#also I tend to find it unlikely enough that I'll find one person you know? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

edwinspaynes · 1 year

Text

I'll Stare Directly at the Sun but Never in the Mirror: Literary Foils, Matthew Fairchild, and Alastair Carstairs

Hello, hello, and welcome to my academic dissection of two of my all-time favourite fictional characters. I, your fearless host, will be giving you insight into Matthew and Alastair as literary foils, the ways that their arcs mirror each other, and the ways that they're two sides of the same traumatised little coin.

So, without further ado, let's start with the basics. This post is super long, so it's going under a cut.

People in the World Like Us

It bears noting that Matthew and Alastair have several superficial similarities and differences,

One of these similarities is that they are both men who love men (MLM). Unlike Charles, who is deeply filled with fear and shame, both Matthew and Alastair seem to be comfortable with being bisexual and gay (respectively) as of 1903.

Alastair is not flashy about it. He's not formally out, but he's also hiding nothing. He's just 5'10, likes hedgehogs, has dark hair, is gay, and likes music. There's 0 shame, but there's also no advertising it.

Matthew is much flashier. He's very openly MLM, even if he is not formally out to those who are not close to him. He wears Oscar Wilde's green carnation, which is indeed simply a symbol of the aesthetic movement. However, it was also so heavily associated with MLM during the time period that it'd be a fairly clear tip-off to those with any perceptive skills whatsoever. He attends salons frequently associated with LGBT culture; he openly flirts with both men and women.

Alastair also seems to seek out long-term partnerships with Charles and then, later, with Thomas. (Huge upgrade!) Matthew, on the other hand, has casual relationships frequently.

These attitudes toward their respective sexualities also seem to parallel their personalities more generally as they are written in the text. Alastair is introverted and closed off; Matthew is extraverted and free-spirited.

I will discuss both of the above points more later.

However, for now, I find this more interesting because this is the first thing that Alastair says to Matthew in Nothing but Shadows:

"You new boys have barely been here five minutes, and all you can find to talk about is some mundane who got sent to prison for indecency?" "So you know Oscar Wilde too, Alastair?" Matthew asked. [...] "I know of many mundane criminals," Alastair Carstairs said in chilly tones. "I read the mundane newspapers to find hints of demonic activity. I certainly don't bother reading plays."

In fact, it's the first thing he says at all!

Alastair clearly is not yet comfortable with being MLM, though he does get there by Chain of Gold. Matthew, on the other hand, is visibly MLM. This immediately establishes a power dynamic between someone who is by all initial appearances a homophobic straight man and a flamboyant, visibly MLM character who needs to defend the idol who shares his sexuality.

It's at this point that Matthew gets visibly agitated and begins to defend Wilde, who was almost certainly bisexual like Matthew:

"Naturally. What use do sad, unimaginative little people have for plays?" he asked. "Or paintings, or dancing, or anything that makes life interesting. I am so glad to be at this dank little school where they will try to squeeze down my mind until it is almost as narrow as yours."

This begins a conflict that will escalate over the course of the series. The initial source of their contention stems from their different reactions to a quality that they share.

Mad, Wonderful, Colorful Things

This interaction does not just set up a conflict because Matthew is hurt at the barb about his sexuality. It also shows their relationships to art. That's what I will aim to unpack in this section.

Matthew is undeniably an Art aficionado. His constant obsessive discussions of Oscar Wilde are proof enough, but he does tend to talk about art spectatorship and appreciation for Beauty a lot as well. In Nothing but Shadows, he talks about his lack of artistic prowess, but says that he could 'spectate for England.' To this, James tells him that he could be an actor.

Matthew is, in and of himself, a work of art; he dresses himself up, values his stylish clothing, and affects a theatrical air in most social settings (to the point that he made his Grand Sober Debut in Chain of Thorns while dressed as Puck from A Midsummer Night's Dream.)

Matthew is enchanted with Downworld and with magic. He dances with the fair folk; he has seemingly had both friendships and sexual relations with multiple Downworlders. He attends poetry readings and artistic salons with these Downworlders, has put on performances at the Hell Ruelle before (with Kellington, who notes that they have recited poetry together).

Matthew openly- very openly- adores art in all of its forms. James casually notes that a sleeping Matthew looks like one of the cherubic, innocent paintings he adores in Chain of Gold. Matthew and art are inextricable.

But what of Alastair?

Alastair, too, admires art. He once played the piano, and he once sang ghazals. The difference is that while Matthew was encouraged by those around him to love the things he loved, Alastair quite literally had that beaten out of him while at school. Alastair eventually was so ashamed of his Persian heritage that he stopped singing ghazals (and dyed his hair to look like- you guessed it- Matthew's). He was treated so poorly that he completely disengaged with art in general despite deeply loving it.

(As an aside: I'm so glad that he has become more comfortable making music again. I really hope that he continues to nurture that as an adult in a safe and stable home).

In any case:

Matthew's artistic nature was nurtured; Alastair's was a casualty of abuse. This brings Alastair's comments about plays and Wilde's work to light a bit more - it is probable that there's a bit of deflection happening.

The specific targeting of plays is also interesting when you consider the following interaction:

“I know we’re supposed to avoid mundane things,” said Alastair, “but you must see this. It’s a film. A moving picture! This one is the latest. It’s called Le Voyage dans la Lune.”

Two years after graduating from the Academy, while on his travel year and away from Elias, Alastair was finally allowing himself to engage with art again. Intrinsically, it is clear that he still loved performances; he just closed himself off from this love to protect himself against abuse.

Tricks and Papas and the Circumstances of Your Birth

It's not a secret that Alastair was a bully in school, though it is critical to emphasize that he tried everything in his power not to be. This is true to the point of allowing himself to be physically abused by the other students for an entire year:

“When I got to school,” said Alastair slowly [to Thomas], the effort clearly costing him, “loose talk about my father had preceded me. Everyone knew he was a failure, and some of the older students decided I was an easy target. They… let’s just say that by the end of the first week, I had been made to understand my place in the hierarchy, and I had the bruises to remind me should I ever forget. [...] After about a year of being knocked around [...] I realized I could either become one of the bullies, or suffer for the rest of my school days."

When he told Cordelia about this in Chain of Gold, she inquired about why Alastair did not simply come home.

Coming home was, unfortunately, not an option for Alastair, as he faced abuse there as well. I could pick several Chain of Iron quotes, but I'll simply go with Chain of Gold's:

“Because I wanted you to have a childhood, a thing I never had. I wanted you to be able to love and respect your father as I never could. Every time he made a mess, who do you think had to clean it up? Who told you Father was ill or sleeping when he was drunk? Who went out and fetched him when he passed out in a gin palace and smuggled him in through the back door? Who learned at ten years old to refill the brandy bottles with water each morning so no one would notice the levels had sunk—?”

So, Alastair did everything he could so he would not need to go home to an abusive environment.

Matthew is, as usual, Alastair's equal and opposite reaction.

"Maybe it's the fact you have everything I want," Matthew snarled [to James]. "And you don't even seem to want it. [...] They will send you home any time you like," Matthew said. "They're trying to drive you away. And no matter what I do, they won't chuck me out. Not the Consul's son. [...] I want to go home, all right?" Matthew snapped. "I want to be with my father!"

The very reason that Alastair cannot go home is the reason that Matthew feels that he absolutely must.

Matthew later muses in Cast Long Shadows:

His papa was the best papa in the world, so Matthew had no opportunity to be cruelly oppressed or sadly neglected.

Matthew's love for his family and perception of them as a kind, nurturing presence makes it impossible for him to understand Alastair. This is true to the point that he empathizes with Elias in his obvious neglect of Alastair at the Academy, stating that if he had "an insufferable toad of a son, and were he blessedly to be sent away to school, [he was] not sure [he] could bring [him]self to blast [his] sight with his visage until the accursed holidays carried him back to [him] again.”

Like with Alastair's bullying being a survival response, it is important to note that Matthew does not have all the information here. And yet, it perpetuates the pattern: Matthew cannot conceptualize the idea of an abusive home.

The irony? Matthew himself is a parentified child, just as Alastair is (though, obviously, without the other layers of purposeful abuse). He just doesn't realize it. Look:

[Parentification] occurs when parents look to their children for emotional and/or practical support, rather than providing it. Hence, the child becomes the caregiver. As a result, parentified children are forced to assume adult responsibilities and behaviors before they are ready to do so. In addition, they do not receive acknowledgment or support for taking on these responsibilities. (Quote from Newport Academy)

And Matthew:

"I have put out fires on my own father's head. My mother is always busy, and Charles Buford is always running after her and acting superior. I'm the one who takes care of my father. I'm the one who listens to him. I didn't want to go away to school and leave him, and I've been doing all I can to get chucked out and go back."

Matthew behaved terribly, refused to do training exercises, and ultimately blew up a part of the school at least in part because he wanted to go back to this situation. Unfortunately, as he has been doing this all his life, it seems normal to him. He doesn't think of it at all beyond loving his father and needing to take care of him.

So Alastair has a terrible relationship with an abusive father. Matthew has an outwardly-great relationship with an absentminded but loving father that he himself does not realize he has a backwards relationship with. Combine that with his mother and brother always being negligent, and we don't have a recipe for a great home situation.

No one notices that there is a problem in either Matthew's or Alastair's case.

Anyway, this brings us to The Incident. Matthew, to Alastair:

“Has no kind soul thought to inform you that your hairstyle is, to use the gentlest words available to me, ill-advised? A friend? Your papa? Does nobody care enough to prevent you from making a spectacle of yourself?"

Matthew didn't intend to hit Alastair where it hurt, but he did nonetheless. Alastair is aware that his father does not love him, or at best has a destructive and abusive 'love' for him. He is aware of and understands his own abuse and parentification. He also understands that no one treats him with care, and Matthew hit the pain button hard.

It's in this moment that Alastair decides to strike Matthew back just as hard. He tells him that he is Gideon Lightwood's bastard, that Henry is not, in fact, his father. Matthew's relationship with Henry, whom he loves as a central tenant of his life, is seemingly called into question.

It is no surprise that he cannot forget. It is no surprise that he, an emotionally volatile boy who literally exploded a wing of the school because of the rage that he had at that comment, may take drastic action to ensure that Henry Fairchild was, in fact, his father.

You can read more on this here, but Alastair became a sort of scapegoat for Matthew after he unwittingly caused his mother's miscarriage. The reason for this is that he, Matthew, simply could not cope with such a heavy burden on his own.

And that's also when the drinking started.

A Noted Handler of Drunks

Alastair is the child of an alcoholic. We see the trauma this has caused him in the earlier quote about wanting Cordelia to have a childhood, but we also see the impact of this in his direct interactions with Elias in Chain of Iron. A couple of examples:

Elias looked at his son. He did not hold out his arms, as he had to Cordelia, but his voice was thick with emotion when he spoke. “Come and greet me, Esfandiyar,” he said. It was Alastair’s middle name. [...] Alastair didn't move.

[Alastair's] father’s face was beet red, and he seemed to have worked himself up into something of a lather. [...] He slammed his hand against the floor.

“Does he—” There was a sharp sound, as of something being knocked off a table, and then the familiar noises of Elias retching. Cordelia could hear Alastair telling James to go, that he would manage it.

But Alastair looked more than long-suffering. His gaze was focused on their father with a barely contained loathing.

This is, of course, far from all of them. We also get an entire Alastair PoV scene where he is grieving in a hard, cold way not only for Elias, but also for his own childhood:

Alastair stood in the parlor, staring blankly out the window at the house next door. He had been watching two little boys playing on the floor of their living room while their mother worked at her embroidery and their father read the newspaper. He could not help but hear his mother’s words as she’d wept, The child will never know his father. Lucky child, he’d said to Cordelia, but under the flippancy, there was a hard, cold sorrow, a sorrow that felt like a blade of ice cutting through him. It was hard to breathe around the loss.

And, as Cassie said at her 2020 St. Louis Chain of Gold panel, Alastair- the child of an alcoholic- has the same level of PTSD as a war veteran.

It is Elias who forced him to grow up at age 10. It is Elias who made him feel worthless. It is Elias who initially abused him, just as it was Elias who sent him off to Shadowhunter Academy to face more abuse. This school abuse was in large part because of Elias's own behavior as well as because of Alastair's brownness (that white Elias failed to consider despite his entire family being made up of PoC). And, as we established, it is Elias's fault that Alastair cannot go home.

Now, Matthew unfairly blames Alastair for something that is squarely the fault of the adult faerie that used him as a tool to try to assassinate the Consul. It is in this moment that Matthew begins his descent into alcoholism:

“That first night,” Matthew said, “after it happened, I took a bottle of whiskey from my parents’ cupboard and drank it. I was vilely sick afterward, but for the first few moments, when it dulled the sharpness of my thoughts and senses, the pain faded. Went away. I felt a lightness of heart, and it is that I have been seeking again and again. That surcease.”

This alcoholism is, in turn, triggering to Alastair, which we can see here (and in many other, smaller places throughout the series):

Alastair’s expression went flat. “You think I would be relieved to hear she’s with Matthew? You think I don’t know a drunk when I see one? Believe me, I do. If he puts Cordelia in harm’s way—”

This begins an endless cycle of conflict. Matthew is angry at Alastair and blames him for the thing that caused him to drink. Alastair is triggered by Matthew's drinking and behaves abrasively. Matthew gets drunker and more upset. Alastair gets more triggered. It is endless, and it's no wonder that they didn't get along.

But Matthew is not like Elias. Cordelia notes that he is not "bitter" as her father is; James notes that, unlike Matthew, Elias cannot handle his alcohol well. Matthew shows none of the aggressive, angry tendencies that Elias does.

And unlike Elias, Matthew eventually begins to do the work necessary to quit drinking. On his own, he:

Realizes that he cannot quit simply because he wants to

Decides and vocalizes that he has a problem that he should work on

Attempts to quit cold-turkey (and fails)

Agrees to drink Christopher's sedative, committing to doing better even though he knows it will be a painful and arduous journey that could literally kill him

All of these are wonderful things to be proud of Matthew for. However, he and his friends have no experience with alcohol withdrawal. Matthew's active propensity for self-harm also leads him to keep bottles to tempt himself, because he believes that he deserves the difficult journey. Because "the suffering is part of the punishment."

Alastair is the only person that could help him here. He has no obligation to, but he does, anyway.

“It isn’t really about seeming drunk, though, is it?” said Alastair, unbuttoning his coat. “My father had to drink, in the end, simply to seem normal.” “I am not your father,” said Matthew frostily. “You are much younger. You have been drinking a much shorter time. Your chances are much better.”

And, before pouring all of Matthew's booze out the window:

"Having all this here is like asking an addict to live in an opium den,” [Alastair] said. “You are never going to be able to drink casually. Alcohol will always mean something to you that it does not mean to other people. Getting rid of this stuff will make it easier. Why not have it be easier?”

This is the beginning of Matthew and Alastair burying the hatchet.

In a way, this makes sense. They are, at the same time, confronting the things that they hate most in the other. Alastair is tackling Matthew's alcoholism head-on despite his own trauma and triggers. Matthew is forced to view Alastair as a person as complex as he himself is, and one that is going out of his way to help him.

In this moment, Matthew is no longer just a drunk to Alastair, and Alastair is no longer a monster to Matthew. It is at this point that they can view each other just as men.

You've Lost Your Hat. I've Lost My Sister!

It's important that we take a look at both Matthew's and Alastair's relationship with the other one's sibling. Alastair secretly dates Charles Fairchild for years; Matthew harbors a desperate passion for Cordelia Carstairs and impulsively runs away with her. Both of these situations end in broken hearts.

Let's first talk about Charles and Alastair.

First, Alastair's birthday would be in the autumn of 1884; Charles' would be early 1879. This means that Charles is nearly 6 years older than Alastair.

I want to preface this by saying that we have received conflicting information regarding this relationship from Clare and from the Shadowhunter canon. She has said that Alastair did not acquaint himself with Charles until 1902, when he was around 17 and Charles was 23. However, she also once said that Alastair picked up the habit of reading mundane papers from Charles, which he was doing in Nothing But Shadows. At this point, Alastair would have been 15 and Charles would have been 21. Charles also says "after these years" in Chain of Gold, so they were obviously together for over a year.

This means there are three possibilities:

Charles and Alastair got together when they were 22/23 and 17 (best case scenario, still gross)

Charles and Alastair got together when they were at most 21 and 15 respectively, which is when Alastair got the habit of reading the papers

Charles and Alastair knew each other when Alastair was 15, likely younger, but did not have sex until they were 22/23 and 17 respectively

None of these situations are ideal.

Charles also is extremely wealthy; he is the son of the current Consul; he is in a powerful political position as the next Consul; his family is not intentionally abusive and would not reject him; he is white; he is well-loved.

Alastair has none of these privileges. He is the son of a disgraced drunk; his family is in a lot of debt (though they do own Cirenworth); he is brown and treated poorly for it; he is very young; he is vulnerable because he comes from an abusive household; his life has very little love and joy in it. He is also gay and probably did not meet any other MLM until Charles showed up.

The relationship itself also appears unhealthy. Charles becomes extremely angry in Chain of Gold when Alastair privately says he loves him, yelling at him never to say that. Alastair immediately asks him why he has come to him if not for sex, making it pretty clear that Charles primarily (if not exclusively) values Alastair for sex. Charles left Alastair alone in Paris to gallivant around by himself and later with Thomas. Charles did not communicate with Alastair about his engagements and placed the blame on him for not taking a bride and not understanding the world.

