#like. there is direct textual evidence that he would not do that | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

from-the-coffee-shop-in-edoras · 3 months ago

Note

What do we know, or can infer from the text, about the involvement of Háma, Elfhelm, or maybe even Erkenbrand from afar in the West, in the resistance to Gríma's influence at the court?

I think this requires a lot more “inferring” than “knowing,” but there is some info to go on that lets me draw 3 big conclusions, which are below along with some textual evidence for each. Most of it is about Háma because he’s the most prominent of these 3 in the story, but I’ve got something for everyone!

They understood that Gríma was a piece of shit, and they didn’t like the influence he had over Théoden. It says that (in nicer words) in an appendix of UT, where Tolkien notes that Gríma’s practice of issuing orders in Théoden’s name to Háma and Elfhelm “was resented.” We also see several instances in TT where Háma’s poor opinion of Gríma seems evident. He has Gríma hauled out of Meduseld “cringing between two other men” at nearly his first chance after Théoden’s healing, and he minces no words in telling Théoden that Gríma has been a thief and a sneak. It gives me a big sense of “FINALLY, I get to speak the truth about this guy and see him get what he deserves.” He also subtly disparages Gríma on the way to Helm’s Deep when another soldier tells him that Gríma would have an explanation for Gandalf’s seemingly odd behavior, and Háma responds by essentially saying, “True, but I don’t care what Gríma thinks. I trust Gandalf.”

Despite the fact that they didn’t like Gríma and viewed his influence as highly suspect, as long as Gríma operated through the authority of the king himself then no one felt empowered to directly defy him. That same quote in UT about Háma and Elfhelm resenting receiving Théoden’s orders through Gríma also says that the orders “were obeyed, within Edoras.” And this does make sense. Théoden wasn’t absent from the scene — he gave authority to Gríma, and that makes Gríma’s authority an extension of Théoden’s own. Directly defying an order from your king is a Big Deal. No one wants to do it, both from inherent loyalty to Théoden and because, obviously, it’s super risky. In TT, Háma gets demoted for walking too close to that line, and Éomer describes breaking a king’s order as something that might cost him his life (and he does, in fact, get jailed after doing it). So that’s an absolute last resort.

The fact that they wouldn’t directly contravene the word of Théoden/Gríma doesn’t mean that they did nothing. Instead, they worked AROUND Gríma when possible, undertaking things on their own initiative that were contrary to his intentions but that they could argue hadn’t been expressly forbidden. Examples of that include:

—Per UT: In light of the harrowing situation in Edoras, Théodred “assumed without orders” the general command of the defense of Rohan and, in this role, issued orders to Elfhelm to bring men to the Fords and resist the invasion of Isengard. Not only is Théodred acting without orders here, but so is Elfhelm because Théodred is not his boss. Elfhelm’s men are the KING’S OWN MEN, attached to the role of First Marshal, and Théodred, as Second Marshal, has no inherent right to command them. But Elfhelm CHOOSES to follow the order because he knows that it’s a good one and that a defense of the western border is needed even if Théoden and Gríma have taken no steps to accomplish it.

—Also on the I’m Taking Control Because It Needs To Be Done train is Erkenbrand, who UT notes took over military command in the West after Théodred’s death, “again without orders from Edoras,” so that Théoden and Gríma’s lack of action didn’t lead to even further disaster for Rohan.

—Most famously, we see Háma’s parsing of words around the directive not to permit weapons into Meduseld. He clearly acknowledges the alleged danger posed by Gandalf’s staff and so he clearly knows that he SHOULD deny Gandalf entry as long as he has the staff with him. But he also clearly wants to let him in with it and knows that Gandalf will only use the staff for good purposes, and so he decides to rely on the idea of the staff as a “prop for age” to muddy the waters enough that he can make his own judgment to let it in — the legendary “in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom” moment. He also chooses to rearm Éomer even though no one has ordered him to do that. It surprises Théoden (“how comes this?”), but Háma did it because he knows Éomer will further help get them out this bad situation.

So those are my big conclusions, with a bit of my sourcing for where/how I reached them. These guys were all in a really difficult situation, with a king who was clearly off the rails and a counselor who they knew to be corruptive but they couldn’t PROVE that. So if they couldn’t get rid of Gríma, the choices were to go full Treason Mode and defy Théoden’s direct orders or instead resist in more subtle ways by stretching roles and definitions and practices to fit what they knew needed to be done but without blatant insubordination. And so that’s what they did.

How does that sound to you? Plausible? Are there things anyone thinks that I missed? I’m always happy to hear the views of others! And thanks for the question and the opportunity to think more about 3 very cool dudes!

#answered asks #resistance to gríma #háma #elfhelm #erkenbrand #rohirrim #lotr #meta

31 notes · View notes

hollow-dweller · 7 months ago

Note

Talk Shop Tuesday: is there a character you understand better than anyone else doss but haven’t written as much/at all?

as the Universe's Only Howard Stark Enjoyer, i am obligated to answer this with him.

Howard is so interesting to me, because the way he's constructed as a character is so clearly a reflection and response to Tony that narratively, you don't really get the sense that he was the progenitor, between the two of them. in the Iron Man movies, he is constructed as a foil for Tony: severe, business-like, and formal. he is unreachable, in a sense, a reflection of the ways Tony feels isolated from him: through death, through the tarnishing of his legacy that has been orchestrated by Obadiah but in which Tony is complicit, and through Tony's reckoning with and questioning of the value of that legacy in the first place. the Howard we see in those movies is heavily filtered through the lens of Tony's perception: the man who he feels completely isolated from and overshadowed by, who he at once venerates and dislikes, and yet who reaches through time, grudges and enemies carrying forward even as he leaves Tony with the tools to save his own life.

contrast that with the Howard we meet in Captain America: a playboy and genius, a little goofy, a lot self-important, written the way he is to create a clear connection in the mind of the audience between him and pre-Iron Man Tony Stark. it's narrative shorthand, characterization designed to help us bridge the gap between the Tony that we know and the Howard that we're meeting. but outside the meta-textual explanation, we also have to reconcile the Howard as we see him in Captain America, the Howard as we see him (heavily filtered through Tony's perspective) in the Iron Man movies, and Tony himself. in-universe, how do we explain the fact that Tony clearly remembers his father as austere and cold, but has emulated his devil-may-care behaviours and attitudes? if that is not the Howard that Tony remembers, why is that the Howard he mimics?

there are a number of potential explanations: maybe Tony met and knew the playboy Howard in his youth, but is obfuscating that in his own memory, either as a way to preserve his ideal of his father (cold, yes, but also powerful), or as a way to deny their similarities, or maybe simply as a way to honour his mother and pretend that that Howard never existed while he was with Maria. or maybe Tony never did meet that version of Howard, and it's a matter of inverted reflections: Howard moves so far in the opposite direction of who he was in his youth that when Tony constructs a rebellious identity in opposition to his father, he unknowingly mimics the behaviour of his father as he once was.

ideally, Agent Carter would have provided us the bridge between these versions of Howard, had it not been cancelled. we'll never know for sure, and while his character develops in fascinating ways in that show, he never quite escapes the shadow of Tony Stark 1.0. the part that really sticks with me, and has left me with the brain worms that inspired this sermon, is his role in season 1 in particular: his ruthlessness and manipulation in using Peggy, but also his genuine grief and desire for redemption as inspired by Steve. how he views Steve, Captain America, as the one truly Good thing he's ever done at that point, and how it connects to what we are told later, about his obsessive search for Steve and the way that isolated him from his own son. how that too is connected to what he says in Iron Man 2: that Tony is his greatest creation. the inherent selfishness but also deeply felt love evident in both those statements: love for Steve as a reflection of his desire for redemption, love for Tony as his assurance that he had in some way achieved it.

all told, you're left with a fascinating character built entirely from patchwork: imperfect and self-centered and yet idealistic, for whom we are missing key parts of the story from which to create a complete picture. in some ways i am not surprised that fandom often flattens both Howard and Tony's relationship to him, because we are missing essential elements to really conceive of Howard as a complete character. but it is also frustrating to me, because in those gaps i see opportunity: to explore Howard, yes, but also Tony, and their relationship to one another, and to the Stark legacy that permeates the world of the MCU.

having said ALL of that: do i see myself ever writing that story, or filling in those blanks myself? i honestly have no idea. i don't know how that story would be constructed, or what it would really entail. maybe if i ever get around to writing the Morgan Stark Fic, i'll slide some of this in there. but while i never say never, i'm also really not sure there's a dedicated Howard Stark Fic in me. i suppose we'll see.

#howard stark #tony stark #mcu #iron man #agent carter #captain america #talk shop tuesday #yeah yeah yeah howard stark fic coming to you spring 2030 WHATEVER

35 notes · View notes

bestworstcase · 7 months ago

Note

Hi! Eh, do you think that Adam is more hated by the fandom than Cinder? And if so, why you think this happens?

i think it’s an apples to oranges comparison because while adam is meant to be, ultimately, pitiable (in that he suffered, every mentor he had failed him or exploited him instead of actually helping him, and he chose to go down fighting for petty vengeance to the bitter end), from a narrative standpoint it was always quite clear that his character arc would end that way; he systematically burned every bridge and every lifeline he had and then literally ran into blake’s knife.

so the narrative asks for pity, the understanding that what happened to him is a tragedy—that it didn’t have to end the way it did, if he hadn’t slapped away every hand held out to him and ignored every warning sign that his path was self-destructive and would lead him to ruin—but not really anything more than that. there’s a tendency among certain kinds of villain fans to misinterpret other fans acknowledging the villainous role or acts or ending as character hate in and of itself—which it isn’t.

e.g. by no means do i hate adam as a character, but i understand what the narrative did with him (once-heroic fallen extremist whose ideals are corrupted to the point he turns abusively and violently against his own people, personal foe to blake and yang) and i think the narrative arc was executed well (broader white fang arc fumbling aside).

are there people in the fandom who do hate adam? yeah of course but i don’t think the average person in this category is out of scope as far as the intended reaction—to me the litmus test is just, can so-and-so recognize the textually-stated tragedy underlying his character, that he had opportunities to stop and refused each one? most of the time the answer is ‘yes.’

on the other hand, cinder is one of the two main villains and the narrative has not been subtle since v6 about setting her up for a villain -> hero arc—especially in v8 this nascent trajectory becomes very, very obvious to anyone paying a modicum of attention. which i don’t think is a comparable situation to adam with regard to this question because character hate toward villains gets way more intense when the possibility of a turnaround is evident enough for there to be widespread speculation about it—bc fans who don’t like the villainous character tend to really hate the idea of them, to be blunt, not getting punished enough.

