#captive prince analysis

[captaincouture]

Ok Captive Prince fandom I’ve got some food for thought for ya.

Why did the regent take so long to start offing members of the royal family so he could be king?

We don’t know his actual age but we know he’s at least younger than Aleron and if I remember Damen’s description correctly, he is starting to grey.

We assume he’s wanted more power for at least most, if not all his life. So unless there was a trigger during Laurent’s youth that made him start actively planning his family’s demise, why wait so long?

There would have been a time before both Auguste and Laurent were born where only Aleron and Hennike would’ve been in his way, so why not poison Hennike earlier and orchestrate an assassination for Aleron?

It seems like Vere and Akielos were on somewhat stable terms before the alliance with Kempt fell apart, or at least both had enough incentives to not outright attack each other. So it makes me think that maybe the regent was not as much of a prominent or trusted figure in Veretian politics while Aleron was alive. Did Aleron know how terrible of a person he was and keep him at bay? Did the whole court know? Did Auguste? Is that part of the reason he was so protective of Laurent, because he knew about a very real danger very close to them?

So maybe the Regent needed the time between Aleron and Auguste’s deaths and Laurent’s coronation to solidify his position in the court as an influential leader because he didn’t have that power before. He had to wait until there was a “buffer time” to make his move because there was no smooth transition of power from Aleron or even Auguste’s court to it becoming his. And with Laurent too young to rule and too traumatized and not well respected by the court to be of any influence, he had to change the ways of the court to gain power.

Laurent and other characters mention multiple times that the regents court was very different from Alerons. I think because the regent is such a narcissist and unable to change, he had to change the ways and the culture of the court in order for them to accept him.

Even throughout the first book we see him fighting Laurent for supporters, though it’s widely agreed that Laurent is losing miserably, it’s still a battle the regent has to fight. We also know that most people who are loyal or sympathetic to Laurent are that way because of Auguste, or because they believe in passing the crown to the “rightful king”. It’s been 6 years since Aleron and Auguste’s death at this point, is that not enough to win the whole court over? Apparently not.

Especially with as cunning and convincing as we know the regent to be, it should have been easy for him to gain favor and power in court and let a tragic accident happen to Laurent and be done with it. He could’ve easily outmaneuvered Akielos and ruled two kingdoms (as was his end goal) later on after taking Vere.

As much as we all love to hate on the Veretian court and talk about how perverse and depraved they are, it seems like they were the reason the regent was put off of having power for so long. Laurent was certainly in no state to be opposing him as a freshly traumatized child. So even if they eventually turned a blind eye to sexual assault and underage abuse, they still held off the regent long enough for Laurent to get old enough to start fighting back, which ultimately made all the difference in giving him the time to go on his journey with Damen and get his kingdom back.

We see this loyalty to the “rightful heir” in Akielos too, with Akielons widely favoring Damen over Kastor. Despite bastardy being much less stigmatized in Akielos and Kastor being an accomplished and respected military leader, there are still many people who oppose Kastors rule even with Damen presumed dead.

So ya know, just a little shoutout to the courts and common people in Captive Prince, who made it that much harder for the wrong people to get their hands on power, so that the rightful heirs had the time and opportunity to fight for their thrones.

[ninicaise]

"why don't we see laurent's schemes in kings rising? why does he act so helpless, like a puppet?" idk maybe because laurent & damen are no longer friends for the entire first half of kings rising so laurent is back to being completely alone and after prince's gambit he has no idea what to do without damen beside him. maybe bc laurent is not actually the domino master of the series. the regent is. maybe bc laurent is (canonically) behind in the game and the only reason he ever had a chance of winning is literally bc not him nor his uncle can ever predict wtf damen is going to do next. this is textual btw i am not making shit up. just as the "captive prince" is both damen and laurent, the "prince's gambit" is both laurent's and damen's gambit.

[unhelpfulfemme]

More random Captive Prince thoughts, because I feel like being a sadist to all of my mutuals these books are living rent-free in my head right now. These ones are more about the plot and the worldbuilding.

Worldbuilding-wise, I loved the attention to detail, because as far as I could tell all the little details of how a medieval-ish army functions and how you would run it and what you would do with the horses and the supplies and the roads etc. etc. were pretty accurate. I mean, these books are by no means a treatise on warfare (in fact they can be delightfully pulpy, which I liked - I grew up on The Three Musketeers and the Scarlet Pimpernell and similar swashbuckling novels, and I got some of the same feelings here!), but there were details in there that most other authors don't bother to put in or inadvertently fuck up (I love ASOIAF to death but historically accurate it is not), and most of the military stuff seemed plausible enough as well, though again not described in too much detail so you can fill it in with your own assumptions or skim over if it's not something that particularly interests you. And I also loved the architectural details and could imagine everything quite well, but again, as I said previously, this may be because the author spent some time living near where I live so we've seen a lot of the same stuff probably.

Actually when I was first reading it and thinking it was going to be bad I was reading it exclusively for the architectural details lol, I was like yeah, yeah, they're all sucking each other off, but Damen please tell me again how you feel about the tiling?

What I also particularly liked is how the... scale of the conflict I guess? was refreshingly accurate for the "historical period".

The worldbuilding is a mashup of Ancient Greece and medieval France, but what it really felt like to me is a world where the Roman Empire never really consolidated to the extent that it did in our world and Italy went on into the middle ages (because these are decidedly feudal systems) with Cisalpine Gaul having the, well, Gallic culture, while the South had a Greek one. I may be thinking this because I live in Italy and so everything reminds me of Italy, but once I thought of it I couldn't unsee it.

I guess I gotta put in a cut somewhere and now's as good of a time as any?

But anyway, back to the scale of the conflict, the actual middle ages were filled with small and mid-sized countries, and petty local conflicts with family members turning onto each other over succession and stuff, and random small territories going back and forth (well, that's just Europe in general, always, TBH), and this is how it all felt like to me. Actual medieval history has a guy who started a rebellion because his brothers threw a pisspot at him and his father did nothing about it and he felt humiliated, and the war was secretly funded by his mother, so the combination of the small scale with a random local conflict that probably literally nobody cares about outside of the region we are in + everything being so intensely driven by interpersonal drama between insane people felt really authentic to me, like the kind of weird historical moment that would get turned into a funny Tumblr post. And of course the royals did a lot more sneaking around than was probably smart, but I can forgive that for the swashbuckling vibes and also because if Cleopatra could sneak into a palace in a carpet these guys can do whatever they want in my book.

