#but he does have a son to consider

[sysig]

Gift (Patreon)

[scintillatingshortgirl19]

i am begging one single person in this entire show to consider, for perhaps one single second, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE IS A REASON HOUSE HATES HIS DAD THIS MUCH

[alicentsaegon]

Alicent was ready to gouge out Lucerys' eye after the aftermath of episode 8 eye why the fuck would she be praying for him post his death? Where's my "so what it's bastard blood shed during war" book jaded Alicent whereeee.

[beginnerblueglass]

I was telling my sister about Titans, and she was like, “the whole Bruce/Dick/Jason storyline is like the prodigal son story, with the older and younger brothers' positions switched,” and I was like ohhhh???

[ruuari]

this is how older anduin looks in my head

[wonder-worker]

"[Elizabeth Woodville] was the only member of [Crown Prince Edward of Westminster's] original 1471 council not already on the king’s council and her name headed the list of those appointed as administrators in Wales during Edward’s minority. [She remained on the council after it was expanded in 1473 and granted significant new governing and judicial powers]."

"In 1478 Prince Richard [of Shrewsbury] married the Mowbray heiress. Like his elder brother he had a chancellor, seal, household and council to manage his estates. His council, like that of Prince Edward, comprised the queen [Elizabeth Woodville] and a group of magnates and bishops, few of whom were Woodville supporters [...] It was Elizabeth who mattered, for Richard resided with her and Rivers treated his affairs as their own."

-J.L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503 / Michael Hicks, Richard III and his Rivals: Magnates and their Motives in the Wars of the Roses

[flareboi]

what if purple never calls him dad

[devilsskettle]

thinking about the way that lady macbeth convinces macbeth to kill duncan and yeah she talks about power and cowardice and what he owes to himself and to her, but at the heart of the whole thing is how their child died and she has nothing else to pin her hopes for the future on. unfortunately the fact that they no longer have an heir is also the driving force behind macbeth’s violent paranoia toward banquo which ultimately dooms them

[thepajamamen]

For the record I perceive Wu as cishet but not in any way that matters

[oifaaa]

I would love to learn more about Alfred’s beliefs and why he does what he does re: enabling Bruce’s mission, helping the Robins and even directly giving Tim and Damian the suits. I’ve read fics where he’s like ‘i can’t stop you but i can at least help you stay safe’ but that doesn’t make enough sense of his actions for me. Do you have any thoughts on this, or recs of comics/posts/fics where this is explored? Thanks, i love your deep dives! No pressure tho ofc 💌

Alfred is difficult like most comics characters it really depends on who is writing him that decides what the finer points of his personality and relationship with Bruce are, some writers really like playing up the father son thing while others will make alfred a bit colder and focus more on alfred seeing himself as more of an employee and how this may negatively affect his relationship with Bruce and how much he's willing to push back on things like batman

Personally I enjoy it more when alfred will tell himself I'm just the butler but really he does see himself as a father to bruce and Bruce sees him as nothing but a father figure, I also enjoy when alfred is more believes in what Bruce is doing then pushing back considering as you said the things we've seen alfred do he is the one half the time handing out these costumes - alfreds background as well is kinda strange he was in the military then he went to mi5 and finally ended up an actor before his dad kicked it and he decided fuck it I'm gonna be the butler for the same family my dad worked for - this to say he's not the most normal guy out there

[lovinnelily]

Y'all do know you can't make Jason be NOT white without changing his whole character, right?

For other characters, yes, because their physical appearance are not that influential in their story, on how they are viewed by people, on their personality formation — you can have a black/asian/indigenous/arab/brown/latino/etc Nico and yes, the hate he gets will have a undertone of racism but at the same time nothing significant on his story, motivation or personality will need to change. This is also true for other characters: Clarisse risks repeating the "aggressive WoC" stereotype but the character itself doesn't change.

This isn't true for Jason, whose main character trait is how he is perceived by others and how he showcases himself to others based on that perception. (specially with how little effort Riordan put on him besides making him perfect-er Percy who's somehow also weaker and less important than him).

Let's not pretend a black, Arab, indigenous, Asian, Latin man, etc, in the USA would ever be treated with the universal reverence Jason gets from New Roma, you can't have the illusion of perfection and most of all, of invincibility they have about him when you see him suffering racism or xenophobia in the middle of a mission. Nothing in his life has ever gone wrong, that's his image, destined to be king, he is supposed to have no weakness on his peers eyes.

He is not trying to prove people wrong, he is trying to prove them right; he isn't worthy despite their prejudice, on the contrary, he only tried to make himself worthy to fulfill their expectations. He can't be a woman or an immigrant or have a visible disability or any other thing that strays him from a perfect ideal by western society standards, and be that same character.

[sesamenom]

can't remember where it's from but i think it's stated somewhere that Earendil identifies as human but chose elves so he can stay with his family.

so does he have like. elf dysphoria?

[jasontoddenthusiastt]

Observing peoples reactions to morally gray or black actions committed by different characters is so funny. Throughout all of G. War the character tags were chock-full of people unironically enraged claiming “Bruce isn’t even capable of doing something bad like that.” about an action that is pretty well in line with his character journey thus far, meanwhile there are still new posts that gain traction that open with lines like “I know Jason has committed his fair share of sins/crimes but” like bro when. In 2010?

Also. The whole premise of the b*tfamily™ that you so love is built on the load bearing wall being that they are a crime family. Hell, do people just collectively forget the part where Bruce manufactures and freely uses weapons with his own furry brand logo plastered all over them, causing all sorts of 'explosions and more!' property damage all over the streets of Gotham? Pretty sure that makes him a terrorist but you people don't feel the need to go around reminding fandom of that every five minutes.

