#and find so many interesting and compelling aspects of her

[thelustybraavosimaid]

There is an unfortunately pervasive aspect of this fandom in that people conflate and replace what is established in canon with what is "true" in fanonland. Or they let their biases run wild and come up with a wide array of baseless ideas.

I tire of this.

Was is when a 22 year old adult started showing interest in a pubescent 14 year old?

This is not out of place in a universe where the author turned Daenerys and Drogo into some love story, twisted as it was, or when he had admitted he was playing around with Sandor and Sansa in the books and that "there was something there," or when he has commissioned Sansan fanart hanging on his wall.

The man does not give two flying fucks about age gaps, even problematic ones by our modern standards.

Was it when he trapped her in Dorne with knights outside ready to kill anyone who tried to help her?

Why would they kill anyone who tried to help her? Lyanna was found in a bed of blood and was ill, so she possibly had puerperal fever after giving birth. There was no way she didn't have a wetnurse to accompany her. Was this wetnurse supposed to have been slain by the Kingsguard for daring to assist Lyanna?

Was it when he joined the war to kill her remaining family and Northerners?

He didn't join the war to specifically kill her family. I find it hard to believe that anyone could forget Rhaegar had stakes of his own, and family of his own. Like, if it wasn't for Rhaegar dying, Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon wouldn't have been killed by the Mountain and Amory Lorch.

He didn't deliberately join the war to kill Lyanna's family, he did it so he could win it, return to King's Landing, and depose Aerys. This has been his goal as far back as the tourney at Harrenhal:

His lordship lacked the funds to pay such munificent prizes, they argued; someone else must surely have stood behind him, someone who did not lack for gold but preferred to remain in the shadows whilst allowing the Lord of Harrenhal to claim the glory for hosting this magnificent event. We have no shred of evidence that such a "shadow host" ever existed, but the notion was widely believed at the time and remains so today.

But if indeed there was a shadow, who was he, and why did he choose to keep his role a secret? A dozen names have been put forward over the years, but only one seems truly compelling: Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone.

If this tale be believed, 'twas Prince Rhaegar who urged Lord Walter to hold the tourney, using his lordship's brother Ser Oswell as a gobetween. Rhaegar provided Whent with gold sufficient for splendid prizes in order to bring as many lords and knights to Harrenhal as possible. The prince, it is said, had no interest in the tourney as a tourney; his intent was to gather the great lords of the realm together in what amounted to an informal Great Council, in order to discuss ways and means of dealing with the madness of his father, King Aerys II, possibly by means of a regency or a forced abdication. (The Fall of the Dragons: The Year of the False Spring, The World of Ice and Fire)

—

Rhaegar had put his hand on Jaime's shoulder. "When this battle's done I mean to call a council. Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but...well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken. We shall talk when I return." (Jaime I, AFfC)

The major wrench thrown in Rhaegar's plans was Aerys attending said tourney.

Was it when he left her to die in a pool of her own blood?

Rhaegar was dead before then, and even as he was dying he whispered Lyanna's name, as was semi-confirmed in the World of Ice and Fire app.

Leading a large host to the Trident, Rhaegar met Robert in battle duelling on horseback in the fording of the river Rhaegar was killed after giving Robert a serious wound. He would die with Lyanna's name on his lips. (Rhaegar Targaryen, AWoIaF app)

She was in his thoughts even while dying.

Was it when she screamed for her brother to save her?

She didn't. And she would never call Ned "Lord Eddard."

As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. "Eddard!" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.

"Lord Eddard," Lyanna called again.

"I promise," he whispered. "Lya, I promise..."

"Lord Eddard," a man echoed from the dark. (Eddard X, AGoT)

This is based on a fever dream, of which George already said that not all dreams are literal. Rose petals certainly were not blowing across a blood-streaked sky, after all, and by Ned's account, the petals in Lyanna's hold were not blue, but crushed and blackened.

Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. After that he remembered nothing. (Eddard I, AGoT)

Moreover:

I might mention, though, that Ned's account, which you refer to, was in the context of a dream...and a fever dream at that. Our dreams are not always literal.

[Source]

So we're still, deliberately, in the dark about the events surrounding the tower of joy.

You'll need to wait for future books to find out more about the Tower of Joy and what happened there, I fear.

————

Was it when she begged to be buried with her family in Winterfell?

About this.

It was already a given that Lyanna's body was going to be returned home, as all Starks are traditionally interred in the crypts.

Ned stopped at last and lifted the oil lantern. The crypt continued on into darkness ahead of them, but beyond this point the tombs were empty and unsealed; black holes waiting for their dead, waiting for him and his children. Ned did not like to think on that. (Eddard I, AGoT)

The only exception to this rule has been Brandon the Shipwright, since he was lost at sea. Rickard and Brandon died in King's Landing yet they were returned to Winterfell, so I doubt she'd truly have to beg Ned for that:

They were almost at the end now, and Bran felt a sadness creeping over him. "And there's my grandfather, Lord Rickard, who was beheaded by Mad King Aerys. His daughter Lyanna and his son Brandon are in the tombs beside him. Not me, another Brandon, my father's brother. They're not supposed to have statues, that's only for the lords and the kings, but my father loved them so much he had them done." (Bran VII, AGoT)

The problem is how frequently this allusion to a promise has been in Ned's chapters. I doubt he would be thinking of it nearly as much if it was solely about Lyanna's bones returning home, so her pleading must narratively carry a deeper meaning. We are talking about a man who has said before that he had lived with lies for fourteen years and how it often troubled him at night.

Jon was fourteen at the start of the series.

Please direct me to the "love story"

Regarding the possible nature of Rhaegar and Lyanna's relationship, I believe this quote of George's implies it was indeed a romance, in his own preferred telling of one:

It’s interesting, to get back to this issue of romance that you raised earlier. When I was in Spain a few years ago, I had dinner with a woman — a Spanish academic — and a big fan of both science fiction and romance, and she had read a lot of my stuff because people said I was a very romantic writer. And she sort of launched at me and said, “What are you talking about?! You are not a romantic writer, you know. Nobody ever lives happily ever after in your books!” I was defending it, saying, “Well, but that’s a different tradition of romance. I don’t — I’m a romantic writer in the tradition of The Great Gatsby and Romeo and Juliet, and, you know, the Beauty and the Beast. These things don’t necessarily have happy endings, but aren’t the most powerful romances the unfulfilled romances — the romances where people go their separate ways, but they’ll always have Paris, like in Casablanca, one of the films I showed here. You know, they go separate at the end, but they’ll always have Paris.” And she basically said, “No, you’re wrong. They have to be happily ever after together for it to be romance, otherwise it’s just sad.”

[Source: 03:19]

Rhaegar and Lyanna's story is analogous to the tale of Bael the Bard and the Stark maiden; there was a reason why this tale of the blue winter rose was told to Jon specifically. Like the Stark maiden in the story, Lyanna loved Rhaegar so much that she bore him a son.

Bael and the Stark maiden's tale was not a happily ever after, either; both lovers died in the end. But their union did produce a child.

[agentrouka-blog]

What made you first interested in Jonsa? I really want to love Jonsa. Which may sound strange. But hear me out. I’ve read all the metas and from a metatextual level I really agree with and believe in Jonsa. But I have trouble actually enjoying it and I think maybe it’s because so much content seems to focus on Jon pining over Sansa. I’d much prefer to see things from Sansa’s perspective where she sees the hero in him and sees that maybe all the songs aren’t lies after all as opposed to him “winning her over.” I feel I have been inundated my whole life with stories of outcast men pining over beautiful women they see as out of their league and “winning them over” and I honestly find the trope tiring because it’s so male perspective focused and doesn’t give Sansa the agency of choosing her lover, instead, making her something to be won or earned. If you have any suggestions for Jonsa content that focuses heavily on Sansa’s point of view, on her falling for Jon first (or at least falling for each other at the same time without realizing it) I’d love to hear them! And I’d love to hear what makes Jonsa appeal to you on a personal non-meta level!

Hi there!

I too draw a difference between Jonsa as a theory and shipping it for entertainment.

I've drifted quite a bit away from what you describe as "content", which is fanworks, art and fanfiction. My tastes are very narrow and that puts me outside the target audience for a lot of what is being shared by creators. Plus, I get a great deal more personal enjoyment out of just interpreting the canon text. I enjoy what the couple represents in the narrative more than I necessarily enjoy immersing myself in different non-canonical variants.

And there's a lot of variants. You have two similar but also very different canon-sources (books and tv show) and within those two sources very different takes on the couple. For as many "Jon pines for higborn Sansa" approaches you get an equal amount of "Sansa jealously pines for her brother's oblivious best friend" modern au's. What we enjoy in recreational reading is extremely personal and subjective.

That said, for fear of disappointing you, I don't particular enjoy the "Sansa falls first" scenarios because what I like about the couple especially is the idea of Sansa finally being appreciated for who she is. Canon offers us plenty of examples of Sansa extending affection and crushes on other characters. They are never truly reciprocated, and they join in on a theme of Sansa going unappreciated for her qualities by the world around her. She is disregarded, mocked, criticized, belittled, humiliated. So much so that a large part of the fandom considers this to be justified and educational for her. She has given up on being loved for herself, but she will not sacrifice her values as a consequence. So someone falling in love with her is to me a very compelling and cathartic validation of Sansa as a person. Of course, this only works if the person falling for Sansa is actually attractive to her and embodies the things we know she has been looking for all this time. But specifically the idea that Sansa falls first fails my personal taste because it contains a sense of lacking reciprocation that we've already seen multiple times in her story. She's been not-loved-in-return a lot already.

I do enjoy the concept of Jon being loved by Sansa, too, because it validated aspects of him he usually keeps close to his chest. Things that touch on his specific mixed sense of identity as a nobly-raised bastard. He has soft sensibilities, a romantic disposition, pedestrian dreams of family and home, and highly idealistic and emotional ideals surrounding leadership that center on duty and honor. But he is generally not appreciated for those specific things. He is appreciated for his brains and his abilities, his bravery, his pragmatism, his loyalty to his friends and duties - but not for the boy who wants to be Lord of Winterfell with a lady wife and babies, who wants to be a hero from the songs, Florian the Fool, Ryam Redwyne. It's a lovely and very specific recognition of a very private part of Jon, to be loved for his secret soft self.

But it's not my primary focus because unlike Sansa, Jon still receives a lot of validation and love in the source material. It's just not the specific kind he wants. So that makes it comparatively less compelling to me.

That doesn't mean that Sansa primarily falling in love with Jon isn't an equally valid thing to enjoy! It's just that I can't make you any good recommendations on this subject specifically because it's not my specific favorite flavor of jonsa.

I wish you good luck though!

[sweetestpopcorn]

Hello!! I know that aside from Daemon/Rhaenyra, you are a fan of Baelon/Alyssa. I just wanted to ask, what is your opinion on Viserra, or on the whole Viserra seducing Baelon after Alyssa’s death? Do you think Baelon might have been able to save Viserra from her fate if he had agreed to marry her (even if he didn’t love her)? What is your opinion on this pair?

Hi there :)

Yes, after Daemyra Baelon and Alyssa are definitely my favourite Targaryen couple.

About the rest of your ask, I don't think Viserra fans will like my answer, but I don't quite care for Viserra. I have talked about it in the past that I see Saera and Viserra as very shallow characters with almost nothing to them. They were written as mean girls and that's about it, besides being Targaryens and physically very attractive, I don't actually see any redeeming qualities in them.

Saera at least you could argue was sort of funny, in a heartless, sociopathic Cersei kind of way, and I did admire how she later on in life wanted nothing to do with Westeros or the Iron Throne saying she had her own kingdom was a cool moment. But regardless she was cruel, unnecessarily so (e.g., Tom the Turnip anyone?), and worse with someone much weaker than her which also makes her a sort of coward. Like I said she had many sociopathic traits, and her behaviour itself is very congruent with a sociopathic personality type.

Viserra is a bit better in that regard in the sense that she was not needlessly cruel to anyone weaker than her for fun, even if she poked fun at young men who lusted after her, sometimes in quite dangerous ways (e.g., when she dares them to put their heads inside a dragon's mouth, I think the prize was her V card if memory serves right). But like Saera is mean and cold for the sake of being mean and cold, Viserra is ambitious and cold for the sake of being ambitious and cold.

We are both shown and told she wanted power and to be queen and F feelings and all that, but we are never really given a proper reason as to why. I would guess that being child #10 in a very large family would make you starved for attention, likely importance as well, since her only selling point in that family was being the most beautiful of the sisters. It was (VERY) unlikely she would ever be queen, so maybe because of that it became an ambition of hers? There was also something arrogant about her because of her looks, thinking that that would be enough to just give her what she wanted without having to rely on anything else. In that sense she has no depth, what you see is pretty much what you get and neither is very good or particularly compelling.

So, no, I wouldn't want her to marry Baelon, nor for Baelon to be interested in her. In fact, I loved that he wasn't and that after she spoke in such a nasty way about the sister she thought herself so physically superior too that Baelon gave Viserra a cold hard dose of reality of he's Baelon Targaryen, not a failed Baelon like Tywin Lannister.

Sure that some people find love again in life, and I am all for it. But some people aren't like that, and I found a lot of beauty in that aspect of Baelon's character, of how devoted he remained to the memory of his lady with the mismatched eyes. I would have hated for that to be ruined, especially in the name of such an ambitious and empty character like Viserra. If he was to marry her, whatever the reason, he would not be Baelon because that was a central aspect to his character.

All this aside I did feel bad about how Viserra was treated by Alysanne, almost like she was the final boss Alysanne had to defeat. I think this is a great example at times of George's incongruence with how he writers characters in F&B. Pretty much their end is decided so he just does whatever he has to to get there, at times with little regard with what he previously established. Are we supposed to believe that the same Alysanne who still loved and wanted to forgive Saera, even defended her, would be so cold and mean to Viserra? Sorry, I don't find it the least bit believable. Like show us on the doll where Viserra touched you Alysanne. Regardless of her not deserving this or her cruel fate, I still don't really care about Viserra nor think she had any redeeming qualities.

And that is my take.

Thank you for coming to my Tumblr Ted Talk!

Much love to you <3

[lightandfellowship]

An aspect of Hoder's death that I find pretty compelling outside of just the effect her death had on the cast + the events of the game is the fact that her brother and friends seem to just be guessing at what she would have wanted or what she would have done in their shoes. And quite possibly guessing incorrectly. Which highlights one of the many tragic elements of death apart from the death itself: the dead not being able to speak for themselves.

Vidar turns to Kingdom Hearts because it might save Hoder's brother and he thinks that's what she would want. After all, her brother is someone precious to her who she's willing to protect with her life, as she demonstrated in Enchanted Dominion when she sacrificed herself to save him. But saving her brother via Kingdom Hearts means potentially harming the worlds, their residents, and the entire universe in general, and considering Hoder chose to confront a super powerful fairy all by herself to try and save Aurora, a random stranger she had only just met, endangering innocents for personal reasons sounds like the kind of thing she might seriously disapprove of. But it seems like Vidar, Vala, and Vali never considered that possibility, assuming that it was just a given that Hoder would risk the entire world for her brother.

And while Baldr's motivations are kinda complex and can be interpreted in a number of ways, it wouldn't susprise me if part of the reason why he wanted to purge the world and kill the upperclassmen was for the sake of getting revenge on Hoder's behalf. We know he blames the upperclassmen for not saving her, and it was the evil of the world that drew Hoder to the castle and got her killed in the first place. (There's also the element of "Baldr blames himself for her death but he can't handle the guilt so he's going to blame everyone else instead as a coping mechanism.") Once again, someone close to Hoder is risking the lives of countless others for her sake, ostensibly (though I'm sure Baldr is just telling himself that he's doing it for her when really he's mostly doing it for himself, unleashing his grief and wrath upon the world that wronged him.) And it's not just strangers at risk this time, her friends are getting killed one by one, all because her brother thought they deserved it for failing to save her. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Hoder didn't blame her friends at all for what happened to her and had no interest in getting "revenge" on them.

What makes Hoder's situation interesting/unique though is that she technically does get several opportunities to speak for herself after she dies, unlike most characters who die suddenly and prematurely. Once in the Underworld after her spirit gets temporarily brought back to meet with Xehanort and Eraqus, and several times after that when she's hiding in Xehanort's heart. But for most of these scenes she chooses not to speak, and when she does finally reveal herself and speak, it's during a scene where all of her dialog was potentially just a ruse to get closer to Baldr in order to take him out, and thus it's hard to say exactly how genuine her words were. Even when given the rare and precious opportunity to express her true feelings and desires post-death, she remains quiet, or chooses to speak but potentially with ulterior motives. Which actually fits how she acted in life as well. So maybe dying was never the problem, maybe part of her tragedy is that she never would have made her feelings clear even if she were alive. Which I think is a pretty interesting character trait for her, a character who values actions over words, a character who doesn't seem to be too concerned about explaining herself or being understood by others, a character who would rather just take matters into her own hands instead of clarifying her wishes to others who could act on her behalf...and the tragic accidents + miscommunication that occurs because of those secretive, proactive, and independent aspects of her personality.

Anyway, I have to imagine she kinda resents seeing her loved ones do these really terrible things in her name. Especially since she probably thought that her sacrifice was going to be the only one, no blood on her hands except for her own, only for that death to cause ten others. And as I've seen other people speculate, this probably contributed to her choice at the end to intervene. All of this tragedy happened because of her, because of her reckless actions and because of her friends and brother's love for her, and she needed to take responsibility for it.

"Dying was the worst decision I ever made." <- Hoder, probably

[nonbinarypirat]

Hello! I really like your character analysis from m!ik. I wanted to ask you what do you think of Amerie? And her influence on Iruma? And their relationship?

Great question! Okay, I’ll go in order of your questions since you have a few for me :)

Okay, so I have issues with how Ameri is written on the character, some of the few issues I have with Nishi’s writing thus far. But before I talk about the negatives I want to focus on the positives of Ameri and her character because I do think she has a lot of potential that I hope we get to see! Ameri is a classic capable but soft character type that we see in both her romance fantasies but also her deep care for her fellow students. She isn’t just a student president because of the prestige or power it could give her, it’s because her ideal is for every demon to be proud of themselves and their authentic selves. And this is a quality in her that I find deeply profound and beautiful. She’s proud of herself and she wants others to be proud of themselves as well. And what I like about Iruma and Ameri is that she encourages him to strive for more, more than he ever could have dreamed of in the beginning. And he makes her enjoy herself more rather than overworking herself. He makes her be still more, stop to appreciate the little things. She also has the power to inspire others, a nature born leader, and one that is willing to do anything for her fellow students. Not to mention she has given her fellow student council members a place to belong and by doing so, they have deep respect and loyalty to her. And for demons who are inherently selfish and idealistic, this says a lot. They aren’t with her because of her strength, they care for her and I think that speaks volumes in itself.

