#there's some character interpretations I don't share there. like i said i don't think either of them would cry that easily

[carlyraejepsans]

saw your most recent post about really good fics that contain uncomfortable kinks and i immediately thought "ah, biscia must be reading the mpreg soriel fic" and almost left a reply talking about it but i stopped myself because i realized that would be an insane assumption to make. needless to say i felt so vindicated when i saw you link it in an earlier post.

like. HELLO?

HELLO???????

[prince-liest]

Saw a post recently that rhetorically asked why authors and show writers leaving character sexuality up to interpretation is disappointing when fifteen years ago getting a statement that things were up to interpretation (as opposed to "Definitely NOT gay, you freaks!") was a blessing, and I make a point of never discoursing on the bird app, but wanted to share some thoughts on the subject here - particularly because Alastor is kind of a hot topic on this subject and I think he actually makes for a great example for my thoughts on this.

Honestly, as someone who did live through the "if you think my characters are gay then you're stupid and should die" era, I think it left me with the perspective that even if there is canon sexuality, then no matter what it is, you're free to then do whatever you want in fandom. People might call you a dick for it if you go about it in certain ways, but you're free to do it.

That said... that's not really what wanting canon confirmation is about. It's about having canon representation, especially for identities that we often don't see representation of. For example: Alastor being aromantic is "up for interpretation," and that specifically feels bad when it's explicitly been framed that way as a cop out to appease shippers (per Viv), especially when in canon you can see he's intended to be aroace based off of how Rosie talks about him.

Yes, things are better now than they were 15 years ago... but standards are higher now, too!

And in particular I think that while in 2008 or so, "It's up to interpretation!" basically meant "Yeah, they might be gay but I can't say it," nowadays the meaning has shifted. I see a lot of people chiming into any mention of aroace Alastor with this attitude of "Um, actually, he's NOT aromantic because it wasn't confirmed by Viv (even though he wasn't confirmed to NOT be aro either)," rather than the spirit of "Oh, yeah, he might be aro, that's a valid interpretation!" It actually feels very similar to seeing people go "Well, X is OBVIOUSLY straight (the default) because he wasn't confirmed to like men!"

...in 2008, haha.

Anyway, fandom always feels to me like a 'do whatever you want' zone, but I think just based off of the sheer volume and depth of genuine and heartfelt reactions people have had to Alastor as a character and his portrayal as aroace... having canon representation and seeing yourself in media you enjoy matters a great deal to many people.

I had a really emotional moment when I read my preorder of House of Hades from the Percy Jackson series back in middle school and realized that Nico di Angelo was an actual gay character in an actual real, physical book that I was holding in my hands, not "just" a headcanon from my nebulously safe online fandom spaces, for the first time ever. Similarly, people have been headcanoning various characters as ace for a long, long time, but to me it's never had the same punch to it as it being official when it comes to those kinds of feelings re: representation.

So leaving that kind of thing "up to interpretation" specifically as an alternative to providing representation to a group of people who rarely sees it is disappointing, but it's not for shipping reasons.

[weirdly-specific-but-ok]

hot take about silco x vander that no one asked for

okay so it's 3:25 am and i spent too much time in pinterest comment sections so now i have Thoughts and y'all are gonna hear it (this is mostly spoiler free even for s1 but it won't make much sense unless you've watched arcane so go wATCH IT if you haven't). so there were a bunch of posts shipping Silco and Vander and in the comments people were really pissed coz they're said to think of each other as brothers.

TLDR: They did not grow up as brothers, they think of each other as such, and those thoughts can change over time or evolve without it being incestuous (with nuance), and of course it could stay the same too.

and I have a bunch of things to say, starting with for one, some folks were legitimately confused because they thought silco and vander were biological siblings. so, first off, let's get that clarified, they're definitely not. they weren't adopted or step siblings either. they met in their early adulthood, i believe, in the mines.

i'm gonna continue below the cut coz this is gonna be looooong.

now, the thing is, silco and vander explicitly state that they were each other's brothers and/or call each other brother. why? there could be multiple reasons for that. one, that's how they saw each other. they were as close as brothers and they saw each other as family. two, in the sense of being brothers in arms, fighting together against a common cause that brought them closer. three, they felt affection for each other and that was the closest term they knew to describe it. or something else.

and like, i do not mess with found family, that shit is sacred. if someone told me my brother isn't actually my brother because we didn't grow up together or share blood, i would happily punch them in the throat.

HOWEVER, Silco and Vander are fictional characters. so if someone headcanons that their relationship changed, and evolved, that's not disrespectful or incestuous. it just means the person believes that how they saw each other changed. or maybe they didn't realise how it was that they felt for each other. or any number of other things.

and hey listen when i was a teenager in two of my long-term relationships, i thought at the start that what i felt was platonic love. i'd literally call them my brother. because that was the way i knew to describe the intensity of my affection. i was figuring shit out, and then i realised that what i felt was romantic, and not platonic or familial.

does that make it incestuous? well i fucking hope not. i was a queer greyace teen trying to figure out what the fuck i was feeling.

and that's not even toUCHING the surface of queerplatonic feelings. like i had no vocabulary to describe that for most of my life. it was clearcut in my head--romantic, or platonic. and if platonic was very intense, then sibling. that was the only way i knew how to describe it.

and that's changed over the years and now i know a little bit better how i feel, and i have platonic feelings that aren't siblingy, platonic feelings that are very much siblingy, platonic feelings that aren't siblingy but familial anyway like that for a parent, and romantic feelings also of various shades.

but back then, i didn't have that vocabulary and distinctions and self-awareness. and it's entirely plausible for someone to headcanon that maybe Silco and Vander didn't either. maybe people ship them and hc that they had feelings for each other and didn't understand them, that could be romantic or queerplatonic. or had feelings for each other that were familial, but that evolved in a different way later (or in the AU). both of which ARE LEGITIMATE INTERPRETATIONS OF A FICTIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT IT BEING INCESTUOUS.

anyway so it's entirely chill if you don't ship them but it's also entirely chill if you do. the issue is when you attack people for interpreting a fictional relationship in their own entirely valid way and call it weird or incestuous and attack them as people for their ship. just let people be sigh.

so that's my unnecessarily intense take at--jesus christ it's nearly 4 am. :)

[skyahri]

First Love |Jjk Men X Reader| Drabble

Unspecified Character X Reader

Summary: You meet your first love again after so much time apart.

Warnings: Angst. I think the end is promising but feel free to interpret it as you please.

A/N: Inspired by my first love who still haunts my fucking dreams. LEAVE ME ALONE!

- - - - -

Your relationship hadn't been a good one.

You'd fought and bickered since the beginning. Damning words and heated conversations were more common than dates. It was always something- a lack of forethought on his part or overthinking on yours were the most likely culprits. He'd expected a certain level of confidence from you that you just couldn't offer at the time. You'd expected a level of understanding and patience that he couldn't even allow himself.

But through all the fighting and hurt feelings, you loved each other nonetheless.

You vividly remember every good date, every anniversary, and every holiday spent together. You think about the jam sessions in the car; public radio turned all the way up and bad singing at the top of your lungs. You remember finally beating him at Mario kart after two years of trying. You cherished the feeling of waking up in his arms, especially after a long night of arguing. The feeling of doing simple tasks in each other's presence. The feeling of shared kisses and passing touches.

Every spur of the moment breakup was promptly followed by a desperate plea to meet at the old park with the pond. You'd always refuse at first, knowing that if you saw his teary eyes you'd cave and take him back in an instant, even if it wasn't in either of your best interest. He'd wear you down, saying it was just to talk, to clear the air, to give you belongings, whatever he could just to get you there. You quickly learned that any self-discipline on your part resulted in him showing up to your door, flowers in hand with the sappiest apology and a load of empty promises to be better.

You always took him back, because at the end of the day, through all the tears, you still loved him.

You can't remember the details all that well. You know he'd spent the night at someone's- some girl's- house after a long night of poor decisions fueled by alcohol. It wasn't until well into the next day that you finally got a hold of him, and the conversation went from bad to worse in a matter of minutes. He'd said he was done, that if you couldn't trust him that was that.

There was no pleading to meet at the park after that. No texts begging to hear him out or knocks on your door and muffled wants through the door.

A month later he'd posted a photo of him and a girl on his Instagram. She was pretty, and a few obsessive hours of combing through her socials told you she was everything he wanted you to be. While you hadn't held out much hope that things would go back to normal (did you want them to anyway?), that picture set everything in stone.

