#like okay so the books are undermining women

[mermaidsirennikita]

always wild to see people freak out over dark romance novels when you know they're also like... Spuffy shippers? or something along those lines?

I mean, I have no issue with that lmao, I've had ships that are on the same level, but I don't know, it's just like... are you romanticizing the thing you're shipping to the point that you don't recognize its own darkness, or are you fully aware of that and just knowingly hypocritical?

[sofoulandfairaday]

do you think the blacks had sexist beliefs? Do you think Sirius and Regulus did?

This is a very interesting question, especially because purebloods are often portrayed with very Victorian beliefs in fanfiction, which can only be partly inferred from the original books. I think that it was in the author's intentions to create a more equal society: there have been several female Ministers for Magic, for example, and in general magic would naturally be an equalizer, since it does not manifest differently in men and women in the books. However, the single female characters portrayed in the books, especially the adult ones, do not lend themselves well to this interpretation. Most of them exist inside very domestic settings - be it a school or a household - and the books promote Being A Mother as the pinnacle of womanhood.

(Which is coincidentally one of the reasons why I don't really love the existence of Delphi outside fanfiction. Bellatrix's sort of love is portrayed - in most literal, on-the-nose way possible - as the antithesis to maternal love. Making her yet another mother in the story undermines her character to me. But this is a whole other post.)

On top of that, the Blacks are very obviously conservative and aristocratic. So. As for the older Blacks (Walburga, Orion, and that whole generation), yes. Definitely yes. Perhaps in different ways, I think the wizarding world's brand on sexism would very much be interwoven with blood supremacy and seeing witches as the keepers of the blood, and the morals of a household, and that it is their very duty to marry and especially to produce heirs (pureblood babies! especially since those families seem to be fairly infertile). A woman who tries to escape that would be seen very badly, in my opinion.

As for Sirius and Regulus. Regulus' politics - sorry Reggie girlies - were very much conservative. And I refuse to believe that he didn't have mommy issues. I hc him as gay, honestly, and it is for the best because he would realistically be a bad boyfriend/husband. I cannot imagine him ever standing up to defend a possible wife to Walburga (or even Bellatrix) in a family dinner setting or the like - and any wife of his would suffer hell. Imagine marrying into the Black family as a woman and having them as in-laws. You would never be good enough. His wife would be chosen for him - pure of blood, someone worthy of producing heirs, and he probably wanted someone to take care of him in the way mommy never did. This poor hypothetical girl would have an additional child. In general, I think his views on women wouldn't be incredibly backwards but not even progressive. He'd be okay with you as long as you were the right kind of woman.

As for Sirius. He was a man born to an aristocratic british family in 1959. Make of that what you will. Sexism was just another of the prejudices he tried to unlearn during his lifetime - and meeting women like Lily, or his other non-pureblood female friends in Gryffindor, that would have definitely heard of the Women's Rights Movement and would have probably been feminists themselves - would have definitely helped. But it's hard for anyone (women included) to let go of all internal biases. He'd definitely still be the type to call a woman he dislikes a bitch, for example. Did he stand up of the common room table and give feminist rants on reproductive rights? Probably not. Did he fundamentally believe in equality and appreciated/supported strong women? Definitely.

TLDR: yes, in an appropriate way for age & setting. They were complex characters and their views on women probably reflected their overall politics. Regulus is part of a group of people who see society as divided into classes, where everyone gets assigned a role. Sirius was the opposite. Also, most people hold some sexist beliefs nowadays, in 2023, and I don't like imposing that sort of morality on fictional characters living in the 1990s.

[marzipanandminutiae]

Mind you I've never read LW but i kinda enjoyed the 2019 movie, why did you hate it? (Maybe i just wanna put Timothee Ch on a leash) feel free to go off 🌷

So, the costumes sucked from a historical perspective. Which would be less Objectively Bad and more Just Not My Thing...if the designers hadn't gone ON AND ON AT LENGTH about how ~Authentic~ they tried to make everything.

Didn't claim accuracy and didn't do accuracy: meh, whatever

DID claim accuracy and didn't do accuracy, AND won an Oscar for it: urge to kill rising

the hair design was particularly egregious, with the designer at one point saying they chose [checks notes] insane flyaways and half-up hair on adult women (who would have worn their hair entirely pinned up, for practical reasons and as a cultural marker of adulthood) because that seemed "more authentic than coiffures"

MORE AUTHENTIC

THAN THE WAY ACTUAL WOMEN BACK THEN

WORE THEIR ACTUAL HAIR

AS DEMONSTRATED IN PHOTOGRAPHS- EVEN CANDIDS -AND PORTRAITS

"blee bloo they didn't have hairspray!!!" THEY HAD POMADE. HAVING YOUR HAIR VERY SMOOTH WAS THE STYLE IN THE 1860S, EVEN FOR POOR WOMEN, AND MASSIVE FLYAWAYS ARE HUGELY IMPRACTICAL, AND NOT ALL FIXATIVES ARE HAIRSPRAY YOU ABSOLUTE-

[Marzi.exe has encountered a problem. please hold]

apart from the hair, there were fit issues and at least one case of Trying To Copy the 1994 Movie, But Worse (Amy's black and white dress in Paris).

1994. the pattern is soutache, a kind of applied trim done with flat cord that was very popular throughout the mid-late 19th century

2019. You cannot tell me the choice to have her in a white dress with black floral patterning, in effectively the exact same scene, was a coincidence.

also I'm pretty sure there was one shot with an actress visibly wearing Uggs. (EDIT- thankfully I am informed that this is a set photo and the Uggs were not visible in the finished film. i had forgotten this. good to know! leaving the pic there because STUPID HAIR and HATLESSNESS)

also the Pretty Pastel Princess Dresses (with overly fluffy attempts at bertha collars) and Matching Long Gloves (wrist gloves were popular for evening back then, and they were almost always white) in the Concord ball scene.

is it a Civil War-era ball, or is it a parade of "southern belles" at Cypress Gardens in 1995? leaning towards the latter.

once again, the choice to put Meg in pink for the ball instead of her book-described blue dress is something 1994 did first, and did better IMO

also Meg's 2015 Coachella wedding look, the fact that none of these girls from a poor family seemed to wear each other's old clothes ever, and the lazy choice to dress Jo in half-menswear instead of actually looking into menswear-inspired women's clothing in the era (which was a Thing!). but more than just the costumes pissed me off

they just...didn't seem to understand the era, or want to, or care? it was a bunch of little things that served to make it all more #relatable to modern audiences but ultimately undermined the setting:

Marmee telling a random young man she's never properly met to call her Marmee, because "everyone does." her DAUGHTERS call her that. her ACTUAL CHILDREN. who the hell else would? it's not a derivative of her name; it's a variant of Mama. Laurie can graduate to Marmee when he's an actual family friend

Jo wearing some of Laurie's clothing because "she stole it when they were hanging out in his room," according to an interview. um, NO NO AND NO, they are teenagers and that would distinctly not fly on several levels even in her progressive family. I might actually buy this if it were like "he gave them some clothes for an amateur theatrical and she kept them;" the actual Alcott sisters had a costume trunk for their plays, which is still on display at their house. but these writers clearly think a teenage boy and girl could be in his bedroom together unsupervised, for long periods of time, habitually, in 1860-whatever. which is absolutely incorrect

Jo saying "okay" in refusing Laurie's proposal. this is so tiny, I know, but while that term did already exist, it was a joke phrase only. this would be like saying "lol" while turning down your best friend's proposal today. once again, it's an example of Relatability mattering more than actually understanding the world these characters lived in

there are more, but I've blocked them out. I just really, really hated it on many levels

[malkaleh]

So @boleynecklace asked what Elizabeth (1998) and The White Princess might look like in the Tudors OT3 universe and okay, THOUGHTS (please bear in mind I haven’t actually seen The White Princess or read it but I have vibes from gifs)

So the White Princess is kind of completely flipped on it’s head because I don’t know if this universes PGreggs can hate The Tudors so much here (although I don’t know, she might manage it! I think her Anne Boleyn hate might be transferred to Bessie Blount?) just because uh, yeah.

