#(nothing interesting to say here)

[claraoswalds]

#mrs flood who are you: time lord edition

[gibbearish]

so this post has been made unrebloggable now (shocker) but ive been feeling the need to address it since i saw it on my dash multiple times, so let's explore how lying on the internet works. more specifically, how blending truth, lies, and omissions to whip uninvolved people into anger works, because i think this is an excellent example and that pointing out the misinformation and the tactics used to spread it here is important, both in correcting the specific falsities but also in helping recognize similar tactics in the future.

so here we have several things that are technically true: staff has been very openly shitty to trans women for a long time and them banning predstrogen is clearly part of that, there is currently a movement regarding discussing transmisandry/transandrophobia, transmisogyny and transphobes sending transphobic asks is by far nothing new, and baeddel is/was a slur. however, among all of this are half-truths, unprovable speculation, or outright lies made to make you believe these events are originating specifically from transmascs.

firstly, the transandrophobia movement has been drastically misrepresented here in the same way it has been for the whole argument, "they're just trans MRAs" has been repeated so many times now that i'm gonna be hearing it in my dreams when i'm 80. i can understand not being willing to address the nuance of that whole discourse in one post that isn't directly focused on that, i'm certainly not, but in this example it's not unwillingness to address a complicated topic, it's a deliberate misrepresentation to frame one side of the discussion as The Evil Bad Ones That Can't Be Trusted. additionally, this post IS about that discourse and is just pretending it isn't to mislead a wider audience, so refusing to address it at all beyond this brief mention is deliberately misleading people about the goals of the group because They're The Other Side Of The Discourse. "transmisogynists" is used as a buzzword here, it doesn't actually refer to Anyone Who Hates Transfemmes, it refers to Transmascs Who Discuss Transmasc-Specific Oppression Using A Word They Coined To Point Out That Queer Spaces Have A Big Problem With Masculinity and just. doesn't tell you that's what it means, relying on the structure and framing of the post to create the Transmisogynist = Transmasc association in the audience's head so op doesn't have to say it outright (and of course the implied Transmasc = Transmisogynist association that follows because creating THAT association is the Actual Point of this post). the mentions of transmascs in this post are designed to look like afterthoughts, op says "typically those who espouse transandrophobia" to make it look like they're saying there's other people they're referring to here too, but almost everything in this post draws from the transandrophobia discourse. some random cis transphobe in texas has never heard the term baeddel in their entire life much less used it in a debate about transphobia, this is an intercommunity argument through and through, but op is trying to mask the fact that they're just referring to "transmascs who disagree with me specifically" and make it look like it's part of a wider trend. and again, i'm not going to go into the nuances of transandrophobia here, but i highly recommend reading some of the theory on it by @nothorses (x) and @genderkoolaid (x) because the "theyre just trans MRAs" argument kinda just collapses under its own weight as soon as you look into it even a smidgen. i've linked a couple broad overviews there but they both discuss it frequently and in-depth, specifically nothorses has a pinned post linking to many different discussion threads that i would recommend checking out if you do want to learn more about what the actual conversation surrounding these words is.

so, after framing the movement this way, they go on to say that the reason predstrogen was banned wasn't /just/ because staff has a long and established hate boner for trans women, but because the transandrophobia movement was teaming up with TERFs to mass-report her and other transfemmes, and implies that this is part of a deliberate conspiracy between Transandrophobia Truthers™, TERFs, and staff. you'll notice that there are no, say, screenshots of transmascs saying theyre deliberately reporting her or of that they're working with TERFs, behind-the-scenes lists of people who reported a certain account, or any evidence for this beyond "she was a trans woman, they're trans men who hate trans women, she got banned, so these must be related". which i find especially funny now given that photomatt has continued melting down about this since it happened and made it pretty clear it yknow. was just part of staffs ongoing hate campaign against trans women that has been going on much longer than the transandrophobia debate? and that maybe the fact that The Literal CEO is having a personal meltdown about this might explain where that could be coming from or at least why it's been allowed to continue for so long, moreso than any individual users reporting someone could? but i digress.

