#(Ahmed and his thesis advisor. they know.)

[galwednesday]

KIND

Her arms ached, but she couldn't bear to put Jack down, so he drooled onto her shoulder the whole walk back from the woods. 

They hadn't even asked about the changeling, whose face had matched but actions hadn't, who'd flinched at a hawk's cry and rescued drowning spiders. Who didn't have Jack's happy carelessness, the surety of a beloved son.

Home at last, she set Jack down in the already occupied bed, smoothing the hair of his sleeping copy. In the morning, she would ask for their name. To them, names were binding; she would make this one an anchor.

(100 word inktober drabbles; EAGLE, FORGET, EMPTY, and ARMADILLO below the cut)

EAGLE

"That's not what we sound like," Callie hissed. "This is like when there's a bald eagle in a truck commercial and they play a hawk sound or whatever. Banshees don't do slasher movie screaming. It's a death song, emphasis on song."

"Babe," Yoli said. "You were the one who wanted to watch this movie."

Callie shoved popcorn into her mouth, conceding the point. They watched the doomed soldier crumple dramatically at another piercing shriek.

"Oh what the hell," Callie exploded, "we don't kill people, what is this garbage--"

"Booooo," Yoli agreed, seizing the bowl to throw popcorn at the screen.

FORGET

He cultivated the garden with a desperation he didn't always understand. Early spring brought a brief respite, but inevitably the days lengthened, forget-me-nots giving way to daffodils, and he was left kneeling in dirt littered with fallen bruise-blue petals. He built the greenhouse quickly, sloppily, giving himself splinters on the wooden frame but careful with the life-sustaining glass panels he sealed in one by one.

He coaxed the first bulbs into flower in late fall. The moment his shaking hands cupped the unfurling buds, he remembered what he needed; her face, her smile, and the name to guide her home.

EMPTY

"Huh." She held the flashlight with one hand and the magnifying glass with another, peering into the back rows of teeth. There were more incisors than average, with an empty gap between two of them. "Yeah, I can see some shards of the broken tooth still in there. Will it grow back?"

"You're the dentist," her crocodile merman patient said, articulating with difficulty as he kept his jaws wide. "Shouldn't you know?"

"Oh, honey, I'm not licensed," she said, gesturing at the airboat she used as a mobile clinic. She picked up a pair of long-handled tweezers. "Now hold still."

ARMADILLO

Historoscopes had a fourteen-month waiting list to borrow from the university archives, but they were invaluable for field research. Ahmed recorded observations of the ghostly outlines of Glyptodons, armadillos' ancestral megafauna, as he and his thesis advisor surveyed the plains around them, minus several million years.

"Now why are those ones in color?" his professor mused. 

Ahmed glanced over, did a double-take at the approaching bison, and scooped his professor up over his shoulder. "Those are here now."

"So they are!" his professor exclaimed in delight, and swapped the historoscope for regular binoculars as Ahmed sprinted back towards their van.

[fymagnificentwomcn]

Hi, can you tell me everything you know about mahfiruze hatice hatun, osman ii's mother?

Frankly, the only thing that is certain about her is her name and that she was Osman’s mother. I have to say I agree with Baki Tezcan’s theory that Mahfiruz likely died young. I know Uluçay and Sakaoğlu earlier referred to her as “Valide Mahfiruz Sultan” and they stated she died two years into Osman’s sultanate, but Peirce later pretty much dismissed the claim she was Valide after examining privy purse registers because according to them there was no Valide during Osman’s reign, and the harem was likely managed by Osman’s daye hatun, who received extraordinarily high stipend for her position. Peirce still quotes Uluçay that Mafriruz was buried in Eyüb in 1620, but Tezcan does provide some information from reports that point to Mahfiruz’s dying before her son ascended the throne (but she for certain was buried in Eyüb). Honestly, I would like to provide once more a link to The Debut of Kösem Sultan’s Political Career - it’s very short and first few pages are devoted to the issue of Osman’s mother.

Mahfiruz has been pretty much a legendary figure, there are many myths and stories surrounding her, including that she was related to Halime or that she taught Osman many languages and provided special education to him. However, we must bear in mind that Osman’s brutal regicide was a subject of many plays and novels because the occurrence was unprecedented and of truly awful barbarity (iand actually without even a repetition, t’s pretty much agreed on it was the worst fate that befell any Ottoman sultans), and as such stirred artists’ and writers’ imagination to a big extent. Thus, Osman was often turned into a progressive, special, extraordinary person misunderstood by his barbarian subjects. And the truth is in the middle  - he was neither a tyrant nor a brilliant misunderstood ruler ahead of his times. We all agree here that MYK did a good job with Osman’s characterisation as ambitious, but flawed figure, yet not beyond redemption, who did commit serious mistakes, but did not deserve his terrible fate in the end. I do recommend here Tezcan’s dissertation Searching for Osman: A Reassessment of the Deposition of the Ottoman Sultan Osman (the Kösem article forms one chapter of it). It’s not openly available, so I can’t provide a link, but it describes processes leading to first regicide in Ottoman history in a very balanced and comprehensive view. Generally, the Empire becoming more sedentary was a really complex process that wasn’t just about “corrupted women” or “weak rulers”. It’s pretty much accepted now that even if Mustafa or Bayezid had ascended the throne after Suleiman, the age of conquests would have been over anyway because the Empire simply couldn’t expand anymore. Of course there was decline during this period, but it was not simply about “no conquests anymore”.