(you see the same basic phenomenon playing out with ship hate, in that the closer to being unambiguously textual a given ship is, the louder and more vicious other shippers who don’t like it tend become.)

anyway. people who just dislike adam because he does awful things to characters they do like generally feel similarly about cinder for the same reasons; there’s an (obnoxious) slice of adam stans who virulently hate cinder and likewise a slice of (also obnoxious) cinder stand who virulently hate adam; cinder being a female villain gets the usual fandom misogynistic double standard and is judged much more harshly and punitively than male characters who do the same; the small fraction of people in this fandom who rabidly hate all the male characters of course rabidly hate adam (<- these people irritate me because they’re the same ones who burble about remnant being a matriarchy – #feminism is when you hate men and also can’t recognize systemic sexism against women unless it’s presented to you in an afterschool special caricature 🤔). on balance the misogynistic double standard represents a much larger swath of the fandom than the handful of people who expressly hate adam because he’s a man.

so like. just applying my test of ‘do you, regardless of whether you personally dislike this character, understand what the narrative is doing with them and why’ i see way more of what i would consider to be character hate directed at cinder than adam (and both pale in comparison to salem) but honestly if adam had survived and was discernibly on a path toward turning around i think it would be a lot more even than it is. jax vs cinder will be the more interesting comparison, if v10 goes in the direction i expect with him.

21 notes · View notes

adragonsfriend · 9 months ago

Text

CinemaTherapy, Tone Policing, Mace Windu

The CinemaTherapy video on Palpatine contains, I will say it nicely, opinions about the Jedi in general that I disagree with, (I love most of their videos, and their advice on avoiding manipulation in this one is useful and good, I hope it helps people, etcetera) but what I want to talk about is the specific moment where they mention Mace Windu for literally half a second.

At 14:07-14:29, they say, (copying directly from the episode transcript):

Jono: But what Anakin is not mature enough or mindful enough or experienced enough to be aware of, is that he's being steered right, and that Palpatine is doing it deliberately to drive a wedge between Anakin and the people he cares about and who care about him. At least a few of them do. Um, not Mace. Mace. Come on...

Anakin [ROTS clip]: I must go, Master.

Mace [ROTS clip]: No.

Alan: Do better, man.

Jono: Do better, Mace.

I firmly don’t know what explanation there is for this other than tone policing of a black man. Whether it’s CinemaTherapy’s problem specifically, or if they’ve just been drinking the fandom koolaid I don’t know, but it’s a problem either way. Let me explain.

The casualness of the remarks is wild. There is a full eyeroll, and several *theatrically* shaken heads. The transcript does not fully convey how out of place it feels watching it. It's almost to the point where I really want to give the benefit of the doubt and believe it's sarcasm, but the rest of the video does really not support that assumption. (If this is my failure of interpreting other humans, and it was sarcasm, then forgive me, I suppose).

I’m not even sure what aspect of Mace's behavior toward Anakin they’re addressing? The ROTS clip they choose to play of him—presumably an attempt to highlight whatever they’re talking about—is from Mace telling Anakin to stay behind when he's going to face Palpatine.

Of all the moments, if I was ever going to try and construct a “Mace is mean to Anakin specifically narrative,” I would not pick that one? It’s quite literally the chillest interaction they have in all three movies? If I was them, and trying to actually showcase an “Anakin’s doesn’t get enough affirmation or connection from the Jedi,” narrative, I would choose a scene like when Mace says Anakin won’t be trained. At least there you could make a argument that the council’s decision could’ve been explained a bit less bluntly, and that there’s something of a “conversations that adults should be having privately are instead occurring in front of a child” situation.

The casualness of the remark, the “Do better, Mace” and the knowing head shakes, those matter. The way they’re just tossed in, as if every audience member will instantly agree and chuckle at how of course Mace Windu is being mean and rude, they tell the casual Star Wars viewer that this is a universally accepted position, when it is not.

It also supposes the idea that Mace owes Anakin special emotional labor. A relationship therapist might, I don’t know, consider the relationship between Anakin, Mace, and the very relevant context of the interaction before making this judgement? Mace is not one of Anakin’s friends, confidants, or even a member of his lineage. He is, especially in the moment they chose to highlight, the leader of the Jedi Order. Anakin’s boss, to oversimplify, and the leader of Anakin’s people, to say the truth. He’s worried about the fate of the entire galaxy at that specific moment!

And guess what? He’s not even being rude, at all. He’s being direct, that’s it.

If they had chosen to highlight the line, "If what you have told me is true, you will have gained my trust," and talked about Mace not trusting Anakin, I might have been willing to humor this argument out of respect for the relevant textual evidence and for the sake of having some peace. But no, in their own words, this is about, "Anakin and the people he cares about and who care about him." This remark is about care, not trust.

And guess what again? Despite all of the other things he has to think about, Mace is considering Anakin’s feelings here. He isn’t telling Anakin to stay behind because he doesn’t want Anakin to be allowed to participate is the cool fun lethal lightsaber duel. He does it because Anakin is emotionally compromised. Even if you think of the the Jedi as flawed, you cannot think taking Anakin to fight Sidious would be a good, safe, or healthy idea? Would you take the person who you’re just figuring out has probably been groomed for years into a violent confrontation with their abuser?

Mace Windu is doing everything, thinking of everything, and caring about everything in this scene, and yet fans still find fault with him. They still find him insufficient and mean.

Opinions like these are not subtle, they are not cute, and they are deeply influenced by what Mace looks like in relationship to what to what Anakin looks like.

Step back, examine scenes for what actually occurs in them, rather than what larger fandom and larger society tells you is happening in them. This is the core of analyzing and creating art. What do you see in the world that others do not? I beg of you, see Mace Windu for once.

(If I was going harder, I would talk about how I think their very lame opinions of the Jedi are causing them to actually miss some of the depth of Sidious’ manipulation (including leaving out so much as a mention of the scene where Obi-Wan very explicitly tells Anakin he’s proud of him), but again, for the interpretation they’ve decided on their advice seems good, so I’ll leave it alone.)

#cinema therapy #star wars #jedi #mace windu #anakin skywalker #sheev palpatine #darth sidious #tone policing #implicit bias #racisim #krayt complains

20 notes · View notes

pynkhues · 3 months ago

Note

https://www.tumblr.com/fishjellylou/766623772774137856/yall-white-mfs-need-to-stop-speaking-on-louis?source=share

As a disclaimer, I swear I'm not trying to start something, but this person is clearly talking about your post. The only reason i bring this to ur attention is bc

1. They seem to be purposely misinterpreting a lot of what u said and

2. It sums up a certain attitude in fandom that's been bothering me.

You always back up your interpretations with textual evidence and seem very open to other people's interpretations as well, so this type of reaction seems very hostile to me for no reason. And I feel like this readiness to call racism over any differing opinion on Louis only manages to reduce his character and discourage people from exploring his complexities or engaging with the character at all.

At least for me, it makes me scared of sharing any opinion, because people in fandom don't seem to be open to debate and conversation, they just claim one interpretation as the only valid read of the show and anyone who disagrees is suddenly racist.

I guess i just wanted to get your take on it and ask for advice on how to deal with this type of backlash when it comes to engaging in character analysis. Your insight is always appreciated <3

Oh! Yeah, I mean - - they certainly seem to be referring to me without @'ing me!

And mmm, yeah, I'd say it reads to me as a bad faith interpretation of my posts, especially as I certainly wouldn't describe how I wrote about Louis today as a 'diabolical jezebel' - in fact, I think it's lowkey the opposite given I think he's a character who has a healthy sexual appetite which sometimes manifests in the wrong direction as a result of trauma and circumstance, as opposed to the puritanical virgin some would depict him as - and literally, explicitly said that I don't think Louis' a liar, but rather has the normal response of trying to paint himself in a better light in his memories, but y'know, they're allowed their interpretation of my posts, just as they're allowed their own readings of the show.

As someone who's been around the fandom traps for more than a decade, I can't say this isn't something I'm used to, and I kinda think it's important to be okay with it? I make these posts publicly (even if I do try to avoid using main tags lowkey for adjacent reasons to this one), so people can respond to me publicly. That's okay! I've kinda been doing the same with the l*slou fest, so I'd be a huge hypocrite to have an issue with what they do when I'm doing it a little myself, haha.

But to me posts like this also just try to weaponise the idea that being called racist is worse than being racist, and as a result is a way to shut people up, like you said. I'm open with the fact that I'm white and Australian - arguably the worst type of White, haha - and I know that I have race biases that I'm working constantly to unpack, and I work in DEI at my theatre company, so trust me when I say I've done a lot of 'official' training too, which feels stupid to talk about here in this context, but is a reality of Things I've Done.

I engage and read and listen a lot, which is all to say, I suppose, that I do try to be very conscious and present in how I exist in these conversations, and it's a funny thing to come back to fandom spaces where people do want white people to take on a cultural load, want them to engage particularly with characters of colour, want them to create fanworks involving POC - all things fandom is notoriously bad at! - and then ultimately - - y'know. Weaponise race in an attempt to shut down conversations they don't like (and I include a lot of white people in that too). It too often feels like race becomes a moving part to keep characters under certain fan interpretation ownership, which feels symptomatic of broader fandom entitlement.

I don't know. I hear you, basically, and I get your nervousness about engaging, but at the end of the day, conversations won't happen if they don't happen. Sharing your thoughts and knowing - and being able to articulate - your intent while keeping an open mind to criticism and an eagerness to learn is always a positive, at least to me. Some people are going to engage in bad faith - that's kind of inevitable these days, I think - but there are going to be a lot of people who engage in good faith too, and I don't know. A lot of people tell me I have a bit of a crap nose for it, haha, and tend to engage more of the bad faith than I should, but I always try to take things optimistically and in good faith. I like to trust that people mean the best, and when they don't - - well, that's for private chats, haha.

#what a time to realise you're being hate read!#from the tone of that post i'm guessing they've anoned me a few times #which like #correct me if i'm wrong but i DO try to keep most of my replies out of the main tags?#am i bad at that too?#probably haha

10 notes · View notes

henrysglock · 2 months ago

Note

Is it possible that the explicit abuse of certain characters can be used to allude to the implicit abuse of another? I'm honestly a bit surprised to see your recent take, since many times in the past you've posited that what was happening to one character onscreen was actually alluding to something that happened to another character (001, etc).