Speaking of the petty interpersonal drama, I also liked the emphasis on how in this system personal reputation and the performance of kingship are king. Usually when you have a heavily political story it's much more based on the quid-pro-quo, "rational actor" kind of politics, but medieval politics also had a lot more going on in the cultural sense (and so do modern politics actually but at least pretending to be a "rational actor" IS the modern performance of leadership), and here you had people dealing political blows through meticulous management of their own and others' political reputations, which was fun to see, especially in combination with so many manipulative bastard characters. Like, how Laurent is manipulated into going to the border just because looking like a coward will lose him more political points than he can afford, and Damen's continued wearing of the slave cuff and instistence on not being served by slaves initially deals massive blows to his reputation, because these are cultures that value heroism, of one sort or another.

(And speaking of heroism, the emphasis on the physical activity-related activities that are the centerpiece of noble life in both countries were wonderful, especially since because both Ancient Greece and the European Middle Ages were really into that in their respective ways and it makes the mashup feel really well-done and coherent in how she tied it together.)

What's notable is a lack of any kind of religion, which felt particularly glaring during the whole Kingsmeet thing - in the real world there would likely be a belief in some kinda curse from the Gods or something similar to discourage the drawing of weapons, but since I'm not really religious and tend not to personally care about religion (while ofc recognizing its anthropological importance) I really didn't care and it didn't diminish my enjoyment of the series.

Still, I do have to say that the ending of the last book felt reeeeaally rushed, and that felt really glaring exactly because the rest of the series had such amazing detail work and excellent pacing and very gradual plot development.

I didn't get the part with the doctor and the letter (why didn't he say anything earlier? how would they verify the authenticity of the letter? Did anyone even have the time to READ the thing?) but I'm gonna be honest with you here, I read book 3 under a heavy fever and it was like 2 AM when I got to that part, so I'm not sure that I haven't missed something that makes it make more sense.

BUT even if that part makes sense, I feel like the Regent was dealt with far too quickly. Like in one paragraph he is in control of everything, in the next they've already beheaded him and that's it. I can imagine in my head that a lot of the nobles were probably already sick of him and took little convincing, that they were disapproving both of his meddling in foreign politics and of his likely grave breach of cultural rules via taking an aristo kid as a pet, or that he initially rationally seemed a better choice over Laurent until Laurent proved himself to be more competent and with a more competent ally, or they already had some hints about what happened that the audience didn't and the evidence confirmed what was inconclusive before.

But I feel like in a series that spends so much time detailing the shifting alliances between the characters and the public's opinion on everyone that matters? I really needed to be sold on it a bit more. Like I really needed some discussion over what to do with the Regent, I needed them to keep him in a cell for a while as they decided whether to kill him (and have the leads scared that the Regent will turn them over as Laurent often does to people), I needed them to consider the evidence just a little bit more, I needed some post mortem with the council members where they explain what was happening on their side of the things. It needed to be MUCH longer and more detailed.

Another thing I wondered at was why the Regent was so insistent to paint Laurent's collaborations with the Akielons as a bad thing when he was... also collaborating with the Akielons? Like he is foaming at the mouth calling them barbarians and accusing Laurent of sleeping with the prince-killer but it feels more like setup for Damen's big declaration of love than an actual political strategy because my brother in Christ, you are literally in the Akielon royal palace, in the middle of Akielos to which you ran after your nephew started a rebellion, with the Akielon king sitting next to you as your equal. Why do you think that you can convince your people that YOUR Vere-Akielos alliance is somehow more morally pure than Laurent's? This was also the right moment to pull out all the patricide allegations that seemed to be going around for Damen, but IIRC he didn't use that as much as he could if at all.

Since there were some Akielons in the room as well, I was also wondering WTF was Kastor doing as the Regent was shitting on his country and calling them barbarians and making it like allying with them is a grave transgression? Why was HE allowing this humiliation? It felt like a very unpolitical thing to do from a character whose strength was in his political acumen (obviously meaning the Regent, not Kastor) and the plot just let it slide by.

I feel like a lot of this is due to this being the first time that the story had to fit within the constraints of a traditional book? So it needed a decisive traditional climax and perhaps it was getting too long for a traditional format, or the author got a bit tired of it and wanted to wind it up now that she wasn't getting regular feedback as you do with serialized publishing, or she prioritized emotional impact over plot logic.

I don't know. I still think they're great books, and the conclusion was emotionally satisfying in the sense that the psychological and interpersonal threads were wrapped up impeccably, I just wanted more detail on the political side. It's still grabbed me like nothing else did for a long time, I can take a mid ending, half of my favourite series will never have one at all because the author wrote themselves into a corner and then died lol.

[cyokie]

I find it really interesting how the Regent constantly degrades Laurent by comparing him to a child. 

Like, it’s an obvious, petty insult. But also, the Regent sexually abused Laurent when he was a child. We know that Laurent felt powerless and ashamed during this time of his life; his statements about his younger self being naïve even imply that he blames his child self somewhat for having “allowed” this to happen.

When the Regent tells Laurent that he’s petulant like a child, or irresponsible like a child, or whatever, he isn’t just spewing venom. He's reminding Laurent that in his eyes, Laurent will always be a child. In other words, he’s telling Laurent, “You can never escape the powerless little boy that you were when I abused you. You are still powerless. And I still control you.”

This is why Laurent’s final words before his uncle’s execution are so powerful. The Regent says, “You think you can rule Vere? You?” and Laurent replies, “I’m not a boy anymore.”

[nasthepotprincess]

just here to remind you that Damen is in a chiton bc he wears his soul bare the same he wears his skin

and also Laurent has laces up to the neck because he's suffocating emotionally and keeps his feelings tightly tied up

oh p.s. damen attends to Laurent over and over again before even having sex like he's loosening his emotions little by little by untightening his laces and freeing him of his first layer of clothes

[merrivia]

“What people call insincerity is simply a method by which we can multiply our personalities”- Oscar Wilde, The Critic As Artist

“[in reaction to the quotation above] So to act or perform is not the opposite of your identity or your character or interior self, it’s simply another manifestation of it, another means of realising yourself”- Sos Eltis - on Wilde’s Plays

One of the aspects of the Captive Prince trilogy that I think captures a lot of people’s interest, is the layered psychological complexities of Laurent and Damen. We are watching dramatic events of statesmanship unfold on a large scale (the machinery of politics; the movements of armies; the fates of nations) but we are also keenly aware that we are intimate observers of the intensely private lives of Damen and Laurent, and their relationship. Really, the whole trilogy is a masterclass in characterisation, the reader highly alert to what floats on the surface and what is concealed, kept hidden, suppressed, what transforms with time and experience and is made new, when it comes to the essence of who Damen and Laurent are.

