#cavaliershipping

[anotherworldash]

cavaliershipping is a product of its time

when gary and dawn's fans hyped his comeback in Diamond and Pearl in year of 2008 (Fighting Fear with Fear / DP085 )

together we created cavaliershipping, because Dawn recognized Gary by his famous last name and fangirled over him.

also, back then, gary was just over his man-hoe phase, leaving his cheerleaders behind. and finally, displayed a gentleman-like behavior towards female friends.

oh how time flies...

Wise choice Dawn, who wouldn't want a cute nepo baby like Gary?

[squirtleism]

missing cavaliershipping and corruptedshipping atm

[fatesona-stella]

Gary and Dawn meeting again after all these years... (I wish T^T I was hoping they’d meet up again in journeys but alas that did not happen yet) 

[pkmnfankids]

My cavaliershipping fankid

Planning to do more in the future!~

-

[perpetual-ash]

↑ i am constantly thinking abt this reply because it is deeply reflective of the general attitude i see displayed toward palamedes, and camilla too, wherein people seem to assume that they are inherently more rational and comparatively unbiased as a whole when compared to everyone else. they are treated as if they are comparatively free from the same confines of thinking that affect other characters; they are characterised as a shining example of a truly equal necromancer-cavalier bond, of loyalty and love, and are treated as if they are perfect geniuses who can do no wrong—an attitude i feel very much inclines people to romanticise their devotion & treat paul's birth as a victorious thing.

@dve i feel summarised this phenomena the best: "i think cam and palamedes are nowhere near as revolutionary as a chunk of the fandom would like for them to be". i'd even go as far as to say that, in their role as foils to gideon and harrow, they are meant to showcase just how damaging the necro-cavalier dichotomy is to the individuals involved. i've spoke on this before but the bond is explicitly modelled on the example of john & alecto—which is already not ideal—and was built on a foundation of deception, with john hiding the fact the lyctoral process did not necessarily have to end with the death of the cavalier: the sacrifice of the cavalier is baked into it, because the history of cavaliership is indelibly tied into the avoidable deaths of the first cavaliers.

the equality ascribed to their bond is based on their seeming inversion of the exploitative nature of the necro-cav bond—compared to silas' siphoning colum, it seems improbable to say that they are anything but true equals who break away from the model, revolutionary in nature. they are devoted to each other, endlessly loyal! to the point camilla will violate the wishes and autonomy of palamedes in the name of her devotion.

camilla frames the fact she cannot sustain both of their souls in her body as her being weak, as opposed to being a product of the reality maintaining two souls in a single body the way they are doing is extraordinarily difficult and unnatural, doing herself a disservice in the process, because in her eyes she is failing in her duty to him.

his presence in her body is killing them both, and she frames this as [their] choice, but then wants pyrrha to lie to him about the fact it's killing her: meaning his choice would be based on her exploiting his absence in this moment, on a deception.

they can't keep this up forever, it is killing them both, but camilla's devotion to him means she won't accept that and doesn't want to give him reason to vacate her body. she wants pyrrha to lie—even though it's killing him too!—because she doesn't want to let him choose to let her live at the cost of his own life.

her death is avoidable but her role and her duty is to die for him, to sacrifice, to hold the sword for her necromancer. she won't let him, the necromancer, choose the cavalier's life because it is intended to be used by him—a soul to be eaten. she won't let him choose, violates his wishes and autonomy in the name of her devotion to him; i personally don't think equality in a relationship is based around denying the other their autonomy and lying to them, do you? and in this moment, camilla is treating herself as expendable, their inevitable death as inconsequential because it prolongs palamedes for as long as possible.

palamedes, conversely, has a very interesting perspective on lyctorhood:

he presumes that the original lyctors, the first necromancers and their cavaliers, sought to merge themselves from the start and that they achieved this incompletely. he posits the existence of true lyctorhood; palamedes views two becoming one, one being two, as something admirable, a truth not yet seen—grand instead of petty.

we also see somebody else who expresses a similiar belief in a perfected lyctorhood, one of the original lyctors, mercymorn the first:

the original lyctors did not seek out to merge with their cavalier, their other half in necro-cav terms, and only did so as a result of a lie, the idea of a one-way energy transfer. from mercymorn's perspective true lyctorhood is a process that preserves the cavalier; from palamedes' perspective true lyctorhood is a process that merges the cavalier and necromancer to form something new, the truest response to the call of "one flesh, one end" yet seen. palamedes' conception of lyctorhood is removed from the original context of lyctorhood's formation, and is shaped heavily by the ideals of the society he and cam were raised in.

