#choosing to include them in a negative light is also political

[the-dot]

having a thought but dont have words and don't want to open myself to disk horse and i'm too tired to really be coherent. thoughts in tags because i'm a coward. this post was originally about how e*rovision trying to say their event isn't political is idiotic. it kind of got away from me because i've slept maybe 6 hours in the last 2 days

[singingcicadas]

The main thing I have against Spotlight: Hot Rod is that it portrays him as being constantly weighed down by past losses and guilt, to the extent that he even limits himself for fear of facing the potential negative consequences that his misjudgement might inflict onto others - the "prefer to go solo" line - when it contradicts the very essence of his character as established in MTMTE and the main comics (even Autocracy), which specifically presents him as the type of person who is unburdened by the past and for the most part consciously remains unaffected by the consequences of his actions. It's why he has a perpetual Peter Pan thing going on, because he moves on from one day to the next, one crisis to the next, for four million years without letting the experiences change him - which includes the experiences of deaths and sufferings of both himself and others - and maturity and growth cannot be achieved without change.

His impulsiveness and headstrong obstinacy is in part a compensation mechanism for insecurity and subconscious self-doubt but is also an intrinstic aspect of who he is, someone who plows onward while refusing to look back. He can feel sorry but he does not do regret, much less mire himself in it like his spotlight appears to suggest. As a matter of fact he doesn't mire himself in anything at all - be it politics, responsibility, or guilt. He doesn't regret Nyon, nor Ironhide, nor Optimus' resignation, nor leaving Cybertron, nor trusting Megatron. Not even the Overlord incident, since although he does feel bad for his poor decision getting a bunch of people killed, in the end the biggest issue that he has with it is the 89/101 voting result (which isn't even solely about Overlord).

It's obvious that he wants - expects - to stay as captain in spite of everything and having the vote cut so close got him hard because it's a blow to his ego. He practically admits to this when Optimus calles him out, which again is in direct contradiction to his spotlight monologue.

If he's willing to apply this kind of introspection for a failed mission that can’t even be attributed to his fault, then a lot of his later screwups would never have happened.

Choosing to return the Matrix to Optimus is supposed to be a landmark incident of Rodimus' character growth, yet he regresses right back in MTMTE, in which he develops a recursive pattern of messing up, trying to do better by making amends, then returning to his old ways because he can't fully commit. There's no fundamental change going on. I would argue that the true pivotal moment of change to his character took place during his talk with the guiding hand in Mederi, when he first learns to look past himself to accept what's best for other people, how his decisions might affect them etc. - even if it clashes with his own desires.

And then he chooses to save Getaway, and the speech that gave everyone the confidence to open their matrices. There's change and growth and maturity, he learns to fully empathize and appreciate the people around him. But with this growth comes a double-edged sword: by opening himself to connect with other people he leaves himself open to be affected as well - he is irrevocably changed by his experiences aboard the Lost Light, by the people around him he's grown to care about, so that when the Lost Light lands for its inevitable end and everyone departs to pursue their own lives, he alone remains mired in place, with nothing but the past to cling to. After a lifetime of moving on and brushing horrors off without lasting issue he's suddenly unable to move on. The remainder of his life becomes defined by the weight of memories and loss (and the empty comfort of a parallel universe of which its existence he'll never know).

[pyromaniacmuse]

Mid?-fantasy world? (AN/ maybe low? :( idc, could get real op real fast with magic, but also boring without?? Maybe start at very beginning? SHORT STORIES?!!) The Ever-still family (AN/ not true name, changed name to leave behind reputation.) Old family, old money, deep, low, roots. Family who 350 years ago were refugees and immigrants, serfs and slaves, and scavengers. 300 years ago were beggers, prostitutes, servants, vagrants, and habitual thieves. Who 250 years ago were common laborers, apprentices, organized criminals, and thugs. 200 years ago were shopkeepers and farmers, nomads, messengers and journeymen, both guards and bandits, and cunning shysters, conmen, and insurance salesmen. 150 years ago they were shopkeepers and merchants, artisans and architects, ranchers and rustlers, mariners and pirates, gangsters and gamblers, outlaws and lawmen, lawmakers and pillers of the community. 100 years ago, they were the elite, the cream of high society, old blood, old money, the subject of much gossip and rumor, the admired and envied, the respected and feared, philanthropists and lawyers, doctors and businessmen, talented craftsmen and artists, sharp students and scholars, and sharper warriors and blades.

In the last hundred years, they have grown to philsopher and politicians, inventors and scientists, spymasters and spiders, researchers and explorers, diplomants and rulers, hired blades and sophists. Their riches and influence have only continued to grow as each successive generation continues to bring new innovation and connections, strengthening the family tree and ensuring that its roots tangle with any plant it can reach to choke them out, and its branches reach out as far as possible to steal as much light and life for itself as possible.

A few quirks of the Ever-still family.

The main family is what, in the polite terms used by the the nobles and aristocracy, is described as large and prosperous, with relatives and allies in every nation, race, and culture. In the impolite terms used by those same people, the crudely put double entendre would be "Well bred", by which they mean that the Ever-still family is, scientifically speaking, practically it's own subspecies based on how little blood from any single race flows through their veins. They are, put bluntly, mongrels and proud of it, sporting a wild variety of unique combinations of attributes and features, and possesing a wide range of talents and an unimaginable amount of variation in aesthetic appearance.

They take pride in their hand-me-downs, and in pinching every penny they can, however, while they have no qualms taking everything they can from someone they see as playing "the same game as them", they take pride in being completely fair, even generous, to those who are truly trying to make an honest living. This is due to the enduring memory of their own humble roots, which they keep almost as a sacred part of their heritage, passing it on through verbal history and life lessons.

The first lesson learned is their family moto "Let them choose the game. Let them set the rules. In their own streets shall we stand victorious, in their own halls shall we rule." (AN/ just use Latin? Use more obscure language? Pull a Tolkien?) Although, outside of the main family, this was, without exception, paraphrased to the more benign sounding "Let them choose the game. Let them set the rules. Ever-still, shall we beat them at their own game." (AN/ Spelling variations?)

Further lessons include the value of thinking carefully and fully considering all angles and factors when making a decision, setting goals, or planning. A commonly taught approach to such things is to construct first your defense of the idea, covering as many potential positive outcomes, while refuting as many potential negatives, as possible. Once you have completed this step, the next is to detach yourself from all emotional, cultural, and personal connection to the argument, then create a full rebuttal of your original idea. Finally, when you have finished destroying the weaker reasoning, you reassess what is left, testing and tempering it, reforging and reshaping it, reconnecting with each emotion and instinctive reaction as you sift back through it, picking out the rotten seed from the vital, keeping and nurturing only what will be certain to sprout and thrive. In this way to they teach their young a mindset that makes them more dangerous than any other mortal being in existence, and some immortal as well. The reason for that is that, in most cases, when people are put into unfamiliar circumstances they flounder. Even with their own lives, or the lives of others in the balance, they may freeze with indecision at the key moment and make the wrong choice, or worse, no choice at all. But someone who has practiced this process again and again, studied themselves and knows themselves down to the tiniest quirk and deepest rooted instict, is intimately familiar with every aspect of their own morality and values - that person, can make such a decision in the space of a heartbeat, does not need to make a decision: Because, for them, there is no decision to be made - someone like that, who already knows what is most important to them, need never hesitate when acting. An unofficial moto of the family is "Any choice is better than no choice at all." The Ever-still elders are full of wise sayings of this sort, such as "The only way to fail is to stop trying" and "there's no such thing as a mistake, only a lesson learned. Unless you die, then it was a mistake." Another well loved one is "A decision made from the heart can never be wrong, no matter how badly it ends." This is closely followed by another ancient Ever-still saying "Never trust a man who trusts only his heart." Although it is widely argued that this is a generational mistranslation and the original saying was meant to reference some other pulsating, blood-filled, fluid-pumping organ. Leaving aside such speculations, it is undeniable that the ability to near instantaneously evaluate ones acceptable levels of risk and reward in any given situation, gives one an unfair advantage in most situations.

Another point of pride is the the quality and durability of their craftsmanship. In the earliest days of their forays into artisanry their motivation had been to provide for their families goods that would serve them well, and as they honed their crafts they strove to create works that would last for generations. The success of these goals is why they take such pride in their hand-me-downs. These are not just items passed from sibling to sibling to cousin to neice,, no, the are heirlooms, family treasures passed down with history and meaning attached to them. Some items are passed to whoever has need of them, and some are passed to those who have specific talents or choose to walk a certain path, or simply bc the recipient happened to remind someone of someone else they knew once.

[astro-syd]

Jimin’s Duality (From an Astrological Perspective)

Jimin has become quite famous for the dual nature of his personality, so today I’m here to give a bit of astrological insight into this phenomenon! Jimin easily transitions between his sweet, adorable, mochi self and his passionate, intense stage persona. Neither of these “personas” are an acting stunt of any kind. They’re true aspects of Jimin’s personality! He simply knows which moments are the most appropriate and effective for channeling each side of himself, and all of these sides show up clearly within his natal chart. Let’s take a look!

Cancer Ascendant: child of the moon

Jimin’s Ascendant falls within Cancer, a cardinal water sign ruled by the moon. This also means that the moon is Jimin’s chart ruler! It holds a lot of significance in his natal chart.

Because Cancer rules over your home, family life, childhood and foundations, people with their Sun or Ascendant in this sign tend to have a very sweet, innocent, even childish nature about them. They tend to keep in touch with their inner child as they grow older, and might have something of a mischievous nature because of this too!

Cancer and the Moon often rule the mother in astrology, so people with this ascendant can easily take on a very motherly, nurturing quality. Jimin has been known to keep a close eye on the other members and he’s often the first one rushing to comfort them if need be.

This also somewhat stems from his emotional intelligence and sensitivity. Those with a Moon ruler tend to be very sensitive to emotions and mood swings, and Jimin is no exception. He’s highly empathetic, and with his Libra Sun & Mercury in his 4th house (ruled by Cancer), one of his natural gifts revolves around bringing balance to others’ emotional states. Others will feel magnetically drawn to him for healing.

Cancer is a common Ascendant to see in people within performing arts careers. This is because of their emotional availability and talent for expressing feelings. There’s something about Jimin’s vulnerability which makes people empathize with him, understand him on a very human level, and even want to protect him, much like you would a small child. It definitely contributes to his very “cute” and “sweet” vibe, even if he is a fully grown adult who’s capable of handling himself, haha.

Cancer rising people are very sensitive to their environment. When Jimin is put on unfamiliar ground, he will tend to withdraw or act shy until he feels more comfortable. He’s also likely to become flustered easily, especially when he’s in public and knows he’s got many eyes/cameras on him. His overarching moods and personality take on a very changeable quality, much like ocean tides. The ways in which he chooses to present himself are often highly based upon his immediate environment.

The Ascendant also holds a lot of weight over someone’s physical appearance. Cancer rising people can have a round, moon-like face shape and cute apple cheeks, especially when they smile. They’re known for a very large, bright smile, and large, puffy lips. Cancer natives often possess tiny hands and feet, and might even have something of a frail appearance.

They usually are quite soft-spoken, and with Jimin’s Moon residing in Gemini, this sign will have a lot of influence over his tone of voice. It definitely contributes to his light, “angelic” tone and the emotional quality of his singing. The Gemini influence here also appears in his sloping jawline and more pointed chin.

Moon in Gemini: messenger of emotion

Within Jimin’s chart ruler residing in communicative Gemini, he definitely knows how to put his feelings, memories, and experiences into words. Even if he doesn’t like to talk about his feelings too often, they’ll naturally bleed into his speech, his writing, and his art.

His emotions are easily influenced by others’ words as well, and this is especially true of his family and the people he loves. ARMY has picked up on the fact that our Jiminnie loves praise, but he’s not really using it as an ego boost. His feeling states are genuinely affected by the words of those around him. Watch the way his whole face lights up when the members compliment him and you’ll see what I mean. This also makes him more sensitive to negative feedback though, so he has to be a little careful about the opinions he chooses to expose himself to.

One of his greatest life lessons is to learn how to articulate his own inner feelings and experiences, as well as encouraging others to do the same. Allowing himself to be vulnerable and emotional is not only extremely healthy for him (even more so than the average person), but it also helps others to feel more comfortable and healed when doing the same.

In his childhood, his family members probably spent a lot of time talking about their feelings, but they might have struggled to actually feel them and discuss these emotions from a genuinely vulnerable standpoint. This is part of Jimin’s ancestral lesson to carry out in this lifetime!

His moon resides in his 12th house, which is a highly intuitive and spiritual placement. The 12th rules all things unseen, including spirits, dreams, secrets, hidden enemies, and religion. It’s a very foggy, mystical house. A lot of his feelings and mood swings are at least somewhat subconscious, which is also why it’s very healthy for him to speak about them. Communication will help to draw his emotions out of this hazy house and into the light of day where he can then process and make sense of what he’s feeling.

The 12th also rules the collective unconscious, so Jimin unfortunately also has a very good understanding of all of the underlying pains, traumas, and wounds of our societies. He’s very good at understanding human nature and human suffering, which makes him a great artist and an incredible healer, but it’s also a heavy burden to bear. Much of his empathy stems from this awareness which he’s possessed from a very young age. It’s possible that he even has psychic or empathic abilities of some kind, regardless of whether or not he’s in touch with them.

He’s a very trustworthy confidant. Jimin is a great listener, and because the 12th house rules secrets, he’s fantastic about protecting people in this way. He can be trusted with just about any information and will genuinely take these secrets to the grave. He enjoys the process of healing and supporting others, and protecting their most sensitive memories, experiences, and information is just another way for him to nurture those around him. This is another part of his appeal as a celebrity- he simply feels trustworthy, especially when he’s speaking from the heart and caring for those around him. He’d also make a great therapist, haha!

Libra Sun & Mercury: creator of harmony

Jimin has both his Sun and Mercury residing within fair and balanced Libra. It’s a sign which enjoys showing a polite, friendly, peaceful, and harmonious attitude, especially in public. Jimin is very much aware that there’s a time and a place for all aspects of his personality, and he knows when to utilize each side in order to achieve the best response from the public. He knows how to play an audience very well while still coming from a very genuine place within himself.

Because Libra is ruled by Venus and rules over the house of partnerships, these people tend to be natural flirts- and Jimin is definitely no exception. Flirting with others and generally being a huge tease is very fun for him, in fact he sees it as something of a game (more on that in the next section). He likes to charm others and be received well in the eyes of the public as much as possible.

Libra is a very non-confrontational sign which dislikes conflict, and Jimin can act as a peacemaker within their group whenever disputes or misunderstandings occur (though all BTS members share this energy to some extent). When appearing in public or voicing his opinion in interviews, he often has a very well put-together, diplomatic vibe about him.

Scorpio Venus, Mars, & Pluto: the playful devil

So, we’ve discussed our charming, diplomatic prince Park Jimin, as well as our cute and loving mochi, but where on earth does that stage persona come from?! Let me introduce you to Jimin’s most deadly placements: His Venus, Mars, and Pluto all within his 5th house in Scorpio.

Venus and Mars are both planets which deal with romantic relationships. Venus in astrology tells us about the sorts of people, things, and experiences we’re attracted to, as well as the kind of person we’ll be within a romantic relationship. It rules over the arts, fashion, partnerships, and commitments. Mars, on the other hand, is a lot more masculine and aggressive. It rules over our anger, our motivations, and our drive. It can indicate how we’ll chase after the people, goals, and experiences we desire in life.

Jimin has both of these romantic, charismatic planets in his 5th house, which rules performance, the arts and creativity, fun and games, parties, lighthearted romance, and children. It’s very common to see actors and performers with strong planetary placements within this house, but Jimin certainly has quite the combo working for him here.

The emphasis around his intense, passionate, and charismatic stage persona comes from the sign we’re in: Scorpio. It’s ruled by Pluto, the Underworld planet, and rules over all things dark, mysterious, and taboo in society. Secrets, mystery, the occult, psychology, sexuality, and power all fall within this planet’s reign.

