#was thinking about how the only characters who really show her much sympathy are women

[another-whump-sideblog]

Thinking about Jane's relationship with gender. How she has Puppy/Dollie/Amanda do all the cooking and cleaning, and she says it's because she was first in their little trio, but is it really? How she treats her like a doll in addition to treating her as a pet, dressing her up, emphasizing how pretty she is, which she doesn't do with the others. How she confides in her, tells her things she doesn't tell the others, things that make her more prone to sympathize with Jane. How she puts her in a caregiving role over both herself and the others

And the thing is, she could give lectures about feminist theory. She knows her stuff! But there's still a bit of internalized misogyny there, after all these years

[kaelio]

I haven't been talking too much about the IWTV show lately, and that's because I found Season 2 genuinely a bit disturbing. Not because of the blood (I love blood), or Claudia's death (necessary and done well), or individual changes to the book canon. It's disturbing because it gave us uncomfortable answers about the perspective of the show, especially where the show varies and is thus differentiated from the books. The show has some fairly repellant views about vulnerability which bleed into issues in how it handles sexuality (which is less important with how it interprets pathos overall).

The show seems to take the view that you're annoyingly "not allowed" to be mad at someone for "being weak", but that you are expected to feel contempt for someone for being weak.

Like when Louis is listening to Armand talk about his past, and "Dreamstat" huffs at it. Dreamstat is Louis, guys. It's not Lestat. Louis was a pimp and views the pimped-out with contempt and this is never challenged. Hell, the only way Daniel ever comes close to challenging it is saying that Armand might have been lying about his abuse. Louis listens to Claudia recount her rape again. This storyline doesn't have any closure for her, and now she's dead; it can't. It only exists for Louis to look uncomfortable having to hear about it. He's disgusted by it and the scene exists to remind us he's disgusted by it. Like the annoyance he felt when we first met him, chewing out Bricktop for responding to being raped (because yeah, using a hole without permission is... rape). Bricktop, who was a real person who really moved to Paris, who we never hear or see from again. And not much sympathy for Lily, really, was there? Or Jonah, a poor man, who Louis even admits he saw again in Paris but feels no need to mention, because that's a weak person to him and the narrative has nothing but contempt for the weak. Louis is our viewpoint character, and though he also lies and misremembers, and isn't presented as perfect, his view of weakness is reinforced by Daniel (who despite his brief crisis of spine in S1E8 basically serves as his fluffer) and it basically gets to stay intact. When Armand follows him, fearfully, in Episode 8 because the last time Louis stormed out it was to try to kill himself, Louis smashes him into a wall and holds a rolled paper like he's about to beat a dog.

In the book, Armand wants Claudia out of the way and she says as much. He very much could have "prevented it" and he knows, and Louis knows. In the show, he doesn't seem to particularly dislike Claudia, personally, or have any motive to kill her once she's moved away. He wants her to follow the rules everyone else follows, and sure he puts his hands on her, but no more so than other characters who the narrative forgives for it. He's strongarmed into playing director. And yet, this is a weakness Louis can't forgive. You can have it one of two ways; Armand can be a more willing participant in the play or Louis can break up with him about it, but making both of those changes is revealing. The show hates characters who are put in a corner; it has no love for them. It also fundamentally misunderstands the appeal of many of the characters as they appear in the books. We love them because they're sincerely flawed. Because they do bad things. We're not just "not allowed to be mad" at them because bad things have happened to them. We choose to love them. But the show views it like we do so under duress. It thinks it's a relief to us that Louis is giving the Batman monologue at the end. And to some viewers, this seems to be the case! But frankly, I do find it disturbing. And again, this bleeds out into the show's view of sexuality and, to be honest, of women overall.

The only sex scene we ever see that seems basically equally enjoyed by both participants and isn't loaded down with "psychically agonizing with one's sister while it's happening" or strongarming or killing a trusted confidant who had also been involved or some very poorly-negotiated and worrying power dynamics is... Santiago and Elgee! Which on its face (though their actual ages are different) is heterosexual sex between a white older-looking man and a white younger-looking woman! What on Earth! And even then it makes the point that Santiago dumped her not long after. Every time the show adds something or makes an adjustment, it's towards a rigid and regressive view that is completely at odds with the books.

Season 2 was the opportunity to be critical of Louis' narrative in Season 1; how he truly views living people and how he assesses his relationships to others. How he treats others! Hey, in this version, Armand doesn't punch Lestat off a tower, but Louis does openly use him to hurt Lestat in a way that makes explicit to Armand that he doesn't really care about Armand at all. That no one ever has. Hey guys, that actually wasn't a badass power move. That sucked.

Mistreating your partner sucks. This isn't a kink, this is sad. And if it is thought to be a kink, the show certainly doesn't respect taking particular roles within that kink. Thus far, we only have what the show has displayed to us: an Armand under duress to go along with the trial and a willing Lestat. How come Armand gets beaten for it and Lestat gets a hug? Because Armand is weak (by Louis' account specifically because of his grooming) and weakness is disgusting. Deserving of scorn. And in S2E5, Armand certainly didn't want Louis out fucking strangers and doing drugs! But this is portrayed as him being a nag. A drag. A bitch. A good partner, a cool partner, one who isn't so dull and boring, would not have "driven" Louis to this, clearly.

But instead of any real incisiveness on this, or anything, Daniel basically just decides Louis is cool and that Armand is a loser and that obviously "Lestat would never--" even though, in this telling so far, Lestat still didn't attempt to save Claudia. (And Daniel seems to take vampire-status as basically just an upgrade, because now he can exert more power on others. Doesn't even seem to care about his family anymore, probably because they were uncool people who thought it sucked their dad was a self-absorbed bad father.) Oh, hey, didn't Daniel finally recall that what made Louis blow up was the implication that Claudia didn't love him enough? By what standard did Claudia owe Louis anything? But, you know, Claudia died because she was small and couldn't be independent (that gets you raped, you know), so implicitly she also owed stronger things her love, and Louis' woundedness is righteous, I suppose.

