#the lawless woman

[stuff-i-wanna-post]

Lucy Lawless

[markthexenaaddicted]

Lucy Lawless is the living proof that ambrosia in Xena Warrior Princess was real.

[womeninfictionandirl]

Xena by Ivan Jacob

[dark-ethereal-visions]

Wait til they give her a chakram!

[coramills]

Holding Out For a Hero - WLW Edition

[nelc]

Lucy Lawless, before and after

[bejeweledfangirl]

i have this headcanon that stevie, a bisexual, fell in love with faith, a straight, when they met and the reason she cut contact after faith married lev is because she couldn’t stomach watching the woman she loved have such a serious relationship with somebody else.

[girl4music]

Such a passionate, genuine, wonderfully authentic person Lucy is. I love listening to her talk when she really loves doing what she does because there’s honestly no stopping the amount of intent and conscientiousness that she displays in promoting her work. She does it the right way. The way all true artists and creatives do. Put the passion for the project first.

I know she’s always been against directing because she thought that directors never have the freedom to do that. To put the passion for the process of creation first. I’m so glad she’s took the risk and gave it a try.

You know I have a lot more respect for actors and singers that work behind the camera/the mic.

That actually CREATE THE WORK that gets released and aren’t just reading lines of a script or music sheet. You know that get personally involved because they’re passionate about what they want to put out there

It makes a huge difference to my engagement with it.

It’s why I’ve always loved the fact that Renee preferred to stay behind the camera rather than in front of it. And I guess she’s really inspired Lucy to catch the directing and producing bug because Lucy is really throwing it all out there now. She’s loving it.

It’s like I’m seeing an entirely different person. Yet, also not really because Lucy has always been this expressive. It’s just never been in the area of directing. I mean wow… just the change in her. I feel very proud that she’s broadening horizons and she’s learning a lot from behind the camera this time instead of in front of it. Well done, Lucy. I’m 1000% a supporter of this new career adventure you’re on. I think it really suits you.

This is why you’re an icon. I’m happy you finally see it. When us fans say you’re Xena… this is what we mean!

[lupitalover]

Xena

I'm out of the loop! What exactly is Najara? A Psycho? A Believer With A Gift? Or Both?

[talyayet474]

Lucy Lawless

[rizadyke]

Books need to be broken in the same as a pair of doc martens

[stuff-i-wanna-post]

Lucy Lawless

[markthexenaaddicted]

Lucy Lawless on RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under 2.02 (2022)

[genevieveetguy]

Showing Up, Kelly Reichardt (2022)

[smallhatlogan]

the transgender implications of Xena season 6 episode 20 "Soul Possession"

[lemonhemlock]

To add to the children's discourse lol.

I've seen people say that the twins are Aemond's but Maelor is Aegon's and that is why she would choose to get killed because Helaena hates Aegon that much. and I hate that, it doesn't matter who the father is, the kids are Helaena's and she will always try to protect them.

I personally would prefer the kids to be Aegon's (not because I'm a helaegon first, then a helaemond lol) because I think the children being his adds a depth that he's seriously lacking in the show. going insane for the kids he ignored most of their lives, it will be really good to watch and explore. I also don't think Aemond needs to be the father for the "son for a son" to make sense, because in my interpretation, the person wanting to become the monarch (Rhaenyra) lost a son, so the King has to lose one as well. In this angle, it doesn't actually matter who killed Luke, Aegon would have to lose a son anyway.

I also think that Aemond has too much spotlight to steal Aegon's arc as well...because if Aegon knows the kids are his, why would he go on full revenge and hate if he never cared for Helaena anyway? They also didn't show Aegon and Aemond having a good relationship for Aegon to care that much about Aemond's kids.

If he doesn't know, his whole arc will be hollow, because he's the dumb one that thinks the kids are his but surprise...your sister-wife and your brother actually went behind your back and had kids and had this whole full-on romance behind your back.