who reported what account is completely unprovable as a casual user unless people directly admit they did it, so to bring it up like this begs the question of what actual reasoning they have for saying it beyond trying to tie a current display of bigotry into an unrelated discourse. that's not to say it's impossible people who discuss transandrophobia were wrongfully reporting her, because again, thats something we have no way of knowing, and the internet is a shit place so i wouldn't be surprised. but given the circumstances and the rest of the lies here, i have my doubts about this being an actual yknow. Thing That Happened rather than just another lie to make people mad at transmascs. now one could make the argument that op wasn't saying transmascs are /deliberately/ teaming up with TERFs/staff, that "teaming up" was just a poor choice of words to refer to multiple groups who happen to have the same goals in mind at the same time but aren't actually coordinating with one another, but given the deliberate misinformative slant of the rest of the post and the overall phrasing in this section, i have trouble extending that grace. regardless, however, that doesn't change that who is reporting who isn't something verifiable, so stating it here as a confirmed fact is disingenuous at the absolute best, and a lie chosen specifically because it's unprovable at worst. if op /does/ have proof that transmascs have been teaming up with TERFs to get trans women banned, not including that with this post is just uhhhhh dumb, and if op /doesn't/ have proof then Why Would You Go Around Telling People That's What Happened Unless You Were Lying To Them On Purpose With Ulterior Motives.

next, op goes on to discuss the rise of the term baeddel. now as i said before, the truth here is that it certainly was a slur and certainly can still be used as one, again the internet is a shit place so i would be a fool if i tried to say "no one is using this as a slur". however, this is once again a drastic misrepresentation of the situation. baeddel's rising use is due to certain trans women reclaiming it and aligning themselves with the original group's politics, namely that femininity is good and masculinity is bad (aka terfism 101), with the added caveat that by abandoning femininity for masculinity, transmascs are evil and betraying devine womanhood and their community by putting more Evil Manhood into the world. of course that in turn is a drastic oversimplification of their politics and i highly recommend checking out this post with an actual in-depth exploration of the history (and without my added flavor), but the important part to note here is that this is not a term transmascs just Started Using one day because they hate transfems so very much as is implied here, its use is directly tied to a group of people saying "hello, here is what i am, and here is what this word means about what i believe," so others went "ok, these specific beliefs are called this." bringing up the fact that it historically was a slur is misdirection here, when you look closer this is almost a 1 to 1 translation of TERFs crying that TERF and radfem are slurs because People Don't Like Their Politics And Therefore Them, so the name for their politics is used negatively, so therefore it's a slur. that argument just has a little more oomph behind it this time because It Was A Slur Originally. and again, that isnt to say no one is now using it as a slur, the rate of decay for online discourse is ridiculous so it being boiled down to and used as "evil transfemme" has certainly already happened, but to act like /every/ use of it is a slur is literally just a lie, when you self-identify with a term based on your shared politics with the original group then you do not get to claim everyone using that term to describe those politics is doing so exclusively to attack you. also this part is entirely speculation but given that op's url is basically just. baeddel switched around to dae bel, i would hazard a guess that they perhaps are indeed aware of the origins of its re-use? but again, that's entirely unprovable and based just on wordplay, but like. given the Everything here i wouldn't be surprised. now, there's definitely an argument to be made about calling users baeddels based just off of their politics when they don't personally self-identify with it, if that constitutes calling someone a slur and if TIRF should be used instead, but crucially, that is not the argument being made here. the argument being made is "ANY AND ALL use of this term is calling someone a slur," and that literally just Isn't The Case.

finally, to tie the whole post off, op reminds us 1) if you hear anything bad about any trans woman ever, it's probably a lie to make her look bad, and 2) if you hear anyone say anything about transandrophobia, disregard everything else they have to say because they hate trans women. not "be critical of the things you see or get sent" or "be on the lookout for things following a certain pattern," a unilateral "anything bad is probably fake and anyone who uses the bad words is probably evil." that is not something someone does if they are genuinely trying to raise awareness of an ongoing trend, that is what someone does when they want you to turn your brain off and be mad at a group no matter what they say.