I heard the quotes above today (here, if you’re interested) and immediately felt they captured the heart of the tension between the performed self of Damen the slave and Damianos of Akielos, and too, Laurent’s performative selves around Damen and his authentic personality. 

I think what’s key here is that you cannot splinter yourself into selves which function separately of each other, no matter how hard you try. The choices we make in the external self we present to the world, even in our deceptions, often (not always but often) rise from a place within us that have a psychological reality (it is very difficult to pretend to be something you completely are not, long-term). Furthermore, acting the part requires action and how you act and behave, inevitably, will have some sort of effect on you, and your true internal self (whatever that effect may be).

The problem arises, when it comes to cohesion. Human relationships rely on truth and trust- of knowing others, and being known. We may allow a person to be multi faceted, but there can only be one of you. No one gets to be more than one person.

In normal basic narrative convention, it is the villain who is unmasked, who has lied and in the unmasking, his false persona ‘dies’ and his real persona emerges. Pacat does show how overly simplistic that is with poor, antagonistic, manipulated Aimeric and Jord’s comments. Pretending to be two things to justify your actions doesn’t work. (We’ll leave the Regent out of this conversation for there are those people, very few in number I hope, capable of great evil, who lose their humanity and that would be him).

What do you do then, when your protagonists- your heroes- have been lying for survival? The multiple selves they have been forced into, must now be healed, the fragmented must cohere.

Let me apply this to Damen, first.

When Damen comes to Vere, his persona as Laurent’s slave becomes an avenue for him to, as Wilde puts it ‘multiply his personality’. He can become something beyond just Prince Damianos, beyond Exalted. The act of pretence allows another part of him to manifest; a part that was buried beneath the surface of his royal status. Someone who can show humility and deference, as well as dominance, someone who can socialise with those ranked far lower than him in an easy, likeable way, someone who can learn to see the world outside of his own cultural mores (ones that have been drummed into him as a child), and be objective of the flaws within them. Someone who can enjoy the thrill of a mad-cap adventure, of using his brain and brawn together in a way that delights him. Thus Damen-the-slave is arguably a hitherto unseen facet of Damianos-of-Akielos, made real by the performance. 

With the arrival of Nikandros, Damen is finally forced to/allowed to shuck off his identity as Damen the slave and become Damianos the King. Interestingly, an entirely new role for him which will allow him to take his new self forward.

This allows us to see another aspect of identity- the metaphorical dying off of the old you when your fundamental values are torn down and must be reshaped.

He has been irrevocably changed by the events we see in Captive Prince. No one truly loses their old self entirely, but he understands he can never truly return to the person he was before.

What now of Damen’s relationship with Laurent? I think Pacat realised that had this happened in front of Laurent, it would have caused too great a schism in the pretence the two colluded in. I think it was too much of a psychological blow for Laurent to take.

In fact, I think Laurent knows this and as part of his planning, had Nikandros arrive at Ravenel after his departure, deliberately. It’s a very cool-eyed piece of planning too, as not only does it protect him emotionally but it also allows him to appear innocent of Damen’s identity to the Veretians, and saves him from having to act out the part of a great betrayal which would potentially disrupt his plans to use Damen in a military sense. Laurent nearly always kills multiple birds with one stone.

Damen is given space in this moment in the novels away from Laurent, is given his oldest, closest friend, in Nikandros, who loves him, given a piece of Akielos almost, in being surrounded by his own people, talking in his own language, and in doing so, he starts to come together as himself.

But what of Laurent, and his relationship with Damen?

The only way to heal this is through Laurent’s acceptance of who Damen is. Truly, once and for all. I’ll come back to how this happens, in a moment.

Let us now look at Laurent’s journey. Difficult, private, complicated Laurent. For him, all of this will be far, far more painful.

So Laurent too, is changed by his own insincerity. It is clear that he has to make some very difficult choices in Captive Prince, torn between a venomous hatred of Damen, his uncle’s machinations and the ways in which he can, if he were to be objective, use Damen as pawn to further his own ends. The hatred wins out at first, clearly, his hand only stayed by the Regent, by force. After Laurent is stripped of Varenne and Marche, then forced to the border, he must act in a way that suppresses his hatred, swallowing it down so far that we barely see it for much of Prince’s Gambit. In to that pool of venom though, the small pebbles of Damen’s decency, his trustworthiness, start to make ripples, and with each adventure they have, Laurent fundamentally starts to change as the part of him that can trust, does come out and trust. Laurent is playing a part of pretend partnership with his enemy, but he cannot deny the part that he is playing is completely false, because it is not.

Even Laurent performing as a pet, could be viewed in a new light if we see these things as manifestations as opposed to outright lies. Damen blames the earring for reframing Laurent as sensuous, but it is Laurent’s performance that allows his deeply-buried sensuality to be expressed. Laurent is not, as he wants people to believe (that Damen almost believes) “made of stone”.

Laurent’s reactions in Chapter 3 and 4 of King’s Rising, when he is pure, acidic poison, pushing Damen away as far as he can, is all about pain, about self-protection and self-denial. I could spend an age unpicking it all, all the layers and complexities and hurt, but honestly this already overlong post would be three times as long. And it’s gruelling, I think to read, and to analyse. It’s so private and intimate, it puts us all through the emotional wringer. I’ve picked just a few moments:

It breaks all our hearts to read this. We know Laurent is capable of great cruelty when he’s angry. But this is cruelty from vulnerability, from a place of great inner pain. To love Damen feels like giving up his love for Auguste, the ultimate betrayal. It’s also a huge cornerstone of his identity.