I'm not entirely sure which takes you're referring to. If you want to cite your sources, please do so, and I'll explain them.

But in general, that's not something I do. I don't go "Oh, because XYZ happened to [insert character], then it definitely happened to this other character even though we don't see any evidence of it happening to said character."

I'm an evidence first analyst—that means I'll notice something in a character, and then tug at it and find support in surrounding plot lines. I can't really think of a recent instance, off the top of my head, where I've done anything other than that. If you're referring to the use of "One" in various circumstances, then that's more a case of coded language than it is implicit behavior.

More often than not, I don't need to use other characters to talk about implicit things. Usually, all the evidence I need can be found within the character themselves.

Take Henry, for example. I talked about him having been mistreated or even abused by Virginia before TFS came out, and then I was right. Virginia does hit Henry. She does have possessive and emotionally incestuous patterns of behavior with him. Most people didn't believed me, because it wasn't explicitly stated enough for them. I was able to see it in how Henry's story was presented and in the behaviors I was presented with from his end, though. They presented me with a boy who fears his mother and believes she despises him, as well as a mother who would ship her son off to a laboratory for not comforming the way she wants him to. That, in conjunction with parallels to other stories of a similar nature that featured outright abuse (like Insidious 2 and Changeling, for example, as well as intra-textual stuff that I've gone over so many times that I won't waste the words on it) led me to believe that Virginia was abusive. And I was right, even though everyone poo-pooed me because she was a mother instead of a father.

What I did not do is go "Oh, because xyz happened to this character in this similar story, then it definitely happened to Henry". It's always "Henry is displaying certain beliefs and behaviors, and we've been presented with a few damning details. I wouldn't be shocked if his situation is similar to ones the greater context parallels."

Do you see the difference? There's nothing in Lonnie's story that leads me to believe Will was treated the same way Billy was or the same was Henry was or the same way El was. They made Henry's issues with Virginia fairly explicit even before TFS showed them to us outright. They make Billy's issues with Neil explicit across 2 seasons.

They had the capability to give us more to latch onto with Will, in an explicit sense. We're now heading into ST5, and Lonnie hasn't been mentioned since ST1, in terms of Will. Jonathan focuses on how becoming his father would lead him to treat Nancy like shit and fuck his kids up by abandoning them. He had the opportunity there to add more! If they wanted it to be tangible, it would be. ST4 would have been the time to start peppering that shit back in for ST5. Instead, what I get is "Lonnie treated Joyce like shit and was a disappointing deadbeat father"...which is 100% in keeping with everything we learn in ST1.

Tl;dr—Yes, they do use other scenarios to allude to implicit abuse via direct parallels between story lines. But the important part is that the relationships between abuser and abused display concrete signs of that abuse independent of the parallels.

Joyce telling Hopper that Lonnie used to call Will a fag doesn't tell me Lonnie said it to Will's face. It tells me that maybe Lonnie used to bitch at Joyce about his son being a fag. It doesn't make it nice or good, but it also doesn't offer me anything concrete about how Lonnie behaved face-to-face with Will. If there's something concrete, then it'll have to come in ST5, because it hasn't been given to us yet.

Regardless, Lonnie is not the "worst" abuser presented to us so far. In terms of physicality and concrete evidence, he doesn't even make the top 3 (Brenner, Neil, and Virginia). I'd say even Hopper ranks higher than Lonnie solely for that scene in ST2 when he hollers at El and threatens to send her back to her primary abuser (Brenner/HNL). Comparatively speaking, the evidence for Lonnie is just not there��and if they wanted it to be, it would be.

#asks #bitchposting

5 notes · View notes

butchhamlet · 1 year ago

Note

hi it's me again im the anon who dropped about 800 words about ocd hamlet a couple weeks ago (maybe longer, time has been weird for me lately).. it made me soo happy to see it resonated with you and with some other people who reblogged it as well!! i've been projecting on hamlet ever since i read it and it feels like every time i read it i learn more about him AND me... and ever since Symptoms showed up he's been even dearer to me and im just so glad people like my interpretation as well :)

i hope it's ok for me to do this again because i want to talk about what if lady macbeth has ocd also. and i know this is sort of well. dangerous if that's the right word because 1) lady macbeth IS the villain in her play even if i love her from the bottom of my heart and i support everything she does and ocd is already an incredibly stigmatised and misunderstood 2) hand washing is possibly THE most stereotyped compulsion that sort of epitomises this really warped view of ocd in the public consciousness. i personally do not have handwashing as a compulsion or really any physical compulsions that are direct responses to my intrusive thoughts so i will try to be really really careful when im talking about this. + other disclaimers: again while i have definitely experienced symptoms of ocd i do not know if i have it and i am NOT diagnosed + ocd experiences are different for everyone + you cannot diagnose a character because they are not real + this one is mostly projection and is more a frame of reading than it is an interpretation grounded in textual evidence (esp since i will be talking about the sleepwalking asleep a LOT and she is technically, well. sleeping.) so just. take everything with a pinch of salt and please let me know if i ever overstep!!

im mainly going to be drawing on experiences close to real event ocd even though i know that typically real event ocd is defined by the fact that the sufferer blows their past mistakes way out of proportion and/or question their memories, and i guess i cannot say that lady macbeth’s guilt is completely unjustified because uh. she did kill a man.! but i do think her behaviours after the murder reflects what i’ve seen people speak about online as well as some of the experiences i’ve had.

guilt as illness

this is more general to the whole play i guess but i wanted to point out how the consequences of the macbeths’ regicide is absolutely portrayed as a disease. there’s a LOT of foreshadowing in lady macbeth’s advice to her husband in the immediate aftermath of their murder: she tells him not to “think / so brain sickly of things”, and says, “these deeds must not be thought / after these ways so, it will make us mad”. (2.ii) the doctor later alludes to “infected minds” (5.i) in relation to lady macbeth’s madness. the fact that the fixation on guilt is seen as an illness i think fits so well with ocd: whenever im having a bad day with intrusive thoughts and mental spirals it genuinely feels like there is something festering in my brain like a parasite feeding on anxiety.

guilt is also so intrinsically linked to sleep in macbeth: famously macbeth comes out of the king’s chamber ranting about how he may “sleep no more; macbeth doth murder sleep”, and lady macbeth’s obsession pours out of her when she is sleeping (and this is exactly why a doctor is called). i would argue that fucked up sleep is somewhat presented as an illness in ‘macbeth’ too; or if not, at least unnatural. this idea is all over act 2 scene ii (right after macbeth commits the murder) but i think it’s best epitomised in act 3 scene iv: “you lack the season of all natures, sleep.” (lady macbeth) season as in both night-season and seasoning/preservative. so sleep is both a natural part of life, and something that keeps things the way nature or god intended. the doctor says too that disturbed sleep is “a great perturbation in nature” (5.i). nightmares are DEFINITELY depicted as illness: macbeth says that they “sleep / in the affliction of these terrible dreams / that shake us nightly” (3.ii)

insomnia is highly associated with ocd since the obsessions/compulsions prevent sleep and sleep deprivation increases the commonality AND duration of obsession. if a significant portion of your day is spent devoted to obsessions/compulsions, there’s a chance they may become assimilated into intrusive dreams, since dreams are generally regarded as a way that the brain processes memories. thus, we can see that the way guilt in ‘macbeth’ is linked to disturbed sleep parallels how ocd is linked to sleep disorders. so not only is guilt itself an illness in ‘macbeth’, it links to other disorders too

2. withdrawal from dialogue

lady macbeth stops being on equal footing in terms of number of lines with macbeth after the murder. from act 3 she really only responds briefly to what macbeth says, and she’s not even in act 4. i sort of see that as her being dragged under her spiralling thoughts and retreating further and further back into her mind. i know i definitely zone out a LOT more on days where im being absolutely bombarded by intrusive thoughts. she’s definitely disoriented by the begining of act 3:

nought’s had, all's spent, where our desire is got without content. ’tis safer to be that which we destroy, than by destruction dwell in doubtful joy. (3.ii)

the whole soliloquy (if you can even call it that—it’s only 2 couplets) is riddled with paradoxes and confusing wording. her mind is completely scattered and it feels to me as if she’s just been arguing with herself. this might be reaching slightly (as if this entire post isnt kind of reaching already. sorry) but to me it kind of mirrors the absurd leaps of logic my intrusive thoughts and rumination can sometimes take: how can it be “safer” to be destroyed? how can “joy” be doubtful? it doesn’t make sense, and it’s confusing and frightening, but it feels absolutely real. (also note: as you’ve said before ocd is sometimes called the doubting disease. and lady macbeth calls her experience “doubtful”….

3. the mad scene

(disclaimer again i KNOW she is supposed to be asleep the entire time BUT i am going to. sort of. ignore that. sorry</3)

in the beginning of act 5 scene i, lady macbeth’s lady-in-waiting says,

since his majesty went into the field, I have seen her rise from her bed, throw her nightgown upon her, unlock her closet, take forth paper, fold it, write upon't, read it, afterwards seal it, and again return to bed — yet all this while in a most fast sleep.

i’ve never experienced physical compulsions myself, but this sort of repeated, methodical act matches how i’ve seen people describe them. the doctor specifically calls them “actual performances”, which suggest, i think, something mechanical and dictated in some way; “perform” is definitely a word i’ve seen people use to descrive carrying out compulsions. (do correct me if i’m wrong!)

then let’s look at lady macbeth’s actual speech:

out, damned spot, out, I say. — one, two — why, then, 'tis time to do't. — hell is murky. — fie, lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard! what need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account? yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?

the jumping around of her thoughts honestly feels exactly like my mind alternating between intrusive thoughts and desperately trying to justify why they aren’t true. she goes from reflecting on her debillitating guilt, to being anxious about going to hell, to replaying and checking her memories, to reassuring herself (and macbeth) that she won’t get caught, and then to thinking about her guilt again. it’s a rapid-fire, relentless cycle that continues throughout the scene. she’ll jump from reenacting a moment with her husband, to the obsessing over the blood on her hands, then back again. notably, in her address to macbeth, she never seems to be reenacting the exact same moment. she taunts him for his cowardice seemingly before the murder, then pleads with him, saying that “banquo cannot come out his grave”, then goes back to when they are fleeing the crime scene. i think this reflects the sort of distortion of memory that constant memory checking and ocd can cause. the moodswings and the flip-flopping between “everything’s fine” and “i’m going to hell” are also SO intense and honestly it’s exactly what it feels like on my worst days.

