#please acknowledge that women can be abusers too

[bohoteacher]

Navigating Betrayal: Reconciling Admiration with Disillusionment

Like many Neil Gaiman fans this month, I've been shocked and distressed by the news regarding the SA allegations. I won't go over the details, as they're readily available online. I'll start by saying that I believe the accusers, and even the most lenient interpretation of events is still troubling enough to discredit Gaiman. For a long time, I didn't know what to say. I was just shocked and, somewhat naively, felt betrayed. I don't typically idolize actors, authors, or other public figures—I'm here for the characters, they're who I love and believe in. So, how did I end up believing in this man and his rhetoric?

I only had a parasocial relationship with him, which is to say no real relationship at all. But I took his Masterclass on writing, spent hours taking notes, and learned from him. I feel betrayed by someone I saw as a beloved teacher. I know this is insignificant compared to what the women who came forward experienced, but it's a valid feeling, and I needed time to process it. My initial reaction was to throw out and discount everything he’s ever written or done—of course it was.

This isn't just about my love for Good Omens, although how can it not be? I learned so much from this man—about writing, about not being too hard on myself, about the creative process. I read his books to my middle school classes, and we all learned how to be better people from them. Today, I saw and bought Instructions, a children’s book by Neil Gaiman illustrated by Charles Vess, from the used bookstore where I volunteer. It was a used copy, so no royalties will go to him. It’s a beautifully illustrated book where the main character walks through a land that clearly symbolizes life, learning lessons like saying please and "if any creature cries to you that it hurts, if you can, ease its pain." How could someone write this and then do what he did? I asked myself. "What an evil hypocrite," was my first thought. But then I recalled a line from another author, Stephen King. In The Stand, a character is described as "awake at the lectern, but asleep at the switch," meaning they know the right thing to do and can talk about it, but in the moment of choice, they act without integrity.

I don’t know if I’m making sense, but I think it’s too easy to label Gaiman as simply evil, as if he intentionally manipulated us by saying the right things just to make us read or watch his creations. The reality is likely far more complicated. Within this man is the amazing, thought-provoking, life-affirming wisdom that many of us have tried to live by, but also the hard, thoughtless, selfish cruelty that led him to abuse young, vulnerable women. The wisdom does not justify the abuse, and the abuse does not nullify the wisdom.

I think it's too simplistic to say Gaiman is despicable and always has been, hiding it from us all along. This doesn't acknowledge the complexity of human nature—that there is potential for both good and bad within us all. As it’s said, possibly by Terry Pratchett or possibly by Neil Gaiman, “It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”

Gaiman is a man who has done some fundamentally good things and some fundamentally bad things. I can’t forget either one.

This is just my opinion. I know some people want to cancel him, while others want to exonerate him. You do you. As for me, I will continue to love Aziraphale and Crowley. I will continue to read and create fan-fiction. I will continue to find comfort and wisdom in books that have meant so much to me over the years. But I will also remember that they were created by a very flawed man whom I can no longer trust.

I understand that opinions on this matter vary widely. I know some people might feel that not discarding everything associated with him is wrong, but this is where I stand. I’m not looking to debate this or be told how I should react. I just needed to process my thoughts in writing and move forward in the way that feels right for me.

[raynaisanerd]

Too much of the fandom really likes Renee. I hate her. I can understand that people find her attractive, because she is, but I can’t stand her. Obviously each to their own, and I can acknowledge that if you don’t particularly like both Andrew and Ashley you will find Renee’s actions less hate-able. This is just my thoughts shoved into text format. Sorry for any errors.

Abuse of Andrew

₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ Renee made Andrew into a parent for Ashley, which in turn didn’t allow him to have a proper childhood. It’s also teased in the Episode 3 trailer that there’s rumours of incest between the siblings around school which is no doubt stemmed from the two being forced in such close proximities due to the mother and fathers neglect. This more than likely affected a lot of Andrew’s social life, pushing him towards other women to ‘prove’ he isn’t ’like that’, which isn’t particularly healthy for a teen boy.

₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ Renee and the father are likely the cause of Andrew’s anxiety in fear of pissing her off, or generally bothering her. Andrew represses his true feelings so he can please his parents, Both parents seem to brush off any concerns Andrew has, making him internalise his feelings and not seek any mental or emotional support for what he is going through.

Abuse of Ashley

₍⑅ᐢ..ᐢ₎ Renee forcing Andrew to be Ashley’s caretaker tore away any form of other support network for the young girl. This is clearly shown with how she struggles to make friends and genuine connections with others outside of Andrew, seen with Julia and Nina. It is also why she never sought out support for herself, Renee would never get help for her clearly neurodivergent or somewhere on the ASPD spectrum, so Ashley in turn also did not.

₍⑅ᐢ..ᐢ₎ Renee not allowing Ashley to have birthdays may seem like a small and insignificant detail but it speaks volumes of what she was like as a parent to me. She never allowed to have nice things and Renee made sure of that. Or didn’t. She didn’t care enough to even check up in the girl, probably didn’t even remember her birthday.

₍⑅ᐢ..ᐢ₎ Renee calling her a problem and an annoyance, again, something insignificant to some that I am reading into far too much. Your parent is supposed to be your biggest supporter in life, the one that brought you to life, who is supposed to love you unconditionally. Ashley has none of that. The only unconditional love and support she has is from her older brother. Not having support from your parents, your mother actively calling her an annoyance doesn’t help with her obviously festering insecurities and self hatred.

₍⑅ᐢ..ᐢ₎ Renee thinking and openly expressing that the only way Ashley could have value to anyone (specifically Andrew) is if she is having sex with them. Ashley’s mindset about sex is very contractual (I will probably go into further detail about this in a later post) and I believe that that has been taken from her mother.

—

🌺 Selling her children to the organ harvesting scheme is just generally fucked up, and how she shows absolutely no remorse is even more concerning. She happily collected the life insurance money, moved to a nicer home in a nicer place intending to forget about the two whole children she had.

🌺 Renee may not be the cause of all of the siblings problems, there are external influences as well as the father, though I feel with the lack of content we have around their father that I am unable to judge him on his actions, bar being equally responsible for his children. I just find the fandoms treatment of Renee to be odd considering how fandoms usually absolutely flame abusive parents in fiction. As I said, each to their own, if you like her this isn’t a post to try and change your mind, it’s just my opinion.

[staytinyville]

Towards the Light Masterlist (2K Followers Special)

↣ Summary: You’ve lived eight different lives, all of which they couldn’t save you. Now they will do all they can to keep you alive and within their arms. 

↣ Characters/Pairing: Fallen Angel!Ateez x Reader

↣ Genre: Mature

↣ AU/Trope info: Fallen Angel!Au, Reincarnation!Au

↣ Word Count: N/A

↣ Warnings: Topics of suicide in one of the one-shots, mental illness, violence, marital abuse and violence, murder, smut (More warnings apply within each chapter)

↣ A/N: This was just one of the few stories I was inspired to write after my concert. It was one of the greatest things I got the chance of experiencing and I am so excited to see them again. I don’t know when but I am hoping to. Tell me what were your favorite parts of the concert!