People within strong Scorpio placements like to dive deep into their relationships and experiences. They like a little mystery, but the appeal comes from the act of uncovering these secrets. They often make great detectives or psychologists because they’re fantastic at understanding human nature and getting to the bottom of a situation.

This is the reason behind Jimin’s intense stare. Many Scorpios are known for having really intimidating eyes, and it’s because they almost seem to peer straight into the depths of your soul. It can feel as if they’ve exposed all of the things you wish to keep hidden simply by watching you- and with their keen observational skills, maybe they have.

That said, the lure of the dark and mysterious catches the eyes of many- and Jimin uses these placements to his advantage when performing. Scorpio is a fixed water sign, so you can think of it like the depths of the deep ocean. His art, movements, and power are all influenced by this energy. His movements are fluid but powerful, his art is deep, emotional, and moving but still mysterious and somewhat guarded, and even just this side of his personality seems unique and captivating when compared to his usual off-stage personality.

This is also a sign which is prone to obsession. Jimin’s work ethic and attention to detail has been praised time and time again, and it likely stems from the careful attention he gives to every aspect of his work until it meets the image he wishes to portray. He knows what the audience wants to see and how best to meet their expectations. He lets you glimpse into his power, his depth, and his sexuality through his performances, but never exposes more than he wants to.

Remember that those Libra placements love to tease, and in the 5th house here, he plays his movements like a game. His performances become a place where he can momentarily flaunt the darker Underworld energies within his personality, knowing that the audience will respond well when it’s within the right context. The sides of himself which are deep, obsessive, jealous, intense, and passionate find an outlet on the stage, and he needs this outlet to avoid taking these energies out on either himself or others in more destructive ways.

His Mars conjuncts his Pluto here, which is a wildly powerful placement. Pluto is the planet of death and rebirth, destruction and transformation, and in joining with the God of War in a chart, these two become a major force to be reckoned with. You can see it in his confidence on stage, his presence, and the ways in which he influences a crowd. He’s magnetic and attractive, and he can command attention without hardly lifting a finger.

In any other sign, this combination of planets has the power to become incredibly destructive (and in fact, it can be the worst in Scorpio if not handled properly), but Jimin’s grasp on this force he embodies is admirably strong. Remember when the other members said that he’s the scariest when angry? You wouldn’t want to see this placement out of control. The same forces which can give the strongest ability to understand, uncover, and heal others’ hidden wounds also has the potential to use them for harm.

Jimin, however, understands his power and channels the most intense sides of his personality into his art. When he steps onto a stage, he knows exactly what he’s there to do. He has rehearsed tirelessly, he knows what he wants to portray and how to achieve it, and he has a great sense of how the public will respond to his every move.

His chart is water dominant, and he’s a constant reminder that the water element is not just sensitive and emotional. Jimin’s Moon ruler pushes and pulls at ocean tides in the same way he influences our emotions. The same waters which flow through Jimin’s heart and psyche also have the power to create new life or flood entire cities. He’s a great example of how our charts become what we make of them. He’s successful and powerful while still retaining his humility, he’s sensitive and emotional without being too fearful or avoidant, and he’s understanding and manipulative but uses these forces for healing. An angel, perhaps?

[gimme-mor]

ACOTAR THINK PIECE: ELAIN AND THE CONCEPT OF CHOICE

*DISCLAIMER*

Please take the time to read this post in its entirety and truly reflect on the message I am trying to send before commenting. My goal is to use my background in Gender and Women’s Studies to deconstruct the behaviors and comments I have seen on Tumblr and Twitter, and, more importantly, bring awareness to the ACOTAR fandom. I WILL NOT tolerate anyone who tries to twist my words and say I am attacking people and their personal shipping preferences. In fact, I AM CRITIQUING THE ARGUMENTS THEMSELVES NOT THE PEOPLE USING THE ARGUMENTS.

As someone who has been a long time lurker on all sides of the ACOTAR fandom, the growing toxicity and hostility has become more apparent to the point that civil discourse is, for the most part, entirely lost. More times than not, the cause of the communication breakdown centers around Elain and the relationships she has with those around her. Before and after the release of ACOSF, I’ve noticed that when the fandom expresses its opinions about Elain and her development as a character, whether in a romantic light or generally, the conversation wholly hinges on the concept of choice. Common examples I’ve seen include:

Elain has been stripped of her choice for a majority of her life

Elain should be able to make her own choices

The King of Hybern took away Elain’s choice to be human when he had her tossed into the Cauldron

Elain did not choose the mating bond for herself, instead it was forced upon her

Elain feels pressured to choose Lucien

Elain should have the choice to stray away from what is expected of her

Elain and Azriel being together represents a different and stronger type of love because she’s choosing to be with him

If you ship Elucien, you’re not Pro-Elain because you’re taking away Elain’s right to choose who she wants to be with and forcing her to accept the mating bond

Elain chose to accept Azriel’s advances in the bonus chapter 

When Rhysand called Azriel away after catching him and Elain together, Elain was stripped of her choice to be sexually intimate with Azriel

When Azriel and Rhysand are talking in the bonus chapter, Elain’s choices aren’t at the center of their conversation

If you suggest that Elain should leave the Night Court, you’re stripping Elain of her choice to remain with her family

If you suggest that Elain should be friends with someone else, you’re ignoring Elain’s choice to be friends with Nuala and Cerridwen

Why is the concept of choice exclusively tied to Elain and everything surrounding her character while simultaneously ignoring that other characters in the ACOTAR series have, to varying degrees, been stripped of their choices at some point in their lives? And why isn’t the concept of choice connected to these characters in the same way that it is connected to Elain? For example:

Did the High Lords strip Feyre of her choice to consent when they turned her into a High Fae?

Did Tamlin and Ianthe strip Feyre of her choice to consent when they started to control every aspect of her life in the Spring Court?

Was Vassa stripped of her choice when the other Mortal Queens sold her to Koschei, which resulted in her being cursed to turn into a firebird?

Was Feyre stripped of her choice to know the risks involved in the pregnancy?

Did the King of Hybern strip Nesta of her choice to be human when he had her tossed into the Cauldron?

Was everyone stripped of their choices under Amarantha’s rule?

Was Feyre stripped of her choice to just be a daughter and a sister when the Archeron family failed to contribute to their survival, which resulted in Feyre being the family’s sole provider?

Did Lucien’s family strip him and Jesminda of their choice to be together when they killed her because of her status as a Lesser Faerie?

Are Illyrian females stripped of their choice to consent when their wings are clipped?

Did the Hybern general strip Gwyn of her choice to consent?

Did Ianthe strip Lucien of his choice to consent? 

Did Keir strip Mor of her choice to consent to her engagement to Eris?

Universally, femininity is synonymous with weakness and women often face discrimination because the patriarchy is part of an interactive system that perpetuates women’s oppression. Since the ACOTAR universe is set up to mirror a patriarchal society, it’s clear that the imbalance of power between males and females stems from sexism. The thing that sets Elain apart from other female characters in the ACOTAR series is the fact that SJM has portrayed Elain as a traditionally feminine character based on her actions and the ways in which Elain carries herself. Compared to them, Elain is inherently held to a different standard because her femalehood takes precedence over other aspects of her character in fandom discussions. These conversations indirectly place Elain on a pedestal and hail her as the epitome of traditional femininity; and when her character is criticized in any way, it’s seen as a direct attack against women, specifically women who are traditionally feminine. Also, these conversations fall back on Elain’s femaleness when analyzing her character since it can be assumed from a reader’s perspective that Elain, despite being the middle sibling, is coddled by those around her because her ultra-feminine nature is perceived as a sort of weakness in need of protection. However, the fact that the concept of choice is used as an argument to primarily focus on Elain’s femalehood highlights the narrow lens through which Elain, as a character, is viewed. It implies that Elain’s femaleness is all her character has to offer to the series overall and insinuates that Elain’s character development is dependent on her femaleness. To suggest, through the choice argument, that ACOTAR’s patriarchal society constrains Elain’s agency and prevents her from enacting her feminist right to choose while failing to examine the patriarchal structure of the ACOTAR universe and its impact on the female characters in the series, the choice argument ultimately falls apart because it shows that it’s only used to focus on Elain’s femalehood. Furthermore, the implication that Elain’s right to choose is, in itself, a feminist act in the series indicates that the concept of choice as an argument is used to promote choice feminism.

Feminism is a social movement that seeks to promote equality and equity to all genders, and feminists work toward eradicating gender disparities on a macro-level, in addition to challenging gender biases on a micro-level. Historically, feminism prioritized the voices of white women, specifically white women who were cisgender, able-bodied, affluent, educated, and heterosexual. But over the decades, the inclusion of women of color and other marginalized women’s voices has broadened the scope of feminism and caused it to take an intersectional approach when discussing social identities and the ways in which these identities result in overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination. On the other hand, choice feminism, a form of feminism, greatly differs from what feminism is aiming to accomplish. In the article “It’s Time to Move Past Choice Feminism”, Bhat states:

“Choice feminism can be understood as the idea that any action or decision that a woman takes inherently becomes a feminist act. Essentially, the decision becomes a feminist one because a woman chose it for herself. What could this look like? It could really be anything. Wearing makeup is a feminist act. Not wearing it is also a feminist act. Shaving or not shaving. Watching one TV show over another. Choosing a certain job over another. Listening to one artist over another. Picking a STEM career. Choosing to dress modestly or not. The list goes on. At first glance, there does not seem to be an apparent negative consequence of choice feminism. A woman’s power is within her choices, and those choices can line up with a feminist ideology. For example, a woman’s decision not to shave may be her response to Western beauty standards that are forced onto women. Not shaving may make her feel beautiful, comfortable, and powerful, and there is nothing wrong with that. Women making choices that make them feel good is not the issue. The issue lies in calling these decisions feminist ones. Choice feminism accompanies an amalgamation of problems‒the first being that this iteration of feminism operates on faulty assumptions about said choices. Liberal feminism neglects the different realities that exist for different women‒especially the difference between white women and women of color, transgender women and cis women, etc. Not all women have the same circumstance and access to choices, not all choices made by women are treated equally, and not all choices are inherently feminist” (https://www.34st.com/article/2021/01/feminism-choice-liberal-patriarchy-misogyny-bimbo-capitalism). 

Just as white feminism ignores intersectionality and refuses to acknowledge the discriminations experienced by women of color, choice feminism and arguments supporting choice feminism have, by default, made the concept of choice exclusionary. The individualization of choice feminism glorifies the act of a woman making an individual choice and, by extension, gives the illusion that women’s liberation from gendered oppression can be achieved by enacting their rights to make personal, professional, and political choices. Herein lies the problem with choice feminism: it (the argument of “But it’s my choice!”) stifles feminist conversations from exploring the depths and intricacies of the decision making process because it’s used as a way to shut communication down entirely, shield arguments from criticism, and condemn those who criticize choice feminism for its disconnection from a larger feminist framework. Contrary to what choice feminism advocates for, it lulls the feminist movement into complacency because women’s individual choices do nothing to alleviate gendered oppression. Choice feminism’s leniency towards choice fails to address the limitations of choice in regards to women’s intersectional identities and enables society to shift the blame of women’s oppression away from the societal and institutional structures in place to women themselves for making the wrong choices that ultimately resulted in their circumstances. Choice is not always accessible to every woman. For instance, choices made by white women are, in some way, inaccessible to women of color, in the same way that choices made by cisgender women are inaccessible to transgender women. Choice is one of the founding concepts of the feminist movement and it “became a key part of feminist language and action as an integral aspect and rallying call within the fight for reproductive rights‒the right to choose whether or not we wanted to get pregnant and to choose what we wanted for our bodies and lives” (https://www.feministcurrent.com/2011/03/11/the-trouble-with-choosing-your-choice/). When choice, in a feminist context, is framed as something that is solely about the individual as opposed to the collective, the feminist foundation on which it stands “leads to an inflated sense of accomplishment while distracting from the collective action needed to produce real change that would have a lasting effect for the majority of women” (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/i-am-not-feminist-jessa-crispin-review/). 

By linking the choice argument with choice feminist rhetoric and extreme acts of progressiveness, it plays into today’s negative understanding of a social justice warrior and normalizes fake wokeness. In its original conception, a social justice warrior was another way to refer to an activist and had a positive connotation; nowadays, the term carries a negative connotation and is:

“. . . a pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will ‘get SJ points’ and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are ‘correct’ in their social circle” (https://fee.org/articles/how-the-term-social-justice-warrior-became-an-insult/). 

Today’s perception of the term social justice warrior is directly tied to fake wokeness because both are performative in nature, fueled by the drive to be seen as progressive, and derail necessary conversations from taking place by prioritizing toxicity. According to the article titled, “Three signs of fake ‘wokeness’ and why they hurt activism”, it states:

“. . . social media did not create activism: it did, however, create a legion of hashtags and accounts dedicated to issues . . . Sadly, fake woke people will use these hashtags or create these accounts, see that as contributing to a cause, and just call it a day; these same people tend to shame those without the same level of interest or devotion to a given cause . . . Ironically, as open-minded as the fake woke claim to be, they struggle to deal with opposition. More often than not, those who fit the fake woke bill will ignore, misconstrue, or shutdown anything remotely opposing their stances . . . Now yes, human nature often leads us to possess a bias against that which contradicts our views, but human nature should not serve as an excuse for irrational behavior. Opposition to our stances on issues helps activists more than it harms: it allows them to look at the causes they champion from a perspective they possibly ignored before, further enlightening them. More importantly, by discovering information that may refute what they believe, they can find and eliminate any flaws in their reasoning and strengthen their arguments. Activism involves opening up to change, something one stuck in an echo chamber can never achieve” (https://nchschant.com/16684/opinions/three-signs-of-fake-wokeness-and-why-they-hurt-activism/). 

Rather than critiquing ideas, thoughts, and theories about Elain and her character development with textual evidence, the concept of choice as an argument is used to silence opposing viewpoints. This is similar to choice feminism because the conversations start and end with the concept of choice, leaving no room for a critical analysis of Elain’s character. Although the concept of choice as an argument is intended to shed light on how ACOTAR’s patriarchal structure limits females’ agency to some degree, the fact that it’s only applied to Elain invalidates the point of the argument because it doesn’t include the experiences of other female characters when examining the impact of sexism in the ACOTAR universe. The failure to do so calls the intent of the choice argument into question. As it stands, the concept of choice as an argument frames Elucien shippers and those who are critical of Elain as woman haters, misogynists, and anti-feminists, especially if they identify as women. The belief that a woman is anti-feminist or a woman hater any time she dislikes another woman suggests that women have to be held to a different emotional standard than men. If men are able to dislike other individual men without their characters being compromised, why can’t women? Feminism and what it means to be a feminist do not require women to like every woman they encounter. One of the many things feminism hopes to accomplish is granting women the same emotional privileges afforded to men. 

Terms like “oppression”, “the right to choose”, “feminist”, “feminism”, “anti-feminist”, “anti-feminism”, “internalized misogyny”, “misogyny”, “misogynist”, “sexist”, “sexism”, “racist”, “racism”, “classist”, “classism”, “discrimination”, and “patriarchy” are all used in specific ways to draw attention to the plight of marginalized people and challenge those who deny the existence of systems of oppression. Yet these words and their meanings can be twisted to attack, exclude, and invalidate people with differing opinions on any given topic. When social justice and feminist terms are thrown around antagonistically and carelessly to push a personal agenda, it becomes clear that these terms are being used to engage in disingenuous discourse and pursue personal validation rather than being used out of any deep-seated conviction to dismantle systemic oppression. The personal weaponization of social justice and feminist concepts is a gateway for people who oppose these movements to strip these terms of their credibility in order to delegitimize the societal and institutional impacts on marginalized people.