If the cavalier and the necromancer do not take "one flesh, one end" as a maxim for their passion for each other, their bond is nonexistent. They must each take the other as their ideal. […] Their love is the love that fears only for the other: the love of service on both sides. Some have tried to characterise this relationship as the cavalier's obedience to the necromancer, but the necromancer must be in turn obedient to the needs of the cavalier without being asked or prompted: theirs is arguably the heavier burden. — Tamsyn Muir, A Sermon on Cavaliers and Necromancers

suffice to say, i do not think paul is a defiance of the empire's ideals, so much as a perfected expression of them; paul is the embodiment of the love of service on both ends, the product of a mutual death. their choice to die as two to become one was exactly in line with what a necromancer and a cavalier are intended to do.

"One flesh" is the underpinning of our whole Empire [...] One end is one empire. — Tamsyn Muir, A Sermon on Cavaliers and Necromancers

[ghostsandyoumightdie]

YES WE ARE FINALLY TALKING ABOUT IT.

Naberius is tragic! Naberius was a perfect cavalier and his only crime was being a little annoying. He tried to defend Corona from Ianthe's manipulation, only to be chastised by Corona herself -- and later we find out that Ianthe is his only true necromancer! He committed insubordination to try and defend Corona, which shows how much he cares about her because we never see him disobey Ianthe in public.

Even preying on Camilla's defeat was a tactic to try and help Corona. He wanted to get her the keys! He was trying to be a good cavalier! And when she tells him to back down, he almost does, but Ianthe commands him to continue.

Naberius did everything he was told to. He fed his body to the twins without wincing or complaining. He trained and fought and honed his body for its only purpose, only to die like a dog. He loved Corona. He fought Ianthe as hard as he possibly could.

Naberius Tern is the only cavalier we know of other than Alecto who did not consent to their necromancer's ascension. And nobody cares about him.

[katakaluptastrophy]

Masterpost of TLT metas

This is mostly for my own reference, as tagging doesn't seem to guarantee something being findable on Tumblr...but if you like wildly overthinking lesbian necromancers in space, enjoy!

Overthinking the Fifth House:

What is a "Speaker to the Dead"?

Actually, Magnus Quinn isn't terrible at sword fighting

Imperial complicity: Abigail the First

Pyschopomp: Abigail Pent and Hecate

Did Teacher conspire with Cytherea to kill the Fifth?

What does the Fifth House actually do?

The Fourth and the Fifth can never just be family

Cytherea's political observations at the anniversary dinner

Abigail Pent's affect: ghosts and autism

Were the Fourth wards of the Fifth?

Abigail probably knew most of the scions as children

Magnus Quinn's very understandable anger

Fifth House necromancy is not neat and tidy

Are Abigail and Magnus an exception to the exploitative nature of cavaliership?

"Abigail Pent literally brought her husband and look where that got her" (the Fifth in TUG)

The Fifth's relationship dynamic

The Fifth's relationship is unconventional in a number of ways

The queer-coding of Abigail and Magnus' relationship

Abigail and Palamedes, and knowing in the River

Was Isaac the ward of the Fifth?

Did Magnus manage to draw his sword before Cytherea killed him? (and why he probably had to watch his wife die)

How did Abigail know she was murdered by a Lyctor?

Fifth House necromancy is straight out of the Odyssey

The politics of the anniversary dinner

Was Magnus born outside of the Dominicus system?

Overthinking John Gaius:

The one time John was happy was playing Jesus

Is Alecto's body made from John's?

Are there atheists in the Nine Houses?

Why isn't John's daughter a necromancer?

The horrors of love go both ways: why John could have asked Alecto 'what have you done to me?'

Why M- may have really hoped John was on drugs

What is it with guys called Jo(h)n and getting disintegrated? (John and Dr Manhattan)

John's conference call with his CIA handlers

Watching your friend turn into an eldritch horror

Why does G1deon look so weird? (Jod regrew him from an arm)

When is a friendship bracelet not a friendship bracelet?

Why did John have G1deon hunt Harrow? (with bonus update)

The 'indelible' sin of Lyctorhood and John's shoddy plagiarism of Catholicism

Are John Gaius and Abigail Pent so different?

What was Jod's plan at Canaan House?

John and Ianthe tread the Eightfold path

The Mithraeum is more than a joke about cows

When was John Gaius born? (And another)

John Gaius and the tragic Orestes

John and Jesus writing sins in the sand

John and Nona's echoing chapters

John's motivations

Overthinking the Nine Houses:

'No retainers, no attendants, no domestics'

Funerary customs and the violence of John's silence

Juno Zeta and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad time

The horror of the River bubble

Every instance of 'is this how it happens' in HTN

Feudalism is still shitty even if you make it queer and sex positive

How do stele work?

Thought crime in the Nine Houses

The Houses have a population the size of Canada

What must it be like to fight the Houses?

You know what can't have been fun? Merv wing's megatruck on Varun day...

Augustine's very Catholic hobby (decorating skeletons)

Necromancers are not thin in a conventionally attractive way

Matching the Houses with the planets of the solar system

Why don't the Nine Houses have (consistent) vaccination or varifocals?

