with her powers, saying she's risking her life for no reason.

Now, I want to make clear that I'm not bashing Mike here, this has less to do with what he's doing being right or wrong. What this is about is how Mike went from doing something himself, to calling out other people for doing it, without acknowledging that fact and why the writers chose to frame it all this way.

You might think it's insignificant, but these two following scenes are clearly being paralleled to each other. And so the fact that Mike himself is acknowledging this as something to be critical of, makes me wonder what exactly is going on in his mind...

I want to preface this scene from s1 by saying that Mike is giving very off vibes here. I know that I certainly viewed this scene as romantic the first time I saw it, but since rewatching it recently, I was getting completely different vibes.

They literally make a point to focus on Mike being distracted, on the verge of impatience. Then, the way El reacts upon Mike getting up abruptly, gives this feeling of uncertainty about Mike's consideration for her in this moment, as she's clearly not what's on the top of his mind right now. And it just makes you wonder, are we truly supposed to be feeling peak romance rn?

I never realized how out of place this scene was until now (or is it...). It's just such an odd choice to have El resting her head on Mike's shoulder for comfort, only for Mike to cut it short with him being distracted, and with Dustin and El looking awkwardly at Mike like "Okay?...", then followed by a scene where he's trying to convince the others to use El's powers to help.

Here we have s1 Mike displaying behavior that s3 Mike was calling out the others for displaying:

Here we have Lucas, who was very, very critical of El being dangerous ALL of s1, and yet now in complete contrast to that, he is showing more consideration and common sense for El's well being than Mike, the supposed love (at first sight) interest ...

'That's the most important thing, remember?'

A question, followed by Mike just standing there in silence, like he's only just now really thinking about El being safe as their main priority... This is something that combined with everything else unfolding over the course of this season and the seasons after, that makes Mike's behavior a whole lot easier to understand.

I'll have to make several other posts about this, because there are a lot of aspects to it, but for now I'm just going to focus on these two parallels.

Here we have what happens in s3, with Mike being critical of the others doing something he himself literally did in s1:

In fact, how careless all of you are.

THIS. When Mike makes it a big deal to call out everyone for doing something he himself has already done, he's outright admitting that it's something that he believes is wrong, and by not even slightly acknowledging his role in doing something similar in the past, it's very likely that he feels guilty about it.

This was probably his way of trying to make it right, by standing up for El in a way that he didn't before because he was treating her like some superhero and not a real person back then.

It's just that the word love slipped out, in the heat of the moment. And El, upon overhearing this, is seeing this development of Mike herself, with s1 Mike going from, yes being more kind and considerate than the other 2 boys in the beginning, but still sort of expecting stuff from her without her being able to verbally agree to it, to now having developed and changed to saying that one of his big priorities is her safety.

El is taking this as being evidence he went from not loving her, to loving her. Another reason why it's pretty obvious El didn't believe Mike's monologue, bc she herself witnessed Mike develop his apparent romantic feelings for her over time, and so him saying it was love at first sight, was probably the catalyst that made it abundantly clear to her that he wasn't being truthful, bc she knows it's not the truth. She's not stupid.

Again this isn't about Mike doing this back then or even the others doing it now as being bad vs. good, this is about the writers going about it this way, sending a message that Mike feels guilt, enough to try to make things right, but is apparently not ready to unpack the actual guilt that is beneath the surface which lead him to this point.

And then there's this scene, which... it's actually terrifying how obvious it is they instructed Sadie and Caleb to lean out of that shot with Will and Mike reacting to El entering the room... Like... It's SOO obvious when you watch it now what they're trying to hint at without saying it.

Not only are they hinting at Will's feelings, because that is part of it, they're also hinting at Mike's internal struggle. Will is always on the back of his mind whether he's willing to address it or not. And all while that is happening, he is feeling unaddressed guilt about how he treated El when they first met and spent that one week together helping her run away from the bad guys while also looking for Will, something Mike viewed as being worthy of El using her powers...

I'll have to make the other posts regarding this soon, because it all starts to click what's going on with Mike when you look at all of these things together.

While Mike is just a kid like pretty much everyone else in this story, and while he didn't mean any harm by asking El to help them find Will (none of them did), I think that's kind of the whole point?

I think that he got lucky superman landed on his doorstep, who just so happened to be in danger herself, giving him his own purpose to help her too, with her needing him as well, and so it became a situation where they both needed each other.

But because El could literally not speak, it's not like she could really voice her feelings about things they were doing, beyond yes and no. She had Lucas sort of being critical of her, with Mike encouraging El to do things that would make the others see her as being worthy of sticking around so they can find Will. It goes without saying she felt obligated to do these things, even if they didn't outright tell her she had to or else. We literally see almost all of these scenes with her doing stuff for the others being instantly juxtaposed with scenes of Brenner doing the same. It's not the same scale of severity, but it is an acknowledgment that although she is outside of the lab, she still feels like her powers are what define her and it's all people want from her.