It’s important to question how an argument is framed and why it’s framed the way that it is to critically examine the intent behind that argument: is it used as a tool to push a personal agenda that reinforces dismissive, condescending, and problematic behaviors, or is it used as an opportunity to share, learn, enlighten, and educate? The concept of choice as an argument is extremely problematic because: it limits fruitful discussions about Elain within the fandom; enables arguments that oppose opinions about Elain and her narrative development to masquerade as progressive by pushing social justice and feminist language to their extremes; normalizes the vilification and condemnation of individuals who are either critical of a ship, Elain as a character, or prefer her with Lucien; encourages an in-group and out-group mentality with differing opinions about Elain’s development resulting in politically charged insults; exploits social justice and feminist terms; ignores that harm done on a micro-level is just as damaging as harm done on a macro-level; and cheapens Elain’s character and her development.

There is more to Elain than her being a female who is traditionally feminine. Elain has the potential to be as complex of a character as Feyre, Nesta, Rhysand, Lucien, Cassian, Azriel, Amren, and Mor, and to reduce her character to her femalehood in fandom discussions is a disservice to Elain as a character, the ACOTAR fandom, and SJM’s writing. So I ask this: is there a reason why the fandom heavily emphasizes the concept of choice when discussing Elain that goes beyond a simplistic analysis of her as a character (i.e. using the concept of choice as an argument to reinforce Elain’s femaleness), or is the concept of choice used as a shield to prop up one ship over another?

gimme-mor library

[potteresque-ire]

Not sure if this has circulated before, but here’s a link to Henry Jenkin’s reactions to 227, largely as responses to an interview he did with Sanlian Lifeweek magazine (三聯生活周刊), a publication modelled after TIME magazine and published under China Press Publishing group (中國出版集團), the largest and state-owned publisher in China. The magazine asked for Jenkin’s opinions on the fandom-related aspects of 227 back in March, 2020. Henry Jenkins, as many may already know, is among the most renowned scholars of (Western) fan culture ... if not the most renowned.

Personally, I find this article to be quite limited in perspective, because 227 had a significant non-fandom-oriented, sociopolitical component ~ and hence its scope, its chaos, its damage. IMO, 227 stopped being a fan war, stopped being about solos, cpfs, and even Gg the moment AO3 was shut down ~ the powerful Chinese state had intervened, and the incident necessarily became a political incident. That One Fic on AO3, the conflict between solos and cpfs about whether and where That Fic should exist was at most a lighter left at the scene of what would become the blaze; it wasn’t even responsible for igniting the first fire. Most i-turtles (i-fruits?) are probably aware too at this point: if fan wars are sufficient to start 227, then there wouldn’t have been a 227 ~ because 227 would have been every date of the year.

Fan culture is fundamentally transgressive, and what that means can only be defined in the context of the subculture’s “mainstream” sociopolitical and cultural environment. I therefore find the article’s attempt to transplant Western fan culture’s observations / theories / analysis / conclusions to the incident without explicitly comparing, addressing in depth the differences of the pre- and post-transplant environment to be ... prone to rejections (as organs are after transplantations!)—exclusion from being useful or valid. And this article was very short on such comparisons or address. Jenkins being a fandom expert aside (and he was careful about not treading outside his area of expertise), early “antis” of 227 presented themselves as crusaders for the freedom of speech and, by late March when this article was published, the heated debates surrounding the incident on Chinese social media had already led to embarrassment for multiple powerful state publications. It was probably a wise choice to not make another dive into the political aspects of the incident.

Being a new(-ish) turtle who joined the fandom a full half-year after 227, I’ve been backtracking, trying to really understand the incident, which remains very much beyond comprehension in many aspects. The discussions I’ve dug up that have most fascinated me have been those in non-fandom spaces, by non-fandomers / politics enthusiasts who barely knew who Gg was, who didn’t know That One Fic involved more than one idol and had zero knowledge about solos vs cpfs. In these discussions, “antis” are not referred to as “antis” because while the action of the so-called “227 coalition” was to kill Gg’s career, that wasn’t considered its ultimate goal ~ its ultimate goal was to warn whoever tried to clamp down the freedom of expression that their opposition was strong enough, populous to fight back and take away whatever, whoever those who attempted the clamp-down care the most about. In this case, “Gg fans”—I put this in quotes because eventually, no one would know who would lurk behind those pro-Gg Weibo IDs (and the anti-Gg ones as well)—were the perceived enemies of creative freedom. Gg, assumed to be the one, the symbol of what “GG fans” cared about the most, naturally became the target of the coalition.

Gg wasn’t special in that sense ~ and that was perhaps, the saddest thing I found about this incident as a Gg fan (without quotation marks); Gg could be any idol who achieved top fame at the moment, who had enough fans to make the point known. The coalition was therefore not “anti-Gg” in its ideological sense. It was anti the fan circle culture that had cemented Gg’s popularity, that had already been known to deal extremely poorly with dissent—complaints had been abound that c-ent was no longer fun for bystanders because the latter could issue no critique, not even doubt, about an idol without the fear of being reported, torn down by fans. The coalition eventually grew to include anti the many happenings, the many censorships and imprisonments in the past few years that had silenced the creative crowd in China, happenings people dared not speak about beyond a loud grumbling ...

The coalition tried to take down Gg, because they couldn’t take down the force that had shut down AO3, that was truly responsible for the silencing. They played the Hunger Games in the Weibo arena instead of challenging Who The Real Enemy Was, because some might not have given much thought about  The Enemy; some might have thought the Enemy too invincible to be worth the effort; some might have got too carried away by their blood thirst, the cruel schadenfreude of shredding a beautiful, successful young man into pieces, and forgot why they were there in the first place ... 

And that was only the political side of 227. 227 was also widely suspected to have a commercial component, which added another layer to the symbolism behind Gg the Idol ~ pretty much as soon as 227 happened, netizens investigated, tried to uncover the chain of capital behind Gg. With the scent of money was the memory of filth associated with it, in a country not exactly  unknown for its corrupt business practices. Much like in The Book of Exodus in the Bible, the Idol is believed to be forged with gold; it is ungodly, tainted. Whether Gg the Person was identical to Gg the Idol, Gg the Symbol mattered to few. That Gg *was* a person seemed lost to many ... 

I’ll have to dive into the non-fandom aspects of 227 with more rigour. As much as I'd love to leave 227 behind, every time I see Gg, I see its legacy on his face, in his smile, and perhaps, I’m not the only one ~ ADLAD cast him as Patient #5 because of 227′s effect on him. Put it another way, 227 is already modifying, writing Gg’s career trajectory ~ a trajectory that is undoubtedly under scrutiny by many who wish to duplicate his success but circumvent his pain. And every time I see a young idol—Gg, Dd, and anyone else—I wonder if the hurt of 227 can happen to them (again) because the crux of the incident has never been resolved; the oppression and silencing have remained strong as ever. 

Anyway (sorry for the rant) ... what I found noteworthy about this article was the quotes the magazine highlighted in its published form (in Chinese), which weren’t highlighted by Jenkins on his own website. They reflected what the magazine would like to be the take-home messages of the interview. I’ve listed them below; all of which had Jenkins as the speaker:

[Pie Note: About Real Person Fiction (RPF) in Western fandoms]

“American fans often do have some shared norms about what is and is not appropriate to write, mostly having to do with protecting the privacy of other people in the star’s life. Writing about the star is seen as fair game; writing about their family members is not.”

---

[Pie Note: About GG being “cast” as a transgender woman in The One Fic that started the incident; gender in fandom]

“We write fan fiction as a form of speculation and exploration. For some people, it may be one of the few spaces in the culture where they can express who they are, what they are feeling, what they are desiring. And for others, it is a place of “what if” where they explore in fantasy things they would not necessarily desire in reality.” 

---

[Pie Note: Whether GG should be held responsible for his fans’ behaviour]

“Under these circumstances, I would not hold a performer responsible for his fans’ behaviors but the performer is responsible for their own behavior and fans may respond negatively to performers who over-react to the existence of alternative fantasies and insult or hector their audiences.”    

---

[Pie Note: About AO3 and why fans were so upset about its closure] “Keep in mind that AO3 is a particular kind of platform. Alongside Wikipedia, AO3 is one of the greatest accomplishments of participatory culture in the digital era.”

---

[Pie Note: About the “problematic” content on AO3]

“Among my findings were that fan fiction sites can be a valuable space for young people to acquire skills (and receive feedback) on their writing from more experienced writers who share these same passions ... That said, while teens have participated in fandom, a large part of those on AO3 are adults, engaging in adult conversations on adult topics.”

---

[Pie Note: About media text in the new media era]

“First, I would stress the proliferation of media texts at the current moment ... We have access to a much broader range of media content than ever before and in this context, fans play a constructive role in curating that content, helping some shows get greater visibility ...  Second, these texts have become more malleable”

---

[Pie Note: About idols not producing “good” media texts]

“Rather, the question should be what are fans finding meaningful about these performers and the texts they generate. I start from the premise that human beings do not engage in meaningless activities. I may not immediately recognize why something is meaningful but my job as a scholar is to understand why cultural materials are meaningful to the people who cherish them.”

---

My understanding of this selection of quotes is this: this state publication (as others) was quite ready to forgive Gg, to put this incident behind. It could choose to not publish this interview; it could choose to leave out certain quotes, or not do the highlighting that cast both AO3 and Gg in a positive / innocent light. But it did all these things. This article furthers my impression that the state never intended 227 to blow up the way it did, and that it did—enough for stories about it to be found in non-China websites, and in English—was what I’m still trying to comprehend. 227 was, admittedly, how I was first introduced to Gg beyond Wei Wuxian. And as I got to know Gg, like Gg, my want to understand 227 only becomes stronger, perhaps because only through comprehension I feel I can find peace for the GG fan (again, without quotation marks) in me.

Maybe I should email Dr Jenkins and ask if he’s looking for a PhD candidate. 5 years of research and thinking ... maybe that’s what it’ll take. 

I feel I’ve already started anyway. 

[perpetual-stories]

Dive in Deeper: Allegory

Hello, hello! Hope everyone is doing well! Long time no see!

On my last post, I wrote about the 22 essential literary devices. In case you missed that post lnk right here.

Today, I will be going a bit more in-depth in one of the devices, I mentioned — allegory.

What is an allegory?

Allegory is a literary device used to express large, complex ideas in an approachable manner

comes from the Latin “allegoria,” meaning speaking to imply something else

it is a simple story that represents a larger point about society or human nature, whose different characters may represent real-life figures

What Is the Purpose of Allegory in Writing?

is used in writing to express large, sometimes abstract ideas, or to comment on society

allegory gives the author cover to talk about controversial ideas that otherwise might be too dangerous to talk about explicitly

What Are the Different Types of Allegory?

Biblical allegory. Biblical allegory invokes themes from the Bible, and often explores the struggle between good and evil. One example of Biblical allegory is C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia. The lion, Aslan, represents a Christ character, who is the rightful ruler of the kingdom of Narnia. Aslan sacrifices himself for Edmund, the Judas figure, and is resurrected to rule over Narnia once again. Biblical allegory can also refer to allegorical interpretations of the Bible, which differ from literal interpretations, and were popular in the Middle Ages.

Classical allegory. One of the best known allegories in classical literature is Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. In this story, Plato imagines people living in a cave, only ever seeing objects as shadows reflected on the wall from the light of a fire—rather than seeing the objects directly. Plato used the cave as a symbolic representation of how humans live in the world, contrasting reality versus our interpretation of it.

Modern allegory. Modern allegory includes many instances of a phenomenon called “allegoresis,” which refers to the interpretation of works as allegorial without them necessarily being intended that way. For example, there is an ongoing debate among readers about J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings series, and whether or not the books were written as an allegory for World War I.

What Are Some Examples of Allegory in Literature?

George Orwell, Animal Farm. Animal Farm is a great example of allegory, and is often taught in high school English classes to introduce the concept. In this farm fable, animals run a society that divides into factions and mirrors the rise of Leon Trotsky and the Russian Revolution. The story can be read as a fable of farm animals running a society, or it can be interpreted as the author’s criticism of communism.

Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene. The Faerie Queene is an English epic poem published originally in 1590. In this poem, Spenser established the Spenserian stanza. The poem follows several Arthurian knights, and explores twelve virtues. However, the poem was widely read as a commentary on the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. (Whether the commentary is positive or negative continues to be debated by academics and critics today.)

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter. In Hawthorne’s novel, set in the 1600s but published in 1850, Hester Prynne is forced to undergo public humiliation, including wearing the scarlet letter “A” (standing for “adultress”) after she becomes pregnant out of wedlock. The scarlet letter is itself an allegorical representation of sin, and how society punishes it. The novel can be read as a criticism of the hypocrisy of a Puritanical society.

Aesop’s Fables. These fables were originally part of an oral tradition in ancient Greece, and are credited to an ancient Greek slave named Aesop. They are a collection of fables, often aimed at children, that offer guidance on a wide variety of social, political, and religions topics. Aesop’s Fables are allegory in the form of instructive lessons—stories that teach children how to behave and what to value.

5 Tips for Using Allegory in Writing

Think of an important idea you want to share with your reader. It should be something large and complex, and something that relates to the society you live in on a large scale.

Once you’ve decided on a topic, plan out your allegory. Think of how you will translate these real-world ideas into fictional scenes and characters. Carefully assign characters: animals are common, as in Aesop’s Fables and Animal Farm, but there is no rule about what sort of characters to use.

Whatever you choose, remember that your audience will be trying to figure out who each character represents in real life, so try not to confuse them with unrelated characters whose purpose is not clear.

Be sure to let your reader know how to read between the lines. You will need to leave clues without over-explaining your message. Don’t be so subtle that the readers will miss the point of the allegory.

The surface story must stand on its own. While the underlying message can be a bit abstract, this isn’t an essay or a speech. The top layer must still make sense and be intriguing in its own right.

There you have it. Like, comment and reblog if you find this useful.

Follow me on tumblr and Instagram for more writing and grammar tips and more!

[dearestones]

Death Note Matchup: Yagami Light

Warnings: Fluff, although, there might be some signs of manipulation and toxicity. 

@kokonut-hajime Request: Hi! Can I have romantic matchup for Death Note? Only with male characters

Im quiet and reserved, i need yars to really trust somebody. I think personal space is most important to me, i dont like touch or inviting people to my house. I looove reading, especially french literature. I also enjoy watching old movies or anime, painting and taking photos. If its going about some positive traits Im loyal. It is easy for me to accept someone's flaws and I don't judge people, I analize their actions. From my negative traits i would choose my isolated tendencies, i often prefer to stay alone with my problems. Im insecure and often feel worthless. I It's hard for me to find a sense of my life

Ive hope its not too long and you find time to write something! Also excuse my english, its not my mother language. Have a nice day!

.

.

.

After reviewing the description that you gave me, I believe that you pair well with our favorite leading man, Yagami Light!

Like you, it can take some time for him to warm up and trust people. However, he won’t let you know right away that he won’t trust—if at all. Instead, he’ll be overwhelmingly polite and courteous towards you, making sure that you’re comfortable and that the relationship you have with him is progressing at the rate that you want. After all, he wants you to trust him and he’s quite patient with whatever relationship you want to pursue with him. 

He appreciates the fact that you’re quiet and reserved. It’s a trait that he also has, although he is far more gregarious and friendly when the time is right. Expect to engage in parallel play for most bonding experiences once the both of you settle into your relationship. This may include, but is not limited to reading different books—you can read in French? please tell him more, he would like some insight on literature from the West—engaging in your different hobbies, or merely sitting in silence and enjoying each other’s presence. 

Do you value your personal space? No problem! Light doesn’t appreciate when other people crowd around him, so he can relate. However, he doesn’t mind it when you reach for his hand to hold or when you lean forward for a hug. It gives him a sense of smug satisfaction that you look to him for comfort than only he can provide. When he’s feeling particularly cheerful and indulgent, he might give you a kiss on the forehead or place his hand on your lower back to guide you where he wants you to be. 

What Light treasures you the most is loyalty. Once he gains your trust and when he realizes that not only you are loyal but you have also gained his trust, then he will freely make you his closest confidant. Since you’re not judgmental and judge based on actions, it will be very easy for him to tell you that he’s trying to cleanse the world and make it a better place. You better accept him for who he is or are you saying that you’re not loyal?