How would the Houses react to the deaths at Canaan House?

How does Wake understand her own name (languages over 10,000 years)

What pre-resurrection texts are known in the Houses?

Camilla and Palamedes very Platonic relationship

The horrors the Cohort found at Canaan House

Do the Houses understand the tech keeping them alive?

Overthinking House religion:

What do the Houses believe about death?

Was M's nun a Franciscan?

Cavaliership and arbitrary socio-religious structures

Ritual scarification

Sacraments and sacramentals

What did Silas think god wanted at Canaan House?

In defense of Silas

There's no such thing as a 'good' necro/cav relationship

Veiling and shaving in Ninth House cult practice

Tongue-in-cheek thoughts on Eighth and Sixth religion

A very long deep-dive on House belief and practice

Overthinking Harrowhark Nonagesimus:

'The meat of your meat...belonged to god' and 'that is how meat loves meat'

The horror of parental touch: Harrow, John Gaius, and Abigail Pent

Why is Harrow so obsessed with Abigail's hands?

Frontline Titties of the Fifth and transgressive necro/cav relationships

Harrow, Wake, and permeability of the soul in HTN

Bible studies for weird queer necromancers:

Epiphany: revealing god's child to the wider world

The Holy Innocents and the creche massacre

The Virgin Mary and Commander Wake

John Gaius and John the Baptist

Instantiating the Trinity and the Second Resurrection

What's the significance of Paul?

St Paul's theology of gender and sexuality and the House theology of cavaliership

Maundy Thursday: consuming another for eternal life

Harrow and the Harrowing of Hell

[iamanoccasionaldoodler]

This is a very minor detail but at the end of Harrow the Ninth one of Gideon's main beefs (beeves?) with Ianthe is that she lied to Harrow about Cytherea's body being under her bed. Now I'm not saying gaslighting Harrow into thinking she's crazy isn't Ianthe's vibe, but how would Gideon know?

Her narration includes the body, so we know she can see Harrows hallucinations (which makes sense, she's not following Harrow around, she's literally INSIDE her brain) so like. If Cytherea's body wasn't there,,,, how would she know? She says Ianthe lied to Harrow about a body that was "obviously there" but like. Obviously from inside the brain of someone with schizophrenia.

But my point isn't actually about whether or not it was there! It actually doesn't matter. What matters is Gideon has literally no way of knowing if it was really there or not but she trusts Harrow and Harrow's mind. Harrow is so paranoid about the schizophrenia she doesn't tell Gideon for all of Gideon the Ninth, even though she must have been losing her mind in Canaan House. But Gideon has seen it first hand and she doesn't write her off as crazy. She believes in Harrow's experience that Cytherea was there. She says "no, we saw it, it was there."

And like Harrow doesn't even know that one of the first thing Gideon ever does when she gets control of her body is go to bat for Harrow's credibility as a witness. She trusts Harrow when Harrow doesn't trust herself. And Harrow has no idea! Harrow never told Gideon! Harrow doesn't know Gideon was watching! She hid it from Gideon for SEVENTEEN YEARS. She tells Ortus on day 1 of their cavaliership but she never tells Gideon! But Gideon knows and Gideon doesn't doubt her and Gideon saw what she saw and it was real and it was there and Gideon wants to fight Ianthe for lying!

In conclusion. Griddlehark.

[fortjester]

Let Dead Dogs Lie by Silas Denver Melvin vs. Harrow & Gideon's perspectives on cavaliership and lyctorhood

[anotherworldash]

I have written a dead dove fic for RivalCrushshipping/ ShigeSere, ShigeKoha (republish later), and ShigeTsuru( just dub con tho) last year

Cavaliershipping (Shigehika) next???

Don't ask me why I write so many shigeru ships. Writing him is so easy to me because his funny personality is literally my inner monologue all the time x"D. I just imagine "what I'm gonna do if ...."

[nonasbirthday]

Silas: So. Fake oath of cavaliership. Fake chosen weapon. Do you have anything that's real?

Gideon: My dick.

(source)

[procrastinationaccount]

