#windmills aren't just for Don Quixote

[mission--control]

Just a small gif-thats-not-a-gif request from the discord server.

[earlgreytea68]

I finally finished Don Quixote. That book was like twice as long as it needed to be but hey, it was a new art form, I'll cut it a break. There were still funny parts scattered through it but it started to just be mean by the end. Like there's a many-chapter interlude where they stay with this duke and duchess who just keep playing mean tricks on don quixote and Sancho panza. It just goes on and on and on. At one point they tell Sancho panza he needs to whip himself three thousand times to save dulcinea. Hahaha hilarious, right?????

Anyway those people were just mean lol. And there's a way in which the entire book is just making fun of someone who seems somewhat mentally ill. But it was also funny and full of very real fondness for its MCs.

But the whole time I was reading it I kept thinking of QAnon. Obviously not what Cervantes had in mind writing it. But it's impossible for anyone around Don Quixote to convince him of reality. When they're like "yo, those aren't giants, they're windmills," he's just like, "wow, poor you, you're enchanted so you can't see the ~~~secret truth." Now I think this is supposed to be funny, and I also think there's a reading (that the musical seems to adhere to, although I've never seen it) about following your dreams when the world tries to bring you down, but given our current environment I just kept thinking about "fake news" and being unable to convince people of reality because they always have a reason why your proof is wrong: You've been enchanted, poor you. It's the mark of a good novel, I'm sure, that it can stay so relevant but it added a layer of creepiness to don quixote that it didn't have for me when I read it twenty-five years ago in college...

[a-dragons-journal]

On Questioning An Archetrope

So I'm turning over the concept of a potential paladin (or something similar) archetrope in my brain now.

I have... kind of always viewed myself as a guardian. I've been the Mom-friend, the one people go to for advice, for practically as long as I can remember. I have a protective streak a mile wide, partly due to my territorial instincts from my dragonself. I don't really want to talk about it publicly, but suffice to say that growing up I had what I would now, for lack of better words, call a rich imagined reality wherein I (and my few closest friends, though I hung onto it the longest) was a capital-G Guardian, a hero of blade and armor, a protector of the world.

Later on, in high school, those same friends and I took on a more realistic protective streak, primarily in the form of a habit of adopting girls who a) had just been through bad breakups and/or b) were being harassed/stalked by creepy boys and literally bodyguarding them throughout the day. I still fantasize about scenarios where I get to protect people, often strangers, on a regular basis, for no real reason other than it makes me feel good. I want to be that. I want to be a protector, a shield and sword for those who need it.

My first D&D character was a paladin, and a fairly stereotypical one (although not fully Lawful Stupid). Shail is a tiefling who was abandoned at a temple doorstep as a baby after they were born, raised by one of the priests as their father, and later took up arms after being inspired by a visiting paladin and took the Oath of Devotion. They were my first experiment with they/them pronouns. I am realizing their choice of class may also have been a bit of projection.

I don't know how much of this is inherent to me and how much is something I chose and how much is something I want to choose.

A brief tangent: it so happens that I very recently saw the musical Man of La Mancha, which is based on Don Quixote. While I was vaguely familiar with the story of Don Quixote, I'd never actually read or seen it in full in any form until now. I did not expect to be as touched by it as I was. Don Quixote is... for all we often make fun of him for the windmill incident, ultimately I think Don Quixote is someone we could all stand to learn from, and perhaps even to aspire to. To stubbornly, doggedly, adamantly adhere to honor and justice and a view of the world where good prevails in the end, to fight for what's right no matter the odds, to swear yourself to these things despite the way the rest of the world laughs at you - perhaps the world would be a better place if more of us were Don Quixote in this.

"A quest?" "How you must fight? And it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, if only you follow the quest."

"To dream the impossible dream. To fight the unbeatable foe. To bear with unbearable sorrow. To run where the brave dare not go. To right the unrightable wrong. To love pure and chaste from afar. To try when your arms are too weary. To reach the unreachable star."

Perhaps the recency of this exposure to Don Quixote, and my thoughts and feelings about it and about him as a character, is influencing how I'm reacting to the exposure to archetropy. Or perhaps my reaction to Man of La Mancha is indicative of my resonance with Don Quixote as someone I would argue has an archetropal identity (if of the Knight Errant rather than of the Paladin, though the two really aren't that different) himself. Perhaps both.

Either way, I think it's an admirable thing to take up such a mantle in the face of the world's cruelties - to take up the Guardian's armor and sword again, illogical as it may be, and to aspire to such a lofty ideal as this despite the way the world may consider it foolish or daft.

(And there I go getting poetic prose-y again. Perhaps that's also part of why the paladin archetype appeals to me, ha. I have been known to monologue.)

Even my job can be argued to fall into the paladin - a healer, a helper, a servant who at least tries to value The Good Of The Patient above all else. it's not quite a guardian role - but then, a paladin is often a healer as well.

On top of all of that, there's the fact that when I, out of curiosity and experimentation, put a major problem of indecision I've been facing regarding my current job hunt through the lens of "what would a paladin do," it immediately answered the question with "wouldn't let the difficulty of the task scare them off." Which didn't completely solve my problem, but solves a good solid chunk of it.

