#also why anti rhysanders exist and why nesta is such a debated character

[arson-09]

its very interesting to me how Tamlin is the character and High Lord that is heavily vilified (I would almost say even more than Beron strangely) when he is the only High Lord to have talked about d how he has gone about removing slavery within his court, protecting lower fae in general, and his court was open to immigration from other courts (i cant remember if its mentioned again in acomaf but in acotar fae from other courts are free to move to the spring court. example, Alis) and how overall he is a great leader. Especially when you compare him and Rhysand as High Lords.

The Court of Nightmares is well, a nightmare. Its existence is extremely strange and makes Rhysand look very odd. as well as its unclear how Rhysand gets his wealth. Velaris was a hidden city until acomaf-ish, which means it was locked (so no immigration or emigration which isn't bad per-say but does bring up how it works economically) and Rhysands inability or unwillingness to protect his citizens (not enforcing the wing clipping ban and allowing people to be abused in the CoN. and before anyone starts about him not being able to control the illyrians, why did he make it a law in the first place? It just makes him look bad) makes him look like a shitty ruler. His supposed "feminism" and friendship with the people of velaris doesnt answer these very important questions or justify the strange shit he does. Versus Tamlin, which you can refer to my opening statement for the comparison. Also to note, his rule only came into question and stability after Feyre broke into people minds (which I do feel is extremely gross and a huge violation of ones autonomy and privacy) and had to sabotage him. I won't comment how I feel about this in this post, but it says a lot that she had to go through such lengths to break him down. Especially after it was revealed he was in fact a double agent and never actually siding with Hybern.

The only time Tamlin is an arguably bad high lord is in acofas and acosf where he is in a severe mental crisis and not in a position to properly rule. But even then, it's not clear if this is actually causing harm to the land and people. It's probably not good because they don't have a proper leader but I can't believe it's a severe issue.

Its definitely a strange choice, isn't it? Cause I think anyone in their right mind would choose the anti-tyranny, anti-slavery leader who does his best for his people... and its somehow not our supposed 'hero'

"I once told you I would fight against tyranny, against that sort of evil. Did you think you were enough to turn me from that?"

Acowar, chapter 44

[ofbreathandflame]

@ 💥 anon: you're the sweetest! thank you so much for your kind response! for context: essentially anon was asking abt the last nesta post i just made, not to give too much away lol but in short: they are vaguely anti nesta and would just like my opinion and they were literally the kindes and i appreciate that!

i definitely can understand where your frustrations lie, and I've always said that if a character reminds u of something unsavory, that is enough to want to do away with the character. its not anyone's place to argue someone's experience and how it informs their reading into a character. so i read that, and i respect your opinion in regard to that.

and my argument - as you can see through my page or if u followed me on m last blog - has always been the problem with abuse. i don't really believe the story commits to what it wants abt nesta: does it thinks she's abusive? broken? how does the book want to contextualize her behaviors? it just doesn't know what it wants. i have several theories for this: (1) tamlin/rhys as an abusive allegory fails. the story shoots itself in the foot with how it wants to root out, punish or categorize abuse. how much does intention and trauma factor into how we respond to abuse? what is the function of trauma in relation to abuse. like for rhys - the story could have easily positioned him as someone who has to learn rather than someone who is already knowledgeable of 'human' ideals of power and control. it also doesn't know how to inform rhysand's actions without justifying them. we know why rhys does things, but that doesn't mean that (1) it's a good enough excuse for characters in world and (2) that it doesn't still say something abt him. (3) that readers will come away with opinions that match what they're told. hence the idea of a grey character. their actions are debatable.

and this just bleeds into all other characters, especially characters positioned as more 'grey'.

in my opinion, the story would have worked better if it honestly and consistently stuck with nesta as a abusive person. the story has nesta go on these 'redemptive' journies and it doesn't even want to commit to a reason as to what she needs to redeem herself for. the story is too moral for its own good. and i think characters like rhys, nesta, and feyre suffer for it. like SF spends so much time running in circles trying to avoid why it even exists. it won't let feyre be part of the process, it won't let the sisters have a conversation, it won't root out the issue at hand, so it gives these placeholders such as the valkyries and the training to avoid having to address the mess of character dynamics.

like intention and goodwill don't negate abuse. objectively these actions are just abusive all the way around, but then the story doesn't commit to a framework so we get these placeholder arguments like : "rhys abused feyre for her personal gain, and tamlin and nesta abused her for their own selfish reasons." that is an arbitrary framework to measure abuse - its subjective. and its easily manipulated in arguments.

and if a character like feyre wants revenge - the story should just have her do that and let the reader come away with what they think that means for her character. objectively - it would be abusive, but if the story isn't operating in a moral sandwich and allows characters to make decisions based on their own personal goals, then it wouldn't really be a problem.

but the story doesn't do that and so it keeps replicating the same environments of abuse, and it doesn't see a problem bc it has established nesta as bad. and bad means she can't be a victim in any capacity,

and then we get arguments like the one i was addressing in my initial post that almost can't acknowledge that cassian is abusive to nesta bc it wants to believe that nesta's power in one dynamic equals to power in another. or -- we've created this conundrum of arguments that can't truly be addressed bc the underlying problem will be much more apparent. if cassian is abusive, then rhys is, and so on.

i think you'll find that we agree on much more than u think anon, i just think people have isolated themselves into corners of the fandom and have created these ideas that acknowledgement of one thing negates another. we can argue that nesta abused feyre, but we can also argue that nesta was a victim of cassian and of rhys.

like cassian's actions towards nesta are just abusive. and the story just passively allows it to happen bc it (1) believes violence and sa are conduits of redemption (e.g. rhys, lucien) and (2) it doesn't know what issues to address so it just has cassian 'punish nesta' without acknowledging why or the sheer disadvantage: nesta has no money, no friends, not home, no close family, no one but him. nothing but the close he has her wear, the food her has her eat. nesta has to make her own friend before she can even begin to heal. there is no power for her there, and there is no such thing as 'mutual abuse' cassian is just often angry at nesta bc the story thinks he should be angry. and it makes his abuse all the more scary. we get these arguments that are like 'cass would never' and then we get the hike scene and i think 'wouldn't he?" he can fly out of there, he can brave the steps, he has a job that pays him more than he will ever need, he can fuck and drink his depression away, he can walk away. nesta cannot. and that's abuse.

to conclude, this doesn't have to be a moral argument, but it so often becomes one bc the story only solves one abusive situation by altering the framework of abuse as it sees fit. i respect your opinion and i really appreciate your message it was genuinely nice and open and i wish there were other people like u who can hate a character but sustain the integrity of your argument. and i am happy u saw that cass was abusive even when u hate nesta. that's really the important part! thank you for your vulnerability❤️