What I have a problem with is how much her growth is tied to iruma. I think in this Nishi failed at making her an independent character. For instance, we don’t get to see her work towards rank 7, which would help her in her main ambition. We know she wants to take over for her dad, but we don’t know why that’s so important to her yet. And we don’t get to see the steps she takes towards that goal. Her growth is her progress in her relationship with Iruma and I think that’s a let down. Like I said, I love how she inspires and pushes iruma to be a better version of herself. I enjoy that a lot about their relationship. But I don’t find myself interested at all in the romance aspect of the two, mostly because of how they met each other. The trope is that in so many animes and mangas (and the romance genre in general) have two characters run into each other and instantly fall for the other. They went for the trope, we had some laughs about it, but then it kind of just… stuck around? It’s making fun of the clique while also adhering to it and to me it just didn’t land. I think for the joke to work and to make the relationship flow better, the immediate attraction should have quelled and from there a more slow burn of feelings for Ameri. I think if she didn’t become so Iruma crazy so soon into the story, it could have made a more compelling relationship compared to the current one we have. Right now, besides motivating each other I don’t see much in the way of their relationship? I think it’s also hard because we see so little of her in the actual plot and story so the relationship feels like it’s going at a snail’s pace while also going too fast when we do get to see them interact again to make up for the lack of Ameri. It’s weird, they’ve gone on three or four dates (or at least, we can categorize them as dates even if both characters haven’t called it that) but at the same time it’s like nothing has happened for them. I guess besides Ameri realizing her feelings, Iruma blushing when hugging Ameri, and the talk with Henri. I wish the relationship was more friendship focused or the feelings took longer to develop. Because she’s a busy woman and she’s a year above Iruma, we don’t see her actively take part of the plot often and it just makes it hard to get to know more personal stuff about Ameri.

This isn’t to say I’m a Ameri x Iruma hater, I just don’t find their relationship a fun part of the story. I do also admit to having a bias for the love trio when it comes to Iruma ships. But I do hope that the relationship develops more in an in-depth way because I could see her and their relationship becoming more interesting if Nishi takes the time to write her (in my opinion) better.

[brittle-doughie]

Personally, I've always been fond of Camembert Cookie and Fruit Cheese Cookie maybe being, like, descendants of the Golden Cheese Kingdom. And they became archaeologists in hopes of investigating their heritage and ancestors? Idk, I just thought it'd be a cool idea and a missed opportunity with those two being in Concept Hell. Anyway, um, I wanted to ask what you'd think it would be like if Y/N had that concept?

"Tradition dictates that all denizens of the Golden Cheese Kingdom must thrice a day bow towards the Great Statue of Golden Cheese Cookie: every morning, afternoon and evening.”

You found yourself even more intrigued by the second as you put away the ancient text in your pack. That would make it…the fifth one you’ve managed to put together and analyze.

You didn’t know what was it about this place, but it had a sense of..home to it, like you were meant to be here, to be a part of it. It’s what compelled you to keep looking at every piece of this place for anything you can make of its history.

You’ve always wanted to know your history, about what life was before you came into this world and the cookies that lived in that span of time. It’s why you became an archeologist as a matter of fact!

You wonder upon many aspects of Cheese Kingdom culture. How things worked back then, how the cookies were like such as the tale of Smoked Cheese Cookie within the colosseum or what an important spectacle Golden Cheese Cookie was, a fabled hero in the eyes of her citizens. The one who brought down Cheedas the Mole’s tyranny and freed the Cheesebirds! You still remember reading that text the day you analyzed it and became interested in this Golden Cheese Cookie.

If only you got to meet her in person…but tales of her from the past will do as the next best thing!

“Oh oh! Did you find something, Y/N Cookie? I want to see! I want to see it too!”

“Yeah, show us what you found! Don’t be greedy, us archeologists got to stick together!”

You weren’t alone on this endeavor of yours. You had quite a lot in common with these two other cookies you came across during your time here, Fruit Cheese and Camembert Cookie. With how similar the two looked, you wonder if they were twins or something.

Fruit Cheese was always eager to see what discoveries you’ve made, often with Camembert Cookie backing them up, practically hovering around you until you told them what you found.

You chuckled as you hand them your discovered texts, they wasted no time in reading it down to the last letter. It was a cute sight to see their tails and ears wagging and twitching!

These two were just as excited to see what lied in these ruins as you were, leading to a sort of team up with the two fennec fox cookies. So you didn’t care if they secretly steal your texts or something, it just shows they’re just as persistent as you about finding and digging for anything about the Golden Cheese Kingdom…about..Golden Cheese Cookie.

You wonder how she’s doing these days if she were still around…

[murdererofthumbs]

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

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

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

[ohmygodtheywereparabatai]

i wanted to invite a conversation about this because it’s genuinely been bothering me for a long time. and i in fact wasn’t immune to it either and am just now realizing this is the power of cinematic brainwashing.

but like, tgm is so many bad things. sexist, racist, ageist, to scratch the tip of the iceberg. token characters that meet the bare minimum for diversity, and sidelined women - i’d even say exploited women. a narrative that is so egocentric that it’s miraculous that some characters manage to hold their own instead of being swept under the charismatic magnetism of the reckless bad boy character who can get away with murder because deep down, he’s regretful, and he has a good heart.

what a shallow representation of the military, and what a disservice to those who were inspired to join because they thought the real life experience would mirror even a fraction of what is presented on screen. the reality is that there was never a competition to win a top gun trophy, and in fact today you have to pay 5$ at the top gun school if you even mention the film. that speaks for itself.

tom cruise being a huge part of the production process has made it impossible for me not to hold him responsible for the choices that have been made. to even subtitle the sequel movie with “Maverick”, the same protagonist as in the first one, comes across as insanely egotistical - and honestly a testament to how mav’s story manages to drown out the autonomy and validity of other characters. i’ll explain this terms of ice, penny, carole, and charlie. you’ll notice how i’m gonna be bringing up three women.

ice-

i don’t care that val kilmer gave the okay on using his cancer as a plot point. i care that cancer was not only used as a plot point, but treated like this ^

“i’m dying. you have bigger problems.”

the original script seems to peel back the layers of tgm’s intended messaging, so i’m using several examples. this is what is being communicated. i honestly don’t know what else to add. in or out of context, this is incredibly disturbing - and that it’s played as a self-aware quip from ice, even more so. the bond of wingmen goes both ways, and i just didn’t see that… if anything, that aspect leaned so heavily on the first film (the photo of them smiling at each other) that it just proves my point. it took ice’s death for mav to get up off his ass and do something to keep his career afloat besides get a cop-out from the compacflt. ice in the first movie was a compelling antagonist and voice of reason - now he’s mostly relegated to the role of babysitter, denying mav’s character the growth of accountability by simply erasing his poor choices with a phone call.

it’s why the darkstar scene pisses me off. to stop at mach 10 would have been fine, but to push it just for the sake of it is ridiculous. the fact that earlier mav states “i know what happens to everyone else if i don’t” in regards to his decision only makes this screw-up more laughable, because to me it’s the very contradiction of maverick: his intentions do not balance with his actions. costing the military millions of dollars in a few seconds somehow balances with his heartfelt desire to protect the interests of its workforce.

penny-

shortly before, during, and after this screenshot, i counted a total of 6 times that penny made it clear she would not appreciate mav’s advances. regardless, mav goes on to say “you look good”. this flirtation happens before mav is even aware of her marital status, as he asks amelia “where’s your dad?” in a later scene… which… dear god.

penny also says “it always ends the same with us, so let’s not start this time”, indicating this is a repeated pattern in which her boundaries weren’t respected and moreover, the relationship ended up failing. yet this is framed as the main romance of tgm, a wonderful and nostalgic callback to the original that ends as stereotypically as possible.

i love penny. she’s witty, caring, independent, and of course stunning. so i find her treatment in tgm a disservice to what started out as a rich and compelling character. she later ends up mav’s shoulder to cry on, more or less, comforting him after losing his wingman and his position as instructor. the song “hold my hand” is thematically suited for penny, playing in the background at the bar and in the notes of the score during her scenes - even musically, she is turned into a source of consolation first, and her own woman second. she’s his prize at the end of the film, falling for the promise “i’m never gonna leave you again”, which i don’t buy for a second. they fly into the sunset, presumably signifying a new horizon for their relationship - but i feel so dissatisfied with this arc for her and think she deserved much better.

that mav gets away with this behavior is something i’d like to see more people reflect on. it seems to be a pattern with male protagonists, in which case the function of male and protagonist in hollywood cinema needs an examination.

carole-

top gun (1986):

this is an especially crude exploitation to me. not only is carole the one consoling a young maverick (if a full-fledged 24 year old can be called young, in light of the tendency people have to dismiss his choices in ‘86) after his mistake costs her own husband his life… but her stance, even following a tragedy of that magnitude, didn’t change. goose would have flown anyway, and she knows that well enough - on top of that, it’s easy to see she would have supported him.

it came as a surprise to me that she wouldn’t in turn support her own son, who is clearly committed to a career as a pilot. in the end, i see a cheap narrative device that contradicts carole’s character, undermines her strength as a wife and mother, both in order to serve the interests of the plot. maverick in tgm needs a viable reason to hide a secret, to be tortured by his own consequences, to put further strain on his tension with bradley. there were plenty of other ways to do it, but the fact that it was this leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

charlie-

it’s my understanding that tom cruise’s personal reason (his excuse) for not bringing back charlie was that he didn’t like how their relationship ended. if there’s any source confirming or denying this, i’d appreciate a link.

anyways. yeah. this is… a huge problem with hollywood at large, which kelly mcgillis understands, but i’ll break it down. there’s a simpler reason this pisses me off more than anything. tgm’s entire subject matter is about repairing relationships. penny benjamin was dredged out of obscurity to do it. maverick and rooster’s grudge of 30+ years was used to do it. iceman’s character, as warped as he feels, is another way the film made this its theme. but charlie is out of the question?

that val kilmer could be asked to return, and make an insane amount of money for each second he’s on screen, but such an opportunity is never given to kelly mcgillis, who herself centers on the 1986 poster, speaks volumes to me. tom cruise even planted his foot when it came to reprising iceman, saying he wouldn’t do this movie without val in it.

it’s worth mentioning that viper and slider were also present at ice’s funeral, but this scene was cut out. for a film that’s quite heavy-handed with its nostalgic callbacks, this was an odd decision. until realizing, as my friend put it, that even ice’s death couldn’t be about him, whether it had brought in his own teacher or his rio - his goose. it had to revolve around mav, to catalyze a turning point for him in the plot.

also… a shoutout to the erasure of sarah kazansky, pretty much everywhere. that also tells me a lot.

…

this was just a dissection of the various character portrayals (or absences) in tgm that have bothered me since forever. this isn’t even going into how tgm accomplishes everything that propaganda sets out to do. combinations of stunning visuals, soaring music composed by masters like hans zimmer, the charismatic power of a cast packed with stars… all play a role in the blinding awesomeness of tgm, which has taken me this long to break away from.

consider the white/poc duos in the film: maverick and hondo, hangman and coyote, cyclone and warlock. who has more lines? who plays a greater role? why is that?

i don’t see this as real diversity. it masquerades as inclusion, which i find worse. and to cast an actor of asian descent, and give him the callsign yale? … wow.

framing is powerful. its influence in cinematography is unmatched. a story is being constructed and told not only through dialogue, but sound, visuals, editing… really, nothing can be dismissed as insignificant. i’m not asking for a scholarly interrogation of all media you consume, though, that would be so excellent, and so healthy… but i am trying to raise these questions in the community, of what gets lost when a main character is so overwhelmingly main. when someone like tc has so much control over the decision-making process, since it’s sort of a running joke that maverick is a tc self-insert. my focus isn’t the inclusions, but the exclusions.

and finally, since i’ve unfortunately spent a lot of life writing this post… it’s interesting to me that many viewers in hindsight seem to see top gun 1986 so differently. as kids, they sided with mav over the antagonist. an older audience returning to the first film now seem to side with iceman, seeing him as the rational one attempting to raise important points. i wonder if this will be the case with top gun: maverick in the future. in which case, i’m excited to see more cyclone fans. he’s my favorite character… unsurprisingly.

oh. one last thing.

“the man, the myth, the legend” … the word myth has two meanings:

…

happy reading.

[malicious-compliance-esq]

Why the World Needs Black Jack Randall: Queer Representation at Its Worst and Best

On March 29 my amazing mutual and fellow Evil Redcoat Pipeline traveler @meerawrites tagged me in a reblog of this video essay from @rowanellis about media literacy and queer villains that mentions both Lestat de Lioncourt from Interview with the Vampire and Black Jack Randall from Outlander. Double bisexual representation from an openly ace creator? Be still my heart!

I’d seen a few of Rowan’s other videos on YouTube—not ever having looked for her on Tumblr before Meera sent me that video—and often enjoyed both the content and the nuance. Certainly true for many aspects of this one as well. I want to make it very clear before going into detail here that I ardently support Rowan as a creator and appreciate that advocacy for diverse queer representation tremendously. I’m tagging her blog here primarily to promote her work and to encourage folks to explore for themselves. Her video essays are excellent in general and this one certainly has its fair share of wonderful content just the same.

I love the analysis here of why queer villains often get embraced as folk heroes by the LGBTQIA+ community, and many of the specific commentaries on beloved characters from iconic films and shows I grew up on like The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The Lion King. Of course, I’m no expert on any of those canons despite many viewings. I don’t consider myself an expert on Interview with the Vampire by any means either, but I’ve read all the books and seen the film and the available season of the new television adaptation. I found a lot of the commentary here insightful and resonant as a more casual consumer of media in that universe. I fully expect that folks who truly do have that depth of expertise would have much to say about the specifics of Rowan’s analysis of Lestat.

If y’all are on my blog, you know why I’m here and you know where my expertise lies. I am here to sustain the collective derangement of the few and the proud who take a deeper interest in Black Jack. Who see him for the complex and complicated person he is rather than writing him off as a Complete Monster or hand waving the things he does that truly are monstrous. And oftentimes who take that deeper look at him from the informed perspective of lived experience with sexual abuse. Many of the folks I’ve met who find Black Jack uniquely resonant and compelling do so from the firsthand perspective of submissiveness and masochism—of finding him alluring because of what he could do for them.

Well then. You could fix him. You could make him worse. I could rail him.

I’m going to out myself in no uncertain terms here because I need to make my authorial standpoint painstakingly clear. Hi, my name is Malicious Compliance. In addition to being quite openly bisexual in every possible area of my life, I am Dominant and sadistic. Are those the only things I enjoy sexually? Not at all. Although I’m not switchy in the slightest when it comes to D/s and S&M activities, I absolutely enjoy sex that does not involve BDSM elements as well. I’ve also had intensely kinky sexual relationships that involved no physical practice of sadism whatsoever. This will come back later—just like Black Jack does at Versailles in S2E05 “Untimely Resurrection” after supposedly being dead from a cattle stampede at Wentworth Prison. Awesome, right? Like me, our favorite randy Redcoat is tough to kill.

Given all this and my general level of immersion in all forms of Outlander canon, once I finally could make the time to give Rowan’s video essay my full attention (more on that below) I found myself going from pumping my fist to shaking my head. I knew I’d have to say something in response. That I would need to address the Republic and set the record accurate if certainly not straight.

Initially I thought about doing a brief reblog commentary noting that although the analysis in the video gets several things quite twisted about Randall, these are understandable omissions considering Rowan does not position herself as having intensive expertise on Outlander canon. But then I started thinking about Rowan’s stated purpose in making the video. The sorts of deeper analysis and nuances that, as Rowan herself points out in her own ways, often get missed with intent in considering the actions of queer villains who are specifically bisexual and sadistic.

And as a bisexual sadist who has frequently encountered the framing of my own sexuality as an automatic threat even by other queer people who otherwise support kink practice I knew it could enhance the positive impact of the original video essay to provide some detailed commentary. Broader systemic issues that Rowan references herself can make it altogether too easy to reproduce the same harms one looks to dismantle. Black Jack Randall is a fictional guy in a fictional world. Yet how the non-fictional world views people like Black Jack—and especially people brought to those dark places in their own minds and actions by their familiar cycles of abuse—matters tremendously to me. Not because I’ve gone down his path myself, but because I understand the stakes of not going down his path.

One thing about me is I would rather pull out what remains of my natural dentition with pliers than take no action when I know I can do something uniquely impactful in addressing that passive reproduction of harm to our community, which very much is our community as both bisexual and asexual creators. In the interest of directly unpacking harmful stereotypes about bisexual sadists, building on the video essay’s overall spotlighting of queer villains and some of the specific ways biphobia factors into those characterizations and storylines, I’m taking this deepest of dives. Doing more. Because it’s my brand, certainly. But moreover because it’s my duty.

As blazingly gay Will Tavington so eloquently stated in The Patriot amid some premium sinister flirting with his enemy Ben Martin: It’s an ugly business doing one’s duty. But just occasionally, it’s a real pleasure.

So here, point by point from my own manual transcription of Rowan’s comments—using both the audio and captions for the video to ensure full accuracy, y’all know both my style and my propensity for em dashes—I give you a detailed analysis of the analysis. If you’re envisioning me gesturing wildly at a tangled yarn map like the Pepe Silvia conspiracy theory one from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia then you’ve got the measure of things entirely. Much more this energy here than the XKCD angle of Someone is wrong on the Internet. Indeed, I’d say Rowan is very right on the Internet to open this dialogue and provide folks who’ve made this depth of engagement with various characters referenced in this video the opportunity to build on her own insights.

But “duty calls” nonetheless! Happy Culloden Day to all ye Randallites near and far. Have fun and try not to get disemboweled too much.

Across the seven seasons of Outlander, a drama about a World War II nurse who travels back to 1740s Scotland—I know, don’t question it—perhaps the most loathed character amongst the show’s many villains is Captain Jonathan Randall.

The phrasing here made me reflect with sorrow on how that same premise of time travel elements automatically making something not worthwhile for reasons of implausibility—and thus perceived frivolity—has often made others pass on exploring Outlander at all. It also made me wonder, as many other things in the video essay continue to do, if perhaps the commentary draws on familiarity with only the first season of the show despite Black Jack’s storyline extending into the third season in live action and beyond that in impact. That would seem a lost opportunity considering the depth of analysis of other canons like Interview with the Vampire and Hazbin Hotel here. Both of which I highly recommend for folks who’ve not yet had the pleasure!