Back to Mahfiruz - I personally do believe that if she had been alive and even had been banished by Ahmed as some suggest, I think Osman would have brought her back to court. We know that e.g. Ahmed later viewed Handan’s presence as overbearing, but she did a lot to protect his reign during the first year of his rule when she acted as a co-regent with his lala. It was hard for a young person to handle everything on one’s own - previously only Mehmed II ruled as a minor and he was soon dethroned and his father was reinstated on the throne. Ahmed was then first such young sultan after so many years, and it is often overlooked that it was Handan who surrounded Ahmed at first with loyal people, while she removed those that formed Safiye’s clique (and Safiye herself). The presence of Valide during this period of many young and mentally ill sultans was VERY important. Even if she wasn’t a ruler in her own right or a very politically involved,figure, like Kösem or Turhan, her job was to at least provide loyal people who could advise a young ruler. Yet Osman, who was just as young as Ahmed when he had ascended the throne, had no such support and was surrounded with people acting to his detriment and providing terrible advice, including his own lala. Such young sultans were thrown into big political world just straight from harem, and mother’s role was to, in a way, organise and prepare his own political faction. Even if Mahfiruz wasn’t that politically inclined, I do believe she would have somewhat left traces of her presence as Valide because of Osman’s young age and inexperience. We know little of e.g. Saliha Dilaşub, but when she became Valide her son was already an adult. It’s also interesting that Osman paid a three-day visit to Old Palace to visit Kösem in 1619 according to Venetian report of 17 April. One wonders whether he would have been that close to his stepmother if his mother had been alive, but this is of course pure speculation.

Thus said, here’s also a link to Günhan Börekçi’s thesis Factions and Favourites at the Court of Sultan Ahmed and his Immediate Predecessors because while it not as comprehensive as Tezcan’s Searching for Osman, it nevertheless discusses a lot of transformational processes that occurred between the reigns of Selim II and Ahmed I. Börekçi was also the one who rediscovered Handan and showed her as a more involved Valide than had been previously perceived and also discovered the name of Mehmed III’s other consort and mother of Mustafa and Mahmud, i.e. Halime. Börekçi was MYK’s historical advisor BTW.

- Joanna

[mihrunnisasultans]

i know you're not a fan of MC Hurrem but whats your opinion of historical hurrem? i felt season 1, 2 and part of 3 really didn't do her justice

Hello Anon!

Sorry that you waited so long for my response, but I wanted to give you a comprehensive answer and thus it got really long, so most of it is under Read more. And thank you for an interesting question :)

I do prefer historical Hürrem to the MC one, but she’s still not my fave. TBH I don’t have that strong emotions towards historical figures as opposed to fictional characters because we really don’t have any real insight into their everyday life, and historical accounts are always more or less subjective. Hating someone about whom I really don’t have much 100% confirmed information? Unfair and pointless. To quote Galina Yermolenko from the introduction to Roxolana in European Literature, History and Culture:

Although Western historians have been struggling to define Roxolana’s legacy for over four centuries, it is often overlooked that she was largely a creation of the European imagination. Due to the lack of historical records and hard evidence, most of what is known about this woman rests on a handful of secondhand contemporaneous accounts and subsequent reinterpretations and speculations by numerous historians, quasi historians, dramatists, and other men of letters who have shaped the Western discourse on Roxolana.

Thus said, I do understand your reservations about MC early portrayal of her. Portrayal of Hürrem as a ruthless schemer and manipulator is certainly nothing new; MC’s depiction thankfully does not make her some evil walking caricature like the earliest Western works on her (from 16th or 17th century), but she’s a complex character that has her sympathetic moments even in the view of those who generally dislike her, in accordance with later tradition. But since you have no problem with S4 Hürrem, who is even more ruthless than the earlier one, I guess your problem is of a different nature.

Again, the portrayal of Hürrem as a wild, unruly spirit is nothing new in works devoted to her, and while I totally get the problem with “undignified” Hürrem, I kind of appreciate it now? Pretty much all of “big five″ women of Sultanate of Women in MY/K are portayed based on the “slay queen” trope, but I feel that aside from Turhan, they all have their own distinctive features, other than the generic woman who slays them all and loves power? Hürrem‘s character actually develops and she becomes the true majestic sultana later on; it’s again kind of realistic that she’s not one from the start? Her wild and flamboyant image actually serves to show how much she’s of an outsider and differs from other women. Again, she becomes more dignified and majestic as she integrates herself into the world to which she was forcefully introduced. (NGL Turhan made me appreciate earlier character creations more because she’s basically a generic slay kween with little of other characteristics…) MC Hürrem is definitely a good character creation that elicits strong emotional response from the audience, whether positive or negative. I e.g. love to hate her and enjoy rooting against her, others do the opposite, but it’s hard to stay indifferent about her. And as as I sad, she actually develops in the span of 4 seasons.