But also women in Philippa Gregory novels cannot be friends ever so unfortunately the Ultimate Evil is still Margaret Beaufort :sighs: because she manipulated and murdered when EOY/Henry VII/Richard III were in a very happy triad and she actually murdered her grandchildren! And also got Richard killed because she wanted to be the Power Behind The Throne. But it’s okay because it turns out Elizabeth Woodville and EOY saved Richard with their magic powers and so actually, Henry was a pure beautiful York Child and unfortunately Arthur died because Cursed Tudor Blood or something.

(Also Anne Neville is obviously an evil bitch as well).

Elizabeth (1998) is such a different movie though. I think it might start with Elizabeth being appointed as her brothers advisor (official) after her fathers unofficial abdication in 1556 - at this point she and Robert are married and have a four year old daughter Anne (Nanette).

Francis Walsingham, determined to make England Protestant and Mary of Guise who is determined to make sure her daughter marries Prince Thomas both agree that assassinating Princess Mihrimah is the best idea and Walsingham persuades Robert of this. (This did not happen in universe historically Robert Dudley is screaming from the afterlife at this movie).

This attempt does not work. Robert, frustrated at not having a son and feeling as though he should have more power, throws himself into an attempt to undermine Elizabeth and get her removed from the privy council (this is also wrong because Robert was also on the privy council and also I AM SUPPORTING MY WIFE he yells). It does not work and the movie ends with Elizabeth telling Robert that he will never see their children or her again when she presents him with their twin sons (we will ignore that they have two more children)

The general consensus is that the chemistry is incredible/the performances are amazing but we are ignoring the second half of the movie.

Send me a piece of Tudor Era Media (or Period Drama in general) (TV show/book/movie)) and I’ll talk about what I think it might be like in The Tudors OT3 verse

[sluttypatrickstar]

after reading verity i have been vacuuming up colleen hoover drama. i have been injecting rant reviews into my veins. i absorb articles critiquing her work by osmosis.

there's something that's been bothering me about the whole issue though, and that's the way that various critiques respond to hoover's target audience. i'm not sure who her initial target audience was, but the people reading her books are largely teenage girls and young women thanks to the explosion in popularity of her work on booktok. some articles have accused critique of hoover's work as undermining the intelligence of young women and their capacity to distinguish between real life and fiction.

but here's the thing, for me – when something is repeated to you often enough in an uncritical manner, it starts to creep in. and maybe you don't even KNOW it's wrong in the first place – maybe the younger readers of her books don't recognise abusive behaviours as abusive at all. it takes time for us to learn what is and isn't okay.

so for me, i don't think that these books are negatively affecting young women because they're stupid. i don't think they ARE stupid. but you are not immune to the messages you are sent over and over and over by media and by society. and, as far as i can tell, in most of hoover's books, abusive behaviour and terrible men are portrayed as romantic gentlemen. women can "change them". women are worn down by these men and eventually they marry and predictably pop out some children. these are marketed as romance novels, not dark romance (where you'd be reading with a more critical lens!), and fall into well-trodden stories of falling in love and marrying and having babies. there's no indication that the thoughts and actions of these men are actually quite fucked up and that the women deserve better.

i think these books are damaging because this kind of messaging adds up and portrays this kind of behaviour as okay and as romantic. i mean fuck! who HASN'T had their idea of romance and the world warped by shitty media portrayals? especially for me as an autistic person, i tried to emulate the behaviour i saw and read about because i thought that was how real life worked! it was one of my only frames of reference for learning how the world and how society worked as i was growing up! and i imagine in a lot of ways this is probably similar for other people too. our expectations and understandings are set by the media we encounter.

i've gone on an unhinged rant now and i don't know where i was going haha. i just wanted to try and explain that, for me, i think we can critique the effects that media is going to have on its readers and that does not necessarily imply that we think those readers are stupid. i just think it's worth thinking about what kind of messages we're sending and repeating, uncritically, to younger audiences. (and heck, maybe even older audiences. not everyone's out here to read with a critical eye, especially in an easy and cosy genre like romance!!;)

tl;dr U Are Not Immune To Colleen Hoover

[clouds-of-wings]

I’ll chalk it up to Amy being angry at Sheldon for not being supportive of their son. I headcanon that Amy buried Sheldon’s old shirts somewhere in the dirt. She didn’t get rid of them but put them in a place where he least likely to look.

Doesn't really make it better to me tbh :/ It's just not how people should treat one another. If she's this ashamed of his "childish" interests, why did she marry him? If I felt like my hypothetical bf/husband was ashamed to be seen with me dressed the way I like to dress (excluding really formal events, I can understand not wanting to show up at a funeral with someone dressed in a comic book shirt), I would seriously question whether the relationship has a future. And if he got rid of the clothes he doesn't like to see on me behind my back... yikes. Very controlling behaviour.

It's not about the clothes themselves (though messing with someone else's personal property behind their back seems like a major boundary violation to me too), it's about her ranking superficial respectability over accepting and loving him the way he is, prioritizing society's rules over his (harmless) self-expression. It's often portrayed as cute and not so serious when a woman does it to a man, but honestly... not great either.

(This admittedly maybe bothers me more than it would bother a lot of other people because this kind of stuff used to be done to me so much (both the looks-policing and the "throwing away my stuff behind my back"), so I'm really allergic to it. But honestly, am I wrong? I think it's really not okay even if some people are willing to tolerate it - they still don't like it. And maybe it's easier to tolerate when you see it in a sitcom than if it happened IRL, but honestly... that's only because unacceptable behaviour is so normalized in sitcoms. It's like the way you may stop noticing a bad smell if it's always there.)

And thirdly, I think Amy policing Sheldon's dressing choices plays into this sitcom trope of women as scolds and killjoys who always try to cage men's free, fun-loving spirits. In TBBT I liked that Amy was quite eccentric herself and more nerdy than any of the other characters except for Sheldon. She dressed in a very unfashionable way that made Penny and Bernadette tear their hair out in frustration, had weird interests (remember her Victorian Christmas party? And the basket weaving workshop? She was fireworks!) and found Sheldon more, not less attractive due to his unusual personality (like in this, one of my favourite Shamy scenes). When she objected to his behaviour, it was usually about something that actually hurt others or she was voicing her own unmet needs (emotional, sexual or otherwise). I kinda hate to see that undermined and flattened into another relationship where the man is an immature child and the woman is the fun police. Amy and Sheldon's nerd4nerd romance was one of a kind.

[theevilmaninyourcomputer]

Goooood morning everyone, unfortunately, it's that time again. What time, you ask? Well, as you may or may not know I find blogging on my phone much easier than sitting down with a computer, so when I have to write a book report, I draft something up on the ol' tumblr alt (and I shave HOURS off of what would be a day long process, because I am a ridiculously slow writer). This paper is due in a week, so in the interest of getting it done before the 11th hour, I'll be posting it here for the whole world (5 people) to see. It's funny, everytime I do this I'm struck by how short the post looks. Doing this helps me overcome the creative roadblock that is MLA formatting. Okay, fuck, *cracking all my bones*-let's a-go.

In Their Eyes Were Watching God, Zora Neale Hurston tackles intersectionality. Janie struggles to exist as a free-spirited, independent black woman, fighting against the stringent societal expectations of the Jim Crow South. Men police her appearance, dictating how she is allowed to present herself-when she can speak, what she can say. Janie's intelligence is undermined, and she is treated like an incompetent object by every man in her life. Her first two husbands, for example, refuse to acknowledge her as an equal. Joe "Jody" Starks, Janie's second partner, constantly puts Janie down, "he wanted her submission and he'd keep on fighting until he felt he had it" (Hurston 71). Janie assumes the roll of the quiet, devoted wife, but she silently resents Jody. When he dies of kidney failure, she runs off with a 20-something boy named "Tea Cake." While Tea Cake does legitimately respect her, there's still an unbalanced power dynamic in their relationship. When Tea Cake grows jealous of another man, "He whip(s) Janie. Not because her behavior justified his jealousy, but it relieved that awful fear inside of him. Being able to whip her reassured him of his posession" (Hurston 17). Tea Cake does feel that, on some level, he owns Janie, albeit less than Jody.