so yeah, in summary, do be critical of the things you see and be on the lookout for certain patterns, because sometimes people will just Lie to you. or, sometimes people will tell you portions of the truth while leaving out crucial bits so that you'll come to the conclusion they want without anyone being able to say they lied to you without typing up a thirty paragraph long hell post. transmisogyny is absolutely a problem on this site and there are 100% valuable conversations to be had about it and its presence within the trans community, but this post is not that. this post uses real transmisogyny and the wrongful termination of a trans woman's account as set dressing to say that it was all because of evil transmascs who run the trans community behind the scenes conspiring to take out transfemmes, so you should ignore anything they have to say because All of it is secretly motivated by transmisogyny. they're never discussing transandrophobia because it's something that actually effects them, they're doing it to hurt trans women by saying they have it worse. they're never telling you about shitty things a trans woman did to spread awareness, they're lying to make her look bad, or even if it's true they're only talking about it as part of a hate campaign because she's trans, they wouldn't care otherwise. they're never using a specific term because People Use That Term For Themselves, they're calling someone a slur because they hate trans women. there's always an explanation you can think up that ties it back to transmisogyny, and op says that instead of assessing all of what someone says and the context behind it to determine if that's what's happening, you should assume transmisogyny is the answer and refuse to engage any further as soon as you see a word you've been told is bad.

this post is discourse recruitment masquerading as a public service announcement that doesn't offer you any routes to actually learn more about what's going on, it just tells you Here's What's Happening, Here's Who's Evil And Should Be Ignored, And If You Disagree You're Also Evil And Should Be Ignored. content of the actual post aside, i think anything framed that way should be taken with a MASSIVE grain of salt and this would have raised my alarm bells even if i wasn't already pretty familiar with the arguments, people who genuinely want you to know something just because it's good to know will give you options to learn more or encourage you to actually use your critical thinking to assess things, not tell you to sit down and shut up and ignore anyone who disagrees with them.

anyways i guess tldr

[caluupin]

I am so normal about act 5

[robotsandramblings]

Hunter & Omega: Firsts & Lasts

~ first hello ~ last goodbye ~ first & last appearance together

**[on-screen / in-show]

[crowleycorvid]

Hot take

I actually DON'T think Jay was as flanderized as some people make him out to be. I think his character just like developed and some people are. REALLY clinging to not letting him do that? If you actually enjoyed the character would it not be a good then when he's idk not a misogynist anymore. And less insecure.

[aroanthy]

i love how fraught and complicated discourse around various utena characters ‘dying’ is when anthy is literally stabbed to death eternally by a million swords imbued with human hatred. and then utena gets stabbed to death by them also. like. ‘death’ is incredibly interesting in rgu because most of the time it’s this ambiguous figurative thing that has interesting implications re: ohtori as a closed-off world one can escape. we are all trapped in our coffins. mamiya is the only named character with a grave. nemuro memorial hall functions as one all the same. ruka is implied to have died in the hospital— was he dead all along? who was the boy we saw for these two episodes? is this dead boy the same boy, or is this just another coincidence from the shadow girls, cutting like a knife? it’s heavily implied that akio and anthy murder kanae by poisoning her, adding to the previous implication that they were poisoning mr ohtori too, but there are no perceptible consequences of this. kanae’s absence is not felt. she’s fed an apple slice. what happens to the bodies? we know what happened to the 100 boys, but what about everyone else? and so on and so forth. ‘death’ is a tricky thing in utena, i think it’s constantly functioning on figurative and literal levels in very different ways for very different purposes. dios died. dios was dying. dios didn’t die. he grew up. etc etc

[steakout-05]

i might get some hate for this depending on where this post goes but i think lesboys are so valid and the discourse about them is so ridiculous. like you guys shouldn't have to deal with all that and it frustrates me that people throw hissy fits over an identity that literally does not affect them at all.

"but men cant be lesbians-" wrong. butch lesbians and trans men have a really closely connected history with each other that practically intersects and you should really do some research on that before you make blanket statements, not to mention that gender and sexuality is weird and wobbly and fluid and a very personal experience. it means a different thing to each person. being a man can be something completely different and saying stuff like this ignores people like demiboys, demigirls, genderfluid and genderflux people etc. these people will really preach "demolish the gender binary!! love is love!!" until someone's relationship with gender and sexuality is a little too freaky for them to handle and be challenged by lmaoo

"ohhh but what about the cishet men who say they're lesbians to prey on women-" YEAH WHAT ABOUT THEM????? THIS AIN'T ABOUT THEM BRO!!!!! this argument also REEKS of terfy "trans women are just predatory men!!!111!!1" rhetoric and it grosses me out. yeah some men are gross and do try to pull this but that does not negate someone's entire identity completely just because of a few bad actors, you know that right? actual black and white behaviour.

queer discourse is silly and i don't know why it's a thing. just let people exist. it isn't that hard. we have worse things to worry about than whether someone calls themselves a lesboy or not. i think we need to unplug our ears and yank our heads out of the sand and remember that the queer community is what it is because of our unique and amazing diversity. arguing over labels like school children isn't gonna help that. damn.