It does a number on him. We see this in the fact that he becomes physically ill when he looks at Charles in Chain of Iron. We also see this in his future insecurities with Thomas.

In Chain of Thorns, Thomas literally confesses his love to Alastair in multiple languages, has sex with him, sleeps next to him all night, and opts to hang out with him the next day during the battle. Not 12 hours later, Alastair asks Thomas if he actually likes him, saying (to Thomas's reassurance that he cared) that

"'[That] was the sort of thing Charles always said. ‘I care for you, I have feelings for you.’ Never just ‘I love you—’ "

But luckily, Thomas loves all of Alastair, not just the 'palatable' parts. Thomas loves Alastair as he deserves to be loved.

Charles and Alastair had a very lopsided, abusive, and disgustingly underage grooming-type relationship. It was harmful to Alastair and obviously did a long-term number on him, but he bore it because he was lonely and accepting the love that he thought he deserved.

Now let's talk about Cordelia and Matthew.

Cordelia Carstairs is not a harmful person. She is no Charles Fairchild. However, Matthew seems to use her- and his passion for her- to harm himself. Note that none of this is Cordelia's fault, nor is it on her to be Matthew's salvation. But Matthew sees in her an escape, a sort of saving grace.

She is an outsider; this makes her someone that he can tell his secret to. She does not reject him, which further cements her into the "good" category of people that Matthew feels safe with.

Matthew hates himself and self-harms by self-medicating. His passion for Cordelia is similar to that; she is the single most unattainable person ever for him. She is his parabatai's wife, one that he knows is already in love with James. But he touches the fire because it burns him, because it makes him feel something.

It's also curious that Matthew leaves Cordelia at the end of the book, and that the book itself notes that they did not become closer after the final battle concluded:

[T]hat closeness she had felt with him in Paris was gone, the sense of how well they understood one another. Paradoxically, Matthew had only grown closer to James, and to Thomas, and even Alastair.

Matthew is essentially quitting Cordelia in the same way that he quit drinking. He needs time and distance; he needs to stop getting near that fire so he can heal.

It's also very interesting to note what "Paris" is to Alastair vs Matthew.

In Chain of Iron, Matthew says:

“I was going to Paris because it seemed to me James finally understood what he had, being married to you—and I was glad, only I also knew I could not bear to see it. I thought in Paris I might forget. In Paris, one forgets everything.”

Matthew also treats Paris as a sort of salvation, a magical place where he no longer will be constrained by the self-blame and self-hate that plague him:

“Matthew,” she said. “In Paris, will you be able to forgive yourself?” He smiled at that—a real smile; his face lit up, and Cordelia could not help but think that it was a face that would open any door in Paris to them. “In Paris,” he said, “I shall be able to forgive all the world.”

And, simply:

"In Paris we can be whomever we wish.”

Matthew views Paris as some sort of magical place, removed from the problems of everyday life. It is a place to forgive and forget. It is the best place on earth. It can bring out all the good in you. It's a wish of a place.

It's disconnected and dreamlike.

This is exactly what Alastair found in Paris without even looking for it.

The whole trip had seemed disconnected and dreamlike. Alastair had come from nowhere and now returned to nowhere, and Thomas had no idea when they would next see each other, or how they would act when they did.

Indeed,

Alastair had not asked Thomas about his friends or his family. Thomas hadn’t asked Alastair, either. For these days it had been as though nobody else existed in the entire world.

Thomas and Alastair find this escape in Paris. It was completely removed from their everyday life, and they were both allowed to only be themselves. It was Thomas and Alastair, and they were together, and they never spoke of it again until Chain of Iron, when they only spoke of it when they were alone together.

It's ironic on a storytelling level that this is the one thing Matthew wanted that Alastair got. Even when Alastair views Matthew as the embodiment of everything that he wishes he were, he was the one who got a magical wish of a time in Paris. And Matthew never knew.

Love People Have Denied Themselves

At this point we've established the ways that Alastair and Matthew are trauma-mirrors. We also have established the ways that they each use the other's sibling as an unhealthy balm for those traumas.

Now, I would like to take a look at the ways that they respond to that trauma more generally.

Both characters are scared because they feel that their own trauma responses will be a burden on those around them.

As a result, Alastair has become a fortress. He lets no one in besides his sister (who he aims to protect), his mother (who seems to view him as a sort of co-conspirator), Charles (who abuses him), and eventually Thomas (praise be!) We'll talk about Thomas a lot in the coming sections.

But first:

Matthew, on the other hand, puts on something that I like to call his Sunshine Armor. I deeply relate to this quality in Matthew, actually. He acts happy, lighthearted, and carefree to hide the fact that he is, in fact, in pain. He does this even before he begins drinking. In Cast Long Shadows he literally puts on a Smile, puts on his flashy clothing, calls himself a "waste of space in a waistcoat," and goes out to charm and amuse while pondering his personal failings and how he is likely a bad parabatai.

It's also so ingrained in the character that it's part of his physical appearance:

[Matthew's eyes] were such a dark green that they fooled people, except when light struck the dark a certain way and the depths flashed emerald. Like the rest of him, his eyes were a trick.

And now, he believes that "drink makes [him] amusing" in Chain of Gold. He believes that it makes him charming and likeable, which we see in Chain of Thorns when he tells James that he doesn't know who he will be after he sobers up.

"I know what I’d be doing at an ordinary party,” he said. “Floating about, being entertaining. [...] Being witty and charming. Or at least, I thought I was witty and charming. Without the alcohol, I…” His voice sank. “It’s like I’m watching clockwork dolls in a child’s dollhouse, acting out their parts. Nothing seems real. Or perhaps I am the one who is not real.”

Matthew believes himself to be, in some way, flawed. He believes himself to be unlovable.

This is one way in which he and Alastair are eerily similar. In fact, it is the initial thing that Matthew finds to relate to Alastair in:

Matthew’s eyes opened. “Is he—are you two—?” “He won’t agree to be with me,” said Thomas quietly. “But not out of unkindness. He thinks he would be bad for me. I think… in some way… he believes he does not deserve to be happy. Or perhaps it is that he is unhappy, and he believes it is a sort of contagion that might spread.” “I understand that,” Matthew said, a little wonderingly. “How much love people have denied themselves through the ages because they believed they did not deserve it. As if the waste of love is not the greater tragedy.”

Alastair's main internal conflict throughout TLH is that he believes himself to be unlovable because of his past mistakes. This is no surprise; in fact, it is the only thing that makes sense. His father was a monster to him for at least a decade. The other students at school beat him until he became something he did not want to be. The main group of characters in TLH- including those like Anna who do not know him- continuously villainize him despite his many attempts to apologize.

So, it's no surprise that he believes himself to be "dangerous and bad" for Thomas at the end of Chain of Iron.

Unlike Matthew, who does not like to be alone and finds a way to charm and amuse and remain extraverted and connected, Alastair self-isolates. He does not wish to subject those around him to his company, as we initially see in Chain of Iron when he does not want to go to social events and avoids places that he knows others in the Enclave will be gathering.

This issue persists throughout Chain of Thorns and is a core part of his plotline:

"The person most standing between Alastair and happiness is Alastair himself. He is brave, and loyal, and his heart—” [Thomas] found himself blushing. “I suppose I wish Alastair would treat himself as he deserves to be treated.”

Alastair also admits this later:

"You [Thomas] said that you wish I would treat myself as I deserve to be treated. The thing is, that’s exactly what I was doing. I was denying myself the thing I wanted more than anything else in the world because I didn’t believe I deserved it.”

Everything Exactly the Way That It Is

So, we come to the core question of both Matthew's and Alastair's existence, the one that they both clearly play over and over in their heads every night. Matthew finally vocalizes it, rather heartbreakingly, in Chain of Thorns:

"Am I so hard to love?"

The narrative clearly (correctly) believes that both of these characters are worth loving, but their conclusions look very different.

Matthew is positioned as a character who hates himself despite being surrounded by others who love him. He keeps his Great Sin a secret to retain that love. Note that this is a way that Matthew, like Alastair, is closed off. He keeps this one occurrence to himself. Alastair, then, is positioned as a character who does not have loved ones surrounding him despite his constant attempts to do better.

In creating this curious effect, Clare makes Matthew a character who does not need a romantic conclusion. His arc does not necessitate this interpersonal connection or intimacy, because he is already loved. Instead, Matthew's arc needs to be resolved with self-love, self-care, and compassion for himself.

In fact, a romantic conclusion would have proven unsatisfying for Matthew. It's critical that he spends some time alone, especially since this was set up when he initially attempted to go to Paris alone before Cordelia came along. His departure from London, and from those in it, has been shown as a necessity ever since Chain of Iron.

This is especially true at the end as Matthew undoubtedly still has feelings for Cordelia:

“Daisy.” He turned to her in surprise. “I care about you still. I always will, in some part of my heart, and James knows that; but I am happy you are together."

Distance is necessary, and because Matthew no longer is a servant to the bottle of his Great Sin, he is free to be a wandering spirit. He is free to do "mad, wonderful, colorful things," get to know himself sober, and chase joy in that way. Romance would be yet another thing to tether him in one place at this point in time; he needs freedom for a while, to get to know Matthew Fairchild.

On the other hand...

Clare also positions Alastair as a character who must experience love and intimacy in order to have a satisfying conclusion to his arc. Matthew must improve in his own eyes; Alastair must see himself in another's to understand that he is already capable of love and forgiveness and opening up.

Thomas provides him with this. He obviously likes Alastair's biting wit; his pain does not scare him off. "I need to breathe" does not scare him off or make him think less of Alastair. Because Thomas has always seen the good in Alastair, even when he was not showing it; Thomas "like[d] his nonsense" at school and now:

It was as if [Alastair] had been locked in a room, and Thomas had opened the door: Alastair now seemed to feel free to express the love and affection for his friends and family he had always tamped down and hidden away.

Essentially, Matthew and Alastair are mirrors whose pain, trauma, and healing journeys reflect each other. However, their healing- the ways that they will find grace and delight and joy- are astronomically different.

But it's breathtakingly beautiful.

The wild boy who has always been tied to one place, by secrets and by love and by bitterness and by addiction, is finally completely free. Free to wander and roam and laugh loudly and lose himself to adventure. Free to fall in love with himself, the "beginning of a lifelong romance" per Oscar Wilde.

And the worldly wanderer, an eternal traveler who has never had a real home where felt safe and loved, finally got that. Finally got to build a home with someone gentle who loves him "more than anything." Finally gets stability and security and hard-won happiness.

I am so incredibly happy for them both.

taglist (lmk if you want to be added/removed): @staywildefairchild @s0urlemons262 @belle-keys @coriia @drunkonimagination @alastaircarstairsismybff @vwritesaus @claritywithclary

#tsc deep dives #matthew fairchild #alastair carstairs #chain of gold #chog #chain of iron #choi #chain of thorns #chot #cordelia carstairs #charles fairchild #thomas lightwood #thomastair #elias carstairs

119 notes · View notes

genericpuff · 1 year

Text

It's Pride!

CW: Ranting about sexuality stuff, mentions of trauma

So I fall under a few different flavors of the alphabet soup that is LGBTQ+. I'm genderfluid, but more specifically, two-spirited, as a person hailing from Mi'kmaq soil. I'm bisexual but find myself veering more towards men than women most of the time, that's the beauty of the sexual orientation spectrum.

That said, there's one that I tend to focus on during Pride because unlike my gender identity or my dating preferences, I still find myself struggling with one in particular - asexuality.

While it was cathartic - albeit chaotic - to realize that I wasn't my assigned gender or that I was open to being with more than one gender, asexuality has always felt more like some confused self-diagnosis to me. I struggle to identify with it fully not because I don't feel confident in my own ability to identify myself, but because it always comes with that nagging voice in the back of my mind - "you could just be faking it."

Maybe it's 'just' the trauma I experienced as a child and I just need to go to therapy. Maybe it's 'just' some chemical imbalance and I just need to get on medication to balance me out. Maybe it's 'just' me still being in the body I was assigned and if I finally transition, I'll find myself enjoying the concept of sex more. Maybe it's 'just' me being autistic and ADHD and not being able to be interested in things long enough to want to have a regular sex life. After all, it's not like I'm completely anti-sex, I still find enjoyment in the erotic and I'm no stranger to my more 'adventurous' side.

But maybe I'm just looking for a deeper explanation to justify what it truly is - a lack of interest or attraction to something that I just don't need. Why did I chase it all those years ago? Was it the pressure of growing up? The compulsive urge to feel desired and wanted? The fear of rejection? Did I ever really enjoy it, or did I convince myself that I had to because it was what was expected of me?

I'm still not sure how to answer most of these questions. It gets easier, but at the same time, it also feels far more complicated than it should be when I know, deep down, it's not something that I care to worry about because it's not something I desire. If I really wanted to change this part of myself, if I truly believed it was just a medical problem that could be diagnosed and treated, then surely I'd take those steps.

But I don't. Because I don't want to.

And that's okay.

#sorry i didn't mean for this to get depressing LMAO #self post #depression on main #happy pride #pride month #pride 2023

75 notes · View notes

beautifulsnake2162020 · 2 years

Text

Just my two cents about the Ned Fulmer situation

By the time you will be reading this some new development may have been made that could possibly change the outcome of what I currently know, but as of September 29, 2022 and the recent things that have been posted on tumblr in general I feel like I want to say a few things (and yes I know I broke my don't go to tumblr rule but learning the news from youtube, a platform notorious for clickbait titles I feel like tumblr was the platform to verify it while there was no mainstream news media outlet covering it).

Some background before you read this: I've been a Try guys fan since their Buzzfeed days and it was actually through Keith, Zach and Becky's eclipse video where they stay overnight in a fan's house that was allegedly haunted, that I discovered Shane and Ryan who I am now following for their Ghost files content as well as their Puppet History show. My bias among the Try guys was Keith because of our interests in musical theater, feeling like the one who has to find things other than our physical appearances to make up for it, and I just vibe with him a lot more (and our favorite color is blue). That's not to say I didn't like the other Try guys I also had moments wherein I vibed with them as well because I didn't like how the fandom's favorite moments was about Keith screaming during without a recipe for his loss. And having said that the member I least vibed with was with Ned, I probably only vibed with him because I've never tried mary jane before in my entire life but I have drank a lot of alcohol before. I also enjoyed it when he was more in actor mode, and was genuinely funny sometimes.

As with many things I consume on youtube, I tend to view youtubers as both performers and people. To messily quote Cristine from Simplynailogical "A balance of being authentic enough to be yourself but not too much because it's also a performance and you need to protect yourself from what you are outside of being a youtuber." Or something along those lines. I'm bringing this up because while I do have a parasocial relationship as a Try guys fan, I tend to not really care what they do outside of those videos because they are people too and they also deserve the privacy to actually live life and deal with issues in private. The only thing I really follow is their main youtube content, while occassionally watching some of YB's videos and those on the Second Try. And because we live in a capitalist system as of the moment, the Try Guys are in the business of producing content.

When I first watched the three recent videos, I'll be honest it wasn't until the most recent one "Try guys try stand up comedy" that I began to feel and notice Ned's absence. Unlike other people who follow them, I only exclusively follow them on Youtube, so when the new intro came without Ned, I thought it's because he was doing a side project or something else since I remember Eugene was absent for a long while before.

So I among many others who follow them was incredibly shocked to learn that a.) Ned cheated on Ariel; b.) He cheated on Ariel with Alex from the Food Babies; and c.) It happened at the start of this month (of September) and the recent videos were highly edited to remove them from it.

Do I feel shocked? Yes. Betrayed? Not as much as others because again I knowingly consume their content knowing that this is only what they've allowed to share about themselves and it's not their entire selves. As an example from the Try guys documentary, and in some of their more personal videos, Zach's persona of being the man child of the group is just that, a persona. His talents really shine when he's behind the camera and his film school education really shows and has brought some of my favorite videos on their channel. But even those are just some slices as to who he is as a person, it's not entirely who he is, and I'm okay with not knowing him in the same level that Maggie and their other friends know him as.

Does this mean I condone what Ned and Alex have done? NO. We don't live in a time of arranged marriages anymore (or at least the vast majority of us, I'm not sure about some parts of the earth) and if you marry for love as you claim to have done so, then there shouldn't be a reason for you to cheat from your spouse. Did the Try guys know before we knew of it and was their actions justified? From the perspective of a business (because again they are a business), yes their actions were justified in first keeping it to themselves to plan how to deal with the issue (including when the issue may come out to the public), do what needs to be done to prepare for what was to come and what their stance is based on their actions. Also you need to remember that Ned being fired from the company must have a grace period of some kind for them to be able to move forward without Ned who was part owner of the company and was essentially Alexandria's boss. No matter how friendly we see them on camera, the main Try guys are the bosses of their staff and there is a power imbalance there that has the potential for abuse, and opens them up for a potential sexual misconduct lawsuit. I don't know the laws in the U.S.A., but from what I have gleaned an employer - employee sexual relationship has so much room for abuse no matter how consensual Ned alleges it to be. This doesn't remove Alex from liability but no matter how you spin it, he is still the one controlling her means of livelihood. And if (BIG EMPHASIS ON IF) it turns out Alex was the one who initiated it, not only did she know that Ned was a very married man but because again since he controls her paycheck, she could abuse that relationship by potentially getting more than her fair share if not through the paycheck then by other benefits that may set a bad precedent for the rest of the staff. If it seems I'm analyzing this from the perspective of a lawyer, well guess what I'm a law student, I'm in training to do this.