Look at how his hero-worship of Auguste helps him to survive Govart in the cell:

Oh Laurent. The vulnerability in this is just heart-breaking. How clear is it, that this is how he survived for so long? Every time he felt like fear or despair might overcome him, he thought of what Auguste- the brave, golden hero of his life- would do and uses that to battle on. He is so used to being completely and utterly alone, that no-one will rescue him:

Re-reading this, even after having read the novels a few times, brings me to tears.

Laurent is going to have to undergo a Earth-shattering change to accept Damen. Anything else just wouldn’t work. He is suffering when he says he endured Damen’s “fumbling attentions”, his face “white” because I think he is being split in two, his heart torn.

His mind, at this point cannot accept Damen as the ‘prince-killer’, as Auguste’s murderer and the man he is in love with.

The two also must confront the lies between them, to heal. That Damen the slave was a deception.

I think it is easier for Laurent to pretend that Damen as a slave is not in any way Damen as a person. It’s cheating, I think, to ask him to kiss his boot, as if the actions we do when in fear of death or pain, defines us totally. It’s a way for him to try and run away from the truth. Damen, in saying he is “the King” is right to say it. Laurent has to accept Damen as an equal, recognise his power, before they can move forward.

It is very hard to watch what Laurent does next. How hurt he is, but also how he wants to hurt Damen. He’s lashing out but underneath it, is a vulnerable young man, in pain and who can’t help but show it. Who would rather Damen leave him, hate him, as doesn’t that make it all so much easier? Maybe part of him wants Damen to look at him and see, this is who you love. But also, take responsibility for how much you hurt me, then and now.

Damen has this ability to penetrate Laurent’s defences, and when he says “it won’t bring your brother back”, the “violent silence” (what a great oxymoron) shows just how it lanced through him. Laurent’s response really is him saying what, do you think you’re so noble? That you know me and can teach me to be better? To heal? And yet you were willing to wreck me, by fucking me under false pretences when you knew my uncle’s intentions, when you knew it could destroy me?

He’s not wrong either. Damen was being selfish. The first time they had sex, it was a desperately painful moment of Damen having to leave and wanting to stay with the man he loved. He took what Laurent offered, even though he shouldn’t have. Pacat’s commentary on this suggests it all happened too fast, and that had it been slower Damen would have stopped it, would have realised Laurent was not in the right state of mind. Wanting to forget is not the same as wanting the man you love.

Laurent’s mimicry of Damen at his most vulnerable, in his own language, of how much he wanted Laurent, when he had utterly forgotten himself and thrown his soul into making love to him, hurts because it’s meant to hurt. Laurent crosses every possible line to push him away, to belittle him, because Laurent’s only known mode of survival is to use anything and everything at his disposal, honour be damned.

I think in these two chapters, this is Laurent’s attempt to sunder himself completely from Damen. To revert back to Laurent, Crown Prince of Vere, heir apparent, poised to take his throne, a cold and ruthless strategist.

But the part of him that pretended, and was changed through the pretence, is alive inside him and cannot now be simply planned away.

The journey through King’s Rising to bring them back together is Pacat showing step by step how Laurent will finally allow the two parts of himself, the part that loves Auguste as a brother and the part that loves Damen as a romantic partner, to come together.

Pacat writes this exquisitely in the scene where they have sex with no pretence between them, where the naked, stripped down vulnerability of sex functions finally as them coming together as their true selves, baring their souls:

That phrasing “the painful exchange of brother for lover” is Laurent understanding that it is time to let someone else have supremacy over his heart, to let himself love Damen, to understand that the way in which he mythologised Damen as a grotesque enemy and Auguste as his heroic protector, must now be exchanged with human reality.

In this moment, the two seem reborn. Damen thinks that he “never felt more like himself” as they join together. Laurent for the first time uses his “little name” reserved for intimates, “like it meant everything, as if Damen’s identity were enough”.

When they wake up the next morning, they both finally seem like themselves. Two young men. In love and able to delight in each other. A fundamental part of their healing has begun. It will continue, in the Summer Palace, perhaps continue for a long time, but it began with their fractured selves coming together, so that they too, can come together, and be together, free to forge new selves now as part of a pair, halves of a whole, for the rest of their days.

[tschulijulesjulie]

TW: SA/ rape

a way too long (sorry) analysis of the SA scene in Captive Prince, or my thoughts on aforementioned quote

so people keep criticising how Laurent SA'd Damen and then later they become lovers and that is obviously a valid concern.

tbh ive been struggling to explain this scene for quite some time. the lashing scene is explainable (which is not the same as excusable!) once you know Laurent knew of Damens real identity - hes trying to get his revenge in that scene.

so what is the SA scene about? is he still trying to get revenge? was the lashing his punishment for killing Auguste and the SA now is to punish Damen for the SA Laurent had endured from the regent?

i think in a way it is, metaphorically - BUT it also isn't because Laurent actually doesn't want it to happen (which i will explainin a second but it makes such a difference!).

the lashing was clearly planned and orchistrated by Laurent (i already talked about the bath scene in more detail) - the SA isn't.

he takes Damen to the garden to make an impression on Herode and also so he learns about the Akielon slaves (if i remember correctly).

he gets surprised by Vannes, Berenger and Ancel turning up. until then, there no problem.

So Vannes would like to see Damen perform. she is imo the only one out of the people present who actually wants that. im not entirely sure but i do think she kind of doesn't understand the concept of slavery. Veretians dont have slaves and relationships - or rather contracts - with pets are mostly consensual (i say mostly because yk Nicaise and so on)

so then there is Berenger, who... well, i feel like he kinda doesn't want to be there at all and is totally uninterested in Damen and the entire proceedings of this situation lmao (maybe even a little displeased or alienated but he doesn't show it and thats whats important here!!!)

and then there is Ancel, who is a very ambitious pet as we learn in his short story. and as such he obviously trys for the princes attention (why wouldn't he? and i mean - it works in a way, doesn't it?) and the only way he knows how to get attention like that is to sell himself sexually - like he even only got to the palace because he was daring and cunning in the ring and made an impression on the most influential person present. hes just trying to do that again.

and last but not least theres Laurent. (well theres actually also Erasmus present and obviously Damen, but thats not important rn because neither of them has a say in this situation, again thats an entirely different problem but we know Laurents standing on slavery)

so what Laurent is currently dealing with is his lack of alliances. his uncle has the support of most of the court and Laurent is desperately trying to get some people (back) on his side. we see (or not see) him trying to "recruit" Herode just moments before.