I also noted how the video essay makes no mention whatsoever of Randall’s canonical nickname of “Black Jack” anywhere, which seems strange given what a major plot point this becomes right from the start in S1E01 “Sassenach”. I see this as a missed opportunity to get into some of the basic nuances here about his sadism, which itself only gets mentioned minimally despite the surrounding context. The video essay sets Randall up as a sadist with the framing of this segment but then doesn’t really connect those dots. I’ve done that for y’all before with my “Red Black and Shades of Gray” meta comparing sadism themes in Outlander and The Patriot canons, which contrasts the former’s frequent depiction of sexual interest in actions causing intentional pain in Black Jack Randall’s actions with the latter’s depiction of strategic interest in actions producing incidental pain in Will Tavington’s.

Speaking of the Outlander and The Patriot contrast between the canons’ respective evil Redcoat characters, I had some notes jotted down in the background of my various in-progress BJR fics that explores canonical nicknames for Randall and Tavington and what these monikers lampshade about their respective characterizations. I also had another meta in much more primal stages of development exploring rape themes in both canons and the nuances of how sexual violence gets invoked in storylines featuring Randall and Tavington. That phrasing is very deliberate for good reason; Will Tavington doesn’t rape anyone. And Randall’s own sexual violence doesn’t play out remotely the way one might think from watching this video. Apropos of this, I had another meta envisioned about homosociality in Outlander and how Randall’s bisexuality makes him an outcast among straight and queer characters alike—inspired of course by a dear mutual exploring similar themes with Tavington in The Patriot canon.

In the first of what became many drafts of this Very Long Essay, I said “it will probably be quite some time until I get any of these finished” and then spent a few days turning that over in my head. Indeed, the process of drafting this piece to encourage readers to peek behind the curtain of Black Jack Randall’s life has necessarily involved some deeper reflection on things behind the curtain of my own life. Including how I still—at 40 unlikely years old and counting—often do things out of feelings of obligation rather than genuine desire.

Did I mention I’m a rape survivor? And that I couldn’t possibly count how many times I’ve let someone take dozens of “no” signals as a “yes” because of what it would cost me to refuse? It’s okay to enjoy certain aspects of fandom casually. Even if one isn’t already doing tons of other activity that’s anything but casual. Let yourself enjoy things. This world robs us of so much joy even when we try with all our might to protect it, to hold onto it. I am begging all of you to let yourself enjoy things before it’s too late. To do what Randall didn’t in canon—to live, and to stop willfully breaking his own heart.

If you read my blog, you know that this year has been an absolute hellscape on many fronts and that I am constantly slammed with even more of a professional overload than usual while dealing with A Lot in both the mental and physical health domains. And I generally publish at least one novella-length transformative work for Outlander each month on top of that. As a good friend put it: If I had a full-time job and had the energy to volunteer on top of that, I don’t think I’d ever write. I do what I do not because it is good for me, but because I am certifiably insane. This is not hyperbole or satire. I easily qualify for the designation per the DSM. Which has faults in spades and I’m not endorsing in the slightest, mind. My point is that I write not because I have the time or the energy to spare, but rather because if I do not write I will feel as if I cannot breathe. Why? Asked and answered.

So, a note for the good of the order: I can wait a long, long time before I write another fandom essay. This is a Sisters of Mercy reference, because of course it is. I’m writing this response to the video essay instead of finishing development on the fic I otherwise could probably have released for the Battle of Culloden anniversary on April 16. Ideally I would have done both, wouldn’t I? In addition to already releasing the prior installment of that continuity on April 13 no less! Perhaps if I’d just tried harder I could’ve given you two different lengthy writings in honor of the specific day. Or at least released something else on AO3 for April without waiting until the last minute like a slacker.

That’s the kind of thinking that made me stop sleeping entirely and wind up having a complete breakdown both mentally and physically. For those who are new around here, this is an even worse idea for me than it is for most humans because of a progressive genetic disease that kills people on the regular even when they do sleep and eat adequately and generally show compassion for themselves.

Accordingly, that sort of thinking about my own self-worth as anything other than an ATM for other people’s consumption of output is also what made me complete a PhD in literally two years while working full-time and being actively in the process of dying from my disease. I got on a medication that saved my lungs and my life just over a year after defending my dissertation. It’s taken another decade to learn the lesson I should have learned back then. How did Annie Lennox put it? Dying is easy; it's living that scares me. Paging Black Jack Randall—because if that isn’t the absolute biggest Culloden energy I don’t know what is.

It is amazing and terrible what sadism can do when turned inward on a person. The original video essay I’m responding to here never quite got around to how masterfully Randall’s character spotlights this pattern in several ways. Because the video is much broader by design than it is deep, and thus does not allow for more thorough engagement of the source material in commenting on Black Jack’s character, a lot of the same tropes the video essay aims to unpack could get repackaged with new hats instead without these additional details. So in the interest of not sending people who aren’t bisexual sadists to do bisexual sadists’ jobs, I’m giving y’all the goods.

As a British captain in an occupied Scotland, Randall radiates pure villainy.

Does he? I’m not so sure at all. First, see here for details focused closely on Outlander itself. Second, see here for use of Black Jack’s storylines in Outlander as examples of a larger trope. Search both of those pages for “Even Evil Has Loved Ones” using your browser’s Find function and you’ll get some telling material. Catch that reference to the Duke of Sandringham and Mary Hawkins in the second link, did you? We’ll get to those in time. Oh, how we will get to those.

The complete lack of mention of Season 2 and especially the iconic BJR episode near the end makes this oversight unsurprising. I think touching on that content just briefly would have supported Rowan’s overall purpose in making the initial video. At the same time, I’m guessing that stimulating nuanced and enduring dialogue about queer villains is the most important aim of the original essay! Indeed, S2E12 “The Hail Mary” represents the absolute pinnacle of my plunge into permanent derangement about Randall for reasons likely obvious considering everything I’ve already shared about my own backstory in the process of waxing loquacious to fill in additional canonical details that didn’t feature in the referenced video essay here.

I promised that the notes about my own sexual proclivities would come back, did I not? As BJR is canonically known for doing, I always keep my word. Not hyperbole in the slightest for either of us. On Black Jack’s end this gets referenced explicitly by Claire in Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber when she is helping Randall care for his dying brother Alex. It also gets demonstrated consistently by other characters and Randall himself throughout his storylines in both Season 1 and Season 2 of the show.

So indeed, one of the things I find most resonant about Black Jack is that he leans into whatever the other person in an encounter is giving him and bases his own behavior on that. This is made quite clear on the show in numerous ways—and arguably even clearer in the source novels by Diana Gabaldon, wherein we learn from Book 1 / Outlander that Black Jack frequently has trysts with domestic employees in the Scottish countryside.

Many people find Black Jack charming and handsome, to the point that he has a drawer full of perfume-scented love letters in his office at Fort William. Hilarious comic relief because he’d clearly have no reason for keeping those around other than masturbation fodder. Those of you who’ve circulated that meme about jerking off face down on the bed with the #black jack randall tag applied are entirely understanding the assignment.

For all the times he’s sexually assaulted someone—which seems to be countable on one hand for any person who isn’t Jamie himself, and near zero for anyone who isn’t associated with Jamie Fraser in some way—Randall has clearly had plenty of consensual sex with people who are not only willing but also entirely enthusiastic to get in his breeches. In the books we also learn about some rumors surrounding another prisoner named Alex MacGregor. These are never confirmed and it’s unclear even from the rumors themselves what the exact nature of Black Jack’s relationship with MacGregor was.

Why is this so important to highlight in analysis of queer villains? Here I go again quoting Carmen Maria Machado as I have before in both fic and commentary and surely will again: The world is full of hurt people who hurt people. Even if the dominant culture considers you an anomaly, that doesn’t mean you can’t be common, common as fucking dirt. This, friends, is the thesis of Black Jack Randall.

He shows little to no redeeming qualities, offers no sympathetic backstory to why he acts the way he does, and appears purely to have been driven by rage and violent pleasure.

Oh my. I’m going to leave S2E05 “Untimely Resurrection” and S2E12 “The Hail Mary” alone for the moment. But even in S1E06 “The Garrison Commander” and S1E15 “Wentworth Prison” we start to get some light shed on what Randall is really doing in Scotland. We learn by degrees later just how much his reasons for being there belie what we see on the surface. This gets expanded on in the books where the reveal on Randall’s benefactor the Duke of Sandringham being a secret Jacobite is much more detailed. But even on the show, we learn by S2E11 “Vengeance Is Mine” that Sandringham got outed as a suspected traitor to the Crown.

Goodness knows he's been outed as gay from the start to everyone but Claire, who didn’t learn this until much later after making the initial blunder of falling for Black Jack’s gambit about Sandringham having a wife. Not that this would have stopped him from being gay, of course. So-called “lavender marriage” was indeed relatively commonplace—and remains so now in some communities—both generally and in Outlander specifically. I’ll cover that in detail when we get to the points about Lord John Grey below. Notably for now, Sandringham rather than Randall himself is much more centered in a villain role in Season 2. And apropos of other content here, he absolutely doesn’t qualify for tropes about redeeming qualities. The extent of his monstrosity gets revealed in that same episode near the end of Season 2 when it comes to light that he ordered his valet Albert Danton to attack and rape his own goddaughter Mary Hawkins in an alleyway in Paris.

Even early in the series it thus seems difficult to consider Black Jack the most loathsome villain in Outlander. We’ll get to Mary in earnest—and the extreme tenderness with which Black Jack always treats her from their first meeting until his death at Culloden Moore—as we go along. For now, remember what Claire learned about Black Jack’s fate all the way back in S1E01 “Sassenach” where she and her husband Frank Randall were looking into his family genealogy in the Reverend Reginald Wakefield’s office at Inverness during their long-belated honeymoon. Some details missing there certainly, which only get revealed by degrees in Season 2. Black Jack really is Frank’s 5x great-grandfather though; he’s just not his only 5x great-grandfather.

I should probably mention here that I’m donor conceived and that I wasn’t told the truth… No, that’s putting it too kindly. I did note that I’ve always been quite dedicated to seeing the good in people who do bad deeds, and to working tirelessly to bring it out. But enough is enough. My parents lied to my face for 18 years about my ancestry. I asked them point-blank about it several times and they still told me lies. I finally got the truth out of my mother on a balcony overlooking an olive grove halfway around the world. The bus ride to get back to the nearest city and the airport were the longest four hours of my life. I never traveled with them again. And the hole inside of me never fully closed, and never will.

This too will resurface when I get to the content about Mary Hawkins and her marriage to Black Jack. I’m getting there, I promise. As my spouse once put it: I knew you were going to land the plane.

Getting back to early portions of Outlander canon and what we learn about Black Jack in Season 1 though, there’s also the iconic S1E08 “Both Sides Now” extended scene in which Black Jack gives Claire his own perspective on what he’s doing in Scotland in the first place and how distasteful he finds his work. How badly he wishes he could just go home and be warm and take a bath. How little he cares about the outcome of the conflict and how futile he feels it all is. We already know from a couple episodes prior that he loathes both the British aristocracy and his own superiors in the Army, who treat him like he’s lower than the dirt he then passive-aggressively shakes out all over their wardroom at Brockton. Including and especially his commanding officer Lord Thomas, a general who’s about as flamingly gay-coded as Will Tavington in The Patriot.

Oh, and speaking of being driven only by violent pleasure that is entirely incorrect—S2E02 “Not in Scotland Anymore” alone makes this perfectly clear. I’ve previously covered the finer details about Black Jack bottoming enthusiastically, and also enjoying gentler sexual experiences as well as rougher ones.

Black Jack’s interactions with Jenny in her flashbacks from S1E12 “Lallybroch” also shed light on this; once she goes inside the house with him, he only touches her with gentle curiosity until she bashes him over the head with a heavy object. Even then, he responds by…tossing her onto to the bed and getting partially undressed. When she starts laughing at him because he can’t get an erection (a telling piece of evidence of how Black Jack ultimately loses interest in sex if the other person doesn’t want it to at least some degree, or feel strong emotions about it that they’re willing to show) he panics and conks her head against the bedpost so he can flee without it being obvious that she chased him off.

Then there’s also the prior content from Book 1 / Outlander about the scented letters and the maids, some of which also comes back in Book 8 / Written in My Own Heart’s Blood when Roger Wakefield goes looking for Black Jack at Fort William after time traveling to 1739 a couple of weeks after Randall’s installation as commander there. I’ll come back to that a bit later given how much that scene reveals about Randall’s character and his reasons for being in Scotland.

And most of all, his villainy is compounded by the fact that he will rape, torture, and murder men and women alike—an equal opportunity monster.

Correct in essentials on the first two items as I cover elsewhere. Not so much on the third, though! In fact, the TV adaptation clarifies this beyond the information we get in the books. Whereas Book 1 / Outlander features murky rumors about Randall possibly killing one of his own soldiers at Fort William so he can pin the murder on Jamie, show canon makes little of this and indeed offers several opportunities to see Black Jack deliberately not killing people who attack him.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the final episode where he appears, S3E01 “The Battle Joined”. In that Culloden-centric episode, we watch Randall get fully pulled from his horse by a group of Scots warriors who then proceed to attack him. Up to that point Black Jack has just been shooing people away from his horse by swinging his cavalry saber in the air. Once on the ground, he basically just elbows his way out of the cluster of Jacobite soldiers and makes a beeline for Jamie instead.

Then of course there’s also Black Jack’s aggrieved, hesitant behavior at Wentworth Prison in S1E16 “To Ransom a Man’s Soul” right before the cows show up to give him the business. Although Randall is well known for keeping his word, even by people who despise him absolutely, he looks defeated and anxious when Jamie reminds him that he owes him the debt of taking his life ahead of the gallows in exchange for finally “[making] free of [his] body” (see S2E02 “Castle Leoch”) in the night. Jack takes out a dagger and sort of swings it around idly—with a look on his face that can only be described as “Really?” Any playfulness remaining there seems to come from Black Jack eyeing Jamie’s nude body and thinking about what else he might do with the blade besides killing him.

Randall has a zero kill count onscreen in the television show. I’d be remiss not to note here how this places him behind even his own eventual wife Mary Hawkins, often heralded quite accurately as one of the characters in Outlander who comes closest to embodying pure goodness. But of course, the trauma of sexual violence can twist a person’s mind horribly. I might know just a little about this myself. And it only takes one experience, more so given the horrifying context outlined in S2E11 “Vengeance Is Mine”. Like anyone else, Mary has the capacity for brutal violence herself if pushed sufficiently far. I consider it something of a miracle I never went that route myself considering my own experiences can scarcely even be counted in any meaningful way. I can only think in terms of years. Seven of them whose shadows will never fully retract. When I say Black Jack and Mary were a perfectly arranged marriage, it isn’t for nothing.

We’ll get to her in earnest, I promise! Of course, I’ve already covered that ground in fiction before.

Randall makes his monstrous mark on Season 1 by sexually assaulting both of the show’s protagonists, Claire and Jamie.

Correct in essentials, but potentially a false equivalence. I’m not sure how much the video essay was intended to set the assaults on Jamie and Claire up as direct mirrors of one another. There is however a common thread here worth pulling out: How in Season 1 Black Jack only goes through with assaulting people who show at least some sexual interest in him.

Randall assaults three people in Season 1 overall: Claire in S1E01 “Sassenach” and S1E08 “Both Sides Now”; Jenny in flashbacks from S1E02 “Castle Leoch” and S1E12 “Lallybroch”; and Jamie in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison” and S1E16 “To Ransom a Man’s Soul”. He also propositions Claire and Jamie together in S1E09 “The Reckoning” in an echo of propositioning Jamie individually in the S1E02 “Castle Leoch” flashback. But of the three people he assaults, only two respond with any sustained evidence of interest amid their anger and indignation.

The hateful attraction Jamie feels for Black Jack has been flogged—to borrow Frank’s phrasing about press coverage of Claire’s mysterious disappearance and return from S2E01 “Through a Glass, Darkly”—almost as badly as the man’s own back by this point. So I won’t belabor that here except to say it’s entirely nonrandom that Jamie keeps enticing Black Jack into further conflict after recovering from the brutal assaults at Wentworth and discovering Randall alive in Paris. He’s still having horny nightmares over two decades later about everything from weird group therapy scenarios with shamans on misty mountains (not hyperbole, see Book 6 / A Breath of Snow and Ashes for the goods) to fighting a totally naked Black Jack at Culloden and winding up covered in his “hot, hot blood” while they lie on the ground in a clinch (see Book 9 / Go Tell the Bees That I Am Gone for that especially choice sequence) and exhausting Claire’s patience so badly in rehashing these that he eventually resorts to rambling about the dreams to Jenny instead.

What doesn’t tend to come out as much in analysis of the TV series is the key plot point from Book 1 / Outlander that Claire feels attracted to Black Jack because of his resemblance to Frank. Not just in appearance, but also in certain mannerisms and pleasures—see the shaving scene from S1E06 “The Garrison Commander” and Claire’s flashbacks to shaving Frank thusly with the very same razor, for example. Little surprise then how in Book 1 / Outlander she specifically mentions feeling “compelled to open [her] legs for him” when he ties her hands behind her back at Fort William in the equivalent sequence to later portions of S1E08 “Both Sides Now”.

By her own admission this latent attraction-by-association does not wane entirely until after she and her friends rescue Jamie from Wentworth Prison at the end of Season 1. After that point, things go the other way. Although Claire spends Season 2 in an odd state of détente with Black Jack himself, even after the events of S2E07 “Faith” for which neither she nor Jamie explicitly blame Jack, she initially feels afraid of Frank when she reconnects with him back in the 20th Century as seen in S2E01 “Through a Glass, Darkly”. Why mention this here? That fear only subsides when Claire sees how much Frank treasures being a father to Brianna, the child she conceived with Jamie before going back through the stones to her own time. Indeed, later installments of the book series also show Claire deliberately striving for accuracy in her remembrances of both Frank and Black Jack as complicated men who were capable of deep love.

Scuffling is also arousing for Black Jack. Although the shaving scene demonstrates that this isn’t the only sort of physical pleasure he enjoys, he certainly gets a kick out of it regardless. So Claire’s willingness to scrap with him—including when she literally gives him a kick to the testicles with her knee in S1E01 “Sassenach” after he pins her to the ground in the forest—heightens the arousal and feels like play to him. Contrast this with Jenny’s incredulous laughter and complete unwillingness to take the fight further after hitting him over the head with a blunt object to get him to back off.