Eventually, you moved on. You got a new job, moved to a new apartment, made new friends, and even went out on dates. Even with the bad experiences, you'd quickly realized just how abnormal and toxic your relationship with him was.

You met people who had more in common with you- played the games you liked, watched shows you kept up with, and frequented the same shops around town. People who were more interested in getting to know you- asking about your hobbies, your time in school, what your family was like. People who treated you better even when you had little to no things in common.

You don't know when you stopped thinking about him altogether, but were harshly hit with the reminder when you met a familiar pair of eyes across the sidewalk. The lack of air in your lungs and the heavy beat of your heart left you unable to move as he quickly crossed the empty street. Familiar locks of hair and vibrant eyes illuminated by the street light became more and more clear as he approached.

Your hit with the feelings from all those years ago. The memory of waking up beside him in the morning light. The feeling of his lips as he peppered your fave with kisses. The excitement of staying up late on the phone when you both had classes the next morning. There's no bitter ties to those memories. They're perfectly preserved as if the bad things had never happened- as if you'd been in a perfect relationship the whole time.

Now he's standing in front of you, just as tall as you remember and heavy with the scent of his signature cologne. He's breathing a little heavy- possibly just as worked up as you were. What were you supposed to say? Should you even attempt a conversation or would it be best to walk away before your brain starts to get ideas that'll leave you hurt all over again-

"Hey," he breathes out.

Just like that you fell into your old roles- him acting without thinking and you overthinking the smallest interaction.

"Hey."

The one word response is unsure and you're positive he can feel the tension. You don't know how else to respond. How should one address an ex who left on bad terms?

His throat bobs up and down. A hand comes up to scratch the back of his neck. You follow the familiar veins of his arm up to his face. It's more mature. The last few years had dissolved any lingering baby fat, giving his face a more defined edge.

"Funny seeing you here."

His head tilts to gesture behind you. You acknowledge your surroundings for the first time that night and you realize where you are.

The old park with the pond.

You huff out a small laugh, clearing the thick cloud surrounding the two of you.

"Yeah, funny seeing you here, too."

[queer-ragnelle]

hi! i apologize if this is outside your ballpark. i recently came across a post about how religion appears in bbc's merlin and it got me thinking about religion in arthurian legend in general. i was wondering if you have any thoughts on the topic? what religions do the characters follow and how does it impact their lives? i know most of the 'cast' is christian but even then medieval christianity is different enough from modern christianity that i constantly feel like i'm missing some nuance/context when i read arthuriana. do other religions feature (such as judaism, islam, pagan spirituality) and are there any essays on it or books where that's explored? thank you for all you do and have a great day!

Hello!

So I’m definitely no religious scholar of any kind. Yet I somehow managed to write an obscenely long post in reply. I've provided copious amounts of literature on everything I'm discussing here, so I encourage anyone who sees this to read what's provided and form their own opinion. Although my reply is based on the Medieval stories I've read and quoted as well as the essays and books of people far more qualified than I am, it's still my own interpretation, and shouldn't be taken as the final word on this highly complex subject. If anyone finds something here I've gotten wrong, please don't hesitate to educate me otherwise and point me in a direction to learn more!

Without further ado...

The first thing anyone looking into this needs to understand is [most of] the Arthurian stories we have were drafted or documented by Christians, oftentimes monks (ie, people very devoted to their religion). Even the texts like the Mabinogion or The Welsh Triads, which contains no Christianity, wasn’t written down until the 12th century after the oral tradition had passed through the Christianizing of Britain. Not to mention translation bias, an oft overlooked factor. For example, French characters Lancelot and Galahad were retroactively added to The Welsh Triads to bring the Triads more in line with the widely popular French narrative. Translator Rachael Bromwich has excellent footnotes regarding this in the file I shared above. So just keep that in mind while reading/researching this subject.

More generally speaking, while some characters themselves aren’t Christian, such as Muslim Palomides or the occasional Jewish character, the texts are [mostly] from an overtly Islamphobic and antisemitic viewpoint. The depictions of religion in Medieval Arthuriana should never be taken as an indication of how things “really were,” either in the time it’s meant to take place (ie, the 5th-6th centuries when the Saxons were colonizing Britain) or the time/place it was written in (ie Chrétien de Troyes wrote from his own 12th century Breton perspective). Point being, it’s all very biased. Perception heavily depends on the place and year things were written and translated. If you're ever unsure which translation of a text will best suit your needs, whether that means accuracy, readability, or containing more robust footnotes, don't hesitate to ask.

That being said, the differences you’re touching on regarding Medieval versus Modern Christianity sometimes stems from Christian Mysticism, which was a prevalent theology in the Middle Ages and still exists today (albeit to a lesser degree). Some contemporary sources on this would be:

The Confessions by Saint Augustine of Hippo

The City of God by Saint Augustine of Hippo

The Book of Divine Works by Saint Hildegard von Bingen

The Letters of Hildegard von Bingen Volume I by Saint Hildegard von Bingen

The Letters of Hildegard von Bingen Volume II by Saint Hildegard von Bingen

The Book of Margery Kempe by Margery Kempe.

Now the thing with Christianity in history and Arthuriana is that the lines between orthodox practice and the mystical was blurred. On an episode about charms, the Medieval Podcast (also available on any podcasting platform like Spotify) explains how people bought and used charms all the time, even within their Christian practice. To them, it was a part of their worship. They may have chanted some words over a sick friend while anointing certain parts of the body in the hopes it would aid in healing. Depending on the time and place, this may or may not have been openly discussed for fear of repercussions or accusations of blasphemy, but it was common enough for historians to have gathered a multitude of examples preserved in spell books. To a desperate Medieval Christian, one of these charms occupied a similar place to Pray the Rosary or Hail Marys in hopes of boosting the success of their endeavor.

So in a similar vein, that concept is sometimes stretched for the sake of an Arthurian story. What you end up with are characters like Merlin, supposedly half-demon, but baptized, therefore his purified magic and prophesizing is considered "Christian;" Morgan le Fay, raised in a nunnery, yet learned necromancy from the holy sisters; and Gawain, who obtained his sun powers, as well as his name, from the hermit that baptized him. At least, so it goes in the Vulgate.

In a way, these people are not magical through their own power, but channeling the divine with the help of their Christian education in order to bestow those benefits, often health, strength, or prosperity related, onto others. (You'll see a lot of real life examples in the contemporary sources I linked above.) Vulgate editor Norris J. Lacy and his translation team left a footnote on the Gawain passage explaining the history of the Gawain/Gwalchmai character that lead me to theorize that this passage might be an attempt by Anonymous to maintain those heightened magical powers while offering a palatable Christian explanation for it.

A similar phenomenon can be seen in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the characters are staunchly Christian, and yet the presence of a green-skinned knight astride a green horse who can survive a beheading is seen as marvelous, even miraculous, rather than monstrous. As Larissa Tracy explains in the essay Shifting Skin Passing as Human Passing as Fay, although the Green Knight is Othered by the court, he's not so Othered as to be held entirely apart. He's "tallest of men" and "half a giant." He is still one of the "in" crowd at least a little bit. So while his green coloring shocks the court, and calls to mind Otherworldly fay, in a way similar to the Lady of the Lake or other such beings, the Green Knight isn't viewed as an enemy of the crown so much as a chance for the court to prove its virtue. In the end, this Green Knight was indeed a man, Sir Bertilak, transformed by Morgan le Fay to take on the monstrous visage, and was indeed "one of them" all along. In this way, concepts which seem magical (read: Pagan) to the modern reader remain steeped in Christian ideals. This extends to Gawain's pentacle shield as well, sometimes misconstrued with a similar Pagan symbol, which the poem outright states represents the five virtues of knighthood or even the five wounds of Jesus Christ. Then again, Rhonda Knight's essay All Dressed Up With Someplace to Go: Regional Identity argues the opposite point, that there is indeed a divide. Knight asserts that the poet has intentionally heightened the dichotomy of insider/outsider, particularly as it relates to the Anglo-Welsh border between Sir Bertilak's Wirral and King Arthur's London Camelot. It's quite plain from the moment the Green Knight enters the scene there's a stark split between the two cultures, whether that be interpreted as the people of Wales and the people of England, or the Otherworld associated with Wales and the dominance of Christianity.

But anyway enough about Christians. Let's talk about my friend Sir Palomides and Islam.