[boneles-ss]

I loved the ending of the silt verses for so many reasons: because I’m a sucker for the smoking Chekov’s gun, a thematically rich tragedy, and the sickly sweet stench of a narrative that is ultimately and above all else, hopeful.

We were shown the dangers of hope, in the (in retrospect) most seemingly “out of place” episode in the entire series—the hope motel one with the doomed gay people. It was an amazing episode, do not get me wrong, but listening to it for me was like “okay, so based on this, when is hope going to, once again, bite us in the ass. Or literally bite us idk we had somewhat similar foreshadowing used with the sleep god thing from season 1.”

And of course it would be the finale. Of course it would be reading through the transcript, knowing that there’s a shadow of a chance that Carpenter lived to do all the things she was so ready to do, that she wasn’t giving up, or that she died in the water, on her feet, brought to a prophesied end in the god who could not seem to let her go, but that ultimately, she did NOT GO WILLINGLY.

Of course it would be the unknown of Paige and her caravan, trekking through the polluted lands in search of something kinder, something new, knowing that Paige would leave them behind one day—but that day is not today—and she would see them on. It’s hoping beyond hope that they all escape, that they can make something better out there, and that there are ways for people to follow out of this old world, if they choose to read the signs.

That’s what I think that episode was “for.” Obviously episodes like that don’t NEED to tie into the plot directly, and they’re sometimes narratively more satisfying if they’re left self-contained (the power plant ep was also brilliant in a very similar way (and I’m realizing now that that ep also mirrors Paige’s journey….that should be it’s own post)), but its about the theming, the framing of the tragedy, and the foreshadowing of it all. The motel was tragic and awful because it toyed with our hope—rending it functionally untrustworthy. But we choose to hope anyway (I’ve seen the polls lmao) and we make a good story on our own, in our own minds, out of that ambiguity. The ending to me is so good because WE can choose how it ends. We are given that agency, and I think it’s so satisfying either way! We KNOW the god in the motel was fucking with our hope and eating those who dared to try and we still said BUT WHAT IF-

so what’s the harm in hoping for the best for those whose stories continue after we stop consuming them? Hhhhhh this show and this ending are going to stick with me forever

[quatregats]

Also I realize that the answer is probably just reading enough period sources but as a linguist I really do need to pick Patrick O'Brian's brain about where in the world he got his different speech patterns from

[dont-offend-the-bees]

Anyone else just not feeling like a real person much lately?

[greenerteacups]

Hi GT,

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I absolutely love the recs you've given (you've introduced me to tomione, and I love it!) and I was wondering if it's possible to give you some recs in return? There are some books and fics that definitely have dramione / got vibes, and I was wondering if I could share them with you!

So glad you've enjoyed them! Feel free to rec me anything you want. I've read most of the classic recs in terms of fic and adjacent content (Cruel Prince et al), but I'll try anything that's well-written. My tastes run towards weird and/or audaciously creative stuff, and I can forgive a lot of weaknesses in plot on the grounds of (1) ambition or (2) character work. My turnoffs are instalove, protagonists who can't fail, and most Y/A (I'm not a hater, I swear, I just need characters who can say "fuck" when their leg gets chopped off.)

I'm also a fan of weird and fucked-up dynamics.(Wuthering Heights was my favorite book for a while, and as a teenager I wrote an AU in which the book ends on a long sex scene where Heathcliff fucks Cathy's ghost and then immediately gets murdered by Catherine 2.) Obviously, I am very normal.

[murdererofthumbs]

Seeing reactions after this episode is actually slightly hysterical? It proves that this fandom can be so blind-sighted by characters relations, that they forget what show they are watching. Like, I have always been a self-proclaimed Roman-girl, because I find him compelling and extremely psychologically interesting, and like all of these characters, to a certain extent, I do empathise with him on the level of trauma that he went through. But why the fuck are people surprised that THIS is how he behaved in this episode is beyond me. Oh, suddenly Roman is dead to you because he behaved in the way that was very much consistent with who he is? That’s who all of these people are, like come on, what do we think we are watching here? You didn’t really think he will suddenly become a defender of democracy because it serves a greater good of the country? He was the one to fucking choose Mencken as a president, he cherry-picked him for Logan, because he knew that their views align, that Mencken will be a smart business decision. This whole thing is a transactional procedure - they needed to get someone who will be willing to serve their corrupt interests. Roman doesn’t see a problem in having fascist as a president, because he will never be touched by the consequences of having that kind of man in power. He is very much safe at the top of the mountain, and who the fuck cares what will happen to the peasants at the bottom of the chain? In this way, he imitates Logan the most, because in the end of the day, people are units to him, to all of them really, some of them are just more willing to admit this than others.