May I just say that Glaurica fascinates me. This woman was raised in the Eighth House and became one of the last-ever pilgrims to the Ninth. She moved for the love of their cavalier primary, Mortus, who is one of the only adults Harrow seems to have relatively pleasant memories of. They had a son and named him Ortus. Their intercession saved him from the " crèche flu "; she knew the truth of the circumstances of Harrow's birth, or at least part of it, and it drove her demented. Her husband died with no official reason given besides the assurance that it was in service to her adopted House, which was now for all intents and purposes run by a ten-year-old. She's seemingly the only (mostly) lucid adult who never figured out that Pelleamena and Priamhark died at the same time as Mortus, which is probably because she was busy raising the best-adjusted person on the Ninth (not a high bar to clear, of course). Said lucid adults held both her and her son in open contempt, one because she was an immigrant and one because she allowed/encouraged his poetry habit over his cavaliership. She completely ignored the much-abused teenage bondservant of the Ninth until after her own death. She only tried to leave the Ninth only when she learned that her son might be taken from her, unknowingly acting as a pawn in her teenage monarch's attempt to fastrack her own enemies-to-lovers arc. Her Marshall planted a bomb on the transport and all she could do was look upon it and weep before it killed her. She followed a thanergetic link all the way back to her home planet and at the least hinted at the war crime that she had witnessed on the Ninth; seemingly all the Eighth did about it was lord it over Gideon (ultimately to the benefit of said enemies-to-lovers arc). Only like three people on the Ninth were even informed of her death. What a life.

[notedchampagne]

Does!!! Harrow Nova!!! Get a chance to cut her long hair off!!! I want to see her shed that shame!!!

AWW this is a really cute sentiment <3 unfortunately in my mind i am sickening and evil so i cant even conceive of a situation where harrow successfully A) feels accomplished and proud of herself (where in a cavaliership, means giving up your life to a duty ended by your necromancer) or B) grows past the source of her shame (which means leaving the ninth behind to redefine herself)

in the ambiguous modern nova aus i have with quinn the closest nova gets to this is leaving for college and becoming transmasc swag, but this also has its limits because she reverts back to standard procedure when she goes back to visit family

[perpetual-ash]

one end is one empire: monogamy in the nine houses

in Harrow The Ninth we are told the origins of lyctorhood lie in research conducted by john's disciples in the hopes of establishing how best to serve alongside their lord without needing him to confer immortality—those who became the first adepts and first cavaliers, then the first lyctors. we know that ultimately the design of lyctorhood was, in reality, a way for john to ensure his loved ones would be something he could touch, for them to become his hands and his fingers. the disciples' collective legacy lived on in two ways: the fruits of the lyctoral process, his saints, and the institution of the cavalier-necromancer bond throughout the nine houses.

as we see specifically highlighted in A Sermon on Cavaliers and Necromancers, this bond is a cultural fixture of house society and is emphasised not only as “one flesh, one end” but also as the essential equation of “the one binds to the other”; the sanctity of this bond lies in the framing of the two as being complementary halves, necromancer and cavalier forming one, and this sanctity being threatened by the disruption of the essential equation of one necromancer and one cavalier. a single cavalier paired with multiple adepts is placed under the logistical burden of supplying thanergy to, and protecting, multiple individuals whilst an abundance of cavaliers would leave the necromancer ill-equipped to perform necromantic feats that require intimate understanding of another's thanergy. the complementary difference of each is also their undoing as individuals: the necromancer's art is impossible without a swordswoman, and they are rejected by thalergy planets, while a lone cavalier without the care or craft of an adept is vulnerable “amid the bullet-filled barbarism of other planets”.

the bond is characterised as a joining of complementary halves, a union of the two incomplete to form a whole one. its nature is defind by each using “one flesh, one end” as a maxim for their passion for each other; the other is their ideal and their completeness. it is said to be the underpinning of house society—without the acknowledgement of the cavalier and necromancer's duties to each other, the sanctity of one binding to the other being upheld, and the continued reproduction of the bond the houses will fail in their mission to uphold the values of the god who became man and man who became god.

“Those who hold the sword must hold it for the necromancer. Those who were born with thanergetic nervous systems ply their art only by the grace of the sword. The necromancer is weak, and the sword is strong. The sword is weak, and the necromancer is strong. Our pleasure at the bond unbroken between necromancer and cavalier is a Nine Houses acknowledgement of the equality granted to us by God.” — Tamsyn Muir, A Sermon on Cavaliers and Necromancers

lyctorhood: the marriage of flesh and spirit

though it is made clear throughout the series that literal marriage of the two is considered to be taboo, grotesque and even traitorous to the ideals of the necrolord prime—in harrow the ninth, it is explicitly said that there are many strictures against a necromancer marrying their own cavalier—the bond between the necromancer and cavalier itself is an overt parallel to the christian concept of marriage: it is the joining of two incomplete, complementary halves to become one flesh in the name of god. house society is divided into adepts and non-adepts: those who bear necromantic characteristics that make them resemble the emperor, and those who do not, but can join with those that do and become as one flesh—one in his image, and one who can join with those that resemble him.

despite their supposed nature as complementary halves, incomplete as individuals, it is also made clear that the taboo against marriage and romantic entanglement is one born out of the necessity of keeping the bond a meeting of complementary forces united in the name of god rather than a codependent loss of self. the erasure of the difference between them violates the sanctity of their bond, diminishes each before society and god: the two are united as one flesh, but must remain unfused and defined as halves. the joining of necromancer and cavalier is one that necessitates their continued division.