in the entire scene, lady macbeth speaks in prose instead of verse: it’s obviously a sign of madness by itself, but i also think it reflects the complete loss of control she has over her thoughts and actions. in the beginning acts she is all about control: she demands “spirits / that tend on mortal thoughts” (1.v) to do her bidding, she tells macbeth to “leave all the rest to me” (1.v), and she tells him what to do at every moment. but at this point in the play she can’t stop the onslaught of regrets, guilt, and memories, and she can’t even control herself physically.

speaking of the elephant in the room: the excessive handwashing. i think of lady macbeth’s handwashing as less of a reaction to a genuine fear of contamination, but as something more akin to body-repetitive behaviours like skin-picking (dermatillomania) and hair-pulling (trichitillomania, which i think i have) which are associated with ocd.

i sort of headcanon lady macbeth to have absolutely horrible skin splits on her hands (<- this part is complete projection): and so following this interpretation, i think of her handwashing sort of as a form of self-flagellation because rubbing her hands continually will make the skin tear and bleed. (gore tw?) that, then, fits in with the blood on her hands: in her semi-conscious state she thinks it’s duncan’s, when it’s really hers.

i know that another common compulsion is counting: and lady macbeth does count (“one, two—’tis time to do it.”) one of the reasons people with ocd may count (and there are many reasons, this is not the be-all-end-all) is “attaching meaning to particular numbers where certain numbers will induce anxiety, while others will reduce anxiety. for example, if you assign special meaning to the number three, you might count your steps by threes, or lock and unlock your car three times before driving, or any variety of other action ruled by this magic number.” (<- quoted from nocd website)

i also know that repetition of words or phrases is another common compulsion. and these are lady macbeth's final lines:

to bed, to bed; there's knocking at the gate. come, come, come, come, give me your hand. what's done cannot be undone. — to bed, to bed, to bed.

4. her death

in your ocd hamlet post, you talked about how hamlet’s death is almost peaceful in his “silence”, and how horatio, despite knowing all his flaws and obsessions, believes wholeheartedly in his salvation. (that honestly means the world to me, by the way, so thank you.) the macbeths went through EVERYTHING together: the planning, the crime itself, the aftermath—it’s clear from their dialogue that at the beginning of their sufferings they saw each other go through sleeplessness, nightmares, and obsession. but over the course of the play, they completely fall apart. (i think the last time macbeth uses “we” to refer to the two of them is to say “we’ll to sleep” and “we are yet but young in deed”, which is the most ironic thing ever.) macbeth’s only response to lady macbeth’s death is “she should have died hereafter.” i honestly don’t know what that means in terms of the ocd reading, or in comparison with horatio's reaction to hamlet's death. i'd love to know what you think.

thanks for bearing with me!! i’m a bit less confident in this reading than i am for ocd hamlet, and it’s more likely i’ll get something wrong about ocd in this one, but sorry i just wanted to unleash this somewhere i hope that’s okay and genuinely please tell me if i say anything wrong or insensitive! i also typed this over 3 hours and went over the text as if this was a homework essay.....? and it is now almost 2am so i’m sorry if this isn’t coherent. i hope you’re having a wonderful day :)

hi same anon here i forgot to put this in but. i listened to verdi macbeth opera mad scene una macchia è qui tuttora the whole time i was writing that thing in case anyone would like to know...... i love it so so much my favourite video recording is by sylvia sass on youtube https://youtu.be/tP59Ox8MdQ4?feature=shared&t=319 AND there are full productions of the opera on youtube as well. thank you so much for reading!!!!

YES.... YES..... YESSSSSSSSSS I LOVE AN OCD LADY MACBETH... IT'S ABOUT THE GUILT IT'S ABOUT THE REPETITION DOES EVERYONE HEAR ME? TODAY WE ARE DOING GUILT AND REPETITION

i have had similar thoughts about the sort of inherent trickiness of it (oh, the lady who washes her hands a lot has ocd? whoa, totally original thought that has nothing to do with pop culture perception of ocd) (and also she did kill a man). but you really said it all with that ksdhfdksnfdsn. i will pitch in that i DO have handwashing compulsions and tbh. i personally think lady macbeth ocd reading is a net win even if it does trail a little close to stereotypes because if you dig even slightly deeper than "haha handwashing" it allows for an examination of ocd not just as an action but also as a manifestation of guilt and illness. which is SO macbeth. the body politic is sick the government is sick!!! again im taking the words right out of your mouth here this ask whips ass

shaking your hand on conceiving of ocd as something parasitical. really feels like there is some Thing up there feeding on my brain. (also on intrusive thought dreams. fucked upppppp like man leave me alone)

AND ON THAT NOTE i feel like even if she is asleep it can still be ocd. i say this with no medical training whatsoever and this isn't, like, me asserting that people actually do compulsions while asleep, but on a narrative level, the emotional processes happening to her character are petty clear even if she's sleepwalking, right. once again no medical training whatsoever

the jumping around of her thoughts honestly feels exactly like my mind alternating between intrusive thoughts and desperately trying to justify why they aren’t true. [...] the moodswings and the flip-flopping between “everything’s fine” and “i’m going to hell” are also SO intense and honestly it’s exactly what it feels like on my worst days.

YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. the ugly intrusive thought -> self-reassurance -> self-reassurance makes it worse -> intrusive thought (harder and worse) spiral. and literally this is EXACTLY what it feels like. me when i accidentally say something rude and then i'm evil for three days. except she killed a man

YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH. ON AN ANALYTICAL LEVEL AND A PERSONAL LEVEL. LITERALLY THE LEAPS I CAN DO IN MY BEAUTIFUL MIND TO BE LIKE WOW IM JUST LIKE LADY MACBETH (BLOOD ON MY HANDS). YOU N ME BROTHER

and re: her death and the macbeths splintering apart. that is honestly the most painful part of this play for me, as a lover of evil couples and also of their specific dynamic. the fact that they mesh so well at the beginning (i mean, they argue, there's friction, but they're clearly on the same page--they enter their first shared scene both thinking the same thing and a lot of their communication is in implication) and then they just. fragment. and i think with the OCD ladymac reading it's even worse, because the thing about OCD at least in my experience is that. at some point the people around you stop being able to understand what the fuck your problem is. even when they're trying really hard. because it doesn't make any sense! the compulsions don't make logical sense the self-flagellation doesn't make any sense none of it is SOLVING anything but it also does make sense, To You, on a level you cannot really explain to people that don't Get It*. and so like. the macbeths are already breaking apart because of their responses to the murder, and this is just one more thing coming between them. she is trapped in a cage in her brain that he cannot see.

*(i think not infrequently about the overlap between OCD and psychosis; i haven't experienced psychosis and obviously there are major differences, but i relate a lot to what psychotic people have said about, like, the ability to hold multiple contradictory truths at once. my compulsions will not actually stop disasters from happening, but they also will. you could maybe pull in something about macbeth's parallel loss of control + his hallucinations? but i'm not diagnosing macbeth with psychosis necessarily i'm just saying words).

anyway, anon, i am always extremely impressed by your dedication to writing out quotes and coming armed with evidence, and also your analysis fucking bangs. this is such a good ask i need to frame it on the wall your mind is huge. i hope you have a wonderful day as well :)

#max.txt #macbeth #lady macbeth #asks #also my secret is that i wrote a sort of macbeths-inspired short story about that ocd psychosis overlap thing #but i can't post it yet because i'm trying to make someone give me money for it #i can't write anything that isn't about shakespeare apparently.

31 notes · View notes

atopvisenyashill · 6 months ago

Note

what do you think of the possibility of a jon/arya/gendry triangle?

unless gendry is gonna have a thing for both arya and jon, i don't buy it.

i think when arya and gendry meet again, there will be some sort of romantic angle. i think it's very clear from our last glimpses at gendry that he really regrets separating from arya because he thinks he left her to be captured and married off to ramsay, and i think there's the added guilt there of him feeling like..."i should have just told her i loved her back." i know she doesn't quite say she loves him but i think that direction they gave maisie in the show, where when she says "i can be your family" "no you would be milady" that she should say it as if she's saying "i love you" is essentially the conversation arya and gendry are having in the book as well (just not so straightforward, because sometimes tv simply needs to spell it out in a way a book doesn't). arya is telling gendry, in a roundabout way that she likely doesn't even understand (i mean...she clearly doesn't understand, she's young enough to get she has like A Bond with gendry but not so old to imo realize that what she's feeling is a crush) that she loves him and she wants him to keep traveling with her because of that. and gendry is telling her, essentially, that love is not enough.

for gendry, i think there's a few things at play there - there's the class issue which is the biggest number one factor and it's something he can't ever get around, and gendry is older and not so sheltered and gets that even if arya has good intentions, like as not he's going to be making armor for her husband and not actually living with her the way she naively assumes they'll get to do until the end of time. but beyond that, i think gendry is very aware of arya's crush on him and isn't sure how to handle it. i think he recognizes the weird age gap but it's also like...it's close enough that they consider each other "peers" essentially. think of like a high school freshman and a seventh grader. they were peers in middle school, and now all of a sudden the high schooler is "inappropriate." how do you handle this as a child? do you even understand why this boundary exists? arya doesn't see it but gendry clearly does and i think that's another factor - he is interested but he feels it's taking advantage (because it is!) to encourage it. so his rejection of her, while not textually romantic, is still a romantic rejection and they both know it. but now he's heard she's been married to a man even older than he is, and this man is raping and abusing her constantly, and gendry is thinking "i should have just gotten over myself and went with her."

but if there's a love triangle (i think it's not likely because arya was meant to be much older than she is now, and that's one of the things george has since cut and is struggling with), it's not gonna be between arya, gendry, and her brother. i just don't see any evidence that either jon or arya feel romantic anything towards each other, nor do i see the point of this relationship specifically going romantic. you have the same issue with arya/gendry which is the age gap being deeply uncomfortable for one thing, and i don't think i could ever get over this specific one because jon and arya grew up together. they are best friends. it's much too jaehaerys and alysanne for me. "oh they think of each other all the time" yeah i also think about my cousin constantly that doesn't mean i want to fuck her! it just means we're very close!! do we think oberyn wanted to fuck elia?? do we think ned wanted to fuck lyanna??? no, i think it's much more likely it would be something between gendry, arya, and edric dayne. he's closer in age, he's involved in the riverlands plot that arya will be rejoining soon enough, both he and gendry are in the brotherhood, and there's a lot of anti parallels between the boys - being castle raised vs raised in flea bottom, being high born vs being base and low born, ned's very name being a potential clue to the lyanna mystery, gendry's entire existence being a clue to the twincest reveal, etc. do i think it's still likely to happen? no because george cannot slow his plot down to save his goddamn life and i do think the youngest starklings (rickon, arya, and bran) are the ones who are going to suffer the most there. i think it could have been real fun though, i'll miss the idea of arya being in a love triangle, i think she deserves some normal teenage drama after the shit she's been through. alas.