Speaking of firing, people have rightly pointed out that the Try Guys have no legal ground to terminate Alex and I'm not sure if they plan on giving her a huge amount of money to leave as a settlement (I dont think their company is big enough to do that but then again I don't know the ins and outs of the company), or if she will be resigning soon because essentially all of the Try Staff we as the audience have seen have unfollowed her and Ned. But if you are going to base on firing her just because of the cheating incident, then that could open the company to a lawsuit for termination for something not work related. If you think this is a bullshit legal provision, then imagine this: Would you want to be fired if you were essentially coerced into doing something wrong but you can't because refusing could lead to dire consequences that are wrong but not illegal such as being assigned to do a job you don't like? This is what we're potentially dealing with here because of the power imbalance that is present.

I want to now tackle the worrying trend that I've observed from tumblr posts and maybe the internet community in general (I can only really speak from what I've seen on tumblr because I'm the most active here). Ariel has already issued a statement that they want to resolve their marital issues in private and we should respect that. As someone else has pointed out, she is still a.) A human being; b.) Uses the internet; and c.) Is one of the victims of this whole scandal. Roast Ned and Alex for what they've done, but don't add salt to a gaping wound by promoting posts from employees from Buzzfeed or ex- Buzzfeed employees who have taken this opportunity to simply smugly say "I knew he was trouble." When they were working with him. It's clear they are just using this scandal to chase clout and I've lost my respect for each one who has taken this opportunity to do so. If you knew he was trouble then why didn't you say anything to Ariel back when they were in Buzzfeed? You know the time before they had children. The most likely answer is that it was none of their business, or they brought it up with HR then nothing must have happened, or they didn't know who Ariel was or didn't take the initiative to go the extra mile to find her and inform her of her spouse being shady (this list is not exclusive). If they want to air their grievances then do it in your private chatrooms. Do it in a place wherein you 100% know Ariel is not going to be on. She's on twitter, she's going to see it, and in all honesty, if any dirt goes out about any one of them, I would support Ariel rubbing salt on their wound but from what I know she's too nice about it (Becky Habersberger will probably do it on her behalf).

As of this writing, there has been an update that the Trypod will be on October 6 addressing what we have learnt in these past 2 days. I'm hoping the best for Keith, Eugene, Zach, and the rest of the Try family. Ned and Alex have broken up so many precious relationships. The silver lining in this to repeat a quote frequently repeated by fellow fans is that the Triceratop has three horns and they are going to be fine. They just need to weather the storm, and I forgot who posted this but I agree with someone saying that these three have all distinct traits that make them stand out as individuals and as a part of a group. No matter what Ariel decides to do moving forward from this to protect their children, she'll have this fan's support.

P.S. If they should hire anyone so that they could have a four person group again, it should be filled in by Kylie Burke. She brings the right amount of being anxious yet eager to try in Ned's last video "Try guys try high diving." I don't vibe well with Kwesi since I sense he has an air of him making fun of the things to try rather than giving it an actual try.

Okay now back to my study hiatus.

#Try guys #Ned Fulmer #alexandria herring #Food babies

304 notes · View notes

une-sanz-pluis · 11 months

Note

What's the relationship between Henry V and his wife?

Hey, thank you for this question since it covers a topic I'd been wanting to talk about for awhile. Sorry it took so long to give you an answer. In my defence, I've had a lot on and I wrote a lot (a lot, like nearly 10,000 words a lot) in reply.

Unfortunately, we don't know an awful lot about Catherine de Valois's relationship with Henry V. This is largely because they were only married for just under 2 years and 3 months.* That brief a time tends to leave little evidence behind - it's also one of the reasons we know very little about Catherine's queenship. In spite of the lack of evidence, the relationship has been subject to much speculation, mythologising and (over)interpretation, and it can be hard to drill down through these layers to come to any kind of certainty about how they felt about each other.

There are three main interpretations of the marriage. The first is the romantic. This tends to work with the more romantic legends of both Henry and Catherine, and its roots lie in contemporary narratives, quite likely promoted by Henry himself. The second is that there was some kind of infatuation on Henry's behalf that was followed by disillusionment as he realised Catherine was not who or what he thought she was. The third interpretation argues that Henry was a cruel and abusive husband to Catherine.

I, personally, don't find any of these interpretations particularly convincing. The politics around the marriage suggest that we should be sceptical of the romantic, while the evidence of there being some kind of disillusionment or cruelty in the marriage is... pretty much non-existent; the evidence that is cited has to be heavily interpreted, with at least a pre-existing bias against Henry and/or Catherine in mind (if not a pre-conceived conclusion) to conclude that the marriage was unhappy.

I'm going to start with my own interpretation and then talk more in depth about these interpretations, debunking particular assertions said because there's a lot about them that annoy me.

Evidence, or something like it.

We have very little evidence of Henry or Catherine's personal lives at all and once we also factor in the limited evidence of their relationship, it gets very tricky to discuss this in any meaningful sense. Another issue is that their relationship was both personal and political. What might read as a personal gesture of love has to be understood as also existing in a public, political world. Being publicly seen as part of a functioning, loving marriage was advantageous to both Henry and Catherine's reputations and their rule, whatever they felt about each other privately, and unfortunately, it's the public face that largely survives. I'm going to discuss the public/political side of their marriage first and then turn to what little evidence there is to suggest at their private relationship.

A Partnership

Chroniclers in both England and France report romantic stories about Henry and Catherine. I'll discuss these more further below and the possibility of these being the result of some romantic gloss, but it's enough to say that the chronicles do uniformly give a similar view. The English king was in love and the French princess was beautiful (women very rarely get given any interiority in chronicle accounts). There are no reports of discontent between the couple, no complaints of mistreatment of one by the other.

It is easy to argue that the English chroniclers and those French chroniclers sympathetic to the English occupiers were unlikely to depict Henry V in a bad light but that would not explain the silence of chroniclers sympathetic to the then-Dauphin (the future Charles VII). We even have complaints of Henry's behaviour from French sources but these relate by claim that Charles VI and Isabeau of Bavaria were left to lodge at the Hôtel de St Pol in less grand estate than they were accustomed to while Henry and Catherine lodged at the Lourve in luxury and splendour. Jean de Waurin records:

And on this said day [Whitsun 1422] the King and Queen of England sat grandly and magnificently at table to dine, crowned with their precious diadems. There sat also at other tables in this hall the ecclesiastics, dukes, princes, barons, knights, and noble men, who were all honourably served, each one according to what belonged to his rank. So the king and queen that day held a court grand and rich beyond the French custom; and the people of Paris went in crowds to the castle of the Louvre to see the style and demeanour of the King and Queen of England holding open court and wearing crowns. On the other hand the King and Queen of France held their Court by themselves in their Hotel of St. Pol, but by no means so grandly or plentifully as they were accustomed to do in days gone by. .

I quoted it at length because it also gives a glimpse of how a French chronicler viewed Catherine at the time of her marriage, which as Henry's partner of equal standing (for as much as that was possible for a medieval queen-consort). This sense of partnership is also found in some of the surviving evidence: she received gifts alongside him, accompanied Henry on some ceremonial entries (the exceptions being when she made her own entry or when they made the ceremonial entry into Paris in 1420 where Henry entered with Charles VI and Catherine with Isabeau of Bavaria). It doesn't tell us much about the inner-workings of their relationship but it does tell us that, at least publicly, their marriage was not one where one spouse was drastically unequal to the other, but one where they were partners of equal standing.

As far as we can tell, Henry also gave Catherine the space to establish herself as queen. She was welcomed to England with pageantry that befitted her status and that centred her, not Henry, and took part in a ceremonial entry to Paris in 1422 where she was the centre. He was not present at her coronation - this has, perhaps unsurprisingly, been interpreted as Henry slighting her but it was custom for a king not to attend his wife's coronation unless they were being coronated together, so not to draw attention away from her. It's possible that the parts of their 1421 progress through England where they travelled separately served a similar purpose in allowing Catherine the opportunity to be centred as queen, though practicalities (such as the exorbitant costs of a combined household on progress, a frequent cause of complaint for other medieval kings) were undoubtedly at play too.

On a similar note, we have a letter from Henry seconding Catherine's request that her physician would have a benefice without cure. This isn't anything special or unusual but it does show that Catherine felt she could make these requests and Henry trusted her judgement enough to grant them. In the Calendar of Patent Rolls, we also find that he granted Catherine's confessor £20 yearly and that he pardoned Beatrice, Lady Talbot of a fine in part because of her good service to Catherine - which may suggest Catherine had interceded privately for her, or had spoken to Henry of her service.

Henry also named Catherine as one of the supervisors in his last will, written in June 1421. In the codicils added just days before his death in August 1422, he states:

we wish that our said consort after our death should live and reside with our most beloved son in his office

This, again, is fairly standard stuff since the children of medieval nobility tended to reside with their mother in the nursery until they were around 8 years old. But again, it does indicate that Henry saw Catherine as someone worthy of trust and that he wished for her to live with their son, where she might not be at the centre of the court during the minority, but would develop a close rapport with her son and quite possibly come to wield a great deal of influence as Henry matured and took on more responsibility. It also ensured her a continuing presence in the royal court. The chroniclers depicted Catherine as a prop to support the infant king, carrying him to parliament and so on, which does mean she was present on those occasions at, like Henry VI, at the symbolic centre of them. But this does not necessarily mean that was all she did. Queens were supposed to work behind the scenes.

Another piece of the puzzle may be the coupling of mottoes. At some point in 1420, a red cloth covering for the king's barge was embroidered with Henry's motto of une sanz pluis coupled with a second motto, humblement le requier ('I humbly request it') - this barge covering was said to have been for the "for the king and the queen", while the 1423 inventory of Henry's goods referred to a similar barge covering embroidered with the "mottoes of the king and queen". If they are the same barge covering, humblement le requier may be Catherine's motto or at least connected to her (Henry also had a tunic of white and blue satin embroidered with humblement le requier, which may have meant he was wearing clothes decorated with her motto or in his own motto referring to her). Malcolm Vale argues that these mottoes are a love dedication - a request by Catherine (she humbly requests Henry's fidelity), and Henry's answer (Catherine is Henry's "one" and there will be none other than her). It is likely, as Vale notes, that these are fairly conventional mottoes, gesturing towards courtly love rather than a heartfelt dedication but if Vale is correct in reading them as a "statement and response", they suggest that Henry and Catherine wanted their relationship to be seen as a partnership.

I also wonder if Catherine's motto of humblement le requier (if it was her motto) may have been a broader statement on her queenship, setting up her as an intercessor. We have very few indications of Catherine interceding to Henry - there is a story that she interceded with Henry for the release of James I of Scotland at her coronation feast but given Henry was not present, it's likely this story confused her role in James I's release during the minority of Henry VI - but the motto may be a suggestion that this was the role Henry wanted for his wife. My own gut feeling is that Henry intended to model his marriage with Catherine on that of Edward III's marriage to Philippa of Hainault, a famous intercessor and the woman who was seen as the paragon of medieval queenship.

Everything in this section is pretty typical queenly stuff. It can't tell us about Catherine and Henry's personal relationship but it does show that Catherine's queenship was conventional. There is nothing - nothing at all - that suggests her position was being undermined by Henry. Unless we wish to argue that medieval queenship was effectively a symbolic and utterly powerless role - and there's a whole bunch of queenship studies that says differently - Catherine was or at least intended to be a vital partner in Henry's kingship. That Henry did not live long enough for Catherine to get the chance to exercise this role long enough for a record of it to survive does not mean that she never played that role because he devalued her or refused to let her be a queen in more than name.

Personal Relationship.

There's very little surviving evidence of their personal relationship but there is some evidence that we can tease out that might tell us a bit more about their relationship.

One of these is that two harps were shipped from England to France in October 1420 for their use. This may have formed an entirely conventional gift, since playing musical instruments was a common hobby amongst the nobility. However, we know Henry had a particular interest in music himself - he'd played the harp since a child, purchased another new harp with a set of strings and a case in in September 1421, purchased bags to carry his own recorders and pipes/flutes and was possibly the "Roy Henry" who composed two mass movements. He was also part of a musical family - his mother may have composed music herself, as may his father (who is the other contender as the composer of the Roy Henry movements), while his brothers were patrons of noted composers of the era. So, the fact that two harps were shipped over for their use could indicate that they had a shared interest or Henry was attempting to share his interest with Catherine or introducing her to a hobby that his family prized. We know nothing about whether Catherine had an interest in music or what kind of interest she had to be more precise and of course it could just be a fairly conventional gift.

Another piece of evidence is Henry's will. In the original will, drawn up in June 1421, left Catherine a great deal of moveable goods. From his chapel and altar, he left her all the"gold, silver-gilt and silver treasures and all other ornaments", as well as vestments and books for 20 clerks that would serve Catherine after his death. He also left her all the beds, furnishings, vessels, instruments and possessions of his chamber and hall. He notes two indentures left that specifically detail the items he wishes specifically to be bequeathed to her and states:

we wish our aforesaid most beloved consort to have and enjoy all the aforesaid items bequeathed to her in this way if she should be happy to be satisfied with them as her interest and share of all our moveable goods that can come to her in any way after our demise. Otherwise our said executors should dispose of all the aforesaid items, thus bequeathed to our aforesaid consort, as is said above, as our other goods.

In other words, he's leaving her a lot of stuff, he's got stuff he wants her specifically to have but he's also giving her the freedom to pick and choose what she wants, and if she doesn't want them, they're to be dealt with like his other goods. (n.b. "our most beloved consort" was a standard term of address, it isn't necessarily a statement of his true feelings).

This paragraph also ends with this note:

Item, we bequeath to our same consort a golden cross of ours with a piece of the wood of the Holy Cross, now in her custody, which we were accustomed to wear.

Which suggests that he might have lent this relic to her - one that might have been important to him, given he states he was "accustomed" to wear it - and wishes that it belong to her now. It may have been a gesture of affection that he loaned the relic to her, or it may have been another conventional gift, perhaps given when he left England for France in June 1421, knowing she was pregnant.

Just four days before his death, Henry added codicils to his will. Most of these codicils is concerned with the future - making provisions for his son - but the first codicil concerns itself with more bequests for Catherine, this time fairly specific bequests, and the provision of her dower. While these may have been a fairly standard provision and may reflect Catherine's enhanced status following the birth of a son and heir, it also indicates that he was thinking of her. Interestingly, the fact that this is the first codicil may well indicate that he was thinking of her in his last days, regardless of the fact that she wasn't physically present.

None of this tell us a great deal about what Henry felt for Catherine. Because their lives were heavily politicised, it's impossible to know what was a gesture of genuine affection between the two and what was a politic action that showed the respect of a king for his queen. Determining which was the primary motivation for any of Henry's actions is an exercise in speculation led by our own feelings, not an exercise that finally reveals Henry's.

Catherine's perspective.

Thus far, I've spoken mainly about evidence that hints at Henry's feelings and actions towards his wife, not Catherine's. By and large, the main reason for this is that we simply don't have evidence for her perspective. This isn't unusual; as Ruth Mazo Karras points out, it's rare that the surviving historical evidences any woman's perspective on her marriage.

The closest thing we have to evidence is a letter Agnes Strickland mentions in Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest:

Early in the same spring [of 1422] Katherine wrote her warlike lord a most loving letter, declaring that she earnestly longed to behold him once more.

However, Strickland does not give a source for her letter and in Letters of the Queens of England, 1100-1547, Anne Crawford says that none of Catherine's letters are known to survive though she (nor anyone else) doesn't mention Strickland's citation of a letter. Having said that, Strickland is nowadays notorious for inventing "facts" about her subjects that are have no basis in truth. So I'm inclined to treat this letter as a bit of romantic fakery, whether by Strickland or by someone else.

Catherine did pay for Henry's tomb but this seems to have been a standard action for a widowed queen and we don't know whether she had any influence on the design and construction of the tomb. She was not buried beside Henry or in the same chapel, but in the Lady Chapel (her tomb was dismantled and her body exhumed in 1502, she is now interred in Henry's chantry chapel), which is very close to the chapel of St. Edward where Henry was buried. We don't know why she chose this burial location, or if she chose it at all.

Given her status as Henry V's widow and queen and the fact that she was footing the bill for his tomb, it seems likely that she had some opportunity to be buried beside him, but it wasn't taken up. It might not have been wholly her choice. There was limited space in St. Edward's chapel (Henry VI struggled to find space for his own tomb, which was never built) and there might have been political issues or propaganda at play. Depending on how quickly she had to make that decision, Catherine may have been considering an uncertain future where she might not remain in England (if her son was to achieve France, if she married a foreign lord). Alternatively, her second marriage may have meant that burial beside Henry was a denial of Owen and their children or, given the heights of Henry's reputation, was no longer something she (or others) felt she "deserved" following her re-marriage. We just don't know.

And that pretty much sums up Catherine's perspective: we just don't know what she felt about Henry.

Success or failure?

Politically and dynastically, I think we can say the marriage was successful - it produced an heir, it promised peace with France and Catherine appears to have been a popular and successful queen-consort in England. It is true that the peace with France never came to fruition or that the birth of more children could have safeguarded Henry VI's reign and the Lancastrian dynasty but... these issues were caused more by the marriage's end than by its actuality, and other factors were at play - not least Henry V's premature death.