Staytinyville’s Permanent Taglist

↣ Affiliates: @cultofdionysusnet , @cromernet , @monsterfvckersunited , @pirateeznet , @k-labels , @k-vanity

↣ Special Thanks: Thank you @saradika-graphics for the amazing banners! Please go check her out if you have specific banners in mind. She is great!

Was there really someone watching over you? Someone who would protect you from any harm? The idea that someone–something–would drop everything just to see you live another day, was beyond comprehensible. Was their love for you so powerful they would ruin their grace for you?

**

You could remember the time when things seemed to have changed within your soul. It had been when your family was slaughtered within your home by the invaders. Or could it have been when you had gotten sick and landed in the hospital? No, it must have been when you proverked those men to attack you. No–No–

There were so many things that led you to be confused when you truly felt like things were taking a turn. You weren’t too sure what was real and what was just a story you might have heard. You couldn’t even decide if you were a real person living in the modern day world. The only thing that kept you going was the fact that others still acknowledged you at one point or another. 

You didn’t live in a village. Didn’t live in Victorian era London. You for sure weren’t married. 

You lived on the 12th floor of a high rise building. You had a fridge that held all the food you would eat for the week. You had a fat cat that owlishly blinked at you from its perch on the window every time you came in frazzled from work. You had a plant in a pot that would sometimes smell from the water you had given it the day before. 

No–No. You lived in modern day times where genocide was a war crime. Where medicine was now able to contract a sickness you might have. Where women had more voice than ever before. 

Where looking over the side of a building caused for concern from your peers because suicide was not something to be taken lightly. 

It was modern day times, and yet you still always thought about the past. 

You weren’t a skeptic but you were a paranoid person for some reason. You felt like you were being watched for years–even going as far as seeking help for schizophrenia. But your paranoia never changed, however your feelings did. 

You grew used to looking behind your shoulder in hopes of catching whoever was looking at you. Feeling the shivers go down your spine as someone gets too close. But the moment you let your guard down, that was when the dreams started. 

One by one you saw them each in your dreams–each more different then the last. But still always watching you.

1960s - Jongho - October 1

1910s - Wooyoung - October 5

1880s - Mingi - October 9

1830s - San - October 13

1740s - Yeosang - October 17

1700s - Yunho - October 21

1690s - Seonghwa - October 25

1620s - Hongjoong - October 29

2024 - ATEEZ - October 31

Be sure to apply to my Masterlist on Google docs if you would like to be tagged in the series. I was gonna do Kinktober but bro I didn’t catch up quickly. I don’t have time because I’m going on vacation in October so yeah. My smut writing is trash atm bro. I can’t

[coochiequeens]

There's something satisfying about when an abusive man is called out by other men. Or at least one man.

Rest In Infamy, You Haunted Castle

Why I believe the Neil Gaiman accusations

By GRAHAM LINEHAN JUL 19, 2024

I only met Neil Gaiman once, at an upscale dinner party where Derren Brown had been hired to do magic tricks like in the old-timey days. Between astonishments, Gaiman and I withdrew to a quiet corner where I pretended to be pleased that he was giving me a signed copy of ‘Sandman’. One of the unexpected advantages of being cancelled is telling people who took part in my harassment what I really think about their work, but this was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, so I said the right things and we went back to being bamboozled by Brown’s invisible craft.

To give credit where it’s due, I later read Gaiman’s ‘Coraline’ to my kids which had them simultaneously terrified and hooked, and thanked him for it. Whatever my feelings about his earlier work, he was a real writer, practising his own invisible craft. From the evidence of that book, I thought he was probably a decent person too, an impression that continued until 2022, when we started to get into it over The Issue.

I may have asked why he wasn’t speaking out on behalf of JK Rowling, who was undergoing one of her regular cancellations for refusing to pander to the spoilt brats who loved her books but missed their meaning. A big name like his might have shifted the conversation and given her some much-needed support. He might perhaps have persuaded some of his fans to give the matter another look. This was when I assumed people like him acknowledged biological reality but worried about ‘coming out of the closet’, as it were. It took me years to realise that almost every celebrity mate of mine believed, or was pretending to believe, in the fashionable, American mind-cancer of ’gender’.

But back then, I was still astonished to find that he was a carrier of the virus, the mass delusion that by sheer coincidence, turned up after the arrival of the Internet. Whether it was Bill Bailey or Neil Hannon, Robin Ince or Matt Lucas, Arthur Mathews or Jimmy Mulville, it was always the same story. A sudden cloud of amnesia would form around my celebrity mates, a real peasouper, from which they suddenly could not see why we need female-only spaces, or why unhappy teenage girls will not find a miraculous cure for their woes in a double mastectomy. Far from sharing any of my urgency in the need to stop children from being irreversibly harmed in gender clinics, they instead downplayed, deflected and dismissed. “I never ask you to join in with my animal activism” grumbled Neil Hannon on one of the occasions I begged for his support.

“Couldn’t you pretend women and children are animals?” I thought.

My usual trajectory during these conversations saw me shifting from gobsmacked disbelief to fury and despair. The disloyalty made me angry, but knowing my friends did not care about their own daughters, wives, sisters and mothers was, and continues to be, destabilising in the extreme.

Gaiman went one step further. I can’t find the tweet, so I may be paraphrasing, but he said

"I hope you're kinder if your daughter ever hopes to transition."

I can think of no uglier thing to say to a parent. For girls, ‘transition’ means double mastectomies in their teens, hysterectomies in their mid-twenties, early menopause and a four times greater chance of having a heart attack than males of the same age. To have this decaying goth wish that horror on my daughter was more than I could bear. I wanted to rip his throat out.

Like a pair of grappling cowboys falling off a rooftop, our fight spilled into email. I sent Gaiman this article about the Tavistock. It was clear when he wrote back that he hadn’t absorbed it Like most celebrities in this fight, he appeared to have lost the ability to read.

“As I said before Graham, I hope that you'd be kinder if it was one of your kids who wanted to transition. “

He actually said it again. The piece was right there, detailing exactly what was happening to the children unlucky enough to wander through the Tavistock’s doors, and he chose to repeat that disgusting thing. Why?

That same year, just months before Gaiman was advising me on the value of kindness, a 22-year-old woman (‘Scarlett’ in the podcast) arrived at his Waiheke Island home in New Zealand for a babysitting job. Upon her arrival, she discovered that Gaiman’s wife of the time, Amanda Palmer, had suddenly remembered a sleepover, an appointment the child was apparently eager to attend.