I think what it comes down to, is that in that moment when she is sacrificing herself to the demogorgan at the end of s1, we are seeing in real time Mike realizing what he and the other's have been asking of her this whole time, without outright asking her.

And you can literally see the retaliation and devastation hit him all at once. The instant regret, where he's backtracking and El stops him from even trying.

'Goodbye Mike' singles him out, because while he was the one out of the three that showed her the most kindness from the start, he was also the one who at the end of it all, was still expecting her to risk her life for them...

And that just makes it hit so much harder when you think about how that made Mike feel in that moment.

And then in s2 how that impacts Mike and his journey going forward.

His breakdown at the end of s2 upon her return.

His behavior in s3-4, in relation to him juggling his relationship with Will and El, now that they are both in his life at the same time.

It all starts to make sense.

I won't go too much into it because those other posts are bound to be long with a bunch of pictures too!

But on that note, there's at least one thing Mike isn't acknowledging, and it's literally what led up to the unintentional love confession that then led us to 10 more episodes of miscommunication because of it...

It's going to be important for him to address this guilt for him to fulfill his arc and to also close off his expectations that he has to have a romantic relationship with El in order to keep her in his life at all.

The audience themselves seeing this and being forced to face it is also going to make it a lot easier for them understand why Mike did what he did, not only because he's a queer kid in the 80's who has every reason to doubt and repress, but also because he understandably feels sort of indebted to El after everything.

It's more complex than him just falling out of love with her and falling in love with Will because of XYZ.

I think there is a lot of guilt and shame and trauma connected to their meeting and the events that followed. And addressing that is going to give a lot of closure to the ending of the story and also the beginning.

[vigilskeep]

i need to wynnepost. somebody has to

[phospadparadscha]

no wonder kids are so fucked up these days. there’s no micro communities of virtual world games powered by flash anymore. There’s no safe spaces for kids who want to play online but can’t be on social media yet. There’s no PetPet Park or Nicktropolis or Bella Sara or anything left for kids to enjoy on modern internet. PetPet Park when I was an eight year old was like my safe spot. It gave me an outlet and a place to speak in a filtered way with the same people every day who would log in at the same time and who I would never know the names of. Kids are so lonely and so bored now and they’re being completely suffocated by these advertisements they don’t even understand. I think this is maybe the most hostile time on the Internet for pre teens and kids to be online and I mourn all the virtual worlds other children would have loved to have played at my age.

[sexiestwerewolf]

DR S2 SPOILERS//

"Dragons can be ninja?"

"We cannot train non-dragons,"

Lloyd who's part dragon and who's grandfather was half dragon and literally the first ninja:

[skyhighru]

bro got the whole tree while we got a twig

[cursedvibes]

I don't understand why everyone is getting their panties in a twist over Shoko reviving Gojo suddenly. She couldn't regrow Hana or Inumaki's arms. Why would she suddenly be able to bring people back to life?? And even if we go with stuff like "Utahime strengthened her RCT", then why didn't they do that before to heal the people around them? Reviving Gojo is fine, but they couldn't be bothered to give Hana back her arm and wings because that would make Angel too op for the story or smth?

[thistransient]

Stage 3: the pilot announced it was 43°C (109.4F) in Delhi as we landed.

There was barely an immigration queue for foreigners with e-visas, the agent who stamped me in was bizarrely attractive (not that immigration agents can't be hot, it's just not usually their defining feature, especially when middle-aged). I loitered a bit in the arrivals hall and took out some cash before enacting my plan to take the airport metro down one stop and walk to my hotel. I fended off the lone cabby who complimented my hairstyle and made an unsuccessful go at convincing me my hotel wasn't near the metro. I managed the metro security and ticket-buying largely because I'd watched an 'intro to Hindi' video in which the teacher warned that he who attempts to queue nicely in India will be waiting for an eternity. I loitered in the metro station when it became clear that finding the hotel was NOT as easy as google maps might have indicated (on account of an intervening construction site). I made a confused loop back to the entrance before my GPS finally deigned to cooperate, but a tuk tuk driver had already smelled tourist blood in the water and started following me. I told him I was walking "to see the world" and "have an experience". Either baffled or convinced I was insane, he gave up.

My hotel had been around the corner all along, I got a bit misgendered while checking in, and felt out of place in a 5 star establishment with my backpack and dusty sneakers, but they did confirm my reservation, take my money, and give me a room key. I had added on all meals, to save myself having to go looking for sustenance in a new land after a long flight and this is where the real delight began: dinner was a buffet, and perhaps I was making a fool of myself (sometimes there's no getting around this stage) because the waiters came to help me, but eventually I had eaten so many amazing starters, curries, naan, and desserts that I thought they would have to roll me back to my room. I had warned myself not to set my expectations with Bollywood movies but the dining room singer did perform Ikk Kudi from Udta Punjab...