[saintsenara]

❤️

So many options here! Therapised Sirius, endlessly kind Lupin, suave Draco, incel Snape, emotionally intuitive Hermione, villainous Dumbledore, boorish Ron, the list goes on.

thank you very much for the ask, anon! and you're so right that we have lots of potential options to use as answers to this question...

which character do you think is the most egregiously mischaracterized by the fandom?

but i'm going to go for my best girl, merope gaunt.

merope’s son is, in my opinion, the most interesting character in the series, and his relationship with his dead mother’s memory is one of the most fascinating things about him [and also an aspect of his characterisation which canon dwells on only lightly - dumbledore’s view that voldemort "despises" merope is never interrogated, despite the fact that harry clearly clocks the ways in which his grief about his motherlessness drives his decisions].

but i also think that merope is a fascinating character in her own right, not least for what she reveals to us about the complex threads which bind being a victim and being a perpetrator together, what she shows about how there are no perfect victims, and what she shows about how there are no irredeemable perpetrators. and i really dislike the fact that - even in fics which attempt to deeply get into voldemort's character from perspectives not found in the canon series - authors typically write her as an unambiguous villain, and take dumbledore's view - that merope chose to die [something which directly justifies voldemort's view of death as shameful, which isn't what the series thinks it's saying...] because she wasn't brave enough to live.

i hate this - because i hate anything which suggests that wizards and muggles are, essentially, different species. throughout the course of human history hundreds of thousands of women - who would have loved to have stayed alive for their babies - have bled to death in childbirth, because childbirth is dangerous. a lack of courage doesn't come into it.

but i also think that merope deserves to be treated as something other than a one-note villain outside of this.

she's a rapist. there's no need to handwave that away - even though canon does [love potions are treated as somewhat benign in the text, the canonical tom riddle sr. gets no sympathy whatsoever within the narrative, and he is blamed by both harry and dumbledore, even if this happens in ways which make sense for their characters, for "abandoning" his son].

but she's also someone who must meaningfully lack the capacity to understand what she does as rape. the implication of canon is that she's subjected to incestuous sexual violence at her father and/or brother’s hands [morfin’s jealousy over tom sr., and the fact that he tells tom jr. that merope "dishonoured" him by having a sexual relationship with another man, heavily suggests this], which the narrative once again considers vaguely amusing - and she's certainly subjected to physical violence by them. she's treated as little more than an object to display her father’s locket. this is a girl [she’s nineteen when she dies] who cannot have any idea what things like consent and bodily autonomy are, and who shows through this how this lack of safety and education in one person’s life can go on to beget horror in another’s.

and, alongside this, she also provides a particularly good insight into something which is often absent from the canon narrative - the failure of the wizarding state. it is extraordinary that, when morfin and marvolo are arrested, she's just left on her own. or that the state has made no prior effort to remove her from the home of two men with reputations for violence, or to make sure that she has an education, or to notice that she lives in grinding poverty. or that she's forced to sell her father’s locket for a pittance because the wizarding state makes no effort to help heavily pregnant women who have nowhere else to go.

this - the fact that evil is often banal proceduralism, and that the greatest harm is caused by state apparatus - is something which is largely absent from the canon narrative, which tends to locate good or evil within the individual. so too is the reality of gendered violence, or how poverty affects women specifically, or how the institutions praised in the series - hogwarts chief among them - maintain a social structure which is hugely oppressive. these things go on to affect voldemort too, but they originate with merope.

[biblicalhorror]

Okayyyyy yeah also let's talk about Tammy. I didn't know how I felt about her for awhile because she did very much feel like the Disposable Black Girlfriend, but I'm seeing people saying she's an "abuser" or God forbid "just as bad as Kevin" and that's just. Not at all true.

Yes, Tammy is controlling. She doesn't seem to really like Patty for who she is, and kind of seems to want to change her into someone else instead. HOWEVER, I think we need to look at the whole character to understand WHY she's like that. I don't think she's controlling Patty for personal gain or for the sake of manipulating her. I think she's lonely and desperate for companionship, which leads to her ignoring/pushing past the obvious incompatibility in her relationship with Patty.

Here's what we know about Tammy:

1. She seems to be the only black person in the Worcester social circle. She also mentions frequently how she's surrounded entirely by white men at work.

2. She is also the only openly lgbt person in the area, other than Patty, who is still not exactly out and proud.

3. She describes her entire job as "making excuses for" and "cleaning up after" the men at her job, particularly her partner (whose name I am unfortunately forgetting, does anyone remember?), who even had her plant evidence for him on at least one occasion.

4. Despite being very competent and good at her job, the white men around her keep failing upwards (she mentions a few times that people beneath her keep getting promoted) while she remains stagnant in her career. There doesn't seem to be any explanation for this other than the fact that she is a black lesbian in an extremely white, conservative community.

Basically, Tammy seems like someone who has been taught (like many black women) that she will have to work much harder than everyone else to get ahead in any capacity. She is also likely very, very lonely. She doesn't seem to have any friends outside of work, which isn't surprising given the above. It seems like she doesn't exactly have a ton of prospects, dating-wise, other than Patty. In my opinion, it's really no wonder that she clung to Patty so desperately and immediately and tried to forcibly mold her into someone who could be compatible. She's tough, smart, organized, direct, manipulative, no-nonsense and controlling because, well, she had to be. And she ends up trying to "rein in" Patty because, in her mind, what's the other option? She ends up alone, surrounded by men who force her to cover for their antics and don't care if she lives or dies.

I'm not saying her behavior is healthy. But it comes from an entirely different place than Kevin's abuse, or Chuck's, or even Neil's. And it's also not uncommon. In real life, I know many queer women (specifically small-town lesbians) who end up in relationship dynamics just like that over and over again because they start dating someone who doesn't quite fit, and they compensate for it by trying to force a connection instead of accepting loneliness and isolation. I have a lot of sympathy for Tammy. And I wish the show had taken more care to establish the abuse she faced from her coworkers off-camera.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

i think Helaena can be autistic but also a happy and joyful girl , autism ≠ depression. the way the portrayed the only neurodivergent character on screen as unstable, shunned depressed, and with no importance to the plot feel very ableist and weird , but then they're the ones who made the guy with a foot disability a feet fetishist 🫠

Hi OP, finally answering this because the trailer dropped and still the only Helaena shots we have are from her Jaehaerys' funeral. There is also one still photo of her. If you haven't seen it, here she is, apparently sewing the funeral shroud for her little boy:

So it seems like season 2 is going to continue on this trajectory for Helaena as a character who exists in order to suffer beautifully.