#asks #anons #anti jonrya #just to be safe.#also fun fact i had a patron named arya today!!!!!!

12 notes · View notes

ofduskanddreams · 2 years ago

Text

On Eris Vanserra

Let me say that I would much rather put my time and energy into writing my fic (you know--the thing that brings me joy and is the reason I'm here in the first place), but the selective comprehension in this fandom has seriously been grating on me.

Now, before anyone gets butthurt, I'm not here to tell you that you have to like Eris or think he's a good person. Whether you do or don't is totally your choice. What you believe, what you want to believe--that is your decision. I'm not here to invalidate anyone's opinion or the choices they make based on their personal experiences and feelings. I'm here to articulate the facts as Ms. Maas has written them, because I think there's some unecessary confusion going around.

Let's just get another thing out of the way now: I like Eris, I acknowledge that this makes me predisposed to bias. I will also tell you that I didn't like him at all when I first read the series, but several deep rereads since have enhanced my comprehension and altered my opinion--that is why I'm here.

Today I will be discussing the misconception that Eris had any direct involvement in the brutalization inflicted upon Mor by her family, by which I mean the act of driving nails into her womb. There's no question that Mor was significantly traumatized by his actions (and inaction) and none of the discourse to follow excuses anything Eris did, I'm just trying to complicate the conversation.

This is the point where I remind you that you have the choice to ignore this post and peacefully keep scrolling should you not want to hear what I'm about to say.

Cool? Great. Let's move on.

I'm going to lay out the textual evidence in the order it appears in the series, and then we can talk about it. All italics appear as they do in the text, except for Mor's flashback. I will be making some parts bold for clarity. All page numbers are referring to the kindle versions of the books.

ACOMAF

Chapter 41, page 397 Rhys is explaining Mor and Eris's former betrothal to Feyre.

"Her family... they... " I'd never seen him at such a loss for words. Rhys cleared his throat. "When they were done, they dumped her on the Autumn Border, with a note nailed to her body that said she was Eris's problem."

Chapter 44, page 431 at the starfall party, Morrigan is talking to Feyre about the time she slept with Cassian.

"He [Rhys] and Cassian... I've never seen them fight like that. Hopefully I never will again. I know that Rhys wasn't pissed about my virginity, but rather the danger that losing it had put me in. Azriel was even angrier about it--though he let Rhys do the walloping. They knew what my family would do for debasing myself with a bastard-born lesser faerie." She brushed a hand over her abdomen, as if she could feel that nail they'd spiked through it. "They were right."

ACOWAR

Chapter Twenty-Six, pages 275-276 Azriel, Rhys, Mor, and Feyre are meeting with Eris in the Hewn City.

Eris looked between them [Azriel and Mor], smiling faintly. Secretly. As if he knew something Azriel didn't. "I wouldn't have touched you," he said to Mor, who blanched again. "But when you fucked that other bastard--" A snarl ripped from Rhys's throat at that. And my own. "I knew why you did it." Again that secret smile that had Mor shrinking. Shrinking. "So I gave you your freedom, ending the betrothal in no uncertain terms."

"And what happened next," Azriel growled [referring to Eris leaving Mor where he found her].

A shadow crossed Eris's face. "There are few things I regret. That it one of them. But... perhaps one day, now that we are allies, I shall tell you why. What it cost me."

ACOFAS

Chapter Six, pages 59-60 Mor's pov, a flashback to the day her family dumped her on the border.

"No one touches her," he said. Eris. "The moment we do, she's our responsbility."

Cold, unfeeling words.

"But--but they nailed a--"

"No one touches her."

Nailed.

They had spiked nails into her.

Had pinned her down as she screamed, pinned her down as she roared at them, then begged them. And then they had taken out those long, brutal iron nails. And the hammer.

Three of them.

Three strikes of the hammer, drowned out by her screaming, but the pain.

She began shaking, hating it as much as she'd hated the begging. Her body bellowed in agony, those nails in her abdomen relentless.

A pale, beautiful face apeared above her, blocking out the jewel-like leaves above. Unmoved. Impassive. "I take it you do not wish to live here, Morrigan."

She would rather die here, bleed out here. She would would rather die and return--return as something wicked and cruel, and shred them all apart.

He must have read it in her eyes. A small smile curved his lips. "I thought so."

ACOSF

Chapter Seven, page 83 Cassian's thoughts about the alliance with Eris.

No, Eris was their ally. Rhys had bargained with him, worked with him. Rhys trusted him. Mor, despite all that had happened, trusted him. Sort of. So Cassian supposed he should do so as well.

Chapter Fourteen, page 164 Cassian, Rhys and Eris meeting in Spring.

"You left her there to suffer and die," Cassian spat. His Siphons flickered, and all he could see was the male's pretty face, all he could feel was his own fist, aching to make contact.

Eris sneered. "Did I? Perhaps you should ask Morrigan whether that is true. I think she finally knows the answer."

Chapter Fifty-Seven, pages 588-589 Eris is dancing with Nesta in the Hewn City. (Not as direct of a relation, but this is one of the few times we actually get some insight from Eris' perspective.)

Eris spun her, and when she returned to him, he murmured in her ear, "Don't believe the lies they tell you about me."

She pulled back just enough to meet his gaze. "Oh?"

Eris nodded to where Mor watched them from beside Feyre and Rhys, her face neutral and aloof. "She knows the truth but has never revealed it."

"Why?"

"Because she is afraid of it."

"You don't win yourself any favors with your behavior."

"Don't I? Do I not ally myself with this court under constant threat of being discovered and killed by my father? Do I not offer aid whenever Rhysand wishes?" He spun her again. "They believe a version of events that is easier to swallow. I always thought Rhysand wiser than that, but he tends to be blind where those he loves are concerned."

Alright class. What have we learned? That it was Morrigan's family who brutalized her before they dumped her on the Autumn border. Look back at that first ACOSF quote. Do you really think that if Eris was party to the initial physical brutalization of Mor she would ever trust him in the least? Hell no. That is point number one.

Secondly, we know that Eris was aware of the fact that Mor did not wish to marry him. When he found out that she'd slept with Cassian he "ended the betrothal in no uncertain terms." The note her family nailed to her called her Eris's problem. Eris (surrounded by 5 other soldiers whom, I want to point out, may or may not have been loyal to him as opposed to his father--the father that's tortured him and he fears will murder him if he steps out of line publicly) knew that they couldn't touch her or she would become their responsibility. He already knows Mor doesn't want to be in Autumn and yet he asks her again before he leaves. From my perspective it seems like Eris has no good options, but that doesn't excuse the harm his choices caused. At least he eventually admits that he regrets this.

From the canon text, it is quite clear that SJM is hinting at another reason for the way everything went down. Multiple times she brings up this "truth," this reason which Morrigan has finally become aware of yet keeps to herself. I don't know what SJM is referring to, maybe we'll find out in later books. But it's mentioned frequently enough to suggest that things are more complicated than the IC believes.

I hope you don't take my saying any of this to mean that I think Eris leaving Mor at the border was okay. As Nesta so aptly put it, Eris doesn't win himself any favors with his behavior in canon. I'm not arguing against that. I personally like Eris for his moral grayness, his asshole-itude, the mystery of him, but everyone has different taste. I am saying that we shouldn't ignore what's written in canon.

I also want to point out that the vast majority of what we canonically know about Eris Vanserra is coming from the point of view of Rhys, Feyre, Mor, Cassian, Nesta, and Azriel meaning that information is inherently biased against him. The series is written in first person/ close third-person meaning that the character whose POV is being written carries their prejudices into their narrative. I'm suggesting that we acknowledge this and maybe try interpreting things with a grain of salt if you're open to it.

Finally, I suggest taking a quick look at Chapter 79 of ACOSF, it's only five pages and Cassian makes some fascinating points.

If you want to discuss this further, my asks are always open and please feel free to reblog/reply as well. If you disagree with something that I've said, let's talk about it. As long as things remain respectful, I'm more than happy to have conversations and hear other perspectives :)

#eris vanserra #eris acotar #pro eris #acomaf #a court of mist and fury #acowar #a court of wings and ruin #acofas #a court of frost and starlight #acosf #a court of silver flames #acotar thoughts #acosf thoughts

119 notes · View notes

lemonhemlock · 9 months ago

Note

i don't understand got fans like how is tywin a genius strategist when the only thing the red wedding accomplishes in the long run is north independence with the starks on top of it probably forever 😭

there are a lot of things happening here, some driven by fandom discourse (reactions and counter-reactions) and some conflations of realpolitk with fantasy elements and book writing norms. enough ink has been spilled in every direction, as tywin has both detractors and fanboys, the latter of whom sometimes lean perilously in the redpill direction (you know the type). i have a divergent take from them but i'm not truly interested in the debate either, as it has been overdone to death by now.

the following is a little bit of a tumblr hive mind mentality, wherein people with a (justifiable) anti-patriarchal discourse want to discredit a character that so strongly symbolizes patriarchy to the point that they refuse to assign him any positive traits. so, if tywin is a bad father and a bad person, it must naturally follow that he is bad at everything - he is a shit general, he doesn't know a thing about politics or diplomacy or wealth management or any of the activities that fall within the purview of nobility.

which i just think is not authorial intention at all and neither did the execution truly suggest that to me. correct me if i'm wrong, but, so far, at least, all of the westerland POVs we have had on tywin have been positive (bar his children ofc). sure, we haven't had a whole lot, but the author also threw stannis in there for good measure, who is not an easily impressionable fellow. robert, as well, may not like tywin, but he sees him as a person he can do business with and tries not to step on his tail too much.