Also, like, “uuu, Roman was such a misogynist to Shiv this episode, he just didn’t listen to her at all”. Look, can we stop being delusional here for a second or is it some sort of selective memory situation? Roman is a misogynist. Kendall is a misogynist. Shiv, in fact, has a lot of internalised misogyny going on, and her being a woman never stopped her from pushing other women under the fucking bus, so let’s be real here for a second. And that is not to be said in defence of Roman, frankly nothing what I’m saying here is supposed to justify his behaviour in this or any other episode, but it’s more of like… reality check? I know that Roman’s self-destructive spiral and semi-decent behaviour at the beginning of this season might have clouded certain aspects of who he is, but please, go back to season 3 and count all the instances of him throwing misogynistic and, frequently incestuous jokes and innuendo, at Shiv? How many times he undermines her position on the basis of her being a woman? Or how Kendall, for that matter, uses similar arguments in 03x02? All the siblings use aspects of each other as weapons. Kendall is undermined because he is unstable, because he is a drug-addict, because he has a tendency of flying off on the cloud of mania, and crashing in the heap of depression. Shiv is crossed out because she is a woman, because she frankly has no real experience in the firm (which, although people might be super angry about that, because she is such a “girlboss” apparently, but this is a factual argument), because of her relationship to Tom and tendency to take several sides at the same time (with not much thought put into it). And Roman is frequently undermined because he is a freak and a pervert, because “there is something wrong with him”, because he is the weakest dog that is most easily manipulated, who crumples like a wet tissue if only to receive a bit of affection. They all weaponise their “weak” points against each other, because this dog-eats-dog mindset is focal to who they are as a family, to how they were brought up, to how Logan wanted them to be. So please, let’s not be surprised, when Roman suddenly uses misogyny as an argument against Shiv, because it’s not sudden at all, and it’s always been there.

I think what we have on our hands, is the same situation we had in 03x07 during Kendall’s birthday (and previous episode with Mencken), where some people are so outraged by Roman, and by his ability to shove the knife where it hurts, that they suddenly cross him out completely. Again, all these characters are bad people, there was never any doubt about that. They are compelling because of the complexities of their familial relationships, because of their childhood trauma and the consequences that this trauma has on them as adults. But they are still completely reprehensible as human beings, and I think some viewers forget about that and then get outraged when show about awful people features awful people. And I’m sure, either in next or final episode, something will happen and Roman will become sympathetic again, and he will regain his position as a “poor meow meow”, just as he did in the finale of season 3. Its always a fucking carousel with this character and people get sucked in and have their eye’s covered just to realise that nothing really changed, and nothing will change, because in this show people, at their core, remain the same.

[rooolt]

Fucking ENOUGH “normal is actually the chosen one bc of the fucked up oak family” bullshit. Normal is actually the chosen one because normal chose to care

[moiraimyths]

Before we call anon rude because let’s see it from their perspective, imagine getting an entire feast to eat. That can be pretty hard to start with so much that’s going on, but if they start with one thing they know they’ll like (aka one character they like) that can be the start for them leaping to other characters to finish the story and the bigger story. I struggle the same way to start book series if I don’t have at least one character that drives me to read it, it’s all about what can be the hook to push them through. Sounds like the anon is neurodivergent (just a guess) so they might genuinely not see it as rude and see it as a solution to even play the game to start with.