Don't get me wrong. I am glad that the show is going to wring the full emotional effect from Blood and Cheese, not just shock value. The audience will feel the real horror of a six year old child brutally murdered in his own home and the psychological torment of Helaena. It should be terrible, it should be devastating, and I hope they do not pull any punches.

What's disappointing about how the show has handled Helaena is that they didn't really put any effort into building up her character before her tragedy. It's all well and good that she likes bugs and she's touch averse, but what are her opinions? Who is she closest to? How did she react to becoming a mother so young? To what extent does she understand her visions? What does she value? She can be happy and cheerful, or she can be frustrated and angry, and hell, she can be depressed too, but I need to know why. It's telling that I can describe the basic internal motivations for each of the male children, including Luke who was a glorified plot device, but I cannot for Helaena. Aegon wants to feel loved, Jace wants to prove he's as worthy as any trueborn heir, Aemond wants what his brother has, Luke wants to be free from his family's expectations. Helaena? Fuck if I know. I guess she wants not to die horribly.

The ableism is an issue. F&B is full of women who were deemed "simple" -- Gael, Daella, Jaehaera-- without being given much else to define them, and HotD adds another (there's something, I think, to the way the "simple" Targaryens are always women and how disability kind of used as a way to remove them from the narrative and shunt them aside, often tragically). And while it's great to see an autistic person represented on screen, the show consistently has an issue with treating representation as characterization. "Autistic girl who likes bugs" is not a personality. Autistic people, (even those with horrifying prophesies I assume), do have hopes and dreams and feelings about things. The one peek we get into Helaena's life is at the in episode 8 when she roasts Aegon and even that scene is open to interpretation (and gets taken wildly out of context). Now, I can read a lot into the actor performances, but ultimately, lines that could have given a glimpse Helaena personality were cut. It's as if they're afraid that if they give her an opinion on anything she would lose that (frankly kind of infantilizing) "pure cinnamon roll too good for this world" "i would die for her" sympathy from people who are not inclined to be sympathetic for her family as a whole.

(And anon, you're right about Larys. And let me say, turning Larys' clubfoot into the punchline of an OnlyFeet joke also does not inspire confidence that they'll handle Aegon II's eventual disability with any sensitivity either, especially when Mushroom's accounts of his last few months are incredibly mean spirited. We need to start that discourse now so they get the memo).

Sadly, I don't think the show really has any intention of course correcting with Helaena in season 2. I imagine at most we'll have her try to warn Aegon and/or Aemond about Blood & Cheese but they won't understand her warning, and then this will be a vehicle to further their guilt and grief. And while we do need to see Aegon's guilt and his grief, I also want to know if Helaena blames herself, if she wishes they'd run away when they had the chance, if she thinks Aegon could have done something, if she is angry at Aemond for killing Luke, if she wants revenge. I do think, with the public funeral for Jaehaerys, they are going to show that the smallfolk are fond of Helaena, and hopefully that will be expanded upon this season and in season 3 because her death is the catalyst for the revolt that sees Rhaenyra driven from the city, and we should understand why her death has such an impact before she actually dies.

[very-straight-blog]

I hate what the showrunners/characters are doing to Aegon. All his life he was neglected and mistreated and then one day all the attention is on him and he is made King and they tell him 'your father wanted you to succeed him' and he doesn't belive it but he goes along because deep down that's all he's ever wanted. To be seen as worthy of something. He is crowned King and he is trying his best to be a good King to his subjects, listening to them and trying to solve their problems and all he gets in return is people treating like an imbecil telling him he is seen as weak. Then his son gets brutally murdered and nobody shows and ounce of sympathy for him, not even a 'I'm sorry for what happened', not even from his own family. His sons funeral is treated as propaganda. He is rightfully angry and wants revege and his grandfather is more worried about what people is going to think of him than the fact that a family member died. Aegon tells Otto that Viserys wanted him as King and Otto laughs at him. All the characters are like "omg you really thought your father loved you you stupid fuking weak bitch 🤣🤣🤣"

God, is there eve ONE person in this fucking show that likes Aegon??? For who he is and not what they can gain from him??? They should have let him go to Pentos or whatever with his family and use Aemond to take throne or something. I'll just be Team Aegon from now on, he has no one but himself and his dragon.

Yes, I even had a post about it here.

This problem is related to the fact that the screenwriters seem to be trying their best to show that the people in the green team hate each other. Plus, they're afraid of ambitious women. There was no need to give us this nonsense with Viserys' dying words. Alicent had to start planning a seizure of power to protect herself and her family - that's it. This was also what Aegon should have been guided by when he took the throne. Simple and understandable, and most importantly logical motivation. But no - now Alicent looks like a fool who believes that Viserys suddenly changed his mind; Otho understands everything, manipulates his grandson and considers him a fool; Aemond calls them usurpers. Great, thanks. The same goes for the death of Jaehaerys - there was no need to show us how the greens villainously plan to make an act of propaganda out of the funeral, but they can't be a family, which means Otto shouldn't care at all about the death of his great-grandson and the grief of his grandson, and Alicent seems to cry, but forgets about what happened a couple of hours later, and then she sees her son crying and just leaves to have sex. And yes, Otto is acting like an idiot because he decides that the king just needs to know that no one really wanted to see him on the throne. You know, during the war, when Aegon should be motivated to fight as much as possible. As a result, because of these ingenious scenario decisions, not only do we get Aegon, whom no one cares about, but also Aegon, who in fact has no motivation to protect the family that hates him.