all of this to say that textual evidence points to the fact that tywin is a good administrator and a fearsome adversary. i don't think grrm is even interested in presenting us with a character that is devoid of savy and proficiency at this level, nor do i think that his expertise is unwarranted, as unlikeable as his personality is. even euron, who is arguably the most despicable character in the books, has his own specific skill set. at the end of book 3, the tyrell-lannister alliance is enough to secure the rule of joffrey/tommen and the north is under bolton rule.

now, of course that tywin doesn't plan for the white walkers, for jon's secret parentage reveal or for the existence of bloodraven luring bran. but who would? you can only plan according to the information you have at hand and, at the point in the books tywin operates, magic is a faraway dream to entertain children. as far as he knows, he just wiped out the stark line, bar sansa, who is married to his son. yes, she later escapes, which can become a problem. but my point is that, when people attempt to appraise tywin's efficiency, they bring the magical element into discussion, in that he is presiding over the calm before the storm and that there are many destabilizing factors at play against his status-quo, of which he is blissfully ignorant. but, the thing is that you can be otto von bismarck reborn, but your political ideology is not going to hold water against an alien invasion or fantasy beasts or weirwood CCTV. you can only plan and scheme according to the pre-established rules of your world, and if those rules change overnight, then of course your plans are going to prove "faulty" and you're going to have to adapt. but is this really a gotcha that directly targets your cunning or strategic thinking?

my final observation is on the norm-breaking red wedding. this is not the say that norm-violation doesn't carry consequences (there are already essays on this topic so i won't insist), but i'll interject that whether these consequences manifest always or only sometimes is still debated in the literature, as is the nature of those consequences. scholars remain divided, if you will. realists will tell you norm-adherence is subordinated to a state's cost-benefit analysis and the power they dispose of to achieve their goal. liberals (IR) will tell you that cooperation between actors is mutually-beneficial and thus respecting shared norms is the rational choice. in any case, in order for neoliberal institutionalism to function, you first need to have institutions - department in which westeros is sorely lacking. i'll remind you that westeros does not even have a parliamentary body.

coming back to the text, tywin pulled off this little tactic before - to great success as well. he eradicated the reynes and the tarbecks and, so far, we haven't heard one dissenting voice from the westerlands criticising his decision. you can argue that that's a worldbuilding flaw or an absence brought about by lack of space, but i think it's also fair to say he was allowed by divine providence (i.e. grrm) to have this victory without any visible consequences. and i will go as far as to say that, after the red wedding, tywin is not killed by a stark or a martell loyalist or a westerlands rebel, but by his own son, for reasons that have nothing to do with the reynes of castamere, the red wedding or elia martell. it's a common plotwriting technique - tywin is obviously punished for his deeds by the narrative in the metatextual sense, but it doesn't come as the result of his military enterprises or his political decisions. it's more of a crime of passion, driven by unfulfilled parental love.

this does not mean that the author is not trying to denounce tywin's style of ruling at the same time. that tywin is a deconstruction of machiavelli's prince is not a new or original remark. but if grrm agreed with tywin's ideology, then he would have lived out to "win" the so-called game of thrones. grrm is looking for a different type of kinghood and showing us a lot of different variants in the process. but i don't think he disqualifies tywin's version because it is not effective or because tywin was really actually secretly incompetent. are brutal tactics really not effective in the real world? i ask you: is that really an honest observation of the world around us?

no, i think grrm disqualifies brutality because it takes away one's humanity. because you shouldn't resort to it anyway, even if you can, even if it's so easy and tempting and effective. even if it means that, in its absence, you lose or die. because what kind of life is one impinged by cruelty and lived in the service of our base impulses?

#in the base court? base court: where kings grow base #ask #anon #tywin lannister #i think it's fair to say #he knows a thing or two about a thing or two

8 notes · View notes

frodo-with-glasses · 2 years ago

Note

Been thinking about a particular LOTR what-if scenario (because my D&D campaign took a turn into collaborative LOTR fanfiction), and I'm interested in your perspective on it if you have time . . .

Supposing Boromir somehow survived protecting Merry and Pippin, what effect would that have on Denethor?

Denethor's being fed despair by Sauron either way. But I have always read him as the news of Boromir's death being the thing that breaks him and makes him start to believe it. His grief is certainly a large part of what's informing his treatment of Faramir (though certainly not the only thing, as I think there's textual evidence that Denethor favored Boromir all along).

If Boromir didn't die . . . would Denethor still give into despair? Would he still send Faramir on a suicide mission — and if he did, and Faramir still suffered the same wounds, would Denethor still end up in his whole "all is lost; better to die on our own terms" spiral? Or would he have the presence of mind to see to the defense of the city?

How would he react to Aragorn, a man who has all the qualities Denethor disdains in Faramir but even more so, and who people are now saying is the rightful king (who even his own sons, even favored Boromir, are saying is Gondor's king returned)?

(He almost certainly wouldn't be a fan of Aragorn's plan to draw Sauron's eye away from Frodo. He probably would be greatly displeased that the Ring had been allowed to go across the River to Mordor at all, and even Boromir would have trouble convincing him otherwise.)

Thank you for letting me ramble in your askbox, haha. Don't feel pressured to answer if you don't want to or don't find the question as much as I do. (But if you do answer, I will be delighted.)

As much as the Gondor Dudes aren’t my personal hyperfixation in LotR, I am nonetheless a big fan of overthinking hypothetical situations, so this is right up my alley. :-D (Also, it’s really cool that you’re running an LotR-themed D&D campaign!! Sounds like a blast.)

To be honest, you hit pretty much every point I was going to touch on; Denethor’s despair and consequent insanity were certainly motivated, at least in part, by grief, so if you take the grief out of the equation then naturally the results are going to be at least slightly different. But we still have lots of other factors at play here: fighting a hopeless war, the looming specter of deposition, knowing that your allies just sent a nuke into the territory of the Enemy in the hands of a garden gnome so small you could punt him, and Prolonged Exposure to Cursed Artifact are still going to take their toll on Denethor’s mind. He will doubtless be more motivated to hold on to life while his favorite son is still alive, but even if he doesn't turn paranoid and filicidal, he’s still going to be Deeply Messed Up regardless.

So since I'm not getting any new ideas by looking at things from a Watsonian (in-universe) perspective, I'm gonna steer this in a Doylist (meta) direction and talk about implementation instead. The question I always ask myself with these sorts of "canon but a bit to the left" fanfictions is this:

What do you want out of the story? Do you want to:

A) Return to canon as quickly as possible? B) Change just one thing and see how far it butterfly-effects out? C) Find something somewhere in the middle?

Because the thing with "canon but a bit to the left" AUs that you can make pretty much anything work. It's a hypothetical situation. The question is how far away from canon you're willing to deviate. If I'm writing a "Boromir Lives" AU, I might go a couple of different directions, and the one I ultimately choose depends on personal preference and what I want out of the story.

Putting this under a read-more 'cause it's about to get long.

Option A: Canon, but like .5 degrees to the left

Ever since the battle at the Falls, Boromir has been following Aragorn and doing everything the Three Hunters (well, Four Hunters) do. When Pippin looks into the Palantir, Gandalf decides to take him to Minas Tirith right away, and Boromir, who's eager to get home and feels some responsibility for Pippin, volunteers to go with them.

(Yes I know that Shadowfax travels at ungodly fast speeds to get from Rohan to Gondor, but it's implied that lesser horses can keep up with their lord when they need to, so even if Boromir took a different horse they might still have been able to make it to Minas Tirith in a similar time.)

Denethor gives an enthusiastic welcome to Boromir and a far less enthusiastic welcome to Gandalf and Pippin. That welcome becomes less enthusiastic still in the ensuing conversation/interrogation, when he learns that they totally had the Ring but they sent it into Mordor instead of bringing it here. Boromir tries to reason with his father. Denethor is very disappointed with him. He blames Gandalf for corrupting his other son with all this foolishness, and treats Pippin with suspicion because of the whole prophecy with the Halfling, and the convo ends with hurt feelings all around.

I might need the War Nerds on this blog to correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the attempt to take back Osgiliath wasn't a completely useless suicide mission, at least in concept. It is a major river crossing, and controlling transportation routes is like War 101. If you make it hard for your enemy to cross the River, you make it hard for your enemy to get to your stronghold, and that's good. Not a bad idea on paper. The only problem was that Minas Tirith didn't have the manpower to pull it off.

(And also there were Nazgul.)

Anyway, the point is, it's almost logical enough that you might be able to get away with Denethor ordering the Osgiliath offensive even without the grief-induced paranoia. Besides, there's still other paranoia in play: so far as Denethor is concerned, the Ring is walking into enemy hands, his son and most trusted captain has turned against him, and Gandalf is already planning a coup.

So here's what I'm thinking. Keep the Osgiliath battle, but send Boromir out there as well. Boromir and brother bravely bear the baleful battle, before their butts are badly beat and they get bit by the Black Breath. Dad feels bad, his boasts bashed as his boys' bodies burn with fever. Battle bears down on the beleaguered bourgeoisie, but their bereaved bigwig is barely bothered, too busy building bier bonfires.

…Sorry, I don't know where that came from.

Anyway, the point is, this puts us squarely back where we'd be at this point in canon: Denethor thinks he’s about to lose his family, his city, and his kingdom, and consumed by despair he decides that it's better to die on his own terms than in the hands of the Enemy. You can pretty much just follow canon from here and copy-paste Boromir with whatever is happening to Faramir.

(Except, of course, for the whole "falling in love with Eowyn" thing. But hey! Boromir was in Rohan! He and Eowyn probably know each other already! So they might have some fun conversations in the Houses of Healing.)

This is the route I would take if you want to stick as close to canon as possible and still keep Boromir alive. If adherence to the narrative is not your biggest concern, however:

Option B: Go stupid, go crazy

Boromir doesn't die. What does that change?

Well, everything, if you let it.

Let's say Boromir does return to Minas Tirith with Gandalf and Pippin like I suggested above. Let's say he's able to talk his father into begrudgingly going along with their unorthodox plan to save the world. Let's say Denethor doesn't call for the almost-but-not-quite-entirely-completely-a-suicide-mission to Osgiliath and instead puts Boromir and Faramir to work strengthening the defenses of the Minas Tirith. By time the Battle of Pelennor Fields rolls around, Denethor—now no longer occupied by the family barbecue—is available to direct defense of the city, with both sons acting as his captains.

Awesome! All this is great stuff, right?

Well, yes. So far.