Btw absolutely adore the game, the complex and rich characters making them all so unique is amazing. The art is so pleasing to the eyes I love it!! I’m waiting for it all to get out at once so I don’t get too impatient. Shae however interests me the most, which routes will have the most lore for them? Will there be routes that give more lore in general based on decisions you make or do they all share the same amount? (I mean general lore not just Shae lore)

Apologies; we are not trying to accuse any asker of being rude! We are simply explaining our perspective as the developers / are trying to broadly encourage folks to dip their toes into other areas of the story outside of the main route(s) they're interested in, especially considering some routes will be made available sooner than others, and these other routes will likely contain additional scenes/lore of everyone's fave(s) regardless! We want to give each main cast member an equal amount of love (and lore) regardless of their overall popularity, so our goal is not to tut-tut anyone for having strong preferences for one character over the others, but rather to explain that you may be surprised by how much *more* you learn about your preferred characters in the other routes. That's all!

For Shae... Well, they were a foot soldier for one of the worst periods of the War. Lore wise, any other story that touches on the War will likely have content relevant to them and their experiences. ^^

[skeletoninthemelonland]

😭😭

[demethinkstoomuch]

A Survey of House Leadership Titles

We know just enough about each house and its founders that I think there might be some threads to pull at in terms of what different house titles say about the house intends of its leadership, or some other interesting observation  -- in some cases, not a lot, but I’d say enough that there’s enough for me to play with and gnaw on like a naughty cat who should not be chewing embroidery thread.

The Second: No Known Title????

This is so interesting to me. Like, Judith is heir to the House of the Second, and this is a fact that, nevertheless, never at any point makes anything about the internal structure of the second even the slightest bit clear. What is she even heir to? I’m assuming it’s hereditary, because that seems to be the case across the board except for the Sixth. But what is she actually heir to? The training facility? The cohort command within the system??? Something else???

We don’t know, we just know their cohort ranks. Judith’s father was an admiral -- but I am sadly forced to conclude not Sarpedon, because Judith’s father projected a career for her that would force her to stay mostly within the system, and Sarpedon’s career has mostly kept him out of system. This constitutes the entirety of what we know about the Second... But, there’s information in this non-information. What this all says about the Second is that they try and present their cohort ranks as the important ones, the ones that Really Matter...But, then again, Judith, a mere captain, is the heir of the house, so...Are they what Really Matter, really? We don’t know the rules about which contexts things matter in, which I would call not encouraging. That said, I’m betting that Judith a) tries to avoid this contradiction sincerely and steadfastly by honoring the Cohort’s chain of command, and b) she isn’t the only one. If there’s an illusion that there is no mess or complication or strangeness here, it’s a precious illusion that no one intends to disturb until push comes to shove. What the Second cares about most, between their hierarchy and the cohort’s, is a question they do not want to answer.

The Third: King/Queen(?) of Ida, assumed

Man, that is such the most attention-whore title. The pageantry! The showmanship! Crown princes! Princesses! I bet there’s a literal crown, don’t you? (Also, while I’d assume from numerical order that the 5th came after the 3rd, I get the vibe from the general atmospheres of the houses the title order might have been different, that the 3rd picked King and Queen because it’s like Lord and Lady, but bigger and better. If it isn’t, then this is what would have happened if the chronology had played out differently.)

By the way, I do want to know why Babs is a Prince. Like, is that a family rank? A cavalier primary rank? A combined Cavalier-Family rank? A courtesy title? Answer the question, Naberius Tern!

The Fourth: Baron/ess of Tisis

I don’t have much to say about this one, except that my guess is that it’s kind of like the Third or Fifth titles, but, like, different (and a little bit Less Fancy.) I think that is not a coincidence even a little. Also, Baron sounds very cool.

The Fifth: Lady/Lord of Konniortus

Oh, man. I have takes on this one. For one, this is 100% an Augustine decision. For two, Oh, good heavens, he was so smug about it for centuries. It’s powerful, yet understated. Grand as all hell, but not showing off. Everyone would have wanted classical nobility titles, but the specificity of some makes them a bit weaker. I’m thinking of, like, the Lady of the Mercians, or Empress Matilda going by “Lady of the English” as an uncrowned queen for the way the term can sort of gently elide over questions of specific rank. It’s simple, classy, brief.  Augustine is judging half the titles on this list and laughing with a sad shake of his head, like it’s cute that you tried to go as hard as “Lady of Konniortus” and you absolutely failed. And those are the ones where he’s not actively rolling his eyes. But more on that in, oh, about 3 houses from now.