A brief recap for anyone who's unfamiliar with Sir Palomides, he's a Muslim knight, referred to in the Medieval Christian tongue as a "Saracen," who vows to convert to Christianity for the sake of marrying Isolde, but curiously hasn't yet. His father, Esclabor, and both of his younger brothers, Segwarides and Safir, have already converted. Palomides is continuously ostracized for his religion/appearance throughout the narrative and considered lesser than Tristan. This is pretty much always the roles they play. Sometimes Palomides is treated with extreme cruelty, such as in the Post-Vulgate, where Galahad forces him to convert to Christianity at sword point, only for Palomides to be murdered shortly afterward by Gawain once his narrative purpose, ie successful conversion, has been fulfilled.

For this break down, I'm ignoring that portrayal of Palomides as well as the Prose Tristan because they suffer from the issues I already outlined regarding Medieval Christian's malicious depiction of non-Christians. And I hate them</3 We'll be turning our attention to Le Morte d'Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory instead as Palomides is slightly more nuanced there. (Very slightly. "The Good Saracen Sir Palomides" is a loaded sentiment, but Malory was a Medieval Englishman imprisoned for his crimes and writing through his madness. We work with what we have.) The copy I linked is translated by Dr. Dorsey Armstrong, not only because it's very good, but because she authored one of the essays I'll be sharing on the subject. She also has a 24 part lecture series on Arthuriana that I highly recommend.

In Le Morte d'Arthur, and the earlier published La Tavola Ritonda as well as Byelorussian Tristan, Palomides is treated a teensy bit better. In most versions of the story, Palomides misses an appointment to duel with Tristan out of cowardice or dishonor. But Malory has written a scenario in which Palomides missed the appointment not out of subservience to Tristan, but because he was jailed elsewhere and couldn't physically make it. He still gets his ass kicked by Tristan, but Malory's change shifts implicational blame of Palomides to circumstantial blame of his situation which serves to create a more sympathetic character. So while Tristan's perception of events remains the same, Palomides is given a narrative excuse which maintains his honor and integrity in the mind of the reader. Yet as Dr. Dorsey Armstrong points out in her essay, Postcolonial Palomides, after Tristan discovers Palomides suffering a bout of grief-induced madness, Palomides's ability to communicate breaks down, and Tristan is unable to understand him. Palomides occupies a space that his fellow "Saracen" knights, such as Priamus of Tuscany, don't. He's Othered by everyone in the narrative yet gains renown among the Christian knights in part because of his extreme desire to join the Round Table, while resisting the necessity to conform to a religious order and community which does not otherwise accept him. Unlike his father and brothers, Palomides seems more aware of, and resistant to, the predatory systems which dictate their conditional acceptance.

Race as a concept did not exist in the Medieval world, rather it was intrinsically tied to religion. That said, colorism was always present. "Saracen" is a term used to refer to Arab people, but according to Hamed Suliman Abuthawabeh, the etymology of the word itself stems from the color brown, ie referential of skin tone. As it relates to fiction... Ever wonder why the Holy Land of the Middle East in Arthurian Legend, where Galahad, Perceval, and Bors seek the grail, is called "Sarras?" Now you know. This concept is not limited to Middle Eastern characters either. Black people in Medieval stories are referred to as "Moorish," ie from the "Moorlands." To that end, ever wonder why Aglovale's half-Black son is named "Morien?" Or how about Parzival's half-Black brother Feirefiz, who's described as having a mixture of "white and black skin," half his father's "fair country Anjou," half his mother's "heathen land Zassamank" with a face two-toned "as a magpie." (Author Wolfram von Eschenbach and translator Jessie Weston's words, not mine).

The fact is non-white, non-Christian characters are often reduced to their skin color, not only in what labels are applied to them as people, but their religions and falsified homelands as well. The cost of a modicum of respect is total assimilation. It's all or nothing for these characters, and even then, it's not a guarantee. Aside from the especially harrowing treatment of Palomides in the Post-Vulgate, this concept appears yet again in the poem The Turk and Sir Gawain, in which Gawain continuously oscillates between foe and friend with an unnamed Turkish knight, only to conclude the story by violently converting this individual through beheading. The Turkish knight is reborn, now Christian, and at last gains a name and identity, Sir Gromer. The expectation put on Pagan knights is so great they must submit to their white comrades and allow them to, literally, kill their former selves to be worthy of personhood in Christendom.

The same can be said of Jewish characters in Arthurian Legend. They're not often the focal point, but they do pop up from time to time. In La Tavola Ritonda, there's Dialantes the Jewish giant, as well as the beautiful Hebrew damsel of Aigua della Spina, who's curiously married to a Christian knight. Then of course there's the rampant antisemitism in Chrétien de Troyes's Perceval, as well as the continuations, which blame "the treacherous Jews" for killing Christ, while also casting Joseph of Arimathea as a Christian knight who brought the Holy Grail to Britain. Furthermore in The History of the Grail portion of the Vulgate, Joe is said to have "converted to the faith of Jesus Christ" while keeping it secret for fear that "the Jews would have killed him." Tons of revisionism happening. The bulk of the Vulgate makes little to no mention of Jewish people, good or bad, as it's mostly tied to the grail story. That said, when it does come up again in The Death of Arthur, it's a slippery slope into every other prejudice, as the term has become synonymous with evil, particularly as it relates to women.

I couldn't possibly outline the entirety of Medieval Christianity's relationship with other religions in a single tumblr post. Here's a link to my huge folder about Race & Religion in the Middle Ages. The essays and books there discuss this subject in a general sense but there's a sub-folder with Arthurian specific essays to learn more about Palomides, Priamus, Gromer, Morien, Feirefiz, and other characters or texts that touch on race/religion.

Despite all of the above, it's not all bad. Sometimes an author was anti-racist toward the non-Christian characters, yet limited by their time. (Think how Herman Melville portrayed Polynesian Queequeg in Moby Dick, positively, but used phrenology to compliment the shape of his skull by comparing him to that of white people. Not up to modern standards, but an attempt at progressive for its time nonetheless.) Looking at Dutch Arthuriana, while Morien's name is an insensitive indication of his unnamed "Moorish" mother, the only characters in the story who treat Morien poorly, such as the boatmen who refuse to ferry him, are openly condemned, even threatened, by the Knights of the Round Table, including Gareth.

I don't know what to call this writing technique, but it's used (and sometimes underutilized...) today. Essentially, as a means to indicate to the reader that the views of the antagonistic (in this case, xenophobic and anti-Black) character isn't shared by the author, they include another character who refutes and combats the negative behavior and who accepts the oppressed party as they are. However rare, it does happen in Medieval texts.

Last but not least, I'd be remiss to omit the Hebrew King Artus from this discussion. It's an incomplete story, but sets out to retell the Arthurian Legend from a Jewish standpoint. All the characters are Jewish and all religious allusions that were once Christian have been rewritten as Jewish. It has a thorough analysis by the translator and tons of footnotes to indicate the Jewish references throughout the text.

Regarding religion in modern Arthuriana like BBC Merlin, Druids aren't actually present in the Legends, with the one and only exception being The Adventure of Melóra and Orlando, which does refer to Merlin as a Druid! There's also the connection made between Merlin and Stonehenge in The History of the King's of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth; the word "Druid" is not used, but Merlin describes his own ability to manipulate the stones as "mystical." One has to remember that Druids didn't write down their own history, as it was their way to memorize religious practices and not document anything. All we know about them comes from outside sources, such as Greeks and Romans as well as Christian missionaries come to convert them. As Christianity took hold and figures like Saint Patrick "drove the snakes [Druids] out of Ireland," much of that history was either lost or purposefully maligned. Did the Druids actually participate in human sacrifice? Who knows! Bearing that in mind, we must acknowledge the influence of the several revivals of Druidism and recent boom in Neopaganism; a lot of popular interpretations of Arthurian Legend are just that, the creator's interpretation, and not necessarily indicative of what the historical people would have been doing. To learn more about that, there's Druids: A Very Short Introduction by Barry Cunliffe which I found helpful.