Personally? We just don't know. The evidence isn't there. We don't know what Catherine felt about Henry, we know frustratingly very little about her. Henry's actions suggest that he was treating Catherine with the respect her station and status as his wife deserved, that he was using the tropes of courtly love to do so, but we have no idea whether this reflected anything of his own feelings for her.

The Romantic Fairy Tale

The romantic interpretation of their marriage tends to fit in with the more romantic legends of both Henry and Catherine; at its core it is quite simply a fairytale-type of story. He is a handsome warrior king who sweeps the beautiful French princess (most commonly the most beautiful woman in existence) off her feet, she falls instantly in love with the magnanimous conqueror.

It is true that chronicles have fostered a view that the relationship between Catherine and Henry was a romantic one, and this view is perhaps aided by William Shakespeare's depiction of their courtship in Henry V. Although some productions and a great deal of scholarship offer up much darker interpretation of their one scene, a lot of times it is presented as a romantic one - particularly in the filmed versions of the play. As big as a shadow as Shakespeare casts, Catherine's scenes in Henry V are ahistorical, appearing to be Shakespeare's inventions.

Chronicle accounts of Catherine and Henry's relationship need to be viewed with a good deal of cynicism. They could be written to promote certain messages or to flatter patrons (or potential patrons), dedicatees and/or desired readers. Titus Livius Frulovisi reports in the Vita Henrici Quinti that Henry fell in love with Catherine at their first meeting but as Katherine J. Lewis points out, the book was addressed to their son, Henry VI, and the story's inclusion may have been to please him. Frulovisi was also employed by Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, Henry V's brother, and the Vita was intended to lionise Henry V, so these no doubt played a role in its depiction of Henry V's marriage to Catherine. Being a good husband was an ideal of kingship, since the king could be said to be metaphorically married to his kingdom and the way he was perceived to treat his wife could be seen as reflecting his ability to rule well.

There are similar stories of Henry V being greatly pleased when he receives a portrait of Catherine or becoming lovesick upon hearing the report of his ambassadors' meeting with her. In these stories, the moment of "instant love" comes before Henry ever meets her. Those particular stories could be said to be deploying the tropes of courtly romance to gloss over the fact that Henry's intention to marry Catherine was driven by much less emotive reasons. Given one of these stories is contained with the letter of a Venetian merchant who was trying to sell Henry a balas ruby (a red spinel), this may have even been a story deliberately publicised by Henry - perhaps with the intention of making himself look eager for marriage, perhaps to put pressure on the French.

Monstrelet tells us that Henry greeted Catherine "joyously, as if she were an angel of God" upon her arrival in Paris in May 1422. This might be a sign of personal affection for Catherine but there are other factors at play. Given his goals in France and her status as Charles VI's daughter, it'd be especially politic for Henry to greet Catherine affectionately. The fact that this was the first time they'd seen each other after the birth of their son may have also played a role in this greeting.

Henry V does seem to have been especially conscious of the ideals of kingship and trying to behave in line with them. As I've already indicated, his behaviour around Catherine - especially in public - may well have been intended to give the image of himself as a devoted suitor and husband. It doesn't necessarily mean that there was nothing but cold-blooded cynicism in his approach to Catherine but it's pretty clear that Henry had an acute understanding of his image and what was desired of him, and it would be short-sighted not to imagine that this understanding didn't play a role in his relationship with Catherine. The relationship between a king and queen was political just as much as - if not more than - it was personal.

There is little evidence that Henry was moved by any romantic impulse into fast-tracking his marriage to Catherine. During initial negotiations with the French, he asked for a dowry of 2 million crowns and rejected the French's counter of 800,000 crowns. His decision in 1420 to forgo a dowry for Catherine might have been a gesture of love or some other romantic feeling - or it might have been (and is, in my opinion, more likely) a shrewd political move, where Henry avoided taking a dowry that implied his inheritance of the French throne was through his marriage to Catherine rather than in his own right.

At the end of the day, too, they didn't marry because they fell desperately in love. They married for diplomatic reasons, for political reasons and for a peace treaty. It was the politically wise thing to do. It was, after all, a fairly standard marriage within the context of his own family and the medieval and early modern European monarchy. This doesn't mean it was a bad marriage or that there was no possibility of love. But it's not the reason they got married. We have very little evidence of their married life together to know whether any romance did develop.

Infatuation Followed By Disillusionment

This interpretation generally follows a particular narrative where the stories about Henry falling in love with Catherine at their first meeting are true but it's more of an infatuation or crush and as he gets to know Catherine better, he finds himself disillusioned by her and they become estranged. This might happen for a variety of reasons: a realisation that the Treaty of Troyes was not the win he thought it was, the realisation that while she's pretty, she's unintelligent, or the realisation that she's ruled by lust.

There is no real evidence for an estrangement. I believe it draws mainly on the idea that they spent about half of their marriage apart but, personally, I suspect that time was more of a reaction to the military situation in France following the Battle of Baugé and the fact that Catherine was pregnant for the first time (I'll discuss in much more detail below).

Catherine as the femme fatale and the Treaty of Troyes.

There have been reassessments of the Treaty of Troyes that argue far from the disastrous blow to France, put England at a disadvantage. The argument then follows that after Henry's rather slow realisation of this fact, he came to blame Catherine (...somehow) or at least distanced himself from her as a result. I'm... not entirely sure what logic Henry would have used since Catherine appears to have had no role in the actual negotiations and Henry was a 33-year-old man surrounded by the best people to advise him. Frankly, this interpretation seems to be heavily based on the misogynistic narrative of "a pretty young woman bamboozles an older man with her beauty in order to ensnare him in her evil trap otherwise he wouldn't have made such a stupid error" (we find a similar narrative with Margaret of Anjou and the surrender of Maine and Anjou). There are no indications that the Treaty of Troyes came to be viewed as an unfair bargain in England or that Catherine's reputation or relationships suffered as a result.

Catherine as a "dumb blonde".

This view is best surmised by novelist Anne O'Brien who describes historians' typical depiction of Catherine is the "archetypal ‘dumb blonde’", or Anne Crawford who claims:

Katherine had beauty to recommend her but neither the intelligence nor personality to captivate for long a man of Henry V's qualities.

There is no evidence that Catherine was lacking in intelligence, education or personality. Even if she was, she is still deserving of respect and personhood. The idea that Catherine was poorly educated comes from now-debunked claims that Isabeau of Bavaria neglected her children; most likely Catherine was educated to the standard for royal women and knew how to speak both French and English upon her marriage to Henry. It has been suggested that poems like John Lydgate's Temple of Glas and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight could be connected to Catherine, which could, in turn, make her the patron behind them. It's difficult to tell what the evidence to support this interpretation of Catherine is. Largely, it seems to insist on her lack of intelligence on the basis the misogynist claim that she was governed by lust and thus "unwise" and the belief that the absence of evidence on Catherine's life and personality tells us something meaningful about her personality. It does not. Absence of evidence isn't evidence, it is only an absence.

Catherine as a nymphomaniac.

Uncritically accepting the claim that Catherine was "unable to fully control her fleshly passions", this view is often an extension of the "dumb blonde" narrative wherein Henry eventually learns that Catherine is a hollow creature who cares only for lust and pleasure and is repulsed by her. The most extreme example I know of is Denise Giardina's novel, Good King Harry, where Henry first falls in love with Catherine only to discover that Catherine is the young and beautiful version of her monstrously oversexed and monstrous mother, Isabeau of Bavaria. Catherine is neither a virgin on her wedding night nor faithful to Henry, at one time even boasting that he didn't father Henry VI. Giardina's depiction is tied up in the incredibly misogynist depictions of Catherine as a slut or a nymphomaniac.

There is no evidence that Catherine was an adulteress. There were no contemporary claims that she committed adultery or that any of her children were bastards - even when we might imagine that it would be beneficial for these claims to be aired (i.e. if it was plausible that Henry VI wasn't Henry V's son, why didn't Richard, Duke of York claim that? Why didn't Richard III claim Edmund Tudor was a bastard when he was denigrating Henry VII's ancestry and falsely claiming Owen Tudor was a bastard?). The evidence for Catherine being a "slut" are basically a standard antifeminist smear by a chronicler that has been uncritically repeated. We know of only two sexual relationships she had - both of which were with men she married (and she was married to Owen Tudor), her second marriage was made years after being widowed in her early 20s. The view of her as "sluttish" because of her Tudor marriage may reflect moralistic outrage over the fact that Owen was Welsh and of much lower status than Catherine, as well as the possibility that the marriage was perceived as a "profound betrayal of Henry V's memory". There is no evidence that her relationship with Edmund Beaufort was sexual and the idea of Catherine marrying Beaufort may have even originated from the Beauforts, not Catherine. Even if she did have a sexual relationship with Beaufort (which we do not and cannot know), are we really saying that a woman having sex with three men, two of which were her husband and the other she almost married, over the course of a lifetime makes her a slut? Even if Catherine had sex with 58 trillion different people (which she very obviously didn't), we as modern commentators should do better that to uncritically repeat and confirm the misogynistic and slut shaming rhetoric of medieval and early modern writers.

But to come back to the question that this behaviour could have had on her marriage to Henry - well, we have no evidence of this. It is incredibly unlikely that she cuckolded him or had any affairs, and we have no evidence that Henry was repulsed by Catherine liking and wanting sex. It's possible, of course, that there was some kind of sexual incompatibility between them though we don't and can't know that. At the end of the day, there is no evidence to hang a theory on.

A "Cruel" Marriage?

The interpretation that the marriage was a cruel one. Typically, this is hand-in-hand with the revisionist interpretations of Henry (cf. Ian Mortimer, Keith Dockray, A. J. Pollard) that see him as a warmongerer and the worst of the late medieval English kings, utterly unredeemable. This interpretation most commonly features an cold and brutal Henry, often a marital rapist, abusive, neglectful or just not interested in Catherine beyond the getting of heirs.

There is no real evidence that the marriage was an unhappy one, that Henry raped, abused, neglected or otherwise mistreated Catherine. I am aware in saying this, I am making it sound like evidence of any of this would have naturally existed and survived to be picked over; I don't believe this to be the case. Abuse often occurs in secrecy and silence and it is perhaps to be expected that any evidence of historical cases of abuse would be limited and fragmentary, if it survived or even if it existed in the first place. But an absence of evidence is still an absence of evidence. It's not proof, it doesn't provide any support for a theory.

In view of the absence of this evidence, the arguments that the marriage was unhappy or cruel largely heavily interpret (if not over interpret) the few facts of their marriage that we can talk about. These are:

That they spent about half of their marriage apart

Catherine did not attend Henry V's deathbed

The marriage was political and/or the result of a peace treaty.

General unsupported assumptions of their personalities

Catherine was "very young" at their marriage

It took them a while to conceive a child.

But almost all begin with the argument that Shakespeare's depiction of Henry and Catherine in Henry V was unquestionably a romantic one and that Shakespeare (as he always does) has muddied the waters, ensuring that we cannot perceive the truth. To be entirely blunt, if one dips their toe into the scholarship on Shakespeare's Catherine, one very quickly finds that Shakespeare's depiction is far more complicated with its view on Catherine and her relationship with Henry.

They spent about half their marriage apart.

This is usually marshalled into an argument about there being some incompatibility or dislike between the two. That if Henry had really cared for Catherine, he would have been at her side at all times, or at least spent less time away from her (see above for the idea that there was an estrangement).

The extreme brevity of their marriage and the paucity of evidence of their lives makes the time spent apart very difficult to assess clearly. The statistic of "half their marriage was spent apart" seems like a cold, hard fact but we are talking about a marriage that lasted just over two years. We have no idea whether that statistic would have remained the same had Henry V not died in August 1422 and their marriage lasted for longer, or whether that statistic would be the same if England and France had been at peace. Medieval kings and queens often spent time apart - at times, they were even criticised for spending time together because it cost more money to maintain the two separate households as one.

What we do know, however, is that the lengthiest time Catherine and Henry spent apart - from June 1421 to May 1422; a little less than a year - was impacted by two major developments. The Battle of Baugé (22 March 1421) was the first English defeat in France since the hostilities had reignited in 1415 and it was there that Henry's brother and heir, Thomas, Duke of Clarence, died. Clarence was a major commander in Henry's campaigns; the impact of his loss cannot be understated. In addition to any personal grief Henry felt at Clarence's loss (who was the brother he spent most of his childhood with), it is likely that Henry believed that his presence was needed in France, that he needed to step up to cover the loss of Clarence and ensure the fallout of their military defeat was minimal. Given that chronicle accounts depict Henry as trying to attend to military matters despite being ill (an action that quite possibly led to his own death), this seems like a fairly solid bit of speculation. If he was unsparing of his own physical health, even when near death, the idea that he only went on campaign to be cruel to his wife doesn't really stack up. He believed his presence was necessary and went.

The second major development was Catherine's pregnancy. Ironically, Henry VI was probably conceived around the same time as the Battle of Baugé was being fought and it is likely that Henry knew Catherine was pregnant when he returned to France. While queens did sometimes accompany their husbands on campaigns, it is possible that, this being Catherine's first pregnancy and in the uncertain atmosphere after Clarence's death, it was considered too risky for Catherine to return to France with Henry. Henry's time in France was marked by attending sieges, where disease was rife and would risks to the health of both Catherine and their unborn child. Given English concerns that the Treaty of Troyes would undermine English independence, it may have also been considered politically expedient that their first child was born in England, rather than in France (one French chronicle claims Catherine did accompany Henry into France but was sent back to England upon the discovery that she was six months' pregnant). Another possible factor here is how Catherine experienced her pregnancy - she may have had a difficult time with it and the idea of travelling to France utterly unappealing or deemed unwise.

This separation could be said to make up the bulk of their time spent apart and we have two major developments that may have impacted on it. Henry likely felt his continuous presence in France was necessary after Clarence's loss, Catherine may have remained in England for a variety of reasons, not all controllable. Yes, one of those reasons could possibly be a dislike of one spouse by the other or a mutual dislike but it could just have easily been an external factor (and I think the latter more likely, given the lack of contemporary comment). We don't and can't know.

Catherine did not attend Henry's deathbed.

There are a few things to note about this. Firstly, there may have been a fear of contagion. We don't know exactly what Henry died of** to know whether contagion was a valid fear or not, but it's possible it was. Catherine's absence may well have been designed to protect her from illness and death. Secondly, Henry's health seems to have deteriorated rather quickly. John, Duke of Bedford - Henry's brother - was summoned to Henry's deathbed late and "found him worse than he had been told". It is possible that it was not thought Henry was in great danger until it was too late.

Thirdly, less than two months after Henry's death, Charles VI also died. His death seems to have been expected. Catherine was staying with Charles in August 1422 and it's possible that she was there not just because Henry was meant to be on campaign but to attend her father's deathbed. In other words, Catherine (or those around her) may have had to choose between being with her father or husband for their death. And if Henry deteriorated quickly, that choice was may have been made for her. (It may have also been in response to the criticisms of how Charles and Isabeau had been treated, cited earlier).

Fourthly, Henry was sick and dying. Although he's typically discussed as being rational and clear-minded to the very end, he may not have been lucid. David Rundle notes that one of the codicils added to Henry's will while he was dying was "hardly grammatical" and suggests that Henry was "less than lucid". Commonly suggested ailments such as dysentery, dehydration and/or heatstroke could made him feverish and delirious. In other words, he may not have been in a sound mind to summon Catherine or for the lack of summons to be a deliberate slight against her.

And to underscore that point, Henry was dying. To me, when someone is dying, they get to choose, free from recriminations, who they want at their deathbed. We don't have access to Henry's emotions to know his specific motivations, we could just as easily argue that he didn't want Catherine there because he didn't want her to see him to die or in the state he was in. We have the exact same evidence for both. Regardless, Catherine was fit and healthy and Henry was literally dying.

Finally, Katherine J. Lewis makes the point when discussing Catherine's presence at Henry VI's French coronation that while contemporary accounts make no reference to her presence, administrative records place her with Henry VI on the coronation expedition:

It has been argued that she did not accompany Henry [VI] to France, yet while she is not mentioned in chronicles, administrative records indicate that she was with Henry in Rouen at least, if not at the French coronation itself. This is a reminder that Katherine’s absence from narrative sources should not be taken as evidence that she was no longer important.

Perhaps her absence from chronicle accounts of Henry's death do not necessarily mean she was not important or not present at the actual event? It may be worth noting that one of Henry V's biographers, John Strecche, claimed Catherine was present (however, Monstrelet claims she was kept ignorant of Henry's death for some time after).

The marriage was political and/or the result of a peace treaty.

Pretty much every royal medieval marriage was political and quite a few of them were in attempt to put an end to hostilities between nations or hostilities. Yes, Catherine and Henry's marriage was this in this category. It was normal and expected for them. Catherine had first been the subject of marriage negotiations when she was two years old. All of her siblings had married for politics except those who tied very young and Marie, who became a nun.

It doesn't make the marriage automatically cruel or destined to be unhappy. Most couples ended up in a relationship that was workable. Some of the more celebrated loving marriages in the history of English monarchs were political matches to begin with (e.g. Richard II and Anne of Bohemia) and even matches designed to end hostilities (e.g. Henry VII and Elizabeth of York). It is entirely possible that Catherine and Henry could have had a loving, affectionate marriage along those lines.

