#they don't know how to interpret text

[infinitemilk]

I HATE when people say that kageyama hates kenma or atsumu, like BROTHER IN CHRIST close ao3 and open the MANGA!!! kageyama would never hate another setter, stop thinking that fanfic is canon,, geez bro stop with that shit

[anthonyzoxide]

Save me solarpunk farmer Pearl... Solarpunk farmer Pearl save me... (Design by @applestruda awesomest character design I've seen in my life good gorsh)

[bayesiandragon]

Not sure I care enough to engage with the post, but to read SVSSS + extras and come away with the interpretation that SJ doesn't care about why YQY failed to save him, just that he did fail, and therefore would never forgive him or change his behavior towards him if he learned the truth, feels off-place to me. It seems to lean into the view that SJ doesn't actually care about YQY, just sees him as a useful tool, and thus couldn't be hurt by the supposed abandonment - with that interpretation it would then make sense to think he would neither care nor change his behavior (towards YQY) upon learning what actually happened.

[y-rhywbeth2]

This isn't aimed at anyone individually, but; I always regret opening the box that is ascended vs non-ascended Astarion fans and "who is actually the pathetic eternally broken one".

[arttsuka]

🫂

Thank you 🫂

Virtual hugs are always appreciated :)

[cel-aerion]

Aro ally Majima let's goooo.

[nebulainatree]

Ohhhh Folly my beloved. I understand you like no one else does. I get it. Cycles of self hatred and not forgiving your inner child. I get you Folly AUGH IM SO ILL IM FUCKED UP ABOUT THIS FOREVER. AUGHHHH. FOLLYYYY

[wonder-worker]

Margaret of Anjou’s visit to Coventry [in 1456], which was part of her dower and that of her son, Edward of Lancaster, was much more elaborate. It essentially reasserted Lancastrian power. The presence of Henry and the infant Edward was recognised in the pageantry. The ceremonial route between the Bablake gate and the commercial centre was short, skirting the area controlled by the cathedral priory, but it made up for its brevity with no fewer than fourteen pageants. Since Coventry had an established cycle of mystery plays, there were presumably enough local resources and experience to mount an impressive display; but one John Wetherby was summoned from Leicester to compose verses and stage the scenes. As at Margaret’s coronation the iconography was elaborate, though it built upon earlier developments.

Starting at Bablake gate, next to the Trinity Guild church of St. Michael, Bablake, the party was welcomed with a Tree of Jesse, set up on the gate itself, with the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah explaining the symbolism. Outside St. Michael’s church the party was greeted by Edward the Confessor and St. John the Evangelist; and proceeding to Smithford Street, they found on the conduit the four Cardinal Virtues—Righteousness (Justice?), Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. In Cross Cheaping wine flowed freely, as in London, and angels stood on the cross, censing Margaret as she passed. Beyond the cross was pitched a series of pageants, each displaying one of the Nine Worthies, who offered to serve Margaret. Finally, the queen was shown a pageant of her patron saint, Margaret, slaying the dragon [which 'turned out to be strictly an intercessor on the queen's behalf', as Helen Maurer points out].

The meanings here are complex and have been variously interpreted. An initial reading of the programme found a message of messianic kingship: the Jesse tree equating royal genealogy with that of Christ had been used at the welcome for Henry VI on his return from Paris in 1432. A more recent, feminist view is that the symbolism is essentially Marian, and to be associated with Margaret both as queen and mother of the heir rather than Henry himself. The theme is shared sovereignty, with Margaret equal to her husband and son. Ideal kingship was symbolised by the presence of Edward the Confessor, but Margaret was the person to whom the speeches were specifically addressed and she, not Henry, was seen as the saviour of the house of Lancaster. This reading tips the balance too far the other way: the tableau of Edward the Confessor and St. John was a direct reference to the legend of the Ring and the Pilgrim, one of Henry III’s favourite stories, which was illustrated in Westminster Abbey, several of his houses, and in manuscript. It symbolised royal largesse, and its message at Coventry would certainly have encompassed the reigning king. Again, the presence of allegorical figures, first used for Henry, seems to acknowledge his presence. Yet, while the message of the Coventry pageants was directed at contemporary events it emphasised Margaret’s motherhood and duties as queen; and it was expressed as a traditional spiritual journey from the Old Testament, via the incarnation represented by the cross, to the final triumph over evil, with the help of the Virgin, allegory, and the Worthies. The only true thematic innovation was the commentary by the prophets.

[...] The messages of the pageants firmly reminded the royal women of their place as mothers and mediators, honoured but subordinate. Yet, if passive, these young women were not without significance. It is clear from the pageantry of 1392 and 1426 in London and 1456 in Coventry that when a crisis needed to be resolved, the queen (or regent’s wife) was accorded extra recognition. Her duty as mediator—or the good aspect of a misdirected man—suddenly became more than a pious wish. At Coventry, Margaret of Anjou was even presented as the rock upon which the monarchy rested. [However,] a crisis had to be sensed in order to provoke such emphasis [...]."