So it appears that this may be a helpful tool for me. Even if the thought of "what would Xenk Yendar do" is a slightly silly one. (And yes, Xenk Yendar is an extremely good representation of what paladin looks like to me - and perhaps it's telling that I really latched onto him as a character almost instantly upon watching Honor Among Thieves.)

Perhaps my one big hesitance to latch onto the paladin archetype is the religious connotation of a paladin - while I suppose my relationship with Asclepius could qualify, under the "paladins are also often healers" thought, Asclepius does not cover most of what draws me to the paladin archetype. But a paladin doesn't always have to be religious; in D&D paladins technically draw their power from their oath, Xenk Yendar comes up as an example of a paladin who doesn't obviously seem to have a particular god, and besides none of the alternative archetypes I'm finding or coming up with fit quite as well. The Knight Errant is close, but requires wandering in a way I am thoroughly uncomfortable with (I am still a territorial beast at heart) and also implies seeking evil rather than defending from it.

So... perhaps that's not as big a block as one might think. I'm going to chew on this a while longer, and I'm certainly open to suggestions on similar archetypes for my consideration, but... I might have tripped into a new alterhuman identity. Oops.

[darkwingdaryl]

I've never read Don Quixote. A knight errant slaying a dragon, or a weirdo tilting at windmills. I wonder if they are ever lucid and see their actions for what they are and practice some introspection.

If they do, are they remorseful for the danger they posed causing someone to become frightened? Are they ashamed for the hysteria they may have caused for creating a monster in someone else's mind? Are they embarrassed for being wrong about something harmless?

Or do they ignore all that and say it may have only been a windmill but think of danger if it was a dragon? Do they say they aren't the cause of the hysteria they were just trying to do the right thing? Do they say there's nothing to be embarrassed about because the danger could have been real?

Do they act like an adult and face the truth or do they dissemble like a child?

[humanoidtyphoons]

thank god doffy has always been an asshole

i'd wondered you know, bc the DQ fam keep on making a show, that he's suffered, that he's overcome so much, that he's earned their loyalty by what he's lived through, how much he's achieved

and it's like. he killed his dad. he killed his brother. were they bad people? and that's why doffy turned out this way?

bc honestly, they keep saying that doffy, the young lord, has gone through hardship that no one ever has. and i was. just.

i wanted to believe them? i wanted to know what oda had up his sleeve to say: yeah, his backstory is sadder than the straw hats combined, it's sadder than ace dying, and you're weeping bc it's the revelation why he's become such a twisted individual reduces you to tears, bc he's done that to me several times!!!

and like. looking back. even mentioning the fact that he was once a celestial dragon, that he stole the throne nd hearts of the people of dressrosa by some manipulation... there was still some part of me that wanted to believe them! that there was another reason! they belabour the point so much, his backstory is not for the faint of heart, the young lord is so strong, and wonderful.

and it's just pure bullshit????? he's just a fucking asshole!!!!

he didn't want to give up being a celestial dragon! that was a choice his father made! his father wanted to live like a human being, and so doffy just kills him! and he can't return to being a celestial dragon and go back to heaven! so he's like. alright, fuck 'em, i'm going to be the king of dressrosa, beloved by everyone bc of his successful smear campaign and distorted memories. i'm gonna get the one piece. there's nothing i won't do to set the world on fire.

and it's like. this is your villain origin story? that your daddy wanted to live like a normal human instead of believing that everyone should kneel at your feet?

seeing doffy as a child, asking "father why aren't we buying slaves today" it just... really made everything click.

that's he's always been this way. that he's always been a colossal twat.

that i was holding out for some... emotional moment, some tragedy that would rival every moment i've wept overcome by the scope that one piece has moved me: merry's funeral, laboon's history.

and it's like. why the fuck was i believing DQ fam over... the people of dressrosa, law. why the fuck did i think when they said "you don't know what he's been through! he's suffered more than anyone!" i was like, yeah they're prolly right. looking forward to seeing it, that his dad was terrible, that his brother was a monster too.

and it's just. nah, man. doffy's always been fucked up and evil. there's no villain story here. he's just a typical celestial dragon, dethroned, turned pauper, and he's tricked and lied and clawed his way to the top once more. it's just. like michael cervantes character don quixote, doffy is full of grandeur, attacking windmills, and rewriting the narrative to suit his bizarre beliefs. there's no sad story here!

and like. i'm furious at myself. i'm proud of oda. i'm laughing. i just feel all kinds of hysterical, bc in a way: his name is a dead giveaway: full of bullshit!!!!

i’ve been feeling lightheaded all day wrapping my mind around this!!

but it's anticlimatic in the best way, and stupidly funny to think about looking back, to pin some sort of trust on his followers, how they love and admire him despite his terribleness, to insist -- and sincerely believe -- that he has gone through so much! angels would weep, if they could!

and.

he's an asshole. always has been. always will be. his family is as deluded as he is!

why did you even consider thinking otherwise?

what a relief, you know?