So she and junior drove out of view, leaving the 23 -year-old Scarlett alone with Gaiman for the night. Within a few hours the 61-year-old man, without warning or invitation, appeared fully naked and slipped into the other end of her bath. Scarlett alleges that over the next three weeks, they embarked on a semi-consensual relationship, where Gaiman routinely ignored the boundaries she set. She alleges that he became angry when she would refuse these demands, used a belt to beat her, insisted she call him ‘Master’ and once sexually assaulted her so violently that she lost consciousness.

“… (the sex) was so painful and so violent that I fainted. I passed out, lost consciousness, ringing in the ears, black vision, the pain was celestial, you know, which is a strange word to use, but I couldn't even describe it in language. And when I regained consciousness and I was on the ground, I looked up and he was watching the rehearsals from Scotland of whatever they were filming, I don't fucking know. And he didn't even notice that I was passed out. And you know…there was blood. It was so so, so traumatic, and I asked him to stop. I said it was too much.”

Scarlett is a compelling witness despite, or because of, her contradictions. Certain things paint a picture of consent—she sexted Gaiman, to which he would send careful replies—and she laughs nervously when she talks about the alleged abuse. But when Gaiman’s side of the story is put to her, she turns cold as a knife and shows flashes of fury that she—in her telling—young, inexperienced and dazzled by Palmer and Gaiman’s fame and lifestyle, was used so casually and so brutally.

A few years back, I wrote about becoming a sort of Jessica Fletcher figure on Twitter. ‘Murder, She Wrote” but with paedophiles and predators. “Just as murderers seemed drawn to any location Jessica presented herself, “ I said. “My opining about women's rights and safety on Twitter appeared to attract the kind of men who can't sit still during a spelling bee.”

Among my adversaries was Peter Bright, the Ars Technica writer now doing twelve years for trying to buy two children to abuse. Luckily the children didn’t exist and the parents were actually FBI agents. Our exchange was brief and concerned safeguarding. I’m sure you’re all astonished to discover that he was against it.

Then there was ex-Labour MP Eric Joyce, who argued with me about the safety of mixed-sex loos in schools and was done for possessing the worst kind of child abuse images. More recently, I tangled with ‘Lexi’, who is now serving time for rape.

They all had one thing in common. They couldn’t leave alone those of us who were actively opposing the trans movement's assault on safeguarding, an assault that chimed nicely with their plans for the future. Each was returning to the scene of a crime not yet committed, each picking at a scab on their own character.

In 2018, at the height of #MeToo, Gaiman tweeted “On a day like today it’s worth saying, I believe survivors. Men must not close their eyes and minds to what happens to women in this world. We must fight, alongside them, for them to be believed, at the ballot box, and with art, and by listening, and change this world for the better.”

Well said. I certainly believe the women in ‘Master’. During my Jessica Fletcher period (a period which continues) no-one except Gaiman ever mentioned my kids. I think he knew it would cause me distress, and the second time he said it was just a twisting of the knife. Many of my colleagues in the media joined in with the trashing of my reputation, but Gaiman went that extra mile. I believe this is because he is a sadist. I think he is a man who finds pleasure in the suffering of others, and a man who does not see women and girls as fully human.

This was my final letter to him.

Dear Neil

I notice you’re still pretending you can’t read the Tavistock story. If you ever try and lay that curse on my kids again I will certainly share our exchange. Your privileged beliefs are harming children so to paraphrase Will Smith, keep their names out of your fucking mouth.

Thank you for giving me one last chance to say that JK Rowling will be remembered as a hero and you as a traitor to the kids who loved your books.

Rest in infamy, you haunted castle.

All the best,

Graham.

[whyreyousoobsessedwithme]

Spoilers + theories 520-21

- We're off to an awful start, cutting off your finger for a man who doesn't even respect you or your child. I had a feeling I wouldn't like him. These women lowkey seem brainwashed, too, and a little unwilling in the first panel.

- Wait so I was right about gun being half korean then, or is this a mistranslation? His mother's name is Korean, I started to think that Gun Park was his Korean name that was given to him after his legal Japanese name.

- Honestly, Gun being born a full-fledged fighter was a joke. I didn't think it would happen.

"I already have a name, though."

- He looked so confused when his mother slapped him because he was too young to understand. I don't like seeing children get abused.☹️

" You're the hope of Yamazaki syndicate. And you're also my hope."

- What happened to those women who couldn't birth a UI child?

"And their leader's an elementary schooler?"

- Please ptj, be for real right now😭💀

"You did very well."

- Girl teaching your own child to hit you, please, what happened to self-respect, all for a man who's sulking over a loss. I can guarantee yall that he started the fight with Gapryong, too, because as much as Gap was a total cheater, he still cared about injustice.

"I understand, but I will never give up. I will wait for you to look back at me."

- Girl stand up.

"Someone who protected my mind...he ws the first to embrace me."

- The only sane person, meaning he'll die very soon

"Repay the humiliation Gapryong's gang put us through..."

- So their only purpose is that? I get that pride is a big thing for these guys, but like😟

"...even if that person is my son."

- I hope he doesn't have anymore children.

"...I'll be free of the Yamazaki." " I pity you."

- My heart goes out to Haruto. Imagine living every day pretending to be ok with the fact that your father doesn't value you.

- Where is his body? What if he did survive but hid himself away? What if one of the workers who was supposed to dispose of his body saved him? (Let me be delusional pls)

- I honestly didn't think ptj ate with the " I didn't cry because I never learned how to be sad" line. Sadness isn't something you learn. It just comes to you. I know he's trying to portray how detached Gun is from his emotional side, but this wasn't it. If someone you cared about died like that in front of you, you would feel something.

- Why do none of those yakuza leaders ever wear clothes in meetings? I know they can afford them.

- He literally ripped them apart. No wonder his wife seemed unbothered in the bath.

- Clearly, Gun isn't the firstborn. He's just someone who has the potential to be the head. With how easy it was for them to get rid of Haruto, it makes me wonder what happened to the other women who birthed Gun's half siblings. Were they sent home with their child? Were they sent home without their child? Were the children killed, or are they being used for something else? Were the women killed for not birthing a UI child?

I have a theory. I think something had happened between Gun and his father that led to Gun using his Korean name instead, maybe to rebel against his father or something who knows. But this something happened before the fall of the Magami clan. I also think Gun's father acknowledged him after this fight.