But then again, I agree it’s sometimes overdone on the show. The earlier seasons do have their tongue-in-cheek moments, and Hürrem‘s sometimes excessive flamboyance is also part of that.

I have more issues with what was not shown about her character in addition to being a ruthless schemer and clever manipulator, as well as her relationship with Süleyman.

From what we know, historical Hürrem took an active interest in state matters that sometimes also wasn’t connected with her intrigues. In the show, even in S4, her occupation with state matters does not go further than what she needs because of self-interest. Most of her non-mercenary actvities are indeed shown in S4 when her participation in foreign relations and diplomatic correspondence are mentioned, but they seem a bit shoerhorned at this point and especially the mention of her diplomatic correspondence just shortly before her death seems more “tell-not-show”?

As for historical Hürrem’s relationship with Süleyman, it is often stressed by historians how he viewed her as his partner and advisor. I understand that they didn’t want to make Hürrem as such from the start because she needed to also learn about her surroundings (and her position and influence on Süleyman did rise after Hafsa’s demise and marriage), but even later in the show we mainly see Süleyman telling her that “it’s not your matter and go to your room” or “do not bother your pretty head with it”. He definitely treats her more as a partner in S4. Same about the constant (and tiring) repeated introductions of new “other women” for Süleyman and then making us watch unnecessarily long arcs of Hürrem hunting down such women. Judging by historical accounts, Süleyman stayed faithful to her, and in the show it seems that early!Hürrem spent her days mainly plotting other women’s demises. I understand giving us an insight into harem struggles when Hürrem did have to fight for her position in Süleyman’s  heart at first, but later? Why, TIMS?

Historical Hürrem is definitely a controversial figure that sparks a lot of different approaches and opinions. Not long ago, I was reading two books with two totally different approaches towards her at the same time, one was André Clot’s biography of Süleyman (Suleiman the Magnificent: The Man, His Life, His Epoch), the other Empress of the East by Leslie Peirce. Clot is highly critical of her and shows signs of the older approaches in historiography concerning Hürrem (Sultanate of Women = ruin of empire), but at the same time sees her side of the argument and is of the opinion that it is Süleyman who is truly to blame for most things (so he breaks here with the presentation of Süleyman as an innocent puppet). [And frankly, Clot is salty about everyone except for Mustafa]. On the other hand, Peirce, in an attempt to debuke the “seductress who brought ruin on the Empire”image, goes from one extreme into another. Example:

A more peaceable system of identifying the next sultan began to emerge from transformations in the practice of succession-by-combat that began with her. Roxelana helped to move the Ottoman empire into modern times, where treaty negotiations became as challenging and significant as victory in battle and domestic well-being occupied as much of the government’s attention as conquest. Bolstered by the reforms she introduced, the Ottoman sultanate would sustain itself for another three and a half centuries

Even ignoring the VERY questionable first statement (struggles to determine Süleyman’s successor that Hurrem did influence were terribly bloody), there were many factors at play that affected Ottoman Empire’s transformation and to reduce the whole complex process to one historical figure’s influence is absurd  and gross oversimplification, just as blaming solely one historical figure for deterioration of the Empire is. BTW, I recommend Günhan Börekçi’s thesis Factions and Favourites at the Court of Sultan Ahmed and his Immediate Predecessors and Baki Tezcan’s Searching for Osman: A Reassessment of the Deposition of the Ottoman Sultan Osman II if you want to read a comprehensive discussion on the whole complex process of Ottoman Empire’s political system becoming more sedentary ;) A bit of digression -  I’m sad to be so critical of Peirce here because I do enjoy and appreciate The Imperial Harem and she is far more objective and balanced in that book. Also, I’m disappointed that such a large portion of Empress is based on imagination rather than a thorough historical analysis of sources.

Another criticisim of Empress of the East that I have was well put into words in the NYT review of the book:

Less convincing are her strained exculpations for Roxelana, insisting that she was not behind various unsavory murders that benefited her. One is left with the impression that Roxelana consistently wielded impressive power, except when things went badly.

Again, in trying to fight with demonisation of someone, do not make that person an angel either. We may not have concrete evidence of Hürrem being involved in e.g. Ibrahim’s or Mustafa’s deaths, but in my opinion “there’s no smoke without fire”. Peirce does mention in The Imperial Harem that Hürrem and Safiye were two sultanas least liked by people and I don’t think the assumption that “people hated women in power” explains it all, since sultanas with even more power, like Turhan or Kösem, were much liked.

Hürrem Sultan was a controversial figure that deserves a nuanced, complex portrayal. While MC portrayal has its flaws with respect to the depicton of a historical figure, at least it does show her as a complex person, with both good and bad traits. And as importantly, it does work within the established narrative. Could it have been done better though? Yes.

On a side note,I’m  actually more salty about how Turhan was portrayed in comparison to her historical persona :/, but that’s a topic for a different discussion.