The idea that there was some family tradition in the Plantagenet royal family about marrying only for love and that Henry callously spat on this tradition, as Ian Mortimer has suggested, is nonsense. Edward III did not marry for love; he married so his mother could get an army to depose his father. If he got to choose his bride from the daughters of his mother's ally, his choice was between a girl close to his own age or a toddler. Richard II did not marry for love, he married as part of a political alliance - and these marriages did, in fact, become loving, or at least strongly affectionate. Henry IV had likely met Joan of Navarre once or twice when he married her. Historians have suggested that some of the "love matches" in the Plantagenet family (e.g. Joan of Kent and Edward of Woodstock, Katherine Swynford and John of Gaunt, Joan of Navarre and Henry IV) may have been had more pragmatic reasoning behind them.

The main arguments for the "arranged marriage" showing Henry's disregard for Catherine are:

the unrealistic demand of 2 million crowns for her dowry and his refusal to countenance Charles VI's counter-offer

that there were other brides he had negotiated marriage with.

Honestly... both are all pretty standard features of marriage negotiations. The marriages of medieval royalty weren't really about them as individuals; it was about getting the best deal. They were about the country, about the political, the financial and the territorial. Henry's unrealistic demand for 2 million crowns as a dowry probably reflected his lack of interest in peace at the time (it should be noted, as Anne Curry does, France also showed a similar lack of interest).

As far as Henry's potential other brides... again, standard. Chaucer's Parlement of Foules has been argued to represent the many suitors vying for Anne of Bohemia's hand; other brides were also considered for her eventual husband. It didn't mean they thought any less of each other. It is not... really true, either, as Ian Mortimer and the novelist Anne O'Brien have claimed, that Henry considered marriage to two of Catherine's sisters before settling on Catherine. That's actually incredibly disingenuous - Henry had been suggested as a prospective husband for both Michelle de Valois and Isabelle de Valois but these matches had been raised by Richard II in 1395, when Henry was 9, and Henry IV in 1400, when Henry was 13, respectively. Henry V had nothing to do with these negotiations beyond the being the subject of them. Possibly, he was more involved in the negotiations for a marriage between himself and an unnamed daughter of Charles VI in 1408, but we don't know this for sure. By the time Henry V acceded in 1413 and gained total control over his own marriage, Catherine had been the subject of marriage negotiations with France since 1409. Nor does Henry's attempt at negotiating marriage between himself and a daughter of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, in 1411 suggest any real disrespect for Catherine; it was simply standard practice.

Personalities.

Another argument that their marriage was a cruel or unhappy one is generally the argument that they possessed certain personalities that were incompatible. Needless to say, the view of Henry as an abusive or cold husband is often tied to the revisionist view of him that tend to read him as monstrous. There isn't the space to go into my feelings about these reassessments but to me, these arguments run to extremes and never come to grips of why Henry was so beloved beyond complaining about "luck" and "Lancastrian propaganda".

We know very little about Henry's personality; very little of his private/personal life survives. We know even less about Catherine's. What we think we know about Catherine's personality comes from the myths about her relationship with Owen Tudor, the posthumous attacks on her as oversexed, and the supposition that her absence from the historical record tells us something important about her personality. None of these are reliable sources; the latter tells us more about the assumptions and biases of historians than they do Catherine. An absence of evidence is just that - an absence - not evidence itself.

(For more about the problems in determining personality in late medieval figures, see the first section in my post on Margaret of Anjou)

The most recent development of this supposed incompatibility is the idea of incompatible sexualities, where Henry is "something of a prig" (or a prude or a misogynist) because he apparently gave up sex with women after his accession to the throne and Catherine was "rather jolly", as Lisa Hilton puts it, because of all those marvellous myths about how she hooked up with Owen Tudor. In both cases, they show the difference between medieval/early modern and modern attitudes towards sex. From a medieval and early modern perspective, a chaste king was a good king as it reflected their capacity for restraint and ability to rule not only their body, but the realm (see here and here), while female sexuality was always suspect. We have very little evidence of their sex life, either together or with other partners. It's possible there was some incompatibility - but there's no real evidence of it and this narrative relies on criticising Henry for living up to contemporary ideals and praising Catherine for the contemporary and historiographical reports of her behaviour that are awash with misogyny and slut-shaming.

Catherine was "very young" at their marriage.

Catherine was born 27 October 1401, meaning she was 18 years old when she married Henry on 2 June 1420. This might seem young to modern eyes - "barely an adult" - but that's to modern eyes, not medieval. 12 was the minimum age of consent for marriage in canonical law though this was not necessarily the age at which most women married or when their marriage was consummated (most waited until later). The evidence suggests that most women married in their late teens or early twenties, though women of the gentry and nobility typically married in their teens or below canonical age - and for these women, that consummation was often delayed to their mid-to-late teens. For a comparative statistic in Catherine's own social class, the average age for the first marriage for English princesses from Edward I to Henry VII was 16.65 according to Kim Philips.

Catherine's age, then, was entirely average for her sex and even a little later than her class and later still within her family. Comparing her to her female relatives shows that Catherine was actually older at her wedding than all but four of her relatives.*** The age at which Catherine gave birth - 20 - was also unexceptional and a far cry from her sister-in-law, Blanche, who gave birth when she was 14 or her daughter-in-law, Margaret Beaufort, who gave birth when she was just 13.

The alarm bells Ian Mortimer rings at the idea of the "pubescent" Catherine marrying Henry is also... incredibly disingenuous. The appeal of her as a bride was not her age but her connections and status as the last unmarried daughter of Charles VI. Judging a marriage on an alternate history is not history or even an argument. It doesn't tell us what actually happened or even what would have happened had this alternate history really taken place. It's true that Catherine was 8 when a marriage with her was first posed in Henry IV's reign and in her pre- and early teens when marriage negotiations appear to have been seriously considered. But she didn't marry Henry then, she married him when she was 18. She was an adult. Even by modern standards, she was an adult.

It is true, too, that Henry V, born 16 September 1386, was 33 and thus 15 years Catherine's senior. This sort of age gap is unexceptional for their own time, particularly because Catherine was an adult when they got married. And, as I've said, we have very little evidence of their relationship to know what role this this age gap played in their marriage, whether Henry was truly a domineering partner as Anne O'Brien claimed.

It took awhile for them to conceive a child.

This one truly boggles the mind.

Henry VI was born on 6 December 1421, which means he was probably conceived in mid-March (possible dates are March 12, 1421 - March 22, 1421). This was around 10 months after Henry V and Catherine had married. We don't know why it took them 10 months to conceive so to presume it tells us something about their relationship or even their sex life is a very limited perspective. Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester never conceived a child with his second wife despite being very into her and very into sex.

There are many reasons why that ten month gap could have occurred. One of the reasons may well be that Henry didn't want to spend any time with Catherine and was snubbing her, though we have no supporting evidence or this. Another reason might be that Catherine did a conceive a child earlier but had a miscarriage. There's no evidence of this, true, but we have very little evidence of specific occurrences of miscarriage. Another reason may be that Catherine and Henry were taking the time to ease into their relationship before they had sex. One or both of them may have had subfertility problems (it might be telling that Catherine only had 3 or 4 children with Owen Tudor, despite being with him for around 10 years, or that in spite of the stories of Henry's wild youth, there are no known illegitimate children for him). And, quite simply, sometimes it can just take that long to conceive a child without there being a particular reason behind it.

We don't know anything about Catherine and Henry's sex life, (obviously; we know precious little about them). But interestingly, those dates for Henry VI's conception? They fall in Lent and a good medieval Catholic wasn't supposed to have sex at all in Lent. If either Henry or Catherine wanted to avoid having sex with each other, they had the perfect excuse to avoid it. This doesn't necessarily mean that they were in love or that they sexually desired one another; there may well have been more pragmatic motivations at play (the desire for an heir, for one). It does tell us, though, that they had sex at a time when one or both of them could have had the perfect reason to opt-out and didn't take it. Perhaps they didn't find each other as repellent as some historians, novelists and commentators think they did.

And, really, I don't think Henry could win the "not an evil abuser" prize with this kind of logic. If Catherine had gotten pregnant immediately after their marriage, it'd be proof Henry saw her as his "broodmare" and cared nothing for her beyond the getting of sons. Instead, the delay in conceiving a child is proof of his disregard of her. It's not really about the evidence, it's about taking a preconceived idea and looking for evidence to support it, even when the evidence could have multiple meanings. I could easily spin both potentials as proof of romance.

What was it like, really?

In some ways, I want to answer this with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We just don't know, the evidence isn't there. I know, I know, I took 10,000 words to say "who knows lol".

Their marriage was absolutely a standard medieval royal marriage. It was arranged and political, like the vast majority of medieval royal marriages, and like a not insignificant portion of marriages in the nobility, it was intended to bring an end to (or at least respite from) hostilities. There was nothing particularly nefarious in the idea, anymore than there was for Edward I and Marguerite of France, Edward II and Isabella of France, Henry Vi and Margaret of Anjou, and Henry VII and Elizabeth of York.

What limited evidence for their relationship shows that Henry V treated Catherine with respect and care. It doesn't necessarily mean he loved her or even that he particularly liked her - at the very least, he was aware of that, as his wife and queen, she was due these things and ensured she got them. That doesn't mean he couldn't have liked her, or even loved her, just that a royal marriage was both a political and personal relationship and it's impossible to determine, at this great distance, with the limited surviving evidence, just what was politics and what was personal.

Very likely, he was also aware of the way that his behaviour towards Catherine would impact his public image. Whatever his faults, Henry V was incredibly skilled at public relations. He was adept at giving his people what they wanted, at being their perfect king - and likely knew that he needed to be (seen to be) a good husband to maintain that image. And he wasn't stupid. Catherine was the daughter of Charles VI "le Bien-Aimé"; she was in, a way, France in a way that Henry could never to be. Regardless of what he actually felt for Catherine, he knew that if he wanted to be accepted as regent and later king of France, he could hardly mistreat Catherine. Her mistreatment could easily become a public scandal and a focal point for dissatisfaction - disastrous for an usurper.

We'll never know whether his treatment of Catherine was solely inspired by good politics and image; he may have very well cared for her in her own right. Or he might not. But I really don't see that he would have been callous, abusive or neglectful of her. There is no hint of it in the historical records and it would have been disastrous for his goals in France.

We don't know how Catherine felt about Henry. We have so little evidence about Catherine's life that anything could be true and any claims as to "what she was really like" are disingenuous, whether they're arguing for her victimhood or her love affair or her failure to be the true equal of the "great man" she married.

It speaks to the way that Catherine has primarily been seen as a romantic object that everything in her adult life must be explained by a romantic or emotive relationship instead of seeing her as a woman who was at the centre of the political sphere and who had more in life than romance, sex and men. We don't know that she loved Henry or that he loved her; we don't know that she expected or wanted that from her marriage. But in accepting that, we have no reason to assume that therefore, the marriage was doomed her to deep unhappiness and a cruel husband.

In short, I think their marriage was a standard marriage rather than uniquely cruel. I do not think it was abusive. I think it was respectful and that Henry saw Catherine as his partner. I think their relationship was more likely to have been companionable than antagonistic. I don't think it was romantic, though I can't say we can rule out the possibility that love might have (or could have had) entered into it once they got to know each other.

* They married on 2 June 1420 and Henry died in the very early morning of 31 August 1422. This comes out to 2 years, 2 months and 29 days, not counting 31 August 1422.

** The main consensus on Henry V's death is some kind of gastrointestinal illness, most commonly given as dysentery though it's unlikely to be a single dysentery infection, acquired in December 1421, that killed him. For more detail, see this post.

*** Catherine's mother, Isabeau of Bavaria, was around 15 when she married Charles VI. Of the sisters who married, Isabelle had been just shy of her 7th birthday, Jeanne 4 and Michelle 16. Of Catherine's French sisters-in-law, Margaret of Nevers was 9, Jacqueline of Hainault 14 and Marie of Anjou was 18. Of Catherine's mothers-in-law, Mary de Bohun was probably 10, Joan of Navarre 18. Of Catherine's English sisters-in-law Blanche and Philippa of England were 10 and 12 years old respectively. Of the wives of Catherine's English brothers-in-law, Anne of Burgundy was 19, Jacquetta of Luxembourg was 17, Jacqueline of Hainault 14, Eleanor Cobham around 28 and Margaret Holland around 12. Of Catherine's daughters-in-law (it is not certain that she had a daughter herself and if she did, there is no evidence this daughter ever married), Margaret of Anjou was 15, Margaret Beaufort was 1 or 3 (12 when she married Edmund Tudor), and Katherine Woodville 7 years old or under. In the cases where the marriage produced offspring, we're looking at the women being in her mid-to-late teens when she gave birth to her first child. The two exceptions are Blanche of England (14) and Margaret Beaufort (13). In cases where their first marriage produced no issue (e.g. Anne of Burgundy, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Eleanor Cobham) we cannot know when the marriage was consummated. Eleanor Cobham, at 28, was the oldest at her marriage but her sexual relationship with her spouse likely predated their marriage by some years. n.b. the ages given are consistent with each woman's first marriage, not the age at which they married into Catherine's family; Jacqueline of Hainault married both Catherine's brother, Jean, and Catherine's brother-in-law, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, and so is listed twice.

References

Tracy Adams, The Life and Afterlife of Isabeau of Bavaria (John Hopkins University Press 2010) Anne Crawford, Letters of the Queens of England, 1100-1547 (Sutton 1997) Anne Curry, Henry V: From Playboy Prince to Warrior King (Penguin 2015) Anne Curry & Susan Jenkins (eds.), The Funeral Achievements of Henry V at Westminster Abbey (Boydell Press 2022) Geoffrey Hilton, A New Biography of King Henry V: Told by John Strecche Canon of Kenilworth 1426 (2017) Lisa Hilton, Queens Consort: England's Medieval Queens (Phoenix 2008) Katherine J. Lewis, Kingship and Masculinity in Late Medieval England (Routledge 2013) Katherine J. Lewis, “Katherine of Valois: The Vicissitudes of Reputation”, Later Plantagenet and the Wars of the Roses Consorts: Power, Influence, and Dynasty (Palgrave Macmillan 2023) Ruth Mazo Karras, Unmarriages: Women, Men, and Sexual Unions in the Middle Ages (University of Pennsylvania Press 2012) Carolyn King Stephens, The “Pentangle Hypothesis”: A Dating History and Resetting of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”', Fifteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 31, 2006 John D. Milner, “The Battle of Baugé, March 1421: Impact and Memory”, History Vol. 91, No. 4, October 2006 J. Allan Mitchell, "Queen Katherine and the Secret of Lydgate's 'Temple of Glas', Medium Ævum, Vol. 77, No. 1, 2008 Ian Mortimer, 1415: Henry V's Year of Glory (Vintage 2010) Kavita Mudan Finn, The Last Plantagenet Consorts: Gender, Genre, and Historiography, 1440-1627 (Palgrave Macmillan 2012) Neil Murphy, "Ceremony and Conflict in Fifteenth-Century France: Lancastrian Ceremonial Entries into French Towns, 1415-1431", Explorations in Renaissance Culture, vol. 30, no. 2, December 2013 Anne O'Brien, blog, The Love Affair That Never Was Maria Pia Pedani, 'Balas Rubies for the King of England (1413-15)', EJOS, V, No. 7, 2002 Kim M. Phillips, Medieval Maidens: Young Qomen and Gender in England, 1270-1540 (Manchester University Press 2003) David Rundle, "Of Republics and Tryants: aspects of quattrocento humanist writings and their reception in England, c. 1400 – c. 1460" (unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1997). Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest, vol. 3 (Lea & Blanchard, 1841) Malcolm Vale, Henry V: The Conscience of a King (Yale University Press 2016)

Novels Mentioned Denise Giardina, Good King Harry (Random House 1999) Anne O'Brien, The Forgotten Queen (Mira Books 2013)

Shakespeare Criticism (selection) Kavita Mudan Finn and Lea Luecking Frost, "“Nothing Hath Begot My Something Grief”: Invisible Queenship in Shakespeare’s Second Tetralogy", The Palgrave Book of Shakespeare's Queens (Palgrave Macmillan 2018) William B. Robison, "The Bard, the Bride, and the Muse Bemused: Katherine of Valois on Film in Shakespeare’s Henry V", The Palgrave Book of Shakespeare's Queens (Palgrave Macmillan 2018)

This post may also be of interest.

#ask #anon #catherine of valois #catherine de valois #henry v #long post #in case the cut fails

27 notes · View notes

alchemistdetective · 8 months

Text

@divinityunleashed replied to your post “I have my own list on what to do when it comes to...”:

Preeeeeeeech!

@hxkerwxlf replied to your post “I have my own list on what to do when it comes to...”:

ramble more nerd

((WELL, ALRIGHT, IF YOU GUYS ARE SURE, I'll try to summarize it in a few key points.))

--------------

Amber's Tumblr RP Activity guide

P.S: This is all based on personal experience based on the time I've been here for years. Results may differ, but this is pretty much what works best for me.

I think everyone knows the usual 'Have Fun' advice, which is pretty much the most important thing, but I have a few things to add on my own:

1) Remember that this is Tumblr, and not Wattpad.

I know, this is very obvious. You are looking at this post in Tumblr.com, after all. But... what exactly do I mean by this?

Tumblr is a social blogging website. And unlike Wattpad, we're not writing a book by ourselves. We're writing said book with others.

RPing is different from traditional writing. And the biggest difference when it comes to these two is:

2) Always, ALWAYS try to throw SOMETHING to get people to be involved easier. Make it as easy as possible!