[unnerving-presence]

i realize a lot of people tend to over-characterize wesker and completely disregard some of his main personality traits. (long post that’s not rlly organized read at ur own risk lol)

i’ll often see videos/edits about him and a lot of people will say something along the lines of

“he’d instantly kill me” (read this on a thirst post LMAO)

“he’d threaten to kill me if i ever spoke to him”

“wesker would kill all of us if he found out we were simping for him”

and that always really confused me? knowing wesker’s character i feel like people would know he doesn’t kill people unless he really has to. there are few moments where he does kill and they’re mainly because he has to/has real reason behind it.

in reality, he likely wouldn’t kill you instantly, especially if you simply weren’t a threat. who cares if you simp for him? he sure doesn’t. even if you were a threat, he’d send out other people to take care of you first and if he had a confrontation with you he surely wouldn’t take you seriously (i highly doubt y’all mfs know how to fight i’m sorry 😭)

you wanna know why wesker fought chris in the first place? he thought it was amusing and didn’t even take it seriously. the whole time he just messed around, clearly not trying to kill him. he literally tells chris he has 7 minutes to fuck with him like he’s got a strict schedule. dude was not taking any of that seriously. he took a phone call because chris and sheva were so irrelevant to him. they were considered ‘threats’ but clearly not enough to him for him to really care. he has enough confidence in his own abilities to know he could take care of something if they really posed a threat to him.

it’s actually surprising how people make out wesker to be this ruthless angry killer who doesn’t put up with anything when in reality he’s just a goofy little comic book villain who has the zoomies half the time.

we have visual proof of a wesker simp trying to fuck him (excella) and him simply using them before killing them. keep in mind he put up with her for 5~ whole years.

moral of the story, no he wouldn’t threaten you or actually kill you the moment you spoke a word to him. that’s seriously out of character for him and i’m not sure why after seeing him in so many games that people will automatically assume that he’d do that. he’s capable of fighting but clearly prefers to use his charm.

[sengenism]

just realised how i usually dislike or feel indifferent about shounen mcs but senku and gon hxh are the only ones who actually manage to enter my top fave characters of their respective fandoms... they're so well written

[wonder-worker]

"Among their complaints [in 1460, the Yorkists] specifically blamed the earls of Wiltshire and Shrewsbury and Viscount Beaumont for ‘stirring’ the king [Henry VI] to hold a parliament at Coventry that would attaint them and for keeping them from the king’s presence and likely mercy, asserting that this was done against [the king's] will. To this they added the charge that these evil counselors were also tyrannizing other true men* without the king’s knowledge. Such claims of malfeasance obliquely raised the question of Henry’s fitness as a king, for how could he be deemed competent if such things happened without his knowledge and against his wishes? They also tied in rumors circulating somewhat earlier in the southern counties and likely to have originated in Calais that Henry was really ‘good and gracious Lord to the [Yorkists] since, it was alleged, he had not known of or assented to their attainders. On 11 June the king was compelled to issue a proclamation stating that they were indeed traitors and that assertions to the contrary were to be ignored." - Helen Maurer, "Margaret of Anjou: "Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England"

Three things that we can surmise from this:

We know where the "Henry was an innocent helpless king being controlled and manipulated by his Evil™ advisors" rhetoric came from**.

The Yorkists were deliberately trying to downplay Henry VI's actual role and involvement in politics and the Wars of the Roses. They cast him as a "statue of a king", blamed all royal policies and decisions on others*** (claiming that Henry wasn't even aware of them), and framed themselves as righteous and misunderstood counselors who remained loyal to the crown. We should keep this in mind when we look at chronicles' comments of Henry's alleged passivity and the so-called "role reversal" between him and Queen Margaret.

Henry VI's actual agency and involvement is nevertheless proven by his own actions. We know what he thought of the Yorkists, and we know he took the effort to publicly counter their claims through a proclamation of his own. That speaks louder than the politically motivated narrative of his enemies, don't you think?

*There was some truth to these criticisms. For example, Wiltshire (ie: one of the men named in the pamphlet) was reportedly involved in a horrible situation in June which included hangings and imprisonments for tax resistance in Newbury. The best propagandists always contain a degree of truth, etc. **I've seen some theories on why Margaret of Anjou wasn't mentioned in these pamphlets alongside the others even though she was clearly being vilified during that time as well, and honestly, I think those speculations are mostly unnecessary. Margaret was absent because it was regarded as very unseemly to target queens in such an officially public manner. We see a similar situation a decade later: Elizabeth Woodville was vilified and her whole family - popularly and administratively known as "the queen's kin" - was disparaged in Warwick and Clarence's pamphlets. This would have inevitably associated her with their official complaints far more than Margaret had been, but she was also not directly mentioned. It was simply not considered appropriate. ***This narrative was begun by the Duke of York & Warwick and was - demonstrably - already widespread by the end of 1460. When Edward IV came to power, there seems to have been a slight shift in how he spoke of Henry (he referred to Henry as their "great enemy and adversary"; his envoys were clearly willing to acknowledge Henry's role in Lancastrian resistance to Yorkist rule; etc), but he nevertheless continued the former narrative for the most part. I think this was because 1) it was already well-established and widespread by his father, and 2) downplaying Henry's authority would have served to emphasize Edward's own kingship, which was probably advantageous for a usurper whose deposed rival was still alive and out of reach. In some sense, the Lancastrians did the same thing with their own propaganda across the 1460s, which was clearly not as effective in terms of garnering support and is too long to get into right now, but was still very relevant when it came to emphasizing their own right to the throne while disparaging the Yorkists' claim.