#you can cite that as a reason for the divorce

[sachermorte]

I am 21, it would not be that crass of an age difference. Also it would be so funny to casually drop at the family dinner that I am not engaged, not married, but in fact already divorced. Plus you need to keep up a streak

"Mom, dad, this is my ex-husband Roland."

"Oh, nice to meet-- wait when did you get married??? When did you get divorced?????"

[mimicofmodes]

I saw a post going around about costube historians analyzing period film costumes for accuracy and it kind of got under my skin, so I'm sitting down and writing ... not exactly a response to it, but a discussion of the topic.

(It would be a direct response except that I don't actually watch costube, because quite frankly I can't watch/listen to people discuss things I already know. And I don't want to be like "they don't do X!" when maybe they really do X and I'm just not aware. But a lot of the complaints hit the same points that have been brought up against fashion historians for reviewing costumes for decades. I would also note that I have looked into specific videos where there were claims of terrible costuber behavior and watched them and found nothing.)

If you're going to analyze a period film's costuming in any way, you should still interact with the historical aspect to some degree. If you want to talk about the use of bold stripes in Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, for instance, and you don't mention that they were in style during the period the film appears to be set in, it's kind of weird.

Likewise, yes, if you're critiquing primarily from the angle of historical accuracy, you should also engage to at least some extent with the reasoning behind the inaccuracy. If a reviewer doesn't do so at all, then yes, their review is probably not as good as it could be.

People pointing out an inaccuracy (or many inaccuracies) are not inherently scolding the costume designer. Even if their tone is something other than sweet. Sometimes they are scolding other people involved in the production, like the director who mandated a particular costume, or just a general notion of TPTB. Usually they are divorcing the art from the artist, though, and just reviewing the costuming from their particular viewpoint and knowledge base for a likeminded audience.

Sometimes, yes, they are complaining directly about the costume designer. This is not a crime. Some costume designers (for instance, Sandy Powell) have an incredible grasp on fashion history and excellent taste when it comes to diverging from it. Others simply don't have as in-depth of an understanding and make design decisions sometimes based on stereotypes and myths. Some costume designers will explain their decisions in interviews or blog posts and make it clear that they didn't make a truly informed decision about accuracy because they didn't know enough about the period. It's important for both sides of the equation to stop painting the other with too broad of a brush ("ivory-tower elitists who have no idea of a production's needs or budget" vs. "costumers who know how to sew but not how to do historical research").

If you're allowed to complain about a writer or a director or an actor doing something you don't like in a movie, you're also allowed to complain about a costume designer. You're allowed to have aesthetic preferences, and even to talk about them without hedging every five seconds to make it clear that others can disagree, although some of this is beneficial with any critique. Why would it be otherwise?

This seems really obvious to me, but maybe it's not? But "they costumed that female actor in an anachronistically sexy way because sex sells" is a feminist issue. The assumption that women's bodies should be sites of less-clothed allure while men's should attract by being more covered (with more layers than in modern dress, with cravats, etc.) is sexist. Complaints about female characters being costumed inaccurately are often being made along these lines, and pointing out that the producers insisted on it or something does not mean it's suddenly unproblematic that every female character deemed fuckable has to have low necklines at all times and modern shiny hair.

It's true that fiction isn't non-fiction and shouldn't be taken that way, but it's also demonstrably true that viewers do take cliches in film aesthetics as accurate when they see them enough times. People cite Scarlett O'Hara's 18" waist. They believe there were no bright colors before the 1920s and that women couldn't have put their hair up unless they were wealthy. These beliefs have consequences when it comes to public perceptions of history, and if films perpetuate them it's perfectly reasonable to point out that they support ideas about e.g. gender roles that trads express today.

It's also simply funny when a film's hair or costuming or makeup is supposed to evoke a lack of artifice but actually requires quite a bit of artifice because people don't naturally have perfect hair and skin and so on.

If you don't like reviews of period films that focus on the accuracy of the costuming, maybe ... don't watch/read reviews by fashion historians and historical costumers? At least unless they're vetted for you by someone who doesn't mind that?

[reylokisses]

I read online that Vivienne Medrano cited Beatrice Horseman from Bojack Horseman as inspiration for Stella Goetia in Helluva Boss.

That makes sense, as Beatrice Horseman was a victim (of her father/mother/Butterscotch/society in general) and an abuser (of Bojack/Henrietta/Hollyhock), while Stella is a victim of forced marriage, forced pregnancy and a victim of her revolting brother, Andrealphus:

While also being Stolas’ abuser (and indirectly abusing Octavia by abusing Stolas in front of her)*

Speaking of Beatrice Horseman being an abuser, I was completely baffled when I read someone applaud Beatrice for being by Henrietta’s side while Henrietta was in labour with Hollyhock, and calling it an example of women supporting women.

Are you kidding me?!!!

The only reason why Beatrice was with Henrietta while she gave birth, was so that Beatrice could remove Hollyhock from Henrietta the second she was born!

The show even frames Beatrice’s actions as despicable- the scene switches from the traumatic memory of Joseph Sugarman, Beatrice’s father, burning little-girl-Beatrice’s beloved baby doll while she screams and begs him to stop, to adult Beatrice taking the newborn Hollyhock away to be given up for adoption, and refusing to let Henrietta hold her own baby.

Beatrice has just done one of the most evil things a person can do to another, and some people think she was justified?!

Even if viewers somehow think Beatrice was doing the right thing here, the show clearly doesn’t want us to think so. Henrietta’s face is scratched out, meaning that Beatrice is so ashamed of what she did to Henrietta, that she can’t bear to think about her.

The writers also make it clear that Beatrice was motivated by selfish reasons:

Beatrice wants to live vicariously through Henrietta and make her do what Beatrice wishes she herself had done - if Beatrice had had an abortion, or placed Bojack for adoption, then Beatrice would never have married Butterscotch and be stuck in a life that she hated.

However, one of the themes of Bojack Horseman is that “you’re responsible for your own happiness”. Beatrice and Butterscotch could have gotten a divorce and been free of one another- Beatrice came from a wealthy family, so she wasn’t trapped financially with Butterscotch. Blaming Bojack for their misery was cruel and unjust.

Butterscotch was being irresponsible and selfish with Henrietta- he could have paid child support for Hollyhock and then Henrietta could have afforded childcare while she finished her studies and qualified as a nurse. Henrietta didn’t have to sacrifice her dreams for her baby. Beatrice and Butterscotch had the 1950s misogynistic mindset that a woman who slept with a married man was a fallen person who wasn’t fit to raise a baby, and so Henrietta “had to” give up her firstborn.

It’s a pity that the viewers couldn’t see Hollyhock and Henrietta’s reunion, since Bojack is the main character and we could only see plot points that involved him. I’m glad that mother and daughter finally found each other again - Beatrice stealing Hollyhock from Henrietta remains the most harrowing scene in the whole show for me.

*Stella is shown screaming at Stolas in front of Octavia in Loo Loo Land, so I don’t agree that Octavia was somehow completely oblivious to how much of an abuser Stella was and how miserable her parents were in the marriage.

In the same episode, Octavia has a line about when she was a kid and “[her] parents didn’t hate each other”, so Stella must have toned down her cruelty at the beginning. I just hope the writers don’t retcon that and victim-blame Octavia for not knowing how much abuse Stolas endured.

I don’t want to end this post on a sad note, so here’s one of my favourite scenes in Loo Loo Land 🥰

[fruityindividual]

you erased tonks and she's literally teddy's mom??? why do ff writers keep doing this??? this fandom is hella misogynistic let the female characters be MOMS!!

mkay. thoughts + questions below the cut xx

i do not care abt tonks enough to write abt her. i won't spend my time writing abt a character i dont find interesting just cos jkr did and u think i should.

is it ok w you if i leave tonks out of fics that don't include teddy?

is tonks' motherhood where u draw the line?

cos shes a mum?

cos being a mum is the most important aspect of her canon female character?

or am i misunderstanding you? like u've misunderstood why i chose to not include tonks in tmos?

should i have killed her off? or made her a v minor character? either way, as ppl who clearly care so deeply abt tonks, u would've been disappointed.

oh! i shouldve just written an oc kid?

so u don't mind if tonks is left out of fics that don't include teddy? cos if she's not a mum, then there's no point? or am i misunderstanding you? like u've misunderstood why i chose to not include tonks in tmos?