When it comes to Merlin, or Myrddin Wyllt, his character is potentially based on a few different people who really existed, but there isn't a name given to whatever religion they practiced in anything I've read. While the time period did have clearly delineated religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism (and then Islam), Mithraism, Druidism, etc, there were just as many people who prayed to Jesus Christ while simultaneously leaving out offerings for the local spirits. Most religions come with regional differences, various sects, or shift gradually over time. Saint Patrick himself is said to have had a "fluid identity," as his autobiographical work The Confessions paints him in a fairly positive light as a peaceful missionary, while Dr. Janina Ramirez indicates in her book The Private Life of Saints that other sources characterize Saint Patrick as an aggressor. Some scholars even believe Saint Patrick may have been two different people, combined over the centuries, similarly to Myrddin Wyllt. Modern Arthurian books and shows really lean into a dichotomy between Christianity and the "Old Religion" for the sake of entertainment. But bouts of unrest weren't as fantastical nor made up of two wholly separate, well-defined teams.

Wow this got long. I think we'll leave it at that. I hope that answers your questions! Take care!

[roboj0e]

Wade would bully Peter bc someone said he would and wrote it happening and bc y'all are so boring and annoying. Fanfiction isn't about what's canon or strictly in character thats why they're called transformative works. I think y'alls weird obsession with what's cannon while also trying to heavily police what and how ppl make fiction is honestly been the death of fandom and creativity.

There hasn't been a large scale cross over in fandom in years that either wasn't completely ironic or torn down by bullies that it fizzled out bc y'all don't know how to have fun. Even that recent debate over how sans would react to his brother death is further proof of y'all's lack of understanding of interpretation and fan works. Fanwork are supposed to exist in the reality of the fiction of the person who wrote it. NOT what IS the right interpretation bc there are NO right interpretation except for what is made canon which can be anything bc WE aren't the creators.

Who cares what happens in the comics. The comic themselves don't care what happens in other comic runs unless it's specifically meant to be a spin off/continuation.

Wade is SUPPOSED to be a morally ambiguous character. I know y'all have washed him of all the ambiguity bc ppl have told you that how ur supposed to approach fiction and y'all can not perceive a protag who might not be the best person who ur also NOT supposed to hate (god forbid a protag not have Jesus adjacent morality) but thats what he is. He'll do whatever anyone wrote him doing bc he's not real and also anything thats morally ambiguous or toxic bc that's one of his character traits and what was supposed to set him apparent from other heros he's not even a hero he's an antihero. I can not believe y'all are moralizing something as tame as bullying. Bullies making up with their victims happens in DISNEY movies now y'all tryna make that into some problematic take. OMG. And this is from someone who WAS bullied briefly until I learned how to fight and stand up for myself.

Thinking that someone who romanticizes something morally wrong couldn't have possibly been through that experience is the direct antithesis of fiction. It also makes no sense. Plenty of ppl write from experience but also sometimes turning it into a story in which they control how they interact with a bully does A LOT FOR REGAIN CONTROL OF THOSE NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES. STOP TRYING TO SUS OUT WHO HAS TRAUMA OR NOT. also STOP thinking that you are an authority of certain traumatic experiences you aren't every experiences are very VERY personal and the portrayal of those experiences should have NOTHING to do with yours bc there is NO way to encapsulate all lived experiences. And even if someone hasn't been bullied who cares again decenter yourself from a fictional scenario that should in now way be a representation of you bc u are not the center of the universe.

(THIS SECTION UNDERNEATH IS MY HEAD CANON U DONT HAVE TO TELL ME U DONT LIKE AGE GAPS IDC)

Secondly wade only wouldnt bully Peter TO ME bc I'm not a teenager in highschool like some of y'all and highschool fics don't interest me and wade to me shouldne even be in highschool and always be the much older one in the dynamic. They shouldnt even be near the same age for me. But whatever floats ur boat. You can do whatever you wan't but when y'all make these long posts telling OTHER ppl what they can and can't do OR how you think YOUR interpretation of the character is the most right your crossing a line frl.

Edit: I read both Deadpool and spiderman comics btw plus the very wonderful spiderman/Deadpool run. GASP I know someone who likes the source material but doesn't adhere strictly to it bc I actually have an imagination and like to have fun instead of kissing marvels feet and remaining in a narrow interpretation of a character. A rare breed I guess.

Edit edit: I also think alot of y'all have a very romcom take on spideypool. And thats definitely fine love my fair share of fluff. But I have a much more complicated take on them. Again I think an age gap compliments these complications. It adds to an imbalanced perspective of both of them towards each other. I'm also very uninterested in a spideypool that grow healthy together or peter "fixing" wade. I want them to overcomplicate their relationship but for it to also be a healthy balance of comedic and fun and hot monkey sex that keeps them interested in a less than perfect relationship. A sorta push and pull from both sides.

[utilitycaster]

Do you think this new option could lead to a break up in the party and some of the characters leaving the group? Because I can't see everyone agreeing that this is the best solution, but I also think Ashton is stubborn enough to refuse to consider anything else

This is going to be a very long answer for what is a pretty short question that could be answered in one sentence, and here's why.

I've gotten a lot of questions in the past week or so that are specifically asking me what I think the future will be - for campaign 3, and for Critical Role generally. And I've gotten a little frustrated by them, which is somewhat uncharacteristic of me because I love having opinions, but the fact is, I don't know and I don't even have strong opinions. So I dug into that, and why people might be asking these things more than usual, and I really think it's because the narrative of this campaign is so constantly under threat of derailment or going in the same old circles that pretty much anyone in the fandom with any sense of narrative structure, and what makes for a well-crafted story is like "so...what's happening." Which is translating as coming to me, a person who is very good at sounding confident and knowledgeable.

I do not fucking know. I share this frustration, and I cannot be the person to clear it up. i am not even the best at narrative or analysis in this fandom; as I pretty frequently state I took the hard STEM option with regards to my education so while I read a lot and have a pretty good sense for the lay person, there are actual like, trained and published writers. For what it's worth several of them are my mutuals and while I'm not putting the rest of this post on them I do feel safe saying they agree that the lack of narrative direction is at the heart of most people's frustrations with this campaign, even if they enjoy the characters. But getting back to the point, I do not know.

Here's where I stand on the actual plot before I go back to the bigger picture. I think that unless Bells Hells decide on their course of action pretty quickly, no ending will really feel satisfying due to that sense of directionlessness - and there are arguments for Bells Hells to take either the Arch Heart or the Accord's plan, though I think the Accord's is far superior, but they need to pick one.

Because of the ongoing issues with this party lacking perspectives that tied in well to this story and having to hinge everything on either one singular interpretation of one single instance in extraordinary circumstances (eg: Dorian), or stuff that feels, as I've said before, retconned, I have generally been extremely amenable to Bells Hells losing party members either through a split or through character deaths. This is not out of any sort of vindictiveness or dislike of characters, but just a hope that now that they know the vibe, the cast will make a character who has a perspective that is relevant to the story (which, FCG is not an ideal example because they happened to be the character who had perhaps best grown from their original concept to fit into the themes of this campaign, but Braius obviously is a very strong character informed by the story as well). I also think that a lot of the indecisiveness is part of the characters' various natures and that will also be a factor, especially since a new character can be both decisive, have a clear point of view, and be a lot more comfortable pissing off the rest of the party to assert it. So: if Bells Hells as they currently stand can decide what to do quickly, no need to break up! But if they can't, yeah, it would be to their and the story's benefit to do so. That's before we get into, for example, the sacrifice required from specifically Imogen or Fearne for the Arch Heart's plan; Ashton is not the one who has to risk their own autonomy for the rest of eternity. They might die in battle, but they will not become a husk housing an ancient hunger. I think the people who might have to do so get to decide.

Now: it may seem counterintuitive to demand a clear direction from a TTRPG, when part of the appeal is that we don't know how it will end, but the thing is, with the past campaigns, we did not know if the party would succeed but we knew that they wanted to do. Vox Machina could have fallen to Vecna but we always knew they were going to fight Vecna. The Mighty Nein's decisions not to get involved with the war are not indecision but rather a very clear decision (do not get involved). Their later reversal of that decision similarly follows from who they are and the richness of their pasts.

Bells Hells does not have that, and the endless circular conversations are both circular in game and a vicious cycle out of it; because we've always been focused on this plot from very early on and because the characters were not developed as strongly, we have a lot of very indecisive people who are too trapped in this crisis to develop and become decisive. In a way, it feels like Matt's been something like the Arch Heart here: saying "oh, THIS would be interesting, I wonder what will happen" at everything when it's like "ok but consequences are like, important, and maybe you should let things play out. I mean, two cycles isn't great but it is still only two; maybe you should actually let your children/players figure this out, even if it doesn't fit your idea of what should happen, instead of throwing yet another new thing at them."