As for your tendencies to isolate yourself… Light won’t see that as a negative. Instead, he would definitely use that to his advantage, especially if he’s still part of the Kira Investigation. And you’re also insecure? He’ll prey on you, making sure that you only look to him for guidance and support when you need it most.

If, however, you live in a timeline where Light is actually a decent human being, then he would be more than happy to encourage you to seek help and to create a support system outside of himself. He’s not a student of psychology, but even he knows that people need each other to survive—you need others to stay sane. As for insecurities, he’ll help you overcome them in a manner that is encouraging, but almost condescending in a way. 

Basically, the seeds of a toxic relationship are sown, especially if you happen to come across Light while he’s active as Kira. However, you can hope to gain some ground in this relationship if you maintain your independence and let Light know that you don’t fully approve of his actions. Who knows? You might end up surviving in the end?

.

.

.

If you want to donate a Ko-Fi, feel free https://ko-fi.com/devintrinidad.

DEATH NOTE MASTERLIST

[pattyg1992]

Why Representation on the Screen Matters

In this day a age whenever a television series or movie becomes more conscious about including diversity, specifically when it comes to gender, race, and sexuality you get a lot of rolling of eyes. There are complaints about forced diversity, "woke" culture, an agenda pushed by the Hollywood liberals. That it sacrifices a good story for the sake of political correctness. Rarely do they stop to consider how that inclusion helps those who see themselves on screen or even more relevant, how it affects those who've never experienced a diverse population themselves, especially when they've been relatively "sheltered" by people who are familiar to them.

As a gay black guy I've had my fair share of benefiting from the recent representation on screen. I've seen an increase of Black men, even gay black men depicted on screen in a wide variety of genres and roles. Things that were less common even ten years ago. While the mental and emotional effects have helped me see myself and people like me in a more positive light I've also benefited finally being exposed to people who are not like me and have gained a greater appreciation for.

Fourteen years ago, the film Freedom Writers was released. Based on a true story and set in the outskirts of Los Angeles shortly after the L.A riots of 1992 it depicts a diverse group of freshmen high school teens dealing with gangs, violence, and urban crime. While many of them were a part of that life and apathetic about school, their English teacher Erin Gruwell, helps to spark their imagination and creativity. Eventually they began writing their own diaries about their lives, first published in a book and then made into the film Freedom Writers.

The film was significant because it humanized the Hispanic community for me. One of the star characters was Eva Benitez, a teenager forced to choose between school or the gang she was loyal to. Growing up as a minority I had my own prejudices against other minority groups, which is more common than most people in these groups would admit. Freedom Writers helped me to see other groups with more empathy and kindness. Years later I got into the Netflix series Orange is the New Black. While I never finished it some of my favorite characters were the Hispanic women in the prison, especially seeing their creativity when it came to prison cuisine.

A few weeks ago, courtesy of Netflix, I also got into an FX original series, Pose. Set in the late 80s and early 90s of New York City, the show is unique for depicting an exclusive cast of LGBT characters of Black and Hispanic descent, with a more specific focus on the Trans community. My opinions on the Trans community was neutral at best. I never had an issue with them and for the most part felt that they should have the right to live as they wanted. However, I never fully understood them, did minimal research, and often flip-flopped on my opinions regarding whether or not it made sense to identify as the opposite of whatever gender or sex they were assigned a birth.

In my life I only had one Trans person I personally knew. We were more acquaintance than friend but I never dared asked questions about their life or tried to understand them better. Not that they were even required to give me an explanation.

American Horror Story was the first time I really noticed Transgender people on the screen. At the time I had no idea until I did research on the actors that played a few of the characters. One of them turned out to be on Pose when I got into the series. Pose is urban, realistic, gritty, but it can also be heart-warming. Similar to Freedom Writers it exposed me to people living lives different to my own and giving human faces to a group of people I knew almost nothing about. It's only been a few weeks but I'm already on their third and final season which just finished this year.

I have a greater appreciation and understanding of the trans community, and their contribution to culture because of Pose. It would be difficult for anyone watching the series to have the same negative and ignorant opinions about them after experiencing the show for themselves. While the series tackled the prejudice from the Straight community it also highlighted the ignorance exhibited from the Gay and Bisexual community. Something I knew on some level already. I was shocked to discover those identifying as transgender or transsexual were often kicked out of Gay bars.

Representation matters more than just for the people that see themselves on the screen. It also humanizes and empathizes them to people unfamiliar with their lives while also serving to be informative. I've known plenty of people who choose to remain ignorant on how other people are. Choosing instead to focus on what little unreliable information they have from Fox News or the confirmation bias from researching whatever they already believe on a certain group of people. You rarely see them attempt to learn from the source or attempt to see the "Other" as people too.

It's amazing how much better off the world would be if people actually stopped and see the opposing side for what they really are: human beings. It's easy to wrap yourself in a culture of ignorance exposing yourself only to the humanity of those you understand rather than understanding the wide diversity of Human nature. Television and Film is a good way to start. I challenge everyone to try watching something, anything that challenges how you've originally viewed a group of people you've never understood. Whether it's a different race, gender, sexuality, political, or religious views, start somewhere. See how your viewpoint grows.

[thepapergirlandthespiegelman]

Might stop reading Worm.

Content warning: bugs/insects/arachnids and related horror, body horror mention, miscellaneous violence mention, sexual violence/assault mention

My thoughts on the first ten arcs of Worm. (contains spoilers)

So, I finally got around to reading Worm. It was kinda big when I was in high school, and I still know some people who are/were into it, so I thought it was time that I gave it a serious shot. I did actually try to read it in high school once, but I couldn’t get into it and stopped reading after the first chapter. I tried to be a little more persistent this time to give it a fair evaluation.

When I started reading Worm this time around, I kind of just breezed past the warning at the beginning (“This story isn’t intended for young or sensitive readers. Readers who are on the lookout for trigger warnings are advised to give Worm a pass.”) I don’t consider myself someone who really gets triggered by media. I think it’s important to talk about stuff, including fucked-up stuff. It’s uncomfortable, but that discomfort is part of the point. I think it probably should bother you to read about terrible things, even fictional ones, given that those fictional atrocities almost always have real-world counterparts.

I think I vastly underestimated the amount of fucked-up-ness that is in Worm. When I read that warning, I thought, “Okay, this story’s probably dealing with some dark themes, and there might be some particular scenes that are really disturbing.” After reading the first ten arcs, though, I feel it’s more accurate to say that fucked-up-ness is Worm. It is the core of the story, and there is really very little else.

So it’s not that any particular thing that happened in the story triggered an immediate, strong, psychologically-damaging reaction in me, but as I continued reading, I began to notice that not only was I not enjoying myself, I was actually finding it subtly unpleasant. When I read about something bad happening, I get hit with a small dose of negative emotion. As it turns out, that adds up over time, especially when there aren’t any positive scenes to balance out the negative stuff. Without me even noticing for a long time, Worm was making me unhappy.

Here’s what I did like about Worm:

Impressive world-building - Wildbow is exceptional at inventing different locations, groups, and individual actors and thus creating a detailed ecosystem of capes and civilians.

Lots of characters, lots of superpowers - Directly related to the previous point, Worm contains a lot of characters...arguably too many characters. I generally prefer stories that focus on a smaller number of characters in order to give each character more room for development, but I appreciate Wildbow’s talent for coming up with vivid, if simplistic, characterizations. There are also some really interesting superpowers and interesting takes on common powers.

Inventive use of Taylor’s superpower - Taylor is always coming up with new uses for her power: having black widow spiders spin silk for her suit, using her bugs are a sixth sense to keep track of her enemies and environment, using venomous bugs to take hostages, covering her body in bugs as a disguise, coating her bugs’ stingers in capsaicin for extra punch, using human-shaped swarms to fake out her enemies...The list goes on and on, and I really appreciate how Wildbow took this oft-overlooked superpower to the next level.

Danny Hebert - The only character in the story who I can say I genuinely like. Danny Hebert is a union organizer whose pet project is getting the ferry up and running again so that there can be more interaction between the poorer and wealthier parts of Brockton Bay. I also loved the scene where he supports Taylor in the “mediation” with her bullies and their parents at school. Even if he was impotent, unable to protect her, I could tell he was on her side. His one screw-up is when he locks Taylor in the living room and tries to force her to talk to him, but it definitely makes sense with his character (a little bit of a pushover) and the story (Taylor was shutting him out and seemed to be putting herself in danger) that he would end up letting Taylor’s grandma convince him to take a forceful approach. Don’t get me wrong, locking up your kid is a horrible thing to do (I should know, my parents did it to me, and it fucked me up), but I still ended up feeling bad for him when Taylor just up and disappeared. She didn’t even call her dad to let him know that she was still alive after Leviathan! I mean, on the one hand, I do actually appreciate that she started making an effort to protect her father from the dangers of her cape life, something that I was kind of appalled to see that she never even considered before. But damn, did I feel bad for Danny.

Here’s what I didn’t like:

Way too much fucked-up shit happening - Name an atrocity, Worm’s probably got it. The plot is mostly just terrible thing after terrible thing and reveals of how terrible all of the characters are, with many terrible things that aren’t directly treated in the plot peppered in along the way.

Lots of capes, no heroes - This is one of those themes that sounds deep on paper but is really just cynical and fatalistic. Even if all the capes are corrupted by power (or by the toxic power dynamics between capes), what about civilians? Where’s the thoughtful therapist or the brave fire-fighter? Danny Hebert is one notable exception to the “Everyone is terrible” rule, but we don’t see all that much of him. Other than him, the only person I can think of who could possibly fit this “civilian hero” role is Aisha’s social worker, who I don’t think even has a name.

All superpowers are evil - This is arguably just a rephrasing of the previous point, but I think it’s important to mention. Worm contains so many superpowers, but it seems like they’re all being put to evil purposes. Panacea, the superheroine with healing powers (really just dominion over health and illness of the human body in general), makes some really despicable threats (e.g. giving someone cancer with a touch, or giving someone a disorder that will only manifest at an unknown time in the future, leaving them to anguish over their fate). Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing inherently wrong with writing a character using this type of power for evil ends. There’s a lot of interesting stuff to explore there, and I actually love that Panacea is a character that acknowledges the burden of having a healing power, feeling unable to take any time for yourself while simultaneously growing to resent those you feel obligated to help. My issue is not with Panacea but with the fact that literally every superpower in the story is painted in a negative light. It just feels absurd to suggest that, for example, someone like Gallant couldn’t use his power (carefully and thoughtfully and with consent) to heal people with emotional trauma. Superpowers in Worm are only for violence and conflict and crime, and I just don’t understand that. Again, the rogues form a token exception, but we rarely actually see them, and one of the first rogues we meet, Canary, is immediately subject to harsh and unjust punishment and never heard from again.

A misguided focus on only certain types of crime/violence - Worm deals with gang violence, robberies, and general chaos-inducing terrorism. It focuses on crimes perpetuated by working-class individuals and small to medium size illicit groups. There’s some commentary on state-sanctioned violence in terms of the corruption of the Protectorate and Dragon’s worries of having to obey a despot should one take over the government, but it’s not exactly framed in a way that highlights the struggles of the average person; the focus is almost entirely on capes. Worm doesn’t discuss things like wage theft, illegal rent hikes, or, dare I say it, the inherent violence of capitalism, which, while less flashy, are important problems with far-reaching consequences. It’s weird, and honestly kind of unrealistic, that there’s not a single anarcho-communist cape. Whether you agree with that kind of politics or not, it’s still a glaring omission if the setting of the story is trying to emulate real life. Again, Danny Hebert’s role as a union organizer and interest in restoring the ferry and reintegrating the city pay token attention to some of these ideas, but the vast majority of the story is unconcerned with addressing the source of, or solutions to, poverty and crime in Brockton Bay and the wider world of Worm.

So those are my thoughts. There’s a part of me that still thinks, “But so many people like this so much! Maybe it’ll get better!” I have a really strong drive to understand why others like the things that they do, to be able to share in their appreciation. But from what I’ve seen in a couple memes I happened upon, things are getting worse, not better for the world of Worm. And even if things start to resolve at some point, I’m not sure it would be great for my mental health to continue reading up to that point.

The breaking point for me, if you’re curious, was when a main character was just casually revealed to be a serial rapist. That wasn’t even the point of the chapter, it was just kind of thrown out there as an extremely-not-fun fact. So I was still reeling from that reveal while also experiencing all of the atrocities said character was committing in the moment, and after that was when I realized, “Hey, maybe this is not the kind of content I should be reading.” It even took reading a few more chapters into Arc 11 for it to really sink in, but I had this weird revelation of like, I get to choose which fictional worlds I spend my time in, and the world of Worm isn’t one I relish.

If you do enjoy Worm, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on what makes it appealing to you.

[solarscholarsofmagick]

10 Things that EVERYONE Needs to Know Before Starting the Craft

1. Wicca and Witchcraft are Not the Same Thing

This is a pet-peeve of mine when people use those words interchangeably. So, what’s the difference? To put it simply, Wicca is a religion, while witchcraft is a practice. It’s like saying that prayer and Christianity are the same thing. Wicca is a relatively new invention, being created in the late 1950’s by Gerald Gardner after he spent a lot of time in Asia and became enthralled with their spirituality, which he merged with various occult practices that he came across in his travels. Witchcraft, on the other hand, is defined, at least by this author, as the act of manipulating the energy around you to achieve a goal. You can be either or you can be both, but they are not mutually exclusive.

2. Witchcraft Does Not Need to Kill Your Bank Account

If you follow many big-name witch influencers, more than likely, you will get caught up in the aesthetic of hundreds of beautiful crystals, perfect altars, sculpted candles, and much more elaborate and expensive things. Now, I want to make it clear, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it is not always feasible to have (or afford) everything required to fit that aesthetic. Rough, unpolished crystals will work just as good as the one you saw that was professionally polished and carved into the shape of a skull. You can get candles at thrift shops, not just at the website that sells specifically anointed candles for every specific intention. Remember, it is not the tool that makes the witch, but the witch that makes the tool!

3. Know the Difference Between a Coven and A Cult

While it is not necessary, there are definitely some benefits that come with finding a coven that welcomes you with open arems. So, first off, what is a coven?

A coven is a group of like-minded witches that help each other out magickally and hold a special bond or connection. They will often perform rituals together. Please keep in mind that there is a difference between a coven and a cult.

A coven is rewarding, full of (usually) great people and potential friends, while a cult is dangerous, toxic, and filled with people who often prey on the vulnerable or unaware.

Here are some potential warning signs of a cult:

They encourage you to cut off ties with your friends and family.

They try their best to make you dependent on them.

They pressure you into engaging in sexual/criminal/drug activities.

You feel as if it is dangerous to leave.

The “leader” equates themselves to a deity or is a “my word is law” type.

You feel as if you are walking on eggshells around them.

There is some “divine” goal that you must behave a very specific way in order to reach.

Those who manage to escape are demonized and/or are made into examples.

If you suspect that you or a loved one are in a dangerous situation, please contact the appropriate authorities.

4. Witchcraft Can Become Mundane

Pop culture has a bad habit of sensationalizing witchcraft. As cool as it looks, witchcraft isn’t all lightning fingers and demon-slaying. You most likely won’t become a soldier of a magickal war, facing down an ancient evil that was recently released. Sorry, I didn’t mean to burst your bubble!

That being said, witchcraft is extremely rewarding and can be as fun as you make it!

Just like with any other art, it requires discipline! It requires study, practice, and essential tasks (or as they are often fondly called, witchy chores). Some of these “chores” include cleansing, charging, decorating, meditation, and more. Unfortunately, as we all know, these tasks may feel tedious, but they are often very necessary. Again, it is as fun as you make it, and you will be less likely to burn out/hate performing the tasks if you view them as the essential tasks they are rather than unnecessary chores.

5. Learn As Much of the Basics That You Can

As much as we want to immediately jump into more flashy things such as astral projection and elaborate spells or hexes, you must learn the basics first. Why? Because, without a strong grasp of the basics, your magickal work can be unstable and reap results that you may not have intended, including ones that cause harm to you or those around you. To quote a cliche, you must learn to crawl before you can walk.