'this fandom is misogynistic' -> 'let em be MOMS!!'

fictional characters dont actually have 2 b anything just cos you and jkr say so.

including a character solely cos shes a mum in canon isn't a v convincing reason to divorce (<-lmao) myself from wht i'd prefer writing. imo

i feel no obligation 2 write tonks just cos jkr did n u think i should. this stems from my personal belief that i can write whtevr the fuck i want.

calling a fandom as a whole 'misogynistic' but citing tonks' motherhood as ur only grievance is rly interesting. and by 'interesting,' i mean dense + annoying

fandom is 'denying tonks her motherhood?' well i also denied her a fucking existence......btw.

excluding tonks from tmos wasn't driven by my desire to 'get her out of the way' so r/s ('two gay men' <-insane three words 2 type n click send on btw anon) could raise teddy, but rather my desire to literally not write abt her at all. cos ive never rly found her an interesting character. is that wrong? i'm not convinced it is. but i dont pretend to have given this as much thought as u three big thinkers.

write ur own fics n give tonks the appreciation u think is lacking instead of whinging abt the product of my own loser daydreams in my askbox.

u'll never convince me that these sorts of asks are sent in effort to make the world a better place <3

will always welcome asks n polite discourse + treat everyone w the respect they deserve, but pls consider baiting, drama-fuelled asks like these outside of my boundaries. dont bring this shit into my house xoxo

[indigovigilance]

Anthony, Anthony, Anthony

What does your Anthony mean, exactly?

I feel like your Anthony and my Anthony are different Anthonies…

In 1941 we learn that Crowley has named himself Anthony J. Crowley (Aziraphale doesn’t pronounce the H but closed captions write it and Neil Gaiman hashtags #Anthony and also it’s Anthony the script book so I guess Michael Sheen is just doing a thing idk). I haven’t seen extensive discussion of this topic but I’m going to jump in with both feet.

I propose that Anthony actually has a double meaning; that is, Crowley chose this name for one reason, but Aziraphale believes he chose it for another.

(I cite as indirect inspo a wonderful Tumblr meta about how the ineffable blockheads have completely different interpretations of Jane Austen and how this informs their S2 decision-making).