Don't get me wrong, the kids could be Aemond's especially with them being so young in the show (why, just why?) but that doesn't mean that I have to like it. lol

Rant over lol, would love to hear your thoughts. :)

Hello there! So, I would start by saying that no one is denying helaemond isn't a show-introduced thing. There are no hints at that in the book - again, this doesn't preclude or deny or contradict its existence EITHER, just that we have no reason to believe off the text that the children aren't Aegon's. Ergo, Blood & Cheese was most likely specifically designed with that in mind.

So, from that vantage point, I really don't think paternity has any play in this Sophie's choice, especially since it's Helaena making that specific choice and the children are all hers anyway. There's also a desperate (and understandable) logic that informs her motivation - Maelor is deemed young enough to not understand what is happening to him and that could serve as a small mercy in this context, basically the best out of a horrible situation. That's a lot more reasonable for a mother rather than prioritizing her children based on sperm donor.

As an aside, making helaegon a failed marriage and giving Aegon his downright sociopathic hobbies serves to hinder the plot, rather than further it - this has nothing to do with helaemond, it's just the writers not thinking their decisions through. Like, as things stand, I'm supposed to believe that 1. Aegon doesn't care for Helaena anyway 2. he thinks it's funny watching his own bastard children fight to the death in the rat pits, all the while they plan on selling me the fact that 3. Aegon is somehow gonna be devastated when his legitimate son is killed, a son he never interacted with and never showed any feeling towards, because he is too self-absorbed in his own pursuit of pleasure.

Why does that make more sense? It's all a mess anyway, no matter which way you cut it. Obviously, Aegon cared for his children and family in the books, so they're gonna have do some damage control here, otherwise Blood & Cheese is going to logically have absolutely no effect on him, which defeats the point of this entire exercise (also an observation for those against humanizing Aegon).

The children being his and him caring about them is indeed a very easy and immediate way to humanize his character AND not diminish the horrifying aspect of Blood & Cheese. But so is them not being his? Him being able to care for them as if they were of his own body is also a pretty touching element, if you think about it. Show!version will have to be retconned anyway, whichever option you pick.

B&C was specifically designed by Daemon because it fundamentally stabs at the core of the greens - all siblings are affected by the harm visited on these children. Helaena goes mad with grief, Aegon enacts his bloodthirsty revenge on the city's rat catchers, Aemond starts spiraling - even Daeron sacks an entire city in a rage when Maelor is killed. It's not so outrageous or far-fetched for me to believe that these children could have been very loved no matter who fathered them, by their mother, father and both uncles, in whichever permutations.

I also don't think Aemond needs to be the father for the "son for a son" to make sense, because in my interpretation, the person wanting to become the monarch (Rhaenyra) lost a son, so the King has to lose one as well. In this angle, it doesn't actually matter who killed Luke, Aegon would have to lose a son anyway.

That's certainly Daemon's reasoning, but it doesn't mean that he is being even steven about this. Retributive justice in no way involves taking the life of another innocent person who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime in the first place. Even if Aemond had legitimate sons of his own within a lawful marriage, killing his son for Luke would not amount to retributive justice. Daemon utilises false equivalences here and I need people to stop drinking his kool aid. It is not Rhaenyra and Aemond who are peers here, it is Aemond and Luke.

Aegon had nothing to do with this crime, he did not order it or target Luke specifically and involving him in it simply inflicts harm upon innocent parties; targeting Jaehaerys is also disproportionate to the offense committed - as another user mentioned recently on one of my posts, Jaehaerys is a little boy playing with toys, while Luke is actively contributing to his mother's war effort. These two are not peers or counterparts either.

The harming of innocents and proportionality to the crime are two principles of retributive justice that Daemon actively breaks in the pursuit of his sadistic revenge.

If there is ever any doubt, one can always pick up a copy of the Old Testament.

Exodus 21:12-14. He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Lo and behold, the punishment for murder is the death of the murderer. Nothing whatsoever about killing the murderer's nephew or the murderer's son.