She didn’t have to tell me in so many words what we both knew, that the relationship between cavalier and necromancer could so easily curdle into codependency . . . a loss of self on both sides. An obsessive fusion of halves, not two complementary forces. —Tamsyn Muir, As Yet Unsent

the reality of this, of course, is that the loss of self on both sides is an unequal one: the adept resembles john where her swordswoman doesn't, is the one to serve as her house's heir as opposed to the heir's bodyguard and representative in duels. the eighth—illustrated as the most devout and orthodox of the houses—is the one that best illustrates this imbalance through their use of soul siphoning, a temporary displacement of the cavaliers soul for the deriving of power through the ensuing void. the difference between necromancer and cavalier is their strength, and to forget it is to become diminished, their complementary forces lost to obsessive fusion.

the cavalier's role in the lyctoral model is to be consumed, to become the furnace of their necromancer's lyctorhood. the body of a cavalier is a means to an end, the swordhand that is discarded once a necromancer can take up the weapon in their own, and their soul is a source of perpetual thanergy and a securement of legacy, immortality. a cavalier is trained to follow a half-step behind and wait upon their adept, to die for them if needs must, and is conditioned to accept that their duty is a sacrificial one. the cavalier facilitates the art and legacy of the adept; the adept is born into the art, and the cavalier is born into service in the name of that art.

the necromancer's role in the lyctoral model is to consume, to ply the art with the aid of their cavalier and to burn the cavalier to fuel the formation of their legacy, a literal immortality of self. their necromantic characteristics are seen to make them more like the emperor, as per A Sermon on Necromancers and Cavaliers, and drives expectant parents to concern themselves with ensuring that their children are born on a thanergetic planet or in proximity to thanergetic grave dirt. each house is ruled by a necromantic scion. the equality of cavalier and necromancer may be spoken of at length, but the supremacy of the necromancer in society is clear; the adept knows the art, is closer to god, due to being born with a gift only found on thanergetic worlds, the emperor's dominion. it is the necromancer who becomes the lyctor, and the cavalier who serves as their furnace.

you cannot separate the concept of lyctorhood from john and alecto, nor the concept of necromancer and cavalier—both concepts originated with john and alecto. in fact, lyctorhood was conceived as an emulation of their bond: “You let us think we’d cracked it [...] You had already done it yourself. But you had done it perfectly!!” “Then, when the disciples come to you and say the word Lyctor, she does not understand that they want the thing you did to her—she watches as you watch … watch them misunderstand the process.”

when john created alecto—his cavalier, the first cavalier—he ate soil, wrenched a rib from his own body, and conjured a labyrinthe to house her in: partook in her flesh and imprisoned her in a body composed of a comminglement of hers and his, hid him in her and her in him. a marriage of flesh and spirit. similarly, the petty lysis we are familiar with requires the literal consumption of the cavalier's flesh and the integration of their soul with the necromancer.

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” — Genesis 2:18

those who hold the sword must hold it for the necromancer, just as the necromancer can only ply the art by the grace of the sword; a lyctor, a necromancer, can hold the sword for themselves, and ply the art by their own grace. a grace in the image of god.

john's saints invented the process that allowed them to go on to wield the sword and bring themselves closer to his image, but that process required the lives of their cavaliers. john ensured that it did. the echoes of this manipulation are what went on to form the basis for the necromancer-cavalier bond that permeates house society, and shaped the empire; just as he coerced his loved ones into becoming his fists and gestures, john instituted a societal binary composed of people in his image (necromancers) and a people who can live and die to serve them (cavaliers).

“But from the very beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.  ‘That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife and the two become one flesh.’ And so they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” — Mark 10:6-Mark 10:9

the monogamous implication of one end

as we have explored, the bond of necromancer and cavalier is one modelled on that of the lyctors, itself modelled on that of john and alecto, and serves the twofold purpose of compensating for the physical infirmity of the necromancer and facilitating lyctorhood—the cavalier's duties are that of bodily service and sacrifice. it is a joining of complementary halves, inadequate in their individuality, the necromancer who resembles john and the cavalier who serves them and dies for them; it is defined by an essential equation, the one binding to the other—one flesh, one end, one empire.

in this way, it is a union that parallels the christian marriage in a number of respects: it is founded on the belief in an oppositional delineation of peoples into two immutable categories, benefits one of these to the detriment of the other in accordance with the will of god—specifically the category said to resemble him most closely, ensures that the beneficiary's legacy may continue through their union and the bodily labour of the other, and the arrangement is thought to be foundational to and uphold the godliness of the society. to sour the sanctity of marriage, of cavaliership, is to betray the ideals of god; the pursuit of true equality contradicts his design and is limited by societal strictures. their union is to each other, but they must not be codependent, must remain aligned with their roles, and must serve their emperor faithfully—to forget their difference and their roles is to diminish themselves.