[kandyzee]

Fiona gallagher and pretty privilege

I think fiona is a great example of how being an attractive white woman can really help shape the way people interpret or misinterpret people's actions, and I've never seen someone talk in depth about it before.

I think one of the main things that stand out to me regarding the way fiona looks is how she is so often boxed into the character type of "sad girl victim." What I mean by that is that people view her as this young woman corrupted by sadness. She's cursed by her environment, and everything she does is okay because of that. Fionas story is undeniably sad, but she isn't always the victim, and despite everything she's gone through, she can mess up. I don't think shameless allows for these kinda characters cause their faults are always portrayed so strongly. Typically, u see teen girls grouped in together, like cassie and effy from skins, Tracy from thirteen. Even a younger character like Debbie isn't as frequently put into this box. Debbie has a devastating story, too. They both have scenes crying and breaking down. Vees heartbreaking storylines of believing she was infertile or having to help her brother her whole childhood are never touched on. People don't see Vee as a 'sad girl victim.' And too me this is because, put simply, fionas pale skin and big puppy dog eyes look better next to lana del rey lyrics then the others do. Fionas sadness and struggle is romanced into something desirable. We see fiona be 'desired' sexually/romanticly many times throughout the show. I think there's something to be said about the way people's admiration for fionas physical body leads them to admire her mental state, even if it's inherently negative at times.

I'm not saying fiona is undeserving of sympathy or in any way trying to downplay her struggles just because she's white and more conventionally attractive. However, I do think it's these traits that make people disregard her wrongdoings where they wouldn't with other characters.

Again, using v and Debbie as examples, their parenting is scrutinised to a much higher degree than fionas, even though fiona is the one who makes the most mistakes. People will in the same breath crisis Debbie for leaving franny with Frank and defend fiona for leaving coke out for liam to find. Realistically, people should be firm on the belief that Debbie's action here isn't as bad. Franny has a fun day out with her grandad, and Liam almost dies. From what I've seen tho a large number of people don't have this opinion. Why does fiona get more grace ? Because she's more conventionally attractive than Debbie!! (Not saying Debbie isn't attractive) Fiona with her slim body, full lips, sharp jaw line are much easier to forgive than Debbie's rounder face, red hair and freckles. V gets called a 'bad mother' most when she is going through postpartum depression. She has an extremely valid reason to be distant with her children. Still, when fiona acts unkindly towards Debbie when she's pregnant, it's fi who gets more leeway. Both v and fiona are extremely attractive, so why does fiona get away with more ?? Because people sympathise more with the white women. Fionas pretty privilege is only intensified by the fact she has white privilege also.

I might make a part two on this cause I think I have more to say, but this is it for now. I had never really thought about this before a couple of weeks ago, so my opinion isn't as defined and solid as it normally is. Can u tell ??

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

“She doesn't want people so see how hypocritical, sexist (to her own gender no less), and just plain awful her character is and take the dislike out on her”

This post pretty much sums up the problem with Olivia’s take on Alicent:

tumblr(.)com/atopcat/737404919685988352/i-really-liked-your-post-about-rhaenicent-what-do

Olivia doesn’t like Alicent, she doesn’t like Team Green, she only wants to desperately cling to fan support so she can stay popular with the general audience. The truth of the matter is Rhaenyra fans make up the largest chunk of the HotD fandom, which means they also make up most of Rhaenicent. If Olivia can ensure Alicent is reduced to nothing more than Rhaenyra’s personal cheerleader instead of a well developed antagonist then Rhaenyra stans will fully embrace her.

Olivia’s ideal ending is where Alicent joins Team Black, she’s convinced herself that if Alicent abandons her family then fans will finally like her and that’s more important to her than having a well written character. As much as I respect the grift it bugs me to no end because she’s intentionally destroying the show in order to protect her palatable version of Rhaenicent.

Olivia Cooke seems to fall into the same trap as Alicent stans: loving the idea and aesthetic of Alicent rather than her actual character. They are enamored with the idea of a pretty victim of the patriarchy who just cries and plays the pawn, rather than Alicent herself. They don't want Alicent to be active in her life or make her own decisions because of who she is in the story.

Alicent is a woman who constantly upholds the patriarchy and tears down other women. She's not a good person and loses sympathy very quickly. Olivia and Alicent stans don't want to accept this, so they make up all these ideas about her to make themselves feel better about playing/liking her.

I really love @atopcat's takes on HOTD, they never miss. Olivia wants to be loved by the fans, and she seems to think the only way to get that is by playing a loved character. There are instances where people hate the actor because of the character, so I can't be too upset about that mindset. But actors who embrace their characters as being villains/antagonists show their skill and grasp on reality.

Olivia and the HOTD show runners are all trying to make a rhaenicent fanfic, but they have opposing ideas of how they want it to play out. Olivia doesn't want Alicent to take any responsibility for her actions because that would mean Alicent was doing shitty things for the whole season. I will say, at least she isn't saying Rhaenyra was actually the monster all along like Alicent stans, so there's that.

[brothermoth]

I'm reading Game of Thrones and watching the show at the same time just to compare...and honestly I think the show really fucked up from the start.

The books are a perfect example of empowering women in a historical setting. There is much less on page sexual assault than in the show. For example: Daenerys is a 14 year old girl married to a 30 year old man for the sake of her brother's political gain. It's horrible, and yet it's the most free she has ever been. She verbally consents to sex on her wedding night (she's a minor and it's always inappropriate but I would like to express that there was no age of consent in the past. This series is based off the medieval period which frequently saw girls married to older men; the fact that he even ASKED for her consent is very indicative of respect for her) and Khal Drogo is gentle with her, not forcing her into it or harming her. He touches her hair, asks her if it is something she wants (despite the language barrier the intent is clear). GRR Martin has genuine empathy and respect for the women he writes. They are people, good and bad and making the best of the world around them.

As a history student and a feminist I think ASOIAF is easily one of the greatest examples of genuine historical empowerment. I can tell Martin is very knowledgeable about powerful women of history and has gone out of his way to examine the social climate of early medieval Europe. For a middle aged man he's done an absolutely admirable job of it.