So: I don't know and I don't have answers about Campaign 3 events at this point because, again, as someone who has a pretty good sense of what makes for a satisfying narrative, it has frequently subverted those requirements (which, to be clear, is bad - it's not genre subversion or a masterful play on expectations, it's subverting actual satisfying narrative beats; as someone said on one of my other posts in not quite so many words, it's like storyline-baiting). I know I tend to present my points with confidence, and I am pretty confident about a lot of things like CR lore and said sense of narrative, but like...maybe this guess on the fandom vibe is incorrect, but I think I'm getting these questions because people are saying "hey, do you know where we're going? I think I am reading this map wrong" to me and I'm here to say "no, you're reading it fine, we've gone off the road and are just kinda crashing through underbrush, and maybe we'll hit another road and continue on that and I can give some insight, but also we might go off a cliff, no way to tell."

[frownyalfred]

Hello, ( ´ ▽ ` )ﾉ

I was re-reading Eye in the Sky, literally hits me in the gut every time I read it I swear the amount complex emotions and relationships all from an outsider POV it's just, I can't but I digress.

Diana did have this whole speech about wanting Bruce to "come back to them" but it's said outright that she'd be 100% kill him is it weren't for Kal interfering. How much of her speech is true about wanting him scared, or was it all just to try to get sympathy/ confuse Duke or any potential listeners. If Bruce were to "give up" (not that it would happen) would she accept him back into the fold as one of the Leaguers and as Batman?

Also, the meeting where they show off Tim, Jason and Dick very obviously misses Damian, Cass and Steph.

My interpretation of the og Injustice -verse was that Damian joined Superman partly due to him believing that villains should be killed but also partially because Dick's accidental death left a rift between him and Bruce that Damian was too scared to address.

However, Dick is very much Alive and at no point does Bruce ever mention Damian joining the Regime willingly.

Are there any crumbs you'd be willing to share?

I don't think Diana outright wants to kill Bruce, but I'm sure she's happy to make threats and attempts she knows will rattle him. We get Duke's POV for this fic so he takes Bruce and the others at face value when they imply the motivation behind these attempts. I think Bruce deep down knows that Diana wants to spook him, wants to make him change his mind, wants to push him and express her anger and frustration. If she killed him without succeeding in getting him back in the Trinity, it wouldn't be worth it. Right?

If Bruce gave in, yes I think Diana would accept him back. She has strong opinions about right and wrong and having a humbled Bruce would satisfy any remaining anger, I think. She's not vengeful, or not in the way we might predict her to be. I think she told Duke much more of the truth than he realized. It was a highly vulnerable moment for her -- she's tired of this too. She didn't want this either.

The characters who aren't obviously referenced by the fic so far are the ones who managed to escape or evade the Regime in some form. We'll see a few of them next chapter. But they're decentralized and isolated, which felt more like a realistic resistance to me.

Thank you so much for reading!

[island-ofthelost]

My Actual opinion on Five's sexuality

I've gotten into many a fight in my ask box about this, but I don’t think that I've ever shared my opinion in depth, so here I go *mentally prepares for war*

I do not think Five is 100%, completely aroace. For some reason, whenever I say this people take it as me saying that I think he's 100% allo, which has gotten me hate from one side and weird praise from the other for giving them "permission" to sexualize Five.

I find it hard to believe that these supposed members of the ace community (although I doubt all of them are) seem to be allergic to nuance and considering other identities when it comes to headcanoning aroace characters, it isn't all or nothing, so to speak.

That being said, I think Five is gray/demiromantic and asexual. The reason I think this is because Five clearly felt genuine romantic love for Dolores, but I don't think he would feel that way about anyone else, at least not anytime soon, and I don't think sex was ever part of it, he never wanted it to be, and the way his age/body disconnect is it would be weird in any situation, but I don't think he would be interested regardless.

I think a lot of people in the fandom like to headcanon Five as completely aroace because the thing with Dolores "was a trauma response" or "was psychological" or "wasn't really romantic love" and these have some merit because it's obviously open to interpretation, but my qualm is that I think some people don't actually believe this and just say that because the whole situation is yes, frankly, very weird. But I think either way it invalidates the feelings of this character to serve a headcanon.

But what's worse is people ignoring Dolores all together because "it's icky", and don't even bat an eye at Luther and Allison or any of the other wild things with romance going on in this show.

And if anyone thinks that I'm speaking over anybody and this should be within the ace community, I am on both the aromantic and asexual spectrums. I rarely share that on public posts because I haven't found an exact label and I am frankly not the most comfortable with it, so consider this a coming out I guess?

Idk, I hope ya'll enjoyed my yapfest/impromptu essay, and if anyone's interested in me making a longer, more in depth, and well researched essay (mayhaps in video format if I'm able), I'd be down.

(I am also praying to the tumblr gods that I will not wake up with a billion notifications having started a war)

[laauranenn]

I love how maturely you handled the negative asks from The Anon I really admire you for it! I would also like to add on to your already on point analysis: Each arc is really significant for Sakura. Shishitoren arc I feel highlighted what could've been Sakura's future had he followed the same path he planned on that is becoming the top of Furin. Ume teaching Sakura how to use fighting as a conversation was a significant moment and the beginning of Sakura's change as a person who isn't all about fights, the moment he started evolving. Keel arc further steeled his character in the sense it showed a vulnerable side of him. Sakura, who had never been cared for, realizing he has people he wants to protect and struggles with it. His senpai and friends take the spotlight because they are there to help him. Just because other characters are getting a spotlight doesn't mean Sakura is losing it, it's simply to highlight their role in Sakura's life, and of course to give an insight about those characters themselves. Also one thing a lot of people often fail to notice is how much the plot revolves around Sakura. Everyone actually praises him for valor. Especially when you notice how Nirei was awestruck watching Shishitoren and Roppo Ichiza be friends because he's from the town, he knows how dire the situation used to be and now those enemies are Furin's friends but Sakura doesn't realize that because he wasn't there before the New Furin. He doesn't know his own impact so he doesn't think he has done much when he changed so much, not just as a person, but the town as well. Also how Ume said he didn't consider asking help from others like Sakura did because he thought Sakura considered that a possibility because he was from outside but he didn't consider the probability that maybe Sakura thought it was okay to ask for help because that's what he's been taught since he joined Furin. "Rely on your Brother" as Ume put it and Sakura really did. This town, this school and even the other gangs, they shaped him and are still doing so. Sakura's character isn't something you can interpret in isolation neglecting the role of his friends. Sorry for the rant I have been getting peeved by the Anon and wanted to share this. Sorry for any mistakes English is not my first language. Thank you for your time!

Thank you so much!! I mostly started this because I wanted to give the guy a chance to actually talk about their opinions on Wind Breaker and it's writing !! I figured that there might actually be something there other than just trolling or rage bait.

AND I WAS RIGHT !!

And thank you for adding your own analysis to this!! You've explained Sakura's involvement in the arcs really well!! That was something I kind of struggled to do in my analysis! I wasn't sure how to explain how involved he truly is in the story, even if it might seem otherwise to some!

And don't worry about the writing, English isn't my first language either!!

[stellasolaris]

Why Stella should not have been rebranded as the Fairy of the Shining Sun

After nearly a year, I have finally decided to write a second part to my previous post in which I said I was not a fan of the writers rebranding Stella as the Fairy of the Shining Sun.

To start, let's first take a look at her family background. Her parents are the King and Queen of Solaria—the proverbial sun and the moon. It is apparent from their distinct color palettes and the origins of their names that they represent the sun and the moon. Stella, with her original title as the Fairy of the Sun and the Moon, naturally has qualities and powers from both her parents. To take away her moon powers would be a disservice to her character, as it means taking a piece of her identity away.

While I subscribe to the idea of her having access to solar and lunar powers, I don't mind her lunar powers being secondary to her sun powers. Here's why.

Her moon-based spells, which she rarely uses, tend to be more defensive and tamer than her sun-based spells. (3.14, 3.26) For someone like her, who is bold and daring, and prefers offensive tactics over defensive ones, it makes sense that she would lean more toward using her combative solar powers. (1.21) It's what comes naturally to her.

Her relationship with her father, despite the neglectful behavior of both her parents, appears affectionate. (3.19) I like to think her strong connection with her father and home planet is in part why she prefers and is more in tune with using her solar powers than her lunar powers.

There is some debate over whether or not she should have a secondary power, with some suggesting that she would be too powerful if she had two powers. I disagree.