Here are some basics that I recommend you begin with:

Visualization

Meditation

The history of witchcraft

The elements of a spell

Color/stone/common herb correspondences

Grounding

Different types of the craft

6. Elitism Exists and it’s Bullsh*t

Unfortunately, no matter what community you are in, there will always be a few bad apples, but I will be referring specifically to elitists. Elitists in the witchcraft community tend to preach that their way is the only true way to be a witch, that you must have the most expensive of tools, or that witches who come from a family of witches are better than those who do not. If there is one thing that I want you to take from this article, it’s that, no matter what anyone says, you will NEVER be any less of a witch because of your bloodline, ethnicity, skin color, religion, spiritual practice, or socio-economic status!

7. You Don’t Need to Choose Between Religion and the Craft

One of the most common reasons of being apprehensive towards starting your journey through the craft that I see is a fear of retaliation within your own religion. For example, a lot of Christian witches will initially be afraid of going to hell for their practices. As someone who grew up in the Bible Belt of the Southern United States (poor Awen still lives there), I can definitely relate to this feeling. However, I, as well as several other religious witches, can say that you can have both. You do not need to drop one to have the other. In my eyes, your relationship with your god(s) is between them and you and is nobody else’s business.

To make things a little easier, however, I recommend sliding into the craft slowly. Dip your toe in the proverbial water. Try starting by engaging in activities that aren’t necessarily tied to witchcraft such as meditating, grounding, growing plants, or even just collecting pretty rocks. I also recommend reaching out to practicing witches within your faith for advice. It also may be a good idea to truly research religions of interest and make sure that your religion is a good match for you. It is okay to realize that the religion you were raised to be in, like being raised to be in a particular political party, does not have to be your religion. If it is and it causes you and others around you no harm, then I am truly happy for you and support you.

8. Learn to Listen to Your Intuition/”Gut”

We tend to have a 6th sense for danger or the presence of another being. You may recognize this feeling when you can feel that someone is watching you. Our instincts are built into us to keep us alive. Personally, following my gut has saved my life more than once. In one particular incident, my gut told me to stop at a crosswalk despite not seeing any nearby cars and the sign telling me to walk. Seconds later, a truck sped by, running the red light at full speed.

If you feel that a spell has taken a turn towards the unwanted, find a stopping point and seal it away. Feel as if a deity is calling you? Take the time to research them and their calling cards. However, please take the time to learn the difference between a negative gut feeling and general nervousness, as it does feel different.

9. Learn the Difference Between Good and Bad Resources

Misinformaion and toxic ideologies can be dangerous when it comes to witchcraft. You can read extensively about the difference between the two in my previous post about it here.

10. It’s Okay If the Craft is Not for You

If you decide to try out the craft and later feel as if it isn’t clicking… that’s okay. The initial decision to explore is not one for life. Just like how certain sports, hobbies, music, et cetera are not for everybody, witchcraft is not for everybody. Anyone who decides to judge you for that is wrong and not worth your time.

Please consider supporting us by viewing the original post on our website, here!

[cursedcleopatra]

the essay is 'getting married is a political act. discuss'. It's 3000 words and idek where to begin. do you have any ideas? even if it's just how to structure an academic paper

WOW this sounds really fun as a topic!!!! 🥰❤️ honestly you could go in so many directions with this paper, but in any method that you choose, I implore you to begin by defining what a “political act” even means to you. Personally, if I were to write this paper I would start out by defining political acts in terms of power exchanges—whether it’s measured in social capital, degree of influence, etc, I believe that all interactions between people (whether directly or indirectly, such as through religious institutions for instance) is to some degree political—we’re constantly navigating, whether consciously or not, who is part of our social circle, how to appeal to them or influence them, how to connect to them, etc, which at its core is not distinguishable from what politics in the traditional sense of the word attempts to do at a much larger scale. The estrangement of the term “politics” from the human spirit and natural communication was largely done to alienate people from their sense of responsibility or connection to a larger collective—though we seemingly have no trouble engaging in politics in the form of friendships, families, partners etc in our own lives, it doesn’t translate to eagerness to participate in national political discourse because we’ve been so far removed from one another through capitalist development and cultural campaigns designed to attach a negative connotation to the word “politics”. To that end, I would try to emphasize in my paper that in order for us to better understand the mechanisms by which we affect and are in turn affected by the world around us, it is crucial that the term “political” be understood in a completely neutral light meant only to describe the intricacies of communication and power exchange (this also primes your audience for the upcoming argumentation, now that your paper can be taken in the context of what you believe a political act is, which is actually the goal of this assignment…your professor is exploiting the idea of marriage to more subtly probe at what politics means to you). I’m assuming this is meant to be a research paper or at least include some academic sources, in which case you could then proceed to discuss the historical evolution of marriage and its particularly prominent role in the formation of countries and justification of power. I’m not really going to go into detail here how marriage and national politics were deeply intertwined for the majority of human history…this is obvious enough and there’s a plethora of examples you could cite here and expand upon as you see fit. Afterward you could discuss how this translates into the modern day…obviously world leaders don’t arrange marriages between their children anymore, but marriage is still very much political (as I’ve defined it earlier) at the individual level. People often seek to improve their social status or economic position through marriage, whether that’s in more obvious terms such as targeting richer partners, or more discreet terms such as marrying someone who is more socially adept or amicable than you are…Hillary Clinton is deeply dislikable for instance, and launched her entire career based off of her husband’s charisma and charm. Choosing our partners on the basis of skills, attitudes, values etc we believe we lack or could improve upon, (or even choosing them on the basis of what we share in common) though widely reduced to phrases like “opposites attract”, or “finding common ground”, is political in the sense that in either scenario we are indirectly shifting either our social capital or establishing a “side”—both of which is no different from the goals of political parties in the traditional sense, as I said before. I think you probably see what I’m getting at here by now—let me know if you need me to clarify some things!!!!

[aboveallarescuer]

Daenerys Targaryen in A Storm of Swords vs Game of Thrones - Episode 3.10: Mhysa (& 5 things to understand why Dany's character and storyline matter)

In this series of posts, I intend to analyze precisely how the show writers downplayed or erased several key aspects of Daenerys Targaryen’s characterization, even when they had the books to help them write her as the compelling, intelligent, compassionate, frugal, open-minded and self-critical character that GRRM created.

I want to make it clear that these posts are not primarily meant to offer a better alternative to what the show writers gave us. I understand that they had many constraints (e.g. other storylines to handle, a limited amount of time to write the scripts, budget, actors who may have asked for a certain number of lines, etc) working against them. However, considering how disrespectful the show’s ending was to Daenerys Targaryen and how the book material that they left out makes it even more ludicrous to think that she will also become a villain in A Song of Ice and Fire, I believe that these reviews are more than warranted. They are meant to dissect everything about Dany’s characterization that was lost in translation, with a lot of book evidence to corroborate my statements.

Since these reviews will dissect scene by scene, I recommend taking a look at this post because I will use its sequence to order Dany’s scenes.

This post is relevant in case you want to know which chapters were adapted in which GoT episodes (however, I didn’t make the list myself, all the information comes from the GoT Wiki, so I can’t guarantee that it’s 100% reliable).

In general, I will call the Dany from the books “Dany” and the Dany from the TV series “show!Dany”.

Because I'm about to review one of the most controversial scenes in show!Dany's journey, I think it's important to take a holistic look into her character and storyline first. So, before I start talking about what happens in the episode itself, I am going to address five key things that need to be understood in order to fully appreciate Dany's character and storyline in the books:

Dany's abolitionist crusade's humanitarian importance.

Dany's character motivations.

Dany's background and identity.

Dany's storyline's historical inspirations.

A holistic view of ASOIAF in order to avoid double standards against Dany.

Ultimately, the show writers didn't understand any of these points, which informs their mistakes in their adaptation of Dany's storyline in this episode and beyond.

1) Dany's abolitionist crusade's humanitarian importance

Time and again in the books (particularly in ASOS and ADWD), GRRM reinforces that slavery is wrong by displaying what became normalized during the thousands of years it persisted. Examples include:

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to say that the Unsullied aren't men and to take measures to dehumanize them.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to force five-year-old children to train every day from dawn to dusk, to the point of only one in three surviving such harsh conditions.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to force the Unsullied to stand for a day with no food or water to prove their discipline and strength.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to change the Unsullied's names every day so that they lose their sense of individuality.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to force the Unsullied to go to the slave marts to kill a baby before its mother's eyes to prove that they are not weak.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to make the Unsullied drink the wine of courage to feel less pain and endure any torture, such as having their nipples cut off.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to give the Unsullied puppies only to kill them a year later (and, if they don't, they are fed to the surviving dogs).

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to casually whip people when they mildly annoy them.

Astapori slavers thinking that it's okay to send a girl of nine to kill bulls and to send three small boys (one rolled in honey, the other in blood and the other in rotting fish) to confront a bear in the fighting pits.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to leave the Astapori starving, which led them to eat cats, rats and leather.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to hunt down the Astapori and burn the entire city.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to open a slave market.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to whip people until there is only "blood and raw meat" in their backs.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to command two dwarves to breed.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to force a teenage girl to be naked publicly so that they can sell her at a better price.

Yunkish slavers thinking that it's okay to actively spread the bloody flux through Meereen by throwing infected corpses.

Meereenese slavers thinking that it's okay to burn the fields and crucify one hundred and sixty-three children to intimidate Dany.

Meereenese slavers thinking that it's okay to target and murder freedmen to intimidate Dany.

Meereenese slavers thinking that it's okay to pay freedmen low wages and then complain a) about how there are too many beggars, thieves and whores in the city or b) about how the rights and customs of the craftsmen's guilds should be respected.

Meereenese slavers thinking that it's okay to reopen the fighting pits and abuse the freedmen for the nobility's entertainment.

Meereenese slavers thinking that it's okay to send two dwarfs to "fight" against a lion.

Meereenese nobles thinking that it's okay to scourge and rip out the tongues of people who disagree with or know something that it's convenient for them.

And this list only covers human rights abuses that take place in Slaver's Bay (which was the center of slave trade until Dany's arrival). Unfortunately, slavery is so widespread that it helped to build almost the entire continent's economy. The Dothraki and the corsairs of the Basilisk Isles enslave and sell people from different lands to Slaver's Bay. In Volantis, it's estimated that four of every five men are slaves. People from multiple places of Essos are sold into slavery, from Slaver's Bay itself to Qarth to the Dothraki Sea to Lhazar to the Free Cities.

In such an oppressive and devastating scenario, Dany's abolitionist campaign is essential to guarantee that people are no longer desensitized to and systematically allowed to dehumanize others. In-universe, that's why the vast majority of the former slaves love her and why later we get an entire storyline showing what the slavers would do if Dany chose not to be as forceful as she was in ASOS. Doylistically speaking, that's why her actions against the slavers are linked to her upcoming part in the War for the Dawn and to her messianic role as Azor Ahai (as this edit and its quotes excellently illustrate): Dany's war is one that should also involve all of humanity.

Are the show writers aware of this?

Nope.

They may have succeeded in depicting the amount of brutality and suffering that comes with the training of the Unsullied, but, in light of the show's ending, I think that was accomplished mostly because they were interested in shock value rather than in making the audience recognize that show!Dany's crusade was altruistic at its core. This was clear in their interviews: instead of focusing on how vital Dany's actions were to promoting human warfare, Benioff focused on her so-called ruthlessness and ambition when he talked about why she sought an army in Astapor and Weiss focused on her capacity for cruelty when he talked about her attack against the Astapori masters. I've already addressed in which ways these statements about Dany are inaccurate (and detrimental to the understanding of her storyline) in my reviews of episodes 3.3 and 3.4, so I won't belabor the point; instead, I'm only bringing them up here to emphasize that D&D were never (fully) aware of the humanitarian importance of Dany's crusade. That's why they didn't add the moment where Dany says she remembers what it was like to be sold and feel afraid. That's why they didn't show the Unsullied choosing not to side with the slavers when Dany gave them another option. That's why they didn't include the Astapori freedmen who chose to follow Dany in their adaptation. That's why they didn't remember that Dany's main problem prior to the battle of Yunkai was to find a way to take the city and spare freedmen's lives at the same time. That's why, on season four, they will only bother to depict political decisions that paint show!Dany in a negative light (and leave out all of her successful ones). That's why, on season five, they will make her storyline's lesson be about the need to conform to the Meereenese (i.e. slavers') traditions rather than about the need to carry on with her revolution like in the books. That's why, by the end of the show, they will say that Dany burning of King's Landing and its citizens was "a natural outcome of that [...] willingness to go forth and conquer all your enemies" and how "her brand of revolution" stems from her "not seeing the cost". That's why they think there isn't any negative implication in arguing that burning slavers is a slippery slope to burning innocent people: they completely missed the point of her storyline and turned it into slavery apologism. Dany conquered these cities because there was no other way to free the slaves (as ADWD reinforces). Dany conquered these cities precisely because she saw the cost, even in the show (but then, they are such bad writers that they often misunderstand the implications of what they depicted).

And what I said above doesn't even take into account that they completely ignored (and I suspect probably never realized in the first place) the connection between her crusade in Slaver's Bay and her messianic destiny. It's no secret that they've always downplayed the magical elements of the books in the show as a whole. When it comes to Dany, that removal was particularly detrimental because the magic was used by GRRM to emphasize that Dany's actions were righteous. 

2) Dany's character motivations

Here, I want to explain why Dany a) fought against the Ghiscari slavers and b) will fight for the Iron Throne in Westeros. This will only cover what's necessary to make my point clear; for more on Dany's intentions, see here and here and here and here and here.

a) Why Dany fought against the Ghiscari slavers

I've argued before that Dany is an accident revolutionary for a couple of reasons. She went to Slaver's Bay because she wanted an army (something that her detractors often use to harshly criticize her), yes, but what was primarily driving Dany was not self-interest/ambition (and it wouldn't matter if it were in the grand scheme of things, considering what other Westerosi feudal lords have done in the name of power), but rather her previous experiences with poverty, which understandably enhanced her desire to have agency. Additionally (and perhaps most importantly), she didn't know how the slaves were being mistreated; if she did, she most likely wouldn't have chosen to turn to Astapor in the first place. But that's partly why her storyline resonates with so many readers: as she gathers more information about the world and its problems, her moral and political values change along the way too. In this case, after finally witnessing the Unsullied's training and being confronted with the dilemma of buying them or leaving them, Dany chose another option: freeing the Unsullied and fighting against the masters instead.

Afterwards, Dany stayed in Slaver's Bay solely because she wants to abolish slavery. If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have questioned on what grounds should a monarch rule. If her intentions weren't selfless, she would have taken the Yunkish masters' wealth for herself rather than just demanded that the slaves were compensated for their unpaid labor. If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have been so hard on herself for her mistakes on Astapor. If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have given the nobility and the freedmen equal voice at court (and her desire for equality was pointed out by GRRM himself). If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't be so insistent on reforming Meereen (which is an expensive endeavor). If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have provided medical aid to the Astapori refugees. If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have given food to the poor. If her intentions weren't selfless, she wouldn't have sacrificed her own personal happiness and bodily autonomy. And so on. Again, I'm not trying to be thorough here, I'm just offering key examples that prove that Dany's campaign is driven by genuine compassion.

b) Why Dany will fight for the Iron Throne

I've said before that Dany doesn't want power for its own sake, but rather because it's a mean to the ends that she actually desires: home and duty. These two essential goals aptly inform why she wants to take back the Seven Kingdoms.

Dany's sole aim that can be considered selfish (i.e. that only focuses on her own benefits) is her desire to find a home, be it somewhere to belong to or someone to rely on. Even then, though, that's more than understandable considering a) that she is an exile who never got to stay on one place or trust her caregiver, b) that everyone in the continent where she was born believes in birthright and c) that every feudal lord is willing to wage war to retain their influence and wealth (more on that in item 5).