[the-girl-who-sold-the-wxrld]

Honestly it looks like these people were ready since the beginning to criticize people who would headcanon Sylvie as a tradwife, and they need to express this hate even if it happened that no one has this headcanon. I get it is a problem in many fandoms and fictions that women are often reduced to someone's wife but it isn't the case with Sylvie so there was literally no reason to say that, and they created a problem that doesn't exist just to rant about it. They totally made this idea up - on one hand I have never seen anyone headcanoning or even writing about Sylvie being a tradwife, and on the other hand people who wants her to have a home absolutely aren't dogmatic about it. We're no the ones to keep posting angry posts to criticize people who don't have the same headcanon, lol. So I feel like some people are angry because or a problem and a drama existing only in their head. It looks like Don Quixote fighting giants, giants that were in fact windmills.

And all of this is very stupid because we could all just have our fics and headcanons. There was no need to keep posting condescending words against other's people headcanons, especially while twisting our words and putting some others in our mouth.

I understand wanting more female characters with different kind of endings than "and so she settled down" (especially when the settling down includes getting married and having kids). But :

It doesn't mean that this kind of ending should totally disappear. It doesn't mean female characters should never have this kind of happy endings ever again. A female characters having this kind of endings isn’t wrong in itself. It isn’t sexist. (However, it IS sexist to think it is, and to believe that female characters become bad or uninteresting or boring or lose their complexity and badass side if they have this type of endings). What we should want is more diversity, more female characters with other endings. This ending shouldn't be the ending by default. And also, it should make sense considering the character. It must be logical, fit her personality and backround, give something to her character development. I often feel like female characters end up with this kind of endings because it's the only ending people can think of, like there's no real thoughts behind it. So, I want to see more of other types of endings and less of this one, and I want this ending to make sense for the character, I want to see that the creators really thought about it.

Then, the convo wasn't even about Loki and Sylvie having kids or even getting married. As I said it was only about them having a house. Kids and marriage are another subject I will talk about later. (And I want to say that everyone can have their own headcanon and that again Sylvie having kids wouldn't mean she'd be only a mother and live a 50s classic domestic life. Stop being stupid and sexist)

It can totally make sense for Sylvie to want a home given the lonely and terrible life on the run she had. She herself said she hated it. So we can imagine she'd like to have a home, somewhere to return to. Does it mean she'd be a tradwife ? NO. We know she would never. We know she'd never have a classic domestic life. We know she'd never fit in traditionnal gender roles.

Leads me to the last point : We do not said Sylvie would be a housewife or a tradwife and I don't think anyone sees her like that. She'd have travels, adventures, she'd live crazy things, or she'd just have an interesting life no matter how. Maybe she would even sometimes travel the multiverse for six months and then return home. Maybe she'd be outside all day and return at night. The thing that'd matter for her would be to have somewhere to call home and to feel safe. Somewhere she could let her things. Somewhere she could stay for months if she wanted. All she'd probably want would be to have the choice anyway - do i stay here or do i travel today ? Well, now she's free.

(I absolutely don't know why I did this but I had fun doing it lol)

Anyway yeah it seems some people don't understand anything and understand only what they want to understand, get mad because of takes that don't exist, accuse us of saying things we never said and twist our words to play the victim. Indeed, some sylkis stans can be as toxic as antis, I am afraid.

currently writing a long post about it but you know when we say "we think Sylvie would want to have a home" it doesn't mean we want her to be a classic wife or to have a 50s domestic life based on stereotypical gender roles and it doesn't mean we're reducing her to Loki's wife or anything. it literally just means we headcanon her having a home. you know. somewhere to return to when she wants, somewhere to rest, to feel safe and good, to let her things. that's all. literally just a home. because she was on the run all her life and never had one. i don't know where this idea of sylki stans reducing Sylvie to a tradwife comes from but it literally doesn't exist. we're just talking about a home. we're talking about her travelling and living a lot of adventures and having her purpose and being passionate and living exciting things and even lots of battles if she wants to (we want her to live everything she wants to live actually) while having somewhere to return to and to call home. the thing she never had. that's all. it shouldn't be that hard to understand but apparently it is. no one talked about a classic 50s domestic life. it's weird some people see it like that and think they made a "gotcha" or proved something by calling this opinion out because no one actually has this opinion.

we literally just talk about a home. nothing more.

sorry if you think having a home make you less of a good female character really (especially when this home implies nothing more than... a home. no stereotypical sexist and classic wife. no housewife. literally just a home).

[somstory]

Don Quixote: Destiny guides our fortunes more favorably than we could have expected. Look there, Sancho Panza, my friend, and see those thirty or so wild giants, with whom I intend to do battle and kill each and all of them, so with their stolen booty we can begin to enrich ourselves. This is noble, righteous warfare, for it is wonderfully useful to God to have such an evil race wiped from the face of the earth.

Sancho Panza: What giants?

Don Quixote: The ones you can see over there, with the huge arms, some of which are very nearly two leagues long.

Sancho Panza: Now look, your grace, what you see over there aren't giants, but windmills, and what seems to be arms are just their sails, that go around in the wind and turn the millstone.

Don Quixote: Obviously, you don't know much about adventures.