Does this take any of Randall’s actions out of the territory of assault? Nope. But it does provide a context to his motivations. Although his means of seeking affection are entirely warped, at the end of the day Black Jack really is after human connection. I’m entirely in agreement with other Outlander fans who’ve mentioned wanting a companion series about the Randall family. I have my own ideas about that history that I’ve referenced in transformative works. I would also love to see Gabaldon’s own perspective on what damaged Black Jack’s psyche so badly.

Finally, Randall’s treatment of women often differs from his treatment of men just in general. By his own admission in S1E06 “The Garrison Commander” he is “not a casual person with women” usually. He says this while expressing regret for how he treated Claire in the woods outside Craigh Na Dun. Which is very genuine per his actor’s own comments about playing the character; Tobias Menzies has mentioned in interviews that Black Jack always believes whatever he’s saying fully in the moment.

Something to note about Black Jack in general is that he will express regret and then claim he doesn’t feel it. This is probably quite accurate considering Jack shows a lot of signs of dissociation and may not feel much of anything most of the time. We see an example of this simultaneous expression and negation of regret in S2E12 “The Hail Mary” during the sequence at the tavern. And although the meaning of Randall’s comment about not being casual initially seems ambiguous, we get the reveal on it entirely in that same episode via the dynamic between Black Jack and Mary Hawkins. He takes her well-being and her safety so seriously that he’d rather die than risk any chance of hurting her.

Of course, his brandy-soaked mind isn’t realizing that she’ll get hurt far worse if he does die. We see enough in both book and show canon to understand how Black Jack treated Mary in life. Even that single moment where he enters the room at the boarding house says a lot; his entire face lights in a genuine smile that reaches his eyes as soon as she looks at him. The interactions between the two of them are some of the most delicate and tender moments of the entire season.

These sequences also provide some context for the different handling of the moments after Alex’s death. In the Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber version of this sequence Black Jack is crying and so drunk he can barely stand, whereas in episode S2E12 “The Hail Mary” he’s more lucid and vacillates between catatonic silence and a harrowing moment of punching his brother’s cadaver. Calls back to Claire’s comment in S1E02 “Castle Leoch” about how “there’s no joy in flogging a dead man” because of course this wasn’t about joy. Black Jack is entirely devastated, both for himself and for Mary. And although Mary herself looks pained at seeing this unfold, and clings to Claire in response, she looks more heartbroken than afraid. Her depth of emotion in that moment contrasts clearly with her apathy at gazing upon Danton’s dead body and Sandringham’s decapitated corpse back at his Bellhurst Manor estate (or Belmont House depending on which version of canon one consults) in the previous episode.

Finally and perhaps relatedly, I should spotlight Black Jack’s “I choose the whore” comment from S1E01 “Sassenach” about his own taste in women. Although part of an ironic commentary on the juxtaposition of Claire’s accent and vocabulary with her ample use of profanity, this also tells us a fair amount about Randall’s overall attitudes toward class. We learn in other portions of canon such as S2E06 “Best Laid Schemes” and various sequences in the first two books that Randall visits sex workers and that there aren’t lurid rumors swirling around about his treatment of feminine prostitutes. Black Jack’s sexual antagonism toward other men is more intense by design.

Randall’s queerness is a weapon that he wields indiscriminately.

Not really. That would be his dick. Randall generally doesn’t go through with assaulting people who don’t show any sexual interest during the initial scuffle. In fact, he can’t even get aroused physically when the other person isn’t fighting him in a horny way. Even when the person is somewhat horny it still doesn’t work for Randall unless their level of arousal is high. We see this with the assault on Claire during S1E08 “Both Sides Now” and especially in the equivalent scene from Book 1 / Outlander.

The only exception to this is an assault that happens during Season 2—which definitely seems like a missed opportunity to mention in direct parallel to the reference to preying on children in Rowan’s analysis of Lestat from Interview with the Vampire. During the S2E06 “Best Laid Schemes” chronology later revealed in full during S2E07 “Faith” Randall assaults Claudel, a boy who either pickpockets or works (depending on whether one goes with the show or book version of the canon backstory) at the Maison Élise brothel in Paris.

On the show it’s clear that he does this specifically to get Jamie to fight him; he knows Jamie is on the premises collecting debts and that Claudel has been walking around with him. Sure enough, upon hearing Claudel scream Jamie comes bursting into the room, hauls Black Jack into the hallway, and proceeds to beat the daylights out of him. The look of delight on Randall’s face at seeing him appear and subsequently getting pummeled by him leaves little doubt as to his objective in assaulting Claudel.

In Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber the timing and particulars of this storyline differ substantially. But as in the show, Randall is canonically an alcoholic and gets progressively deeper into his cups throughout the Paris storyline and his brother’s subsequent health decline. At the brothel he’s so drunk he doesn’t know where he is, what is going on around him, or even seem to remember who he is. Given the greater development of intrigue in the books surrounding whether Randall had a sexual relationship with his younger brother Alex, it seems likely that the angle here is Black Jack somehow seeking Alex in a person who reminds him of his brother during his early adolescent years.

No one is safe.

Aren’t they? Here we go, then. Time for some detailed Mary Hawkins content at long last.

The basics: We learn all the way back in S1E01 “Sassenach” and equivalent sequences from Book 1 / Outlander that before dying at the Battle of Culloden, Black Jack Randall married someone named Mary Hawkins and that she later gave birth to a son named Denys. Claire encounters Mary Hawkins for the first time in France in S2E02 “Not in Scotland Anymore” and grows closer to her while having the vague sense that she knows that name from somewhere. It isn’t until learning in S2E03 “Useful Occupations and Deceptions” that Black Jack himself is still alive that Claire realizes where she’s seen Mary’s name before: Frank’s family bible during a meeting with the Reverend Wakefield.

At first glance, Mary is everything one wouldn’t expect in someone who’d eventually marry Black Jack—or at least Claire thinks so. She feels completely befuddled by how someone who seems so meek and timid could possibly end up with someone like Black Jack. This becomes all the more confusing for Claire in S2E04 “La Dame Blanche” when Mary is getting involved with Jack’s younger brother Alex, a curate who has accompanied his employer the Duke of Sandringham to Paris. After Claire and Mary are attacked in an alleyway at Sandringham’s behest, resulting in Mary getting raped by a mysterious assailant later revealed to be the Duke’s own valet Albert Danton, Alex cares for her—and then gets locked in the Bastille for his trouble. Claire wrestles with her conscience about whether to get Alex freed given her own knowledge of how Black Jack and Mary are supposed to wind up together if Frank is ever to be born at all.

Leave it to having half the information resulting in getting things half right, as often happens in Outlander and in life alike.

Mary has been leveling up her confidence throughout Season 2 and corresponding portions of Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber while growing closer to both Claire and Alex. We don’t see onscreen how her social relationship with Black Jack himself evolves once he arrives in Paris—but in the TV series the two clearly know one another well already when Jack shows up at the boarding house in S2E12 “The Hail Mary”. In book canon the different pacing of events puts Black Jack’s wedding to Mary and Alex’s death earlier in the year, leaving a couple months until the Battle of Culloden. On the show Black Jack and Mary are only married for three days but have substantially more history with one another prior to their wedding. Blending the canons offers a portrait of two people uniquely poised to understand each other, united through their shared love of Alex but also oddly well matched on several other fronts.

Have I freeze-framed those sequences of S2E12 “The Hail Mary” that feature Mary and Black Jack interacting? Yes. Several times. Highly recommended for anyone who wants to plummet into that sort of derangement.

For the rest of you fine folk, the cocktail napkin summary here is that Mary represents both the shining gentleness that Black Jack so prizes in his younger brother—and I’d encourage anyone who still thinks of him as a Complete Monster to consider how Alex turned out so well in the first place given Jack is documented as the only member of their family who’s taken responsibility for his well-being—and the capacity for ruthless violence that Black Jack repeatedly points out in himself.

Here I should mention though that Black Jack remains as dedicated to veracity in this as in anything else. When he says “I dwell in darkness, madam—and darkness is where I belong” to Claire at Brockton in S1E06 “The Garrison Commander” he’s saying this as much to convince himself as to convince her. Ditto his comments to her at the tavern, most of all the haunting question: “Do you really want Mary in my bed?” Where exactly would she be safer than with someone who has consistently treated her like gold, who looks at her as if the sun shines directly from her face, and who would move mountains to honor his beloved brother’s wishes? And wouldn’t Captain Zero Kill Count also understand well from Mary’s own history what would happen to him if he were to lay so much as an unwanted finger on her? She killed a practical stranger in all but cold blood with a triumphant hiss of satisfaction!

Badass, by the way. Judging by his responses to Claire throughout the series—see his comments in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison” describing Claire as “no coward” and “a fit match for [her] husband” for example—I suspect Black Jack agreed. He even said explicitly in the same episode that he “cannot give [Claire] a better compliment than that” regarding her bravery and nerve mirroring Jamie’s own. I imagine quite a bit is happening behind those hazel eyes (described by Claire oftentimes as cold but noted distinctly by Roger in Book 8 / Written in My Own Heart’s Blood as being warm) whenever Black Jack looks at Mary.

Especially because Mary herself got Randall’s own abuser offed via Murtagh Fraser keeping a promise of his own in S2E11 “Vengeance Is Mine” by following up Mary’s own dagger-assisted disposal of Danton with an axe swing to Sandringham’s neck. Consider one of the only things Black Jack tells us verbatim about his life offscreen: In S1E06 “The Garrison Commander” a visibly shaken Randall tells Claire about finding Private McGreevey beheaded a couple weeks prior. By contrast, Mary regards her own godfather’s headless corpse with a shrug and says “I think we’d better go” in a matter-of-fact tone. Mary, all of 16 years old at the time, has no combat experience whatsoever and keeps her cool about this absolutely. Quite an evolution even from earlier in the same episode when she questions her ability to assist Claire in communicating with Hugh Munro just outside to help Murtagh and Jamie sneak into the Duke’s house.

Our girl comes through in the end—right before we watch the steel in her spine break through in earnest as she picks up a dagger from a table full of food and ends her rapist’s life after the reveal of this being the same man who attacked her in Paris. And she doesn’t lose her nerve after the immediate danger has passed, either. When we next encounter her at Inverness in S2E12 “The Hail Mary” she’s bullying a pharmacist into giving her more laudanum to ease Alex’s coughing and pain as his illness progresses. Then when Claire recognizes her and says hello, Mary immediately lights into her for conspiring to keep her and Alex apart.

I’ll note that as a person with progressive lung disease myself, I really appreciated Mary’s ire here. However strategic and born of understandable fears that Frank would never get to live, Claire’s invocation earlier in Season 2 of the tired old idea that chronically ill people make undesirable partners—that we can only take from the world and never give—rings both hollow and sour. After all, I’ve been there before. And in many ways I’m still scrambling frantically to escape the shadow of those ideas. To quote my spouse again: You never stop running until long after the demons finally stop chasing you.

I admire Mary Hawkins because she knew when to run—and moreover, because she knew when to stop running and bring the man who chased her in the first place down in sniveling puddle with a knife through his kidney. “It’s messy,” Black Jack said back in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison” of killing people with daggers. But the visceral impact there—exact words and no mistake—never fails to feel any less relatable for me, considering my own experiences.

Here’s the other thing: People came to save Mary Hawkins. When she needed help, people showed up. She killed her own rapist but she had an audience and she had backup. Murtagh demonstrated how seriously he took the promise to avenge Mary if he ever found out who was responsible for the attacks on her and Claire. Black Jack took showing up in Paris to help Alex earlier in Season 2 with similar gravity. In Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber Claire specifically reflects on how “Jack Randall was a gentleman” with all his promises, and has never given anyone reason to doubt his word despite being awful in many other ways. The fact that Black Jack chose to keep his vows to Mary by caving to the self-loathing fear of being able to love her better by dying and leaving her and Denys his pension than by living and showing her the same fierce devotion he showed Alex doesn’t negate the seriousness of those promises in his mind.

Again exact words there regarding love as action. I’m certain from her own subsequent sharing about Black Jack to their son that Mary would have appreciated both the devotion and the ferocity. And likewise, that Jack himself already appreciated Mary’s own variety of darkness and the specifics of how it manifested after first taking root.

In that spirit I highly recommend visiting the Outlander Wiki page about Mary for additional specifics on her background and character arc. Don’t sleep on the pictures if you do venture over there, especially the ones featuring her looking deep in thought while wearing an elaborate silk gown. That’s not the face of an innocent little lamb with no capacity for brutality of her own. And even prior to her rape, Mary often manipulates people to get what she wants by pouting and playing coy. Which of course tracks—Siri, play “Rich Girl” by Hall and Oates! See also my reblog commentary on a dear mutual’s wonderful art envisioning Black Jack and Mary in a happier timeline.

TL;DR: Mary has a lot of steel in her spine. But it doesn’t save her from additional tribulations. Indeed, those further struggles wind up serving as evidence of Black Jack’s own character and how he treated her himself during their brief marriage prior to his death.

I don’t tend to cry over media. But I absolutely teared up reading Denys Randall’s words about Black Jack in Book 9 / Go Tell the Bees That I Am Gone. Denys is Black Jack’s son who—true to the expanded version in Book 1 / Outlander of the prophecy Claire whispers into Randall’s ear in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison”—never got to meet him because he died in battle. I won’t go into this in detail just here, but that book resoundingly refutes the idea that Black Jack ever treated his family like anything other than gold.

Even in Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber he speaks with grace and understanding about his older brother Edward, the family heir who is stingy and neglectful and married to a person who clearly and openly hates Black Jack for being queer. In that later book though, we learn how Black Jack actually treated Mary and how carefully he made sure that Denys would always be taken care of financially even if something happened to Mary later on and the income from her widow’s pension was lost. He specifically set aside money for Denys to buy a commission in the Army—or to get an education if he had been considered female, so that he wouldn’t wind up trapped in a loveless marriage for the sake of survival.

The contrast Denys then draws with how Mary’s second husband Robert Isaacs—who was very materially wealthy and very kind to Denys but not a loving spouse—gave me chills. Yeah, Mary Hawkins did get abused by one of her husbands. Just not Black Jack Randall. The clarity with which Book 9 / Go Tell the Bees That I Am Gone shows how much better off Mary would have been socially and emotionally if Black Jack had survived to raise Denys with her wrecked me and still does.

I was and am lucky to have an amazing dad. The lies he and my mother told are wholly understandable stains on the records of two people who have always done their best in an absolutely garbage world that thinks very little of fathers who do not sire their children. And I know some of the members of the sperm donor’s family as well, though not my biological father himself. They’re pretty cool people too. One of my great-cousins on that side said he’d be proud to have been my biological father if he too had chosen to donate to that research study. I did cry then. I’ll never forget opening that letter with my hands shaking while I sat on the stoop of my old house. I can’t impress enough on those of you who are direct genetic descendants of both your parents what that meant to me. I can’t tell you how it feels to look in the mirror and always see a huge question mark. To miss a person you’ve never met, to feel them there like the phantom sensation from an amputated body part.

Denys Randall understands that entirely. And as much as Alex clearly loved his son in life and death alike, we come away from that storyline knowing just how thoroughly Black Jack was a real father to Denys. We also learn how Mary keeps his memory alive and still carries a torch for him as she also continues to mourn Alex. Knowing how much she withdrew into herself haunts me. I keep fixing it in my fics. There will never be a story of mine where Mary isn’t loved and cherished—no matter how much trauma she goes through.

Which also seems to have been Black Jack’s philosophy about both her and Denys. Tragically if quite understandably, he deluded himself into thinking he could love them better in death than in life. The reveal in Book 9 / Go Tell the Bees That I Am Gone on just how tragic a choice this wound up being still crushes me. Because it’s such a hopeless lesson, isn’t it? The idea that cycles of abuse and violence can only be broken by meeting a gruesome end oneself. That humanity has no hope for redemption. That rapists can only ever be rapists, nothing else. Even if they were clearly many other things all along.

This is, incidentally, why as much as I enjoy exploring continuities in which the specific canonical unfolding of events from Wentworth Prison gets averted to at least some degree, I have more active continuities in which this does not happen. I even retconned one of my older stories somewhat because I realized that for the rest of the continuity to play out as I envisioned it, and fully develop the ideas I wanted to develop, straying more than a hair from the exact canonical take in the initial arc didn’t make sense. The results from that deeper thinking are what I just dropped this past Saturday in observance of Alex Randall’s death anniversary. Among my published stories, I presently have three continuities that feature some aversion of the canonical Wentworth sexual assaults and three others that feature no aversion whatsoever.

Someone once asked me if I thought Black Jack and Jamie could ever have a healthy relationship after what happened at the prison in canon. It certainly seems unlikely. But fiction isn’t exclusively about showing healthy relationships. To me, it’s about showing relationships that make sense for the story being told. And in that regard, I do explore the strange intimacy that sometimes grows between trauma bonded people. After all, it’s a tale I’ve come to know well. One I’ve written in my own life. One I’m arguably still writing.

I cannot bring myself to swallow whatever poisonous purity philosophy would lead me to believe that people who have sexually assaulted others in the past cannot have consensual sexual relationships as well. I also can’t ignore the considerable data I’ve amassed on this from direct personal experience.

If people cannot change, what are any of us even doing here? Why not just give up the ghost of life on a burning planet—leave the indignities and hurts of corporeality behind forever? That sort of thinking seems more bleak than anything Black Jack Randall could possibly say or do. Indeed, him winding up looking at his own choices that way in the end broke two hearts irrevocably. And that’s a charitable estimate. Jamie’s own haunting memories, vivid dreams, and enduring obsessions about Black Jack throughout Book 4 / Drums of Autumn and beyond make clear that killing Randall didn’t solve anything, or diminish the formidable pull Jamie feels toward him. Even in show canon, when Claire reveals in S2E03 “Useful Occupations and Deceptions” that Jack is still alive Jamie breathes a sigh of relief and expresses joy at having his will to live restored.

Sure, he frames this around a specific interest in getting revenge against Randall. What’s that saying about digging two graves? There’s no exact source for this in any documented Confucius writings, but the idea certainly holds up. Jamie almost heads to his own grave for the sake of tangling with Randall one last time. For his trouble he winds up nearly dying on the battlefield, then doing the same from a severe infection secondary to his wounds, then goes on the lam for several years and lives in a cave, and then winds up incarcerated under especially deplorable conditions before getting paroled to indentured servitude and winding up coerced into sex again. All while still having relentless horny dreams about Black Jack—which only get hornier after Claire returns to him nearly two decades later. Amazing.