This... is something I actually kind of want to touch on for a while, because I notice this even among people who have been RPing for years, and that's... not giving bait for people to work with

Here's an example, let's say I make a post:

Chloe is working on alchemy. Oops! She realizes she doesn't have enough ingredients in the shelf! Off she goes to the Human Village to find for ingredients!

It's okay, but... there's not much to work with.

What ingredients is she looking for? Where in the Human Village is she going?

People tend not to figure out these things for you, so they kind of just leave it be there, and people go 'Oh it's just her doing her daily things'

So... let's try to add a bit more stuff in it:

Chloe is working on alchemy. Oops! She realizes she doesn't have enough ingredients in the shelf! She realizes that the things which are missing are as follows: - One Tengu Feather - One Medical Herb from Eientei - One Divine Water from Korin's Tower The human village is a good place to start for the ingredients!

And just like that, it became much better, because it's easier for people to throw themselves with the item in need. Heck, if you want to go the extra mile, throw an ask to those people who like the post, it always worked for me lajsGHLJSHDASD

This goes the same for replies. ALWAYS throw something for the person to reply to.

Think of it like a ping-pong game where the ball keeps bouncing between you and your partner. You want to throw the ball back to them, so they can hit it and throw it back to you.

Have your character ask a question, wonder something about them, something easier for them to lead on to or reply to.

Also, it's preferable you keep things simple, especially when it comes to...:

3) Silly things! Don't be afraid of throwing whatever for dash activity!

You remember the whole universal rule of 'Have fun'? Well, there we go! Anything in your head, just throw it out.

Here, I'll give an example. I'll just post something like:

Crescent makes a fucking cake and it's just nothing but guns

And someone could easily post something like

"lol that's a stupid cake, anyways here's mine"

CONGRATULATIONS, PEOPLE ARE HAPPY, YAAY

Remember, we're all here to have fun! Just let loose, and stuff :DDD

Honestly, casual shenanigans fun is pretty much the best way of doing whatever, and that's mostly when you clear your head of all sense and reason, then post the stupidest thing you can

Don't overthink it, just do! And if nothing happens, then it's fine, you pretty much threw your shot!

Remember, the worst thing that could happen is no one replies to it. It's discouraging, yes, but it's okay, it happens! So just throw your shot, and have fun!

4) Approach people and throw your character AT them. Don't worry, we're all awkward potatoes.

This is doubly-even more so important for OCs, especially new ones. OCs are unfamiliar territory and the Pandora's Box, and most people prefer things they're familiar with, and stick with that.

Don't worry, I understand. It's really intimidating to go up to someone, wave at them, and throw yourself at them.

But seriously, we're all nerds in Tumblr. I'm equally as shy, especially around people I don't know. So... just throw yourself if you see the opportunity to! You see a meme they reblog? Why not throw something?

Really, the worst thing they can do is say 'No'. And if they do, then it's okay, there's next time, or other places who might be interested in them. Just remember, try to take the initiative and get in there.

Double points if you throw your character at something you think their character might need help with, some event they're doing, or the RPer is trying to explore more. (Example for my case, Chloe's hometown or Rirune's world, or for other RPer's cases, their OC's backstories, fears, etc.)

Remember, people are more likely to approach if there's a pre-existing relationship with one character of yours, and vise versa! So try to get in there if you see something you can throw your character at!

5) Don't force activity. The time will come!

If you're struggling on writing anything... it's fine! Just get out of Tumblr, go play a game or something. The last thing we want to do is force ourselves to push activity, even when we're not feeling like it.

If you do force it, that would make Tumblr RPing more of a chore than a hobby, and it will show. And... we don't want to treat our hobby like a side job.

Think of it like fishing. Your inspiration WILL come, just wait for it. Don't force interacting with other people if you can't think of anything, or try pushing things out if you don't have the mood to do so.

Remember, RPing is a hobby where it takes two to tango. Remember, we're here to have fun together!

6) Try to show interest, we're not mind readers

Small little thing, but if someone shows interest to you by trying to start threads with you, throw you an ask... Try to return the favor when the opportunity comes.

We've all been at the side of 'I threw things at the person but they don't seem to want to RP with me, so I'll leave them alone because they're hard to approach', and I don't think anyone wants that ljhgjlad

This isn't 'reblog karma' or anything, when it comes to memes, but rather, showing interest in someone's stuff, whether it's throwing your character back at them, liking their posts, etc. can go a long way to give your partner the OK, which means more activity for you two!

Basically: tl;dr:

1) Remember that this is Tumblr, a social blogging website! You're playing with other people, and the both of you are writing stories together, and having fun in a playground! You can write things yourself via drabbles, but ultimately, we're pretty much in this together!

2) If you do want to do something, make it easy for people to come in! Try to get people involved in the most simplest way possible in your head, and remember, throw a ball to your partner to lead on!

3) Shenanigans are usually the best way for activity because of how simple and fun it is, not to mention easy to get into! Don't be afraid of emptying your mind and throwing the most stupid thing in your head, because we're all here to have fun!

4) Approach other people! Be their cheerleader! Put them in the spotlight! We're all awkward potatoes, so why not approach them first? You can even throw memes at them which prompts a character relationship! The worst thing they could do is say no!

5) Don't force activity. Wait. If you wait, the time will come. Kind of like fishing! It'll be really obvious if you rush it. There's no hidden art about it, but just have fun!

6) We obviously respect each other, but try to show it, ESPECIALLY if it goes both ways. If it only goes one way, it'll be much harder to approach, even if you're interested in them.

Remember, it takes two people to tango! RPing is not a solo hobby, and we're all here to have fun with each other :DDD

#divinityunleashed #hxkerwxlf #THERE'S MY RAMBLING #I HOPE THIS IS OKAY jlASHALSJGASG #ANYWAYS GOING TO BED NIGHTTT

10 notes · View notes

dbfandom · 2 years

Text

Letters, Numbers and Emojis used for characters and their ships in Dragon Ball Japanese fandom!

So in Japanese media, it's common to use shorthands to talk about characters or media (if you've read Bakuman you've seen the explanation about "Wanpi (ワンピ)" being used for One Piece (ワンピース, Wan Pi (long vowel) su).

Because of their email/texting system, it's also more common to use one sole symbol to talk about characters, but also to not appear in search functions (posts are rarely tagged :()

Some of these symbols have been widely accepted by the Japanese fandom as a whole, but some others are for personal reference only (and as such, two artists may use the same emoji for different characters and nobody really cares).

Today I'm going to give you just a few of them, if you'd like more, don't hesitate to ask in the replies or in the tags, spread this blog and more ;)

Goku: Goku is usually referred as 🥕 (carot, kakarot) and 59 (五九 ; go-ku). This is why the Cell jacket has a 59! You will also find people using 空 (the second kanji for Goku's name).

Gohan: Obviously, his name meaning "rice" (as in shorthand for meal), Gohan's emoji is🍚 but you will also see 58 (五八 ; go-hachi (close enough)) to talk about him. You will also find people using 飯 (the second kanji for Gohan's name).

Goten: Goten gets🍤(for TENpura) and sometimes it's either 57 (because he's younger than 58 and 59), or more commonly 510 (五ten for go-TEN). You will also find people using 天 (the second kanji for Goten's name), but this is also the first character of Tenshinhan (and it's also used for him, as it's the symbol on his DBS outfit).

57 is also used for GoChi day (五七 go-shichi); this usage is more common than the Goten one.

Because of this, May 9th is Goku day, May 8th is Gohan day, May 10th is Goten day.. and May 7th is Gochi day :p

This is also why in mobile games, you have "Son Family Week" around those days!

(this is why Piccolo Day is funny and why people fight over whether it's Goku day or Piccolo day :p)

Those of you who follow my fic know this already, but Trunks' emoji is 🐯 (tiger, which is read Tora in Japanese.. Because Trunks' name is actually Torankusu :p). People will use トラ (the first two katakana of his name).

If you see 来, that's the first kanji for Future. 来🐯 or 来トラ is the short version for Future Trunks, and 来🍚 or 来飯 is for Future Gohan. Automatic translators will usually read it as Mi-Tora / Next Meal and just go into Blue Screen of Death mode.

So I'll be borrowing TruTen (Trunks x Goten) as an example for how ship names work in Japanese. Unlike in English, however, the order in which you put the characters is important.

天トラ / 🍤🐯: Ten-Tora. In this case, Goten tops.

トラ天 / 🐯🍤: Tora-Ten. In this case, Trunks tops.

It's a little more than just "who tops/bottoms", since the roles are very codified (Uke and Seme tropes if you want to look it up). They're so codified you should be able to tell from the book cover alone which way it's going to be!

So when I mentioned shipping wars in the past post about shipping terminologies for Japanese speakers, it's because the tropes about M/M relations are so strong and engrained in Japanese society that some people will refuse to consider "the other way around" (up to and including blocking each other on social media).

As such for Vegeta/Goku, probably the most popular M/M DB ship, the KakaVege and VegeKaka fans tend to be very opinionated about the "correct" portrayal. Anthologies (collective works) will be either one or the other, but not both at the same time.

The concept of switching isn't very common, and you'll see from the tropes that one has to be the assertive and control type and the other has to be a little more shy, smaller, etc.

In the case of TruTen (トラ天), this translates to Goten usually being smaller and more "delicate" and sensitive than Trunks (and so despite the fact that Goten, as an adult, is a solid 10cm taller than Trunks, but you'll rarely see that in トラ天 content!).

Of course this isn't universal, there are content creators and readers who will appreciate both, and who will appreciate dynamics that fall outside of the traditional tropes, but people tend to purchase stuff more easily if they know what to expect in terms of tropes used.

After all, the whole point of being two men in a relationship is that there's no woman in the relationship. They're gay, your honor!

Note that some content creators will use 89 (or 5859) for the HanKu ship. You have been warned.

#shipping #dragon ball #dragon ball z #kakavege #vegekaka #truten #tentora #japanese to english #dragon ball emojis

57 notes · View notes

eemamminy-art · 59 minutes

Note

(@driftward) At last an ask let's go! From the Honest Fav Char Ask page: 1. Do you project onto THE CHARACTER? and 23. Has THE CHARACTER permanently altered or impacted your psyche in a way you won’t forget?

I was tempted to ask 5 to be funny but look if someone does not know the answer to that by now there is just no hope for them

1. Do you project onto this character?

I think the better question is, is there a favorite character of mine I don't project onto? Lol I tend to gravitate a lot toward characters I can relate to so then I lean into those relatable traits a lot!

23. Has this character permanently altered or impacted your psyche in a way you won’t forget?

Again I think just about every favorite character of mine has impacted me in some way or another ahaha but I think the one I think about the most is probably Estinien. The dialog he has immediately after the Final Steps of Faith when he wakes up after surviving Nidhogg's possession is something I think about constantly. That his grief and sorrow very nearly consumed him, but unlike Nidhogg he had people around him to help him grow and heal. And even though those people did not cure him of his sorrows, they were just enough of a source of light and hope that he could crawl out of his despair on his own.

I know Estinien has moved on from that as a character by now and he's just some guy these days, but I related so much to him in that scene that to me he is always that person who very nearly was consumed by his own misery but allowed others to help him back up. And I just relate so much to that and find it so inspirational. Maybe one day I'll also just be some guy chilling in the background not so affected by loss.

5. If this character were a woman, would you honestly still like them? Or in reverse, what if they were a man?

I know you joked about this one but I honestly still want to answer it! I'm sure I would still like any character if they were swapped from man to woman but there's a few characters I can think of where I don't think it would improve the character particularly. Characters who are grappling with toxic masculinity or certain expectations placed on them as men, and that's the crux of their story arc or the thing that makes them unique. While I'm sure they'd be interesting as women too, and certainly more attractive to me that way, if it would come at the detriment of the character I wouldn't enjoy them as much. Generally speaking I find gender roles and the weight/burden they place on someone, or the ways they might defy those gender-based expectations, to be a very interesting theme to explore, and that extends to men too!

Honest "favorite character" asks

#ask meme answers #replies #honest favorite character ask meme

2 notes · View notes

regina-del-cielo · 9 months

Text

Fic 20 questions

I was tagged by @bewires, thank you!

1 - How many works do you have on AO3?

13, lucky number.

2 - What's your total AO3 count?

67,881 words. Not bad.

3 - What fandoms do you write for?

Right now, only for The Old Guard (2020). I'm a "one hyperfixation at a time" type of person.

4 - What are your top five fics by kudos?

Celebrated for Their Frankness (P&P)

Kissing a Stranger (P&P)

Galeotto Fu'l Cane (P&P)

hand in hand, we stumble and we fall (then we stand, once and for all) (TOG)

seems like happiness is just a thing called Joe (TOG)

5 - Do you respond to comments?

99.9% of the time, yes, even if it's just to write "thank you for reading" thirty times in a row

6 - What is the fic you wrote with the angstiest ending?

Uuuuuh I don't actually write angsty endings? Even the sadder ones always have a vision of hope in the end

7 - What's the fic you wrote with the happiest ending?

Again, difficult to say. Probably c'est lui pour moi, moi pour lui (dans la vie) because it's Reunion and Fluff Galore. Or A Marriage of True Minds, because of Wedding Fluff and Feelings.

8 - Do you get hate on fics?

Thankfully not, and I hope it never happens

9 - Do you write smut? If so, what kind?

No, not really. Love reading it, but I don't think I'll go that far myself.

10 - Do you write crossovers? What's the craziest one you've written?

No I don't. The thought never really crossed my mind

11 - Have you ever had a fic stolen?

Never, thank goodness

12 - Have you ever had a fic translated?

No - although one could say that I already am doing my own mental translation since English is not my first language lol - but if someone wanted to I wouldn't mind, as long as they asked me first

13 - Have you ever co-written a fic before?

No, never happened

14 - What's your all time favourite ship?

Why are you asking me to rank my children?! Darcy/Elizabeth has been around longer, but Joe/Nicky really Hit Different. So I say it's a tie.

15 - What's a WIP you want to finish but doubt you ever will?

All of them? There's a reason I don't post WIPs - inspiration is flighty and cruel. I never say 'never', but knowing myself if I haven't worked on something for longer than a year it's unlikely I'll ever start again

16 - What are your writing strengths?

I'm the wrong person to ask this - Maybe plot coherency and world building? I tend to take a lot of time to make sure that the plot flows well and that things are as accurate I can get them. Also, clearly, writing soft and fluffy things.

17 - What are your writing weaknesses?

I always have the feeling of my writing being clunky and too detail-filled, because I want the readers to see the scene as I see it in my mind. And I've never been able to stay within the number of words I expected to - my one-shots get stupidly long.

18 - Thoughts on writing dialogue in another language in fic?

I literally make Nicky speak in Italian as much as I can get away with it all the time. But also, if it's a language you don't know well and unless you have a human who speaks it that can check it, I wouldn't just trust a translation software. I have seen enough of glaring Italian errors in fic to make me want to go "please just say that they spoke in another language in the dialogue tag I beg of you."

19 - First fandom you wrote for?

Winx Club, a long long time ago, and not in English

20 - Favourite fic you've written?

I think it's a tie between hand in hand and We're Meant to Find Each Other - they're more team-focused than the others; hand in hand was the first I wrote for TOG fandom and a true stroke of inspiration. Meant to Find Each Other is the only multi-chaptered fic I ever managed to finish, it spans through multiple time periods, and the AU it's set in is very close to my heart.

I don't know who has already done this, but I'll tag @ellynneversweet @raedear @gallifreyburning @nicolos @nicolodigenovas and anyone else who feels like it!

#tag game #writing #fanfiction #my fanfiction

7 notes · View notes

archivalofsins · 26 days

Text

Okay, it's Mugram time. It took a while but I'm a much better writer than a reader. This is sarcasm I've had this in the back of my mind for a while and I've just gotten enough free time to really catch up on everything I was interested in. Sadly my attention is rather up and down with a lot of things. So, I'll be going over my first responses to the information provided so far and highlighting things that stick out to me.

Welcome to Gunsli and once again Star's notes on Mugram!

The Files

Gunsli: In Mugram Es goes by He/They and is identified as a Demiboy. I just find this interesting in general. I also like how it's noted that Es believes without a shadow of doubt that all the prisoners within Mugram are guilty. Yet, is choosing to adhere to J's words and look into the prisoners and their circumstances further.

This is a good way to highlight that Es has a bias that's leans more unfavorably in regards to the prisoners from the jump. This stated bias also leads me to wonder about the last part of their file.

"Es plans on finding out the truth behind these prisoners so he can finally give them the verdicts they deserve."

Because it just screams of confirmation bias a little bit. So I wonder how he'll end up interpreting the audiences verdicts.

Es even has to catch themselves from saying murders in their first voice drama lines and instead state crimes. As though they themselves already firmly believes the prisoners are all murderers. This plays on the fandoms and my own particular habit of taking milgram very literally in contrast to those within the fandom who will take things more figuratively.

There are a lot of people within the fandom who like to stretch the meaning of the word murder. To be fair, this is something that is easier for people to wind up doing. Especially when they themselves have not experienced the loss of a loved one due to something of that nature. A persons comfort with discussing violent crimes more hypothetically is incredibly dependent on their proximity to the concept of violent crime or how likely they believe it is for these things to happen to them.

Someone worried about being shot isn't going to really care about comparing anything less than what causes an immediate end to their life or physical harm a violent crime. While people protected by the individuals who do the shooting aren't really going to consider what those people are doing murder but self-defense.