Dany's duty, on the other hand, refers not only to her (self-imposed) duty to the helpless (already laid out above), but to her ancestors too. So, even if her upcoming war in Westeros won't be primarily motivated to help the underprivileged (though she still has them in mind), it is still largely self-sacrificing as well (and far from being enough to describe her as power hungry like her detractors do).

Are the show writers aware of this?

Nope.

When it comes to her fight against the Ghiscari masters, Weiss did say that Dany "is driven by a kind of a deep empathy, a much deeper empathy than probably anybody else in the show" back in season four. On the other hand, that statement is rendered moot by the fact that D&D dismiss her actions in Slaver's Bay as a "willingness to go forth and conquer all your enemies" and as a "brand of revolution" that stems from her "not seeing the cost" by the end of the show. In other words, they a) made her anti-slavery crusade about her so-called ambition, b) downplayed her selfless goals and its humanitarian importance (failure in item 1) and c) turned her storyline into slavery apologism.

When it comes to her fight for the Iron Throne, there's never any interview where they focus on her desire for home and belonging or on her duty towards her ancestors, which also explains why these motivations were rarely shown onscreen. That they villainize her for pursuing the Seven Kingdoms displays their failure to understand item 5 (below).

3) Dany's background and identity

Dany isn't a typical queen. She is the only one who lived in poverty, began the story as a sex slave and then turned into a revolutionary thanks to her own choices. She is the only female character whose power isn't derived from her male relatives; in fact, she is specifically set apart for overcoming hardships that they didn't. She is the only queen whose political power is intertwined with her magical destiny (which is partly realized thanks to her actions). She is the only she-king/queen regnant/independent female ruler of the story. She is the only female ruler a) who received an arc that we got to see unfold through her perspective and b) who was depicted as politically savvy, despite having been thrown in the hardest political scenario of the series.

In relation to the Dothraki, Dany is not just a white woman among people of color. She was a child bride forcefully married to and raped by a Dothraki khal. She, like Irri and Jhiqui, was part of a family that was displaced, which led to their enslavement. She assimilated to Dothraki culture and was able to discern the good (the bond between bloodriders and a lifestyle that allows for a stronger sense of equality) and the bad (rape and human trafficking being normalized in their culture). She was the first example of female leadership to her bloodriders and khalasar and the one who set a precedent that men and women can be equals. She genuinely cares about her khalasar's well-being. She is poised to unite all the khalasars in the future. It's important to discern her character from GRRM's and D&D's writing (more on that in item 4).

In relation to the Ghiscari slavers (and not to the Westerosi nobles), Dany is viewed as a foreign monarch.

In relation to the freedmen, however, there's more to it. Like them, Dany is a former slave who was forcefully exiled from her homeland and now belongs nowhere. Unlike the slavers (who are united by Ghiscari heritage), the actual oppressed group come from many places and have different ethnicities and traveled extensively. Similarly, Dany was born in Westeros, grew up in the Free Cities, spent a significant time in the Dothraki sea and ruled in Slaver's Bay. Dany may be considered a foreigner by the slavers, but not by the freedmen, because they are all displaced people. Their connection (which the author emphasizes in both AGOT and ASOS) further shows that slavery in ASOIAF is not based on race and ethnicity (more on that in item 4).

The reasons above also explain why it is meaningful that Dany is AA/TPTWP/TSWMTW: many men (Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon, Viserys, Drogo, Rhaego) had to die so she could become who she was meant to be, which further emphasizes that, as much as certain people want to pretend otherwise, Dany being the chosen one is not what the readership tends to expect.

I would argue that it's very important to have a basic understanding of various forms of oppression and acknowledge the multiple social groups that Dany belongs to in order to recognize her character's and storyline's significance. By being aware of them, one can understand, for example,

a) why Dany is not "too obvious" a glorified savior for her story not to have a twist by the end (That tends to happen because these detractors only see her as a white noblewoman, but, considering her identity as a whole, she is exactly someone who the readership wouldn't think of as the hero) or

b) why the story would be offensive on many levels if it ended with Dany going mad and/or becoming a villain (Why would GRRM do that to the one character who was exiled and enslaved and who, thanks to her own intelligence and compassion, got to fight against systemic oppression because she herself knows "how it felt to be afraid"?) or

c) why the theory that Dany burns King's Landing is offensive regardless of whether she does it accidentally or not (Why would GRRM have his sole queen regnant, i.e. the only woman whose power isn't derived from a man and who gets to make decisions concerning warfare like men usually do, be overly defined by violence in a way that his kings don't have to be? Why would he use her anti-slavery crusade as a device to make her care less about collateral damage and then be responsible for atrocities of such magnitude? It may still happen, but it definitely warrants criticism if it does)

Are the show writers aware of this?

Nope.

On the one hand, Weiss did previously acknowledge that Dany's past experiences inform her current attitude ("She's always been very negatively predisposed towards slavery because she knows what it feels like to be property, I mean, she was a very fancy slave for all intents and purposes, she was somebody who was sold to another man, taken against her will and I think that her feelings about slavery have started to really inform her reasons for wanting the Iron Throne").

On the other hand, if they really understood the significance of her background, they wouldn't have made the northmen hate her for being a foreigner and portrayed her being in the wrong. If they really understood the significance of her background, they wouldn't have thought that show!Arya killing the Night King (which wasn't supposed to have happened) or show!Sansa becoming queen (which made no sense since that would motivate other regions to demand independence from the crown as well) would be interchangeable with show!Dany's downfall and prevent them from receiving criticism regarding the misogyny in their writing.

4) Dany's storyline's historical inspirations

In the words of the author himself,

The Targaryens have heavily interbred, like the Ptolemys of Egypt. As any horse or dog breeder can tell you, interbreeding accentuates both flaws and virtues, and pushes a lineage toward the extremes. (x)

~

The Dothraki are partially based on the Huns and the Mongols, some extent the steppe tribes like the Alvars and Magyars. I put in a few elements of the Amerindian plains tribes and those peoples, and then I threw in some purely fantasy elements. It’s fantasy.

Are they barbaric? Yeah, but the Mongols were, too. Genghis Khan — I just saw an interesting movie about Ghengis Khan, recently. I’ve read books about Genghis Khan, and he’s one of history’s more fascinating, charismatic characters. The Mongols became very sophisticated at certain points, but they were certainly not sophisticated when they started out, and even at the height of their sophistication they were fond of doing things like giant piles of heads. “Surrender your city to me, or we will come in and kill all the men, rape all the women and make a giant pile of heads.” They did that a few times, and other cities said, “Surrender is good. We’ll surrender. We’ll pay the taxes. No pile of heads, please.” (x)

~

And meanwhile, you've got Daenerys visiting more Eurasian and Middle Eastern cultures.

And that has generated its controversy too. I answer that one to in my blog. I know some of the people who are coming at this from a political or racial angle just seem to completely disregard the logistics of the thing here. I talk about what's in the books. The books are what I write. What I’m responsible for.

Slavery in the ancient world, and slavery in the medieval world, was not race-based. You could lose a war if you were a Spartan, and if you lost a war you could end up a slave in Athens, or vice versa. You could get in debt, and wind up a slave. And that’s what I tried to depict, in my books, that kind of slavery. (x)

These interviews show that Dany's storyline's historical parallels are mainly ancient civilizations (which explains her parallels with Cleopatra or the Ghiscari pyramids' closeness to Egyptian pyramids or how the duels in the fighting pits resemble the Roman gladiatorial games or the similarities between the Unsullied's training with Sparta's training of young boys or why tokars are togas), which, in turn, prove that GRRM is not attempting to write a critique of white saviorism. Indeed, that he reduces the Dothraki and the Mongols to being "barbaric" and refuses to give any individuality to his Dothraki characters confirm that he's the racist one here. Even the parallels that he draws between Dany's storyline and the American Civil War and Reconstruction are non-racialized in nature.

Also, even if GRRM and D&D weren't racists, the racist imagery in Dany's storyline (especially show!Dany's) doesn't make Dany herself a white savior; as @yendany​ explained before, white saviorism is about:

a) glorifying whiteness/western culture or an individual white person at the expense of people of color. Neither version of Dany fulfill this requirement because Dany was raised in Essos and doesn't force Ghiscari people into adhering to Westerosi or Valyrian culture and slavery, again, isn't race-based (which is why the Dothraki are portrayed as oppressors). The show ending only reinforces the latter point (more on that later).

and/or

b) a white person providing help to people of color in order to serve their own interests. Neither version of Dany fulfill this requirement because their compassion and humanitarianism are genuine (and necessary), as shown in items 1 and 2 above.

Are the show writers aware of this?

For the most part, nope.

On the one hand, they were involved in the show's production, so they had to be aware of the obvious parallels between Dany's storyline and the Ancient Mediterranean world (though not enough to hire extras of multiple races and ethnicities or to let show!Dany wear togas). Also, Benioff once stated that "there always seemed to be this sense of manifest destiny with Dany", which implies that they were aware of the white savior criticism surrounding her character and storyline (though probably not enough to question its validity based on her characterization).

On the other hand, they never cared about making any improvements from the racism in the books, and the ending is clear proof of that. Before season eight, I'd seen many people argue that the Unsullied and the Dothraki were used as show!Dany's props to emphasize her "goodness". Instead, it's the other way around: they were never meant to be "good" on their own, in fact, they were only portrayed as "good" because of show!Dany; by the end, when show!Dany was villainized, they were as well. Indeed, people of color like show!Missandei and show!Grey Worm suddenly became more aggressive while the white men in show!Dany's team (show!Jon, show!Tyrion and show!Varys) were portrayed as the rational/pacifist ones, reinforcing that there was never any attempt to provide race-related social commentary in the show (or in the books, for that matter). If there had been an attempt (poor and offensive as it would still be), the Unsullied and the Dothraki would have been depicted as the Mad Queen's victims (which only the Westerosi smallfolk and the Lannister armies (i.e. white people) got to be) rather than the Mad Queen's evil army.

5) A holistic view of ASOIAF in order to avoid double standards against Dany

I could mention more double standards than the four below, but my intention here is not to be comprehensive, but rather to provide some of the key examples of double standards used to criticize Dany's eventual campaign in Westeros and to accuse her of white saviorism.

Yes, Dany wants to wage a war to take back her homeland, but so did Robb when Winterfell was taken. (Unfortunately, Stannis may do the dirty work for the Starks in TWOW.)

Yes, Dany wants to take the Seven Kingdoms and the Starks "only" want Winterfell, but what matters is not the size of the area they are claiming, but rather the fact that the system that they are all working under (i.e. pseudofeudal monarchy) rewards birthright, exploits the labor of the peasants, encourages wars for petty reasons and perpetuates social inequality.

Yes, Dany will eventually be willing to use dragonfire to accomplish her goals, but fire was used by several parties against their enemies. The Ghiscari slavers used it. Stannis Baratheon used it. Tyrion Lannister used it. Jon Snow used it. The brotherhood without banners used it. If they had dragons, you can bet that they would have used them (and probably would have been less reluctant about it than Dany).

Yes, Dany's storyline has racist elements, but so does the Starks' origin story and Tyrion's storyline and the Martells' creation. In fact, if we're talking about racism, it can't be overlooked that Dany is the only white main character who interacts with, cares about and fights for people of color, while the other white characters remain isolated in Westeros and ignorant of their struggles. It can't be overlooked that GRRM wishes he had made Dany (and none of the other main characters) a Black woman. That people of color aren't given more prominence in the narrative is GRRM's fault (see item 4), not Dany's.

When all's said and done, Dany is not doing anything that could be considered morally wrong that other people didn't do, but she is taking large-scale actions solely due to her compassion that no one else is. That's because GRRM chose to set her apart from the other claimants by placing her in a storyline where she gets to advocate for the oppressed and have larger concerns than her claim or how her family was wronged. Does that make her look "too good"? Well, you just have to look at Jon to see that that's not true; both are flawed and imperfect, but still compassionate, intelligent and, ultimately, not as morally grey as most of the other characters of the series.

Are the show writers aware of this?

Nope.

I would say that the root of the problem in the show writers' depiction of show!Dany stems from the fact that they don't look at the events from the perspective of the lowborn.

If they would look at her actions in Slaver's Bay from the point of view of a freedman, they would understand why they were righteous (failure to comprehend item 1); instead, they talk about how her cruelty "grows" because she hurt people who hadn't done anything to her personally (which shows how easily they empathize with the slavers) and focus on how she is becoming a threat.

If they would look at her actions in Westeros from the point of view of a peasant, they would understand that a) every single lord exploits their labor, b) that Dany is not doing anything that the the lords wouldn't do (which is why the kingdoms constantly warred with their neighbors before Aegon's Conquest) and c) that the lords never waged war specifically to protect the oppressed like Dany did (see items 1 and 2), which is why Northern independence (or Robert's Rebellion) is not morally superior to Dany's campaign for the Iron Throne.

Because they couldn't understand any of this, they portrayed show!Dany's war effort as worse than the other characters' and ended up villainizing her for her ambition and use of violence when they never did so with the other characters, which creates offensive double standards and highlights the misogyny (i.e. controlling and punishing women who challenge male dominance) in their writing.

Now I'm going to go to the scene itself in order to demonstrate how it particularly exemplifies the show writers' failure to understand these five key things about Dany's character and storyline.

Scene 13

BARRISTAN: They will come, Your Grace. When they’re ready.

DAENERYS: Perhaps they didn’t want to be conquered.

JORAH: You didn’t conquer them. You liberated them.

DAENERYS: People learn to love their chains.

In the books, there's never any suspense about whether the newly freedmen will come out or not:

On the morning of the third day, the city gates swung open and a line of slaves began to emerge. Dany mounted her silver to greet them. As they passed, little Missandei told them that they owed their freedom to Daenerys Stormborn, the Unburnt, Queen of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros and Mother of Dragons.

“Mhysa!” a brown-skinned man shouted out at her. He had a child on his shoulder, a little girl, and she screamed the same word in her thin voice. “Mhysa! Mhysa!” (ASOS Daenerys IV)

As we can see in the quote above, not only there's no suspense, Dany is mounted on her silver and doesn't have to make a speech to make sure that the former slaves can trust her and hail her as mhysa. Indeed, that's my biggest issue with the speech: it's built on the show writers' assumption that show!Dany needs to "[wait] to see if she is a conqueror or a liberator" in the eyes of the former slaves.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are people who dismiss Dany as a violent conqueror in the books. The Meereenese slavers (i.e., the ones who think they have the right to sell people and exploit their free labor and who suffered a major blow when Dany challenged their way of life, which doesn't exactly make them a reliable viewpoint in a storyline with something meaningful to say) do so:

“...When my people look at you, they see a conqueror from across the seas, come to murder us and make slaves of our children. A king could change that. A highborn king of pure Ghiscari blood could reconcile the city to your rule. Elsewise, I fear, your reign must end as it began, in blood and fire.” (ADWD Daenerys IV)

The Yunkish slavers (i.e., the ones who think they have the right to sell people and exploit their free labor and who suffered a major blow when Dany challenged their way of life, which doesn't exactly make them a reliable viewpoint in a storyline with something meaningful to say) do so:

“If even half the stories coming back from Slaver’s Bay are true, this child is a monster. They say that she is blood-thirsty, that those who speak against her are impaled on spikes to die lingering deaths. They say she is a sorceress who feeds her dragons on the flesh of newborn babes, an oathbreaker who mocks the gods, breaks truces, threatens envoys, and turns on those who have served her loyally. They say her lust cannot be sated, that she mates with men, women, eunuchs, even dogs and children, and woe betide the lover who fails to satisfy her. She gives her body to men to take their souls in thrall.” (ADWD Tyrion VI)

Dany herself (who, we shouldn't forget, has a tendency to be self-deprecating) also does so. It's the reason why she thinks it's her duty to stay and rule Meereen:

“Aegon the Conqueror brought fire and blood to Westeros, but afterward he gave them peace, prosperity, and justice. But all I have brought to Slaver’s Bay is death and ruin. I have been more khal than queen, smashing and plundering, then moving on.” (ASOS Daenerys VI)

However, the Yunkish envoy's vicious reaction (in both canons) to Dany's request that the Yunkish nobles free their slaves shows that Dany couldn't have freed the slaves (and become a liberator) if she hadn't taken the city (and become a conqueror). She is both conqueror and liberator and these titles don't contradict each other, they inform each other (just like mhysa and mother of dragons). That's something that the former slaves are aware of, because the vast majority of them do want freedom and are grateful that Dany intervened - we see it in Astapor, where the Unsullied chose not to obey their former masters while they were attacked because Dany gave them a choice to fight for their freedom, which they took (and the show didn't depict); we see it in Yunkai, where the former slaves embraced and hailed Dany as their mother right after they met her (and she didn't have to make a speech to prove that they should be freed because they themselves wanted to be freed); we see it in Meereen, where "the fighting slaves [...] led the uprising that won the city for her" and "cheering slaves lifted bloodstained hands to her as she went by"; we see it on Tyrion's POV, where many slaves doubt that Dany would make peace with the slavers and want her to smash the Yunkai'i. To portray them as gullible and dependent on show!Dany's speech in order to embrace freedom (when, again, that was never a question for them in the books) means:

Overlooking their motivations in the books.

