#mantel's 'AB was not a victim' manifested into material that implied at almost every narrative turn that every misogynistic narrative
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
Never ended up adding this, but:
I don’t believe DM ‘woobified’ Thomas Cromwell, but I see some sort of marriage of narrative in his own biographical apologism & the depiction in Mantel’s series and its adaptation that filed off some his sharper, less palatable, edges, including the TV adaptation (if not literal marriage, then certainly a feature now of this sort of Cromwell-focused subgenre/...fandom?). It’s Cromwell holding a kitten that we see, not Cromwell introducing a bill for the utter abolition of sanctuaries, Cromwell gently scolding an imperious Anne who insists Thomas More should be tortured ( ‘we don’t do that, madame’), rather than Cromwell as the orchestrator of the rather torturous executions of John and Alice Wolfe. In so many of these scenes, the characters opposite Cromwell feel like strawmen-- an irony, from an author that so often derided that infamous author of so many strawmen arguments where he came out the moral and intellectual victor, himself...
I also don’t think the criticism of misogyny as it concerns AB’s character in this series, the original source material nor the adapted TV series, is proportional to how eye-watering it was (dismissed because she’s so auxiliary, maybe...?). There is literally a scene where Anne tries to facilitate the seduction (and probable rape) of a teenage girl (presumably inspired by a dispatch of Chapuys in which he does not even report that there’s any rumor of this plot, just that he believes she might do so, that it is the goal and potential method of the isolation), as Cromwell stands on in silent, long-suffering, morally reproving judgement (which emerges as a pattern, another scene later or before is him being the calming voice of reason as she squawks in outrage at the wording of the Act of Succession). Paired with the absolute Mary Sue gender-equivalent of this character (in TMATL, even his own daughter-in-law wants to fuck him), it’s just nauseating.
#his praise of mantel's work validated it in some ways#particularly in academic circles to the point she was invited on a panel of historians for a documentary about AB#so...#yeah. idk. i don't think there's anything wrong with depicting moments of vulnerability; either#but where's it afforded to any others in the text?#SA tw#*vulnerability and humanity#the book as well ......there's way too much 'oh but that was period-accurate misogyny'#of course there was 16c misogyny but part of critique is questioning the narrative necessity of the scenes that feature that#what was the narrative necessity of cromwell imagining himself stroking her breasts in the TV adaptation?#or the duke of suffolk in the book saying he knows for a fact she practiced oral sex on dildos in france? like.................#mantel's 'AB was not a victim' manifested into material that implied at almost every narrative turn that every misogynistic narrative#about her that existed from the time of contemporary report to polemics during her daugher's reign#was justified and reasonable#cromwell doesn't think very highly of suffolk and obviously neither does mantel but the implication of the scene isn't that that's not true#but that he just can't say it.#*shouldn't say it rather#since cromwell just advises him that her becoming queen is inevitable
10 notes
·
View notes