Read or bookmark for later on Ao3 because this got away from me and now it's a 2,888 word meta on people named Anthony what am I doing with my life

~~~

First and foremost, let it be stated that there is no canon for when Crowley anti-christened himself Anthony. Neil Gaiman himself won’t know until he writes it.

Secondly, let it be known that I am not an historian nor a literary scholar of any kind. So people who actually know these stories may find themselves cringing at my surface-level summaries and inaccurate interpretations: I’m just piecing together what I could find easily. I invite someone else to revise and republish if they can delve deeper on these topics. 

Part 1: Mark Antony

There is a bust of Marc Antony in Mr. Fell’s bookshop as of S1E1 modern day (2019) which is still there at the end of S2E6, where it features prominently in the center of a shot. In 2019, the bust is adorned with yellow ribbons; in 2023, it is naked. The flashback to 1941 doesn’t give a good view of the part of the shop where the bust would normally be located so I have no idea when the bust actually got added to Aziraphale’s collection. I’m going to assume, for argument’s sake, that Aziraphale acquired this bust after the Blitz. I’m going to further propose that he acquired this bust because he believes that Crowley named himself Anthony after Mark Antony.

Why would Aziraphale think that? Two reasons.

1) Mark Antony was the loser of a civil war for liberty

Mark Antony was a good and loyal Roman citizen, serving Caesar with distinction, even attaining the title of Master of the Horse (Caesar’s second-in-command). See additional metas on horse symbolism seen throughout S2. After the death of Caesar, however, Octavian and members of the senate turned on Antony, starting a civil war. You know, much like a certain someone we know that was involved in Dubious Battle on the Plains of Heaven.

Mark Antony was loyal to Caesar’s political mission, which was to establish a Roman republic, where the voices of the citizens would be heard through their representatives [a suggestion box, if you will]. But Antony’s defeat marked the end of the republic, ushering in an age of autocracy. Octavian, following his victory over Antony, crowned himself the first Emperor of Rome.

2) Mark Antony was a libertine, but also the loyal, ardent lover of Cleopatra

Mark Antony was an infamous, lascivious, debaucherous, womanizing lush. He was also Cleopatra’s lover and closest ally. Though Mark Antony could not often meet with Cleopatra, their affair was allegedly very romantic, and from afar Antony did everything in his power to support Cleopatra politically, expanding her territorial holdings even while they were apart for years. 

So legendary was Antony's wanton hedonism that when he went to Athens, he was deified as the New Dionysus, mystic god of wine, happiness, and immortality. Religious propaganda declared Cleopatra the New Isis or Aphrodite (mythic goddess of love and beauty) to his New Dionysus. The ineffable emperors, if you will. [source: Encyclopedia Britannica]

Parallels arising after 1941:

After Antony had officially divorced Octavian’s sister, Octavian formally broke off the ties of personal friendship with Antony and declared war, not against Antony but against Cleopatra. Much like how Shax, after her S2E1 “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” proposal, threatened Crowley that if he did not assist her search for Gabriel, Hell would declare war not on him but on Aziraphale.

The legacy of Mark Antony, therefore, is one of hedonism, romance, fighting for a cause that you believe in, and losing that fight. It’s easy to see how Aziraphale drew the conclusion that Anthony J. Crowley took his inspiration from this historical figure.

Part 2: Antony & Cleopatra

How is this a part 2? Weren’t we just talking about Mark Antony and his relationship with Cleopatra? Hear me out.

Crowley has never expressed much interest in politics. Every time something of political import happens, he declares that the humans made it up themselves while also taking credit for it with Hell. This includes 1793 Paris and the Spanish Inquisition. If I forgot any, drop them in the comments. 

But Crowley has a deep and pervasive interest in stories, especially romance stories. If he can keep the Bentley from turning it into Queen, he listens to the Velvet Underground. He watches Richard Curtis films (to the degree that he identifies them by director rather than by title). Though book canon is not show canon, it’s worth mentioning that his favorite serial is Golden Girls; while not a romance, it is certainly heartfelt storytelling at its finest and a homosexual staple.

We know, too, that Shakspeare stole a line from him, with an adjustment for pronouns:

"Age Does Not Wither, Nor Custom Stale His Infinite Variety”

Let’s first talk about Crowley’s context for the quote.

Picture it: the Globe Theater, 1601, the house is empty because it’s one of Shakespeare’s gloomy ones and an irritated young Burbage, in the role of Hamlet, is droning out his lines like he would rather be anywhere else.

Burbage: To be or not to be. That is the question.

Aziraphale: To be! I mean, not to be! Come on, Hamlet! Buck up!

Aziraphale looks at Crowley, grinning with delight. Crowley stares back at him, shaking his head slightly, but a smile tugs at the corner of his lip. He wants to be embarrassed, but cannot help being charmed.

Aziraphale: He’s very good, isn’t he?

Crowley: Age does not wither nor custom stale his infinite variety.

Crowley is looking up at the stage, and speaks immediately after Aziraphale has made a comment about Burbage. But is Crowley talking about Burbage? Does it stand to reason that age would not have withered, or custom not staled, this twenty year old (yet somehow jaded) stage actor?

I propose that this is a poetic inversion of the S2E1 cold open, wherein the Starmaker, looking out upon creation, says: “Look at you, you’re gorgeous!” and Aziraphale erroneously thinks the statement was directed at him. Here, even though Crowley isn’t looking at Aziraphale, I believe that Crowley is actually talking about Aziraphale when he delivers that iconic line. Unlike Burbage, Aziraphale is old, very, very old, and we know that he has a penchant for custom, wearing the same clothes and listening to the same music for century upon century. Yet here is this precious angel being a cheerful little peanut gallery of one, continuing to surprise the demon after all this time. Neither age nor custom has staled Aziraphale’s infinite variety.

When Shakespeare commits the line to a play written 1606-1607, a few years after this event, Crowley will recognize his own sentiment about Aziraphale issuing from Antony’s mouth about Cleopatra. The actual historical events will not have left much of an impression, but the immortalization of his own admiration of the angel in human romantic fiction will have.

It must be mentioned that Antony & Cleopatra is a tragedy, where the star-crossed lovers are kept apart by warring factions that demand loyalty to the state at the preclusion of each other.

There are also some (as far as I can tell) nearly copy-paste plot points from Romeo & Juliet about a misunderstood faked suicide followed by actual suicide and the lovers dying in each others’ arms. It does not have a happy ending. Anthony Crowley deliberately choosing his “Christian name” from this play embodies not only his deep love but his hopelessness that he can ever get the happily ever after he desires.

In Summary

Crowley was an admirer, in one respect or another, of Mark Anthony, though he relied more heavily on Shakespeare’s portrayal and reimagining of the character than Aziraphale gives due credit. Nevertheless, the difference…

Wait a minute…

What’s that?

Is that…

A piece of canon evidence that completely undermines my argument??

This screenshot will only be visible to Tumblr users (sorry Ao3), but at some point we get a good look at the Mona Lisa sketch that Crowley has hanging in his apartment. It is signed (translated from Italian) “To my friend Anthony from your friend Leo da V.”

The problem with this is, the Mona Lisa was painted 100 years before Shakespeare penned Antony & Cleopatra.

However, Neil Gaiman reblogged this transcription and translation, posing the hypothetical, “I wonder if Crowley knows what the A in A.Z. Fell stands for.”

Could it be that the Notorious NRG is jerking us around and sending us on wild goose chases? Absolutely a possibility. But. Let’s give a little grace for a moment, and assume that this comment was made in good faith. A bold assumption, I know. But humor me.

We know that Crowley and Aziraphale both knew Jane Austen, but from completely different perspectives. It stands to reason that Crowley knew da Vinci the scientist, but that Antonio Fell knew Leo da V., an artist with a heart that yearned for an unavailable lover. I’m just making wild conjecture that Lisa Gherardini (aka Mona Lisa), the wife of Florentine cloth merchant Francesco del Giocondo, was a love interest of da Vinci, but it could be true in the GO universe and would make for a great story.

Aziraphale also collects signed items from famous people; the inscribed books of Professor Hoffman to a wonderful student, and the S.W. Erdnase book, signed with his real name, come to mind. The Mona Lisa draft fits in much better with that collection of souvenirs than with anything in Crowley’s apartment. So it stands to reason that it could actually be addressed to Aziraphale.

There remains the question of how or why Crowley has it, but I won’t subject that to speculation here. All to say. Neil Gaiman’s implication-by-redirect is… possible. So let’s assume that it is the case, just for a moment.

If the Mona Lisa sketch is signed to “Antonio” Fell, then this allows the above theory regarding Crowley’s self-naming to remain intact. But it brings up a few questions regarding Aziraphale, not the least of which is: why did he name himself Antonio/Anthony?

Part 3: Saint Anthony of Padua

Anthony was the chosen name of a Portuguese monk, taken upon joining the Fransican order. Anthony rose to prominence in the 13th century as a celebrated orator, delivering impassioned and eloquent sermons. He is also associated with some fish symbolism, since he preached at the shore and fish gathered to listen. He was, incidentally, a lover of books:

Anthony had a book of psalms that contained notes and comments to help when teaching students and, in a time when a printing press was not yet invented, he greatly valued it.

When a novice decided to leave the hermitage, he stole Anthony's valuable book. When Anthony discovered it was missing, he prayed it would be found or returned to him. The thief did return the book and in an extra step returned to the Order as well.

The book is said to be preserved in the Franciscan friary in Bologna today. [source: https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=24]

This miraculous incident, wherein the thief not only returns a valuable book but also has a change of heart and returns to the bosom of organized religion, smacks of angelic intervention. But that is neither here nor there. 

Saint Anthony is the Patron Saint of the Lost, and is prayed to by those seeking to recover lost things. What is “lost” in this context is usually an item, rather than a person or an intangible concept, however he is also “credited with many miracles involving lost people, lost things and even lost spiritual goods,” such as faith. [Edit: @tsilvy helpfully contributes that "Here in Italy Sant'Antonio is commonly not just the saint patron of lost things, but, maybe primarily, the saint patron of lost *causes*."] He died at the age of 35, and in artwork is typically depicted with a book and the Infant Child Jesus.

It’s a defensible position that the thing that gives Aziraphale the most consternation across the millennia is Crowley’s loss of his angelic status, and it could even be framed such that Aziraphale does not consider Crowley actually fallen, but rather simply lost. It is a fact that he finds difficult to reconcile and, depending on your reading of the Final Fifteen, the offer to restore Crowley’s angelic status is one that is so pivotal to resolving his internal conflict that he cannot refuse. If this conflict is so central for Aziraphale, perhaps he did name himself after a booklover and the patron saint of lost things, hoping that the name would carry with it some of the power of the blessing, and return Crowley to the light, and in turn, to him.

But wait.

Because I googled “St Anthony” to look for some images and….

St. Anthony of the Desert