The problem is that we lose so many great moments with other characters in the process. Pippin's pell mell run to find Gandalf. Beregond abandoning his post to protect Faramir. Eowyn and Merry, who slayed the Witch King together because Gandalf was too busy putting out fires (literally!) to get down there and do it himself. Aragorn, proving that "the hands of a king are the hands of a healer"! And if Faramir and Eowyn hadn't both suffered the Black Breath, they wouldn't both have been forced to stay behind as everyone else went to fight at the Black Gate, and they wouldn't have fallen in love in the same way.

This is not a statement meant to push your decision one way or another, but it's just a fact of the decision: If you dispense with Denethor's paranoia, and the insanity, and the murder arson, then you dispense with a lot of the other cool moments in this book. The question you've got to ask yourself is if that's a price you're willing to pay, and if not, how you can work around it.

Anyway, back to Pelennor Fields. I want you to imagine that Denethor is standing at the wall, watching the battle raging below him. It's not going well. The reinforcements from Rohan arrived, but they're barely hanging on. And to his dismay, he sees a fleet of black dots which could only be Corsair ships sailing up the river.

The foremost ship unfurls a banner, with the Tree of Gondor glittering on it.

And the army that pours out of them absolutely wrecks shop with Sauron's forces.

Is Denethor feeling relief? Yes. But is he feeling dread and apprehension and anger too? Also yes. He knows what this is. It's a challenge to his power waiting to happen. All his suspicions about Gandalf's ulterior motives are coming true: he has found someone to supplant him, and whether or not this kid is the true Heir of Isildur, the darn upstart's already gone all dramatic and made a war hero out of himself. Whoop-de-frickin'-do.

And then, he sees Aragorn's face.

And he's livid.

Fun fact: Appendix A tells us that Aragorn actually worked for Denethor’s dad, Ecthelion, for a long time. Aragorn went by a different name, of course, but he was so competent and so well-liked that he became Ecthelion's most trusted and honored captain, to the point that the Steward liked Aragorn more than he liked Denethor. We don't just have history here. We have beef. It's a little bit of a Tony Stark, Howard Stark, Steve Rogers situation where it’s like “Dad liked you more than he liked me and I’m his own son”.

You’d better bet your bottom dollar that when Denethor’s childhood rival rocks up to Minas Tirith, flying a banner made by an elven princess and carrying the Sword that Was Broken on his belt like he's somebody important, it doesn’t matter if Boromir and Faramir and Imrahil and everybody else in Minas Tirith likes him and happily falls in line behind him; Denethor is still gonna take one look at his face and go, “oh. it’s YOU. I freakin' HATE you.”

Whether this colors their ongoing relationship "coolly polite" or "passive-aggressive" or "outright hostile" depends on how vindictive you want to write Denethor. Because let's be honest, bro could totally order Aragorn to leave Minas Tirith and he would; Aragorn knows he's not the king yet, and he's humble enough to accept orders while the Steward is still in charge (as bass-ackwards as that is). But the thing is that Aragorn has the support of the people, and banishing him isn't gonna change that; if anything, it will probably garner sympathy for him, cause the people of Minas Tirith to distrust their leader, and maybe result in fracturing the loyalties of the populous.

So here's what you've got, okay.

You now have a David and Saul situation.

Think about it. Charismatic, upright war hero, beloved by everyone he meets, serving under the suspicious and deeply disturbed incumbent ruler who knows the newcomer is gonna boot him off the throne. You can't live with him: 'cause he's gonna boot you off the throne. But you can't live without him: 'cause you're in desperate need of his particular set of skills, and you'd be incredibly unwise to do away with him and earn the ire of the public. So you put up with him. And put on a show of liking him. And maybe chuck a spear at his head while he's playing the harp to calm down your possibly demonic fits.

But that's just Saul, so let's get back to Denethor.

The next step, in the book, is obviously the Battle of the Black Gate. And, obviously, Denethor is gonna think this military equivalent of knocking on the door of an axe murderer and threatening him with a pea shooter is a terrible idea, because it is. But the whole point—Aragorn and Gandalf and Boromir and Faramir and Imrahil and everyone else insists—is to distract Sauron long enough that the Ring-bearer can succeed in his mission. The plan isn't to win, it's to be bait.

Now you have a few options.

Denethor can, once again, begrudgingly go along with it, showing that he's slowly changing in heart. Perhaps Aragorn's humility is winning him over. Perhaps Boromir's impassioned pleas are getting through. In any case, you have a pretty good set-up for a redemption arc here, which could be interesting if you want to go down that road.

Alternatively, this could be the moment that Denethor entirely gives in to despair and basically says "fine, if you guys wanna go kill yourselves, I'll just be over here doing the exact same thing", and he tries to make Steward a la flambé. (Whether or not he succeeds is up to you, but I will say that this would be a pretty easy way to settle the succession crisis.)

Alternatively still, Denethor could publicly denounce the whole idea as stupid and order the people of Minas Tirith to stay put and defend the city, at the same time that Aragorn and the rest are urging those same people to come with them for one last stand. Now every eligible fighter in the city has to make a choice. Who will they follow? Lord Denethor, or Lord Elfstone? The people are divided. Factions are made. (This might be the moment that a certain member of the Guard sees Faramir standing with Lord Elfstone and decides, for the first time in his life, to break the rules.) In any case, the force that travels to the Black Gate is far smaller than it would have been if not for Denethor's interference.

If you go with the first option, it's a quicker road to a happy ending. Aragorn returns victorious, he and Denethor reconcile, and Aragorn honors the Steward and puts him in a place of high esteem. Everyone in Minas Tirith likes this, including Boromir and Faramir, and everyone lives happily ever after.

If you go with the second option, Denethor has either successfully or unsuccessfully attempted sudoku, which should probably disqualify him from public leadership either way. If he succeeded in barbecuing himself, it's the tragedy of a man who never got to see the upcoming victory; if he failed, it's the tragedy of a man whose mind was so utterly broken by the Enemy that he couldn't enjoy it.

If you go with the third option, congratulations; after Aragorn gets back, you still have to deal with the succession crisis. But I've waffled on for long enough and have basically no ideas how you'd handle this post-story, so I'm not gonna go down that road any further.

Option C: Pitch straight down the middle

Now what I've just presented are the two most extreme possibilities of a "Boromir Lives" AU that exist in my brain, but they're far from the only options. This thing is a spectrum. There are a potentially infinite number of possible storylines, some closer to canon, some further away.

If you like parts of one but not the other, you can mix and match. Take an exit ramp from the AU and get back on canon wherever you want, or just don't and see where it takes you. All I've done is present the furthest extremes I could think of to help shake up the ol' creative juices.

(I would have explored the possibility of Boromir arriving on the corsair ships with Aragorn instead of a few days earlier with Gandalf and Pippin, but that didn't change much except for Boromir having less opportunities to talk his dad down from bad decisions. So do with that what you will.)

Conclusion

I have no idea if this was the kind of answer you were looking for, but I guess I'm just returning rambling for rambling, LOL! In any case, I hope this helped, and if not, I hope it was a fun read.

But there is one more thing I can do for you, before I wish you good luck in your D&D endeavors, and that's turn it over to everyone else who reads this blog and see what they think!

HEY YOU GUYS! If Boromir lived, how would that effect Denethor's psyche?? Reblog with your thoughts!

#asked and answered #faramir #denethor #boromir lives au #lord of the rings #lotr #my writing #in which i ramble about probable story trajectories for WAY too long

83 notes · View notes

quill-of-thoth · 2 years ago

Text

Letters from Watson, Scandal in Bohemia

Case and Themes We won't be doing crimes today, because... false accusations of attempted blackmail are not as interesting as the historical and fandom implications of this case. What is Bohemia, anyway? "Bohemia is a fantasy in your head." - Rent

(I promise the quote will be relevant, it's not just because I grew up a theater kid.) Bohemia is a region part of the present day Czech Republic that is almost completely surrounded by Germany. It's capital is Prague, which is known for a variety of arts and history reasons, from holy roman emperors and defenestrations to being the home of several classical composers and a hub of science during the renaissance and immediately after.

Politically, in 1888 or 1889, Bohemia would have been a portion of Austria-Hungary. A large and politically confusing third portion that had recently (1871) failed to achieve a position of equality for their monarchs with the co-ruling and ostensibly equal nations of Austria and Hungary. A king (or other major noble) of Bohemia would not have direct political power, but may have social notoriety, property, or money. Since I've proposed fictionalization for this story, I should note that "Ormstein" may not actually be a member of the bohemian nobility, but lacking other evidence, we must assume that he is notable, noble, and of more social than political power, wherever he's actually from. Differences between "Bohemian" and Bohemia

La Boheme, the 1896 opera that Rent is inspired by, shows that by the late 1800's "Bohemian" was synonymous with socially unconventional artists and intellectuals, whether they were in Paris or Bohemia itself. Whether that was expressed in political views, art, free love [a concept originated in the 1800's and repolarized during the 1960's], or in the musical Rent, specifically relating to queer people.

When Watson refers to Holmes' "bohemian soul" he's deliberately referencing a wealth of history of arts and sciences and the colorful figures surrounding them.

Bohemian is also a description that was applied to Oscar Wilde, leading some Sherlockians to posit that it is a tacit acknowledgement that Holmes is not straight. Combined with the opening to Scandal, it is not a stretch, textually. Many people have, allonormatively in my opinion, extrapolated from a lack of love for women that Holmes is gay, my read has always been that this refers to a lack of either romantic love or sexual attraction, or both, and that Holmes is Aroace. Either way, it's an impediment to Baring-Gould's fanon that Holmes and Adler had an affair, especially when one considers how many knots he tied himself into to avoid Watson's dates ever being even slightly inaccurate. Either the text is fallible or it's not, Baring-Gould! The description of bohemian may also apply to Irene. People who were described as bohemian were often writers, artists, actors, and musicians - like Irene Adler. Her description as an "adventuress" is not simply a feminine form of adventurer, or an adventurous woman, but implies that she's unscrupulous: scheming for wealth or social advancement via her romantic connections to men. Not merely a mistress, which is shameful enough, but one who won't quietly get brushed aside at the conclusion of a relationship, perhaps one who, unlike Ormstein, believes that their relationship should not be dismissed by society as invalid because they're of different classes and not married. Or perhaps one who, contrary to Ormstein's and Holmes' assumptions, is entering into a marriage with more equal footing than most of her peers: she has no fear of her husband finding out about her prior relationship, after all.