Giving them less agency in comparison to the books.

Downplaying the level of human destruction that the slavers perpetrated (and which led the slaves to want to rebel), which shows their failure to understand item 1.

Equating show!Dany to the slavers as a foreign monarch in the former slaves' eyes when, in the books, she became a cult figure right from the first moment that they saw her. This also shows their failure to understand item 3; as I said above, she is not just a ruler, she is also a former slave who was banished from her homeland and doesn't belong anywhere. That makes it all the more meaningful that she, thanks to her own actions and principles, ended up becoming  a revolutionary. Failing to understand this is why the show writers felt that she had to make a speech so that she could "compensate" for her actions as a conqueror (which were righteous to begin with).

Now, one might argue that I'm being too nitpicky here, but I didn't make it a secret in the introduction to these books vs show reviews that they are being written with the hindsight knowledge that the show writers will attempt to vilify show!Dany. One way that they will do so is to turn the freedmen against her in the later seasons, which is something that never happens in the books (which is why I'm wary of how her speech here already indicates that her connection to the freedmen is being downplayed). As I just said above and will reiterate: the show writers never really grasped the humanitarian importance of her crusade (item 1) or why she's seeking the Iron Throne in the first place (item 2). The show writers never really understood that the former slaves weren't united by culture or race or nationality and that they still had a connection with Dany as exiles sold into slavery (item 3). This is why they thought it was okay to make her the final villain of their series.

*

JORAH: You didn’t conquer them. You liberated them.

DAENERYS: People learn to love their chains.

First, show!Jorah being the one shown explaining to show!Dany that she is a liberator is really annoying since she is the former sex slave who chose to become an abolitionist and he is a slaver himself who is an apologist even in show canon.

Second, there are different ways to interpret show!Dany's line above. @daenerys-targaryen​ interpreted it as show!Dany referring to herself and how she fell in love with Drogo while she was his slave. @queenaryastark​ interpreted it as a way to express Tyrion's thoughts about how it's easy to grow accustomed to being a slave in ADWD. These are all valid readings that can coexist with my own: that the show writers only added this line in order to make show!Dany's storyline "more complex" (in their eyes). We see show!Dany having to "[wait] to see if she is a conqueror or a liberator", after all, which is a question about her "internal struggle" (which, again, makes no sense to overfocus on since Dany wouldn't be a liberator if she weren't also a conqueror) that the show chooses to hammer home in comparison to the books (where it's made clear that most of the former slaves know that they want to be freed). This added question a) undermines how significant it is that Dany is an active hero who chose to fight for the slaves when she didn't have to in a time and place where no one else cared about their plea and there was no conception of universal human rights (failure to understand items 2 and 5), b) downplays the message that the use of violence can be morally righteous (because it creates a false dichotomy between conqueror and liberator, like the fandom does with mhysa and mother of dragons; unfortunately, both showrunners miss the point - Weiss thinks that show!Dany's empathy and cruelty grow in Astapor and Benioff focuses on how she's becoming a threat; failure to understand items 1 and 2) and c) equates show!Dany to the slavers as another foreign monarch in the slaves' perspective (failure to understand item 3), which, in turn, portrays slavery as if it was merely a typical cultural practice rather than a crime against humanity like how it's portrayed in the books (failure to understand item 1). Things are definitely going to get worse in the next seasons (e.g. "mhysa is a master", the addition of a prostitute who hates show!Dany because she's "ruining" Meereenese "traditions", etc), but the cracks were already apparent in season three, which is arguably show!Dany's best season.

*

MISSANDEI: This is Daenerys Targaryen, the Stormborn, the Unburnt, the Queen of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros, the Mother of Dragons. It is to her you owe your freedom.

DAENERYS: No. You do not owe me your freedom. I cannot give it to you. Your freedom is not mine to give. It belongs to you and you alone. If you want it back, you must take it for yourselves. Each and every one of you.

This scene plays out differently in the books:

On the morning of the third day, the city gates swung open and a line of slaves began to emerge. Dany mounted her silver to greet them. As they passed, little Missandei told them that they owed their freedom to Daenerys Stormborn, the Unburnt, Queen of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros and Mother of Dragons.

“Mhysa!” a brown-skinned man shouted out at her. He had a child on his shoulder, a little girl, and she screamed the same word in her thin voice. “Mhysa! Mhysa!” (ASOS Daenerys IV)

As we can see, a) Dany is not shown correcting Missandei on what freedom entails like it happens in the show and b) Dany never has to give the former slaves a speech in the first place.

I'm of two minds about this speech. On the one hand, show!Dany's speech does highlight her humanitarian intentions in this endeavor: instead of seeing the freedmen as things to be sold like the slavers did, she views them as people who are able to make their own judgments and choices.

On the other hand, a number of issues were caused by the show writers' inability to be faithful to the books. The intentions behind this speech are distasteful since it seems like (the show writers think that) she needs to persuade the former slaves to follow her, which takes away their agency in comparison to the books (where, as I've repeated numerous times by now, they wanted to be freed; failure to understand item 1) and holds show!Dany to a higher standard than the other characters of the series (who, either in Westeros or Slaver's Bay, all believe in and live under an absolute monarchy, with the only difference being that their dominance over the lowborn became normalized over time in a way that show!Dany's didn't, which causes her to be judged by today's moral standards by the show writers; this failure to understand item 5 will only get worse over time, as we all know), which is particularly aggravating because it undercuts the fact that show!Dany is the only one who cares about and fights for the former slaves (failure to understand items 2, 3 and 5).

*

DAENERYS: No. You do not owe me your freedom. I cannot give it to you. Your freedom is not mine to give. It belongs to you and you alone. If you want it back, you must take it for yourselves. Each and every one of you.

Another thing that makes me bitter about this speech is that, despite portraying show!Dany positively, it will be used (alongside all of her other speeches), in retrospect, as evidence that she was always set up to burn thousands of innocents in King's Landing:

BENIOFF: What's interesting about it is that she's been making similar kinds of speeches for a long time and we've always been rooting for her and this is kind of a natural outcome of that philosophy and that willingness to go forth and conquer all your enemies and it's just not quite as fun anymore. (x)

Much has been said about how the show fell right into slavery apologism by supposing that burning slavers is a slippery slope to burning noncombatants (failure to understand items 1 and 2) and about how offensive it was that it villainized the one queen who had a particular place in the narrative due to being an exile, a former sex slave, a revolutionary and the only independent female ruler who wasn't depicted as evil (failure to understand item 3). I would also add that the vast majority of the evidence about show!Dany's "villainy" (which betrays a failure to understand item 5) was either exaggerated or invented. For example, aside from the speech that she gave to her khalasar in the first season, all of show!Dany's speeches were added by the show writers, including this one. In fact, it's ironic that, throughout the course of AFFC/ADWD, Dany was the only one of the three main political leaders who was not shown by GRRM giving speeches to the unprivileged:

Jon waited until the last echoes had faded, then spurred his palfrey forward where everyone could see him. “We’re feeding you as best we can, as much as we can spare. Apples, onions, neeps, carrots … there’s a long winter ahead for all of us, and our stores are not inexhaustible.”

“You crows eat good enough.” Halleck shoved forward.

For now. “We hold the Wall. The Wall protects the realm … and you now. You know the foe we face. You know what’s coming down on us. Some of you have faced them before. Wights and white walkers, dead things with blue eyes and black hands. I’ve seen them too, fought them, sent one to hell. They kill, then they send your dead against you. The giants were not able to stand against them, nor you Thenns, the ice-river clans, the Hornfoots, the free folk … and as the days grow shorter and the nights colder, they are growing stronger. You left your homes and came south in your hundreds and your thousands … why, but to escape them? To be safe. Well, it’s the Wall that keeps you safe. It’s us that keeps you safe, the black crows you despise.”

“Safe and starved,” said a squat woman with a windburned face, a spearwife by the look of her.

“You want more food?” asked Jon. “The food’s for fighters. Help us hold the Wall, and you’ll eat as well as any crow.” Or as poorly, when the food runs short. (ADWD Jon V)

~

“What is the meaning of this?” Cersei demanded of the crowd. “Do you mean to bury Blessed Baelor in a mountain of carrion?”

A one-legged man stepped forward, leaning on a wooden crutch. “Your Grace, these are the bones of holy men and women, murdered for their faith. Septons, septas, brothers brown and dun and green, sisters white and blue and grey. Some were hanged, some disemboweled. Septs have been despoiled, maidens and mothers raped by godless men and demon worshipers. Even silent sisters have been molested. The Mother Above cries out in her anguish. We have brought their bones here from all over the realm, to bear witness to the agony of the Holy Faith.”

Cersei could feel the weight of eyes upon her. “The king shall know of these atrocities,” she answered solemnly. “Tommen will share your outrage. This is the work of Stannis and his red witch, and the savage northmen who worship trees and wolves.” She raised her voice. “Good people, your dead shall be avenged!”

A few cheered, but only a few. “We ask no vengeance for our dead,” said the one-legged man, “only protection for the living. For the septs and holy places.” (AFFC Cersei VI)

In fact, the Dany of the books is never shown giving a speech after AGOT. This is not to say, of course, that making speeches on its own makes show!Dany "darker" (indeed, the show writers were often unaware of what they were writing) than Dany, I'm only pointing out that they never existed in the books.

*

DAENERYS: No. You do not owe me your freedom. I cannot give it to you. Your freedom is not mine to give. It belongs to you and you alone. If you want it back, you must take it for yourselves. Each and every one of you.

Mhysa!

DAENERYS: What does it mean?

MISSANDEI: It is old Ghiscari, Khaleesi. It means “mother.”

First, unlike in the show (where the freedmen only shout "mhysa!"), the freedmen of the books call Dany "mother" in lots of different languages:

“Mhysa!” they called. “Mhysa! MHYSA!” They were all smiling at her, reaching for her, kneeling before her. “Maela,” some called her, while others cried “Aelalla” or “Qathei” or “Tato,” but whatever the tongue it all meant the same thing. Mother. They are calling me Mother. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

It's only fitting that the freedmen of the books come from different places and have different races and ethnicities (which the scene above reinforces); not only that connects them to their mhysa (in that they are all people exiled from their homelands and forced into slavery), it is a culmination of Dany's tendency to culturally assimilate, which was already noticeable with the Dothraki. Unfortunately, this doesn't come across in the show because they hired local extras from Morocco (failure to understand/depict items 3 and 4).

Second, as @rainhadaenerys​ pointed out to me in a conversation, show!Dany makes a speech (which, again, was added by the show writers) in Valyrian in this scene and all the freedmen understand it, which can make sense since most modern Ghiscari continued to speak in the language of their conquerors and the former slaves all probably stayed in Yunkai long enough to learn the language. On the other hand, this will later be contradicted in episode 4.6 when show!Dany will need show!Missandei in order to communicate with a goatherd. In the books, she interacts directly with all of the freedmen, to give some examples:

In the afternoon a sculptor came, proposing to replace the head of the great bronze harpy in the Plaza of Purification with one cast in Dany’s image. She denied him with as much courtesy as she could muster. A pike of unprecedented size had been caught in the Skahazadhan, and the fisherman wished to give it to the queen. She admired the fish extravagantly, rewarded the fisherman with a purse of silver, and sent the pike to her kitchens. A coppersmith had fashioned her a suit of burnished rings to wear to war. She accepted it with fulsome thanks; it was lovely to behold, and all that burnished copper would flash prettily in the sun, though if actual battle threatened, she would sooner be clad in steel. (ADWD Daenerys I)

So, while here she and her people are at least connected by the fact that they understand what she is saying, even this will be undermined later (and they don't have the budget as an excuse for this one; failure to understand items 3 and 4).

Third, as I noted in episode 3.5, why the heck do they have show!Missandei call show!Dany "khaleesi"? It makes no sense since she's not familiar with Dothraki culture and never knew Dany when she was Khal Drogo's wife.

*

DAENERYS: It’s all right. These people won’t hurt me.

~

DAENERYS: Fly. Let me pass.

There are differences in the execution of Dany's meeting with the freedmen of Yunkai from books to show. She mounted her silver to meet them and the crowdsurfing never happens:

On the morning of the third day, the city gates swung open and a line of slaves began to emerge. Dany mounted her silver to greet them. [...]

The chant grew, spread, swelled. It swelled so loud that it frightened her horse, and the mare backed and shook her head and lashed her silver-grey tail. It swelled until it seemed to shake the yellow walls of Yunkai. More slaves were streaming from the gates every moment, and as they came they took up the call. They were running toward her now, pushing, stumbling, wanting to touch her hand, to stroke her horse’s mane, to kiss her feet. [...]

She laughed, put her heels into her horse, and rode to them, the bells in her hair ringing sweet victory. She trotted, then cantered, then broke into a gallop, her braid streaming behind. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

What we also miss onscreen is that, onpage, Dany sees the freedmen as her found family and realizes that the moment fulfills a prophecy that she saw in the House of the Undying. I'm going to talk more about this moment later in the section where I comment on D&D's Inside the Episode, though.

*

Now, we get to this moment, which was (and still is) heavily criticized due to its racism.

An in-depth discussion of the racism in Dany's storyline and in ASOIAF in general goes beyond the scope of this meta; I recommend that you read @yendany's metas instead. It must be acknowledged, of course, that this is a racist scene for employing Moroccan extras as former slaves in order to prop up a British woman and being completely insensitive to Africa's colonial history. However, that's the show's production's fault, which continued to be tone-deaf about race-related issues and diversity in general through the years.

That being said, my main purpose here is to address in which ways the TV series diverged from Dany's character in the books and, consequently, undermined show!Dany. So, instead of talking specifically about the racism in Dany's character and storyline (about which people have already discussed a lot elsewhere), I want to focus, instead, on the ways that the discussion centered around the racism in Dany's character and storyline tends to be uninterested in analyzing the merits of Dany's character and storyline. This reinforces that these detractors' problems most often relate to a) either GRRM and the show's writers and producers rather than to Dany's character herself or b) their own biases:

Dany's abolitionist crusade's humanitarian importance: Do they remember in which ways the slaves were being mistreated, exploited and dehumanized before Dany's interventions?

Dany's character motivations: Do they know that Dany conquered cities just so that she could end slavery rather than because she wanted to exploit Slaver's Bay in any way? Are they aware of the many sacrifices that Dany made in order to free the slaves and rule in Meereen? Do they know that Dany doesn't want the Iron Throne for its own sake, but rather that she wants it so that she can find a home and fulfill her duty towards her ancestors?

Dany's background and identity: Do they take into account that Dany is not just a white woman, but also a former sex slave and a refugee who was forced to culturally assimilate in order to survive and who now belongs nowhere just like the people that she's freed?

Dany's storyline's historical inspirations: Do they know that the slavery that GRRM wrote is primarily inspired by the ancient world and, therefore, is not race-based? Do they know that GRRM himself is tone-deaf about race-related issues and that this is apparent in all of his story?