This brings me to my next point (it doesn't, but there's no way for me to naturally transition into talking about this), which is the thematic importance of Janie's hair. Janie's primary struggle is one of freedom-financial freedom, sexual liberation; freedom to live on her terms, go where she pleases, wear what she wants. Janie's hair is her most striking, beautiful feature. It's symbolic of her autonomy, and a means of self-expression . As Janie ages, she is (as so many women are) waved off as an old biddy, undesirable, like a carton of milk past its expiration date. People are appalled when she continues to behave like a young woman, when she doesn't immediately tie her hair up and trade her overalls for a mumu (or whatever the early 20th century equivalent to a granny dress is). Janie is unconventional, in the sense that she does not 'act her age.'

I referenced the theme of 'sexual liberation,' (which is arguably one of the most important themes of the novel, although it's mostly subtextual), often when Janie speaks of "marriage" she is referring to, I believe, marital relations. This is intruiging, and adds another layer of complexity to an already rich story. Sexual liberation, as it pertains to women's rights, is directly relevent to the subject matter in TEWWG. It's heavily stigmatised, yet simultaneously such a pure, adolescent thing to desire. Janie spends the latter half of the novel as a middle aged women, making up for her lost youth with Tea Cake. When she finally does, you know, pollinate his flower, it isn't framed as being sinful or wrong, as her grandmother led her to believe. This brings the story full circle, in a sense. TEWWG begins with Janie, "getting her womanhood" and being thrust, unwillingly, into the adult world at the ripe old age of 17. After years of repressing her sexual desire, it is ultimately very empowering for her to, not just take part in, but initiate the sexual act. Especially considering the horrible circumstances under which she was concieved. When she has intercourse with Tea Cake, it's beautiful. Tea Cake is springtime, he is the peach tree, and the bees. At long last, Janie really does have her womanhood about her, and in the end-it isn't so bad.

Ugh my head hurts.

[lesbianboyfriend]

Would absolutely LOVE to hear your thoughts on King Lear...very conflicted about her my ownself

yes okay! so i haven’t studied lear in a bit and when i did it was very much in the style of russian formalism with like a tiny dash of new criticism?? which is so fucking funny to me…everyone in my lit theory class was like i HATE formalism this is so weird why would you do this and i was like ah. this is what i spent the entirety of my high school years doing i’m basically an expert on doing this

sorry okay tangent my point is that these thoughts are largely just going off of what i remember and that i’ve not done any like serious scholarly analysis of lear!

anyways the post i made the other day about how it could be good if it was good was mostly a flippant post moreso about the structure than the narrative of lear—it does this strange thing where it has an engaging plot but a significant portion of that plot takes place off stage and then a character tells you about it which was deeply deeply frustrating for me

narratively, though, i think the plot of lear is very very interested in reproducing and upholding dominant structure. we can see this through the way things like the family, the monarchy, and the body are portrayed.

despite the fact that lear seems like a pretty shitty dad, we’re still expected to be against regan and goneril for? wanting the inheritance owed to them? and of course the fact that they are women makes this even more unthinkable. when they are given this inheritance and try to exercise the power they’ve been rightfully given, lear still expects to hold the dominant position of authority as patriarch of the family and when that is challenged, it villainizes them even further.

and of course its obviously interested in positioning the monarchy as correct and just and not interrogating that in any way—although like mentioned before it’s clear that there is a specific way in which the monarchy is meant to operate that upholds patriarchy and the family (re: legitimacy of birth and edmund)

perhaps most interesting to me (<- disability studies guy) is the disabled body in king lear? the discreditation of lear not on the basis of the fact that he sucks so much or you know, his shitty policies, but because of his madness. and particularly the fact that this madness was “induced” by his daughters. there’s something fascinating to me about regan and goneril undermining him to the court as he becomes undermined to the readers…the way the narrative of discreditation is reproduced on multiple levels.

it’s also striking to me that disability exists solely as a sort of punishment. lear’s madness is a metaphorical punishment for trusting the wrong daughters. gloucester’s blindness is a physical punishment from regan and goneril for his loyalty to lear. the disabled body exists only to punish and discredit.

honestly the thing about lear is that from a deconstructive perspective there’s SO much to bite into. like this is not even getting into individual characters and their roles within the narrative, like there’s soo much to examine even furthering this and beyond this. like yes it very much exists within the dominant ideology but i think that means it gives a lot of doorways into examining and critiquing the structures of that ideology. so i honestly do enjoy me some lear, i just wish that someone had told shakespeare show don’t tell because by the fifth time someone ran onstage to tell me that a character had died off stage i was ready to throw my book.

anyways like i said this was very much off the top of my head i would love to hear anyone else’s thoughts on this or on other parts of lear !!

[nsfwhiphop]

Incoming Text for @natalieportman:

Subject title: I need to take some time off to focus on my writing. Can you accept my absence?

Hey Natalie!

I want to disappear from social media for a few months. I want to focus on my writing, I want to write screenplays and books, and I don’t want to be distracted by this blog anymore.

Can you explain this to your friends Gal Gadot and Charlize Theron? Thanks.

I need some time to focus on my work. I think I have said enough and done enough these past seven months. I’ve been active on social media for the past seven months, creating a lot of content for my readers. Now, I’m taking a break—a well-deserved break.

I think I have earned some me time. It’s time for me to focus on my writing. I want to write some epic screenplays and books, and I can’t do that if I spend the majority of my time on this blog.

Don’t forget that I promised your friend @sophie_mas to write award-winning screenplays, and I have to get to work now.

Also, can you warn your friend Sophie Mas that I have a lot of haters in the African-American community? They will try to seduce her with invitations to parties, and it is your duty to protect her. She must never accept their party invitations. The only reason these African-American men and women are calling her is to undermine me—they come with an agenda to sabotage my friendship with Sophie Mas.

Tell your friend Sophie Mas that I have decided to be loyal to her because she is a French citizen, and I’m a French citizen too. I want to make sure she wins awards with my work. Sophie Mas is my friend too.

Also, you should know that back in May on Twitter, I made a promise to Rosario Dawson (@rosariodawson) to give her my screenplays. However, I changed my mind in July because she is unfaithful to me, and I have chosen someone else to replace her. Rosario can find screenplays elsewhere; I refuse to be loyal to her artistically.

What does "loyal artistically" mean, you ask? Well, it means that I’m loyal to Rosario as a friend but disloyal to her as an artist.

Loyal to Rosario as a friend - Means Yes.

Disloyal to Rosario as an artist - Means No.

I can eat a burger with Rosario as a friend, but I can never share my intellectual property with her because I’m a disloyal artist like that.

Now, I know Sophie Mas will ask me: “Who is the lucky lady that gets to own your intellectual property? Who is she? Do we know her?”

Angelo says: “Yes, you know her. Her name is Gina Torres (@iamginatorres).”

Sophie Mas says: “I know Gina. Isn’t she the ex-wife of Laurence Fishburne?”

Angelo says: “Yeah, she is the ex-wife of Morpheus.”

Sophie Mas says: “So, all your future screenplays will be owned by Gina Torres, am I right?”

Angelo says: “Yes, I’m sure Gina will be super happy to hear this news. All she has to do is sign them and put her name on the screenplays I’ve written.”

Sophie Mas says: “Okay, I will let her know. Anything else I should know?”

Angelo says: “Yes, I will work only with two directors:

1- @gerard.mcmurray (𝐆𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐑𝐃 𝐌𝐂𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘 🎬)

2- @GPBmadeit (Gina Prince-Bythewood)

I will agree to work only with these two film directors and no one else."

So, here’s a recap:

Gina Torres (@iamginatorres) signs all the screenplays.

@GPBmadeit (Gina Prince-Bythewood) directs all my movies.

@gerard.mcmurray (𝐆𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐑𝐃 𝐌𝐂𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘 🎬) directs all my movies.

Two women named Gina and one man named Gerard. These three people are my dream team in Hollywood. I hope you discuss our future projects with them.

Just know that my film projects are going to be worth a lot of money, and it’s better to have my dream team ready to handle all the box office success. I will refuse to work with anyone else; I’m loyal to my dream team.