i feel like after the lashing for now hes done with Damen. like, yeah he still has to deal with that guy one way or another, but he has already gotten some hatered out of the way through the lashing and now he can concentrate on more important things (yes, Damen, youre not that important at all rn)

but now Vannes expresses explicitly her desire to see Damen "perform" and Ancel is insisting so he must also desire to perform with Damen and if he does, so must Berenger - thats the way Laurent must see it at least.

and we know that Laurent has (understandibly) not the best understanding of sexual matters. i feel like he would see sex as some type of transactional good (in a way it might actually be in the Veretian court tbf)

so he contemplates. he has no desire to make Damen perform, despite the things he said at the ring (i feel like his need to punish/hurt Damen might have significantly decreased now that he has already done that with the lashing) - you could even read his reluctance as resentment of the idea tbh: he might be uncomfortable with sexuality in general as an result of his trauma but its also clear how much he openly dislikes sexual acts that are even slightly dubious consent (e.g. the ring, you can clearly see his dislike of the entire thing once you know what youre looking for)

but his main goal rn is to get more alliances and strengthen the ones he already has. and here are three people that are one of the few ones he has rn or that he wants to have (like Ancel) and they all seemingly want Ancel do perform with Damen.

So Laurent buries his displeasure about the whole thing and does what he thinks will have the best outcome for him - he literally only wants to please these three people (not to mention out of whom only one actually does want the actual "performance")

going even further - yes, im not done yet - he "whores himself out", too, through Damen because thats actually one of the very few ways he knows how to get people to be on someones side.

the thing is: he will be the one actually performing during the scene. Damen literally doesn't do anything the entire time (fair). Ancel might be the one actually giving the bj but its with Laurents instructions (if i remember the short story correctly hes very annoyed about that lmao). its even Laurent who only gets Damen hard and its Laurent Damen is looking at when he cums. Ancel is the instrument through which Laurent performs.

so does that make it any less of SA? no obviously not - it even raises the question where does it end?

Ancel initialtes it, but he doesn't actually want to suck Damen off, its just the only way to get the princes attention in his experience. hes a pet with limited power and limited ways to make the best of a situation. and even tho technically consensual, the entire pet thing is still super weird and sketchy (thats an entirely other topic tho).

Laurent allows it and "helps" with his instructions and is objectively the most powerful person out of them all. but at the same time he is actually just as powerless or even less powerful than Ancel. in a way hes just a pet in that situation too.

the people that actually do hold the power in this scene are Vannes and Berenger and i dont think they know it at all.

so, whos actually to blame? whos assaulting and whos assaulted?

but to cut this very long story short, what im trying to say is, that saying Laurent SA'd Damen is not really accurate and making it extra easy when the entire thing is decidedly not.

[financeprincess]

Gaining & Maintaining Power: A Reading List

Power & Manipulation

48 Laws of Power by Robert Green

The Prince by Machiavelli

Games People Play: The Basic Handbook of Transactional Analysis by Eric Berne

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

Power: Why Some People Have It - And Others Don't by Jeffrey Pfeffer

The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success by Kevin Dutton

Charisma & Social Skills

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High by Kerry Patterson

How to Talk to Anyone: 92 Little Tricks for Big Success in Relationships by Leil Lowndes

The Charisma Myth: How Anyone Can Master the Art and Science of Personal Magnetism by Olivia Fox Cabane

Captivate: The Science of Succeeding with People by Vanessa Van Edwards

Never Eat Alone, And the Other Secrets to Success, One Relationship at a Time by Keith Ferrazzi

The Like Switch: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Influencing, Attracting, and Winning People Over by Jack Schafer

Persuasion

The Art of Seduction by Robert Green

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini

Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter by Scott Adams

Pre-Suasion: Channeling Attention for Change by Robert Cialdini

Win Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail, Every Place, Every Time by Gerry Spence

Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Richard Thaler

Methods of Persuasion: How to Use Psychology to Influence Human Behavior by Nick Kolenda

You Can Read Anyone: Never Be Fooled, Lied to, or Taken Advantage of Again by David Lieberman

Influencer: The New Science of Leading Change by Kerry Patterson

Psychology

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

The Art of Choosing by Sheena Iyengar

Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us by Daniel Pink

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely

Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman

The Laws of Human Nature by Robert Green

Philosophy and Mindset

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

Letters from a Stoic by Seneca

Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl

Mastery by Robert Green

The Law of Success by Napoleon Hill

Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder by Nassim Taleb

The Daily Stoic by Ryan Holiday

Ikigai: The Japanese Secret to a Long and Happy Life by Hector Garcia

Public Speaking, Rhetoric, and Debating

Rhetoric by Aristotle

How to Argue & Win Every Time by Gerry Spence

The Quick and Easy Way to Effective Speaking by Dale Carnegie

The Art of Public Speaking by Dale Carnegie

Talk Like TED: The 9 Public Speaking Secrets of the World's Top Minds by Carmine Gallo

Verbal Judo: The Gentle Art of Persuasion by George Thompson, PhD

Thank You for Arguing by Jay Heinrichs

p.s. a lot of these can be found on z-library.

xoxo ❤️

[tiredsunrisesmeta]

Dead Dove and Dark Heir: An Analysis

TW// incest, age gap relationships

I do think Dark Heir is a bit more subversive than most other YA titles. Obviously, we have the BDSM coded relationship between Will/Sarcean & James/Anharion. But I think it goes further than that because the books don't shy away from more taboo things in the way a lot of recent YA titles tend to. Namely, incest and age gap relations. Furthermore, I think its willingness to engage with these topics with nuance adds to the depth of its chatacters.

For example, Will and Katherine. We need to talk about them, lol. I think whether they're actually blood related or not is ultimately irrelevant because of one detail. Katherine looks a lot like the Lady, and the Lady looks a lot like Will's mother, Eleanor. So, from the very beginning, Will pursues someone who looks like his mother, or the woman who raised him at the very least (albeit abusively). He has ulterior motives for doing so, but there's no doubt he felt an attraction to Katherine, and Katherine definitely felt attraction for him. It's all very Freudian. And I think how Dark Heir handles this complicated blend of romantic attraction & familial connection is what sets it apart from some other YA works. It refuses to draw definitive lines between these two feelings within Will. Will doesn't even feel especially disgusted or anguished by his flirtation of someone who turned out to be his sister. He probably suspected it as he was flirting with her. It's weird, but one can say it's the natural consequence of Will being his own person but also being Sarcean at the same time. Will doesn't feel or react normally to these tangled up feelings because he's not normal.