[blightbright]

mythal nuance

look, i love some yikes women characters!!! have i mentioned how much i fucking adore knight-commander meredith? yeah, that genocidal zealot? sympathetic lawful evil ftw. one of my ALL-TIME FAVE CHARACTERS is mariah dillard from the luke cage TV show. she is ABUSIVE, including to her daughter, she is devastating and so well-portrayed, and she is such a terrible person AND i just adore her in her harmful flawed tragic selfhood!

flemythal? fucking love her, she's awful, she's hilarious, she's compelling, i think it's a travesty that devs didn't get kate mulgrew's voice and the flemeth appearance back in some timey-wimey fade magic way. i love how she feels at odds with herself, sometimes vengeful, sometimes regretful. i love her sweetness toward merrill and her funny interactions with purple!hawke, i love her confusion that morrigan is upset with her, i even love the YIKES ambiguous, semi-motherly, semi-loverly, intimate owner-pet vibes head stroking and nuzzling between her and solas in the DA:I end credits. OUCH.

veilguard!mythal IMO feels more like a mediocre narcissist who wants to maintain the status quo, and of course is faux "loving" AKA guilt-tripping and strings-attaching her "care." that's not badly written since it's a real thing, but she's not for me. the fact that elgar'nan presumably abused her is not super compelling to me because IMO it gives the flavor of a confederate slave-owning white woman whose husband is a piece of shit AND ALSO she still thinks slavery is fine and actively upholds and abuses her power over other people. this is not an analogy: mythal literally owns people as slaves. in my fic i try to give her some fairy queen style, wouldn't-it-feel-so-good-to-die-for-me vibes where she's liberal with her magically-hypnotic praise if you please her, to make her more inhuman and therefore interesting to me, but anyway.

i'm seeing accusations of misogyny if people love solas and hate mythal, and while we can and should critique how women characters are written and discussed, given the canon content, it's NOT an inherently misogynistic reaction to hate the character who abused a character you love. i saw a thing insisting "solas is always defined by mythal" and to respect mythal and... really? critique the writers as much as you want for setting this up, but do people really want to say we should always identify a person by their abuser's influence, or offer respect to that abuser??

are you also gonna say "morrigan is always defined by flemythal, acknowledge and respect her when talking about morri" after we know for a fact that flemythal repeatedly exposed morrigan as a child to sexual situations that resulted in violent death, encouraged her to push down her own sensitivity and feelings and focus only on power and manipulation, and morrigan tells the spirit in DA:O that she's still acting too gentle to be the real flemeth, even after smacking morrigan hard across the face and demanding morrigan show some respect? she had an influence on morrigan's life, but holy fuck does morri deserve to define her life by her own desires and her own choices and accomplishments now

if people are aware that solas was given mythal's slave markings, since she was a slaver like the other evanuris, then he burned them magically off his face when he led a slave rebellion against slavers, and hear all the clips in veilguard where she is clearly in a position of power over him, and still claim there was no abuse, idk what to tell you. you are incorrect. please consider if you have some cognitive dissonance about how much you love to hate solas (tho you can still do that even if a character has experienced abuse) and/or how much you want to enjoy mythal (tho you can still appreciate an abusive character).

[jamesfrain]

https://www.tumblr.com/thomascromwelll/768764862470012928/he-thinks-if-jane-had-married-me-she-would-be

Can you please explain the context of that gifs? How could cromwell save jane if she died pf natural causes?

Hello! of course!

This scene differs somewhat from the book version (and I believe that the relationship between Cromwell and Jane is portrayed as more intense in the series than in the book).

In both the book (bring up the bodies) and the series, a narrative is constructed suggesting that Cromwell intended to marry Jane. This intention is communicated by the Seymour family and Gregory as well.

'Yes, but why were you talking to her brother this last hour? First it was chess then it was talk, talk, talk. They say you liked Jane yourself.’ ‘When?’ ‘Last year. You liked her last year.’ ‘If I did I’ve forgot.’

‘George Boleyn’s wife told me. Lady Rochford. She said, you may get a young stepmother from Wolf Hall, what will you think of that? So if you like Jane yourself,’ Gregory frowns, ‘she had better not be married to me.’

If he had any feeling for her [Jane], he cannot find traces of it now. [...] He is not the same man he was last year, and he doesn’t acknowledge that man’s feelings; he is starting afresh, always new thoughts, new feelings.

He sees Rafe thinking, so my master is going to ask for Jane Seymour after all. For himself or for Gregory?

‘Yes. Unless I am to be married at last. Am I to be married to you?’‘I must forgo that prospect. I am too old for you, Jane. I could be your father.’

Although my interpretation of the book led me to believe there was little romantic feeling, I think Cromwell never really intended to marry Jane, and I believe his behavior toward her was a little poor. — I can't find the quote where he said he would never marry a woman who shared a bed with the king. They were trying to keep Jane a virgin so she could hold Henry's interest.

Returning to the series, he shows some interest in Jane throughout the first season. He observes her but never takes any further steps to approach her for marriage. Just when it seems he has the courage to do so, he notices that the king is also interested in Jane.

In this instance, Jane seems to lean towards him as well. She wishes to escape Anne's service and her family's messy and abusive environment. (I think it's clearer in the book.)

Although in the book he articulates the match between Jane and Henry, the series portrays him as surprised by the development of their relationship.

When Jane marries Henry in the new season, Thomas still seems to feel affection for Jane. That's why he's so inclined to make her life easier as queen and, in my view, even protect her from Henry's inconsistency.

Now to the scene. When Jane dies after days of suffering, Thomas feels like he could have protected her from the dangers of being Henry's wife. I believe this statement in the book (TMATL) summarizes his feelings:

He believes the king wants to scramble onto a fast horse: away he spurs, over that same mountaintop, where out of sight a new day dawns, where the past has ceased to repeat itself, caught up in a loop, a stitch, a noose. He left Katherine at Windsor and went hunting and never came back. At Greenwich with Anne he rose from his seat at the tournament, mounted his horse and rode to London, with Henry Norris beside him. He strode away and took the horse’s bridle, he mounted up and he never glanced in his wife’s direction, he never saw her again. He leaves his queens, before they can leave him.

Even though Thomas doesn't vocalize these words in the book, I believe they needed to include it as a quote in the show. The weight of his expression conveys anger and sorrow. He's not only mourning Jane but also feeling frustrated with Henry's nonsense and Henry's views on women in his life.

He thinks, if Jane had married me, she would be alive now; I would have managed it better.

[positive-radfem-confessions]

I knew about radfem as a thing that was bad and that you had to block for since like 2017, and not until yesterday did I actually read around about what it was about, and now i feel like my understanding of a lot of things has shifted really rapidly and idk how to cope. Like i thought porn was a healthy expression of sexuality and bdsm is harmless between consenting adults but reading the stats and where it all stems from and its effect on women and the horrific abuse of the porn industry, i cant believe that anymore. I understand the reason behind gender abolition now and why theres critique of trans ideas. This whole time I was taught that radfems hated trans people for existing like how right wingers do, but after reading around I actually see the love that radfems have for trans men, and the indifference for trans women. Its not about hate at all. Its about the love of women and how sex is what we are oppressed by, and gender as a social construct exists to stand in the way of women. Sexism makes my soul hurt so deeply, and I never understood why people don't talk about it more, why I seemed to care about it more than people around me. Why lgbt people dont talk about it more. Its everywhere, in every part of society. It's so hard to acknowledge that this group which I consider family also actively benefits from the exploitation of the female sex. I don't know how I can deal with the fact that my friends would be upset at me for believing this. How do I even process this i feel alone

I normally as the admin of sorts of this blog do not 'answer' asks often, but I wanted to say that there are whole swathes of women (rad-aligned feminists, radfems, etc) around radblr who have been where you are and have felt what you've felt. Don't be afraid to ask them questions or talk with them! It can definitely feel isolating at times, but more women than you'd think agree with a lot of these feminist ideas and are just afraid of being silenced.