Tomorrow it's back to the airport, but today's been alright.

[amatres]

i do find it interesting that by westeros's usual right of succession, rhaenyra did technically have the strongest claim as heir while still a single child over daemon, but because of how her own father became king and the precedent set by it and how jaehaerys came into kingship over rhaena, it wouldn't have happened smoothly.

and also like, the fact it didn't even occur to viserys to let rhaenyra be his heir even just temporarily and have her raised with the knowledge of political state and the likes, or at least not to enforce her to study it regardless of the fact she may not be interested. like, had things gone how he expected them to go, she would have a younger brother close in age to her whom she would likely marry, and she would still be queen and need to execute queenly duties beyond having children.

even if he didnt expect her to marry this theoretical younger brother, she would likely marry a high ranking noble and have to tend to their estate. and yet? he didn't even consider to do it and he has his wife continuously pregnant in hopes of more children, an heir and spare at the least, all while turning a blind eye to his daughter and her education. but of course how could he expect her to, or let her, run anything when his own rule was based on denying another woman claim to a throne many who followed the normal law of succession would assume would be the more rightful candidate

but theres also the fact technically neither of them were true direct heirs, which is why there was so much debate in the first place. just like how for example, a woman leads the eyrie during rhaenyra's reign because she was all that was left of the direct line, and once she passed it went to the second branch nearby. by that logic, daemon would have never been viserys's heir in the first place, as rhaenyra as his kid would already have claim over him for succession, and yet everyone including viserys himself treated daemon as his heir for years, not his child. all because that was the precedent they set up to get viserys on that throne to begin with

there is no conclusion to this, i was just writing my stream of consciousness bc i thought of aemma and how viserys kept trying to have more children, and never prepared rhaenyra for anything. like, by the time she is reaching teenage years and you still no other children i think that's the point you change tactics and do your best to prepare the one child you have even on the supposed off chance you are unable to have any other healthy children, which did happen. and yet still. i do think it's tied to how his own claim came from denying a woman her's, and that his grandfather before him was the same, and i just want to know what his reasoning for all of this was

[claudia-kishi]

I love that car...

[martyrbat]

so many of you talk about the cruel adults in your childhood that negatively effected you and caused lifelong insecurity yet you're still perfectly fine with being that mean stranger to any kid that has the misfortune of existing around you and thats just really gross !!!

[bijoumikhawal]

"historically polygamous societies loved to wage war and slavery to dispose of excess men and emphasize female conversion" okay all those things are true of monogamous societies too. Western Europeans are famously probably the best at war and slavery from the current standpoint and they're monogamous. And from the way you wrote that I can tell you were thinking of the middle east so what the fuck

[jasontoddenthusiastt]

‘The point is not “is bftc good Jason characterization”’

Actually the point can be anything that the op of the post wants it to be. Oh you mean that is not your point. Um …. Cool. Nobody asked.

[heartofstanding]

Hi, sorry to bother you, but would you be able to tell me the names of the historians and documentaries that you were talking about in your post on Isabella of France? I'm looking to do a project on isabella for my history course and I'm looking for all sources and stuff i can.

Hi! In this post, I was talking about Kathryn Warner. She runs a blog on Edward II and has published mountains of books on Edward II's reign and while I think her early biographies of Edward II and Isabella are pretty solid, I think she's become so lost in the weeds that she's started going a bit... crank and started to imitate the historians she once railed against. The historians she rails against the most is Alison Weir (which, fair, Weir's Queen Isabella is very bad and very homophobic) and Paul Doherty's Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II but the "badass girlboss" take on Isabella can also be found in Helen Castor's She-Wolves (both biography and documentary). There is a Dan Jones documentary that's famously homophobic but I don't think I've heard about his treatment of Isabella. The novels I mentioned were Susan Higginbotham's The Traitor's Wife and Colin Falconer's Isabella: Braveheart of France.

I haven't read it but Lisa Benz St. John's Three Medieval Queens: Queenship and the Crown in Fourteenth-Century England is very highly recommended, focusing on Isabella, Marguerite of France and Philippa of Hainault. Michael Evans' chapter on Isabella in Later Plantagenet and the Wars of the Roses Consorts is a good but brief biographical overview and if you're looking for more studies of Isabella in popular culture, his chapters "Queering Isabella: The ‘She-Wolf of France’ in Film and Television" in Premodern Rulers and Postmodern Viewers and "From “She-Wolf” to “Badass”: Remembering Isabella of France in Modern Culture" in Memoralising Premodern Monarchs will give you a good overview of the cultural representations of Isabella, the latter of which deals most with the "badass girlboss" view of Isabella. They should also give you more sources. Isabella also features heavily in many biographies of Edward II, probably the standard is Seymour Phillips in the Yale Monarchs series.