I shit you not there are multiple St. Antonies and we’re going to talk about another one of them with respect to Aziraphale because this guy is bonkers. The story traces to the Vitae Patrum, yet another fringe biblical text and I cannot even get a quick answer on whether it is canon or apocrypha because it’s so fringe. Anyways. I think the best way to explain St. Anthony of the Desert comes from the wikipedia page on the Desert Fathers: 

Sometime around AD 270, Anthony heard a Sunday sermon stating that perfection could be achieved by selling all of one's possessions, giving the proceeds to the poor, and following Jesus. He followed the advice and made the further step of moving deep into the desert to seek complete solitude.

[He] became known as both the father and founder of desert monasticism. By the time Anthony had died in AD 356, thousands of monks and nuns had been drawn to living in the desert following Anthony's example, leading his biographer, Athanasius of Alexandria, to write that "the desert had become a city." The Desert Fathers had a major influence on the development of Christianity.

Let’s all agree that this guy is not Aziraphale; this whole becoming an ascetic and living alone in the middle of a desert thing? Not his cuppertea. But St. Anthony is interesting not just for his decision to go into the desert, but what happened when he got there.

The Torment of St Anthony is a 15th century painting commonly attributed to Michaelangelo. It depicts demons crawling all over and attacking a hermit.

But the first round of demons are scraping the bottom of the barrel, practically the damned. Anthony’s journey continues and he meets another demon. Actually he meets two; a centaur, who is not very helpful, and then a satyr who is. It is much easier to find paintings of St. Anthony and the Centaur than of St. Anthony and the Satyr, so you don’t get an image, but I find the satyr to be a much more interesting character, so you get that story instead:

Anthony found next the satyr, "a manikin with hooked snout, horned forehead, and extremities like goats's feet." This creature was peaceful and offered him fruits, and when Anthony asked who he was, the satyr replied, "I'm a mortal being and one of those inhabitants of the desert whom the Gentiles, deluded by various forms of error, worship under the names of Fauns, Satyrs, and Incubi. I am sent to represent my tribe. We pray you in our behalf to entreat the favor of your Lord and ours, who, we have learnt, came once to save the world, and 'whose sound has gone forth into all the earth.'" Upon hearing this, Anthony was overjoyed and rejoiced over the glory of Christ. He condemned the city of Alexandria for worshiping monsters instead of God while beasts like the satyr spoke about Christ.

St. Anthony, then, is entreated by a demon to ask forgiveness from God upon the demons, and St. Anthony, seemingly, agrees to do it. He’s overjoyed to ask God to forgive demons. In connection to my analysis of the origins of the Metatron, and how Aziraphale and Crowley’s potential beef with him is that, as a human put in the exact same situation, he did the opposite, refusing to take the demon’s petition for mercy to God but instead taking it upon himself to confirm their unforgivability (yes that’s a word now) and damnation.

That seems like it would be pretty important to Aziraphale.

In Summary

I give up. I have no idea what’s going on with this show anymore. Here are two options each for both of our ineffable husbands to have given themselves the same God-blessed/damned name. You guys tell me what you think, I just have a pile of evidence and no spoons to evaluate it. 

[autisticandroids]

broad strokes of my interpretation of 5x04 the end/the overall guidelines i pay attention to when writing endverse fic

it's about sam. in both a positive and a negative sense, all of endverse is built on sam's absence. on the one hand, there is a freedom and joy for dean that comes from being rid of sam. sam and dean don't really... like each other anymore from s4 onwards, and their unbreakable bond becomes more like a curse to both of them. in a way breaking it is a mercy, see: free to be you and me dean sections. sam's absence allows dean to form meaningful relationships in a way he's basically incapable of with sam around. and to dean sam is a ball and chain, he is first and foremost a duty, not a brother or friend. watch out for sammy. without that millstone around his neck dean is free to be his own person in a way he has literally never been in his whole life. on the other hand, there's the horror of it. sam says yes, and that breaks dean. while dean was running around having a grand old time exercising newfound freedom, he was shirking his duty. his personal world was ending, and he didn't even know it. in the end, dean will never escape sam or have an identity outside of him, and with sam gone - not just separate but gone - he is fully and irrevocably broken.

endverse dean and endverse cas are so divorced, but in order to be that divorced you have to have been married first. to circle back to free to be you and me, do you see how happy dean is in that episode? do you see how sweet dean and cas are on each other? that's the starting point for endverse. that's the point of timeline divergence. whether their relationship experienced a gradual souring or a sharp decline when sam dies is unclear, but we know that it wasn't always this way. this is something that changed.

endverse cas probably isn't as pathetic as you think he is. this is a three-pronged point. 3a. when i say pathetic i don't mean miserable i mean pathetic. endverse cas is extremely miserable every day all the time bc of having to live through an apocalypse and being cutoff from heaven. however. compared to canon cas at the same time he is way less pathetic. he's a lot more self-possessed, and feels entitled enough to a good life that the fact that he's miserable makes him bitter. he may be unhappy but he does not have the kind of self-hatred/low self-esteem that canon cas has because that stuff develops later for particular reasons. 3b. dean is not like. the only thing in his life/the only reason he's miserable and he's probably not even the most important. he's literally living through the apocalypse for chrissakes. and also he's cut off from heaven, which he in the text cites as a major source of his misery. i tend to choose to interpret that as like. missing the hivemind of heaven (or even missing his angelic siblings who he cares deeply about) in order to get it to gel more with my interpretations of canon cas. but even just taking at face value that cas feels powerless and debased because of his fall that's still crunchy and like. not about dean really. like yeah the guy he fell for is no longer capable of loving him but also there's bigger problems here. 3c. drug use. obviously endverse cas uses various substances but if we look at the actual text there are three references to drug use across two exchanges. number one is "are you stoned?" "generally, yeah" ok like we are all grownups here and can admit smoking weed is fine right? right? obviously being stoned all the time is a sign that things aren't going super great in your life but that's generally a symptom of something worse. and then "[takes pill bottle] amphetamines?" "it's the perfect antidote to that absinthe" there are two references to drug use here. one is the fact that cas is taking adhd medication. that's addictive and he could be addicted to it, but also it's not exactly unusual for soldiers to take amphetamines before a battle, nor is it unusual for people who have to drive all night to take them to help them stay awake. also, the way cas talks about it, the vibe seems to be that this is one of many substances that cas occasionally partakes in. the other reference here is to the absinthe and that actually is a cut and dried reference to drug abuse. drinking heavily before driving all night and then going into battle is super irresponsible and likely indicative of a problem. and then the other body of evidence we have is that dean seems to consider cas to be absolutely competent and reliable, so if cas is addicted to something, it's definitely what you'd call a functional addiction, something that doesn't interfere with his life too much. so, broad strokes: if endverse cas is gonna be an addict he is actually probably most likely a functional alcoholic. which is also pretty fun because then you can really play in the space of He Learned It From Dean. 3d. endverse cas is textually kind of a sleazebag.

endverse dean is a shithead but not the way most people think. the notable thing about endverse dean is that he doesn't care enough about other people - endverse cas included but not unique. he's a bastard but his bastardry is lack of care, not intentional cruelty. this is, imo, if i may circle back to the first point, a result of sam's death - after that, dean became singleminded, only really interested in killing lucifer. willing to send cas and others he cares about into a meat grinder to chase his white-suited whale. but he's not mean. just cold. there is the festering corpse of a love relation between dean and cas, but it's not a situation where dean is mean to cas in the way like, season fifteen dean is mean to cas. he's not controlling, not using cas as a punching bag or chewtoy. maybe there's some mutual sniping but mostly dean just doesn't care. as a point of interest, one way in which endverse dean is cruel is he appears to be a habitual cheater. just watch cas' reaction when risa accuses dean of cheating on her. that's the face of a man who has been in her position and knows she is a fool to expect better. but again that's kind of more about not caring about the impact of his actions.

[neuroticbookworm]

Parenting in Step by Step, a defense

I saw a bunch of posts about how Pat is immature and has poor communication skills, and citing his parents' divorce as one of the potential reasons.

*baffled* W H A T.

I don't have the time or energy to rant about the "poor communication skills" read, so all I'm gonna say is that Pat was busy holding his mushed up braincells together for the majority of this episode and direct your attention to @shortpplfedup's crisp and hilarious Ten Movements that perfectly summed up Pat's emotional journey. Cut him some slack, for fuck's sake.

Now, onto Pat's parents and their relationship with him and each other. I want to highlight the writing and dialogue in their scenes, because it hurts my heart to see not a lot of people talking about them.

When we first meet them, both Pat's Mom and Dad express concern about his eating habits, but the parent-child dynamics in these conversations were very different. Pat's mom says it's not good for him to eat ramen for breakfast, but she quickly accepts Pat's excuse and goes back to doting on him. When she brings up Jeng, and Pat complains that she is nagging and changes the subject, she lets him.

When Dad comes into town a few *undisclosed unit of time* later, he basically asks the same question as Mom, but this time, Pat is a little elaborate with his excuse explanation.

But Dad doesn't let him get away with his bullshit. He offers up a few solutions and wants to work on them with Pat.

After he's sure that Pat knows the need to change his food habits, he then adds levity to the conversation, and goofs around with his son. (I will forever adore the Asian Gordon Ramsey moment, more father-son wholesomeness in Asian media, please and thank you)

(did y'all notice how both Pat's Mom and Dad call him adorable with very different energies? did ya? okay, good)

Now, when the time came for Pat to let go of all his frustrations and break down in front of his parents, I was worried that the show would lean a bit too hard on the parental roles, the good cop/bad cop gambit. But no, it surprised me. It sure started out that way, with Pat offering up an empty excuse to Mom's question.

Which is immediately followed by this look:

(more on this later, I have SO MANY THOUGHTS about this)

When Dad follows up with this statement, Pat's defenses begin to crumble.

He opens up about how he feels overwhelmed and disconnected with himself, and Dad responds with this:

He brings the realities of adulthood to the forefront, reassuring him that he has also been there before and that Pat will learn to manage it. Still in line with the roles the show had previously drawn up for them. When Pat continues, Mom moves to Pat's side as soon as they realise that Pat's problems include heartbreak ("Everywhere I go, it's filled with memories") and she hits him with this:

Oooooof. That's a hell of a line. Accurate? yes. Comforting? Fuck no.

That's when Dad moves to Pat's side, and tries to soothe him. The roles are flipped.