This blog is not a 'normal' blog where I answer or console people, so I will have to ask any radfems/rad-aligned who wish to direct this lovely anon to their blogs who are open to asks/conversations/or just have a wealth of information for her to browse through, please reblog or comment for her to find you, or start up conversations on this post if you wish! Many of us have talked about your experience at length, as we've been through it ourselves too.

You are NOT alone in your feelings and discoveries. I hope you remember that ⭐

[specialinterestshows]

The following is based on an abusive!Rhea Ripley x reader fic. However, this particular fic will revolve around interactions between the reader and Damian’s girlfriend, another woman being abused by her partner.

I would like to present: Left To Face This Together. Let me know if you would like to be added to the tag list!

Warnings for this section: Abuse/domestic violence mention, bruising, dissociation

-

Left To Face This Alone Together (Part 1 of ?): Damsels In Distress

It wasn’t often that Rhea and Damian were feeling merciful or ambivalent enough to leave the women they had claimed as theirs home alone. The Terror Twins didn’t quite trust that either of you wouldn’t try to start your own small rebellion. Yet, here the two of you were, left alone… together.

You suspected they considered the two of you too weak to try leaving, as your respective partners had roughed both of you up a bit worse than usual before going to do the same to whichever faction they were fighting this week.

Sitting in Rhea’s living room, the two of you were silent for a few minutes. Your muscles ached as much from tensing them out of fear as they did from the blows that had left you bruised. Damian’s girlfriend stared off into the distance as if she was somewhere else, sat on the ground right where Damian had shoved her down - his preferred way of saying goodbye. The woman’s long, dark brown hair covered some of her face, but not enough to hide the tears that occasionally rolled down her cheeks. The leather collar around her neck had a small, heart-shaped lock on the front and it seemed like every time you looked at her, you noticed another bruise or cut. While the paranoid part of your mind told you to be wary, there was something about the woman that made her feel like a kindred spirit.

“S-so… um,” you finally gathered the courage to speak, wanting nothing more than to ignore the pain that plagued you, “What’s your name? …I’ve never heard either one of them say it.”

Being spoken to looked distressing for her, eyes refusing to meet yours as she seemed to shrink in on herself slightly.

“… Lucia,“ she whispered, looking for the first time like she was present, “He never calls me that, though.”

Neither one of you wanted mention your captors by name.

Rather than address this fact, you introduced yourself.

She gave a small hum of acknowledgement.

“How long do you think we have?” you asked, thinking aloud, “Until they get back?”

Lucia gave a silent shrug as she seemed to start drifting away again. A panic rose in you; you didn’t want lose this chance at a connection with someone who might understand.

“How do you-“ your words ran into each other until your voice faltered suddenly, so you began again, relieved when she seemed to be waiting for you to continue, “How do you… distract yourself? Y’know, from” - you sighed, thinking of your own situation as well - “everything?”

“…It’s stupid,” she mumbled, barely audible.

“Please?” the emotion in your voice made her look you in the eyes for the first time, realizing you were the one needing a distraction.

“… I make up stories,” she admitted, looking away again, embarrassed.

“Do you want to make one up now?” you asked, desperate.

She studied you briefly before giving a reluctant nod.

“Can you start it?” you immediately felt like this was asking too much, so you quickly added, “And I’ll keep it going.”

Lucia seemed hesitant, but began anyway.

“Once upon a time…” she said, the shyness in her voice dissipating as a small spark ignited behind her deep brown eyes, “There was an adventurer. She roamed the land with her brother, meeting new people and exploring new places.”

She became more animated, despite the sadness that seemed to weigh heavily in her words.

“Until! She was captured by a dragon,” Lucia slowly unfurled herself from the defensive position she had been in, “Her brother was fascinated by the creatures, so she joined him in a quest to learn more. But! The dragon decided to keep her and she was imprisoned in a dark, cold cell. Then, in the darkness, she heard a sound and realized there was someone else being held there too.”

“The other prisoner was… a knight,” you continued, allowing your imagination to rewrite your experiences in this fictional world, “She had been taken weeks earlier by another dragon from the same nest… and even though her armor was thick, she was badly wounded. The dragon that left her there came back to attack the knight every day, without fail.”

A look of complete understanding crossed Lucia’s face and she let herself stretch out her legs as you decided to join her on the floor. She continued the story:

“Noticing the knight’s wound, the adventurer took a healing salve and a bandage from her kit, and helped the knight.”

The next line comes to you without a second thought:

“‘Save your remedies for yourself,’ the knight told her, ‘I am too far gone and you’ll need to keep up your strength if you have a chance of escaping.’”

You watched as an idea appeared to form in Lucia’s mind, fear making her voice tremble, but a steadfast determination in her eyes as she said the last thing you expected:

“The adventurer shook her head, saying ‘You’ve been here long enough to notice the dragons’ habits and weaknesses. I have the research notes my brother and I gathered from stories about them. If we combine what I know and what you know of these dragons, we just might be able to escape them together.’”

[end part one of ?]

Part 2: “The Most Dangerous Language”

[ventbloglite]

Some of you really need to step back a little bit and acknowledge how ignorant you are towards how misogyny affects trans mascs and how you yourself may be perpetrating said misogyny when speaking ill of trans mascs.

Which is not something you should be doing at all, fyi. You can talk about individual shitty trans mascs and certain community issues you dislike which involve or are perpetrated by trans mascs without just being transphobic towards trans mascs in general.

So many times I've seen the sentient of 'AFAB's have it really easy, everyone accepts AFAB's as trans, everyone loves AFAB trans people, the world caters to you, there is basically no problems for you if you're AFAB unlike AMAB folk' shown in a variety of ways from a variety of people including just outright saying it. Not to mention the belitting of trans masc experiences with transphobia and misogyny + the way those interact because they identify as men even though transphobes still consider them to be women and don't give a shit about their actual gender.

A main crux of transphobia (though many other factors which result in hating us come into play, too many to go into now) is that trans people are seen as and treated as their AGAB and punished for not identifying as it or portraying it 'correctly' by society. So tell me why so many seem to 'forget' about how misogyny impacts trans masculine people. Could it be because you believe that advocating for trans women and trans femmes and fighting transmisogyny somehow must involve being transphobic towards trans men due to that radfem influence you've absorbed? The world will never reach gender equality of any kind if everything is 'men versus women' so can we just fucking not bring that into trans spaces please.

Examples!

I saw recently a post which perfectly pointed out the potential risks associated with someone considered 'male' growing out her hair but OP clearly knew absolutely nothing about the same risks associated with someone deemed 'female' cutting his hair. Instead of not making that post or doing some research, OP thus assumed there weren't really any risks likely due to already believing that AFAB trans people have it easy.