-Nicola Coldstream, "Roles of Women in Late Medieval Civic Pageantry", Reassessing the Roles of Women as 'Makers' of Medieval Art and Culture

[cumbiazevran]

I know I’m batting at the hornet nest, and please know that if you like this character, it’s nothing personal bc we interpret things as they make more sense to us that being said, I cannot stand the Solas gang who paint him as nothing BUT someone who has the interest of elves at heart and was their liberator, who is just kind and thoughtful and does his best to help people. I do not have a problem with people who like Solas bc this isn’t a morality competition about who has the most correct opinions, nor I care about people who do that, but did we play the same game?

Destroying the world is not the revolutionary move of liberation you think it is. I think we have seen enough movies that deal with that ecofascist narrative (bc even if the character isn’t, the narrative is). People still live in the world, and anyone who would genuinely suggest this would be destroyed in an argument by people who do actual mutual aid and left-based activism. What is or isn’t revolutionary doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and the devs being terminally Canadian/USAmerican don’t get to redefine things that exist beyond and over them

Solas isn’t a particularly helpful person. Not even to elves. Thinking pitifully of city elves and as the Dalish as savages, without any will to recognise the culture that flourished among them is also not the solidarity move you think it is

Solas isn’t particularly kind. Being soft spoken isn’t the same as being kind

For a fandom that usually has a lot of issues with other characters being used as BioWare mouth pieces (which is honestly understandable and I’m not jabbing at bc me too bestie), a lot of people in this fandom seem to be okay with Solas being one of the most blatant mouth-pieces there is

A person who laments hurting you, and saying he doesn’t want to hurt you, and how he wish he wasn’t hurting you, and who has the space to STOP and DOESN’T is you know. not someone who’s particularly interested in listening to other people

This is the guy who killed his best friend because he had the audacity to believe that a city elf could actually better the conditions of elves who are currently alive. Which is the revolutionary thing to do

The Elvhenan being destroyed is literally Solas’ doing. Organise unions and commit regicide like a normal person if it bothers you so much

“But they were enslavers” gee listen, I’m not saying the ancient elvhen empire should be pristine and perfect and a happy utopia, but you’ve never stopped to think how it’s at least a little racist that they modelled a people after several indigenous cultures and cultures of colour and then decided that the guy who wanted to fix them was a white looking king and fallen god who thinks people who are lesser than him are underdeveloped and savage? Not only that but that BioWare decided that that very culture was going to be based on slavery like a wildly inaccurate, racist, methodologically questionable global north high school text talking about Mesoamerican cultures? That they took the ancient practice of face tattoos and decided they were slave markings? How white are you???

Once again he constantly distances himself from modern elves, and the only one he speaks kindly of is a high approval Dalish Inquisitor.

He is one of the biggest “all faith in anything at all is subjugation if you disagree with me you are committing an attack on the very concept of freedom" characters in the franchise. I fully see going that route when you’re playing with Andrastianism, because of the narrative around it in the game and the influences it has. But with other minority religions and Otherised cultures in the game? It is straight up racist to me, and sounds too close to white atheism for my comfort. This isn’t just a Solas thing, but a Bioware thing in general. Even if Andrastianism is criticised or portrayed as genuinely damaging, every single person who isn’t a human andrastian is portrayed as being Oppressed Without Knowing It. every single dialogue and investigation option is framed like this.

Also foreign liberators don’t really tend to be liberators. People who seek to free other people because they know better should be met with resistance. It is with the people or not at all, and Solas actually fits in this category. He sees himself as the granter of Freedom. Where I come from, we call these people gringos or conquistadores, so you choose.

I’m not saying you can’t find entertainment, enjoyment, pathos or whatever else in this particular character. On the contrary, as different narratives and different narrative devices satisfy different things. That, however, doesn’t mean the narrative they use is extremely skewed and can be interpreted as extremely infective in terms of what people pretend it is aka a story about Liberation.

In my personal opinion, Bioware doesn’t have stories about liberation because it does not have the range for it in Dragon Age, which leaves us with a lot of half assed attempts, but I digress. My point is I’m not claiming to know what you see in this character just because I don’t enjoy him, or that you can’t at all. I’m not the boss of you. I am, however, proposing that perhaps people should stop ignoring Solas’ negative traits and the actual text material to pretend he’s some benevolent, lost, elvhen King Arthur come to fix things while being willing to kill everyone else in the process. Again.