Pat then says that maybe it would've been better, if they had stayed with him all the time. Now, this can mean two different things: I wish I didn't grow up so I could've stayed with you and life would've been so much simpler; I wish you guys did not get divorced and we could've all stayed together. Mom chooses to address the first part. She says that even if they stayed together, no one could stay with him all the time.

Dad, then acknowledges the separation and they tell him, TOGETHER, that they will always be his parents, and they never stopped loving him. And that they don't hate each other.

The TEAMWORK here, between Pat's mom and dad is executed SO WELL. They love their son, and want to comfort and reassure him, and they do it together. They don't do the "one of us do the talking and the other one hmms in the background" bullshit. They both understand his pain and give him their individual and collective opinions. They are in sync with each other's thoughts, and it shows. Remember the look between them at the beginning of this scene?

This speaks VOLUMES. They know something is weighing on him and they can't let him excuse his way out of this conversation. They look at each other, a non-verbal "let's do this", and start talking to Pat.

Being in love with each other and being good parents are not strictly inclusive. The show did not leave this unsaid, either. They show us, how two people can move on and still remain in each others' lives as someone to lean on. Someone who will always know you better than most people in this world.

How some people saw this amazing back-and-forth and thought "yeah, they're incompatible, and they traumatized their son, and he now has communication issues", I'll never understand.

TL;DR:

Stop demonizing divorce and calling it the root of all childhood trauma

SBS writers are doing some things EXCEPTIONALLY WELL, and they deserve credit for it

[thorraborinn]

Hi there! I was wondering, would you know where I could find anything on like, social taboos involving marriage? I wanted to know if there's anything in the sagas or maybe in archaeology/anthropology that touches on forbidden unions. I know the goddess Lofn is cited as one who grants permission to such people to be together, but I wanted to know if we have anything on what these forbidden unions could look like? Off the top of my head, I imagine feuding families to be a good start, but I can't find much else on the subject. Thank you!

Marriages in Old Norse society were arranged by families (usually between the prospective husband and the father or other male relative of the prospective bride), and more for political and economic reasons than for personal ones. Some people were married specifically because their families were feuding, to bring the feud to an end (often the people involved wanted out but failure to retaliate could have consequences; uniting the families could end the feud in a way that saved face. In Old English a woman who is married into an enemy family for this reason is called freoðu-webbe, 'frith weaver'). Frands Herschend went as far as proposing to see women in Iron Age Scandinavia generally as hostages (in the sense that Freyr and Njörðr are hostages in Ynglinga saga). If the sagas are relatively accurate there does seem to have been an understanding that the family should be arranging things such that the woman is happy with the result, but they weren't legally obligated to.

In this kind of situation, a marriage that's forbidden would be basically any that either side of the family, especially the woman's closest male relatives, opposes. The reasons were probably diverse and personal, and not generally based on widespread taboos. Most of it probably had to do with money and social hierarchy.

Feuding certainly played a role here, or rather we should say relations based in reciprocity, whether positive or negative, did. As I said, marriages were sometimes arranged specifically to bring hostile families into a single family and end the conflict, but if one side thought they had the upper hand and stood to gain by continuing the hostilities then they would surely not permit such a marriage. Marriages might also be arranged out of obligation to more powerful people.

In fact, it might be possible to frame any actual social or legal prohibitions on marriage that did exist as protections for the woman from being married off to someone she didn't want, rather than restrictions on her freedom, because she hardly had any. We can surely consider divorce in a similar way, which was permitted in certain circumstances.

The main restriction that we do have evidence for is marrying someone who is too close a relation. There were probably situations where the financially or politically advantageous thing to do is to get two close cousins married to each other and it may have actually happened, but it's illegal in the laws we have a record of. This may have been less regulated in heathen times.

Of course, there could have been culturally-assumed restrictions that weren't formally prohibited in the law. There's speculation that, while a Nordic man marrying a non-Norse woman was not uncommon, happening the other way around was not generally permitted. This is supposedly reflected in the mythology, where the male gods marry jötunn women but the goddesses do not marry jötunn men. However, there is archaeological evidence from the Vendel period that contradicts this (the book I'm getting this from is over 20 years old, so by now there could be contradictory evidence from the Viking age too, but I'm not sure), so if there was ever such an ethnic taboo it must have either not been universal, or developed later. I'll also remind that there is a contradiction in the mythology as well; Gefjun isn't described as marrying a jötunn but she does have kids with one, which scholars do typically count as a violation of an ethnic taboo, sometimes as grounds to reject the myth itself as "impossible" (Lindow's description).

A lot of this may have varied by class. We mostly know about the land-owning class. It's hard to say whether poorer people would have even less freedom over whom they married because of their dependence on land-owners, or if they had more freedom because there was less social and financial stake in it. It seems likely that their marriages weren't as regulated, but their ability to actually move from place to place was the major limiting factor.

I'm not aware of any sources for it, but I have no trouble believing that illegal or otherwise unsanctioned marriage happened. The thing that kept people in line was inheritance. So if people were in a position where they could turn down their inheritance (whether because they had another source of resources or because their families were so poor their inheritance was negligible anyway), and could have a place to live, they could probably just do what they wanted.

So I think for the most part, if we were to picture Lofn's intercession as historical events, we might picture the site of those intercessions as kind of distant from the actual marriage, like opening opportunities to get by while forgoing one's inheritance, or unexpected changes elsewhere in the social network. Or a simpler example would be a woman successfully convincing her father, brother, or other male representative to let her do what she wanted.

This is a little out of step with Snorri's etymological explanation of Lofn's name as related to 'permission' but as I explained here I think the actual etymological meaning of her name was 'hope'.

Of course a lot of heathens read Lofn's description in the Edda as affirming of marriages that deviate from gender and sexual norms, which the text does in fact leave room for but probably isn't what Snorri had in mind. There's a lot of room for speculation about how this may have been relevant in pre-Christian times but it would be difficult to move it beyond speculation.

Unfortunately quite a lot of this is already pretty speculative, because of how much later our sources concerning marriage are than the time when Lofn may have actually been recognized. Frankly, the same applies to our sources for Lofn, and the time when she may have been recognized. If I'm right about the etymology of her name then I think it's at least a partial vindication of Snorri but that does not necessarily mean that his description of her is entirely reliable.

[mariacallous]

"This isn’t a political rally," said Lance Wallnau from a convention hall stage in Monroeville, outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "It’s much different than a revival meeting, it’s kind of a new type of thing. It’s where the people of God, the citizens of heaven, bring heaven to earth."

Wallnau, a former oil industry marketer turned charismatic Christian author and media figure, was there recently on the sixth stop of his swing state Courage Tour. The tour’s goal is to bolster the courage of attendees' to speak their minds politically and recruit them to serve as local election workers and poll watchers.

Over the course of two days, audience members would pray, sway with their hands in the air to swelling worship music, take in lessons on American history, politics and the Bible, and be visited by vice presidential candidate and U.S. Senator JD Vance. Wallnau, along with his wife Annabelle, are just two of several right-wing Christian leaders hosting these revival-style events at which Trump is seen as God’s anointed candidate, according to Matthew Taylor, a senior scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian and Jewish Studies.

"They understand this as a literal spiritual battle between angels and demons. The angels are trying to enact the will of God, which they believe is to see Donald Trump given a second term," said Taylor, who has done extensive research on Christians who were part of the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election for Joe Biden.

'Demonic ideas'

On January 6, Wallnau was scheduled to speak at a prayer rally in Washington DC. But before he made it to a microphone, Trump supporters had already broken into the Capitol. So Wallnau went back to his hotel room to stream live on a Christian talk show. Right away, he and his co-hosts made baseless claims that the FBI had bussed in members of antifa to sow violence among the otherwise peaceful crowd.

"They're actually the activists that are working for the Democratic Party that were there in order to create the incident with violence that would smear the president," Wallnau said. "It was the devil’s people at this thing."

"I have been through the social media accounts of many, many of the Christians who were there on January 6th," said Taylor, "and you can find them posting Lance Wallnau videos and Lance Wallnau commentary." He added that one criminal defendant even cited Wallnau’s show as his reason for attending what he believed was a permitted rally.

In his new book, The Violent Take It By Force, Taylor describes Wallnau as "Trump’s most influential spiritual propagandist." He says when many Christian and evangelical leaders had been reluctant to back the brash, twice-divorced, reality TV billionaire’s 2016 presidential run, Wallnau gained a following popularizing biblical rationales for supporting then candidate Trump. God, Wallnau proclaimed, had anointed Trump, imperfect as he was, to lead the country.

Wallnau is well-known in evangelical circles for having popularized a Christian concept called the "Seven Mountains," which calls on the faithful to take dominion over all areas of culture. In person, however, the media-savvy Wallnau can be challenging to pin down ideologically. He’s previously identified as a "Christian Nationalist," but told NPR the term is a label "to create anxiety and misrepresentation." Wallnau also called Taylor’s scholarship "the fantasy narrative of this one guy obsessed with Christian nationalism."

"Nobody’s a demon, but they can be under the influence of demonic ideas," Wallnau said in an interview. "I regret when it sounds like I'm making people evil because I'm in the business of redemption." He still questions the 2020 election results and to this day refers to the events of January 6th as "election fraud intervention."

'A Trojan Horse'

On the Courage Tour, Wallnau and his fellow speakers laid out an updated approach for the coming election.

"Are you guys ready to show the world that Christians will be silent no more?" Joshua Standifer asked from the stage. His nonprofit, Lion of Judah, is helping recruit the folks in the audience to become election workers.