The ignorance! Misogyny heavily impacts the way hair is treated on those perceived as women (including body hair) and women/those perceived as women have no end of people policing what they can and can't do with their bodies often taking things to the absolute extreme to do so. Short hair on woman may seem 'more accepted' but AFAB people of any gender could quickly tell you multiple situations where it's not and results in the same violence, abuse, homo(lesbo/butch)phobia and yes possibly even death depending on the situation even if you still identify as a woman. Pretending this doesn't happen is straight up misogyny btw.

'AFAB's pass easily by doing basically nothing' is another frequent one which makes me laugh. 'Passing' for most trans people is so situational and so dependent on what you do or don't do to strictly conform to gender stereotypes if you're even able to do that at all. To suggest that the world ignores feminine gender markers the moment someone's hair is short and their chest appears mostly flat ignores both the complexity of how humans perceive gender and how misogyny comes into play whenever a woman/perceived woman shows any masculinity let alone maleness. Considering the same misogyny comes into play frequently against trans women you'd think it'd be easy to remember.

This general sentiment of 'Being born with a vagina means your life is easy and everything you do will be loved and supported because society adores you. You don't and will never have any real problems, not like anyone born with a penis.' isn't magically okay and absolutely super different to when misogynists say it about cis women because you're using AGAB language and cite 'because you're men and blah blah patriarchy' as the actual reason you're saying it. It's very clearly same shit different coat of paint. The pool is there, your toes are in, stop preparing to dive for Gods sake.

[plutodetective]

I have to work today, but there’s a lot I want to say about Jonathan and gender, and I won’t have the time to organize it in a proper essay, so here are some points:

1) Of fucking course men can have characteristics usually attributed to women and still be men. I’m working on a series of sci-fi adaptations of fairy tales, and in my Sleeping Beauty the protagonist is a (cisgender) boy, precisely because I want boys to see they can be vulnerable and need rescue too. And I completely understand if someone prefers to see Jonathan as a cis man because it’s so rare to see men in this role, surviving abuse, when it does happen in real life. I start my Gothic Heroine Support Group fic with Belle making precisely this point. Men can be prey, women can be predators. She knows this because that’s what happened to the original Beast, and kudos to Gabrielle Suzanne de Villeneuve, the author of the original Beauty and the Beast, for making this point centuries ago.

2) That being said, Jonathan seems to identify with women on a deeper level than being on a role in which women usually are. For me, what cements the headcanon is when he chooses the women’s quarters to sleep in, seeming to long for “a gentle life”, even if it involved sadly waiting for the menfolk to return from war. He seems to identify with the female identity, not only the female role. That’s only my personal interpretation, I fully acknowledge that. But seeing as it’s one that a lot of trans people in the fandom seem to share and, more importantly, to identify with, it’s one that is more than valid: it brings people joy. I’m cis. I’m also bisexual, and I know the joy of seeing myself in a character through subtext, and also how frustrating it is when people say it’s not true because it’s not 100% explicit in the text. If trans people are telling me they identify with Jonathan, I believe them and I take that as there being reasons I acknowledge I cannot fully understand why Jonathan is potentially a trans woman.

3) I assume everyone here has heard of Joseph Campbell’s The Hero’s Journey. But it’s less likely that everyone has heard of Gail Carriger’s The Heroine’s Journey. I fully recommend this book to everyone. But the point she makes is that whether someone is a “hero” or a “heroine” according to hers and Campbell’s analysis doesn’t depend on their gender. Women can follow Campbell’s Hero Journey, and men can follow Carriger’s Heroine Journey. And non-binary people can follow either. The names come from the gender of the characters who originated the archetypes, with Campbell’s being classic Greek heroes, and Carriger’s being ancient world goddesses. With that in mind, although no one has written a “Gothic Heroine’s Journey”, Jonathan Harker is a gothic heroine, regardless of whether you see him as cis man or trans woman, because he follows that story type step by step.

4) Does anyone here know of a transgender gothic heroine (in the gender neutral sense explained above)? Because I don’t. If anyone does, seriously, please point me their way, I’d love to increase my gothic knowledge. But it’s a type of representation I’ve never seen. As a member of a lot of minorities, I feel very happy whenever I see any of them represented in ways I’ve never seen before, and I can only imagine it’s the same for trans people. So what’s the harm in letting Jonathan be that? Seriously. All that is missing so far from Jonathan being a fully classical gothic heroine is him going around the castle in a flowing white dress. If I ever get to adapt my written version of modern day!Dracula, I’ll absolutely put Natália (my version of Jonathan) in a white nightgown, just to give a transgender actor the chance to play out this scene that I’ve seen so many cis women do over the years. Again, I understand if someone takes empowerment from Jonathan as a cis man surviving abuse, and I’d never want to take that away from them. Jonathan being a cis man is an absolutely valid reading too. But I think trans women deserve empowerment too, deserve to see a trans woman playing out a story so many of their cis counterparts have always had. The book is in public domain. We can each adapt them the way we choose. Cis man Jonathan and trans fem Jo, Natália, or whatever name you prefer for her, can coexist and be important to the groups of people each of them are important to. 

[deardarlingdevil]

I'm happy that BG3 received the Best Community award in the Golden Joystick Awards! At the same time, from experience, while the corner I found in the fandom is a great community, there's still a lot of toxicity and issues in the fandom that I want more people to acknowledge. So once again I am bringing up the moralistic double standards I see in the fandom. I think I touched upon this in a separate analysis about romance options but I want to make a separate post for the fandom issues.

Astarion will be my prime example and his Ascended route in particular. With female characters such as Lae'Zel, Shadowheart, and Minthara, you don't see as much policing from the fandom when players make them take the darker routes to their story arcs. I never saw people shaming other players for encouraging Shadowheart to become a Dark Justiciar, so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, people, particularly cishet men, shit on women and queers simply for liking Astarion. The same unwashed assholes who talk about how SH is their edgy Sharran waifu or how Minthara is dommy mommy are the same folks who will deride Astarion girlies (gender neutral) and intentionally try to provoke them by saying things like "oh I killed him on sight hurr durr" or claiming that "females" have no "morals" because of their choice of videogame men.

Sadly, it's not the cishet men who do this too. I've seen unhinged opinions from folks who use the semblance of social justice to bully other fans for enjoying "problematic" content. I've seen queer folks say things like "women who enjoy Astarion's ascended route should be euthanized". I don't like the Ascended romance route either but that's a personal preference and I'll just simply live and let live + curate my space if such content manages to come across my social media feeds instead of making batshit takes. Like, chill, please.

And speaking of the Ascended route, people automatically assume that the player is romancing him while taking the Ascended route and assuming that the players are reducing him to a sexual object. It's almost as if players can choose not to romance him and still let him ascend for other reasons. What's worse is even one of the writers expressed a similar sentiment, which I admittedly agreed with until I read other players' thoughts about the Ascended route and how they do acknowledge that Astarion gaining such power does perpetrate a cycle of abuse for the character, but can be cathartic to the players who experienced something similar but cannot or will not act on in real life.