It perfectly correlates that he’s not just a sadistic person, but also holds a powerful position as a member of a colonizing military force.

This came so close to full accuracy. Like frostbitten Edward Little gasping his last with chains in his face levels of close.

Sadistic person? Yes. Powerful position? Kind of. We’ll get to that in a minute. Colonizing military force? Yes. However, is Black Jack himself a colonizer? Only if one discounts what gets revealed in Season 2 and the equivalent portions of Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber about the Duke of Sandringham having Jacobite sympathies and pulling the strings of Randall’s posting to Fort William.

The Reverend Wakefield and Black Jack’s fifth great-grandson Frank Randall unpack this to some extent in S1E01 “Sassenach” when discussing what Jack was doing in Scotland in the first place and the kind of reputation he built. We don’t get the full goods until close to the end of Season 2 with those scenes in S2E11 “Vengeance Is Mine” where the British Army has Sandringham’s estate surrounded with a massive encampment.

To lay things out quite clearly for those less familiar with Outlander canon: Sandringham was deliberately and strategically trying to incite the Jacobite rebellion. He got Black Jack posted to Fort William specifically because he knew Randall could stir up sentiment against the Crown if given the proper conditions. What’s a better weapon of mass agitation than a terrible guy already maligned by his superiors for being bisexual and kinky and having “unnatural tastes” as Randall himself puts it in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison” while rambling to Claire? If he didn’t give direct orders for Black Jack to lean into his worst impulses when presented with worthy adversaries, the Duke certainly gamed the system as much as possible by marooning Randall in a cold and isolated place where most of the civilians thought he was weird and most of the soldiers thought he was creepy.

Jack doesn’t connect all these dots directly during the scenes at the prison. But in S1E08 “Both Sides Now” during the Fort William sequences—in the broadcast version but even more so in this extended cut—we get Black Jack’s own perspectives on his posting in Scotland and how thoroughly he isn’t invested in the conflict there. All he wants is to go back home and be warm again. Which of course he can’t do, because it would spell serious harm for his younger brother per everything we learn throughout Season 2 and Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber.

Is Randall powerful in the Army? More so than the soldiers under his command, certainly. But as a Captain—per both what we see in the Brockton sequences of S1E06 “The Garrison Commander” and historical information on British Army ranks—he’s subordinate to many others. Who very much enjoy putting him in his place, at that. So in terms of power relative to other English soldiers, he’s somewhere in the middle of the structure. To those now busily envisioning Office Space type corporate middle management AUs: I salute you! And I’m gonna need you to come in on Saturday.

So what about with respect to other people and contexts? Black Jack definitely isn’t powerful relative to the Duke of Sandringham, per other content here. Indeed, he spends at least the last decade or so of his adult life quite firmly under Sandringham’s thumb. Probably other body parts too—see Randall’s hedging comments in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison” about the Duke liking to talk “especially when he drinks” for example. Book 1 / Outlander and Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber provide additional context about Black Jack’s positionality relative to others in his world—especially via the Duke telling Claire how much Randall craves punishment.

Finally, let’s talk about Black Jack’s status relative to his self-made enemy Jamie Fraser. By which I mean not at all that Jamie is self-made, because of course he isn’t. As a Laird in charge of his own family estate on which tenant farmers pay taxes, Jamie comes from a more powerful family in the Scottish Highlands than Black Jack’s own back in southern England. We learn more from meeting characters like Mary Hawkins later in canon about how “not all baronetcies are created equal” as I once phrased it. Randall’s own father Sir Denys being a baronet didn’t mean much, as evidenced by Black Jack’s own comments to Claire during S1E06 “The Garrison Commander” and equivalent portions of Book 1 / Outlander about his parents paying for tutors to help their son disguise any hint of a Sussex accent.

Ironically the most power Black Jack could’ve had over Jamie in any structural sense would have come from serving as his commander when the younger man fought in the British Army himself. Which would absolutely make for a splendid fic premise, but never happened in canon. Jamie and Black Jack don’t meet until the former is already back from France and settling in anew on his family’s Lallybroch estate in October of 1740.

We certainly meet other people connected to Jamie’s own family who would qualify as colonizers though. Given I already discuss Lord John Grey elsewhere, here I’ll mention Jamie’s aunt Jocasta Cameron as a prime example. Storylines set at her River Run plantation—yikes—beginning in Season 4 of the TV series and corresponding portions of the novels reveal her as not merely a colonizer but an enslaver. One who has the means—and indeed the implements ready at hand—to liberate her slaves but declines to do so. Even after pressure from people close to her. Double yikes.

I don’t want to set Jocasta up as somehow being more villainous than Black Jack; the two characters show us different aspects of the human capacity for knowing harm. However, I do find it telling that a bisexual person whose worst behavior focuses almost entirely on one guy—and otherwise gets directed at people somehow in his orbit—often gets held up as this shining paragon of evil by viewers outside the queer community, a point Rowan makes herself in the original video essay. What I’m specifically unpacking here is the colonialism angle. The bleak side of humanity shows up in many forms in Outlander with respect to colonialism as well as other forms of violence.

The queer figure is not just a danger to the individual, the men or women who might be their victims, but also a danger to society at large—because their existence contradicts oppose truths about what is natural and right.

This tracks. Randall would say so himself—and indeed he does, in almost those same exact words. “I may have what are called unnatural tastes,” he muses to Claire in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison” while letting her hair down around her shoulders and then giving her a big old sniff and shivering with delight, “but I do have some aesthetic principles.” You know, just in case anyone was still wondering if Black Jack’s interest in women was genuine. Whether in the show or the books, we get plenty of evidence that Randall is in the mood for cunt as often as not, to borrow his own phrasing.

Incidentally, I need to point out how “me myself, I’m not in the mood for cunt today” is probably the most bisexual line ever uttered on television. Today. Mercy.

And so here we see this twisting of a homophobic rhetoric of queer danger to create a monstrous rapist colonial figurehead.

First, a clarification: The relevant phobia here is biphobia rather than homophobia. Rowan’s video essay covers this overall topic and the distinction between the two phenomena with substantial detail and insight. What doesn’t come through clearly in the video is how gay people are treated with much more respect in the story world of Outlander than their bisexual peers. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than with Lord John Grey, another queer Redcoat whose path intertwines with Jamie’s in numerous ways over the years.

After first encountering Grey as a scared teenager whose life Jamie spares in S2E09 “Je Suis Prest” we encounter him anew years later starting in S3E03 “All Debts Paid” as the incoming warden of Ardsmuir Prison where Jamie is incarcerated. Swiftly mortified by conditions at the prison, Lord John enlists Jamie’s help in working with prisoners and eventually forges a tenuous friendship with him. Much chess is also played. However, a wedge also gets driven between the two men when Lord John places his hand over Jamie’s one evening during a chess game, unaware of his history with Black Jack or how it would make him react to any expression of affection by another man.

But over time, Lord John secures Jamie’s parole to the Helwater estate where each of them respectively wind up entangled with one of the Dunsany sisters. The younger Geneva, a feisty and cantankerous person who develops quite a fondness for Jamie, coerces the Highlander into sleeping with her when she reveals that she knows his true identity and could get him in a lot of trouble. To get Jamie employment and ensure that he could stay out of prison, Lord John had to pass him off as a run-of-the-mill parolee instead of the fabled “Red Jamie” who helped to lead the Jacobite rebellion. Rather ironic considering Jamie killed one of the actual leaders of the rebellion and could likely have gotten significantly better treatment from the Crown based on that—but that’s beyond the scope of this analysis.

Throughout his storylines, whether serving as warden at Ardsmuir or Governor of Jamaica or any of the other roles he occupies over the years, Lord John is shown to be empathetic and kind. Not without fault certainly. Amongst other things there’s an intriguing storyline later in canon involving him and Claire that serves as a reminder of how sexuality is often not black and white. But he does get set up consistently as a foil to Randall, perhaps most effectively in his choice to marry Geneva’s older sister Isobel and care for the child she conceived with Jamie prior to dying while giving birth. Lord John presents a different take on fatherhood, choosing to give of his presence to William Ransom rather than feeling he can love him best in absentia.

The books offer some fascinating scenes in which Lord John’s son William and Black Jack’s son Denys encounter each other while both serving in the British Army in the American Colonies. That’s how we learn some of the information referenced elsewhere about what Mary Hawkins has passed on to her son about his father, and how she feels herself. I resonated a lot with both men’s sense of having a hole inside them. At this point William has lost two mothers and two fathers—Jamie having had quite a hand in the boy’s upbringing until age six. By 1778 when he encounters Denys again, he has learned the truth about who sired him.

I could write a whole other essay about that considering how relatable the entire storyline surrounding William’s parentage is. Folks who read my work likely know by this point that I got into Outlander because the interconnected storylines surrounding the Randall and Fraser families resonate with my own trauma in a way nothing else ever has. For purposes of this essay though, I’ll point out that even after lying to his kid for many years and dealing him a psychic wound that will never heal as a result, Lord John gets hailed as a good dad and a good person.

John Grey absolutely isn’t a rapist. In fact, in S3E04 “Of Lost Things” he reacts with horror at the idea of Jamie giving him sexual favors in exchange for raising his son. It turns out that Grey is already marrying Geneva’s older sister Isobel—another fascinating subject for deeper analysis that I’m planning to incorporate into my “Dispatches from Fort Laggan” continuity.

Brief sidebar apropos of general queer representation themes: The relationship between Lord John and Isobel offers an undersung illustration in Outlander canon of the diverse dynamics in queer marriages. I think there’s ample ground for reading the union between Lord John and Isobel as either a “lavender marriage” between a homosexual and homoromantic man with a heteroromantic or biromantic woman who’s asexual or a purely romantic marriage that doesn’t involve any sexual activity because one person isn’t interested at all and the other person is only interested with members of their own sex.

What’s more relevant here is how Lord John and Isobel clearly share a deep affection for one another that engages their shared love for other family members—quite similar to the dynamic between Black Jack and Mary. In serving as a foil for Black Jack on some fronts, Grey serves as a mirror in others. Unsurprising then how by the time he encounters William again, Denys Randall has dropped “Isaacs” from his surname entirely after the death of his stepfather Robert.

On the colonialism front, it would be difficult to frame Black Jack as being somehow the worse offender. Although not a Jacobite himself because he doesn’t care about the outcome of the English-Scottish conflict one way or another, he serves as an agent for the Jacobite cause de facto by agitating unrest at Sandringham’s behest. Ironically an example of punch-clock villainy in that regard. Although I wouldn’t ordinarily associate that trope with Black Jack for his zeal in antagonistic behavior towards Jamie and anyone in his orbit, it certainly seems to reflect how he approaches his career. Randall has no less antipathy for his fellow English people than he does for Scottish Highlanders, and indeed awkwardly hopes for acceptance by the local people while new at Fort William per his exchange with Roger in Book 8 / Written in My Own Heart’s Blood.

Meanwhile, Lord John’s storyline sees him become Governor of Jamaica. Governor of Jamaica. If that isn’t the epitome of white settler colonialism I don’t know what is.

Here’s a monster against which are two culturally opposed heroes; English Claire and Scottish Jamie can feel equally threatened.

I think I covered most of the relevant contrasts here in my musings on the sexual assaults against Jamie and Claire during Season 1. Here I’ll add that indeed a major plot point for Claire is how she often does not feel threatened by Randall—and how readily he comes to consider her an ally deserving of his deepest respect. This seems especially interesting in the context of Claire’s own ambiguous sexuality, which I touch on directly in some brief discussion of Geillis Duncan. And from their encounter in the gardens at Versailles from S2E05 onward, Claire by her own admission doesn’t consider Black Jack any sort of threat. She wants Jamie to leave him alone and let him help his brother out without the two of them getting into trouble for having horny fights. Dueling was illegal in Paris at the time, and indeed Jamie gets arrested for fighting Black Jack at the Bois de Boulogne a couple episodes later.

Prior to that though, Claire frantically ruins Jamie’s original plans for dueling Black Jack by getting Randall locked in the Bastille overnight on suspicion of raping Mary Hawkins. The irony to end all ironies, surely! Randall himself doesn’t even seem that aggravated about it given Claire did this in an effort to spare his life. He does however feel aggravated about Jamie apparently deciding he’s not worth the trouble to fight, not knowing all the history surrounding Frank Randall or why exactly Claire seems certain that he’ll die in April of 1746.

Both Black Jack and Claire wind up badly injured following the duel—her with a complicated stillbirth that leaves the placenta inside her body and nearly causes death from sepsis, and him from a significant stab wound to the groin. In show canon per S2E07 “Faith” this appears to be mainly a soft tissue injury to the pubic mound and possibly a cut to the side of the base of the penis; in the novel version it’s more extensive and involves some maiming of the penis and one testicle. I mention this now because in Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber Claire reflects specifically on Randall being even less of a threat because of his injuries. He’s also very ill in the novel version, likely from a recent bout of cholera, whereas in the show his physical impairments are caused by the cattle stampede from the rescue sequence at the beginning of S1E16 “To Ransom a Man’s Soul”.

So it seems unsurprising that when Black Jack reconnects with Claire at Inverness (Edinburgh in book canon) and begs her to use her skills in healing to save his brother Alex’s life, the two characters find themselves on remarkably even footing. Claire lampshades this herself in repeating Randall’s “I am not the man I once was” line from S1E06 “The Garrison Commander” back to him. Randall also acknowledges this amid strong praise for her medical acumen. He has long since gotten direct perspective on those competencies himself considering the aid she rendered to a badly injured British soldier at Brockton in the same episode, along with her clear success in rehabilitating Jamie’s hand following the extensive injuries Black Jack inflicted to it in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison”.

In both the show and book versions of canon, Claire shows Randall as much compassion as she can, and also expresses respect in her narrations for how he has shouldered the financial and instrumental costs of caring for his brother largely alone. When she urges him to wed Mary in their interactions at the tavern in S2E12 “The Hail Mary” she echoes many of Alex’s own sentiments about Black Jack’s capacity for tenderness and how seriously he takes caring for his family.

Given she already knows how Randall will die, and continues caring for him as best she can even after it gets revealed that Frank’s family line descends genetically from Alex rather than Black Jack himself, her “I’ll help you bleed him myself” comment to Jamie in S2E05 “Untimely Resurrection” seems more for his benefit than her own. Indeed, in book canon Claire feels threatened by Jamie’s lingering obsession with Randall and his repeated rambling about the strange erotic dreams he has about Black Jack. She wants him to have closure on that part of his life, thinking that Randall dying will put a stop to that fixation. Unfortunately for Claire it’s not that simple.

Even Jamie himself doesn’t consider Randall much of a threat in the end. In the book version of canon, he even attends Black Jack’s wedding and serves as a witness for him, whereas Murtagh does this on the show. Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber details how Jamie escorts a drunk and crying Black Jack back to his own quarters, holding him up because he can’t walk on his own. We never find out what exactly happened between the two of them in that room, though goodness knows a couple of enterprising fan authors have done heroic work in envisioning potentialities.

Show canon does deliver entirely on the erotic tenor of the final encounter between the two men just as Book 3 / Voyager does, with much of S3E01 “The Battle Joined” getting devoted to Black Jack and Jamie grappling with each other while moaning against each other’s ears and looking as if they’re about to have orgasms. Makes sense considering the showrunners reportedly instructed Tobias Menzies and Sam Heughan to go for a combination of the final battle sequence from The Patriot and the sex scene from Cold Mountain in their choreography. They definitely nailed it on the filming. Very much the same energy in the books from all of Jamie’s flashbacks to those moments and the time he spent lying under Black Jack’s body.

An irony that seems worth mentioning itself for how Randall’s last act was to protect Jamie from getting finished off himself during the British Army’s death sweeps of Culloden Moore. In light of this and all the other history between the two of them, it seems less surprising that Jamie left his wedding present—which Claire had returned to him for safekeeping before going back through the stones to her own time—of a dragonfly preserved in amber on the battlefield with Black Jack’s body.

And it’s by standing up to his reign of terror that the two come together, eventually falling in love.

Reign of terror? Not so much, for reasons I’ve already gone into elsewhere. What precisely is Randall “reigning” over in the first place? He’s an exiled soldier who got given a remote fort on a bunch of barren rocks surrounded by water in a freezing cold place that he hates. He has no power over anyone except his own soldiers.

In terms of more overt antagonism, Black Jack focuses the vast majority of his awful behavior on someone who even while chained to a dungeon floor could still kill him with his bare hands. Jamie does kill Black Jack’s much larger and stronger bodyguard Marley in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison” while restrained thusly. If Randall is keeping the Highlands in any kind of iron grip, it’s so weak that he can’t even keep his own bodyguard alive with a chained-up prisoner. Who isn’t even there by his own doing, mind—Jamie gets picked up by a random Redcoat patrol after getting coerced in S1E13 “The Watch” into joining the Watch with Taran MacQuarrie, a suspected Jacobite accused of treason. More details on this get revealed in S1E14 “The Search” as Claire, Jenny, and Murtagh all strive to locate Jamie.

Much of that falls beyond the scope of this analysis. Directly within that scope though is how whether or not anyone likes it, Jamie survives his incarceration at Wentworth Prison because Black Jack raced down there just in time to get him brought down from the gallows. Given canonical knowledge of how Randall does nothing without sincerity—however twisted that sincerity may be—this paints a complicated picture of his impact.

Indeed, one of the things that makes the dynamic between Black Jack and Jamie so interesting and satisfying is how in many ways they’re equals. I covered that extensively in my Ask response about foil dynamics in Outlander canon, so I won’t rehash it in this analysis. But TL;DR: Black Jack assaulting Jamie, and Jamie assaulting Black Jack in kind, was never an exercise in one person punching up and the other punching down. Rather, it is very much an exercise in two people punching sideways. Which a dear mutual illustrated masterfully in their “Killer” sketch previously shared here on Tumblr.

Claire and Jamie do fall in love though. That process is fairly telling on its own—as Rowan points out herself with the very next insight in the video essay. But a few additional details can further unpack sexuality in the context of that relationship, especially in the context of both characters’ interactions with Black Jack.

By opposing Randall’s villainy, they are essentially fighting to maintain the political and social beliefs of the 1740s Scotland, while also solidifying their own relationship and sexual identities—which are heterosexual and monogamous even across time and space.