The Sixth: Master Warden

OK, but you know who deserves to be smug for her rad naming skills? Cassie. And I say Cassie, to be clear, because I know it’s her name. Or, the name someone who knew the things Cassie knew about the Sixth. Because, really, I think this refers, in an oblique way, to the Break Clause. Because that clause is, well, it’s the key. It’s the key to the literal and metaphorical lock binding the Sixth House to the empire and to the planet. The whole facility is a prisoner, in a way, overseen by its warden. The whole facility is a lock. And do you know what we call the internal jaws of a lock?

Nothing, actually, because there isn’t a part of a lock that one calls “the internal jaws,” I’ve looked up locksmithing terms when google could not avail me. But...I do know that, if Palamedes and the Sixth thinks of a part of the lock as the Internal Jaws, he’s talking about the little metal pieces inside the lock that the key’s teeth and cut are meant to fit into and around, so only the right key will fit. They are jaws in the sense that teeth fit into them.  When Palamedes makes this little riddle during the Fifth’s dinner party, he’s talking about The Wards. And that it can be unlocked, if a key that fits the ward(en)s is produced, is how the Sixth House is like a lock.

I love that for the Sixth. I got so excited about this realization that I went to some lengths to include this line of thinking in a sixth-house centric fic, because it was simply too good to leave out.They went for an elaborate, multilayered self-created reference that refers back to their secret secession plan, and they’ve stuck with that for 10,000 years without giving away the Bit. Good for them. Really, just delightful.

The Seventh: Duchess/Duke of Rhodes (Assumed)

So, this is more or less just like how I read the Fourth’s nomenclature, except they went with Fancy over Cool. It’s very nearly as important as King/Queen, but not quite, which suits them well enough.  Unless there’s a higher rank and Dulcie’s parents have that rank, which they might. It seems implied. They also keep up the theming, with Pro being a Knight of Rhodes. Point is, they, the Third, the Fifth, and the Fourth are all a part of a system of names, with the Fifth a tiny bit set apart, and the Third probably clawing for the top.

The Eighth: Master Templar of the White Glass

I love this title, and part of what I love is that I know Augustine hates it and rolls his eyes every time he hears it. Because I think it’s a Christabel idea. And I say that for a couple of reasons. The biggest being, it sounds very cool but it makes no sense. Like, flash your mind through literally every point at which Silas or the Eighth house are mentioned. How many of them refer to, in any way, anything pertaining to White Glass? Once, only once. Harrow refers to “White glass mysteries,” but that’s it. It’s a mystery. Outside of that, this title only exists, is only referred to, is only acknowledged at all, in the Gideon the Ninth Dramatis Personae. Sure, the Eighth get described with White, and Templars seems reasonable. They are even referred to as White Templars, because, sure, sensible. But White Glass? Is a throw-away concept here, one only Harrow seems to ever think about. It is a cool-sounding title that refers to nothing of any significance. Its only justification is that it’s rad. It’s just a little stupid, but joyfully so.

Which is not a Mercymorn thing. But I can totally see it as a Christabel decision, one she got very excited about. Like, this is the woman who made One Flesh, One End a thing for the next 10,000 years. Christabel seems to love this stuff, and I think if she got cheerfully enthusiastic about it, Mercymorn would go along with it, and that would enshrine it forever.

The Ninth: The Reverend Father/Mother

So, this is another very good one. Like, Anastasia and Cassiopeia are over here thinking of legitimately good and clever titles, ones which contain a duty, and a secret, and it’s the duty at the core of the house’s leadership, at that. Obviously, the idea of a Reverend Mother is one suitable for the Abbess of a nunnery, so that checks out to begin with, but there’s another layer to it, too. A reason why it’s Reverend Mother and not, say, Abbess, that catches my eye post-Nona, but really ought to have caught my eye before that. “Reverend Daughter,” as a position of heirship, is something important because it’s a Ninth invention. The existence of a Daughter or a Son, as opposed to just having Sisters or Brothers and Mothers or Fathers, creates a direct family line within the ruling family. It becomes a bloodline and an abbey in the same breath.

Harrow insists from the Pool Scene onward that it was critical, the whole future of their house, to have an unbroken bloodline of necromancers descended from Anastasia. And at the end of Nona, we see why: Because Anastasia made a pact with Alecto that is recognized as being attached to Anastasia’s descendants, known by blood. They are the unfulfilled vow, Harrow is right! A line of parents and children, reaching back to their original parent, who made a promise. Mothers and Daughters, all the way down. That’s what the House is really for.

A+ Naming, Anastasia. Fantastic. Beautiful.