Of course, I have to bring up Raphael too. I've seen people thirsting for femme fiends like Mizora and fem!Haarlep and no one bats an eye. But with people thirsting for Raphael, there will always be that one cishet man who will take Haarlep's, a character who hates Raphael because he essentially uses him/her/them as a fleshlight, words at face value to point out his inadequacies and oddities in the bedroom, as if that will make the character less attractive to his fans. On the other side of the spectrum, there is sadly a small but vocal corner of the queer BG3 community who are biphobic and would shame women and other queers, especially femmes, because they exclusively want to ship Raphael with Haarlep's male form.

Once again, I'm not throwing my fellow sapphics under the bus, but the amount of vitriol femmes and queers receive for wanting to explore darker themes with male characters is disproportionate compared to fans who took the darker route with the female characters.

Yes, the BG3 community is a great community in general, but misogyny and biphobia is still alive and well in certain pockets of the fandom. Sigh.

[sysmedsaresexist]

Me trying to math my way around how most systems are in AFAB bodies when trauma associated with DID/OSDD can happen to anyone, AFAB or not:

(Unless I'm wrong which then please correct me. I'm just not really sure the data there-)

It's actually true, for once! (in regards to Sophie stating a true fact)

Women are diagnosed with DID 9 times more often than men.

From the DSM:

More women have DID/OSDD than men, and there's thought to be three reasons why:

1) While all types of trauma can, and do, happen in alarming numbers to everyone regardless of biological sex, specific types of trauma do happen more frequently to those who are AFAB as opposed to AMAB.

Both (all? I'm not up-to-date on gender/sex stuff, feel free to educate me in return) sexes can experience all types of trauma, but certain types of trauma happen more often to girls. For example, the CDC reports that girls are about 3 times more likely to be a victim of childhood sexual abuse (and it goes the other way, too-- Statistics Canada reports that boys are more likely to experience physical abuse).

This leads into the second point.

2) The numbers on this topic are thought to be wrong.

Unfortunately, toxic masculinity is a bitch and it's believed that more men experience certain types of abuse than are being reported, AND that there are more cases of DID in males than are being reported (PDF, careful if on phone, but it's a REALLY good read).

Now, this doesn't change the first point. It's still believed that DID occurs more in AFAB individuals more than AMAB individuals, but it means that they think the numbers are closer together than it looks.

3) speaking of toxic masculinity, there's a flip side to the coin.

Just as much as men are taught to behave certain ways, so are girls. There are elements, both learned and biological, that make women more prone to behaviors that might contribute to the development of certain symptoms.

I really think that the numbers will start to even out because the number of men willing to report their DID will increase-- I like to think that society has become much more supportive on a larger scale, and there's been a huge shift towards talking about mental health, especially in males. Being on Twitter, I've seen a growth in the number of AMAB people talking about dissociation and DDs, and that's incredible.

The next generation is going to be so different, but it'll be another decade or more before these now-teens reach a point in their lives where they're able to join in on these studies and for the numbers to start to shift.

But after all of that

Let's not forget to acknowledge the sheer number of children that are being abused worldwide, regardless of their sex. Sure, men being more open about their mental health will start to bring to light a lot of the true numbers, and that's great and all-- but those numbers are ridiculous.

It shouldn't be like this.

It just shouldn't.

We should not be seeing the numbers that we're seeing.

The number of people who SHOULD be reporting DID should be 0. Zero. None.

[towelgrl]

this  year  marked  ten  years  since  i  lost  my  baby.  the  loss  hit  me  so  hard  that  i  almost  didn’t  come  out  the  other  end.  this  month  in  the  uk,  our  government  finally  made  it  possible  for  anyone  who’s  suffered  a  loss  to  receive  a  certificate  of  babyloss,  acknowledging  the  angel  they  had  to  say  goodbye  to.  this  has  been  such  a  long,  exhausting  journey  and  i  don’t  think  i’ll  ever  be  able  to  close  the  chapter  on  it  entirely  because  the  loss  is  too  huge,  but  my  certificate  came  today  and  i  do  finally  feel  like  i’ve  found  some  peace  at  least.  they’re  being  acknowledged.  my  baby  came  as  a  result  of  a  very  abusive  trauma  bond  relationship  and  acknowledgement  means  a  lot  to  me  after  10  years  of  him,  and  his  new  wife,  sending  me  vile  messages  if  i  so  much  as  lit  a  candle  in  my  baby’s  honour.  i  don’t  always  believe  in  signs,  but  i  do  believe  this  happened  so  soon  after  the  ten  year  anniversary  for  a  reason.  i’ve  recently  been  looking  at  fertility  treatments  for  single  women.  i’ve  put  this  off    …    a  long  time,  because  i’m  so  terrified  of  another  loss,  but  this,  as  well  as  just  celebrating  almost  seven  months  sober,  feels  like  they’re  telling  me  it’s  okay,  it’s  time.  this  is  a  very  personal  post  and  the  main  reason  i'm  really  sharing  is  because  if  there’s  anyone  else  out  there  going  through  something  similar  right  now,  please  know  it’s  gonna  be  okay.  there’ll  be  long  periods  of  time  when  it  feels  like  it  isn’t,  but  it  is.  and  if  you  live  in  the  united  kingdom  like  me,  you  can  get  your  certificate  by  filling  out  the  information  here.  it’s  a  very  easy,  despite  very  emotional,  process  and  it  should  be  with  you  within  two  weeks  looking  like  the  below  (minus  the  black  boxes  to  stop  me  doxing  myself).  mine  doesn’t  have  the  father  listed  because  in  the  least  respectful  way  i  can  mean  this,  fuck  him,  but  yours  can  if  you  would  like  it  too.  you  just  need  their  permission.  sending  all  my  love  to  everyone.  today  is  both  a  good  and  a  bad  day<3

[thedreadvampy]

Midcentury American novels update:

Finished Farenheit 451 on Thursday and it didn't hit me to the degree Catcher in the Rye did but I do completely get the sense of despair and the hunt for something to cling to. Umm also there's an actual nuclear apocalypse in this book which I. Did not know through my general cultural osmosis. And it made a lot of the stuff that initially read a bit as 'you can't say ANYTHING now cause of 50s Woke' less irritating in hindsight, cause the looming presence of nuclear war gives some real crunch to the overall theme of looking away from the discomfort of acknowledging what's wrong. Still not 100% comfortable with 'well we started burning books lest minorities become offended' as a midpoint comment but like I read this when I was 12 or 13 and very much came away with the sense that it was a shallow What If TV But Too Much kind of story that was very pleased with its own intellectualism. and I don't really think that's what it is I think it's a primal scream of WON'T ANYONE DO ANYTHING????? CAUSE I AM TOO SMALL AND TOO STUPID AND TOO COMPLICIT BUT NOBODY ELSE IS MOVING EITHER???? which you know. I can connect with at this time.