Now for age gaps. There's a lot of examples, but the main ones are Tom & Devon, James & Simon, Will & Howell, Cyprian & Ettore, Visander & Sarcean. The books frame James and Simon very negatively. It was abuse, period even though Simon was never able to have James become his lover. But the way characters like Jannick and Cyprian, following his father's example, and some other Stewards frame it doesn't acknowledge the abuse & instead blames & shames James for the supposed "relationship." This is horrible in this case, of course, but I think it speaks to a relatively blasé, maybe even period typical view of relationships between teens/young men & older men that goes on to affect & complicate every relationship/interaction listed above, some in ways different than to how it affects James & Simon. But I will come back to James at the end of this, so put a pin in that.

With Tom & Devon, I don't think the book has especially condemned it or portrayed it as inherently abusive. Tom is an adult for one. But Devon is undoubtedly thousands of years older than him. There's an element of Devon not telling Tom everything that I think is hinted at. At the end of Dark Heir, Violet thinks that Tom is strangely ignorant about the bigger picture of what's going on. He only knows what he learned from his Dad & Sinclair. At least Violet thinks so. It makes one wonder why he doesn't seem to know more even though he's dating someone who knows so much more than even Sinclair. Perhaps this is a consequence of the age gap between Tom and Devon. I don't particularly think this must mean Devon is abusive for dating Tom. And he's not, imo, comparable to the Regent from Captive Prince. But I think Devon's walls are up, and it maybe benefits him to keep Tom in the dark about all that Devon knows. This is part of a pattern that these books follow when it comes to most of their age gap relationships. They're not summarily condemned, but rather they're complicated, and their dubious, more negative qualities are subtly hinted at.

Visander and Sarcean is one such complicated age gap relationship. Upon hearing about Will from Elizabeth, Visander thinks, "This time I am the man and you are the youth." Near the end of the book when Visander confronts Will he says, "You're the same age now as I was when you killed my family." So it appears that when Sarcean slept with Visander, Sarcean was an adult, and Visander was a young man of about 17. When Visander is first introduced in the story, Sarcean thinks of him as a "young man" and a "young guard" and a possible "dalliance, to pass the time." This imbalance is only enhanced when Sarcean later thinks of Visander as "a trifling, easy to fool." Visander was a youth in love, and Sarcean was a man looking for easy amusement. Visander later feels betrayed by Sarcean for apparently killing his family. He emphasizes that he had trusted Sarcean. Their age gap adds an uncomfortable layer to Sarcean's treatment of Visander and how it might have contributed to Visander's lasting hatred of him. A hatred that, in turn, has Visander trying to kill Will, or the Dark King as a youth, as Visander sees it. Their age gap has now been reversed, and taking advantage of Will's youth, much like Sarcean took advantage of Visander's youth, he will take this opportunity to kill Will. It's like a cycle. Again, the book does not explicitly go out of its way to condemn Sarcean sleeping with a young Visander. It simply adds complications and nuance to the characters & their relationship that the reader must interpret themselves.

Will and Captain Howell's interactions are similarly ambivalent and complicated. Will knowingly initiates the flirting between them, and he doesn't seem particularly afraid of Captain Howell's advances. But their power dynamic is switched when Will uses his power to control Howell. The scene plays out like a scene of sexual exploration and discovery. Will tells Howell "No, don't fight it, just let me", he says "you're mine already", and when Howell calls him Master will thinks "Yes" as "with a lurch, he was inside Captain Howell." In many ways, it mirrors the scene where James pushes his magic into Will to release Will's magic. The sexual subtext is inescapable. But Will taking control of Howell is framed as feeling empowering to Will. Will effectively flips the power script of a young man and an older man in a sexual encounter, which brings awareness to the fact that the script usually doesn't play out like this. Their interaction is further complicated when James sees Howell and Will and freaks out. I'll come back to this...

The last significant age gap "relationship" is Cyprian with Ettore. This relationship is more subtle with its sexual subtext, but it's there. Ettore teases & pokes at Cyprian. We later learn this is because Ettore is himself a Steward, and he sees himself and his past flaws in Cyprian. But some of Ettore's teasing takes on a sexual nature. First, when his men ask Cyprian for a kiss and Ettore himself says, "Rethinking that kiss?" Then, when Ettore invites Cyprian to watch him have sex with a prostitute, who he has dressed in a Steward's tunic. After, Ettore emerging from the bedroom soon after Cyprian, "ostentatiously tucking in his shirt" makes Cyprian flush because of the implications Ettore undoubtedly wanted to illicit. This teasing and mockery come to head when Ettore asks Cyprian to kneel and beg him for help. Cyprian acquiesces despite the burning humiliation of it. This is when James goes to Cyprian and tells him he didn't like watching Cyprian kneeling for Ettore.

James says it's because he doesn't like being reminded that Stewards can be selfless, but I think it goes deeper than that and connects with James's reaction to Will and Howell. James freaks out when he sees Will and Howell holding on to each other. He asks Will if Howell hurt him. James's fear here can easily be interpreted as a remnant of his experiences with Simon. James has been hurt & taken advantage of (nearly sexually) by an older man. So when he sees Will and Howell, his mind goes to the worst possibility first. Similarly, I would argue that James's discomfort with watching Cyprian kneeling for Ettore is similarly connected to his trauma with Simon & Sinclair. This connection is supported when, later in the book, as Sinclair tries to collar James, Sinclair orders James to kneel.

These are some of the ways Dark Heir uses more subversive and taboo subjects to add depth and subtext to its world and chatacters, without forcing the readers to see these subjects in only one way. The series, much like Pacat's other work, doesn't shy away from so-called Dead Dove subject matter. And I think that's a strength of the series.

[s0ym1lk]

One of the things C.S. Pacat does so, so well in the Captive Prince trilogy is trusting the reader to read between the lines.