Her powers make narrative sense when you think of them from the standpoint of light rather than separate celestial bodies. In technical terms, moonlight is reflected sunlight. These two are not separate. In a way, her solar and lunar powers are essentially the same, just in different fonts.

It would be logical for her powers to be influenced by the level of light in her surroundings, allowing her to draw either from solar or lunar energy. We already know from canon that she becomes weak and powerless in the absence of sunlight. (2.04) In such situations, her lunar powers could become activated. This limits her abilities and prevents her from becoming too powerful.

Recall that one of the motifs regarding her character development is the use of mirrors. It serves as a symbol of her personal growth and self-awareness, particularly in seasons two and three. In 2.21, she earns a mirror-shaped pendant for being vulnerable and sharing her feelings of loneliness. In 3.04, she breaks her curse by realizing her beauty isn't skin deep. Every time she reflects on her life and grows as a person, there is a reflective item (the lake, the pendant) present. If we consider that the moon reflects the sun and acts like a mirror, we can interpret her mirror-based spells to have an indirect relation to her lunar abilities.

To be fair, her mirror spells could easily have a category of their own as the moon is not exactly like a mirror in its reflectivity power; the moon only reflects about 3–12% of the sunlight, while a mirror typically reflects anything between 70%–99.9%. However, based on the fact that the sun produces its light, whereas the moon and mirror do not, we can conclude that her mirror spells are more likely to fall under the moon category than the sun category.

From a narrative standpoint, it seems the writers had no idea what to do with her lunar side. It's likely why they changed her title and erased almost every trace of her lunar side, including the blue accents in her transformation outfits. It's a shame because there are so many ways they could have explored her moon powers in the later seasons, but no; instead, we get the displeasure of witnessing her turning into a toddler, putting fairy animals in silly costumes, and wearing an atrocious salad dress to the stage for everyone in the audience to mock. Which, for the record, she would absolutely never wear.

[dragonfire2lm]

Elden Ring Headcanon: Messmer Edition

Spoilers below, these headcanons are based on item descriptions, and thanks to some helpful people in the discord I'm in for clarifying some lore that completely flew over my head.

Ok, so, just as a disclaimer: I do not care who you ship Messmer with, or how you view him, the following headcanon is just my interpretation, that does not mean that everyone should share said interpretation. If you do, awesome! if not, just continue on with your day, the following headcanon has no bearing on your enjoyment of the character, the game, or what you do to express your love of Elden Ring.

Messmer seems very aromantic coded to me. He has friends among the knights that serve him, cared about them to the point he listened to them when they wanted knowledge preserved, and mourned the loss of a friend when two of knights rebelled against him because of Messmer's serpentine nature. He also has a lot of love for his family, with how he was an older brother figure to Radahn and had a brotherly bond with Gaius, not to mention how he's turned himself into a symbol of fear and uses his fire (which he has tried to get rid of multiple times) all on his mother's orders.

Yet he has no interest in romantic relationships (R.I.P Rellana), and I just, think it'd be neat if I headcanon him as aromantic (Note: that does not mean he's also asexual, I am specifically focusing on aromanticism here) based on the fact that he cares a lot about his knights and his family, but had no interest in Rellana in a romantic way.

Plus, its all in good fun, and aromantic rep is sorely lacking in media, so what's stopping me from reading certain characters as being aro-coded? Fandom often interpret characters as gay, bi, trans and so on for their headcanons and fanfics, so what does it matter if I pick a character to write as being aromantic?

This is, after all, a hobby, its for fun, and if you personally don't agree with this, that's ok. Whatever ideas you have, and whatever ideas I have can coexist in the same fandom space.

Now, here's a headcanon that's a lot less...controversial.

Messmer sees via his serpents, his remainnig eye, as seen in his phase two transition, is a glass one, a prosthetic eye. He probably can't see out of it. Granted, there is a lot of blodd on his fingers after removing it, so maybe it is a magical functioning eye or something, but it could go either way. But given that when we enter his boss room for the first time, we see one of his snake friends before we see him, so I feel like that opening cutscene hints at the fact that he uses his snakes to see.

I like Messmer, he's very friend-shaped.

I just think he's neat.

Edit: The lengthy disclaimer at the start of this post is just me covering my bases, I've gotten guilt-tripped and generally felt unwelcome in a couple of other fandoms for simply having an aromantic spectrum headcanon, or you know, being an asexual fan of a game and its characters when most of the player base is clearly not asexual. (A different game, not Elden Ring, the elden ring community has been very accepting, but the Doubt Still Remains because of my previous experiences)

Thank you for reading.

[rey-jake-therapist]

I didnt realize Payne clarified that Sauron wanted Galadriel to be *his* queen. I've seen some antis insist that he wasn't attracted to her in the least so he meant to say 'I can make you A queen, but not MY queen'.

And they were also going on how there's a hierarchy in the film industry, in which certain positions hold more narrative and directional authority despite what actors and lower level exec's say. That's why they kept using this hierarchy that Payne and McKay override Charlotte's words about haladriel. But if we go by the Anti's information, then that confirms that Sauron did want Galadriel as HIS QUEEN (love or not), since its stated exactly that way by Payne himself. If not, then why didn't he say 'A queen with me', or 'A queen by my side', instead? There are other ways he could've phrased. Even if you say that he used 'basically', that still doesn't change the fact that Payne made it clear that Sauron wanted Galadriel to rule WITH him, not by some corner of ME (I know we're kind of ignoring Gal atm to dissect the wording but I see them as fictional characters not real people lol). It also kind of overrides some of Charlie's earlier remarks where he denies or subverts Sauron's intention regarding making her queen. But it echoes back to what you said though, that things change over time.

And just to make it clear, we don't need to necessarily obey what showrunners/actors have said and treat it like it's a hard rule for how we interpret these characters. This is just an interesting piece of info I think should be pointed out. Especially since haters will find anything to try to minimize and invalidate haladriel. I feel very sad (for them lol).

Well, I'll answer that by saying that first, I don't think that I can do that ignoring Gal's response, simply because what she answered is important to understand why Sauron didn't say "my" queen, imho.

I think we can't leave Galadriel outside of the loop here, because the phrasing used by Sauron is directly connected to the way she herself used. She said, "you would make me A tyrant", to which he naturally answers, "I would make you A queen". Then she's the one using the "MY" : "And you. MY king".

What I think, it's that the writers wanted to highlight the fact that them being together as king and queen/husband and wife was her idea as much as his. I think it's important for the interpretation of that scene, for the audience to realize that Galadriel wanted this.

Let's say Sauron had said, "I would make you MY queen", and she had answered, "And you would be the king" : it would have sounded like something that was forced on her : she would have been his wife in this scenario, wether she wanted it or not. It would have given "forced marriage" vibes, and would have deprived Galadriel of her agency. And believe me : if the antis are now using this scene against shippers because Sauron didn't say "my queen", you can be sure that they would have weaponized this scene even more if they could have interpreted it that way.

With Galadriel being the one who says, "And you. My king", it says that she was seeing herself ruling with him, as queen and king and as husband and wife. Notice that he didn't correct her, as it was probably what he wanted to hear.

It also kind of overrides some of Charlie's earlier remarks where he denies or subverts Sauron's intention regarding making her queen.

I mean, I don't know if it overrides it. Charlie first denied that it was a marriage proposal, but later admitted that this was "de facto" exactly that.

"Sauron, meanwhile, won’t make the mistake of connecting with someone ever again, not after Galadriel’s rejection of his de facto “marriage proposal,” as Vickers describes it, at the end of Season 1. “He’s moved on to bigger and better things” since, Vickers argues, but try as they might, there’s no denying their entwined fates.  "Galadriel and Sauron share the deepest connection to another being either of them has ever experienced, a fact that haunts them both in the new episodes. What they share “is greater than romance,” Vickers explains. “Their connection runs far deeper than anything surface level.”

Source

Now if you refer to the fact that Charlie claimed several times that if Galadriel had accepted his offer, she would have been nothing more than his secretary, another shiny ring at his hand, I also don't think that it contradicts the idea that he wanted her to be at his side as a queen. I often read that Charlie's wrong, because Sauron is a Maiar who was created to follow and serve. So by this logic, he wanted to worship Galadriel like he worshipped Morgoth.