anyway then I reread One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest yesterday. That one I actually have read as an adult, like 10 years ago, and what I remembered mostly from it was the degree to which either the characters, the author, or both, truly despise women. On reread I don't think that's entirely fair, although it's hard to tell inside one character's very limited and metaphorical perspective - I don't think Ken Kesey hates women, I think that Candy and Sandy are relatively whole people and the other women in the story are avatars of the system abusing the men on the ward, so Chief Brogden sees them as such. Getting over the general 60s misogyny miasma, though, I really really liked it and stayed up very late last night finishing it, I think it has a lot of very coherent things to say about trauma, power and marginalisation and I think it's all a bit Foucault. It's odd that I remembered it as being very het-white-American-male in tone because this time around it felt very interested in how people are artificially marginalised in order to preserve power, and specifically in the violent assimilation of Indigenous communities, so I truly don't know why I went away last time feeling it was so tone-deaf. It's really good, is the thing.

(As a side note, cause Sam's copy is an 80s film tie in copy - there's no fucking way that film is good, right? Cause I actively cannot imagine how you would make a film adaptation of a book that exists so much in one mostly-silent character's head, kind of unmoored from time and moving between reality, metaphor and hallucinations, and with a fairly distant relationship to the literal events, and have it not be shit. Animation could maybe do it and you could potentially do it with a really good effects department to establish early on that this isn't a neutral, literal depiction, but even so it feels like doing this in a visual medium would undercut the fact that most of the book's story involves stuff that isn't really happening on a visual or audible level.

Like about a tenth of the text is Chief Brogden drawing connections, conclusions, describing the emotional and sensory experiences of things like dissociation, anxiety and electrocution, and generally explaining why the things that he and the other patients do that seem random make sense to him. And even with heavy voiceover it seems to me that a) a film would mostly be us watching mental patients act the way we expect mental patients to act, without the insight we get through his eyes, and b) it would inevitably need to be about what a guy McMurphy is, either positively or negatively, which to be entirely honest is kind of not what the book is about even though that's the plot of the book?)

The book isn't about McMurphy, it's about people realising they've not only had their agency taken away, but given it up themselves, and how they react to that and what it would mean to reclaim that. McMurphy's one of several people going through that arc, and he's going through it in an opposite direction to the people around him, but it's not more about him than about Chief Brogden or Billy or Harding or even Nurse Ratched. But I feel like because of how film language works, it would be very hard to make a film of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest where McMurphy wasn't the main character. And he's not. Chief Bromden is the main character as well as the narrator - his life is defined by people collapsing under unbearable pressure and giving up their freedom and agency, which is how his tribe lost their land and how he lost his agency and his power of speech, and watching McMurphy force the people in power to subdue him by force rather than him caving in, the Chief makes actual choices about how he wants to respond to power that don't involve him falling out of reality or becoming invisible. and I think like halfway through I was like 'ehhh don't really get why Kesey went with a specifically Native protagonist' and by the back end of the book it is extremely clear to me why.

Cause his arc has a lot to do with the violence against indigenous communities and while I don't think that the book is primarily a metaphor, per se, because it very much is literally about institutionalisation and the stigmatisation of inconvenient Madness, I do think it's also saying things it wants us to apply to other relationships of power and assimilation, starting with the forced assimilation and land theft of Native Americans, and touching in on class, politics, race and sexuality more generally. Not much on gender, mind - I don't think that it does actually despise women, but it also isn't very interested in interrogating anything about them other than the impacts they have on men, which 🤷‍♀️ 60s innit.

idk I liked it a lot. I liked Farenheit 451 pretty well and better than I expected to, but Catcher and One Flew have both got me in this kind of rambly post-read mode where I'm just turning them over and over in my head to look at them, you know?

[ksfoxwald]

The thing about Magic's Promise is that I think it's one of Lackey's best books for character development and worldbuilding but also always makes me want to beat Vanyel over the head with a stick. His whole character arc in this book is learning to stop moping over his dead boyfriend and that friends are important too... and therefore he has to keep his friends far away, for safety. Because the thing about Vanyel is that he's not selfish, exactly, all Heralds are so damn self-sacrificing (one starts to wonder if the Companions are exploiting them), but he's a bit self-centered. He just doesn't notice anything that doesn't affect him directly. Reading Magic back to back with Arrows is an interesting contrast, because Talia and Vanyel have very different backgrounds and it shows; farmgirl Talia thinks nothing of hanging out with the servants, while minor noble Vanyel barely even notices them.

Reading Magic back to back with Oaths is also a trip, because Oaths is all about Woman Power fighting against sexual abuse, and the only way a woman can be evil is if she is a man under a weird curse (it's the 80s). I don't think Lackey has ever had an actual female villain - Hulda in Arrows is more of an evil henchperson, not the mastermind - so it's a bit startling in Promise to see the effects of a boy abused by women treated with a good amount of sensitivity. I'm surprised she doesn't draw more direct connections between Tashir's abuse and Vanyel's "please stop assuming I am a child molester just because I'm gay" (which seems to be an obligatory psa for every gay fantasy hero of the 80s; ironically MZB has the same motif). The thing is, Lackey doesn't do a lot of subtlety, so when something like this happens I'm not even sure it was on purpose.

The theme of abuse also continues in the relationship between Vanyel and Jervis, one of my favorites in the whole of Valdemar, because it adds depth to what was previously a very basic bully relationship, but not in a way that implies one is obligated to forgive abusers; the way abuse is perpetuated in cycles is also a recurring theme, and I think a subtler writer might have managed to work that into the main plot instead of "so anyway there's this big magic rock..." But Lackey usually draws very hard lines between Good and Bad, and having a character doing Bad out of a desire to do Good and then later owning up to and fixing his mistake is a lot for her. And the fact that Vanyel had no idea that maybe Jervis had some other motivation that just picking on him also speaks to his self-centeredness.

Anyway, there are a lot of interesting notes of this book that never fully come together; Vanyel's arc of learning to enjoy friends despite lacking a romantic relationship is botched by his having about half a chapter with Shavri, which does not quite make for a convincing crisis of sexuality. Not to mention the fact that we know Bard Stefan is endgame, and I still think the reincarnation thing is total bullshit that runs counter to everything the first two books were building towards. And the themes of cyclical abuse could definitely have been tied into the Secret Ancient Family Magic of the main plot, if one had tried.

So it is what it is. It's very 80s. Maddening because it was almost but not quite the queer representation I was looking for at thirteen. At thirty I appreciate it as a queer stepping stone, and acknowledge it had other flaws as well.

Hm... I think I'll do Arrow's Fall next, then Oathbreakers, then Magic's Price. That'll round out the 80s and bring us into the 90s, with Kerowyn, Winds, and Gryphon.