“Monogamy is formed, then, not as a relationship between just two people, but rather as a complex system of obligations and social and moral impositions - mainly governed by christian morality, in which the family is legitimized only by sacred marriage and by the values of capitalism, of propagating wealth from family generation to family generation and the maintenance of private properties – which has, as its scope, the guarantee of monopoly and concentration of wealth and power of the nobles to the detriment of division of inheritance with “bastard” children. In this way, it is clear that, even before capitalism, monogamy is necessary for the management and maintenance of this system, serving as a support for the reproduction of power mechanisms in the social body - especially in the beginning and expansion of the capitalist formation - mainly through the family. Capitalism invests itself in the life, affections and sexualities of the population in order to use them as State apparatuses for the maintenance of relations of production and power through compulsory monogamy.” — @zapatism, Capitalism and monogamy

the exploitative nature of christian monogamous marriage, its role in ensuring the supremacy of the man, how it ensures the propagation of his legacy, marriage's contribution to the maintenance of other social institutions such as the nuclear family, and the institution's legacy of socially coercive mononormativity are all literalised by lyctorhood throughout the series. the necromancer is male and cavalier female, both in the societal sense and in the biblical sense, and this dynamic is made clearest by how lyctorhood is perfectly emblematic of patriarchal monogamy, a social arrangement that benefits the necromancer and wholly subsumes the cavalier.

“It is based on the supremacy of the man, the express purpose being to produce children of undisputed paternity; such paternity is demanded because these children are later to come into their father’s property as his natural heirs. It is distinguished from pairing marriage by the much greater strength of the marriage tie, which can no longer be dissolved at either partner’s wish. As a rule, it is now only the man who can dissolve it, and put away his wife [...] The Greeks themselves put the matter quite frankly: the sole exclusive aims of monogamous marriage were to make the man supreme in the family, and to propagate, as the future heirs to his wealth, children indisputably his own. Otherwise, marriage was a burden, a duty which had to be performed, whether one liked it or not, to gods, state, and one’s ancestors.” — Frederick Engels, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State

gideon, camilla, and naberius all demonstrate how the cavalier is pushed to sacrifice and conditioned to accept the supremacy of their necromancer while their respective necromancers showcase how the necromancer is bred and coerced into accepting the expendability of their cavalier. gideon justifies her own suicide, camilla pleads with pyrrha to lie to palamedes about how their incomplete lysis is steadily killing her, and naberius is murdered by his own necromancer; ianthe justifies the murder of her own cavalier from birth as an acceptable payment made with the life of a man born to die for her ambitions, palamedes is forced to pursue a 'truer' form of lyctorhood in the hopes of preserving camilla, and harrowhark's refusal to accept gideon's life results in her own incomplete lysis that is reponded to via corrective violence performed by g1deon at the behest of john.

the violence we see play out throughout the series overtly demonstrates the way societally enforced monogamy can foster and justify abusive dynamics, extreme levels of codependence, and corrective violence in response to abnormality. simultaneously, we see how the conditions necessary for normalising the necromancer-cavalier within society are, at their core, eerily familar systems of oppression and the construction of false homogenities such as monogamy itself;¹ the continued reproduction on the bond, like so many false homogenities, is reliant on societally instituted exploitation, coercion, and corrective violence that will hit close to home for a queer audience.

the union of necromancer and cavalier is descended from lyctorhood and is akin to marriage in a mononormative society, while lyctorhood itself represents the very height of how christian marriage functions to reify male supremacy and it and the ideals that reinforce it (delineation of the population into two supposedly indelibly distinct, complementary, oppositional groups that are coerced into the formation of supposedly equal unions that favour one that is a beneficiary of widespread societal privilege) aid in the maintenace of patriarchy and the reproduction of normative arrangements that contribute to the continued existence of the systems individuals live under. cavaliership maintains necromancer supremacy just as christian ideas of monogamy and marriage maintain male supremacy. john gaius' post-resurrection reconstruction of christianity does not stop at imagery and terminology: he has recreated a distinctly christian take on patriarchy and monogamy, based on thanergetic nervous systems instead of sex.

Malachi 2:10

those born on the houses think themselves to be fundamentally different to those born outside them; within house society necromancers reign supreme, and cavaliers' status is married to that of their necromancer's. the prejudice we see directed toward zombies and wizards is onscreen and blatant, horrific at times, but justified by the nine houses being known for their imperialism and brutal tactics. the discrimination toward those who lay outside the houses is much less overt, but nonetheless felt. we know from the beginning of Gideon the Ninth that the empire has enemies yet they are not characterised, humanised, or acknowledged in much capacity—and this remains consistent throughout the series until Nona the Ninth.

it is here we see, in detail, the treatment of non-house citizens: frequent planetary resettlement, bombarding, brutal violence that churns out waves of traumatised refugees, and a complete lack of acknowledgement of their plights. they are beneath notice. we do not see them until we, the readers, are placed on the ground of one such occupied planet and privy to ianthe's boredom as she rattles off a laundry list of horrific implications regarding how any individual or group who violates these conditions renders the entire agreement null and void, and the population will consequently represent a legal entity that has damaged property, acted unlawfully, committed or been accessory to murder, and performed a coup.

the people born outside the empire are subject to continual mass punishment for being born on thalergy planets, for being the descendants of those who turned their back on earth, for resisting resettlement and occupation, for the crime of their existence. they are cattle, to be herded and exterminated with little fanfare. they are fundamentally different to those born on thanergetic planets; the necromancy-cavalier binary is what separates house citizens from animals.