I think it's true, for most of it, and we saw it during all season 1 : who called all the shots ? Galadriel did. Who followed her despite his initial refusal ? Sauron. She wanted him to be a king ? He made himself a king. She wanted him to go rescue the Southlands with her ? He went with her, even if first, he didn't want to ! The fact that it was in his personal interest to do that is besides the point : at no moment did he try to force her into doing anything. It's not in his nature, and being in his repetant era then, Sauron was more inclined to listen to his nature than we saw him be in season 2. In season 1, Sauron was the happiest we saw of him so far, especially when he was at the forge, doing what he was created for, but also when he followed Galadriel on the battlefield :

I mean, words have their importance especially when it comes to Sauron, who never chooses his words randomly :

She "pushed" him. He described here exactly what a leader does. After Morgoth's defeat, he found himself leaderless, and he was lost because due to his nature, what he really wants/needs is someone who takes the lead. In Galadriel, he recognized someone who had the potential to do just that. In season 2, we saw him in a position of leadership, manipulating everybody like a puppet to make them do everything he wanted, yada yada. And yet, that was his face for 99% of the season :

He seemed as alive as a dead fish.

Now, where my opinion often diverges from what seems to be this most popular opinion, is that I believe Charlie's nevertheless right regarding the turn their partnership as king and queen would have taken, had Galadriel accepted. Thousands of years ago, Mairon was corrupted by Morgoth, and as time passed, I think he developed a desire to overrule Morgoth, because that's what this kind of corruption does : it gives an hunger for power, even to beings who are not originally meant to want it. As Sauron, he was given an incommensurable power over others, and he enjoyed it. He always followed Morgoth and never betrayed him (probably because he had sworn a blood oath to him, preventing him to take any action against him), but he grew extremely frustrated of his methods, as he had a different vision.

And of course he did, because destroying was, again, not what he was created for. What Morgoth did, and asked him to do, went against his nature. As apprentice of Aulë, he became skilled at crafting and making things. When Celebrimbor told him his only craft was treachery, it must have hit HARD, because it wasn't always the case.

(Aside note : I was a bit annoyed that Celebrimbor was the one who got to hit Sauron where it hurt the most, while Galadriel only got a pathetic "heal yourself" that couldn't mean anything to him because they never had any conversation about his corruption by Melkor).

He started dreaming of the idea that if Morgoth was ever to disappear, he would take his place and rule in his stead, and that's exactly what he tried to do once Morgoth was defeated :

As we saw, it didn't turn out very well. Why ? I think, because Sauron wasn't Morgoth, he wasn't a born dictator, and he didn't manage to inspire enough fear of him to Adar and the Orcs, only resentment, so when he tried to put Morgoth's crown on his head, they betrayed him.

(idk but maybe looking like a twink didn't help. Just sayin')

But it doesn't mean that Sauron gave up on his dream of ruling, though. So I think that when he decided that he wanted Galadriel to be his queen, he was probably torn between what his nature dictated him to do (giving her all the power she needed to have to be THE queen of Middle-Earth, while he would get the follower's role he had beside Morgoth back), and the ambitions he nourished of ruling Middle-Earth himself, leaving only crumbs to Galadriel like Morgoth did to him. Even in this scenario, he would have shared his power with her, but not enough to take the reigns of the kingdom.

We can't know what would have happened, we can only speculate, but I tend to side with Charlie on this one because at the beginning, there's a clear power imbalance between them : Sauron is a powerful Maiar, a demigod, and Galadriel is just an Elf. For her to become as powerful as him and be his equal, would have required him to willingly share the entirety of his power with her. Would have he done that, while he had all these ideas about healing Middle-Earth and believed he and only he knew exactly how to do it... ?

I mean, the only thing we can be sure of, it is that it was his intention to give her plenty of power. He wanted everybody not to just respect her, but to worship her like a goddess. It's the extent of this power that we don't know about. And did he want to be worshipped too ? I'd say, probably yes, personally.

Sorry anon, I didn't start answering this ask planning to write a dissertation... I guess I can't help myself, when it comes to Sauron. He's just that interesting !

[sweatreleaseofdeaths]

I never liked some aspects of SNK's ending since it came out back in 2021. Not because I thought it was bad or because I thought it wasn't well made, but because it felt forced. 

The sudden change of Eren's feelings about Mikasa was one thing that pissed me off, but also because Isayama's original ending wasn't even supposed to be the one that we got. It felt like he only wrote that specific ending for the fans and readers (and maybe because he was tired too; have you seen the bags?) and not because that was the ending that he wanted to write. 

Like you can clearly tell by the last arc that he took a drastic turn on where the story would go to make it "happier," for lack of better words.

 

The way I saw it from the beginning, there was no getting out of it. No happy ending whatsoever. And true to it, the ending with got was bittersweet. Everything Eren did was for nothing because the cycle started back again.

I did actually appreciate that, because it showed us something that was an actual reality. Even if it did help for a bit, nothing really changed because it's in humanity's nature to always start the cycle once again.

However, what I wanted to see more was his original idea of everybody dying. Instead of that, Isayama went and tried to pull a Naruto (with Armin and Eren) so that they could talk it out, understand each other, and come to an understanding. (The understanding being: the reasons of his actions, Eren's need to die, and their promises) 

From an interview (if I'm not mistaken), the original ending was apparently inspired by "The Mist," which is basically about the protagonist being the cause of his loved ones downfall in an attempt to protect them. Sounds familiar, right? It feels like it was going in that direction, then Isayama just decided to make them all resolve their differences, for some reason. 

I personally don't hate the ending; like I said, I just think it was a tad forced on his end.

 

On the Mikasa/Eren thing, do NOT get me wrong. Mikasa is and has always been an important character to this story. Her as well as her relationship with Eren IS special. Now just because what they share is special doesn't necessarily mean that it's "love.".

On Mikasa's side, she literally lost her parents and met Eren a second later because he killed for her and came to her defense. She latched into him because of that. She was a traumatised child with a deeply unhealthy view of love, so while she did love Eren, the way she showed it could be interpreted as just obsession toward her rescuer.

But the thing with Mikasa's character is that the more the story goes, the more you see her become her own person without Eren. Either it be choosing between her desire to stay with him or her duties as a soldier, or even when she had to make a choice between killing him or not being willing to because of how much she loves him.

I honestly love Mikasa as a character so much. You can see her growth and see her trying to get past her trauma step by step. So, at the end, even though she never stopped loving Eren, she moved on and started a life for herself, because that's where her development was leading to.

Contrary to her, Eren had little to no self-restraint. He was hot-headed and only believed in what he believed, walking the path that he felt was right. He was obsessed with one thing and one thing only (that's literally everything he talked about), never straying from it no matter what happened.

I feel like he never tried to get past his trauma, only feeding into it the more time passed. From always getting into fights because of different perspectives he had with people (i.e., hitting one of the guys who was badmouthing the scouts with a stick) to ending 80% of humanity. Eren was selfish from the beginning; everything he did was for himself. Even the rumbling was partially for himself because his freedom couldn't be obtained if the people outside the walls were still around. 

Eren was and will always be a deeply selfish person, but there is also more to that. (So much more that I'm not even going to get into that here, because I love Eren too much and wouldn't be doing him any justice by resuming his character in just a few words.)

 

TLDR: Eren did not love her romantically (he did LOVE her; it just wasn't romantic), and even if Isayama wanted to say that they did love each other, what they shared ultimately was toxic. It could've turned into something better if Eren was less self-centred, but then again. My issue with all of this is that Isayama underexplored this aspect of their relationship so much that it just was out of the blue (and might I add ooc without getting shot) when Eren started wailing about not wanting her to end up with someone else.

You can't just make a story, build it, and put effort into it, then make a little throwaway line of "Oh, these two love each other, btw." That's just not how it works. You have to develop it for the readers to understand, and even if some people end up not liking it, it wouldn't matter because at least you made it make sense. 

 

Also! I'm not criticising SNK, nor am I criticising Isayama. I've loved this story for years, so really, at the end of the day, even if some things still felt off to me, I will keep loving it to death. (And you can ship whoever you want who gives a fuck!)

[squeeb100]

I'm trying to parse through why I don't like Jayvik as a romantic ship, and thought I could type it up to maybe offer a counterpoint to people who are writing this viewpoint off as homophobic or ableist. Yes absolutely those are reasons people might not love this ship, but I don't believe either of them is a reason I don't.