Cersei is a terrible person, but the narrative has sympathy for her. She is married to a man who gave her power but only a shell of it. He openly laments not having been able to marry Lyanna Stark in front of his wife and berates her and insults her in public. Her actions are awful but Martin's writing asks you to wonder: is she so wrong? Her husband is lucky she didn't kill him YEARS ago. Everyone would have been better off if she had. Yes she fucks her brother which is...which is deeply uncomfortable, but there's psychological implications to the action. Her brother is the only person who genuinely cares about her. He says openly that he loves her when nobody else does. It's very Freudian I hate when that man is right.

I'm only about halfway through the first book but considering I'm late to the party I do know like half the plot points that are yet to come. Despite being put in an awful situation, Dany MAKES something of it. She finds a confidence and position that she never would have had otherwise. That is how many women lived in history. They were married off like chess pieces on a board and yet they etched their names into history books because of it. Her brother sold her for his own benefit, but in the end she is the one who got a throne, not him.

I adore the way Martin works with symbolism and that sense of foreboding that he builds up before any main characters even start to die. He's a really underrated writer, dropping hints for plot points that don't come about until BOOKS later (and years, he's slow as molasses). The show is interesting and all but the books deserve praise far more.

[425599167]

Since Fallout: New Vegas is notorious for being buggy as hell, I think a compelling Watsonian explanation for it is that the player character was shot in the head, and brain damage is causing hallucinations. A lot of things start making more sense. Old World Blues is explicit about the bullets causing permanent changes.

This goes double for characters with Wild Wasteland enabled. Was there a gang of old women beating people up? Were those cyberdogs really playing poker? Maybe the miniature Deathclaw living in that doghouse isn’t real, and that’s why it isn’t dying no matter how much you shoot it.

Courier: Veronica, did we just fight a bunch of aliens?

Veronica: What are you talking about? They’re just some raiders.

Courier: Then where did this alien blaster come from?

Veronica: That’s a gauss rifle- a pretty high-end one, too- please stop pointing it at me.

That one Nightkin with the tumbleweeds: You want to buy wind-brahmin?!

Courier: Is he real?

Veronica: He’s real. He’s real and he’s robbing us.

This more I think about it, the more depth it adds to many of the Courier’s interactions with friends and enemies. Patching up ED-E after the robot got too damaged to know where it should go. Saving Rex from his failing organic brain. Helping Nightkin, especially Lily and Dog/God, suffering from their schizophrenia. Hearing Cass mention her heart condition, or getting Boone to open up. Christine struggling to read after her head was cut up in the Big Empty.

Stealth Suit Mk II: Starting combat... Just kidding!

Courier: Please don’t. *pulls out the Mysterious Magnum just in case*

Mysterious Magnum: *guitar chords nobody else can hear*

Courier: Shush.

A random coyote: *appears to be swimming through the ground*

Courier: Eeeeuuuuggghhh no no no NO. Arcade! Help!

It adds another layer of contempt for Caesar’s Legion and their anti-medicine stance. Caesar’s brain tumor appears similarly debilitating, but instead of recognizing that people need to aid each other to survive, he clings to his infallible image. He can only save himself using medical technology he outlawed, and he wouldn’t let anyone else be helped by it. The Courier has plenty of mixed feelings about gunning down Fiends who’ve taken too many drugs to know what they’re doing, and debates how much sympathy to show the Think Tank after witnessing their psychological decay.

The Courier is a brilliant, unstoppable force who needs friends to help navigate the strangeness of the wasteland.

[thesunfyre4446]

Yo. New to the HoTD discourse. I hope you don't mind me rant dumping on your blog. I'm a bit scatterbrained so I hope I lay out my feelings about these things clearly. I have finally watched HoTD and ....

Listen, I could have liked Rhaenyra well enough, in fact I didn't really mind her in the beginning. But it really all changed once I saw what the audience were saying. How the majority seems to have no sympathy for Allicent at all.

I thought we all understood that no character in Westeros is really all that great?? So I really cant understand the vile hatred spewed towards her? It feels like they even hate her more than anyone ever hated Joffrey or Cersei. People were rightfully angry with the show runners decision to have Jaime r*** her in that one scene. People were capable of feeling empathy for Cersei despite how despicable she is. But there's SOOO much victim blaming for Alicent. It drives me fucking nuts. And to show sympathy for her would have people dogging on you.

I really cannot believe my eyes when I see people thinking she willingly seduced that rotten walking corpse.

I was so naive to think people would understand where her character is coming from. She is utterly powerless. She doesn't have a king for a father to pardon every mistake she makes. She's suffocating and it makes sense for her to hate Rhaenyra who has more privilege than any woman who ever lived in that world, and yet still step over every single rule while expecting everyone else to just live with the consequences of her actions. We're supposed to like her??

I GET that the point of it all is that monarchy is just a shitty way to run a kingdom. I GET that Rhaenyra being a terrible ruler is the point. Man or woman it never mattered.

What I don't get is people thinking she's some feminist figurehead?? She behaves as a man does in that universe, entitled and unfit for what they feel entitled to. I get that that's the point, but that doesn't mean she's for the women at all. Like any man, she's out for herself. Why would I like her if she behaves as any corrupt man in that world would, when the only difference is she doesn't have a dick? And I wouldn't necessarily mind that? I don't watch HoTD or GoT for perfect characters. But if only the audience didn't treat her like some sort of hero and Alicent the pure villain.

I never felt frustrated with GoT discourse. Why the fuck does it seem like HoTD has bred this extremely toxic environment? You can't seem to have a different opinion unless your mouths dick sucking on Team Black.

Dany, just as entitled as she was, she was still able to do as duty demanded. Rhaenyra is a just a spoiled child all the way through. The hatred for Alicent and the inability for people to see Rhaenyra for what she is, has me thinking people have really missed the fucking point about what feminism actually is. And once again, I didnt watch HoTD for feminism. But the audience seems to think Rhaenyra is a beacon for it. Wether intentional or not, ideas take on a life of its own and you cannot divorce these fan-imposed ideas from the show anymore. That's really the part of all this that pisses me off.