"We all remember 2020 when they bought up the windows, when they closed the doors, when they kicked all the volunteers out. You can be on the inside and be one of the ones making a difference and making sure that nothing nefarious happens," said Standifer, invoking debunked, but still popular, narratives of election fraud.

Standifer also wants these poll workers to send anything they see that could be evidence of fraud. He’s been calling the effort "a Trojan horse," which alarms some observers. He told NPR he didn’t mean the metaphor to extend to the part where the Greeks decimate the city of Troy.

"Do I regret it? I don't know, because it's brought a lot of coverage to us, you know, for better or for worse," said Standifer.

Trust in elections

Even when everyone is working with the purest of motivations, no election runs perfectly, according to Mollie Cohen, who teaches political science at Perdue University.

"But if you are constantly under scrutiny by folks who are looking to catch you in a mistake, certainly, there are mistakes to be found," she said.

The truth, she says, is that most mistakes are caught and addressed very quickly. And since 2020, many election officials have put an even greater focus on transparency.

Mollie also says there’s lots of research showing that working the polls increases peoples’ confidence in elections.

"Something happens when people engage in election administration. It is very boring. It's quite tedious. And you really see everybody in your polling place," she said.

That’s been true for Dina Macey. She drove in before 5am to wait in her car and make sure she could get in to see JD Vance on the second day of the Courage Tour.

"It's the white Subaru, that's all Trumped out. It's got the Trump flags all over it and the bumper stickers, you know, magnets," said Macey.

She’s been an election worker before and was a poll watcher in 2020.

"And I did catch a couple people. Like a kid just walked in, didn't sign in or check in, and he was going to enter that. And I was like, 'whoa, you can't do that, you know?' So I bring it to [election workers’] attention," said Macey.

Macey is clear she hasn’t been pleased with everything about the elections she’s worked, but ultimately, the process she saw felt secure. That trust, though, doesn’t extend to the rest of her state, or the country.

Traveling shows like Wallnau’s Courage Tour are likely to reinforce suspicions like those.

Fears about the post-election period

"We don't trust the government on vaccines now. We don't trust them on laptops. We don't trust them on elections. And that's not a good place for a country," Wallnau told the audience on day two of the Pennsylvania stop.

This election cycle, the Trump campaign has focused heavily on legal challenges to voting rules. They’ve also geared up to dispute election results in the courts. That’s a big part of why Matthew Taylor is concerned about Wallnau and others like him.

"Part of what happened in 2020 was, there was no evidence of election fraud," said Taylor. "The Courage Tour is one component of this multi-pronged effort to stage the aftermath of this election as a season of contestation, that the results of the election are not the results of the election."

A contentious election will also help sustain right-wing and religious media circuits Wallnau is part of.

"By the time that the 2020 election happened, there were hundreds of charismatic prophets who were all prophesying that Donald Trump was God's chosen candidate and was destined to win the election," said Taylor.

When Trump lost, Taylor says those leaders pivoted to support the false narrative that the election was stolen, through more prophecies about demonic plots and divine motivation to fight back. Taylor believes those narratives posed a serious threat to democracy then, and he says it’s not looking much different this year.

[bforbetterthanyou]

I’m curious…what is your opinion of Henry’s relationship with each of his wves?

Oh my goodness gracious, thank you for this, Anon! (This got ridiculously long so I’m putting it under a cut)

Okay I guess I’ll start with Catherine of Aragon since she never gets to go first…

Hot take (not really) but I don’t think she and Henry had this great romantic love. And, for the record, I think it was mutual. I don’t think either of them loved each other in a romantic way. However, I also don’t think that Henry married her because he was forced to…because who forced him? His father? Yeah, Henry claimed later on that he only married Catherine because it was his father’s “dying wish” (or something to that effect) but we don’t know if that’s actually true and also, Henry denounced the betrothal in 1505 and no one forced him to go through with it regardless. And, certainly, none of the naysayers were forcing him to go through with it. Catherine apologists make so much of Henry uses the “brother’s widow” excuse during the Great Matter and completely gloss over the fact that there were multiple people also citing this as a reason during the period of Catherine’s widowhood.

I think, what it came down to, was that Henry knew that Catherine had been living in wealthy poverty and was maybe not being treated very kindly by his father, and Henry was also dealing with his own poor treatment by his father, and so Henry saw himself as this knight in shining armor rescuing the damsel in distress. Of course, Henry and Catherine had also known each other for almost a decade—it’s hard to know exactly what their relationship was like during those years because I doubt they really interacted much, but if Catherine was kind to him then that would add to why Henry was so okay with ignoring the naysayers. And then, in the early years of their marriage, Henry came to admire and respect her.

Where things get complicated is the issue of their children. I remember once seeing this article Suzannah Lipscomb wrote where she speculated how their marriage would be if Henry, Duke of Cornwall had lived and Suzannah made it out to be that everything was all rainbows and sunshine and she was his beloved wife forever etc etc. That’s great, Suzy, but I really don’t think it’s, at all, realistic. Certainly, if Catherine had had a healthy son who survived, Henry wouldn’t have divorced her even after she hit menopause. But Ithink it’s very optimistic to say their marriage would’ve been perfect. Obviously, losing so many children didn’t help. But, like I said, I don’t think Henry was deeply in love with her, so I think it’s inevitable that he would’ve strayed (I guess is the right word?).

On to Anne (strap in y’all this already way too long answer is gonna get even longer).

So I mentioned how I don’t think Henry was really romantically in love with Catherine. I think that Anne was the first time (and the last time actually) that Henry genuinely, properly, fell in love with someone (sorry Bessie stans…do those exist? Probably…somewhere…I definitely feel like I’ve seen at least one person try to argue that Bessie was the great love of his life). Anyway, yeah I think Henry had all of these grand romantic ideas about himself and he believed himself to be in love with every pretty girl…and then he met Anne and his brain just short-circuited. (And, who can blame him, I mean Anne Boleyn is obviously the most perfect woman whose ever existed, I’m in love with her 😂). In all seriousness, Henry didn’t have the great passionate love with Catherine but he definitely had it with Anne. We could talk about what went wrong in that relationship, but I’ve already stated my opinion on that and almost got run off of Tumblr for it.

So moving on to Jane…

Oh dear. It amazes me how many people still believe Henry’s own propaganda. So, unfortunately, for those of you, it’s very clear to me that Henry never loved Jane at all. He treated her pretty poorly while she was alive. I think she appealed to him because she wasn’t Anne. After she died, he fell head over heels with the idea of her. But that’s about it.

Now, lucky number 4.

I feel like I don’t really need to say much about this one. Henry made his feelings about Anna pretty clear.

I guess I could talk about their post-divorce relationship. What’s sad is that I think Anna could’ve actually been good for him. She comes across as a pretty chill person, but she also enjoyed a lot of the same things that he enjoyed. I think, if Henry had just not done that stupid thing of thinking that he was still 20 years old and that Anna would magically recognize him somehow, then I think they could’ve been brilliant together.

Onto Katheryn number 2.

I feel like this one is pretty self-explanatory. Henry was getting old, he couldn’t exercise like he used to, he had mobility issues, he was becoming obese…and Katheryn made him feel young again. What’s interesting comparing Katheryn and Anne’s downfall—Anne died because she was powerful, Katheryn died because she was powerless.I mean, it’s not insignificant that Katheryn’s downfall took months while Anne’s took just a few weeks. Obviously, the suspicion of Katheryn committing adultery was embarrassing for him, but she stuck around so long under house arrest because the only real threat Katheryn posed was to Henry’s ego.

Yee-haw, it’s Kathryn Parr (any Rex Factor fans out there?)

This one I also feel like is pretty self-explanatory. By this point, Henry has alienated and killed everyone who ever cared about him so, naturally, he’s feeling pretty lonely. What I find most interesting is that Kathryn was older and more mature and, obviously learned. I think with Jane, especially, and to a lesser-extent, Katheryn, Henry was kind of over intelligent women who could stand up to him. But I get the sense that, after Katheryn’s execution, he kind of got tired of the subservient wife. I think Henry actually preferred intelligent, feisty women, but things had gone so horribly wrong with Anne that he wanted the opposite. But then he quickly got bored of the opposite. Obviously, at this point in Henry’s life he’s really not interested in anyone standing up to him or trying to impose their opinions on him, but he still wanted someone he could have a conversation with. And Kathryn, bless her, was clever enough to match him intellectually without pushing the boundaries too much.

Wow, this got so insanely long. I’ll put it under a cut so it doesn’t clog up anyone’s feed.

But, you know, when I really spell it out like this, it just emphasizes how frustrating it is when all the wives get lumped together and the last few even get largely ignored. Because, for all of them, their circumstances for becoming Henry’s wife were completely different, and all of their relationships with him are completely different. People act like him having six wves was inevitable or that his choices were completely random. On one level, I can understand why people lump them together in this neat “Six Wives” package but doing that completely ignores the fact that they were individuals, not just a part of this rotating door of arbitrarily chosen women.

[theaudientvoid]

I've spoken before about how I don't put much stock in a lot of fandom theories. I think that a lot of them take precisely the wrong perspective on storytelling. The correct perspective to take is to realize that fictional stories are fictional; that everything that happens in them happens because somewhere a writer decided to have it happen in order to further the story that they are trying to tell. The correct approach to theorizing is to ask the question "what is the writer trying to do with this story, and how does this theory fit into that?" Most people don't really do this, though. Instead, they latch on to minor details which they interpret as license to engage in wild speculation, utterly divorced from any though as to how it all fits in to the writers narrative objectives.

Anyway, I just head an ASOIAF theory that I think is dumb as fuck. So, the theory goes that the "reason" the Others (or Whitewalkers, if we're being vulgar) are returning after thousands of years is because in the past, people in Westeros used to sacrifice babies to them to keep them appeased, but then they mostly stopped, and so now the Others are returning to, I dunno, steals the world's babies? It's kind of vague.

The theory's proponents have various things in the books that the will cite as "evidence", but remember, fictional story being written by a writer. So, in the spirit of that, let's ask ourselves what Martin is trying to do with the Others? What's the point of even including them in the story?

So, like, the main recurring theme of the ASOIAF book is that universe is a cold, uncaring void, that you and everyone you love will inevitably die, but before that happens we can still fight to create our own meaning, for ourselves. A song of ice and fire, if you would.