"One flesh" is the underpinning of our whole Empire. We are born necromancers, or we are not; yet we are one. The non-necromancer will still have necromantic children. The necromancer will have parents who lacked the aptitude. The possibility is within us. We live under the thanergenic light of Dominicus, are born, grow, and die in his thanergetic Houses; the Resurrection made us so. We are fundamentally different to those born on thalergy planets outside the Empire. Our anxiety drives the expectant parent to arrange to give birth back home, or concern themselves with the baby's proximity to grave dirt sourced from home. Our necromantic characteristics make us more like the Emperor. As he was once man, and became God, and was God and became man, so were we dead and became alive; so were we alive and became dead. — Tamsyn Muir, A Sermon on Cavaliers and Necromancers

john is a queer indigenous man who has created a neochristofascist empire, locked in a state of perpetual warfare and expansion, that is geared toward the mobilisation of violence against a population in diaspora, in the name of vengeance for an indelible sin committed by their ancestors. those within this empire differentiate themselves from the barbaric people their society subjects to constant displacing violence via a belief in their closeness to god, a closeness based on their position in a social arrangement that closely adheres to christian patriarchy and mononormativity. he has implemented the kind of violence wielded against indigenous people the world over throughout history in the name of punishment; john has taken up the tools of christian hegemony to oppress the descendants of the trillionaires.

the root of the problem with the nine houses is that it is an empire with concentrated theocratic power fueled by exploitation, and that theocratic power is explicitly modelled on christianity and the patriarchy that implies. cavaliership is one such example of where that leads. john's aims may have been supposedly noble, but the material results of his actions are the recreation of the same systems of oppression that have been used against those like him for all of history, and the ones we chafe under even now. nobody with truly noble aims and a firm stance against oppression would take up the exact oppressive systems he was subject to and turn them against another; is vengeance a truly noble cause when it hinges on the same oppressions that led to the conditions of the inciting incident?

similarly, we see the ways these false homogenities are indeed false: the enactor of corrective violence—g1deon—is himself an incomplete lyctor and was romantically entangled with both wake and pyrrha; john could be similarly said to be a subversion of this monogamy, but i would argue his case is instead an illustration of male/necromancer supremacy—his affairs with his saints come after he uses his power over alecto, gained through their ur-necromancer/cavalier bond, to 'put away his wife' in the name of maintaining the approval of his lyctors. i can't really elaborate on this anymore beyond recommending @familyabolisher's analysis of how the multiplicity of cavalierhood as a subject position casts the spectre of potential incest where Kiriona and Alecto are concerned as it is very much in the same vein as this

[dappledinshadow]

i think the reason why i liked ntn so much was because one of the main conflicts during it is the issue of personhood, specifically in regards to cavaliers outside of cavalierhood.

the entire cast has honestly no obligation to adhere to house standards anymore, considering their status as either lyctors/defectors, and, more importantly, how their necromancers have treated them. camilla's necromancer is dead, and she has been hanging on to his scraps for over a year; gideon's necromancer squirreled her away in her brain and then disappeared without context or warning; and alecto's necromancer locked her away for the benefit of everyone but her. they all have VERY interesting perspectives on what their "duties" are in regards to this, but that's a different post - point is, they could be free, and they would have every right to it. and i think that having nona "be free" in the sense that she does not know she is a cavalier and is allowed to just be a girl with desires who loves freely, and have her personhood and autonomy be so central to the plot, is so so good when contrasted with camilla and gideon's devotion (and even alecto's devotion!). all camilla and gideon want is to be with their necromancers, despite it all, quite literally to death - the peak of cavaliership is to die for your necromancer and let them eat you. they are trying so hard to die, in order to become half of a whole. and all nona wants is to be herself! ("How to say that she wanted to go as Nona—with all her thoughts and feelings being Nona feelings, which might only be about six months old and therefore not very good, but were still her own?") and her freedom kills her anyway. it raises the question of if there is an escape from the constructs of the houses, or if there is a "right way" to have a necro/cav relationship, or if personhood has a place in the grand scheme of things at all, and its turned my brain into scrambled egg!!!