I'm TG now not because I condone everything they've ever done. Literally everyone fucking sucks. I'm TG because I understand everyone fucking sucks. And I dislike being tube fed by the biased writers on what to think and feel.

anon, not a single lie was told.

people hate on alicent for displaying human emotions. it's insane. it's always "rhaenyra will turn westeros into barbieland" until someone brings out the fact that she has no intention of helping any other woman other then herself and then it's all "well, we shouldn't judge her from a modern day pov"..

"I'm TG because I understand everyone fucking sucks" this!! also, they have better characters lol

[pinklikeroses]

I really don’t like how one demential Stella is from helluva boss. She has the potential to be a really interesting complex character but is watered down to be a mean wife with zero development

I also don’t like how the show and the fans justify stolas’s cheating.

It’s terrible that he was forced to take part in an arranged marriage and that even though he made an effort to at least have a platonic or cordial relationship with Stella—

That she rebuffed his efforts and was a total asshole to him.

But no one deserves to be cheated on. I really hate how with a lot of media these days….characters both in canon and fandoms are written as black and white and aren’t given proper layers. And I think fandoms have ruined that. Like, you can still like a terrible character while acknowledging that they’re a terrible person without making shitty excuses for them

You can hate/ dislike a bad character without justifying all the terrible things that happened to them. I think the problem is ppl will give their faves or protagonist the benefit of the doubt or give them grace but characters we’re supposed to hate, that are written as bad, don’t deserve grace and patience and understanding

For some characters that’s true….some characters don’t deserve sympathy some characters don’t deserve redemption

But there’s a proper way to write it and I feel like creators and fans are missing that

Some of y’all already know how I feel about lore Olympus

It does a bad job of writing complex characters and holding the “bad” ones to a higher standard. So much so it backfires.

Minthe is one of the characters that was done SO dirty and was only put there to be an obstacle for hxp same as Demeter.

Minthe cheating on hades? Bad! Persephone persuing hades even after discovering he was already in an official relationship? That’s okay!

Because she’s our main protagonist! She’s nice! And not mean like that b*tch minthe!

Zeus cheating on Hera multiple times, with different women for decades? Bad! Zeus is a womanizing jerk who ditched his kids and mistreats his wife!

Hera cheats on Zeus by having an on again off again affair for freaking decades!?! That’s okay! Bc we love Hera! She supports hxp! She’s trying to set them up! She feels bad for poor poor hades! She’s constantly mistreated by her husband so that’s okay

Stolas was mistreated by Stella who was and is a terrible spouse but that doesn’t justify his cheating. I do feel bad for him sometimes. It sucks that the physical relationship he had for blitzo turned emotional and that he started having romantic feelings for him,only to get rejected time and time again. Stolas isn’t an entirely bad character we see multiple sides of him, he loves his daughter, he cares about blitzo he tried to do right by Stella. But even good characters can still do bad things.

And I don’t wanna hear “well they’re In hell lol 🤪” especially since we’ve seen multiple how monogamy and marriage are treated in this show. If the show is addressing how important it is..then it matters. If it didn’t it wouldn’t…..

It would’ve been nice to see that development and care be put into Stella instead of the classic hateful wife/spouse….

[worflesbian]

I think part of the reason janeway compels me so much is bc i really feel like on any other show she would've been a sympathetic villain at best. like in the last episode I watched she holds a baby while talking about killing it's siblings and it's genuinely only through the thoroughly established context of janeway having to make horrible choices in order to save her crew that we can read that scene as anything but unhinged. and it Does make sense in context bc she's talking about killing adolescent Borg drones to stop them from assimilating hostages, but in most other shows that kind of thing coming from a female character especially would not end up with her being the good guy at the end of the episode.

im thinking about how btvs which aired at a similar time had a whole arc about the pressures of leadership driving buffy to become way too harsh and the consequences of that are she gets kicked out of her own home. avasarala on the expanse does a lot of awful things but being uncompromising and not giving a fuck is like her most notable character trait, she tortures a guy in her first appearance. these narratives have little sympathy for women who do bad things in the name of something greater, either they're punished for it and rejected by those around them or they're characterised as cold and lacking compassion. but janeway for the most part has the full support of her crew and spends the majority of the time being kind and diplomatic, As Well as choosing to sacrifice lives or collaborate with mass murderers when she has to.

and it's conflicting bc although this is almost a one of a kind female character I think part of her existence is due to voyagers unwillingness to challenge the status quo of star trek despite having the perfect premise to do so. everyone wears uniform and adheres to rank despite half the crew being unenlisted terrorists, starfleet is largely unquestioned as an absolute moral good despite the origin of the maquis being designed to undermine and examine that, and the captain is always the hero at the end of the day.

[horizon-verizon]

https://www.tumblr.com/very-straight-blog/750648583572881408/it-really-tires-me-how-some-fans-try-to-make-aegon?source=share

What is your opinion about this? Personally, I don't understand why people are so diligently looking for something in Aegon that isn't there.

I wrote about Aegon HERE.

Of course he cares, that's literally the essence of his personality. He cares. He and Aemond both feel too much emotion, but if Aemond sublimates into self–improvement, trying to be strong, cold and detached, then Aegon is literally an open wound. I want to talk about this, also using Tom's interviews (yes, I think the actor's opinion is valid in this matter) and the few scenes that we have in the first season

Having emotion/passion =/= sympathy, caring about others, or altruism. sympathy, altruism, etc. can cause or fuel passion, passion can be the motivation to maintain sympathy/compassion/altruism. Dany is a perfect example caring in hand with passion. But this person conflated "caring" with "being emotional and insecure".

Aegon, bk or show, is emotional bc he doesn't want to expend much energy into doing the ambitious things his family wants him to do, except if it is him showing militaristic prowess to prove masculinity and dominance.