MountainA production company will become our home, and we will build a portfolio of films within your film company.

I decided to be loyal to Natalie Portman’s film company because she is my friend, and I know how much she needs my creativity to be owned by her film company MountainA.

I will be loyal to MountainA because Natalie is my friend, and I don’t want to turn my back on my friend when she needs me the most.

Penélope Cruz, Salma Hayek, Marion Cotillard, Charlize Theron, Julianne Moore, and Mila Kunis will join your film company. It’s like our spaceship now. We will make movies together as a team. MountainA company is our home now.

Listen, Natalie and Sophie Mas! I expect you to collect the screenplays from my manager Jamel Debbouze in Paris. Once I finish writing my screenplays, I will give them to Jamel Debbouze.

Once you have the screenplays, you will give them to Gina Torres (@iamginatorres), and she will take care of the rest with the two directors, Gina Prince-Bythewood and Gerard McMurray.

It’s a very simple process that will make our lives easy for the next decade. We will make many movies together until 2035, hoping there is no nuclear blast.

Also, I forgot to tell you how we will fund our future films. Here are our investors, and I expect you to call Jackie Chan to help you find the funding with AliBaba company.

Here is what you should do: You should call Jackie Chan and ask him to help you sign a multi-film deal with @JackMa, the Chinese billionaire’s film company Alibaba Pictures. Here is the wiki page: Alibaba Pictures. (Click on the blue link)

IG- (@juliannemoore): Your friend Julianne Moore should help you prepare this deal with the BEST LAWYERS in Hollywood. Tell them that you wish to sign a multi-picture deal with Alibaba Pictures.

In the movie industry, multi-picture deals are agreements between a film studio or production company and a filmmaker, actor, or other talent that involve committing to work on a certain number of films together. These deals are common in Hollywood and help establish long-term relationships between studios and talent.

Here is how multi-picture deals generally work:

Commitment to Multiple Films: The talent agrees to work on a specified number of films for the studio over a certain period of time. This could involve acting, directing, producing, or a combination of these roles.

Financial Terms: The financial terms can vary widely depending on the bargaining power of the talent involved. Typically, these deals involve a guaranteed minimum payment per film, along with potential bonuses based on the film’s performance (such as box office revenue or critical acclaim).

Creative Control: The deal may outline the level of creative control the talent will have over the films, including input on the script, casting decisions, marketing strategies, and other aspects of the filmmaking process.

Sequels and Spin-offs: Provisions for sequels, prequels, spin-offs, or related projects to the original films are often included. This helps studios plan for future projects and maintain continuity in franchises.

Exclusivity: Some deals may include exclusivity clauses that prevent the talent from working on competing projects with other studios during the term of the deal.

Duration: The duration of multi-picture deals can vary, ranging from a few years to a decade or more, depending on the number of films covered and the parties involved.

Negotiation: Negotiating a multi-picture deal can be complex, involving agents, lawyers, and studio executives. Both parties seek to protect their interests while finding terms that are mutually beneficial.

Overall, multi-picture deals in the movie industry are a way to secure talent for multiple projects, provide financial stability for both the talent and the studio, and foster long-term relationships that can lead to successful collaborations over time.

I hope you will prepare for your financial independence and make the wise decision of signing a multi-picture deal with @Jackma’s Alibaba Pictures. That is how you become independent in Hollywood. You don’t need anyone to fund your films; you are independent now, thanks to Jackie Chan’s support. You will sign this multi-picture deal with Alibaba Pictures.

Okay, this is the end of our conversation.

I will disappear now until September and focus on writing my screenplays.

I wish everyone a wonderful summer holiday.

Meanwhile, I will have no days off—no summer vacation for me. Only writing from sun up to sun down.

Thank you for your time, Natalie. You are kind of my boss now—yeah, kind of.

Your virtual friend and guardian angel,

Angelo.

P.S.:

Synopsis of the Letter:

The sender, Angelo, informs Natalie Portman of their intention to take a break from social media to focus on writing screenplays and books. Angelo requests Natalie to communicate this decision to Gal Gadot and Charlize Theron and emphasizes the need for personal time after being active online for seven months.

Angelo highlights the importance of protecting Sophie Mas from their detractors and explains the artistic loyalty switch from Rosario Dawson to Gina Torres. The letter outlines Angelo’s commitment to working exclusively with directors Gina Prince-Bythewood and Gerard McMurray and establishing a partnership with MountainA production company.

The sender requests that Natalie and Sophie Mas collect the screenplays from Angelo's manager in Paris and facilitate their handover to Gina Torres. Angelo provides a plan for funding future films through a multi-picture deal with Alibaba Pictures, facilitated by Jackie Chan and Jack Ma, with legal assistance from Julianne Moore. The letter concludes with Angelo's intention to focus on writing until September and expresses loyalty to Natalie’s film company, MountainA.

[booksandstuff123]

Raced through this book in a day for a book club, and have been thinking on journaling on general media thoughts for a minute, so here’s my brain dump - full spoilers ahead!

- I felt early on that the father wasn’t the real killer and was being framed, but dismissed it as we got more of Chloe’s insistence to herself that she had seen him in the yard with the shovel, had been watching Lena at the fair, etc. 

- In that mindset though, it seemed almost too obvious that Daniel was the present killer, maybe the son of the original killer who got away? He’s too perfect, but always emerging from the darkness - of the surprise party, in the bedroom, waiting in the dark house, Chloe likens his hands pulling her protectively into the dark of the woods. There’s too on-the-nose descriptions of him wiping tomato juice off of a kitchen knife, or the last bit of red wine off the bottle. Until the end, it made me feel like how Chloe must feel, knowing there’s this certain danger in the dark, always watching, but knowing it’s too close to her heart for her to discover it until it’s too late.

- With the twist of it being Cooper, and through him Tyler, it really punched through what male “protectiveness” is supposed to look like. Daniel was actually a good protector - he saved his sister, he knew Cooper was the danger, he added the protective cloak of the security system right away, he moved quickly to add a cloak of marriage - but he was so used to hiding his protection that it was fully undermined at every step. If he had gone to the police, or told Chloe the truth about his and her families, things might’ve turned out okay. 

The male institutions that were supposed to protect her also failed - the police/detective specifically and the media, both in the articles previously written about her and literally as Tyler. 

And her dad protected Cooper, and Cooper protected Tyler, and Daniel protected his sister, to varying effects. Bert couldn’t protect Lena, despite working in the protection/alarm business, and is a danger to Chloe despite Daniel’s best intentions.

The theme of female protectiveness is more positive as a whole I think? Chloe is finally able to break the system of women covering for the secrets of the men in their life when she shoots Tyler and drugs Cooper. Her mom hides her dad’s/Coopers secret at the cost of suicide attempt, Daniel’s mom tolerates her abuse but is very open about it to Chloe, the mothers of the missing girls are the strong voice (vs husbands breaking down) living only in the “what is helpful now” present. At the end, the sister is “protecting” Daniel. All of this, of course, is set against the vulnerability of the girls who have gone missing, with only Lena having any agency by knowing and playing with the danger.

- Still trying to figure out the relationships with alcohol and pills. Chloe drinks wine often, and sometimes with pills (usually accidentally?) but there’s also physically uncomfortable descriptions of taking the pills dry. Her and Cooper both drink wine, Daniel’s dad drinks too much whiskey and it’s a measure of how angry he’s going to be, and Chloe’s dad only nurses a beer on a hot day - not to mention the fairground scene of Cooper, Lena, and Chloe drinking vodka. Chloe describes the pills as a mental safety net - she tells the one patient the knowledge of it being there is the useful part - and the drawer in her office is the ultimate mental safe space for her. But then she sneaks the pills into Cooper’s wine, and it’s his downfall. Diazepam is mentioned in her drawer, and is also what is used to drug the girls in the present.

- Control is another central theme. Cooper having control over the women he killed and Tyler. Chloe struggling to control her narratives, not wanting to give up the box at the police station, trying to psychology her own thoughts, when she is able to choose using pills vs when they are used against her/mixed with alcohol without her intending to. Their mom trying to take control by committing suicide, but instead losing all of her agency (tapping as communication/agency vs Chloe’s tapping for nervousness?). 