Okay, folks. I’m flicking on my megaphone here to remind everyone reading this that Jamie is bisexual and that the omission of this key canonical detail could inadvertently reproduce some of the stigmas against bisexuality the video aims to dismantle. I absolutely do not think Rowan did this intentionally. It may stem from limited engagement with the source material in general. I wouldn’t expect a video essay covering a wide scope of media to go into 16K+ words of detail about a single character! That’s what I’m here for. In that spirit, I highly recommend folks interested in going deeper with Outlander canon revisit Jamie’s own narration of his experiences in S1E16 “To Ransom a Man’s Soul” and the many things he says and does in later episodes regarding Black Jack. The books go into even more detail about how much Jamie still lusts after Randall even after the assault at Wentworth, I’ll note.

The more important point here though is how erasure of Jamie’s bisexuality via inattention to his own words can inadvertently reflect Claire’s own behavior at the abbey in that episode: refusing to listen to Jamie unless he tells her what she wants to hear, and specifically shutting him down every time he tries to make her understand that Black Jack made him face things he already wanted beneath the surface.

Even regarding Claire, nuances abound that seem especially important to explore given the above. Specifically concerning the ambiguity of Claire’s own sexuality—how although she never narrates herself clearly in bisexual context, she certainly gets into some telling situations with Geillis Duncan. Claire may not be explicitly bisexual per her own words as Jamie reveals himself to be from S1E16 “To Ransom a Man’s Soul” and equivalent portions of Book 1 / Outlander onward. But we can certainly spot multiple bi-coded elements of her character before even getting to the whole Malva Christie business in Season 6 and Book 6 / A Breath of Snow and Ashes.

Geillis herself is another bi-coded villain who could put Randall to shame for the extent of her agenda and advance planning. Indeed, Geillis’s deeper intent and systemic aims qualify her much more classically for the villain designation than Randall himself, who behaves much more opportunistically. Let’s not forget that he leaves Jamie entirely alone for three years until the Highlander turns up in his office window at Fort William with an empty pistol! Likewise, Black Jack’s own service as an instigator of Jacobite rebellion only comes in exchange for the Duke of Sandringham protecting his beloved brother Alex—including not raping him, which gets further lampshaded by Jamie’s comments about how the Duke has treated him over the years.

It also seems worth noting how Claire offers a good example of how people who might be capable of polyamory through their capacity to love two different men at once don’t necessarily want polyamory. That’s why I abandoned a storyline in one of my early fic series development efforts—my first actually, which never saw the light of day in its original form because it morphed into “Dispatches from Fort Laggan” with a much greater depth of attention to the relationship between Black Jack and Jamie in parallel to his evolving relationship with Mary. Which winds up catapulting Jamie headlong into a raging attraction to Geneva Dunsany, someone much better equipped to meet his needs as a bisexual and kinky guy who’s perfectly capable of sustaining unspeakable horniness about an absurdly complicated man while also being a loving and devoted life partner to a woman.

But by making Lestat the only bi vampire in the show, his moral depravity can be seen as in some way linked to an assumed sexual depravity too—specifically of voracious appetite that separates his bisexual nature from either straight or gay counterparts.

This would be pretty accurate for Randall too. Kind of a missed opportunity to get things close to spot-on. With Randall though there’s even some Zig-Zagging of this aspect, which is part of what makes his character great. Although Black Jack has a voracious sexual appetite and is pretty much always DTF, he is also very much a Regular Guy with Regular Dick Function. He can’t just constantly get it up over and over. Between his alcoholism and his constant pursuit of sexual pleasure, he sometimes can’t get hard at all. He even has concerns about this with Jamie at Wentworth, gloating in delight when he does get an erection. The “can you feel that” scene in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison” wherein Black Jack pulls Jamie’s hand against his crotch and expresses jubilation at having a boner is one of the funniest moments in the entire series to those of us who enjoy Randall’s character.

This is perhaps a good time to note that one thing queer villain representation often does beautifully is imbuing characters with hilarious and often bizarre senses of humor. When I’ve seen other writers frame Randall as humorless or “harrowingly joyless” I’ve wondered again if we watched the same show. The Brockton sequences from S1E06 “The Garrison Commander” alone ought to debunk this, from Randall’s passive aggressive dust party right down to his impish little wink at Claire while he dumps out the prized claret the senior officers were drinking before getting called out on some kind of wild goose chase.

Then there’s also his sardonic monologuing in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison” about possible methods of killing Jamie in the morning, which is entirely tongue-in-cheek and intended solely to make Jamie get annoyed enough to tussle with him. I also consider the weirdly earnest threesome proposition from S1E09 “The Reckoning” when Jamie appears in the window of his office holding an empty pistol. It’s quite clear here that regardless of whether Jamie takes him up on it or just gets irritated enough to fight him fisticuffs and thus give him some nice opportunities to rub up against him, Randall is delighting in the offering.

Finally, we can’t forget his overjoyed little smiles whenever he sees either Jamie or Mary Hawkins. I covered much of this previously via in-depth discussion of Mary’s storylines. So here I’ll note that for all his own efforts to convince Claire that he’d be terrible for Mary, she doesn’t believe Black Jack in the slightest—because she’s already seen how he behaves with her, and likewise both seen and heard directly from Alex how kind and tender Randall has always been with his younger brother. Whom he basically raised, which is a whole other yarn.

Here’s the thing though: One doesn’t need to watch Outlander in any great depth to see that for Black Jack, much of the point of sadism lies in the aftercare. I haven’t belabored that point here overmuch because I don’t want to suggest that caretaking afterwards in any way negates harm done beforehand. However, Randall does consistently show genuine pleasure in taking care of another person. We see this in some ways with Jamie at Wentworth Prison in S1E16 “To Ransom a Man’s Soul” but then get a whole different context on it in Season 2, especially with S2E12 “The Hail Mary” when the curtain finally pulls back fully on Black Jack’s family life. The only moments where he seems to relax at all is when he’s helping someone feel better after a horrible privation—either by his own hand or from the ravages of illness. And in those moments, we see plenty of vulnerability. Which brings us to…

Unlike Randall, there is a vulnerability in and understanding of Lestat’s backstory that contextualizes his behavior.

I’m not so sure about this. Even midway through Season 1 starting with S1E06 “The Garrison Commander” this understanding of Randall’s character begins to fray at the edges. More details on that below. Likewise, we learn a good bit in Season 2 about Randall’s family and what has been going on behind the curtain of his own life as a result. But even beforehand, the scene in S1E15 “Wentworth Prison” where Black Jack forlornly talks to Jamie in the dungeon cell while seated and looking at him with sad eyes says quite a bit. He finds Jamie’s rejection in the face of a clear attraction painful; this is no less important for his own vicious response to that pain after Jamie taunts him about having no self-control. Subsequently we see in S1E16 “To Ransom a Man’s Soul” the lengths Black Jack will go to for the sake of affectionate treatment.

Not all love is constructive or good, but Randall leaves little doubt in his own behavior that his actions are very much in pursuit of love. This gets lampshaded a final time in Book 6 / A Breath of Snow and Ashes with the reveal of what Randall mouthed to Jamie in that one sequence of S3E01 “The Battle Joined” just before collapsing on top of him and dying from his wounds. During the abbey sequences in Book 1 / Outlander Jamie also recalls Black Jack lying beside him on the dungeon floor, crying profusely and begging him to speak words of love. Adding in the murky context missing from the show—about Jack having some sort of sexual history with either the deceased prisoner Alex MacGregor and/or his own younger brother Alex Randall—paints a telling portrait of a man desperate for affection and connection.

Though he doesn’t excuse it, we see his traumatic past, and feel how much he yearns for family and love.

Very true about Lestat, certainly. But I’d say this could also have easily been written about Black Jack.

In other portions of this essay I cover Randall’s behavior at Wentworth Prison in Season 1 and the Inverness storyline at the end of Season 2. To rehash here in brief, the only things that matter to Black Jack are (A) someone loving him back in a way he understands and (B) doing whatever he can to take care of his family. Black Jack doesn’t say as much directly to this effect, but he certainly shows us through action that yearning for family and love motivate a lot of his behavior. The fact that his pursuit of these things often happens through twisted means scarcely means he doesn’t want them. Quite the opposite.

As for the traumatic past, Black Jack and other characters alike (especially the Duke of Sandringham) drop hints throughout the Season 1 and Season 2 storylines—and even more so in corresponding portions of Book 1 / Outlander and Book 2 / Dragonfly in Amber—that Randall grew up in an abusive home and imprinted on that. It’s also clear from his interactions with Alex that he’s been protecting his brother from a lot over the years. The Duke himself certainly, but also other things. And in the corresponding sequences from the novels Jack goes into some detail about how little support he and Alex have ever gotten from their family back in Sussex, including from their older brother Edward even now that Alex is dying.

Then of course Black Jack himself talks aloud to Claire at Brockton about his traumatic present and how the armed conflict in Scotland has further warped his mind. He’s clearly shaken about finding one of his own men brutally beheaded and speaks in more general terms about being “not the man [he] once was” as a result of his military service. No surprise either that he looks like a fish out of water the one time we see him in non-military dress during S2E12 “The Hail Mary”. Black Jack may not like what serving in the Army has done to further damage his psyche, but at this point it’s all he understands and the only place he feels he belongs at all. On that front…

It’s not difficult to see the parallels between his existence as a vampire, and the isolation and threat many members of the queer community feel.

Here I should also include my response to the aforementioned excellent meta on homosociality in The Patriot canon. As noted previously I’m hoping to release a similarly focused reflection of my own in time addressing Outlander canon directly. For now I’ll applaud Rowan’s general attention in the video to how bisexual people often become isolated within the queer community as well as in the world at large.

Double marginalization is a lonely experience in the utmost—and one that can breed tremendous resentment. That anger has to go somewhere more often than not. Even without the added burden of silent rage from sexual violence and the constant “insult to injury” experience of having our own trauma collide with that of others walking a similar path, things are tough. And the data on experiences of rape and abuse in the bisexual community remain incredibly damning.

So again, I think Lestat and Black Jack would find plenty of common ground in one another’s histories. Although Lestat himself doesn’t really meet the criteria for sexual sadism, he certainly enjoys bloodplay and the general aesthetic of violence as part of intimate congress. This isn’t surprising in the slightest considering how the capacity to enjoy such pleasures often grows and sharpens in response to abuse of any form, including rape and domestic violence.

My own life has certainly been an exercise in this. If that seems confusing, consider: For people who are well accustomed to people bleeding on us when we didn’t cut them, it can feel immensely satisfying to have someone bleed on us because we did cut them.

Whereas the initial seasons of Outlander have no sympathetic or heroic queer heroes at all, Interview with the Vampire does give us another lead who fulfills this protagonist role in Louis.

I’m glad this was the last content in the video that mentioned Outlander directly. I think there’s enough context from the rest of this segment for viewers to understand the intended contrast here. Prior to Season 3 we don’t encounter characters in Outlander who are fully immersed in their queerness other than Black Jack, whereas Interview with the Vampire centers characters who show more of that immersion from the beginning on both the protagonist and antagonist sides.

Given the centrality of Jamie’s character arc to Randall’s though, the omission of his own bisexuality from this video essay seems quite the lost opportunity. To reiterate, in both versions of canon beginning with S1E16 “To Ransom a Man’s Soul” and equivalent sequences from the novels we get verbatim documentation directly from the source that Jamie is bisexual himself. This is in addition to his earlier comments about considering the prospect of sleeping with Randall at Fort William and only turning him down because he thought his dad would be disappointed in him. Not for having same-sex relations, but rather for capitulating to another man. That’s a lot to unpack, folks.

Indeed, Jamie’s storylines throughout the TV and book series alike are often demonstrations of how the ideation of heterosexuality and the pressure to live a heterosexual life do deep harm to bisexual men. This gets lampshaded further by the anvilicious contrasts constantly drawn between Black Jack and the decidedly gay Lord John Grey. The latter is set up as a perennial foil for Randall, getting into similar scenarios with Jamie—starting with his time as warden at Ardsmuir Prison in Season 3 and Book 3 / Voyager—but taking them in entirely different directions. Which I appreciate in essentials for the spinning of a superb narrative about complex post-traumatic stress. More so for living with that particular set of issues myself.

Once again for the good of the Republic: If you don’t heal what hurt you, you’ll bleed on people who didn’t cut you.

Apropos of this, I want to express particular appreciation for the video’s exploration of the “puriteens” phenomenon—and incorporate a caution for those slightly elder members of fandom. It can be very easy for people to fall into the trap of assuming that bisexual people are always hypersexual. And even easier to assume that those bisexual folk who truly are hypersexual are automatically threats because of this. More so if said individuals also happen to be kinky, and especially if they are specifically sadistic.

I mention this now because as queer people marginalized from within the queer community as well as without, bisexual and asexual folk stand on common ground. I have seen the transformative power in allyship between bi and ace people in fighting our shared oppressions. Sadly I have also seen many successful efforts to tear that natural solidarity asunder by making ace people fear us as predators. And the first against the wall, same as always, are the hypersexual and kinky among us.

So I’m happy beyond words to see openly ace creators like Rowan Ellis standing up for bisexual people. Making sure that our struggles and our humanity alike are always seen and valued. In kind, I strongly encourage everyone reading this to take this analysis of Rowan’s commentary on Outlander in the spirit in which I intend it. To say that I strongly support both the general content and overall standpoint of this video would understate the case.

Indeed, I offer this detailed analysis now because I know the depth of Rowan’s commitment to diverse queer representation. I want to build on the dialogue sparked by the video and to bring that depth on Randall’s character to the impressive breadth of focus in Rowan’s overview of queer villains. The fact that doing so amplifies the labor, effort, and insight of an asexual creator made me even more inclined to give this my full effort. I hope Rowan will keep putting her voice and perspective into the world for many years to come.

For now, I’m grateful for this opportunity to once again bring Black Jack Randall to my little corner of the Internet in dizzying detail. And moreover, to do so in amplifying the work of a fellow creator explicitly naming the harm done by respectability politics surrounding queerness.

Randall may not be the bisexual representation everyone wants, but he’s absolutely the bisexual representation the world needs. Because if he isn’t a resounding comeback to respectability politics that attempt to deny “problematic” bisexual people their basic human rights—and indeed an effective illustration of the deep harms those kinds of approaches to queerness not only do directly but also reproduce in cyclical patterns—I don’t know what character possibly could be.

[eleanor-bradstreet]

Hi! I love your blog and I like show!Ben very much. However I felt meh about his book, and Sophie while sweet, strong and deserving of respect seemed a little bit bland to me. It's fine and probably won't ruin the pleasure of following their story for me. The book and Cinderella themes was simply not my cup of tea, but they definitely will make some changes anyways. That all being said I want to very politely ask you to explain to me what's magic of this couple is for you?

Hello Nonny!

Thank you so much for your kind words and this truly thought provoking question! I have a long-winded answer 😜

I agree with you on many points: I am typically not one for fairytale romance/Cinderella tropes; I believe Benophie's book An Offer from a Gentleman has a TON of problems including making Sophie bland and helpless; and I am hopelessly in love with show!Ben.

As best I can describe it, Luke Thompson's show!Ben is the answer to everything. I love that character and find him to be 'magical' moreso than I do the coupling of Benophie and their story. I believe that he could have a captivating love story with literally anyone and anything. Show me his forbidden romance with a dustbin and I will eat it up 😅 He is just such a well-written and acted character (despite being rather bland and directionless in S3 IMO). He is always kind-hearted and emotionally intelligent (looking askance at dear Anthony). He is adventurous and funny, creative and romantic, and yet not a pushover. He still exudes masculinity and sexual intensity. He is, in my opinion, the complete package. There's nothing he can't do. That's why he's my favorite Bridgerton sibling and why I fell hopelessly in love with him.

His love story with Sophie came second for me. I watched the show first, fell in love with Ben and then read his book. And I nearly chucked it into a fire. In my opinion his book and and show versions are so wildly divergent they may as well be two different people. Book!Benedict's flaws are well documented - the misogyny, toxic manipulation, violence, flippancy, selfishness, on and on... And the plot itself had plenty I didn't like - Sophie was passive and hollow, the sex and romance was toxic, some plotlines were nonsensical, some exposition was lazy. But the skeleton of a grand love story was still there, to Julia Quinn's credit. And when I imagine show!Benedict dropped into that plotline, it has so much potential to be beautiful and as you say: magical.

At it's core, Benophie's love story is uncomplicated. Especially in comparison to the other Bridgerton siblings. So many of the stories center around couples fighting with and/or denying love of their spouses until a deus ex machina comes along and resets their perspective - literally Daphne, Anthony, Colin and Eloise and I havent read the last 3 books so I can only imagine the pattern may repeat 😅 And Benophie do fight over Sophie's hidden identity but it never undermines Benedict's love for her. It's tropey as hell but they fell in love at first sight and never stopped loving each other. It is the issue of class and society that creates complications for their marriage, not their own miscommunications and misunderstandings. To me, that makes their story the most compelling, with the most satisfying pay off.

There is also the visual and action-oriented aspect of their romance. Imagine the sparkling delight of a midnight masquerade. The cozy interior of a country cottage. A glimpse at the 'downstairs' world of servants within the ton. These are realms only Benophie's story dives into. And so much happens other than conversations and balls. A thwarted attack, a nighttime dash through the rain, nursing back to health, lakeside flirtation, sneaking around the Bridgerton household, a chase in the London streets, fight sequences in a jail. There is - A LOT going on to hold one's interest. (I beg of you to tell me one 'action' sequence Polin had other than Pen falling out of a carriage 😜)

Again, when I picture show!Ben in this plot (or something similarly adapted) I am so frickin excited to see Luke Thompson blow us all away with his performance. I also hold out hope that Sophie can be fleshed out and given more agency as a character in the show. Her profile is starkly different from any of the other Bridgerton spouses, growing up cast into the servant class. It's important to expanding the world to show how people outside of the ton lived in this era and she is our vehicle to do that.

So while I fully acknowledge the story is modeled on the tired Cinderella trope, if I stop thinking about it as a paint-by-numbers fairytale, and cast the leads as show!Ben and a dynamically written Sophie, I see a story with immense potential to entertain, full of passion, perseverance, social struggle, action and unwavering love. Yeah, love-at-first-sight is cheesy in theory, but in the world of Bridgerton with show!Benedict waiting for us at a sparkling silver-themed masquerade? I think we're all going to fall irrevocably in love on sight 😉 That's the promise the show holds and I keep my fingers crossed they deliver.

(But just in case they don't, or if anyone is curious on my 'fixes' to the book, I am rewriting it in my fic Let Me Be Your Anchor which I am working to finish soon. The whole idea is plopping show!Ben into the book story and giving Sophie more to do.)