An example: in the first book, when the boar hunt happens, it is never explicitly stated (at least the time, maybe it's discussed later and I can't remember) that someone had fucked with Laurent's horse. All Damen sees is that the horse is sweaty and intractable, which he takes as a sign that Laurent either can't afford a good horse or sucks at picking one for a hunt. Later, after the horse is killed in the boar hunt, Damen notices that Laurent comes in in a vicious mood, but he never realizes that Laurent is reacting to a murder attempt and grieving the death of the horse.

The details are all there. Laurent speaks softly to the horse. A guard explains that the horse was good and well trained. Laurent yelled at a guard for not putting her down fast enough. And when Laurent tells Damen it's "just a horse", Damen marks his tone as "jagged" and "private" despite the flippant words. But he still doesn't connect the dots.

The trilogy is full of these little mysteries, threads left unexplained, that close reading and careful analysis of the characters will reveal to the reader. Considering most books make their POV character clever enough that they can lay out these threads blatantly for the reader to follow, it's a refreshing change.

[captaincouture]

Yeah the Captive Prince trilogy has a million and one different tragedies in it, ranging from death of loved ones to explosive racial prejudices, but to me the biggest tragedy is that not everyone has read The Training of Erasmus because it wasn’t included in all printings of the first book.

Like so many readers only met Erasmus once he was already in Vere and subsequently considered him being sold to Torveld and going to Patras a happy ending for him. Like… the layers of symbolism and allegory to the idea that you can’t save everyone. It’s even more impactful considering Damens character arc has so much to do with learning about flaws in political systems and leadership and how it affects individuals like Erasmus.

Talk about a tragic story. Erasmus has this already doomed situation that screws with his view of himself and his life, yet has this tiny act of rebellion in his relationship with Kallias. And Kallias, who we only see from Erasmus’ POV, but who seems to at least somewhat understand how wrong their situation is and how much more they could’ve had in a different life. But then he shatters his relationship with Erasmus and any chance of ever seeing him again in order to protect Erasmus and give him a better life, knowing that Erasmus will probably never understand why he did it. Parallels to Damen and Laurent anyone?? Princes Gambit —> slaves gambit.

I could talk so much more about the those parallels between Damen/Laurent and Erasmus/Kallias, as well as Damens enslavement never being comparable to others because he never thought of himself as a slave if anyone is interested.

God there’s just so much tragedy and food for thought in the series, Pacat did such an incredible job on these books they will forever be some of my favorites.

I think Erasmus’ story hits a little harder because he never really gets that full circle arc like a main character would. We don’t really get to see him learning about himself as a person instead of an extension of someone else. Even if there’s that one scene where we see Torveld encourage him to care about his own well being/ not accept abuse done to him by people with more power than him. Being that Torveld is a prince and will always think of Erasmus as below him no matter how much he may or may not love/respect him, it definitely makes you appreciate Damens growth and understanding of his own position of power more.

I really wish Pacat could make an additional short story about Erasmus, maybe leaving Patras and seeing Kallias again at some point. I guess on some level that would take away from the impact of his story but I just really love his character and want to see more of him.

[ninicaise]

laurent outing aimeric's abuse to jord to the regent outing laurent's abuse to damen pipeline

[swordsandarms]

This is a reply in regards to this post, which highlights the high likelihood that, whether people are fine with the author's choices or not, RxL is written by him with romantic nuance as far as the text goes. @sahtinekryze

And I think this fandom really needs to have a honest analysis of the idea of "selfishness" in narrative choices such as this, which is that when it comes to how the whole "duty vs love" scenarios Martin writes, he does not actually writes it with some wide spectrum ranging from selfish to sacrificial. There are usually no other choices than the two.

Could one define the alleged choice of breaking a noble marriage contract that would have negative political influence at the least, had it been the best case scenario (which one would logically assume the two might have hoped for instead of very lots of people dying including themselves) as 'selfish', which in its very definition is doing something for one's self, though it may not be advantageous for others? Yes.

But as I said, Martin doesn't write a middle ground. There's that, or Lyanna marries an unwanted man and is hence forced to have a non-consensual relationship with him, and forced to carry children out of a noncon relationship, so that her male relatives can reap benefits of political power, as well as her groom through her womb. And as shows inspired by these books love to show us very graphic such cases (like Daenerys in GOT, or the storyline given to show!Sansa, or the changes for show!Alicent in HOTD), I am sure fans should have learnt better about the accusations usually thrown at Lyanna in fandom spaces in regards to being another woman marrying against her will in a society where a woman cannot say no, marital rape isn't recognised, and a husband is "just taking his rights": that "this is just being whiny". (There are many other examples in the books; the author is also not holding back on what unwanted or unsuitable marriages mean to women.)

Against the fanon idea that she is some wild, demanding, conceited girl, she doesn't rage, she doesn't bite. She has a tentative, soft spoken conversation with her brother about it and her reluctance in the matter, and is (nicely) dismissed.

Had she not (allegedly, while all is unconfirmed) fallen for the Crown Prince and he for her, there is no one else powerful enough to extract her from her situation (her male relatives having made up their own minds in the matter), nor anyone else to go from where she cannot be recovered by a powerful and connected family and fiance. No one else she could marry/sleep with that wouldn't be shut down and covered (as seen with Tyrion or Lysa) to preserve the higher price for which her womb can be bartered. Just no other viable choice that wasn't the other end of the scale: a woman being sacrificed by men, for men's uses.

As I said at the start, this is simply how Martin writes these conflicts of "mind and heart". He corners the characters. There is no light at the end of the tunnel that isn't also sort of "selfish" and "dumb" looking on the surface.

This can be applied to more such situations in the text-

Catelyn undoes the already precarious state of her son's campaign by releasing their most valuable captive. She has not even a guarantee that her 'selfish' act for love will work. But there are no options she's given. No one else cares to make it a priority to get her daughters back. The only other choice is to let it be and let 2 girls be sacrificed in marriages of ill intent to use their wombs and discard them, unsure if she will find anything left of them but Lannister named babies when this is over. It is "selfish". It is "dumb". Yet she's cornered.

Jon makes the decision to go fight Ramsay Bolton because he's run out of options and he's cornered. Arya is allegedly in the hands of the family that have viciously killed a number of Starks and taken Winterfell. She is 11 and allegedly married. He is made sick at the thought of what is being done to her. He's tried the "lesser" tactics of getting her rescued without being seen as trespassing the status quo of the NW publicly, by sending others for her. But it was always going to come to this. Ramsay guesses (or finds out) that his escaped bride would make it to the Wall. Keeping "peace" and "doing his duty" instead of "being selfish and dumb" is handing over "Arya" himself if she even makes it to appease the Lord of Winterfell, sacrificing a girl to an unwanted marriage meant to use her for her womb and discard her.