Overall a great read, 8/10

[d2kvirus]

12/2/23 Fact or Fiction

Statement #1: The audience will turn on Cody Rhodes before Wrestlemania. FICTION - I certainly don't see the WWE fans turning on Cody before WrestleMania, as realistically the only way he'd get people turning on him en masse between now and WM is if he acted particularly obnoxiously in the real world in much the same way Seth Rollins torpedoed his babyface run - however, it would not surprise me if murmurings of discontent did start to become noticeable sometime between SummerSlam and Survivor Series assuming he was still champion at that point, but they'd be guaranteed if he dropped the belt back to Reigns by MITB

Statement #2: Sami Zayn did the right thing by hitting Roman Reigns with that chair at Royal Rumble. FACT - If he didn't that seemingly endless beatdown of Kevin Owens might still be going on

Statement #3: You would love to see another Mountain Dew Pitch Black Match. FICTION - First of all, I genuinely hate it when the name of a match stipulation has a sponsor's name plastered all over it (with the possible exception of the Dominos Presents Nick Gage Carving Chris Jericho's Head Open With A Pizza Cutter Deathmatch), but in terms of the You're Off The Artistic Rollcall Pitch Black match the stip was borderline LOLTNA and I'm not sure there's too many people who could save it

Statement #4: Royal Rumble wins for wrestlers like Rhea Ripley and Cody Rhodes are wasted because they are obvious title contenders who could easily get a championship match at any time. FICTION - While there certainly have been wasted Rumble wins in the past given the winners would get title shots whenever they were available, most obviously Charlotte winning it in 2020 and Lesnar in 2022, this year's winners weren't a waste in particular Rhea's considering she's challenging for the SD Women's title which she wouldn't be awarded at any time given she's on the Raw roster, while Cody's works given he was coming back from injury so he gets a momentum boost off the back of it

Statement #5: You agree with Taz about the use of the term “banger” to describe wrestling matches. FICTION - While the word is certainly overused to the point that it starts to lose its meaning when you sometimes see it used two or three times per episode of Raw, Dynamite or SmackDown (okay, maybe not SmackDown...) it's hardly the most obnoxious term used by wrestling site. A better contender for that title would be "Column by Justin Watry"

Statement #6: Every Royal Rumble match needs someone who starts at the beginning to still be there in the end. FICTION - The fact that both of the 2023 Rumbles made the first entrant in the final two underlines the issue with having somebody going the distance every year: if you have somebody going the distance every year it stops being an impressive feat and becomes a trope, and the fact that we've had three entrants do this in the last three shows (Ripley and Gunther in 2023, Edge in 2021) in particular undermines the whole idea if it happens so often in a short space of time, especially when both the 2021 and 2023 shows used a lot of the same booking tropes in both Rumbles which basically meant you only needed to watch the one

https://411mania.com/wrestling/411-wrestling-fact-or-fiction-wwe-fans-turn-cody-rhodes-wrestlemania/

[watcherintheweyr]

Op is agonizingly correct, but also, furthermore

Do yall realize how *dangerous* of a precedent that Alicent (and Ned) almost set here?

They nearly set the precedent that anyone, from any house, can question, undermine, and forcibly change the succession **of a House that is not their own** purely based upon a child's appearance.

Let that sink in and then realize the absolute disaster that would erupt. Sansa or Robb could have been questioned by the Boltons and disinherited- they look more Tully than Stark so perhaps Lady Stark strayed! Duncan Targaryen, with his dark hair, could have been dragged from the succession before his untimely death, all because he looked nothing like his Targaryen father. Alyssa Targaryen who was born blonde with one green and one violet eye- from a white haired and lavender eyed father, and a blonde and blue eyed mother.

Like. This is not a smart precedent. There's a reason Ned failed and the consequences of the war of 5 Kings played out how it did. This is an absolutely irresponsible, dangerous precedent, and it has nothing to do with 'goodness' or 'morals' like Alicent loved to claim of herself.

It was weaponizing the sexism and abuse of women against Rhaenyra (and yeah, against Cersei, even though in her case it WAS correct- but remember that Ned *knew* these allegations would likely mean Robert would kill **all of the children.** Even Tommen and Myrcella.) And it was petty jealousy and it could have torn the realm apart just as effectively as the Dance did.

The Greens and Hightowers- and yes, Vaemond- had absolutely no business sticking their noses into Viserys and Corlys' wills. If Vaemond gave a fuck about Velaryon blood he would've championed Laenas daughers-

Except that disinheriting those boys, book AND show, would've fucked Baela and Rhaena over as well. Baela, due to Rhaenyra (and in book it's Rhaenyra and Laena who settled these betrothals) would have been queen of the seven kingdoms. Rhaena would have been Lady of the Tides. Velaryon blood would have flourished on the Throne and Driftmark. Not to mention, that regardless- Rhaenyras boys have Velaryon blood, as well as Baratheon ties, even without Laenor. Aegon the Conqueror's mother was a Velaryon, as was Jaehaerys' mother. Orys Baratheon was the half brother of the Conqueror, and Jocelyn and Boremund Baratheon were Jaehaerys the First's half siblings.

The attempts to disinherit Rhaenyras boys were borne of cruelty, jealousy, and greed, and by upholding Alicents rumors or spouting them as truth- you're stating you're okay with external houses pushing to disinherit children they have no ties to, children that are repeatedly and firmly claimed by all ACTUALLY RELEVANT parties, simply based on their coloration and bone structure.

Like... please gods sit and think about that for ten fucking seconds.

a rumored bastard and a proven, disinherited, legally illegitimate recognized bastard are not the same.

Rhaenyra’s sons are rumored bastards, i know the show has a lot of team green stans feeling bold but just as in the books, they are never legally considered bastards in the show either. they are speculated to be via their physical features and Laenor’s apparent sexuality, but since Laenor and the KING (btw Westeros is a absolute monarchy, meaning the king IS law) both claim all three boys as legitimate heirs, unless someone demands a medieval dna test, those kids are legally Laenor’s true sons.

this is apparently a very hard concept to understand for some, hell even Alicent in the show says something like “we can all tell” which fair point, but that is not proof enough. looks, accusations, and rumor are not the same as actual proof of adultery or bastardy.

someone i was having a “discussion” with used Joffrey as an example to point out a flaw in my logic, but ultimately proved my point. Joffrey was a rumored bastard. Ned himself had no more proof than Alicent does, just hair color and a hunch, so Joffrey was never legally disinherited from the line of succession. I hate to defend either of these men but King Robert never publicly disowned him and called him bastard, which is why Joffrey ascended to the Iron Throne. now the rumors did hurt, and caused huge political issues leading to the War of 5 Kings, which is exactly why Alicent and Team Green is so insistent that Rhaenyra’s children are illegitimate, they know they cannot legally or physically prove her children are bastards, especially when Laenor and the King are claiming them are true born, but they can spread the rumor and call into question Rhaenyra’s honesty and morality. think episode 8 when team green takes their chance with Vaemond to attempt a coup of sorts for the Driftmark Throne, why would the succession of Driftmark need to be settled if Rhaenyra’s sons are true born? why would Alicent / Otto need to make this decision in place of the sick king and mia lord of tides who both had already been stating Luke would inherit for years. it’s all apart of the scheme to tarnish Rhaenyra’s reputation as Vaemond has no other proof either, and promptly loses his head (both metaphorically and literally) by calling the recognized heir to the throne a whore and her children bastards with no proof in front of the whole court.

it is a political scheme on both sides, Alicent cannot prove anything, and Rhaenyra cannot disprove the rumors no matter how many times they are claimed as true born sons. Rhaenyra has to live in the comfort the law gives her, as legally her sons are seen as legitimate, and thus legally they are protected. and from an unbiased pov with both in universe and historical references, those kids might be bastards in actually but not legally.