Yes, show!Viserys largely didn't give him the "attention" (more here later) that he gave Rhaenyra, but this neither shows that Aegon truly "cares" since he constantly rapes, has his own bastard kids fight each other when he could have easily set up much better living conditions or have them grow up well-off--as most European noblemen did in real life, even Henry VIII. Viserys not giving him attention doesn't excuse, erase, or undermine how Aegon freely chose to abuse others. Dyana didn't ask to be raped, no one does. Should we ignore her pain for Aegon's "microexpressions"? Daemon's mother passing doesn't excuse his treatment of Rhea Royce (whether he kills her or not, show or book...in the book he still is nasty towards her), while also not having ever raped or SAed women (or really, that being a apart of his character GRRM chose to highlight). Both are princes. And many other men choose not to sexually abuse women despite actual abuse at home -- Samwell Tarly. Who is also a pretty emotional but also actually caring individual. He is not a prince. Aegon doesn't need to be named heir nor will it have a positive effect on the realm if he was made king, like how Rhaenyra needed to be Queen bc it's setting a better precedent for female rulership not just for the throne, but for women/girls to be more included in noble lines of succession and/or to lessen the probability of attempts to unseat female heirs who ascend to their places (Jeyne Arryn). That how Rhaenyra, who had been slandered to be undeserving bc of her gender--something Aegon will never receive and is actual discrimination--also benefits to affirm her worth. Finally, Aegon had to start a war and kill thousands to get what he wanted; Rhaenyra would have peacefully housed him after her ascension. so there's that.

HotD is really uwuing this man, bc canonically he just sees the throne as his male-given right; it was never about "confidence in capabilities" or "who'd make the best ruler" for Aegon. Or the greens. It just never was. Even in the show, if you think for 2 seconds, the only logical reason why he would care so much abt Viserys's treatment of him vs Rhaenyra is abt the throne. Viserys didn't "like" him? Oh, well, maybe that is bc the writers decided not to include the fact that bkViserys spent a lot of time with Helaena and that his probable distance b/t his sons is precisely bc they feel that Rhaenyra, his chosen heir, should not be queen? And that is coming from Otto/Alicent coaching them that way, thus creating that divide?

Viserys actually doesn't treat Rhaenrya all that well despite her being his heir: forcing to marry Laenor, [show] punishing her or castigating her for feelings she rightly has towards marriage after he treated Aemma the way he did, reneging on his deal about Otto with he, etc.

bk!Aegon is threatening Rhaenyra before she gave her first terms, impatient to imprison Rhaenyra after the coronation before those terms, calls her a whore after hearing the terms, etc. He may feel bitter and sad about Viserys not giving what he thought was his "birthright", but I think the showrunners knew that this would not endear him to audiences or make them care abt his PoV, bc this is such a privileged sense of entitlement that is actually dangerous that goes beyond any slander against Rhaenyra's pride to be a female Targaryen heir. Viserys, as king, chose Rhaenya and that is well within his right as king, by these feudal monarchist customs. Female heirs have been chosen in Westeros. even with those girls and women having been chosen only bc there was no viable male candidate, or the ones there were too young, etc., they were still chosen and active in wars in different ways. Plus, if we actually care about victims, which a lot of those women were, you'd also see that having a female heir even with a male candidate, is a better step in the right direction of possibly minimizing that rather than to keep the male-preference primogeniture where the younger male is heir keeps going. Rhaenyra never victimized anyone at that point; Aegon had already done so to serving girls and that 12 year old. In the show, Aegon abuses Helaena by her own words about his sexing her only when he is drunk, but this is throwaway and we are not given a fuller picture (w/o actually showing us the sex, we can still witness their dynamic but as it is they have never been in the same room and we never saw them interact or try to, which HotD clearly takes advantage of bc a lot of people are not cognizant of this or care).

He "cares" about himself and pathetically whines about how he wasn't given or thought to be given what he thinks he deserves based on gender privilege. Boohoo. No one said he was emotionless in the first place! Should I feel bad for a man who doesn't get the expected privileges for being a man?

[bcofl0ve]

okay okay gather round sorry this is coming later than i said it would, law school brain. but. at long last, bottoms review time with mollie except this time with lots and lots of spoilers.

i think we covered my general “good movie very funny” thoughts in the spoiler free review, which you can read here so this is gonna be more me info dumping about my thoughts on the plot. and the core of those is that….

PJ IS A LITTLE BITCH!!! i wanted to like her in a “i support women's wrongs” way truly i did but she’s just. an asshole! not all annoying female characters are redeemable, and she is one! that’s not to say her character *existing* annoyed me, i think her being the anti-thesis to josie is an important facet of the movie and the whole “lie falling apart” plot line needed a bad guy so. she was a necessary evil.

that said though gahhhh. i wanted to wring her little neck and ik a satirical movie is not meant to be a realistic example of friendship. i do..but i still think josie was wayyy too forgiving. josie deserves better friends!!! and i fear in a world where these characters are real/the story continues pj needs to idk go to therapy or she’s gonna make josie miserable for being happy with isabel while she’s not in a relationship. (and that is to say she should not be with hazel either! she needs therapy not a girlfriend!)

buttttt but but all that to say i do think rachel did a great job playing her. playing unlikeable characters in a way that makes them unlikeable without a viewer wishing they weren't in the movie at all is a skill set! her being funny and me wanting to punt her across the room are very much thoughts that co-exisit!

moving semi away from pj…the reveal of brittany being straight threw me for such a loop that the next like- 5 minutes of the movie went right over my headkjfkj not to be an insane person but i was gen a little disappointed!! let kaia play a gay character in something that isn’t ahs!! i will wait!!! that said though she actually pulls off the whole “straight girl that isn’t gay just likes gay porn” stereotype very well and made me laugh. i still loved brittany to bits and pieces…heterosexual and all.

josie and isabel. josie and isabel. wahhhhh. wahhhh. my darling girls. when josie almost told her they were lying about juvie but went back on it my heart broke a little bc you could tell she felt guilty and i just ,</3..and yeah she did choose to keep up with the lie when she realized she was getting what she wanted (isabel) but i think the film did a good job of showing how her keeping up with it was different from pj keeping up with it. pj kept up with the lie bc she was on a power trip. josie kept up with it because she didn’t want to lose isabel/lose finally having a geuine connection with a girl/and felt like she had in a way gotten her away from jeff so as long as they kept the lie up she could keep looking out for her.