Thank you again for this ask! Sorry for the tome - I had a lot of fun answering 😅💙

[iknowimdespicableme]

My top 5 Doctor Who Episodes; And why!

DOCTOR WHO SPOILERS UNDER THE CUT!! I say the season and episode before I start analyzing, so feel free to skip some.

5. Vincent and the Doctor [5x10]

This episode was so touching to me on many different levels. Firstly, as a creative person who deals with mental health and ostracization, seeing a version of Vincent Van Gogh on screen felt almost healing. Acknowledging the hurt he experienced while not ignoring his joys was very special. On a technical level, the way that the episode visualized a way Vincent Van Gogh may have seen the world was incredibly eye opening and better allowed me to appreciate his art. Furthermore, the confusion Amy experienced during the episode regarding her memory was such an experience for two reasons; Firstly, it proved to us, the audience, how much she has grown to love Rory. Before, she was dating him because he was the only half-decent guy around. But, after learning more about him and spending more time with him, she is truly in love with him and this episode gives proof of that. Secondly, I experience dissociative fugue, wherein I may forget large aspects of my life, and this episode was so comforting regarding that experience. Yes, sometimes there are things you can't remember that make you happy or sad. You should embrace the feelings rather than ignore them or feel scared. And, finally, the moment where Vincent Van Gogh is able to see what the future of his art holds is a touching moment; and I like that it didn't save him in the end. Like the Doctor said, “The way I see it, every life is a pile of good things and bad things. The good things don't always soften the bad things, but vice versa, the bad things don't always spoil the good things or make them unimportant.”

4. The Husbands of River Song [2015 Christmas Special]

I looked forward to finally watching this episode for so long leading up to it because I had heard such flattering things about it; and it didn't disappoint. After many episodes that felt lacking or one dimensional, this special brought back an element of camp, humor, and fun that had been missing, all the while including beloved characters and dramatic sequences. Allowing the Doctor an opportunity to see how one of his companions, especially River, acts when he is not around gives the audience so much more insight into her character and the Doctor a chance to learn and grow. Asking her about himself and learning that, although she may be worried or grieving, she finds these feelings worth it just to keep loving him. Considering how much River puts a mask on around 11 to not show her age and sadden him, it was refreshing to see a new side of her. Not to mention, the storyline for the special was interesting and compelling without being overwhelming in a way that took away from the characters. Although it's unlikely that the Doctor doubted River's feelings for him, this episode gave ultimate proof regarding how much she cares about him. Unfortunately, it also showcases how little River thinks of herself in relation to the Doctor. And, yet, there 12 is to prove her wrong when it mattered. Best of both worlds! Finally, the tenderness mixed with grief and understanding that we end the special with is such a perfect conclusion to River's story with the Doctor as it reflects their whole saga together perfectly. River's argument to the Doctor that, "Happily ever after doesn't mean forever, it just means time." was so special and the Doctor finally allowing himself to settle down (if only for a little bit) was exactly the kind of growth the character needed.

3. Wild Blue Yonder [2nd 2023 David Tennent Special]

I watched this episode yesterday and by gods it quickly skyrocketed to one of my favorites, where do I even start. Within the first few minutes of the episode, we are given many similarities and differences when comparing this Doctor and Donna adventure to their previous excursions. While they still compliment each other well, offering understanding and push-back, it is also clear the ways they have matured. Donna seems more in touch with her emotions and how she is truly feeling. When we first met her, she had a lot of anger and frustration within her from constantly being scrutinized and ignored. Now, we can see she is more peaceful and secure, even if below the surface some hesitation still lingers. Whereas, in the Doctor's case, he is so much more open to affection and vulnerability. The lessons he learned as 11 and 13 showed him that he could trust others, even if it is slowly. Although he is still trying to ignore or repress many things that have happened to him, he is at peace with them more than he was as 10. They both are less rageful. So, from a literary standpoint, just the beginning of this episode was wonderful. The classic "TARDIS fucks off somewhere leaving the company stranded" and "Doctor loses his sonic screwdriver and doesn't know what to do with himself for a bit" tropes came back swinging, and the way it affected the duo was wonderful to watch. The reality of the situation wasn't quickly swept under the rug or ignored because of a bigger problem, they got to sit in their fear for a while which was beautiful. The slow realization throughout the episode as if the audience is figuring out the answer at the same time as the Doctor just felt satisfying. Small, seemingly disconnected things coming together to form a compelling mystery. And, because it takes so long to give us the answer, we feel the carnal fear of the unknown just like the Doctor and Donna. I was tense when I realized they weren't talking to each other, but copies. I was scared when they were separated. And, the best part of the whole fucking episode, I didn't know who was who. That was terrifying! Up until the last second, I thought the Doctor had made the right choice, too! It kept me on the edge of my seat, informed me so much about the characters, explored a terrifying "what if" in a way only sci-fi can replicate, and was silly as hell. Loved every second. Also, the little robot guy was cute as hell.

2. Heaven Sent [9x11]

Explodes everywhere I love 12. This Doctor is characterized as a less nice, but still very kind regeneration. He holds so many conflicting feelings regarding the loss of the Ponds, his changing relationship with Clara, his perception of himself. I loved how he acted in his episodes. as socially confused, because it felt very familiar to me. The way his brain always seemed too loud and his loner energy was such a switch-up compared to 11. and yet so in character all the same. This episode carried this perfect essence of Doctor Who that felt lost in the majority of the last couple seasons. An entire episode where the Doctor is alone, and grieving, and loving, and problem-solving all at the same time was so compelling. Although it is clear I am more of a fan of episodes that focus on the characters and not the current storyline, this story was enthralling even if it took away from character moments sometimes. Do I wish we had more chances at the beginning/middle of the episode to properly address or reminisce about Clara? Yes. But, after watching the whole episode, it is clear why it was done. The setting for Heaven Sent was so intriguing, and the whole episode we are just wondering as much as the Doctor is; Why? Why is he being chased, why was he brought here, why are there shovels? It reeled us in. And then, once we realize the torture he is putting himself through, the dramatics, character information, and emotion we are given is so heart-wrenching. Evidently, Clara gave the Doctor a comfort greater and worth more than 5 billion years of torture. Could you imagine that? The depth of his love for Clara is given so much of a spotlight in this episode, and I am frothing at the mouth for it. Especially considering how they may frustrate or hurt each other, they still know each other. They help each other. And goddammit, he is not going to let her go. But, this stubbornness isn't necessarily a good thing. One important thing about loving someone is knowing when to let them go. This love for Clara was selfish the same way her love was for him in these intense moments where they sacrifice themselves for each other. They were doing it to prove something to themselves, to get the other back because they couldn't accept they were gone, not because it would be a better existence for the one in danger. Clara didn't want to be saved, she was being brave. And this imperfect grief the Doctor experiences was so achingly realistic. When I lost my cousin, it was so hard to accept. I wanted to ignore it, I wanted to be angry, I wanted him back. But, in the end, it was his time. This journey the Doctor goes on regarding yet another loss felt so powerful. He was forced to feel this and it hurt, he couldn't just try and quickly forget about it or sulk on his own terms. At the same time, the revelations he comes to throughout the episode were so reassuring to hear someone outside of my own head say. "It’s funny. The day you lose someone isn’t the worst. At least you’ve got something to do. It’s all the days they stay dead."

Turn Left [4x11]

This comes as a surprise to no one as someone who has been PREACHING character > story. This episode, while being a perfect set up for the finale, tells us so fucking much about the Doctor and, more importantly, ABOUT DONNA! Without Donna, there's no Doctor. Without the Doctor, everything goes to shit! Seeing as we, the audience, are usually seeing the universe by following the Doctor, a companion-focused episode was so refreshing. We got to learn so much about who Donna is, what her life back home was like before we met her, and gave realistic consequences to her actions. FUCK YEAH! It felt grounded, it felt interesting. I also adore the theory that every action we take splits us off into a new universe or timeline, so this episode was so perfect for me. DONNA'S INTERACTIONS WITH ROSE!!! Their comradery and understanding, the way Rose takes Donna under her wing, a moment where we see them as real people without the Doctor intervening or affecting the discussion. The importance of Donna to the universe being made so clear. WILF'S FLASHBACKS!! It's been forever since I saw this episode, but it is so rewatchable and makes me so interested every. single. time. The end of the episode is bone-chilling, with her literally killing herself to save the universe. And then!! The Doctor being out of the loop for once and understanding the severity of the situation with the return of the Bad Wolf. Explodes everywhere, words do not do justice the pure love, respect, and admiration I have for this episode and every actor, producer, tech person, writer, involved. Thank you GODS for this episode, I love you turn left. This lesson that every single person is indispensable and important sets up that conversation in later seasons and eventually becomes the main reoccurring theme of the show. Every Donna Noble, Rose Tyler, and Martha Jones of the universe is important and loved and unique and dbiubibjbjbgiufgbfgu you get me?

Honorable mentions:

The Parting of Ways [1x13]

The first finale of new who, and it was so gooooood!! Tied up the Bad Wolf hints, gave interesting endings to the TARDIS crew, told us so much about the ninth doctor, gave us confirmed ninerose, had a compelling storyline behind it, and just a classic good episode to go back to.

Tooth and Claw [2x2]

I know I've been mostly talking about the character implications of my favorite episodes, but this one was just interesting and fun. I loved the dynamic between the Doctor and Rose, the adventure, the silliness, the royal family being involved. Just a good, well-paced, wonderful episode.

The God Complex [6x11]

This episode was so yummy. While I was watching 11's seasons, I did get the vibe that Amy looked up and admired the Doctor in an unhealthy way and I loved how this episode addressed this. The idea that this thing was taking the forms of people's worst fears, the mystery of what the Doctor saw, the interesting characters, the understanding on what a God Complex actually was, its wonderful!!

The Timeless Children [12x10]

This may be controversial and I don't care!! I loved the way this episode was structured. I was confused and interested the whole time and when it fell into place I actually had to pause and pace around because OH MY GODS!!! it was a well-done reveal that had such interesting implications and I believe every reaction was in character and made sense. At first, I was upset about the loss of the former perception of the Doctor; Just a regular ol' guy who decided to act out and, above all, be kind. Suddenly, she was from another universe and was the original timelord and i was a little sad. But, the way it has been handled after feels so fitting, and it puts the rest of the show into perspective. All of the confusing things that set the Doctor apart from the others, it made sense now! I loved this episode, I thought it was a great.

The Village of the Angels [13x4]

I LOVED THE FLUX!! getting to have a old-school style season wherein the who season was just one problem was so cool and allowed for so much information! This episode specifically was so compelling. I loved the Professor Jericho; was SUCH a great addition to the TARDIS crew, and the way the handled the angels was arguably better than Time of Angels + Flesh and Stone. They were terrifying, the mystery was intriguing, and the characters were interesting!!! The only difficult part of this episode was keeping track of who was who as someone who has difficulty recognizing faces. Besides that, I fucking loved The Village of the Angels.

[cowboyinternist]

what makes sam and jackie compelling/interesting as a ship to u? /gen :O (not related to anything ive been meaning to send u this ask for a while and only just got round to it lol)

i think a big part of it is that the way jackie talks about sam makes them a lot more interesting as a character?

because objectively, sam sucks! as we see them about 90% of the time, they’re incredibly self serving and negligent. and that’s putting it in as simple terms as possible.

but we get these small implications as time goes on that there’s something beyond that! which is most notable in the interaction they have with dana in episode 83 (another thing i could talk about for a million years (i could also go on a whole other tangent about how them showing their face is another really huge example of this but that’s off topic rn)). but none of them are necessarily set in stone, outright saying who they are. like MAYBE sam isn’t completely horrible, but who can really be sure?

but then Jackie says this in it devours,

sam is nice! really nice, actually! outside of the specific context of them being the sheriff and instead them,,, fundamentally as a person. and it isn’t like jackie is this one off character whose judgment we can’t trust. we spend an entire book getting to know her! and i feel like jackie is reliable in this aspect, especially post novel 1. this is the first and really like,, ONLY time we get info on sam from somebody who actually knows them personally. and interestingly enough, the next time we get insight on this aspect of their character, it can be linked back to jackie. they only decide to stand up against the university of what it is once they threaten josh, who is jackie’s half brother. and it is IMMEDIATE they are,, FRONT and fucking center in that movement. like their relationship is so interesting because jackie saying something as simple as that shakes up everything we know about this character.

and this all makes it very interesting to explore just,, what makes sam so fucking horrible outside of that? like what is it that drives them to be that way. and there are so many possible answers to that question and i have my own extensive thoughts on that but again,, off topic.

i love it all so much because it plays into the major themes of perspective that wtnv has? which i think is my favorite thing about the podcast. cecil has his own perception of sam, so does dana, so does jackie. and none of those perceptions are necessarily false, because they’re based on those people’s individual experiences.

also i enjoy the way their relationship is foreshadowed in the novel because i think that with the way she describes it, sam is like the LAST character you’d expect her to end up with lmao.

but yeah TLDR; i find them compelling because sam is absolutely awful and jackie is not, but she describes them as a really nice person anyways ^-^

[mseirtaku]

Me watching travesty that was Kung Fu Panda 4.

Under 'read more', I have my full (unsolicited) thoughts on the fourth film - warning, I don't have much good to say about it 〔´∇｀〕;;

SPOILERS! + LONG ASS POST!

So... I'll start with the positives, because honestly, I do love aspects of this movie.

Any scenes featuring Li and Mr. Ping are the absolute highlights of this film. Love them, ship them, hilarious chemistry between them. I'd watch a whole film dedicated to just them.

Though not as funny as the previous films, it’s genuinely funny, like, some jokes are deadass hilarious. (See above for example lol)

Genuinely, the main villainess, the chameleon, has such a cool design and Viola Davis provides such a good voice for her. The animation whenever she transforms is so cool.

Jack Black as Po is just so charming, you can't help but find Po so likeable.

For what little we saw of Tai Lung, he was a treat to see.

Great animation, lovely scenery, love the little animation flairs during the action scenes

Alright, now time for the negatives... Which unfortunately there is a lot of. I’ll go step by step and build up to the bigger picture I’m trying to visualise here.

The Kung Fu Panda

Po’s character arc was pretty much complete at the end of KFP3, when he has his epiphany and finds that his true self lies in not restricting himself to one label, but by embracing everything that makes him Po. His identity by this point is very well realised. Unfortunately in KFP4, the tacked on conflict of him needing to retire the Dragon Warrior title and choose a successor just… Doesn’t make sense for his character at this point. Not to mention, the movie repeats a joke ad nauseam where no one knows who Po is, or of his adventures, jokingly chalking it down to a ‘regional’ tale. You’d think the literal saviour of China would be well known. The world-building feels so much smaller for it. Unfortunately, this movie is very determined to undermine the impact of the last three movies, all to prop up the wisecracking and super cool shitass Awkafina character. Sorry, not sorry, but Zhen is a terrible character just for that reason alone. If Kung Fu Panda wanted to pass the torch down, Tigress or even Tai Lung would have been a much more compelling option, seeing as both were telegraphed to be potential Dragon Warriors in the past. Speaking of…

Tai Lung

Man… The trailers got my hopes up that KFP4 would feature a long awaited redemption arc for the OG villain of the KFP films. Instead, he’s delegated to a cage for half his scenes, and received the barest minimum of character arcs in the finale. Granted, he was still entertaining to watch, but he was totally under-utilised.

To continue the topic of identity, the film missed the chance to ask this: “Who is Tai Lung without his kung fu?” All his life he’d been raised with huge aspirations to become the best kung fu master, and to eventually gain the dragon scroll (which he was denied.) In KFP4, the chameleon summons him from the spirit realm, and drains him of all his kung fu skill. Therein lies the missed opportunity for a compelling character arc, now that he’s been cast out as a supposedly useless body into the real world. And who better to help him figure out his identity other than Po himself?

I could go on forever about the various fanficy rewrites and plot ideas, but I don’t want to let this get any longer. So I’ll talk about one more topic.

The Chameleon

I love her design, I love her voice acting, but compared to Tai Lung, Lord Shen and even General Kai… She’s simply a weak villain. (Too small to learn kung fu… Really?? With characters like Mantis and Viper who deadass exist in the same franchise???)

‘I’m the Chameleon! I do nothing but change!’ holds such potential for a far more interesting backstory. Instead of being rejected for her size, suppose that it was seen by many king fu masters that she simply didn’t possess a true spirit of a kung fu warrior. As explained in this film, their abilities are harnessed in the spirit/soul, not just the physical body. Perhaps she didn’t want to work for those abilities properly. She wanted the easy way forwards. She didn’t want to put in the proper time and effort to become a master of the craft. Spurred on by what she sees as rejection, she learns sorcery to take on any number of identities of kung fu masters. So many identities she could use to fool herself into believing she was someone talented and gifted in the art of kung fu. But it’s only a lie she tells herself. And so, she takes the drastic action, and decides to start summoning these masters from the spirit realm. But even as she slowly grows in power through the course of this film, maybe a strong sense of imposter syndrome starts to set in. These powers aren’t truly hers - what value does a carbon copy of something original have? Nothing. She never properly worked for them and made them her own.

Anyways. I’m almost done writing.

Quick fire round of criticism;

Akwafina’s shitass character

Furious five just tossed aside except for a non speaking cameo. Tigress got done so dirty - if there are gonna be like three more films, they should have been about her

WHAT DID THEY DO TO LORD SHEN’S CHARACTER MODEL

The goofy-ass way he was attacked and then thrown into the cage, the disrespect lol

Li (the victim) and Lord Shen (the genocidal maniac who destroyed his village and killed his wife) somehow existed in the same space and did not get into a conflict.

Why does Kai still exist in the spirit realm? I thought he was literally skadooshed to be extra double dead lol. Like spirit literally eradicated

Akwafina’s shitass character

The villains bowing to Po feels super unearned given how under-utilised they were. I can see it working, just not in the plot we got in the end

Po’s character feels weirdly dumbed down, it’s hard to put my finger on it

Fart joke :(

The innocent and cute but secretly psycho baby bunnies are the definition of anti humour. They’re so fucking obnoxious and cringey

For some reason, the character designs of new characters feels super incongruous and out of place.

The Dragon Warrior isn’t an inherited title, it was given during a time where China needed a hero. Why does it need to be passed down?