There are no actual choices when there is no actual scale in between "selfish and dumb" and the sacrifice of a girl (or, you know, 2,3, as many as Westeros would swallow as it did for millennia for this or that Lord or King to amass and keep power), whether they are Lannisters trying to get Winterfell, or Starks extinguishing the line of the Warg King.

[nasthepotprincess]

can we talk about how Jokaste had to chain up Damen to choose Kastor and Laurent had to chain up Damen to choose Damen but in both scenes the chains represent Damen's inability to recognize deceit? But also how he began chained up in his kingdom and ended chained up in his kingdom, to represent his undying commitment to his kingdom?

JOKASTE WAS ABLE TO CHAIN UP DAMEN BECAUSE HE WAS IN LOVE WITH HER

LAURENT HAD NO CHOICE TO CHAIN UP DAMEN BECAUSE LAURENT WAS IN LOVE WITH HIM

CAN WE TALK ABOUT THIS GENIUS WRITING????

ALL THESE FULL CIRCLES GOT ME GOING DIZZY

[1hotmuyfunbro]

Analysis (completely messed up) of Nicaise and Laurent, Captive Prince. PART 1

•I need to talk about THEM. •Can we talk about how Laurent refers to Nicaise as "A BROTHER"!?!?!? When Damen tells him that he is very sorry for what happened to Nicaise Laurent responds that he was simply "my uncle's whore" and Damen insists that "it was more than that, it was like..." AND LAURENT SAYS "a brother? Yes , but I have no luck with them" PLEASE, we know how IMPORTANT the word BROTHER is to Laurent, WE ALL know it. •It's so cute and sad at the same time that Laurent feels affection for Nicaise because he reflects himself in the boy...Nicaise probably does NOT fully understand why Laurent seems to love him and NOT as a pet. I mean, imagine being a pet since you were 11 years old OR LESS and for the first time there is a person who does not desire you sexually. CUTE. •On the other hand, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO NICAISE'S LIFE BEFORE ARRIVING AT COURT, was he a pet before? Was he trained like Akielos's slaves? Did he have parents? (I hope not because I would HATE to know that the people who were supposed to take care of him sold him) and also to know what his "true personality" was before the Regent corrupted him. Laurent said that he was not so cruel before and that he "still possessed good instincts." • I suppose that Nicaise had a certain affection for Laurent, as we know he was between Laurent and The Regent, but he ended up choosing his side (Laurent's side) thanks to the letter he stole. He even defended him from the Regent. I want to cry. I don't think someone would risk their life for a person they don't love, so beyond his social positions, I think Nicaise felt that the ONLY way out for him was Laurent. •NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE LETTER, Nicaise steals the letter the night of the attempt on Laurent's life, according to Pacat on the orders of the Regent. The regent knew that Govart was outside the Palace, probably in the brothels (which ended up being true, since we see him there when Damen tries to escape) so that same night he calls Nicaise, we will not go into details of what happened that night, and later they wake up with the notice of the attack. The regent sends Nicaise to steal the letter.

[cycas]

My apologies for the random question, but I loved your in-depth analysis about Galadriel I just read. Blame it on how my brain works, but I was curious if you have any theory about Oropher's fatal military decision that sealed his fate? Tolkien's description paints him in an unfavourable light, leaving the impression he acted on some petty impulses rather than making a strategic decision that made sense to him.

"...Oropher had the wisdom to foresee that peace would not return unless Sauron was overcome. He therefore assembled a great army of his now numerous people, and joining with the lesser army of Malgalad of Lórien he led the host of the Silvan Elves to battle. The Silvan Elves were hardy and valiant, but ill-equipped with armour or weapons in comparison with the Eldar of the West; also they were independent, and not disposed to place themselves under the supreme command of Gil-galad. Their losses were thus more grievous than they need have been, even in that terrible war.

Malgalad and more than half his following perished in the great battle of the Dagorlad, being cut off from the main host and driven into the Dead Marshes. Oropher was slain in the first assault upon Mordor, rushing forward at the head of his most doughty warriors before Gil-galad had given the signal for the advance. Thranduil his son survived, but when the war ended and Sauron was slain (as it seemed) he led back home barely a third of the army that had marched to war. ... 1. Malgalad is another name for Amdír; this passage contains its only use." -- Unfinished Tales, The History of Galadriel and Celeborn: The Sindarin Princes of the Silvan Elves

I think this is the bit anon means.

Oropher in this account mirrors Gwindor at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad; rushing forward before the command is given, but while Gwindor is deliberately driven to break the line by watching his captured brother tortured to death in front of him, there's no reason given for Oropher's early rush into battle.

I think it also mirrors at least one historical battle: the battle of Hastings in 1066. The historians are still arguing about exactly why Harold's men broke the line there, and what effect that had.

That might be a good place to start for sources justifying and explaining Oropher's decision to start the battle.

It could be that Oropher, like Gwindor, saw a beloved captive dismembered. It could be that Oropher was tricked, in the way that, possibly, Harold's army was, by a false retreat - or even saw a real opportunity that genuinely made a difference to the war, but paid a heavy penalty for it.

Wood-elves seem to use bows a lot: maybe they were firing on the army in front of them when it began to retreat, like the Norman cavalry at Hastings who retreated (maybe) from the arrows of the Saxon archers holding the high ground, and the Saxons followed them.

Maybe Oropher knew about Gwindor's great charge at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, how he made it all the way and beat upon the doors of Angband, but could not break in. Perhaps Oropher thought that if he was fast enough, he could follow Mordor's armies right into Mordor, and break the siege that way.

That might fit with a lightly-armoured, fast-moving way of operating, and you can also imagine that heavily-armoured Noldor and Numenoreans used to a different style of fighting did not understand what Oropher tried to do. Or maybe he genuinely didn't have much experience with pitched battle, and made a terrible mistake. Maybe he DID have lots of experience with pitched battles, and still made a mistake.

I might write about this one day, from Amdir Malgalad's point of view, since Amdir is one of my lesser known favorites.

Not sure if Anon will still spot this, but I only just got time to reply.