So, having Es course correct from murder to crimes broadens the idea of what the prisoners can be in Mugram for. Crime is a broader term that gives the audience more space to assume and doesn't necessarily have to involve someone dying. Unlike the original term murderers that can be taken in incredibly subjective ways depending on ones proximity and experiences with murder.

"Hello, prisoners. I am your Warden, Es. I want to know about the mur– crimes you have committed. I am here to decide on your crimes, whether to decide that you are FORGIVABLE OR UNFORGIVABLE. I am... Es... I am the Warden of MUGRAM."

Finishing up with,

"...Well, no matter, I’ll figure it out in the end and judge them according to the law–"

Making it clear that Es' primary concern is judging the prisoners within Mugram in ways that align with the legal system.

Star: Hi! First of all, I think this is the tallest Es I've seen- in an ocgram and in any of the canon works. Though the age range does fit. However, the way that both their description and quote is written leaves me to believe they will be more inclined to vote unforgiven regardless of what he finds out. Furthermore, it shows a stubborn nature- someone who tends to stick to their beliefs regardless of any information shown. Whether that be in the present or future.

It also comes off as Es being the type of person to look for loopholes within the rules they have to follow to get to his intended outcome. (I need to specify that I don't think this is a bad trait by any means- it makes him feel as though he's more willing to act on his own discretion. Which is something I think would be very fun to play with.)

I also like the aesthetic of using files to show character profiles! The brief glimpses I've seen of Mugram before seem to portray it in a very court of law fashion so it's a nice attention to detail.

Gunsli: In contrast, J (the Jackalope of Mugram) is young naïve and can't even imagine the prisoners committing murder. Even referencing the three years old age for J that was speculated to be Jackalopes canon age earlier in the fandom. Since many ran with the assumption that Jackalope within the web series only began to exist when Milgram started.

Yes, even though in Es' first voice drama Jackalope makes consecutive references to his age and alludes that he is, in fact, older than Es. By teasing them and wondering if they're too young to actually handle the themes that Milgram will be covering.

I think it's a nice dichotomy to have here while being a kind of subtle nod to that idea. Though I don't know how much we should listen to either of them.

Since they both have clear biases.

Star: I like J's fur pattern- it's cute! And I appreciate having a birthday for him. Though the fact that he wants to forgive everyone seems as though he's overly invested. Emotionally speaking, that is. I could say that there's also the possibility that he's negligent/unaware of the prisoners past a first impression? Since his quote-

"I mean, in my opinion, I'd just FORGIVE all of them. Some of them don't seem like they'd ever commit murder. But, it's really up to you, Es."

-comes off as rather flippant. However, if we refer back to Es' profile, it's implied with this-

He believes there is no doubt the prisoners are guilty, but they'll listen to J's words and try to learn about their lives.

-that Jackalope specifically asked them to enquire about their circumstances. So it's more likely that he's either too attached emotionally or that he is gunning for reformation instead, for lack of a better word.

The Beginning of the Choices

Gunsli: It's kind of weird that J says they're murderers then that some of them seem like they could never kill anyone. It's like, buddy, do you even know why they're in here? If they don't seem like they could commit murder don't call them murderers so definitively.

It seems like J is more so going off a script of sorts than information they actually have. Since he contradicts himself a lot.

Plus it kind of sticks to Milgram proper with the explanation and heavily highlights the forgiven or unforgiven title. It emphasizes it a lot. Yet when it comes to people dying I feel like the only people who can really choose whether to forgive that or not are the ones tied to those people.

Mugram focuses on the legal system. So, legally they could be pardoned or convicted/sentenced. To keep it unforgiven or forgiven makes it seem like what they did has no real legal basis. At least that's the impression it's giving off.

Star: It's... hard to put a pin in J's behaviour. Because, as Gunsli has said above, it could come off as reading a script. But then immediately contradicting it with personal opinions and not actually being that informed. However, it could also come off as... almost goading Es into doing due diligence. Though that might be extending the benefit of the doubt too much. It is a bit disconcerting when compared to his and Es' character profiles though.

Justice

Gunsli: Well, that at least confirms the growing suspicions I had about J. It seems he's kept here in the Milgram with even a room of his own. So he's really no different than the prisoners in that regard.

Es: What’s opposite my room?

Jackalope: My room! You can’t enter without my permission, though.

Es: Eh, I don’t plan on it. Plus, there’s no door big enough for a human anyway.

There wasn't a room for Jackalope in the original was there?

Star: I find it interesting that, in contrast to Milgram proper, J claims to not know much about the prisoners because it's restricted information. As opposed to Jackalope, who says he's just not invested enough. I wonder if this is intentional as a way to show that J isn't as high up on the scale as one would be lead to believe? But it does seem like he is pushing for Es to do their job, despite their clear lack of interest in acting outside of the confines of the law.

Es also comes off as fairly dismissive in this, which leans into my point about him coming across as stubborn. And less likely to take in information that contradicts their worldview.

Gunsli: This line highlights again how naive J is in contrast to Jackalope of the web series.

Jackalope: Well, first impressions reveal a lot about a person, so…

In Es' voice drama in the milgram web series around this time Jackalope says,

"A human's first impressions reveal about ninety percent. If I had the right I'd vote guilty without hesitation."

J just says that first impressions reveal a lot about a person. Jackalope is more specific about the amount of information it reveals stating it tells you ninety percent about the person. You can get a good grasp of them but Jackalope as he's prone to do leaves what information it gives up to interpretation. A first impression usually involves learning a persons name seeing how they look/present themselves. Yet it doesn't tell you how they think, feel, or ended up in front of you. That's the ten percent you find out over the course of getting to know someone.

J is a bit too immature to really hone in on what first impressions tell you and what they leave to be desired. So they just say they tell you a lot. Because he was probably told they're meant to tell you a lot by someone else.

J shows his ineptitude when it comes to how Milgram functioned here,

Es: Well, no matter, I’ll figure it out in the end and judge them according to the law–

Jackalope: Eh? According to the law? Well, if we just judged them according to the law, then there’s no point in you being here. [Es makes an annoyed noise] You should make decisions based on your own standards. Even if it's based on sex or love, I have no problem with it.

Es: …Let’s just move on.

When he dissuades Es from making judgments based on their preferences. Saying if we were judging them by the law then there would be no reason for Es to be here. This is something said in the webseries but it is swiftly brought up after that using the law as a reason for a verdict is actually still allowed. Because any bias is allowed and none are excluded.

Yet, for some reason, J tries to exclude the law as a basis. This could be because the prisoners here are already unforgivable in the eyes of the law. So, J has a vested interest in keeping the legal system out of it.

Or due to general naivety.

Since this is Mugram maybe the law is exempt from being considered proper criteria to cast a judgment through.

Judge, Jury, Executioner - Scene Transcript

Gunsli: It's interesting I'm not too concerned about Es yet though. I don't know enough about them and he seems like a bit of a hard ass. I don't really like rigid characters too much. I tend to like people who are more flexible.

Star: Reading this, Es moreso feels like they are trying to cling to some form of control/identity markers, despite him recognising that those roles don't fit. It also makes the continued insistence about voting the prisoners unforgiven seem as though it's an extension of those issues. That combined with the mental image they seem to have of the law and those who work within it. That being said, they know at least one thing about himself- he likes sweet tea! It's something small, but it is something :- D

However, they don't seem as confrontational as they initially come off. Since when J asks if they like the tea, he says yes- despite immediately thinking it's bitter. But also can't wait to see Es fall into dissociative patterns lmao

001: Mayumi Kubo

Gunsli: Weird that's she's arguing for everyone else's innocence but not her own. People tend to do that when they have something they feel guilty about or are trying to make up for. It's also kind of stupid she says that not everyone here can be a murderer. It's a prison of ten they sure as hell could all be murderers statistically speaking.

It's just not as unlikely as she's making it sound.

This might be their glitches voice line,

“You can’t be serious… They can’t be…” or “You can’t be serious… They can’t do…”

Star: Mayumi... doesn't seem as logical as she's trying to come off. Her logic would make sense if this was a normal 'setting'. But it's a very small group that have specifically been picked. So unless she knows any other connecting factors, she can't just presume that anyone isn't a murderer. Though her hidden quote is pretty ambiguous, since it could apply to both a court case or the discovery that someone has died.

Gunsli: They changed the autopsy report on her.

Star: -_- <- look of disappointment.

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: Mayumi isn't good at her job. Like she's a comedically bad lawyer. No wonder she couldn't as much as she says she could sway the court. I mean she fails to have any notable deductive reasoning skills and she isn't that charismatic. It doesn't seem as though she's that good with debate when talking within her voice drama either and she backs off too easily.

She just seems bad at this. Before even going into her music video.

I guess if it was a crime to be bad at your profession, then she deserves to be here. If those are Mugram's standards. Yet, failing to get your client off the hook and that client then being killed in jail isn't really a failing of the person defending that individual but the prison system. I don't consider things like that murder and never will. By that logic, the jury should be here as well. Because they're just as responsible, if not more so than this woman. Ya, know; since they decided to put that person there.

But let's talk about this real quick,

"So, don't even worry. I have the command and the proof in my hand. I'll make sure that these things will only sway in my favor."

Me when I lie. Mu Kusunoki core when she said,

"Hey, what if If I am a bad girl Don’t hate me. Don’t even try to proof from “After Pain”."

As though there was no fucking evidence to be found there except there was an abundance of evidence.

This is the opposite of that. She's saying she has evidence when her best argument is did you see my client do it. As though the witness' eyesight has any bearing on any other evidence the prosecution may have outside of that witness. This doesn't even discredit that witness whom she admits was across the street so wouldn't have been able to get a clear look at the situation anyway.

“I have to ask.” Mayumi stands. “Witness, did you see my client actually go over to the store, rob it, and leave minutes after?" "Well, I didn't see her rob it, but the alarm–" The witness starts. "You didn't see her do it." Mayumi points out. "Yes, but–" The witness rubs their neck. "You were across the street from the store; how would you know it was her?" Mayumi stares at the witness, who now is uncomfortably shifting before they finally breathe. "If you don't have any answer, then I guess my line of questioning is over."

No wonder her client had to serve time.

Like I recognize that she may be trying to establish reasonable doubt while the witness is basically going,

"Why did your client run then?"

But the witness is right. Why did your client run? Why was their leave conveniently timed with when the alarm went off? It doesn't look good to leave as soon as the alarm goes off. The fact that her client did that is more concrete than her debate of,

"Well, did you catch her in 4k?"

No I fucking didn't because I don't have cameras for eyes what the fuck type of question. In fact even with just having her perspective on this case. I'd still come out of this thinking she's gullible and her client is lying. Because her client has every motivation to steal. Her client is just running the old question of is stealing okay if it's for a good reason. Such as is it okay to steal food, diapers, or medicine for your family.

And the answer to me is yes, as long as you don't get caught. Once you get caught, it's up to the system to decide if you get leniency or not. However, since her client is vehemently refusing to admit they stole anything, she can't even make the argument they were doing it for a good reason. An argument that might have afforded them more leniency. Because they clearly did it like that's not up for debate.

On top of that, what her client stole is conveniently omitted. Again, this is a display of her being bad at her job. Because that should have been a focus of discussion.

"Your Honor, this is an outrage.” Mayumi stands up. “Surely you can find some leeway–" “It’s clear to me that after all this back and forth what my stance will be.” The judge bangs a gavel and Mayumi swallows with a frown. Don’t condemn anything I say Because I swear I’ll make them pay “...is GUILTY of the charge of theft.” The judge announces.

Her client winding up guilty is the only reasonable outcome here. Since the judge can't give leeway if no additional context on the offenders' circumstances are given. Her entire defense was attempting to disprove the person you were defending did not do something you at a point suspect they did yourself.

What did you think the outcome would be here?

“But, she was clearly innocent!”

Mayumi denial isn't good.

Because if she was innocent, you are just a trash lawyer. I don't even have all the details of that case, and I think your client was guilty because they had the motivation to do it.

Something they do not hide from you,

"Okay, I need you to tell me. Be honest." Mayumi exhales. "Did you steal from the store?" "What?" The client shakes her head vigorously. "No, no! I wouldn't do that. I went there to grab some snacks and medication for my sister. I wouldn't rob the store! I have a job and I'm the only source of income for them and I can't leave them because then–"

What the fuck did she steal to go to prison?

Like where are they where theft is this severe of a charge? Alright, Larceny is punishable with jail time. It's not a long sentence like a max three months to a year. At least where I'm from, but that's still dependent on the price of goods stolen and how often one has been caught stealing.

Source: CriminalDefenseLawyer

However from how it's consistently described as theft and stated to have occurred in a store. What her client did is instead shoplifting or where I'm from retail fraud. Which to be honest has much more severe of a punishment depending on the degree which is again determined by the price of the items stolen,

Source: Law Office of John Freeman

So, pardon me for asking but what the fuck did her "very innocent" client "allegedly" in her opinion steal? Like I hate to sound like I'm on the side of the prosecution here but I kind of am. Because Mayumi's entire defense is,

"My client didn't do this trust. Your honor my clients vibes are immaculate."

Which isn't good enough.

Still not guilty because I judge murders not oh there's this thing I feel bad about. If anything- the judge should be in here, not her, but still... This entire case is weird. Also, if Mayumi viewed this individual as innocent and I can poke an egregious amount of holes into why that may clearly not be the case it certainly doesn't make me trust her words on the other prisoners. Because she's a comedically bad judge of character.

Star: She comes off as very naïve. Both in terms of how much faith she seemed to have in her client and how she claimed she was going to get said client no jail time, without even bringing up motivation as a potential way to get leeway. She also didn't bring up the idea of a plea deal at any point, which didn't help her client's case. Though this isn't too surprising, given her attitude concerning the prisoners in Mugram. Assuming no one here could possibly be a murderer is a very heavy assumption to make. Doubly so when you decide to act as the advocate to get everyone out based on said assumption.

002: Masaru Iwai

Gunsli: I dare him to incriminate himself. I double-dog dare him to admit what he did on the mic. Only a chicken wouldn't do it. I bet he's too much of a coward to follow through. A real man takes any dare. But his file is right he's all bark, no bite- All kid, no man.

Possible glitchesd voiceline,

“SHIT! FUCK! This wasn’t supposed to happen! We should have left when we saw them – DAMN IT!”

Ha-ha loser did a dare and killed someone. Ha, ha point and laugh at the guy who makes poor life choices at the age of- NINETEEN. Ha that's ridiculous. That actually makes it so much funnier that's exactly what someone like that would be doing at that age.

Star: He's fun! I like him :- D. Should probably work on how headstrong he is though, that's gonna keep getting him in trouble.

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: Oh the restraint thing is interesting also the way he's describing this bet thing reminds me of the movie Nerve. That was a pretty fun movie I might watch that again.

Oh wait yeah back to this guy.

Star: It is interesting that mugram has a an in canon reason as to why the prisoners don't leave the interrogation.

Gunsli: I'm going to say this before I even read the song thing- If he's a bad gambler this is going to be hilarious. Mugram is just incarcerating people for being bad at their chosen occupations. Huh it's not good to cheat in card games.

These games are already incredibly predatory without this guy counting cards and bringing spares on him to up his chances. He's a shitty person. The casino already does what he's doing. So maybe he justifies his actions with that. Yet, that only works when he's betting in those areas. He seems to be betting with friends repeatedly and taking their money to the point of financially ruining them.

It doesn't shy away from that either, and it's not even like he's playing fair. Is it really a gamble when you always have an ace up your sleeve? But it doesn't seem like people are too bothered by his consistent winning.

Since two player call him on his bluff,

"The final two players call and Masaru smiles."

Call means to match a players raise. So it's not like they folded, which would have been pulling out entirely. This is usually why people raise to make the more risk-averse pull out.

This is also the reason Masaru states he raised,

"Was it a good idea to raise the betting amount? He wasn't entirely sure, but it would at least weed out the ones who didn't want to be here. It was a little of a bluff, anyways. Glancing at his cards one final time, he exhales and stares across the table at someone."

To know for sure what he's doing here we'd need to figure out what he's playing. Which is impossible to discern because it's going by both blackjack and poker rules. Where Masaru seems to be playing poker and the other person with a five and ace is playing blackjack. Because there's no case in which one person in a poker game has only two cards.

So, what's more than likely happened is him and his friends were rigging casino games for quick cash.

They all played at different tables. They did this to save up money and may have probably split it amongst themselves. That or something went egregiously wrong when it came to describing these card games, but barring that being the solution-

There's evidence that Masaru and his friends are just running a casino scam.

Sorry, got distracted playing poker and blackjack with my father. But yeah him and his friends seem to be cheating at the casino.

He brings extra decks to add cards to the game if he's lagging behind,

"He looks around the room and walks back to his desk. He slides some boxes into his bag quickly and walks out of the door, shutting the door as he leaves."

This exchange implies his friends are in on it as well,

“Yeah, yeah. We know. You’ve told us many times.” One of the people who paid Masaru groans. “Seriously, I’m going to go bankrupt on this shit.” “Seriously? You should’ve just said. We’ll do a couple with you next time, dude.”

It's also highlighted that he grabs a box of cards from his bag during one of the games and he's shown doing card tricks. Him and his friends seem to frequent this place and could have ordered duplicate decks online or picked them up from somewhere else.

"Masaru instinctively ruffles through his bag to find what he had slid inside it earlier. A box of cards."