[curseofdelos]

irritates me to no end that the only confirmation we have that Reyna is alloace is a random quote tweet that has since been deleted

[eissaphir]

Me watching Repo for the first time: Yup, Luigi's a fun character

Me now:

[watery-melon-baller]

once again i am frustrated because i cannot understand this when it is not at all that difficult I wanna understand it so bad please please please

[leatherbookmark]

pretend to be shocked if you wish but i don’t even see mxy’s incestuous harassment of jgy as something like... Bad™, twisted or something that proves how Wrong In The Head he was. it’s just sad. chances are jgy was his first and last love, because -- how incredibly easy it would have been. i don’t think mxy was, hmm, mentally equipped to process “half-brother! off-limits!” -- he’s never seen this man before in his life, that’s a stranger! but what a stranger. he’s kind, respectful, capable and brilliant, hardworking despite the way he’s treated in jinlintai -- and mxy probably isn’t well-liked either, so even if jgy wasn’t also handsome, he would’ve gravitated towards this cool older dude who Understands. and hormones do the rest! and it didn’t even have to be immediate, or particularly sexual in nature, because i assume teens often don’t realize their crush is Obviously Showing. i’m just thinking about mxy who likes jgy so, so much and wants to be around him all the time, asks him about things, looks at him, catches a whiff of the incense on jgy’s robes as he walks past, blushes at the way jgy looks at a particular angle... just this sweet, innocent young love that’s so similar to the way jgy’s wife loved him before she was his wife So Fucking Doomed and mxy can’t even process it because he’s not even aware. :(

[summerstrash]

there's something buried deep in the connections between Alex, Maddie, Cable, Kwannon, Mystique, Destiny, Kurt, Forge and Greycrow (and a little bit Betsy & Rachel, too) in the Krakoan Era, and I think it's going to take a lot to unpack but for the moment, suffice to say:

it's somewhere in the idea of women bearing messiah-children they will never raise, women losing their children, the spectre of catholicism juxtaposed with ghosts and devils in the machines, women lost in the desert, the destruction of the body as the creation of the weapon, blood and destruction and undying love and mirror images and queer women and the men who love them —

it's all here and I wish I had better words for the web of connections I see in my head, but I don't, it's not a thing I can express in an essay form yet but it's so vibrantly present and I'm expecting it'll take me five more years to unpack it all.

[thedreadvampy]

I try not to be a hater and I recognise that a lot of them are literally kids but the people who send specifically Neil Gaiman asks on this website are the stupidest motherfuckers alive and it's endlessly hilarious to me.

[heartofstanding]

I want to talk about anne neville and Elizabeth of York. I always thought they knew each other very well. They all have vague personalities in the eyes of passers-by, turbulent fates, tragic experiences caused by their father's death, good relations with husbands who have blood feuds indirectly through marriage, and unstable dynasty rule caused by death ... Because of their vague personalities, both women are easily used by historical authors to express their views, and they also have some connections (such as clothes that are often discussed, Elizabeth once had marriage rumors with Edward and Richard in Lancashire ... Their biographies were also criticized by readers as biased (I think this is because these two women are not extroverted, so the author can only imagine themselves ...)I am very frustrated that historical novels mostly use them to shape the men around them, and rarely pay attention to the inner thoughts of "silent" women. I can see some vivid characteristics of these two women in historical literature. One of my favorite facts about Elizabeth of York is that she arranged for her sister to marry her uncle's former supporters, and had a good relationship with the relatives of the Delapol family, which reminded me of her father's attempt to reconcile with Henry Beaufort. Unfortunately, the novels I read do not describe this at all. The marriage between Anne Neville and Richard III is originally described in the novel as Richard saving her, but from her escape from George's supervision, there is reason to believe that they are in a cooperative relationship, as well as Lancaster. Edward, in the novel, is always just an "evil ex husband..." But I think their brief marriage is not so shallow…

I think your frustration with the way Anne Neville and Elizabeth of York are written about is very justified. I'm not very knowledgable about their lives (honestly, I'm a little confused why you sent this to me) but even from a distance, I think they must have been a lot more complex that historians, commentators and novelists typically suppose they were. I think they largely serve as Ricardian mouthpieces now - Anne as Richard III's one true love, tragically lost and Elizabeth as his chief mourner and as another victim of Tudor rule - but it's also very easy to turn them to mouthpieces for Lancaster and Tudor, which was the image that dominated in Tudor times - Shakespeare's depiction of Anne as the chief mourner for Henry VI, the story Richard murdered Anne in order to forcibly marry Elizabeth, the depiction of Elizabeth as purely the idealised, virtuous and dutiful prop for her husband's rule). I think that, because there's a lack of information that lets us build up a more detailed idea of either women, they tend to be written in a way that expresses how the author really feels about the events and personalities of the Wars of the Roses. I can understand this impulse but I wish this impulse was focused more on them as individuals and less on being mouthpieces for the author's feelings about Richard III or Henry VII.