which is still well, manipulative. lying is bad! but idk i had much more sympathy for her than i did pj. and think when it all came out that josie was actually sorry, whereas pj was only sorry they got caught/still bitter britt was straight. 

those are my main thoughts on it all, but some side bars: lovedd hazel. ruby is great and i am not really a fantasy show person, just not my genre but now i kinda wanna check out willow just to see more of her. the plot twist with jeff actually fucking her mom was soooo early 2000s teen movie and i ate it up. as was the fact that outside of that no one seemed to have parents at all LOL your kids are coming home with black eyes and you don’t have some questions?!?! miles fowler was also really great and tbh i liked him as much as i did kaia in it. esp his flip phone. especially his flip phone. josie's monolouge about marrying a pastor and lavender marriages is what made me start choking on my shake. right up my humor ally as someone who grew up evangelical, and i imagine ayo found it funny for the same reason! was expecting the big josie/isabel hookup scene to be more vulgar less *fade to black* but this is a movie about high schoolers so actually that's a good thing i think?? i accidentally read a spoiler explaining the final killing spree scene months ago and really wish i didn’t bc it would’ve been fun to experience that going in blind.

another side bar to close this out. i *loved* this movie. 5 stars in my book i can’t wait to rewatch it over and over when it’s on prime. but i…kinda disagree with all the tweets saying it’s the next mean girls/heathers/etc cult classic. not because i don’t think it’s good! but because i think comedy film criticism is turning into everything having to be iconic or a future cult classic to be praised? a funny movie can just be a funny movie! it doesn’t have to be the next heathers for you to like it and praise it! does that make sense?

if you read this all the way through congrats! go gay people! go losers!

hello! If you’re reading this because you’re scrolling through the bottoms tag my name is mollie (-: this is primarily a gossip blog for austin butler and his girlfriend kaia gerber (brittany!), both folks i’m big fans of- with a side of elvis presley/presley family fan posting. but i’ve been ‘covering’ bottoms quite a bit so do feel free to come hang out and send anons if you wanna chat! <3 and i’m going to start posting anons containing spoilers on sunday night- so if i don’t answer something right away that’s why.

[kitkatopinions]

So a couple of things stand out to me with this little gem from the commentary for V9.

They viewed Neo as she is as irredeemable. I one hundred percent disagree with the idea that there's a certain level of villainy that makes it impossible for someone to ever come back from, and if I did believe that, it would be like 'genocidal colonizers who want to take over the world' and not like 'formerly abused disabled woman who spent the better part of her on screen time working for someone doing much worse things than her who then developed a grief-driven misguided grudge and has done technically less worse things than most of the RWBY villains even including V9.' But this does make me feel a bit better in that the RWBY writers are less likely to redeem Salem and Cinder, who are two people that even though I think they can be redeemed, they probably should stay evil.

However, them saying they did want to give Neo a bit of sympathy (which is not the same thing as redemption) because of her past... Cool, actually. Yes, it's frustrating that other characters didn't get that sympathy despite having gone through similar or worse things than Neo went through, like Adam, but I'm not gonna want a formerly abused disabled woman to not get an ounce of sympathy just because a different character didn't get it in the past. But also, this does make me think Cinder, Salem, and potentially Mercury will get similar sympathies (I say 'potentially' Mercury because there's quite a chance that the writers are only willing to extend sympathy towards the women characters based on misogyny as they seem to be sometimes pushing a narrative that the women characters are unable to have made their own choices, but also Hazel is an example of them letting men have unfair sympathies they don't deserve and getting treated with a ton of sympathy like they're not responsible for their own actions too.)

It's worth noting that they were swayed by fandom opinion. "There's this really weird line of everybody likes her as a character," they say, as if they don't like or understand exactly why fans would like a character they invented, which is a weird thing writers do sometimes. And they go on to imply it was one of the reasons they had for not wanting to write Neo to have too bad of an end.

The way they talk about Neo committing suicide like it's a good thing... They are actively talking about how Neo 'has a chance' to ''pick a different person to be.' I mean, it was bad enough with the Paper Pleasers, but at least they actually were from the Ever After where (badly done or not) the implication was that it was slightly different than for humans, but Neo? She was a real person from Remnant! She killed herself, and they're like 'dum dum dum it's a sympathetic end for her because killing herself is a good choice actually that 'gives her a chance to be something better.' Like ??? That is point blank period glorifying suicide.

It's remarkable to me that the writers as well as fans think that the ending they gave Neo is even sort of a good thing for Neo that says that they're favoring her character, whether people think that's unjustified or good. The writers might've written Ruby to act a bit sympathetic (which I see as a step in the right direction for her being a caring protagonist, unlike when she cut off Tyrian's tale,) but Neo still didn't get any sort of good ending and in fact when you compare it to Hazel, it feels even worse. She spent the last several seasons playing lacky to someone who didn't respect her while she was grieving the only person who had ever treated her well, she then lost all will to live and reason for existence after Ruby was supposedly dead, then had her autonomy ripped away from her in one of the most meant-to-be-disturbing moments in the show, and a different being talked with her mouth and used her like a puppet, and then she committed suicide. How is that a good sympathetic ending just because Ruby had a two second moment of being like 'hope she does decide to commit suicide for good and become a different person who isn't so messed up?' Hazel got to die a heroic death after 'teaching Oz a lesson' and he was responsible for tons of deaths in Mistral and he beat Oscar on screen!

Idk, I just feel like the entire narrative surrounding Neo's death feels like a big middle finger, even if MKEK intended to try to appease her fans. I thought volume 9 was going to be Neo's time to finally shine in the spotlight, but they brushed her aside to make the Cat a twist villain (like they needed a twist villain,) and then wrote the worst possible end for Neo they could have, and I feel like a crazy person because I feel like the only person who's bothered by it.