Rhaenyra goes through hell to keep her children legally protected, not only for their sake but for hers because should the truth come out both her and Laenor would be seriously punished, i wouldn’t go as far as executed but that would depend on if Viserys was old and bed ridden or dead. which is why im making this incredibly long post repeating myself in every point. you can argue all day about Rhaenyra’s children and their parentage but i am making this to make it clear that her children are not *legally* bastards by Westeros law. in order for Jace, Luke, and Joffrey to be illegitimate bastards Laenor, Rhaenyra, Harwin, and/or Viserys would have to publicly acknowledge them as such and disinherit them. no, Laenor and Viserys dying do not magically make Rhaenyra’s children legal bastards either. they would, again, need to be claimed and proven as such and disinherited.

and at the end of it all, true or not true, the rumors made a lasting impact on the story. so much so this fandom is still debating this topic, and frankly i am dreading the season 2 release when all the bad takes and bad faith arguments start up again.

anyway other famous rumored bastards are in Targ history are:

Maegor

Daeron II

[butterflydm]

attempting to adjust min’s plotline to remove character arc contradictions

spoilers through Knife of Dreams

This is basically just me poking at one of the things in the second half of the series that bugs me and trying to figure out how to improve it.

Before I head into the Sanderson books, I was thinking again how utterly bizarre Rand and Min’s relationship is in context of all of the storylines that Jordan set up for Rand, because she manages to undermine so many of them:

Somehow, despite Rand firmly believing that being connected to him is a danger to everyone else that he cares about, it’s okay for everyone in Cairhien to know that Min is in his bed and we never really see him worry about things like her being called ~Lady Ta’veren~ by the Cairhienin nobles. Instead, there’s more focus on Min as a desirable object of lust and jealousy rather than any kind of implied danger she might be in from her position as his known lover.

Rand is supposed to be in a downward spiral about isolating himself away from his loved ones... except, of course, that Min is there 24/7 at this point and they are constantly having sex. I mean, I kinda agree that having Min there is basically like not having anyone there at all because of how she enables his paranoia, but the book series tries to balance the tightrope of Min clearly being useless at giving Rand emotional support but also telling us that, actually, she’s super-supportive and Best Girl (TM).

Rand struggles with the Seanchan and is out fighting against them, while Min withholds vital information about their forces (the sul’dam secret, which she learned in Falme along with Egwene, Nynaeve, and Elayne).

Rand struggles with the fear of Aes Sedai trying to control him, while Min hands his secrets over to one of the most controlling/bullying Aes Sedai that we’ve ever met (Cadsuane).

Just... this relationship makes NO narrative sense as written. And Rand’s story would have so much more punch in the later books if Min wasn’t there. Like, even if the main change were that he’d reconnected with Min in LoC and then freaked out about the Asha’man attack in TPoD and left her in Caemlyn along with Elayne and Aviendha after the bonding, his storyline would make so much more sense.

It is BIZARRE that his reactions with Min are somehow the exact opposite to his reactions when literally anyone else he cares about is in danger. And I’m not even talking about his other love interests alone here -- he also avoids spending time with the Two Rivers people who came along with Perrin in LoC for this reason.

And it is WILD how many times Min is directly in danger due to being around Rand and yet he DOESN’T send her away like we know he’s done in order to protect everyone else that he cares about - there’s the kidnapping in LoC; the Asha’man attack in TPoD; he directly brings her into incredibly dangerous situations TWICE in WH (traitor hunt & cleansing); he brings her into another dangerous situation in KoD -- was he TRYING to get her killed, lol? (this is another place where Min ends up feeling like a ‘desirable object’ rather than a character)

Just... Rand’s story with Min really makes zero sense in context with all of the rest of his storyline. What a weird, weird choice all this was on Jordan’s part.

And that’s not even getting into how lopsided the whole ‘fated three beautiful women romance’ thing ends up being, because I do think that’s more about how Jordan straight-up lost control of his narrative after TFoH and things just started sprawling wildly. If his pace had kept up, then it would have been a lot less uneven.

So, to expand on this idea to see how it would work, storywise:

“Like, even if the main change were that he’d reconnected with Min in LoC and then freaked out about the Asha’man attack in TPoD and left her in Caemlyn along with Elayne and Aviendha after the bonding“

This would have:

evened out the treatment of Rand’s relationships

meant that he actually WAS isolated during his self-isolation arc

given Min a chance to bond with co-girlfriends Elayne and (especially) Aviendha

meant that Min didn’t tell him about the Seanchan sul’dam secret because she literally never got the chance/had time after the Seanchan showed up again, instead of not telling him Because No One Tells Rand Anything

meant that instead of Min eagerly being Rand’s mood ring for Cadsuane and betraying his secrets to her, it could be non-lover Alanna instead who was sucking up to Cadsuane 24/7, which would make a lot more sense, because they’re both Aes Sedai and the power structure of the White Tower means that Alanna is supposed to submit to the much more powerful Cadsuane

So, how would that work, only changing that one main element.

LoC: Min arrives. Elayne & Aviendha go to Ebou Dar with Mat.

ACoS: Min and Rand sleep together for the first time, and then he basically runs away to conquer Illian (have him do this instead of moping in his quarters).

TPoD: Rand self-isolates during the assault against the Seanchan, fails against them. Returns to seek out Min for comfort and then, boom, there’s the Asha’man attack. This attack makes Rand react the usual way he reacts when people he cares about are in danger because they’re too close to him, and he wants Min to go somewhere safe, instead of the out-of-character “let’s keep throwing my girlfriend into danger because I’m “too weak” to protect her by sending her away” reaction he actually has in the books only with Min and with no one else that he cares about. (and I mean, I don’t even like Rand’s self-isolation protocol; I feel like it’s very unhealthy, but I would like the narrative to be consistent here in order for me to actually take Rand’s downward spiral seriously)

WH: Triple-bonding, but Rand leaves Min behind in Caemlyn. This means that Rand actually has a valid reason not to know that Elayne is pregnant (among other things), because Min stayed back in Caemlyn.

CoT/KoD: for the love of all that is holy, make this a single book. Anyway, Min-Elayne-Aviendha bond (emotionally) while Rand ACTUALLY self-isolates and gets hurt because of his self-isolation during the “Tuon” meeting (instead of getting hurt because of Min using sex to manipulate him into taking her to the meeting)

Much more balanced and it makes more narrative sense with Rand’s storyline. Min would get page-time with Rand much more equal with the other two women this way -- instead of playacting as Rand’s jealous wife, she would be spending time with Elayne & Aviendha for most of WH/CoT/KoD.

(side note: I was skimming through my reread for other reasons and found pretty much the exact moment when I stopped liking Min in my reread - chapter one of The Fires of Heaven is when she begins to be insufferable for me to read about, it looks like, when she’s whining about her fate even as she wants to race forward to complete it, which was also one of the things that annoys me about Mat in the Mat-Tuon relationship. If your fate makes you so miserable at least TRY to fight it. Don’t whine about its inevitability even while you are working your hardest to force it to happen; that just makes you annoying. I’m guessing this is bullshit “yes heterosexual marriage makes everyone miserable and constantly complain about their spouses But You Must Do It Anyway To Exist In Society” unhealthy marriage culture - being miserable is NOT a requirement in marriage and if your relationship makes you miserable that’s probably a sign it’s not a good relationship! But, yeah, it looks like my relationship with Min is all downhill from that point in the story)

[thewuzzy]

They just released this excerpt from Shonda’s new book “Inside Bridgerton” where she and another executive producer talk about Colin. The way that neither of them even understand his character. Talking about how he got honor and a savior complex. As if he wasn’t the one being scammed left right and center and was a prick when Anthony asked about why he was taking out so much money for that scam.

that's fucking hilarious 😂

Colin does have a sense of honour...but only in the deeply misogynistic old fashioned sense; that is, the one where women in his social orbit are helpless possessions whose purity and innocence he needs to defend for the sake of his own reputation.

It really isn't made clear in the show at what point Colin realised Lord Featherington was a scam, and I do think he was initially in serious danger of falling for it. Anthony is a chauvanist patriarch who controls the family finances then resent his siblings for not sharing the burden but my GOD was I pissed when Colin just ran off with a wad of cash without even letting him know!!!