#Letters from Watson #A Scandal in Bohemia #I'll catch up with Reigate later I'm just busy this week #bohemians #this was not meant to be partially about Holmes being Aroace #but it's Aro week #and that's my interpretation which is only slightly based on projection #like 5% or less projection #Okay at time of posting LAST week was aro week #in my defense this story did not conclude until the second to last day of it

26 notes · View notes

utilitycaster · 11 months ago

Text

The below is a long rant but it is something I feel deep in my bones and informs the vast majority of how I engage with both works and fandoms but really it boils down to the following tenets:

The full phrase is "all interpretations are valid provided they are supported by the text", and in this context "valid" means "not incorrect, though also not uniquely correct". There are invalid and incorrect interpretations, namely, those not supported by the text.

All headcanons are valid in the sense that no one else can tell you that your thoughts are wrong to have, but there are no shortage of headcanons I or others think are fucking stupid and terrible and yeah, in direct conflict with the text sometimes. [sidebar: headcanon to me means 'think you think would be cool to have in the story but may or may not be in any way supported by it'; interpretation means 'thing you believe could be the canon of the story.' headcanons need no evidence; interpretations always do.]

If you need internet strangers to tell you that everything you think is good and correct, that's pathetic and burdensome and unless you address it you will be a negative presence in a fandom through this neediness.

Creator confirmation after the fact is great if it, as mentioned above, clarifies something supported by canon. If it is not officially supported by canon but not in conflict then I guess it's fine but it doesn't actually mean anything, and if it's actively in conflict it's worse than useless.

Conspiracy theory-esque "confirmations" are on par with needing the validation of internet strangers if not lower.

Are you genuinely happy with being told and not shown? (not a tenet but a question to ask yourself)

I think I can best express this by going down that list and giving some examples or expansion.

I'm going to return to my old favorite example, The Giver, which as a middle-grade book is extremely accessible. It ends with Jonas and Gabriel fleeing into bitter cold, and at the very end, Jonas thinks he hears people nearby, "but perhaps it was only an echo." My interpretation, as a 10 year old, was that he did hear people. My mother's was that he was dying of hypothermia. These were both valid interpretations at the time (later books by Lois Lowry confirm that Jonas survived, but without that information available the idea he died is not incorrect). It's an ambiguous ending, and either a bittersweet story in which he survives but is now someplace strange, or one in which he dies having known emotions and freedom unlike most others is thematically consistent with the story at large. If you had an interpretation of, I don't know, "he was abducted by aliens" you'd be a fucking idiot because there is no support for this.

As mentioned, interpretations and theories need textual support - not just lack of contradiction, but actual textual support - to be valid. Headcanons do not. I don't personally care for headcanons that conflict with the text but like, you can have them. It's in your head. I don't get to tell you what can be in your head. Only you can. I can think your headcanon is dumb though. You can think my headcanon is dumb. We can all hate each other's headcanons. It's technically true that headcanons are all valid but ultimately that's a useless statement because of point 3. If your headcanon is that Jonas is himself an alien because you think it will be funny I think that's dumb as shit, but like, you can think it and the consequence will be that I think your headcanon is dumb as shit.

This is pretty self-explanatory but anecdote time. The first anon hate I got on this specific blog was in response to someone who, on anon, was excited about iirc some sorcerer feature and I was like "ok? I don't care" and they kept pushing and I finally was like "oh my god happy for you but I said I don't care" and then they sent the hate and it's like. pal. I do not care. I am also a complete stranger to you. Whether or not I like the thing you like or think your theories or D&D build is good is immaterial. Anyway virtually all hate/harassment I have personally received boils down to "waaaaaaah why don't you like things I like" and it's like well. I am an individual person with my own brain. Why don't you like the things I like. Why do you care. Why do you feel both in need of and entitled to my approval. Why are you remotely invested in what I think at all. Desire (for the approval of random-ass strangers) begets suffering (of everyone because you can't act right) and then this all turns into a truly wretched feedback loop because obviously when you start acting like a fuckhead towards people when they didn't validate you, they will now disapprove of you harder. I don't have an answer on how to stop this other than get off the internet and go to therapy.

First case: classic example is Korrasami; there is obvious in-world textual support for them being in some way involved but no hard confirmation of Yes They Are Girlfriends. Clarification is nice. I don't think it's necessary per se to enjoy the relationship, and I'd duprefer in-world confirmation, but sometimes it is useful to have. Dumbledore is a case of "not in conflict but not really supported either" (at the time that was said): we'll talk more in point 6 but really it's like yeah sure he's gay I guess, didn't get a single bit of like, canonical representation of queerness out of it though. I don't have an example for the third case but like, I don't know, it's probably happened for some show out there where the creator and actor vehemently disagreed and one of them says something fully contradicted by the canon at which point it's just like, well, everyone for themself.

I had some of this in a post in queue that I am perhaps wisely putting here below a cut instead but: I'm talking the 'well on this poster their hands are 2 mm closer than anyone else's hands are' mentality. I'm talking about 'she seemed to be blinking in his direction a little bit while out of character, so...' But most of all I'm talking about people claiming merch photos as ship validation. The best analogy I have here is that when people do shit like this it reads to me as if they are crouching down on a subway platform to desperately lick the filth-encrusted gum thereon in the hopes of obtaining a molecule of flavor. It is deeply sad, and I pity them but I'm also kind of grossed out and uncomfortable by how nakedly desperate it is and I'm like. I want to give you some real food, but also you seem to actively be into this so I'm going to leave instead.

Putting all of the above together: think about your favorite textually canonical relationship or character detail. Imagine the story and how it unfolded. Now imagine that you didn't have that at all but the creator was like uhhhhh sure yeah whatever, yeah they're together, yeah this character is this thing you thought. Would this satisfy you in the same way, even a little? Does it feel good to you to be told "the thing you didn't get a single moment of would in some other timeline maybe have happened?" while getting nary a peek at that other timeline? This is somewhat rhetorical but like, it's not dissimilar vibes to the previous point. This is what you're settling for? Someone saying "yeah we never gave you what you wanted but sure maybe under wildly different hypothetical circumstances, anyway we shall not elaborate, you still don't actually have that story." Like, hey bro, there's a gay character! it never comes up but like, it's there! Hey! There's a million dollars in your wallet! Well actually there's not but I think there could be! Does this satisfy you?

I warned this was a rant but just...the thought of this sort of thirst for validation without any substance behind it is so deeply sad but also alien to me, and, more than anything, sounds fucking exhausting. The compressed version of the above really is "damn bitch, you live like this?"

I think we need a return to 2000s-era "word of god is a cop out" attitudes. Like... it's one thing if someone clarifies something supported by canon or adds character details in interviews, and but like. Even before jkr revealed herself to be horribly transphobic we were side-eyeing the "Dumbledore is gay I just never wrote a single word indicating that in the text" statement and now people will be like hello creator could you confirm my crack ships and unevidenced headcanons as if that means anything.

#i recognize this post on some level comes off as wow you losers have such low self esteem and standards it's bumming me out but like #love yourself enough to raise the bar to a micron off the floor.#again like if you are happy being out here like oh my god blorbo A and blorbo B stood next to each other for 3 nanoseconds. have fun.#but are you having fun. are you really. or are you somehow afraid to want things except for (unhingedly) the approval of strangers.

915 notes · View notes

restlesshush · 2 years ago

Text

I know people love the “Cas can hear longing” thing, but the thing is the textual basis for it is actually pretty shaky, and it also just definitely doesn’t serve the purpose re Cas and Dean’s relationship more broadly that people want it to.

Okay so, re the textual basis: literally the only reason this concept exists is because buckleming needed a justification for Cas running into Claire again in 10x10, and her actively praying was too implausible, so they come up with “uhhh okay – her sort of wanting to counts” instead. Obviously that’s not in itself a reason to discard a piece of lore, because it is still in the show (though buckleming do have a tendency towards dropping garbage nonsensical lore, so…), but – more importantly – because of the function it was meant to serve, in context it’s a bit of a leap to take it as Cas hearing longing in general. Specifically, Cas follows up the ‘longing’ mention with asking Claire “perhaps you wanted to tell me something?”, to which she eventually concedes she does. The exchange is kind of clumsily worded – because it’s a buckleming episode –, but it seems like the mechanic is that Cas can tell if someone is perhaps ‘longing’ to pray to him, which is not at all the same as implying he could perceive longing in a romantic or other emotional sense.

Which is good, because if that were true, the implications re destiel are not ones that we want. Basically, if Dean is longing for Cas and Cas can perceive that, he’s not acting on it, so the options are that either this isn’t actually something he can perceive, or there’s nothing there to perceive. We know Cas is in love with Dean the entire time, and we know that he knows this by the 12x12 love confession at the very latest (but presumably much earlier) so even if the 15x18 confession didn’t make explicit that Cas doesn’t think Dean’s in love with him, we’ve got a very significant amount of time where Cas would in theory want to act on Dean’s ‘longing’ if he knew about it, except he not only isn’t, but also seems kind of afraid (“…I love all of you”) of making it too obvious that he’s in love with Dean in the first place. If he can perceive longing, he isn’t perceiving any from Dean directed towards him (which was a crucial part of the mechanic, as laid out “angels are able to find those who pray to them”) which isn’t really what we want to be implying.

And I mean fortunately, I don’t think the text really implies this at all, but I do feel this is worth flagging because people often seem to lean kind of heavily on the longing mechanic / Cas’s angelic senses in general for justifying Cas having an access to / understanding of Dean’s feelings that really isn’t supported by the show. Right up until the end, Cas really doesn’t seem confident at all of his place in Dean’s life, even beyond the question of Dean being in love with him or not, because – as I think is pretty widely acknowledged – the most compelling evidence for Dean being in love with / caring about Cas is how he responds when Cas is dead, which obviously Cas doesn’t see. Cas’s (very significant) insecurities re his and Dean’s relationship often go largely neglected, and using lore explanations to sidestep them is generally just quite lazy, and kind of does Cas a disservice. This isn’t to take away from people’s headcanons or anything, but I think it is worth pointing out that despite it very frequently being treated as fact, Cas hearing/feeling longing in a romantic/emotional sense is just a headcanon, and not really as useful a one as people seem to think.

#castiel #dean winchester #destiel #spn meta #destiel meta #spn 10x10 #worded thoughts #spn

153 notes · View notes