[katakaluptastrophy]

I want to continue pushing my 'Magnus Quinn wasn't actually a terrible swordfighter' agenda.

Obviously, he wasn't on the same level as professional duelists Babs or Pro, or soldiers Marta or Jean. He was a guy who did some kind of fencing in high school and then picked it up again in his 30s, presumably with some degree of seriousness.

When Gideon joins the other cavaliers in the training room, Magnus and Jean are sparring. He jokes about how badly Jean is beating him, but he must have some degree of competence for aspiring soldier Jean to find him worth training with. Babs then mocks him for getting beaten by a teenager and Magnus jokes, describes himself as "absolutely no good", and praises Jean's abilities...before giving Babs such a death glare he gets obviously embarrassed.

It's worth bearing in mind that there's some degree of tension between the Third and the Fifth. Babs will have know Magnus since he was small and has almost certainly seen him fight before. But the Fifth, their relationship, and the relative freedom that Magnus has to not be a perfect fighter (because his necromancer values him as a human being) is clearly something that rankles the Third. In TUG, when Ianthe talks about Babs, she explicitly references Abigail and Magnus. And what's interesting is that she makes a comparison not just between Abigail's husband-with-a-sword and her perfect tool to be moulded and used, but also to Corona's aspirations to swordcraft:

IANTHE (Playing a card) She’s not here, so let me be fully honest, Sextus: my sister is not a swordswoman. She loves to wear big boots and wave a sword around, and she looks wonderful doing it, but her actual competence … well, put it this way: she’d lose to Magnus Quinn.

PALAMEDES Magnus Quinn was a cavalier primary.

IANTHE No, I mean Magnus Quinn now.

There's...a lot...to unpack here: the comparison of Corona to the husband-cavalier is intriguing in and of itself on a psychosexual level, as is the contradiction between Ianthe and Corona's own versions of Corona's competence. But Palamedes' response is also interesting, suggesting that Magnus was up to an acceptable standard for a cavalier, which Ianthe's joking response seems to back up.

So Babs' rudeness towards Magnus and Jean may have a lot to do with the internal dynamics of his own necromancer-cavalier relationship and not necessarily be an accurate reflection of Magnus' abilities.

Likewise, Judith's comment in the Cohort Intelligence Files that the Fifth is 'undoubtedly chagrined" to have "schoolboy fighter" Magnus representing them had to be read against the fact that we know from the Sermon on Necromancers and Cavaliers by Second House stooge M. Bias that the Cohort has a very low opinion of unranked "social cavaliers". And Judith Deuteros may have her own reasons for being disdainful of a cavalier who is so...cavalier...about his intimate relationship with his adept.

Magnus' own self-deprecating comment on his ability is:

"I didn’t get to be cavalier primary due to being the best with a rapier. I’m cavalier primary only because my adept is also my wife. I suppose you could say that I—ha, ha—cavalier primarried!”

But again, there's a difference between becoming cavalier primary because you're the best sword fighter and getting up to a vaguely competent level once you've become cavalier primary (guys in their 30s with high powered jobs tend to be scarily into their hobbies...) He is definitely the worst cavalier there (or would be, if Pro were actually alive), but on a general standard he probably isn't as terrible as people like to joke.

Another important bit of context here is that all of his comments about his own ability occur in the context of Corona trying to get him to fight Gideon. The shy, silent 18 year old from the cult planet whose practice of cavaliership is generally acknowledged to mostly consist of carrying buckets of bones.

She gets paired with Magnus because they assume she's not going to be much of a fighter and Magnus - neither a professional duelist nor a soldier - would therefore be the fairest opponent. Magnus is clearly uncomfortable. And Gideon is certainly Intimidating. But when you consider that most of his previous interactions with her have been trying to coax her out of her shell and clearly feeling rather sorry for her, his comments take on a bit of a different tone.

Does Magnus worry Corona has dragged along this poor kid out of interest or curiosity, and that she's going to be humiliated and never want to interact with them again? As Corona says “Come—Gideon the Ninth, right?—why don’t you try Sir Magnus instead? Don’t believe him when he says he’s rubbish. The Fifth House is meant to turn out very fine cavaliers," Magnus is politely dissembling, telling exactly the sort of jokes that would appeal to a teenager.

As everyone else mocks or is intrigued by Gideon's knuckle-knives, Magnus is trying to look her in the eye through her sunglasses, bewildered that she doesn't know to take off her robes or glasses to fight and then...suddenly realising that she is dead serious and perhaps he has dramatically underestimated her.

After his defeat, we hear him saying to Jean "I'm not quite that out of form, am I?". Gideon's abilities were totally unexpected: she severely tests a top duelist like Babs, and Magnus is surprised to be beaten in three moves. That suggests he's been holding his own rather more comprehensively in previous sparring.

And while he certainly wasn't up to Gideon's standard, he may have managed to draw his sword before Cytherea took him out...