Ȁ̸̺͚̮̘̔̌̇̋͛̀́́̒̉̅̐ķ̶̲͍̘̖͈̭̮̝̩͐̃̎̕w̴̙̖̫̿̿͜a̸̧̠͎̰̲̠̮͇̰̼̱͂̋̃̇̑̍̊̂̎̾̓͝f̶̛̼͓̱͖̖̭͓͍͚͋͛̍ḯ̶͕̈́͛̀̎̆͛n̶͖͓̻̉̆̎́͆̌͌͂̾̉̚a̷̡̻̟̟͍̳̙̰͔̬̜̐̏̾̍̊̎́͂͊͝’̷̢̢̭̬̹̪̟̰̣́̈́̌̈̑̄̔͗̓̃̄̐s̶̡̹̙̖̲̝͎̳͔̍͑́ ̷̢̤̈͊͛̚s̸͓̪̠̼̪̤͈̜̎ȟ̵͇̥͈̟͖͈̣̞͚̘̩͍̓̅̀͐͗͛̏̉̀̒͘͜i̸̛̦͕̖̙̲͔̗̙̘̥̣̰̖͖̭̓̄͂̋́̍̓̃͘t̴̯̯̔̑̈̽̇̋̈́͌͛á̴̡͍͓͎͍͈̖͖͎̼̀́̅̿͌̂̌̆͠s̷̢̳̙̦̯̥̮͕͍̃̃͑̂̎̑̍̀͒̊͘̚͝͠͠s̴̪͖̼͈͂̏̚ͅ ̶͕̺̟̙̲͓̘̟̠͇̩̖̠̦̫̄̅̋̓̈́̓̆͋͝͝c̴͕̤̮̎̿̎͐̀̐̊̆̓̍̾̈́͠h̵̛̝̑̋̎̃̈́̆͋͒̅͊́͑͠͝a̷̡̹͍̳̘̪̰̰̤̼̎̄̈́̚ͅŗ̷̝̲͚̻͚̮͕̳̙̭̻̄͆̇̐̄̐͂͘a̴̡̢̯̩͓͓͂̄͑͗́́͂͠͠c̸̨̺̖̪̙͖̯̟̠͙͐́͊̾̅̎̏͠͝t̸̛̗̣̳̠̯͎̫͔̣̱̞̂̅͑̀̈̄͋̈́̆͘͝e̸̢͎͙̻̩̦̹̜̩̦̖̫͍͂́̌ͅr̵̨̄̅͐̍̏̅̀̃́̇̇̅̕͝

That’s all I have really. Sorry for straying so much into fanfiction territory, but it’s an integral part of my criticisms. I could honestly write forever, but I mainly wanted to share this silly redraw of the Tai Lung meme using Lobster and I’s silly Kung Fu Panda Hetalia gijinka crossover AU nonsense lol

If you read this all the way to the end, congrats! And sorry - I never do long text posts like this lol

[kipperlillyforpresident]

I received an anon ask which I found to be... well, really interesting. I agree with a lot of the points they make. But I also disagree with the way that they've presented their argument in many aspects.

I considered not responding to it, but it's my policy to answer all asks which are sent in good faith (at the moment, at least). And I could just answer it as-is, but I didn't really want to do that either.

So, instead I'm answering it with this disclaimer. Opinions of anonymous users do not represent the beliefs of Kipperlillyforpresident.tumblr.com, etc etc. With that out of the way, here is the ask:

I want Gorgug to go to Artificer class and try to explain to Henry why his nephew wasn't worth saving, but Aelwyn was. Ragh was. I want Fabian to sit alone at his house because Mazey won't talk to him, and think about how his last words to Ivy just reflected his own thoughts about himself, because he'd never learnt anything about her. Fabian is a vindictive, vain, sex obsessed rich kid with no person in his life who wants to really listen to him. I want Fig to see Henry in the corridors on her way to Paladin class, not meeting his gaze because doing so she would have to explain to him that his nephew wasn't worth the justice her Goddess promises. I want Riz to go to a psychiatrist – not Jawbone – and I want him to talk about the fact that he hates a version of himself so much he couldn't possibly allow her to live, and he in fact relished in the idea that she'd never come back. I want Lucy to come back and hear what The Bad Kids did in her name, and I want her to absolutely tear them a new one. I want her eyes – that they all thought of as sorrowful and deep while never having paid attention to them before her death – to be cold and unwelcome as she looks them up and down and asks them to explain their actions. I want her voice to raise well above the level of what any of them had envisioned of her when they studied her desecrated and fragile body in the woods. I want her to ask them if they knew where Mary Ann lived, or if Reuben had any siblings that would miss him. I want her to hear the podcast episode written about her by a person having a wild guess based on her lifeless form and a handful of anecdotes from her now deceased friends. I probably won't get it, but it's nice to imagine.

So to start off with: I really do like the premise of this. Dealing with the consequences of rage is the part of the story - both in TRG and TBK - that I'm most interested in. And a part of my frustration with the narrative is that I don't think we'll be getting any consequences along this line, and that everything is going to be tied up in a neat bow for a happily ever after.

I do agree/find myself interested in almost all of the scenarios you present. Gorgug and Henry in particular - I think that really needs to come back and haunt the narrative. My personal headcanon is that Henry strongly recommends he take dual credit classes for Artificer at the local community college, because he knows he'll be unable to be fair to him.

And god, Fig and Ankarna! How is she going to justify redeeming the one who caused all of this conquest and rage, yet brutally and cruelly torturing people who were infected by it? It's really compelling. Although for the Riz thing - I don't think he'd willingly go to a psychiatrist at any point, lmao.

And Lucy, holy shit, Lucy, I hate so badly how TBK talk about Lucy. I always talk about her being "dead wife montage", because that really does feel like how she's been treated. Going into battle and murdering all of her friends and claiming its "for Lucy"??? It's really dark. I do NOT want Lucy to like TBK after everything is over.

All that said... I really don't enjoy the way anon has characterized Fabian here. I've been on the record as being deeply uncomfortable with how he treated Ivy. And I want him to face consequences for it. I want him to realize he never learned anything about her, and that the fact she rejected him is almost certainly a part of why he hates her so much. I want him to remember that we "don't talk about women like that"!

But to call him a "vindictive, vain, sex obsessed rich kid"...? It doesn't fully sit right with me. I suppose that it's not entirely wrong, but it's leaving out a lot of aspects of his character. It's painting him exclusively in the most negative light possible.

This ask is treating Fabian - and TBK in general, I suppose - in the exact same way that most of the fandom treats TRG. Exclusively focusing on their worst aspects and ignoring any extenuating circumstances.

And if I'm going to crusade for TRG to be treated with more respect in the narrative, then I suppose my natural inclination is to do the same for TBK. Not that anybody is mandated to do so. You're allowed to engage with media however you'd like, and if fully despising TBK is what brings you the most enjoyment, then go ahead. But it's not my own philosophy.

I appreciate anon for sending this ask, because it did make me think about a lot of stuff! I hope that everybody interacts with this post in a respectful manner, but if discourse happens, it happens ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[zagreuses-toast]

I come from a place of sheer curiousity and I just wanna ask genuinely- you say that you're a fan of 13s/ the chibnall era. Why? Doctor who is my favourite show and I've connected with every incarnation deeply and immediately, but have never been able to "click" with 13, despite my best efforts. What is it that you like about her? What is it that you like about chibnalls writing? I want to know and I want to like her/it too, but as of right now, I just... don't. Obviously you're not obligated to, but can you explain why?

Ok so this ended up being a Long Post, so I'm putting my response under the read more. Also I'm assuming you've actually watched the Chibnall era up to The Power of The Doctor, if you haven't then heads up for spoilers and stuff that might not make much sense without context.

Oh and I'm gonna @ @rearranging-deck-chairs and @ssaalexblake because I see their DW opinions all the time and they're really good and they can probably give more nuanced answers on some things. (Idk how well I did on explaining why I liked some of them, and it really is up to personal preference on some things)

Thirteen herself:

There are a lot of reasons I like Chibnalls era, but one of the biggest ones out the gate is definitely Jodie and her acting in the role of the Doctor. I think the way she balances bouncy gregariousness with the colder more angry and mean aspects of the Doctor is great. She does this thing where she can just make her eyes go dead and then smile like it's a threat, like she's gonna bite, especially when going up against villains. It's great. And Jodie herself is a delightful person.

Beyond just physical acting choices, I find the thirteenth Doctors struggle between her anger and secrecy, vs her desire to connect and her joy at life very very compelling. She keeps this distance that's really interesting I think, where she's genuinely attached to and trying to be a friend to the Fam, but still trying to keep her whole past out of the deal, which doesn't work that well, as we see in s12 and Flux. She's surrounded by death and haunted by the knowledge of how little time she has with her friends, (Grace, and she just came back from bill) but she still wants and needs that connection, and she learns to live in the present a bit. I made a whole post about her final regeneration speech here. I love her arc a lot even if it hurts. Also she's such a horrible hypocrite about so many things, which also makes her a fun character to rotate in my head and study like a bug. I do see it as being on purpose, some people seem to think it's just bad writing that she contradicts herself but imo that's a big part of her character.

Chibnalls writing:

I personally like the timeless child plot because :

There are a lot of stories and ideas in the Chibnall era I like, and a lot more I find very compelling. Whatever your opinions on the writing (and I definitely have had a lot of critique for some bits), there were a lot of ideas introduced that were fun and interesting. One of the weaker points of the era IMO is having so much fun stuff set up, but only shallowly or quickly exploring it, and then adding more stuff on top.

A lot of things didn't get the exploration/screen time I thought they deserved (especially characterization and interaction/dialogue wise). But that just gives my brain more to chew on at the end of the day, and I do love what was done during the seasons itself, not just all the potential stuff.

1) I can connect with it, I know Chibnall was coming at it from a place of being an adoptee, but as a native person the story of a kid taken and raised into an imperial/colonial society, who had their history stolen and their body exploited to further that societies ends, hits very close to home.

And 2) I have a "everything is true at once" approach to canon and I think the more origin stories we make for the Doctor the funnier it is.

This era had a lot of repeating themes, ideas that showed up and we're explored in a lot of different circumstances, often with a rule of 3 aspect to it. One is themes of Empire and Exploitation. Particularly through the stenza in s11 (empire using up planets, introduced to us basically doing foxhunts for clout, but with People instead of foxes), the dalek specials, the Cybermen in s12, and Division/the timelords in flux (as well as the sontarans &co).

Within that there's the repeating motif of how by exploiting people or their beliefs for power the imperial power/bad guys sew the seeds of their destruction. From Tzim Sha using the Ux and them turning against him, to the Division being destroyed by the Ravagers, who they tried to use to get rid of the Doctor/the old universe (and the doctor and even the master going rogue in the first place). Hell even Kerblam! (I know I know) Has a version, where the AI system being used to do terrible things is the one to call the doctor for help!

Another standout are themes of breaking cycles, Ryan is estranged from his dad and was distancing himself from Graham, but they both put in the work and grow extremely close over their two seasons. He also chooses to leave the TARDIS when he realizes he's absent from his friend's lives and wants to be present. And the Doctor gets to break the cycle of exploitation that Tecteun started, when she meets a vulnerable being with mysterious power (the energy being from TPOTD) she helps it free itself, on a way she wasn't helped.

Individual character stuff:

Going again into more individual character stuff I love, I've gotta give it to Sacha Dhawan for being a fucking superb Master. His acting is bonkers amazing and he does a great job portraying the sorta huge personal crisis the master is going through, and externalizing via evil schemes. At the end of Twelves run we saw Missy try to be like the doctor, to get her friend back (and even succeed a bit) but end up dying for it. Now we come back to a master who died trying to be like the person they see as their only equal, and has discovered (wrongly) that they were never equal to begin with, that the doctor is so much more than them. So he tries to make her like him instead, and If she won't become like him and kill them both along with the rest of gallifrey, then he will become her properly this time (by body snatching), ruin her legacy, and die with her eventually (overtaking her in the same way his whole existance has now been caused/overtaken by the doctor in his eyes, because of her being the source of regeneration)

Also can we talk about the Yaz?? I've been dying to talk about Yaz!!! I love her a lot and I find her fascinating, shes probably my favorite companion based on just sheer amount of time spent Thinking about her. Her doctorification/character arc is so good

Yaz is into the travelling and saving the day lifestyle the Doctor gives her for the responsibility of it all, for feeling useful and capable and good. Her early characterization Monet's include her complaining about not having more interesting jobs as a cop because she wants responsibility, she wanted to be important and helpful (that's the entire reason she became a cop, to help people like she was helped when she was in a dark place, and she finds a better way of doing that with the Doctor). And she GETS THERE, narratively and on a character level, she spends three years on earth with her own companions! She co-pilots the TARDIS and can fly her herself! She saves the day when the master steals the doctors body! And most of all SHES EXTREMELY SAD AT THE END BECAUSE THE PERSON SHE LOVES DIED BEFORE HER!! JUST LIKE THE DOCTOR !! (ugly crying) (I could write a whole other post about thasmin, good and bad, but a lot of people have put it better than me)

Also, I'm a big TARDIS girlie, she has somehow ended up being one of my favorite characters in doctor who, and the chinball era does so much fun stuff with the TARDIS!! Different writers take different approaches to the TARDIS, and how alive vs inanimate, or how active vs passive she is. I think the Chinball era had something special in terms of the way the TARDIS was depicted, and I loved it a lot. We never really get to see past the control room but it's a gorgeous control room! And throughout the era the TARDIS just feels so alive, it's always humming and beeping and chirping, I especially love the moments when the lights change color to match the doctors mood (mostly to blue, for sadness, sometimes red to yell at that dalek that one time). And speaking of the doctor, starting with ghost monument thirteen has a bunch of sweet moments of banter or just ~emotions~ with the TARDIS. I genuinely teared up a bit when she entrusted the timeless child memories to the TARDIS,and before her regeneration speech when she asked the TARDIS to look after her. Because who can she trust with her past AND her future except her oldest truest friend.

I could add a lot more of specific things from the era I love (solitract my beloved) but I think this is getting long enough as is lol.

[kyouka-supremacy]

Ngl sometimes I feel like Asagiri doesn't know what he's writing. Like in many many interviews I feel like he straight up contradicts what him and harukawa are doing in the manga which often just makes me go ????

Like the way he treats Akutagawa has never been framed in a positive light, he has shown how desperate akutagawa was for his recognition. The cycle of abuse is a constant theme in the manga...

That interview just baffled me so much that I can't help but wonder if asagiri just really sucks at expressing himself or idk because I also feel like if some sentences would've been slightly changed it would've fallen more in line with the manga and it wouldn't have sounded like excusing the abuse Dazai had put Akutagawa through.

... I honestly don't know how to answer to this. I sincerely don't think the author's words contradict what already slipped through the manga? As I said, I think the statement was just a very unfortunate case of intersection between 1) abuse apologism and 2) Dazai idolization... But that's both things bsd ALWAYS had.

Chapter 39 Portrait of a Father is right there; the author's framing of Akutagawa and Dazai's relationship in the interview is precisely the same case of “the abuse you went through actually shaped you to become a better person, and your abuser always acted in your best interests and should even be regarded highly by you, like a father / meaning to your life”. So, nothing new on that front. About Dazai, I guess that's harder to pinpoint, but I do believe bsd has a bad case of Dazai is omniscient / perfect / flawless / can-do-no-wrong syndrome, something someone already made a very interesting elaboration of here. That explains why the author could never admit that Akutagawa was Dazai's failure, because that would be admitting Dazai can fail, and it's evident that the author doesn't agree with that.

I'm not really sure Dazai's treatment of Akutagawa is portrayed as cruel, either. Like, if it was, then why didn't Dazai stop treating Akutagawa that way when he joined the ada and started doing good? That sounds like implying that Dazai didn't stop because he is doing Akutagawa's good. When you think about it, Dazai acts very coldly to Akutagawa in chapters 36 and 51, treating him with condescension and vague contempt; and yet, those scenes are framed as being either endearing or comic, never cruel. Overall, I can hardly find the interview to be inconsistent to the manga when it's basically just expanding on what Akutagawa already told us here:

and where in the past one could have suspected this was only Akutagawa's biased perspective¹, this new interview simply confirms the author thinks it the same way too.

¹ I'll never forget my sister saying, when I was live reacting chapters 84-88 to her, about this exact passage: “That depressingly sounds like an abused person trying to find a meaning in the pain the abuse caused them, something able to give a sense to the pain and excuse the abuser”

I was extremely surprised by how everyone reacted to the interview, because I found it saddening, yes, but people are acting like it's something new and surprising when... I really don't feel the same way? I always thought bsd was full of problematic stuff and fucked up worldviews I don't agree with, from the moment I was watching the first season for the first time. And like, it kind of sucked initially, but I came to terms with it because there's other aspects I find enjoyable to explore and dwell into! (And also simply because I don't get to pick what I hyperfixate on). Personally, I assumed that people in the fandom either agreed with the author, or turned a more or less conscious blind eye to its issues in favor of more compelling stuff, or did like me and acknowledged its problematic stuff while also believing that doesn't necessarily have to get in the way of your enjoyment of the media (we're all just here to have fun). But I never thought... People just didn't notice? Like, the author's world views are all there and they've always been there, what changed exactly? Again, seeing it put so plainly and with no shame is saddening, but can't be deemed surprising. Yet somehow I've seriously seen people say stuff that sounded worryingly like “the abuse defending manga author is defending abuse in real life, how did this happen” and I'm. ?????????¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿????????? I'm sorry, and forgive me if I'm sounding somehow pretentious, but I swear most sincerely that I just don't get it. When in two years the author is going to make a comment of the kind “no female character will ever be as complex as male characters because women simply don't have it in them”, will everyone suddenly be surprised because the author of the sexist manga revealed themselves to be sexist?

It's just... As someone who as it turns out has done this (deeply disagreeing with bsd's themes, but hyperfixated on it nonetheless) longer, very humbly, allow me some words of advice: you're here for entertainment, you're here to have fun. That means you get to decide what parts of canon are worth focusing on and dissect and enjoy, and that doesn't in any way hold you from acknowledging bsd's problems when they're at and overall having a critical approach to reading the manga. I think that's a good advice for interacting with all kinds of media actually! In the words of another old answer of mine:

I don't know who needs to hear this, but someone definitely does: “I love s/kk!!” “the bsd storytelling has many compelling aspects!!” and “I recognize the bsd writing has flaws some of which actively harm an already disadvantaged part of society” are statements that can and should coexist, and if anything - and I know you hate to hear this, I'm sorry, I'm sorry - it should be kept in mind when deciding to support the franchise by buying its products.

And lastly, but most importantly: bsd stopped giving you joy? Walk out!!! The world is full of beautiful stories. Read The Promised Neverland.