He treated Penelope like an object when he concocted his covert plot to "save her family's reputation" without ever thinking to involve her --- even though this issue deeply materially affected her, NOT him. I can't imagine the pressure Penelope was under, and yet he never even considered to ask her how she felt about it or what she knew. He's a piece of shit.

It would never occur to Colin in a thousand years that Mrs Featherington could be involved with the scam, or that Penelope might already know about it, because he doesn't see women as humans capable of agency or rational thought. It would never occur to him to ask them if they are okay, because he sees women as empty vessels, whose only feelings are projections of his own. This is why he continued to delude himself around Marina even after her marriage. This is why he will never, ever be able to recognise that Penelope loves him unless he decides that he loves her first. This is why despite Eloise's obvious unhappiness and jealousy, it never occurred to him to ask if she wished to accompany him or even VISIT him in Europe with a female chaperone (which absolutely was within the realms of respectability at the time, if unusual). Because women only feel what Colin feels.

(This is another difference with Anthony. Anthony fully recognises that the women around him know and think and feel things, and crucially that women can disagree with him. That's why he verbally spars with them, and gets pissed with when they undermine the sexist or stupid roles he's trying to enforce for himself and the family. Whereas Colin....doesn't even talk to them.)

Honestly, based on his behaviour around his siblings I don't think it's just entrenched misogyny. He is so staggeringly unobservant and careless with others that I think he actually doesn't have a theory of mind about other people.

Thank you nonny!

[alectology-archive]

ACoS chapters 5, 6, 18 partly, 27:

(since those are the chapters where Faile and Berelain makes appearances)

Me before starting the reread: I’ll try to approach this with an unbiased opinion (<- lying liar who lies because she read the title “A broken crown” and thought that was a very cool chapter name for Rand’s POV and then realised it was actually Perrin’s POV and decided that Perrin is very melodramatic and annoying)

I went ahead and made a wholeass gif just because he was annoying me that much, if you were wondering how well this reread went. 

I guess this counts more as reading the interesting things that other characters have to do or say since I sort of skimmed the chapters more than rereading it because I’m not sure I could survive that.

- I’d managed to find a soft spot for Min this past month or so but she’s... still wincing after dumai’s wells?? why didn’t you let an aes sedai heal you, girl. I’m aware this is probably not her fault. I don’t feel particularly rational now because I’m annoyed by how she exists to make Rand feel Guilty and serves no narrative purpose as a character besides Damsel in Distress. ugh.

Perrin’s first (1) opinion is already setting my teeth on edge. shut the fuck up, Perrin. I know the books and fandom like to poke at Mat acting indignant about being a lord and developing a taste for finery - I mean, he can afford it so I don’t see what the problem with indulgences are - but he’s a very empathetic person and always treats servants and soldiers with a lot of respect! He understands the motivations which guide them and never begrudges them for acting based on fear! Not everybody can survive standing by their principles - and sometimes they just don’t have the power to do so. I think I’m particularly annoyed by the fact that this observation follows his notice of servants choosing to wear a certain house’s colours while not really making a similar or more critical remark about the nobles who also accepted Colavaere’s rule.

I also just hate the way Perrin’s inner monologue sounds. Not my cup of tea. It’s not just the whining - it’s even the sort of vocabulary, he uses. I get the impression RJ is trying to push for the “he’s just a humble blacksmith” angle with it, but Perrin... very much has a taste for receiving respect that he thinks he deserves. He lords his power over the more capable women in his plotline and prevents them from doing anything Actually Useful, so. 

Rand was so sexy for this. Brandon Sanderson wanted this for him when he wrote the gathering storm. His downspiral was done okay, but it failed to hit the mark because he was too afraid to really push Rand’s buttons or isolate him from Min in any meaningful manner because he clearly loved her best out of Rand’s girlfriends. And liked the idea of him having sex with her (which is also an RJ problem, let’s be clear).

Like, again. RJ sets the mood so well. He knows how to make you feel the sort of dark vibes radiating off Rand when he’s slipping into Dragon Reborn Mode. 

- goddamn, can Perrin learn to think about anything except Faile. 

- Perrin: *notices details like the asha’man not sweating only because he has his wolf powers*. Also Perrin: why don’t the people in the hall realise the men are channelers?

Yeah, this paragraph fundamentally highlights my issues with Perrin and Min as characters. Min is always trying to insert herself into situations that would undermine Rand’s image and always tries to make everything about her (not pictured here, but it’s fully what she does in WH-KoD). She doesn’t have the political acumen or mind necessary to survive being Rand’s girlfriend and does nothing to try and remedy that - I was never sold on her interest in philosophy, and it didn’t help matters that she always behaves like a fourteen year old. On a similar note, Perrin is self-absorbed, has no sense for politics and doesn’t have to apply himself to learning the intricacies of taking care of people or navigating Daes Dae’mar the way Rand does. Sure, Rand got away with a bunch of silly Daes Dae’mar moves in TGH - but that was partly for comedic effect and he eventually learns the necessary skills! Unlike Perrin! Who only scrapes by because of the girls politicking on his behalf! Ugh.

I am so, so sad that randlayne didn’t get the screentime it deserved :/

- Perrin is the kind of guy who essentially treats Rand with a “You’re depressed? You could just stop being depressed!” attitude that I really loathe. Compare and contrast this with Mat patiently listening to Rand ramble about his duties in chapter 5 of lord of chaos. Perrin could never!!!! Mat really is the better friend of the pair but gets the worser reputation for having the unreliable narrator thing going on more strongly than any of the other characters.

- Have I mentioned that I love Annoura? I love Annoura. Rand’s relationship with Annoura and Merana are definitely some of my favourite Rand/Aes Sedai dynamics. Also Annoura and Berelain have romantic history because I say so.

Once again... why does Perrin generally talk about women like this, lol. It always sounds like he’s pleasantly surprised to discover that women have brains. 

Unlike Perrin, I would choose to appreciate Faile for her political ability instead of her beauty after she helped Rand corner Colavaere into admitting her crimes. It seems Perrin is only capable of appreciating her beauty and pretty much hates everything else about her (why did he marry her, then?)

- To stop myself from making 10 more notes about how RJ Writes Rand I’m going on record to say I love how RJ writes Rand in this chapter. The parts where he’s talking to Lews Therin... the one where he breaks and remakes the crown... this scene is iconic from beginning to end. It might have been one of my favourites if Colavaere’s plot wasn’t bogged down by Rand’s inability to kill women, but that unfortunately affects my enjoyment of it to a great degree.

The little nuances and subtleties and wording choices make all the difference! Which is why Sanderson’s writing is so severely lacking - the very arrangement of his words in a sentence grates on my nerves, lol. I think this is also my cue to mention that Rand is one of those characters who’s extremely enjoyable to read from another person’s perspective even if you don’t like his POVs, specifically. 

This is so funny. I would have loved to see a proper Faile/Rand conversation in the books.

I, as a person, lie constantly and all the time and just for fun sometimes so Perrin should shut up. I’ll probably use this gif whenever he annoys me henceforth.

Reasons I love Mat: he’s a “women who are dangerous and can probably kill me” appreciator

Reasons I hate Perrin: he barely qualifies as a feminist

- the language of fans that Saldaeans have going on seems so random tbh, sdjfdfgdf. 

- I hate how clingy Min is. She’s always physically attached to Rand in a way literally no other female character is with their love interests.

- Perrin has learnt a little bit of the language of fans? I find that hard to believe. He literally refused to take lessons in Daes Dae’mar at one point, I think? Maybe it helps that it’s a cultural thing and not a Manipulating People thing although I disagree with the books that he’s a good leader.

- Wheel of Time insults are so bad, and I’m always periodically reminded of this fact. Why are they so bad. 