So. Heads-up for some Jayvik negativity and some other general criticism of the energy in the fandom (I'm not gonna try to be nasty but I am, by the very conceit of this post, going to have opinions), and a disclaimer that if Jayvik makes you feel seen or happy or anything else that's not bad and I'm not saying this ship is bad and you need to stop talking about it and liking it. I'm just saying I, an individual person, don't particularly care for romantic interpretations of these two, and I don't interpret their interactions as romantic or sexual.

Actually before I talk about anything at all I really like this post and this person has said things a lot of things smarter and better than I will about sex and sexuality and Jayce and Viktor https://www.tumblr.com/ohnoitstbskyen/768136874376232960/asking-sincerely-do-you-see-a-romance-between?source=share

I feel like I'm within the Jayvik demographic. Viktor is my favorite character in Arcane, despite quibbles with how he was handled. For over half my life my major OTP has been KuroFai, which has a pretty similar vibe (storywise, not characterwise) to Jayvik in the back half of the series they're from. The are-they-aren't-they discourse surrounding them was also quite similar for many years. I'm not gonna talk about them really, but here they are.

[image: an illustration of Kurogane and Fai from the manga Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle. Fai is a light-haired man with blue eyes, waving at the viewer with a relaxed expression. He has an arm around Kurogane, who is a grumpy-looking dark-haired man with red eyes and Fai's arm covering his mouth]

I'll admit to not having an incredibly good story reason that Jayvik SHOULDN'T be a thing, and I'm not going to present a good analysis really because I think I need to rewatch Arcane more than once to really have a solid grasp of it or a good read of the things that went "right" or "wrong" with the storytelling. This is literally my feelings-based opinion.

I like the idea that Jayce and Viktor have a deep-running love for each other that maybe defies attempts to define it as just friendship or brotherhood or romance or anything. I personally thought, in their final scene together, that the forehead touch was a far more heart-tugging, raw display of intimacy than a kiss would have been, and I genuinely didn't want them to kiss. I hope I've established that this is not because I don't like the idea of men kissing.

This may derive from the fact that I, like everyone, experience attraction in an individual way. For me, to extant, not-fictional people, almost never. I'm not uninterested in the idea of a life partner, and in fact would really like to have a person who I love more than anything in the world to go through life's hardships with, but I have rarely found an individual who I was interested in "romantically." I didn't experience adolescence the same way many of my friends did, and don't experience attraction to others in a way that seems "typical," if we can really define anything or anyone as typical. I have not been in a romantic relationship, not for lack of chances and not because I don't care about people - I have family and friends who I love very very much.

I think it is beautiful, the idea that two people can love each other, and support each other, and be soulmates and die together --- and not be in what mainstream society defines as "romantic love." If you want them to fuck nasty on the lab table that's okay too.

The second reason/cluster of reasons I don't really like romantic Jayvik is a little bit bitter and jaded and I'm sorry. It's the energy in the fandom and I can feel myself being pushed further into a stubborn opinion by the fact that I find this frustrating.

(I am putting on my "hypocrite" shirt)

Arcane has a really diverse cast. There are lots of women. There are lots of nonwhite characters. There are multiple prevalent, plot-important, kickass black characters. There is a canon wlw couple who make out on screen and then definitely fuck offscreen.

I know Jayce isn't necessarily meant to be white. Other than that. I think the fact that the Arcane tag is overwhelmingly Jayvik is just a little suspect. I told you it was a little bit bitter and jaded. I am not seeing the same level of fanart and analysis of specifically women and black characters, and I think that's an interesting energy this fandom is bringing to the table. I am not exempt from this criticism.

The longstanding argument that the reason we don't see more obsession with sapphic ships and characters who aren't (white) men is the lack of them in source material is feeling really hollow right now.

Anyway that's my two cents about Jayvik and if people care, cool, and if they don't, that's also cool. Please refrain from speculating about my sexuality in the comments. Peace and love.

Go donate to a palestininan, sudanese, congolese or lebanese family if you're able. Consider a donation to the Native American Rights Fund or another reputable organization, this week and always. In the wake of this election, you might consider mutual aid programs to help people in and around your community. It's cathartic to get drawn into fandom discourse, but there are bigger fish to fry.

[for-a-longlongtime]

JOIN US for the Triple Frontier 5th Anniversary Write-A-Thon!

Hosted by @romanarose and @for-a-longlongtime

Hello everyone!

March 13th 2024 will be the 5 year anniversary of Triple Frontier, a movie that was underrated but very precious to us all. Whether Frankie Fridays rock your world, you're a Benny kinda-person, you've got a thing for Santi, or are counting everything all the time just like Will - there are so many of us.

Charlie Hunnam announced recently that there is potential for a sequel; he is trying to get it in production and has signed on as a producer. Do we want this? HELL. YEAH. Let's be real, we've probably all thought about how that would go. So @romanarose and I wanted to drum up a little extra excitement all over the place and spread some love for this movie that many of us have watched so many times! (Probably every week. I have no shame admitting this.)

Here's what's happening

It's super simple: create a fanfic of Triple Frontier, any way you like and with any characters you want. Most people will be inclined to write a story, but we always greatly welcome other artistic interpretations. We've listed some content rules below just to make sure it's fun and accessible for everybody, so please check it out. This is for both art and fanfiction. We encourage you to utilize Twitter or Instagram if you’d like to share either, and #triplefrontier or #triplefrontier2019 on any site you post on! Even if you don't plan to participate, please feel free to share this (or other) posts.

Please note you do NOT have to write a 'sequel' to TF; any fic with any Triple Frontier character will do, in pretty much any situation. A 500 word ficlet will be awesome, as will a 20K story, a painting or digital art be!

🏳‍🌈 We are highly encouraging LGBT themes and for you to think outside of x f!reader. 🏳‍🌈��

👉 If you are writing reader insert, we strongly encourage you to encompass a broad scope of readers if you aren't going to specify the demographic. 👈 (FYI, @idolatrybarbie made a great, important post about the need of inclusive reader inserts a couple of months ago.)

All fics that fall under the rules are encouraged, so if you write Santiago Garcia x afab!f!reader, that’s great! But we’d like to take this time to encourage gay/bi pairings, trans readers, gender neutral characters or readers, or even trans interpretations of the boys. Branch out!

🚨 When you post, PLEASE tag @triplefrontier-anniversary on Tumblr and we will reblog it there. We also may reblog onto our main. Please follow that page to see what other people are writing! In the tags, please tag it triple frontier write a thon, just to make everything easily found.

If you want to post art that Tumblr doesn’t allow things like nude art, link the content in a Tumblr post, like a Twitter link, and we’ll reblog that!

If you exclusively write on AO3 or Wattpad or other, you can either make a link on a Tumblr post and tag us. Or message @romanarose privately and they’ll get this set up for you so we can reblog.

Triple Frontier Write-A-Thon Rules

We will run from March 1st to March 14th. Fics and art posted before or after will not be counted - we're trying to keep things manageabel!

This is not a dark event, sorry! Some of us enjoy dark content but wanted to keep this particular event mostly non-dark. That being said, we will allow dub con in the context of mild alcohol use, power dynamics etc. Nothing cooercive, anything sexual should be done with consent. Mostly we are looking to avoid non-con/violence. If you have questions, don’t be afraid to reach out to us!

All participants must be 18+, although smut is not required

No incest, including Millercest. No underage content, no grooming, no - do we really need to list it all here? Again, this is not a dark fic thing.

We have the right to exclude any fic that makes us uncomfortable. It’s our event.

However, we will NOT be excluding people for personal biases, unless it encroaches on our boundaries. This event is to promote Triple Frontier, not about us.

LGBTQ+ characters and themes are highly encouraged, not required. Any fandom thrives when it's inclusive, so we want to explicitely welcome and encourage authors to be themselves and write what they want! Or perhaps even try something new, if so far you've only written P boys x f!reader/OFC.

Tom is allowed. We’re not gonna tell you not to include him if that’s what your little heart desires. However, we highly encourage that your work includes at least one of the usual four guys.

(We don't know WHY you would want this but but FINE. If you must...)

We hope everyone has fun and that this will drum up some more Triple Frontier fics! It's just a fun little thing we want to do in order to celebrate all of you as authors, artists and the movie/characters that have made such an impact on many of us.

Once we start reblogging your entries at @triplefrontier-anniversary starting March 1st, remember to reblog and comment to support artists!

Please come to @romanarose or me with any questions!

PS: Just to make sure there's no confusion - this write-a-thon is explicitely about the Triple Frontier characters, so there's no RPF.