On literally the third page of A Game of Thrones, there's a bit with a team of Night's Watch rangers north of the Wall, and one of the rangers gives a monologue about what it feels like to freeze to death. The cold has a way of working its way inside of you, and once that happens, you just stop fighting and let it take you. "The real enemy is the cold", he concludes.

Anyway, right after this, they run into the Others and die.

So, from that perspective, it's pretty clear how the Others fit into Martins thematic agenda. They're avatars the unfeeling coldness of the universe, which we all have to fight to keep out of ourselves. And so, this whole theory seeking to answer why the Others have returned is thematically incoherent. The Others don't need a reason to return anymore than Winter does. You might as well ask "why is winter coming?" It doesn't matter. What matters is what are you going to do when it arrives.

[moodr1ng]

tbh a number of "bi lesbians" are actual lesbians who are not attracted to men but think that liking women and nonbinary people means being bi, even if you dont like men. which is bc the larger lgbt community has forcefully redefined bisexuality as random shit like "liking 2 or more genders" and divorced it from the meaning it has always had (liking all genders, including men and women), which is biphobic. a number of lesbians are calling themselves bi for reasons that are both lesbophobic and transphobic (thinking nonbinary people arent included in lesbianism) AND biphobic (the aforementioned meaninglessness imposed upon bisexuality).

this "liking women and nonbinary people is bi" thing is like, an extremely common explanation/definition cited by self-identified bi lesbians (the fact this is so often ignored entirely leads me to believe many people did not actually look at what "bi lesbians" are even claiming before deciding that theyre all evil bisexuals, which is telling). and a lot of you INSIST that they are ALL bi women who are only being lesbophobic, and i think maybe you might wanna check why bi women are always the only ones to blame in your eyes when there are issues in wlw communities - and why you think calling yourself a lesbian when youre actually bi is disgusting, but calling yourself bi when youre a lesbian is harmless and not worth acknowledging as possibly biphobic. its pretty clear that some of you think lesbianism has a certain purity that can be disgraced by misappropriation by bisexuals, but bisexuality has no such distinction and does not deserve any equivalent respect.

[drivingsideways]

Year-end discussion in the Indian film space was dominated by the success of controversial film maker Sandeep Reddy Vanga's latest offering of undiluted misogyny and rage, appropriately titled "Animal"; but the best commentary I've seen on failed fatherhood and violent, toxic masculinity this year comes in a 2 minute scene in Kaathal: The Core, where a wizened old man testifies quietly in a family court that yes, he always knew that his son is gay, and still coerced him into a heterosexual marriage.

Kaathal: The Core isn't a film without flaws; one could argue that it's the quintessential film made about queer people by straight allies- actually more interested in the reaction to queerness and the adjustment to queerness by cishets, than in queer lives; that it has a one dimensional view of the reality of queer living in India. It has its moments of what I call "educational speechifying" that feel tonally at odds with the rest of it, but again, this paternalism in Indian cinema of the self-consciously "progressive" variety isn't unfamiliar.

The ending feels a little trite, and some artistic choices- an actual rainbow in the sky appears as the two lovers drive off into the sunset of their newly liberated lives-feel particularly anvil-like- much like the ending of another of director Jeo Baby's films, The Great Indian Kitchen, which was an exploration of the brutality of Indian-flavoured patriarchy. In short: a movie filled with intricately and deliberately placed subtleties that occasionally - somewhat inexplicably-loses confidence in its audience, and chooses to remedy that by being a bit over the top.

But those are minor quibbles. This movie gutted me. The story revolves around a middle-aged closeted gay man from a small close knit village community in Kerala whose life- and the lives of those around him- is thrown into disarray when his wife of twenty years files for divorce citing his gayness as the reason for the breakdown of the marriage- a step she takes just as he's nominated as his party's candidate for the local elections. With this premise, you'd be forgiven for expecting the movie to be high decibel melodrama- and possibly a tragedy- from start to finish. Instead, it deliberately chooses the quieter route, the most tender one; while not flinching away from the grim realities of widespread homophobia, it portrays both individuals and a community who , in a moment of crisis, discover that they are better than they think they are. And it does this not from a jingoistic, self-congratulatory ethno-nationalist perspective- but from a place of genuine love- as a reminder and a beacon in these dark times.

All of this is anchored in some fantastic performances- Mammootty once more showing up to remind us why he's one of the greatest living actors in the world, and Sudhi Kozhikode as Thankan in what should be a multiple-award winning performance as his long time lover. I've rarely seen an actor make so much of their limited screen time. When I say that minutes 50-52 of this film are the most devastatingly tragic-romantic moments in world cinema, you'll think I'm exaggerating and perhaps I am, but I can also guarantee that you're going to want to rewatch that sequence at least ten times and cry about two old geezers in love. Lives were changed in those moments, no lie.

My one disappointment in terms of performances is Jyothika, playing Omana, the long suffering wife. Omana is one of the stand-outs in the history of female characters in Malayalam cinema, and Jyothika is- barely adequate. When you contrast it with a similar role - say Hsieh Ying -xuan's performance as Liu San-lian in Dear Ex (2018)- the flatness is even more jarring. Still, the sheer love with which her character and her relationships, especially with her husband, are written carry the film through.

Tl;dr: watch it on Amazon Prime or at a theatre near you! You will not regret it.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Please share your reasoning when you get a chance on why you don't believe Theresa Longo Fans. Granted, they have been wrong before.

So the TL;DR of it is:

They're anonymous journalists and that's suspicious.

They haven't updated their brag sheet in 6 years, which means they haven't had a good source in 6 years.

They plagiarize almost everything.

They use vague language and broad generalities in their scoops that lets them take credit no matter what happens.

Keep reading for the longer explanations.

1. I'm always immediately suspicious of anyone in journalism that doesn't use their name. When a journalist is anonymous, especially when they have no need to be like in TLF's case, it's not easy to hold them accountable to lies and mistakes. The two guys behind TLF like to brag about their journalism credentials, and that's huge because there's no way to follow up to make sure they are who they say they are. They rely on "just trust me" authority, and when has that ever worked out? Especially with blind gossip sites (in addition to TLF, this includes CDAN, Blind Gossip, DeuxMoi, and Exposing SMG), you can't verify the accuracy of what they post - especially when you consider that CDAN, Enty, and DeuxMoi all admitted they make stuff up.

(And also ExposingSMG rarely has new information when it comes to the BRF. (They might have sources for other celebs, but I don't pay attention close enough.) Specifically, they just repeat what was being discussed on the blogs and reddit, calling them "my source" so they don't have to cite. BTW, ExposingSMG has since rebranded as Scandalous.Media. They posted about the Sussexes recently and some of their quoted sources or "revelations" are things that have been around for awhile. This one in particular I think is a combination of info from CDAN and SMM.)

I saw somewhere once that the TLF guys don't share their names so they can protect the privacy and confidentiality of their sources. But I call BS. If journalists needed anonymity to protect their sources, then why aren't more journalists reporting anonymously? These two guys are the only people I know that calls themselves journalists who do this, and to me that is suspicious. (Exceptions only for reporters in war zones.)

2. Look at the scoops they take credit for in their pinned tweet: Sussex baby #1, Khloe Kardashian's pregnancy, Kylie Jenner's baby, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's divorce, Megxit, Wendy Williams's show demise, and the Pulse/Orlando nightclub shooting. What these all have in common is that they are events from 2016 - 2019. Meaning they had really good sources, contacts, and access 6-8 years ago. And that list not having anything more recent suggests they don't have the kind of sources, contacts, and access anymore. If they did, and if they were still getting the same sort of accurate scoops that they were 7 years ago, this list would be updated to inclde those more recent events. Why haven't they?

Now, that's not to say they never had good sources. They did have good sources, and whoever it was, their information was solid enough that it upset Meghan enough to get Bouzy to take TLF down. That doesn't really mean anything because a broken clock is still correct twice a day.

3. The tweets themselves are problematic. In fact, most of them are plagiarized.

If there's a direct quote in the tweet, it's plagiarized from some other source/news media and TLF never cites the source. For example, this TLF tweet from January 8th:

It implies that they've interviewed Dominic himself. But they never spoke to Dominic. The quotes come, verbatim, from this January 6th article published by The Mirror.

And for tweets without a direct quote in it, they usually try to pass it off as their own scoop but nine times out of ten, it isn't. For example, this tweet:

It looks like a good scoop. At face value, it is: they know someone who saw Shia at church and connected one plus one.

But #1, when you search "Actor Shia LaBeouf appears to have converted to Catholicism after being seen at a New Year's Eve Mass presided over by Capuchin Franciscan friars," this article from the Associated Press on December 31st comes up:

Almost everything they publish is like this. Go ahead - choose any tweet, copy the text into a search engine, and see what happens.

And #2, look at their verbiage. Specifically, the phrase appears to have in the Shia tweet above. This is how they get away with passing off their stories as scoops, with vague verbage that could go either way. That way, when an article is later published about it, they can grab the "original" tweet and claim credit with "as we told our followers back in..." or "no surprise to our followers..." tweets.

*******************************

Now, specific to royal-watching: they completely and totally missed the ball on big stuff (like Platinum Jubilee and Coronation appearances), but they got it on the smaller stuff (Spare and Frogmore). But the kicker is that the smaller stuff is things that were either written about by royal reporters or was plausible gossip floating around the royal fandom.

The things they were wildly wrong on - for instance, the children being on the balcony at the Platinum Jubilee and the royals hosting a birthday party for Archie after the coronation - were things that came directly from Meghan's PR. So either they didn't realize it was Meghan's PR or they decided to hedge their bets and post it anyway on the off-chance it happened, which I think is in poor taste but it makes for very fun entertainment.

[mizandria]

Not a troll, genuine question: I thought Johnny Depp was good? Like all his wife's allegations against him were fake? Did he do other things?

no, no, he definitely is not... her allegations against him were that he's lying when he says she "defamed" him by writing an article in Washington Post about having been a victim of domestic & sexual assault. but she didn't even use his name ONCE in the article, plus she didn't say anything untrue and this is corroborated by an UK court who found Depp guilty of 12 out of 14 counts of abuse against Amber in 2020 when he sued The Sun for calling him a wifebeater. basically it was proven that he is one. some instances of this:

- in 2014 Amber was shooting a movie with James Franco, Depp got jealous, taunted and kicked her; proven by texts from his assistant to Amber he sent afterwards talking about how sorry Depp is for doing this to her

- in March 2015 they both were in Austrialia where Amber allegedly threw a bottle at Depp and the bottle sliced his finger off; but he also texted his doctor about slicing his own finger off later ("I cut the top of my middle finger off") + he admitted this in an audio

- in December 2015 he dragged her by her hair, slapped, head butted, punched; proven by the pictures of injuries she took + their marriage consuelor saw the pictures and the injuries in person (he admits to headbutting her in one audio)

- in 2016 he trashed their condo and again assaulted her, and there are pictures of the trashed condo, Isaac Baruch for one saw the condo and testified about it (even thought he was one of the pro-Depp witnesses)

- their neighbour (Raquel Pennington) testifies that she saw Amber cowering in fear before Depp during one of their fights and she covered Amber with her own body to protect her. when he attacked Amber, she was on the phone with her friend, causing the friend to call 911. Amber texted a nurse about that and a medical report confirms the injury. that's when she decided to file for the divorce.

there's more, but these are the ones there is evidence for. but based on what we know about Johnny as a person I believe Amber about all the counts of abuse she cited (including the rape allegation). he's a raging misogynist (for example he texted Paul Bettany that he wants to drown Amber, burn her corpse and then rape it, tried to submit Amber's nudes and proof of her working as a stripped for some reason, threw a bottle at his ex, Ellen Barkin), an addict, an alcoholic, he's pathologically jealous (confirmed by almost all his ex girlfriends/wives), prone to turning violent and throwing things or assaulting others.

he also lied about Amber abusing him, as in he tried to paint her as the perpetrator all while this is what you can find in the unsealed documents: "Depp’s team shielded him from undergoing a psychiatric evaluation on grounds that he “does not allege a specific cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; does not assert that Ms. Heard’s actions caused him a specific psychiatric injury; and does not claim that Ms. Heard’s actions caused him to experience unusually severe emotional distress.”". then he sat in the courtroom acting like he's traumatized by all the abuse he suffered from her, a not well known actress half his age back when they were dating. he was also so traumatized and scared of her that he started walking up to her as she was leaving the courtroom, causing her to take a step back out of fear and then he just turned around while laughing at her. demonic behavior!

for more I really recommend this timeline of their relationship and @justiceamberheard 's masterpost of the court proceedings summary (with links, so you can verify and see for yourself)!!

[brotherslayer]

How do you think Derrick would have reacted if Penelope was asked out by a nobleman who actually likes her and wants to know her and Penelope is happy about it and agrees.

Do you think Reynold harboured any feeling for og Penelope since he was a capture target. How would their relationship grow

I've already talked a bit about this scenario here. I can see it go two ways: 1. Derrick is relieved to be rid of her only to regret it when it's too late, 2. Derrick would be against a marriage citing Penelope's immaturity and lack of education as a reason. They can't hand Penelope over when she hasn't yet learned how to run a household and host parties as it would only embarass the family name if she were to fail her basic duties. He would have enough reasons to suspect an ulterior motive for any advances made at her (the Eckart's wealth, the noble family name) and would investigate every suitor throughly in hopes he could dig up dirt on him and prevent a marriage. That means he might stalk their dates and harrass Penelope. I can image Derrick trying to make Penelope believe her fiance doesn't love her back and is obvously just using her/going to abuse her once he has married her. Penelope needs her father's blessing for her marriage and the Duke isn't likely to give it to her if Derrick makes him believe that she isn't safe and treasured by her fiancé. The only AU where he would support them was if a marriage would be the only thing saving her from an execution, but even then he might want them to divorce afterwards. Tbh I see Derrick more as a "if I can't have you, no one can." Claude Frollo type of character, so he might prefer for her to die rather than marry someone else.

Personally I don't think Reynold harboured romantic feelings for og Penelope and I'd prefer it if he didn't. Penelope deserves one brother who isn't lusting after her. Nothing like that has been hinted in the story. I really do view him as the most brother coded character (not in a good way mind you). If he had bullied her because he was secretly in love with her, it would have just been a repitition of Derrick's trope. I headcanon Derrick and Reynold as two different sides of abuse. Derrick is emotionally abusive and Reynold physically. Derrick can only love Penelope romantically, he is incapable of loving her in a way that doesn't involve lust, that doesn't objectify and dehumanizes her as his possession, while Reynold could've loved her platonically if not for Derrick. Wheras Derrick's abuse is much more subtile and harder to spot it's actually much more dangerous and damaging, because it poisons every relationship around Penelope. Derrick can only "love" her as a lover and Reynold can only "love" her as a replacement of Ivonne. What both brothers demand from her is incompatiable with each other. There is no winning. She's being punished either way. If she fullfills the expectations of one brother, she is met with hatred and disgust by the other brother.

I assume this ask must have been send in response to the Reynold & Penelope post I made. Let me elaborate on this idea a bit. It wasn't really meant as a shippy post where Reynold would have developed a crush on Penelope or vica versa. It was me speculating how Derrick's manipulations would have affected Penelope's worldview. How Penelope would pay men with her body when she wants something. How she thinks it's okay to initiate something sexual with Reynold because that's how her relationship with Derrick functions. Penelope will give Derrick kisses, lets him touch her etc, and in exchange he must shower her with gifts and the love that she knows deep down doesn't exist. At first she isn't even aware that it's sexual, she just understands that when she does this and that Derrick will be pleased with her and reward her. It makes her uncomfortable at times but it doesn't hurt her that much, so she thinks it's a kind of suffering she has to endure to get her compensation. Over the time she gets used to it and expects this method to work on Reynold too. She does it when she feels lonely, when she wants attention, gifts, it's also a trauma response that she displays when she needs to diffuse a situation.

For example I can picture a situation where Reynold is angry and Penelope climbs on his lap, kisses him and starts unbuttoning her blouse to "calm him down" and Reynold would be horrified and disgusted at her. His face would turn scarlet red, he would yell at her, push her away or slap her face and call her a pervert. Derrick would use this incident to justify what he is doing to her. He can't ruin her if she was never pure. Unlike those delicate noble girls whose virtue needs to be protected, Penelope is a dirty commoner girl with no known father, a war orphan who leeches of his father's wealth and only causes trouble. She doesn't deserve any rights. Such a girl can only be inherently rotten. It's in her nature. That Penelope's hypersexual behaviour might be caused by his grooming doesn't even cross his mind.

Reynold might panick when he sees Penelope and Derrick in the same room together. He would make a rude remark to make her angry and leave the room, he would play cruel pranks on Penelope to scare her away, he would in the evenings often lean in her doorframe to complain about her existence. If he's always around her and putting her in her place nothing weird can happen, right? In a way that would be his version of protecting her. Reynold would lack empathy for Penelope's situation but at some subconscious level he would understand that his elder brother is hurting her althrough he can't name why. It's easier to blame the victim, because it wouldn't force him to question his beliefs. At some point he might have even believed that this 12 year old is abusing his 18 year old brother and not the other way round. That by hurting Penelope he is protecting his brother and vindicating him. This might be where he got the idea that Penelope must have seduced the duke in order to get adopted. Penelope was harrassing him, so who's to say this isn't how Derrick got dragged into this mess? Penelope stole his sister's place, she tried to steal his father's love and now she has stolen his brother away from him just like she has taken everything else.

I think Reynold would be in denial of the situation. I also think Derrick would gaslight him like crazy about it. Eventually when Reynold brings up the topic, Derick would make him look like he was out of his mind. He'd say something like "If you see two siblings spending time with each other as inherently sexual, perhaps you are the one who has secretly been desiring her all the time. / Should I be worried about your relationship to Penelope? If you hated her so much why do I often see you walking up and down next to her door in the evenings? Suspicious."

In summary I don't view Reynold as someone who would fall for his stepsister naturally, but I don't find the idea that Reynold could start a relationship with Penelope impossible if other factors were involved. As I mentioned before, I think that both Reynold and Penelope are ridiculously easy to manipulate. In this AU Penelope would have learned that getting brotherly love is impossible if it doesn't also come with sexual love. And she's very desperate to be loved. Reynold might adopt Derrick's attitude..partly. 14 year old Reynold might've looked up to Derrick and copied some of his behaviour. When Derrick and Penelope enter a relationship, it might cause him to feel left out. Reynold's mother died, his sister was kidnapped, his father became emotionally unavailible, his brother is well...Derrick. They didn't seem particulary close. Ivonne might have served as a bridge between them but now that's she's gone and not even their hatred for her replacement can connect them anymore, he has nothing. He would want to be let into their secret until he realizes in horror what this secret entails.

I once read a story where a brother coerced his twin into sleeping with their little sister after their twin discovered their relationship and wanted to tell their parents. The twin might have had romantic feelings for her as well but held back because he knew it was wrong or his brother's manipulations made him doubt himself and he believed that he was just like his brother since he "enjoyed" it. Either way he started to believe he was an awful person and tried to hide what they did from their parents because now he thought of himself as a criminal too. This is the only way I could imagine Reynold x Penelope to happen actually. That to secure Reynold's silence Derrick would have to resort to making him an accomplice.

Derrick would hate it the whole time and he'd be insanely jealous, but it'd be the only way to get Reynold's absolute compliance. In the long run gaslighting Reynold, invocating his authority as the heir and convincing him to keep quiet to maintain the family peace and protect their family's reputation wouldn't work.

I have troubles how to come up with a trigger where Derrick/Penelope & Penelope/Reynold can come into being. Reynold would have to be grieving or drunk or drugged. In any way he'd have to be not fully lucid in order to entertain even such idea. Even if Derrick were to leave the picture then, Reynold and Penelope might fall back on hierarchies, roles and learned pattern. They wouldn't sleep with each other because they love each other like lovers. They'd sleep with each other because they are lonely and traumatized teenagers. Because this is normalicity to Penelope and the only kind of comfort Reynold knows to offer her. It would be interesting for them to try and struggle to overcome their trauma and become a real family.