Masaru is implied to be better at this than his friends. Knowing when to toe the line and not draw too much attention to himself.

This can be seen here,

"He lays his cards out. Just a pair of normal cards, nothing special. Some show a similar hand, which isn’t too bad. There are a two people who both have a straight, which makes Masaru huff. Splitting the plot."

Only giving himself a good enough hand to stay in the game and split the pot. He's slowly building up to bigger wins as the game progresses. He does say in his voice drama that this is how he frequently makes his money and gambling isn't something that's consistently reliable unless someone is cheating.

His friends don't seem to be as good at it as he is though.

Since one of his friends says they're losing money and on the verge of going bankrupt- Which would have been a perfect time to go just don't play then it's luck based and if you're not winning you just aren't winning. Instead, they say they'll do a couple with them next time as though that could change the outcome. I mean, if they cheated successfully, then it could have changed his friends financial situation a good deal.

But it didn't work out that way; did it?

Instead, what seems to have happened was Masaru's associate was caught and pulled away from the table. Which could have led to all of them getting caught, his friend being arrested, or killed depending on the establishment and how it functions.

Still not direct murder. So, it's none of my personal concern how he decides to make his money and endanger his peers. They're all adults play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Star: Definitely cheating , though that isn't really surprising. With how confident he was making that bet in the interrogation.

003: Keisuke Izumi

“You should have known that wasn’t good for them. You should have known this wasn’t good for them. They’ve died because of you.”

Gunsli: Not to be that person but this guy kind of has the sort of personality I dislike. He seems like the sort to entrust things to others and then get mad when they don't turn out how he wanted. Sure he's trusting and cooperative but honestly it kind of comes off like he's only being that way so he can't be held accountable later.

The sort to say something like,

"I left it all to you! I trusted you to do this right-"

Or in this case you should have known. Nothing can ever really be his fault if he never commits to it himself.

Star: He kind of gives Muu vibes. At least in terms of how he seems to give leniency with the expectation that it will be returned to him. Idk if that makes sense though. Also it's interesting to note that whoever is writing these profiles up is unsure of Keisuke's gender- implying they are going off of an impression rather than any concrete data. This also implies it is J who is collating this information.

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: Oh, finally, someone who seems to actually have committed murder. Even then, it's kind of up in the air. Seems my first impression was right. He's someone who kind of just hocks things he could very well do himself on other people without putting much regard into the scope of what he's asking for.

If no one is speaking up about an incident then there's not much an authority figure can do about it. They're not all powerful and omnipotent. They can't punish students for things. They haven't witnessed themselves or based on hearsay from other students who weren't involved with the incident and refuse to get directly involved. This teachers hands are literally tied. So, unless he's doing something completely irresponsible like having the person doing the bullying look into it because maybe they don't know it's them doing it I don't see how the teacher is to blame.

Saying I thought you'd do something about this is as good as the teacher telling him,

"Hey if you really care about your friend I'd think you'd do something about it."

However, the teacher has to be a professional and just say,

"None of the students are discussing things with me honestly. So, until they do there's very little I can personally do about the situation."

Which frankly is something this guy could have done himself. Since he's witnessed these altercations he should know the names of the parties involved by this point. So why didn't he do anything else before escalating the issue to further violence. There are so many things one can do before attacking someone else.

Plus it's not like what he did was self-defense. It just seems like he decided to attack someone to the point of killing them simply to stick to his word. It's like okay you kept your promises. That's not always a noble thing and there were probably other ways for him to keep that promise without harming another person. Now this is under the speculation that he did kill someone and not just harm them because that is the implication. However, I need to make it abundantly clear I don't feel bad for him nor do I like his attitude.

He decided to mindlessly obey and rely on authority figures to solve issues for him and wound up being complacent in what was going on within his school. Honestly, he's more responsible than his teacher. The teacher at least did what they said they would. This dude can't get mad because he knows the teacher is telling the truth.

Because he's accepted that his friend is lying and dragging out the situation longer than it needs to be. Tgis exchange implies he's accepted that this is his friends decision so who's really being shady and to blame,

He glances up after a couple of pages and spots someone walking over to him. “Hey!” The person immediately looks up before frowning. “Hey, Keisuke.” “You wanna talk? I saw what was happening earlier and–” Keisuke hops off the brick wall and walks over to the person. I'll trust you just for a little longer "I'm sorry." "Huh?" “I don’t want to talk about it. I know what you saw and I know you wanted me to talk about it, but–” “Look, I get it.” Keisuke sighs. “Don’t worry, okay?” “Got it.”

Also it's not like at any point he intervened either despite having opportunities too,

Keisuke begins to move away as the pitch darkness turns into the hallway of the school again. He glances over at the classroom door and stares at something. Someone inside notices him. "Hey, is your friend coming to save you?" Someone sneers. "W-wait, leave him out of this–" The person at the desk cries out. "Only if you do everything we say for the next day." "Fine.".

So, he just comes off as complacent.

He's just over here like,

"T3

"Teacher why aren't you doing anything?! You're supposed to be better than me because authorities are meant to protect people. Not other people there's nothing- I a person with no authority can do. So, I'm wiping my hands of any part in this. Plus, if I do a bad thing, it's not bad because I'm just keeping a promise. A promise you should have kept as an educational professional."

Likw okay brat. He really could have helped but,

"He's a kid, he's just a high schooler!"

I'm sorry I was in very anti-bullying schools, not because of the teachers but the students. Change starts with you sometimes. It just simply does. I got bullied because people told other people I was bullying them at points. Can you imagine someone coming up to you and bullying you like we don't tolerate your kind here- Bullies! And now you're just kind of here like getting bullied but also like wait a fucking second I'm not a bully- I'd bully me too if I thought that!

He could've thrown hands.

Other students didn't want to speak about the conflict get personally involved in the conflict then speak about it yourself. Fuck it, we can all go down together. Make it egregiously loud, get your parents involved be a problem that can't be ignored. Do it in the classroom if necessary. What the fuck is the teacher going to do to stop you? They can't even stop the other bullying. Be a disturbance. Make this teachers day hell until something is done.

This isn't the teacher's fault but this would give them something to work with and look into at least. Like if you give the teacher something to work with they're going to work with it. It's certainly more reasonable than murder!

Then being out here like,

"Oh teacher you aren't paying attention to this issue because every party involved is telling you there is no issue and that I'm a lying piece of shit. Something I know my friend is complicit in. Well I guess i just have to respect their choice."

This guy just seems like he doesn't want to get his hands dirty or in trouble unless he can get something out of it. Like in a I'll keep my word so you keep yours way. So, I don't feel bad for him or his circumstances because that's an asshole way to be.

Star: He seems like he's just trying to help for self satisfaction. And even then, only doing things that can be done passively. Granted, I might be biased because I already wasn't fond of this guy. Also, as Gunsli pointed out, he could have done more instead of relying on others.

004: Tomoko Shiratori

Gunsli: She seems nosey.

Star: I don't have much of a opinion on her.

Gunsli: Fair, not sure if this is right but-

This seems to be her glitched voiceline,

"How. How unaffected."

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: You know when you give people dirt on others it gets on you too. If she was so concerned about what her clients would do with the information she gave them then she should have been more careful. Saying I was just telling them the facts after can only get her so far. If she feels guilty about it then maybe don't work in trading and discovering other people's secrets.

She chose this occupation I don't feel bad for her.

This kind of just comes with the territory. So if it's just a case of her telling a wife her husband is cheating on her and that wife killing said husband. Yeah, it's not her problem and it's not murder. So, I don't care.

I just really don't care for indirect murders they bore me. It's like you could hail a taxi for someone or get them an uber thrn their driver could be a murderer. The driver could just decide that's what they want to do today. Does that suddenly make you responsible for how that person chooses to live their lives?

No.

Chances are she would have just hired another private investigator if Tomoko didn't do it. So I just don't care. This is a risk that can occur in her line of work if she doesn't like the risks and direct consequences of the profession she choose to go into get a different job.

That or actually do due diligence. If she believes a client of hers may wind up attacking the person they hired her to look into over the information you give them then just don't give them that information or alert the proper authorities of that risk. She didn't have to take such a sketchy job.

Again this is why i don't think of Milgram proper through an indirect lens it simply isn't murder. If someone didn't have the intent to kill another person and their actions didn't directly cause that persons death- I mean directly not in a domino effect or a butterfly flapped it's wings and a tornado formed way then that's not murder. That person is just living their normal life. The only participation awards for murder are accessories and abettors. Both of which are still more actively involved than this.

Star: Whether it counts as murder or not, she did not do due diligence. Furthermore, if she was really as suspicious of the job she was doing (as implied) she could have refused it, or put in any safeguarding measures.

005: Shun Minami

Gunsli: Not that concerned about her despite the warning. J is writing these and he's like three not the best judge of character a three year old rabbit or person. It's just like they seem to be hiding something I think you should vote everyone innocent they don't seem like they could do anything wrong. Alright buddy pick a lane.

Star: She kinda reminds me of that one Vocaloid song Super Hero

Ummm...I think it's this,

"Yes, it’s been done. Good we even now."

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: I didn't vote on them or any of the characters before Daiki- who I just voted guilty for no reason. But it's not his turn yet I thought it was but no this is someone else. Ahn they killed someone and it was for money but uh you're the jobs you choose. She doesn't particularly say they have to do this. I guess they could be lying because it starts on a stage with gun imagery but ends with her using a knife but uh that's none of my business really.

Again this just seems like one of those cases where enough isn't really known. So, I guess they deserved that 50/50.

Star: ... huh. Was she asked to kill the guy in the previous case?

Gunsli: Well there was a knife stabbing at the end of that so maybe. Damn the private investigators negligence really had a domino effect huh?

There's a quiet laugh and a stabbing noise.

Huh being shit at your job just does that I guess. Maybe next time investigate your clients. Because she didn't even know if that person was actually the others wife or not. So she could have just been hired to stalk someone for somebody else.

Star: It does seem like they dithered on whether they should kill him or not. Though I am curious what they'd need the money for.

Gunsli: I mean not to sound unsympathetic but a crime is crime regardless of one's personal motivations. No one really thinks about crimes objectively just in terms of what they find relatable or morally just themselves. It's kind of why so many cases of similar caliber have such varying verdicts. Put a criminal on a stand that a jury can't project upon and the more likely they are to actually wind up Guilty.

Even Es is only being nice to Shun because they were nice to him. That's the only reason he thinks they couldn't have done that. That's just how fickle the judgments of people are.

Star: Definitely, yeah. Though, to be fair, I'm just curious about it because this seems like a lot of effort to go through to get money. But that contrasts with the seeming delay of the killing.

Gunsli: I mean she went through a lot of effort to not get a real job and instead make money off of ending the lives of others. Furthermore she said she's only killed one person but in the song extraction the person says they took longer on this job implying they've done more.

So she just seems dishonest.

"Hey, you spent a long time getting this contract complete. Why?" The man asks, placing his head on his hand, his smirk still on his face.

I mean I'm curious about why she would need the money as well. But- again everyone here choose the ways they wanted to make money and live their lives for better or worse.

I just can't bring myself to feel that bad for them.

Star: Yeah, I agree with that. Which is why I'm just curious, not particularly sympathetic.

Gunsli: Ah, fair I thought I was being a bit too harsh on them but this is one of those not my business scenarios. So, I'm glad I didn't vote on it. Like I don't particularly feel like it's really good or really bad.

The situation is just there.

Star: Yeah. It's not really something to judge, especially at this point. Like they were hired. If she didn't do it, someone else would have. Which may be cynical, but it is what it is.

Gunsli: Hey it's just business at that point, baby. Either you're getting that bag or someone else is. So, I feel you there Star. His death certificate was pretty much signed and sealed the last thing it needed to be was delivered.

The saying is don't shot the messenger not the messenger can't shot you bang, bang.

006: Daiki Kawaguchi

Gunsli: Oh hey a dude to bully. I voted this guy guilty I had no reason to. I just heard everyone was innocent so far and that's pretty boring. It doesn't really matter he seems to be innocent anyway.

Star: He seems pretty defensive. Partially because he mentions that he's an office worker then immediately backpedals-

"I work in an office, but I really don't know if you care too much about that."

-and because he literally tells the listener to not say he's in the wrong.

Now onto the glitched voice line,

"I need to get her/him back, damn it!"

List of unnecessary/unlikely variations~

I need to get her/him back, fuck it! I need to get her/him back, need it! I need to get her/him back, kill it! I need to get her/him back, mash it! I need to get her/him back, cook it! I need to get her/him back, burn it! I need to get her/him back, tear it! I need to get her/him back, slap it! I need to get her/him back, hurt it! I need to get her/him back, roll it! I need to get her/him back, boop it! I need to get her/him back, will it! I need to get her/him back, wish it! I need to get her/him back, free it! I need to get her/him back, read it! I need to get her/him back, turn it! I need to get her/him back, tell it!

Gunsli: And that’s what Daiki did that day in exactly that order. It was fucked up what he did and those people will never be the same. The witnesses will need a lifetime of therapy. There’s nothing that can make them unsee what they just saw.

This man should not be allowed to cook.

Star: We think it's the first one, but we ended up doing all the rest of them because of the lack of known letters on that word.

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: I voted this person Guilty his thing hasn't ended yet I think. Which is probably good because I was just being a bitch if I'm being honest. I didn't even know who he was or what he did yet. I was just doing it for chaos reasons. But ya know I'll argue anything so let me just hope they suck real quick.

Damn I'm glad he sucks.

He is his own worst advocate. Like got damn I picked a good person to vote guilty. Oh cool fuck cops. Good enough reason I didn't need more but like I said with Kazui ACAB is a state of mind. It overwrites everything fuck this guy. I mean maybe he isn't a cop. He stole information from the police station and dishonorable discharge can be related to the military.

So maybe it's that but like he still sucks.

Like I know his sister is missing and maybe one of the kids here killed her can't say who. But ya know throw a dart a board I'd wager maybe Mia because people keep highlighting she's harmless and Izumi seems to have killed a guy.

Plus this dude keeps highlighting there are kids here and that may be because they're around his sisters age.

Or maybe Es is right and he did kill his sister and just doesn't remember doing it.

Star: Yeah, definitely defensive. Also, would be fucked up if Tomoko was the person who got the extra info he found-he feels very sketch though, even if we know he's trying to find someone.

007: Isamu Takao

Gunsli: On principle I distrust people who are super adamant about not meaning to be somewhere. Because if you really weren't meant to be here you wouldn't be.

This isn't like real life where false imprisonments happen. Maybe that is something that can happen in Mugram but that would be a structural issue at that point. Especial if they really did nothing.

But it seems like he did something to me.

Star: He's... interesting. They feel a bit suspicious, but that might be because his mannerisms feel reminiscent of how Mikoto tends to try and blow off stuff to avoid any potential wrong he's done.

Glitched line seems to be this,

"Ah-No, no, this wasn’t supposed to happen-" or "It– No, no, this wasn’t supposed to happen–"

Gunsli: Not the words of the most uninvolved party in the world.

008: Mia Fukuda

Gunsli: You ever not trust someone solely based on how they carry themselves and the color they're wearing. This is one of those cases.

I haven't read a thing yet and I just don't like her. That probably says something about me. Like I don't like the nervous quiet character trope. Which I don't. That's one of the reasons I'm still not that fond of Haruka.

So, the characterization is characterizing I just hate this personality type.

I literally typed this before reading her description saying she's nervous. So again the characterization is characterizing. Damn life is testing me she's a Pisces...

Unfortunate we share a sign...

Star: I don't really know what to think of her. So I'll just wait till I see more of how they interact with people in general before coming to a full decision.

This is her glitched voice line,

"I’m sorry."

Gunsli: Ahn... this is going to be one of those situations where I have to abstain simply because I just don't like her.

Those come up from time to time. Maybe I'll change my mind when I find out more about her but for now... Mmm nah.

No, I think I'm good.

009: Ryuu Seki

Gunsli: Bitch that's not how patient-doctor confidentiality works. You are in jail the existence of that does not stop your from being interrogated if a crime has taken place in which your or your patients are incriminated.

What type of bullshit? He just came here and lied. Well we at least know you killed a patient now.

Like the fact that he said this is more incriminating. We could have assumed it didn't even involve his job. But, he just made it abundantly clear it does in one statement.

So at this point he was either assisting his patients with suicide which in some places is against the law or killing his patience then claiming it was assisted suicide. However since he brings up patient-doctor confidentiality there's an implied sense of agreement or discussion between patient and doctor.

He could just be a liar though.

I don't trust him much at all since he started off on an untrustworthy note by lying about how patient-doctor confidentiality works.

Star: I don't trust him as far as I could throw him. And I greatly dislike him to boot. His whole quote about being a doctor and how that makes it easier to make hard decisions is. Incredibly suspicious. Not to mention an egregious leap of logic to begin with. It ends up coming off as though he's saying all this to gain a position of power/authority. Also, as Gunsli brought up, that isn't really how doctor-patient confidentiality works. It's also a common misconception that it is that people don't really look into. All of that makes it feel like he's lying about being a doctor in general.

010: Sora Mochizuki

Gunsli: Seems like an average engineer. From what she said she may be pretty well known outside of Mugram.

At least this comment implies that,

"Oh, funny thing. I didn’t know no one knew who I was."

Star: Can't really think of anything to say about her. She doesn't say anything noteworthy.

"It... It’s good." or "Ah...It's good."

#gunsli rambles

2 notes · View notes