- I... do think RJ is trying to do something with Perrin’s character and his paranoia for Faile’s safety specifically because Elayne and Min don’t get the same treatment - but I don’t quite understand why or what. The show’s introduction of Laila made sense, in that context, but is also one of its This Shouldn’t Be A Thing In the First Place choice (the unnecessary Perrin/Egwene/Rand love triangle which doesn’t serve any real narrative purpose, for instance, which fully made me cringe a bit because it gave me war flashbacks to some of the terrible YA books I’ve read - and it really does Laila dirty in the process too). The show should’ve just entirely done away with Perrin’s overprotectiveness because I don’t care for that sort of thing when it’s done in such a heterosexual manner - I would’ve vibed more with it even if it had been a Rand/Elayne thing because Elayne and Ilyena are supposed to look slightly similar.

you literally did not give Berelain a proper no. Is there some commentary about sexual harassment here? I don’t know, but all three ta’veren definitely face varying degrees of harassment at different points in the series. I would have to do a proper reread to really dissect my feelings on whether Berelain respects Perrin’s boundaries or feels Perrin is encouraging her, but I’ll hopefully get a vague idea about what direction my feelings skew towards as I continue to read. RJ was probably just pulling the sexy woman trope and trying to get Perrin to pick between really applying himself to his duties and dithering around because he disliked the idea of married life and its constraints (answering the call, more thematically speaking, I suppose), but that’s just me guessing at this point.

(which are again major Mat themes but somehow the fandom seems to have decided that Mat disliking the idea of marriage is bad but Perrin being involved in a disastrous one and Rand not marrying the literal person he got pregnant is not a big deal. what.)

I just know faile and berelain had hate sex.

(although I definitely don’t vibe with Faile’s insults for Perrin - they always really made me uncomfortable. This paired with Perrin getting violent enough to scare Faile into locking herself into a room... idk what RJ was doing.)

- The sentiment of Perrin wanting to lie down and die on Faile’s grave if something happened to her would’ve been really romantic if it had been applied to any couple except literally them.

- Faile is now asking Perrin to mourn her for a decent period of time if she were to die and then instructs him to take a new wife. Perrin is able to smell that this is the truth but says that he doesn’t believe her anyway. There is absolutely no winning with him, wow. 

Rand saying “I need to know” twice. He desperately needs friends and allies he can rely on and he’s afraid he’ll get a rejection and is starting to equate it with an ending of friendships :/

- On principle I agree with Perrin asking Rand to not treat the Aes Sedai the way he does - and it’s good that it’s explicitly challenged, especially for the men reading the series, since a lot of them don’t have the reading comprehension necessary to pick out that what Rand did to the Aes Sedai was not being framed as a good thing. But I’m also very annoyed that Perrin practically has no concern for Rand and doesn’t comprehend the fact that his choices stem from his traumatic experiences! He’s severely lacking in the empathy department.

This is technically from chapter 7, but I need to keep a track of the number of ‘cutting Rand’s hand’ jokes RJ pulls the same way he makes several strangulation jokes with Mat. I think my eotw count for strangulation jokes was 3 before I paused my reread?

- Rand blushes a lot in the books even post-book 4, lol. I’m kind of surprised by the frequency - but again, RJ is fully writing a comedy as much as a fantasy. 

- And Berelain’s angry confrontation of Rand after being asked to leave is the last we see of her in Cairhien! I’m devastated! I loved all the politicking and governance she did in Cairhien and her relationship with the Wise Ones was so sweet in lord of chaos. I really miss this era of her character. Having reread the throne room scene where Rand confronts Colavaere, Berelain’s dismissal was fully contrived - RJ wanted it to happen, so it happened! Dobraine is the first and only noble who speaks out against Colavaere which is what prompts Rand to really appoint him as Berelain’s replacement - and while I like him, the fact that Berelain is the one being displaced because of him makes me really mad. This is fully operating on the same levels of I Need X Plot To Happen as Mat being conveniently replaced by Bashere in lord of chaos, too. And all the girls conveniently forgetting to tell Rand that Mat was trapped in Ebou Dar - while I was reading the series I thought Rand waged a war on the Seanchan because he learnt that Mat was trapped there - so it was sort of baffling to see Mat’s absence never being brought up again. 

- Anyway, onto chapter 27. “To be alone” is once again a title that would’ve made me very sad if it was one of Rand’s POVs - but it’s Perrin’s.

Again, Perrin/Faile is written in such a bafflingly convoluted manner. I would think RJ was trying to discuss domestic abuse - except I’m pretty sure he definitely wasn’t.

- Sulin leaving Rand to accompany Perrin is also one of the silliest things to happen in the books, wtf.

- Oh hello! Seonid! Edarra! Masuri! Selande & co! 

- Why do the asha’man do salutes? lol. I suppose RJ is trying to indicate that they’re more of a military institution than the White Tower is.

???? why does he talk like that all the time? 

But I’m... done with his sections of the book! It was very short, all things considered - especially because I skipped the first few chapters where Faile and Berelain didn’t make an appearance and skimmed the passages where he was monologuing to himself. But I didn’t quite find the chapters where Berelain was actively pursuing him - I thought those chapters were in ACoS but I’m assuming they’re probably in LoC. I might try to pick it up tomorrow and figure out how I feel about the whole Perrin/Berelain situation.

[horizon-verizon]

just one more thing (or three in one) and for posterity. It all comes down to HotD leeching the moral value of the Dance and undermining the entire point about it being about patriarchy, not just small folks. This is the real reduction.

Are you saying that the effect on women doesn't matter?

Rhaenyra's ruling sets a stronger precedent for female rule/leadership also moving us a little away from all sorts of abuses toward women and girls since they'd be a little more "entrusted" to become leaders and shape their society. It's about the very conception of women (not just noble women but the entire gender) being entrusted to lead like men, or that their bodies should be respected. I remind you that it is custom and socially righteous in Westeros (except Dorne) for a man to beat his wife esp if he suspects her of infidelity. Megelle, Aegon IV's mistress, was killed by her blacksmith husband after Viserys II sent her back. This is what Queen Rhaenys wanted to stymie through the rule of thumb and rule of six--not just to protect nobles but peasant women.

There are ideological stakes here, as well. since you don't seem to know, both Targ and nonTarg women have lost power/been more abused/sidelined/etc. since the Dance until we have Naerys and Rhaella. Jeyne Arryn's last will for one person to rule after she was disrupted when this could have been avoided if Rhaenyra ruled.

A) I wasn't blaming you for your grammar, I didn't care about that part. Not all of us have a great command of the English language. I make so many grammar and spelling mistakes here and on Twitter, and I am a native speaker.

My things were:

So you say "I'm not passionate"; "I don't have the knowledge"; "I don't remember what the blacks did"...but you continue to try to say that the blacks definitely did more stuff...okay? Yes, we all have moments where we forget or don't have a good grasp on details in stories, anecdotes, etc. The issue here is that you claimed to have information in opposition to the idea presented, but you really didn't and you tried to make it as if you did.

I really did want to see what you mean by "they are the same" and what else you thought the blacks did that should be on this list, as you said when you said: "The blacks definitely committed more than just 4 war crimes".

B) Even if you were not defending the greens (a separate thing), I am not talking about someone explicitly defending the greens but someone insisting that there were more crimes done that belonged on this list. I was pointing out how you thought the blacks did more crimes or war crimes. But you refused to bring up examples and:

I am not gonna sit down and list all of the stuff out cause frankly, I don't have time for it and neither am I that passionate about the entire greens vs blacks who comitted more crimes thingy

I'm not as well aware as you are with the books even though I've read them too

I don't wanna argue based on what I "remember" cause I'll probably be wrong since it's has been awhile

This is also all self-contradiction. "I am not gonna sit down and list all of the stuff" implies you do have the info. In the next two sentences make it as if you don't. Which is it?

C)

would you be choosing sides when the entire country and innocent people are affected because some people are fighting for power?

Tbh, yes, if I thought I'd sin or benefit more from one side over the other, or that society as a whole would. Which is why, if I didn't know what the end was--like any other smallfolk/noble in the actual story-- I'd go for Rhaenyra bc as a woman I want there to at least be a precedent for female rule and leadership. It doesn't make me like Rhaenyra personally--again, if I were a hypothetical smallfolk--I just see what caused the war, the reasons for why they went to war, and decided Rhaenyra's side should have won...but better yet she never should have been usurped.

Because her usurpation (due to the Greens taking advantage of her gender and patriarchy) was the cause of the war. Unlike the usual territory disputes between men. In those territory disputes, I would want them to just stop fighting because there was no moral stake there if one side won or not. For the Dance, there was.