A holistic view of ASOIAF in order to avoid double standards against Dany: Do they take prevailing cultural norms and other characters' actions into account when they judge Dany's ambition and use of violence negatively? Do they also take into account how Dany's selfless deeds compare to most of the other characters'? Do they also acknowledge and criticize the racism in other characters' storylines?

The vast majority of Dany's detractors (which include D&D) don't take these questions (which do not exhaustively cover all of the misconceptions surrounding her character by any means) into account and/or don't know the text well enough to answer them properly, which means that they are prone to grossly distorting her motivations and/or her storyline's thematic messages in order to address racial issues that should not be used to judge Dany's character because the author himself is unaware of them and does not intend for them to come across. As a result, people lose track of Dany's actual characterization and her storyline's intended social commentary and forget that she is a part of several marginalized groups herself, leading to pretty nonsensical takes in the fandom, such as "Rhaenys should have been Dany".

So, because a) the issue of racism in Dany's storyline was already well-covered elsewhere and b) fandom climate has proven that many people who talk about this issue tend to do so in bad faith, I consciously decided to focus on these five things that should also be remembered in this discussion (and that have more to do with the purpose of this meta anyway).

My comments on the Inside the Episode 3.10

Benioff: We see her get an army in episode four, and here in the finale you see her get her people, really, because she's got, she has her Dothraki followers that don't number very many, and she's got the people she's freed from the other cities, but now she is, it's not just - it's something even more, something almost even more religious about it than just a queen, I mean, she's the mother of these people.

Weiss: And it creates a whole new dynamic between her and the people that she's fighting for that she's gonna have to deal with in the future.

Benioff: The way they treat her, the way they lift her up and she is...  something that has its... A revelation from a prophecy and that glorious destiny is coming true.

Weiss: Here it seemed like it was really important to let us know just how many people were counting on her to see the full extent of, mostly, the full extent of her army and the tens of thousands of people who flooded out of these gates to pay tribute to her. And then, keeping the dragons in play because they're always such an important part of her identity, we just want to tie all of that together in one great shot.

There's a lot of wrong here, so let's unpack this statement by statement.

We see her get an army in episode four, and here in the finale you see her get her people, really,

As I already noted in episodes 3.4 and 3.5 and will repeat: the show writers seem to have forgotten that thousands of refugees from Astapor chose to follow her to Yunkai, so she had already "[gotten] her people":

Yet even so, tens of thousands preferred to follow her to Yunkai, rather than remain behind in Astapor. 

[...]  Dany could not bring herself to abandon them as Ser Jorah and her bloodriders urged. I told them they were free. I cannot tell them now they are not free to join me. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

Indeed, her main struggle during the battle of Yunkai was to find a way to take the city and free its slaves and prevent too many of her freedmen from becoming casualties:

Dany considered. The slaver host seemed small compared to her own numbers, but the sellswords were ahorse. She’d ridden too long with Dothraki not to have a healthy respect for what mounted warriors could do to foot. The Unsullied could withstand their charge, but my freedmen will be slaughtered. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

*

she's got, she has her Dothraki followers that don't number very many,

Dany still considers her Dothraki followers a khalasar in the books and finds their support invaluable despite its small number and what the show writers had her think in the S3 premiere (i.e. that she doesn't have a true khalasar):

Her khalasar was tiny, some thirty-odd mounted warriors, and most of them braidless boys and bentback old men. Yet they were all the horse she had, and she dared not go without them. The Unsullied might be the finest infantry in all the world, as Ser Jorah claimed, but she needed scouts and outriders as well. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

*

she is, it's not just - it's something even more, something almost even more religious about it than just a queen, I mean, she's the mother of these people.

And it creates a whole new dynamic between her and the people that she's fighting for that she's gonna have to deal with in the future.

Dany was already acting as mhysa way before she was considered one, which we saw from the way she cared about the Lhazareen women to her bloodriders to the slaves in Astapor:

“You heard my words,” she said. “Stop them.” She spoke to her khas in the harsh accents of Dothraki. “Jhogo, Quaro, you will aid Ser Jorah. I want no rape.” (AGOT Daenerys VII)

~

“Sheath your steel, blood of my blood,” said Dany, “this man comes to serve me. Belwas, you will accord all respect to my people, or you will leave my service sooner than you’d wish, and with more scars than when you came.” (ACOK Daenerys V)

~

“...Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can’t protect themselves?”

“Some kings make themselves. Robert did.”

“He was no true king,” Dany said scornfully. “He did no justice. Justice ... that’s what kings are for.” (ASOS Daenerys III)

One might argue that this event strengthens the sense of responsibility that she already had for these people, but it's not true that there was a radical change in their dynamic after this moment... In the books, it was simply a culmination of what Dany was already doing the whole time.

*

The way they treat her, the way they lift her up and she is...  something that has its... A revelation from a prophecy and that glorious destiny is coming true.

The way that Benioff puts it makes it seem like show!Dany expected the devotion of these people (in a way that seems related to what they assume to be her self-interest and entitlement), which irks me in hindsight knowing that a) they will use this assumption to tear her apart in the last season (after all, one reason why they had show!Dany fall was that she found no love in the North)  and b) it's not accurate for her book counterpart.

Is it true that she notices that one prophecy was realized in this moment in the books? Yes.

Ten thousand slaves lifted bloodstained hands as she raced by on her silver, riding like the wind. “Mother!” they cried. “Mother, mother!” They were reaching for her, touching her, tugging at her cloak, the hem of her skirt, her foot, her leg, her breast. They wanted her, needed her, the fire, the life, and Dany gasped and opened her arms to give herself to them ... (ACOK Daenerys IV)

 ~

Ser Jorah urged her to go, but Dany remembered a dream she had dreamed in the House of the Undying. (ASOS Daenerys IV)

When it comes to Dany's motivations, though, one must take into account that a) Dany herself is not aware that she has a great destiny (nor does she want to have one) and b) the prophecies are most often intertwined with her desire to find a home, a family, companionship, belonging. This scene is no exception; before it happened, Dany had reflected on how her House would end with her due to her infertility:

She felt very lonely all of a sudden. Mirri Maz Duur had promised that she would never bear a living child. House Targaryen will end with me. That made her sad. “You must be my children,” she told the dragons, “my three fierce children. Arstan says dragons live longer than men, so you will go on after I am dead.” (ASOS Daenerys IV)

Fittingly, then, the chapter ends on a more positive note: her found family is now not only composed of dragons, but of thousands of people who she is delighted to meet:

“What are they shouting?”

“It is Ghiscari, the old pure tongue. It means ‘Mother.’”

Dany felt a lightness in her chest. I will never bear a living child, she remembered. Her hand trembled as she raised it. Perhaps she smiled. She must have, because the man grinned and shouted again, and others took up the cry. [...]

Ser Jorah urged her to go, but Dany remembered a dream she had dreamed in the House of the Undying. “They will not hurt me,” she told him. “They are my children, Jorah.” She laughed, put her heels into her horse, and rode to them, the bells in her hair ringing sweet victory. She trotted, then cantered, then broke into a gallop, her braid streaming behind. The freed slaves parted before her. “Mother,” they called from a hundred throats, a thousand, ten thousand. “Mother,” they sang, their fingers brushing her legs as she flew by. “Mother, Mother, Mother!” (ASOS Daenerys IV)

As I said before, this scene is interesting because it associates Dany's role as a queen to her role as a mother. This connection arguably not only relates to gender issues, but also to how Dany's empathy runs so deep that she goes as far as to consider all of the ones who can't protect themselves her children: because she knows what it is like to be in their position, she will be the one who, instead of focusing on heritage and feudal ties and lands, empowers them and keeps them safe as best as she can.

Unfortunately, the show writers never understood any of this because of a) their lack of knowledge of the source material and, in particular, Dany's character, and b) their misogynistic assumption that a powerful and revolutionary woman must be, deep down, vain, selfish, unhinged and reliant on the men around her (even while they're unable to depict her as one).

*

And then, keeping the dragons in play because they're always such an important part of her identity, we just want to tie all of that together in one great shot.

While it's not untrue that the dragons are an important part of Dany's identity, I can't help but look askance at this statement. D&D thought that it was important to portray show!Dany as helpless without her dragons in season two, after all:

Benioff: Dany is so defined by her dragons, they're so much a part at this point, they define her so much that when they're taken from her, it's almost like she reverts to the pre-dragon Daenerys, you know, everyone is a bit defined by who they were when they were an adolescent, you know, no matter how old you get, no matter how powerful you get, and Daenerys was a scared, timid, abused adolescent and I think when her dragons are taken for her, all those feelings, all those memories and emotions are triggered and come back and all the confidence that she's won over the last several months, it's as if that just evaporates and she's back to being a really frightened little girl. (x)

In the books, Dany doesn't need to be humbled by having her dragons taken from her. Her lesson is the opposite one: she learns that, despite having dragons (which are never taken from her), they are not going to be of help if she wants to gain people's loyalty. Instead, she is going to have to earn people's loyalty, which is why GRRM has Dany's perspective front and center in the books - she is the one who deeply empathizes with the slaves based on her past experiences, she is the one who chooses to start an anti-slavery campaign, she is the one who concocts the battle plans to conquer the cities, she is the one who decides to stay and rule Meereen and so on. The dragons served as the bait to deceive the Astapori masters, but her plan went way beyond the dragons, as well as the ones she made in Yunkai and Meereen.

On HBO, they think that show!Dany is "so defined by her dragons" and that "they're such an important part of her identity" to the point of portraying her as incompetent without them, which they will do again in seasons four and five with their poor adaptation of her ADWD arc (where the dragons were shown as a hindrance and Dany still held things together really well considering the huge problems that she was dealing with). And then, in the end, as we know, they will turn the draconic imagery that once meant freedom in the books (and arguably in this scene as well) into another sign of her villainy in a wing shot that, iconic as it has become, is as subtle as adding devil horns in her head.

Show!Dany's clothes

Does anyone know why is show!Dany using this accessory with her dress? I assume it's a chest pad, but I'm not sure. If anyone has any ideas, please share them with me.

[redteabaron]

Sansa and the (yellow brick) road home

The movie The Wizard of Oz follows along the general theme most heroes/heroines do; the journey to the inner self, at times in relation with the outer world. (The book by Baum, and by relation the movie, has racist/xenophobic/nationalist undertones and implications that continue and multiply through the text that I’m just not going to include here since this meta is already too long and I’m also not going to include the political or Baum’s personal symbolism in these things.) 

I’m going to go off on a limb and assume mostly everyone knows the general summary of TWOO and not summarize it, if not, the wiki on the movie itself is pretty comprehensive. Below, instead of a short novel describing all the possible references and parallels found, I’ll just be using summarized points about how Sansa fills in for Dorothy Gale on her road home.

Red shoes - Red in the film, as that’s what I’m focusing on rather than the silver ones in the book since that was all about the free silver movement. Red for women and girls in a lot of fairy tales often represents the path onto adulthood, particularly connected to menstruation, which isn’t an enormous part of Sansa’s arc but it does get quite a few notable mentions (usually from gross people concerned with her ability to produce heirs). Sansa, like Dorothy, only gains her “red shoes” once she leaves home (that is, setting her on a path to metamorphosis and growing up). The “red shoes” symbolize things Sansa possesses that people, envy, admire or desire for their own. Sansa’s red shoes represent womanhood, agency over self, beauty, intelligence, her kindness and compassion. 

Sepia colors to technicolor in the film/Kansas to Oz - This transition from little to no color to places where it becomes a feast for the eyes (from the north to the south) represents Dorothy’s and Sansa’s feelings toward their respective homes and the places of their desires. Sansa yearns for something else, something different and southron because that is the place all the songs and tales are about. The north, as reiterated by numerous characters both northern and southron, is a hard, harsh place that has little beauty. Sansa, like Dorothy, feels unfulfilled and out of place in her home. She doesn’t explicitly state how out of place she feels in the north like Jon and Arya, but there is the implication that at least within her family she is out of place (perhaps with the exception of Bran who wants knighthood, loves songs and stories like his sister and doesn’t stick his nose up in the air at the fact that Sansa prefers the ones with ladies or love). King’s Landing is her land of Oz, a place of magic and possibility like all the songs, it’s a world of technicolor and danger.

Yellow Brick Road - The yellow brick road is just that; a road on which Dorothy needs to follow to meet with the wizard of Oz, and most importantly the journey she must undertake to go home, and Dorothy does want to go home, she misses it even in this enchanting land that seems to be everything she first wanted. Like Dorothy, Sansa wants to go home after briefly being in the place where dreams are supposed to be a reality (all the stories can’t be lies) and this beautiful place has more danger than she’d realized; Sansa’s yellow brick road is a sight more twisted and unclear with far fewer friends and guarantees of safety. Dorothy is told to stay on the Yellow Brick Road to find her way to her ticket home (the Great Oz), otherwise she’ll run into danger. 

Sansa’s metaphorical ‘Yellow Brick Road’ is her role as a ‘pawn’ in the game of thrones; she has to play within the rules others make for her and outliving them, or she will have no other recourse for survival. 

Toto - Toto is Lady; the animal in a fairy tale setting that is something unknown in a child, yet to be understood or tamed. Toto was Dorothy’s playmate, constant companion, and likely her confidante, and undoubtedly although Toto didn’t have a large part to play directly in TWOO, he set off the events to occur the way they did for Dorothy throughout her time in Oz and in Kansas, but at least she had the comfort that he was there with her throughout it all. Toto is symbolic of a natural gut instinct (his hatred of Miss Gulch, where Lady hates the Hound) and the one who uncovers things normally concealed (again, Lady’s dislike of the Hound despite being the gentlest of her siblings). 

Lady, like Toto, sets off a chain of events for Sansa personally, but Sansa doesn’t have the comfort of Lady being there with her. Here, Lady is the unknown part of Sansa (that functions as her gut feeling, portrays her true self yet to be realized) but ultimately she, a part of Sansa, is killed by Ned at the behest of Cersei (also featuring Robert once again turning aside something unjust and gruesome for an easier solution). 

It brings Toto escaping from the Wicked Witch of the West in a harsher light. Dorothy’s tearful happiness that Toto escapes alive even while she’s captured and her life is in danger … yet Sansa is in danger and Lady is dead, only alive briefly in her dreams. Toto represents a part of Dorothy that manages to escape the worst of the punishment, yet a part of Sansa is already dead, spiritually, at this point. With Robb’s death and his last words being Grey Wind, we can assume there is no ‘getting a new direwolf’ or just simply recovering from the death of their direwolf. 

The Twister - Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon uproot Winterfell and the Seven Kingdoms unintentionally. By accepting the position of Hand, Ned paved the way for her journey there. Later the deaths of Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon, Sansa is trapped in King’s Landing/the Vale (“Oz”). Robert is the Twister and once in King’s Landing, Ned is the locked cellar, essentially leaving her out in the open in danger as he doesn’t share his worries with Sansa. He deliberately leaves her as the odd man out while he manages to speak with Arya about the situation and at least makes her aware that there is danger. 

Poppy field - The allure of giving up and wasting away; in TWOO these lovely, deadly flowers cause those who breathe in their sweet scent to lay down and fall asleep until their death. The poppy field represents apathy and surrender during difficult times, and similarly this makes its appearance for Sansa who abides by all the rules of her captors (people who have harmed her, her family, her home, etc) - but she only succumbs to this from a certain perspective. Sansa hasn’t fallen asleep and succumbed to her metaphorical poppy field, she is, in effect, lucid dreaming. Dreaming while aware, even if she must stay in the dream so she can survive. She’s giving everyone around her the illusion that she is trapped in her “dream”, that she is “Sleeping Beauty” while she continues to learn, adapt, and observe.

Dorothy has three companions that remain with her on her journey that all want the great wizard to give them something they feel they lack. While in the book/film, it’s clear they’re still good people and not without their positive traits, everyone focuses on what they lack across the board. In the sections below, I’ll be using commonalities found in the (unwanted) “suitors” of Sansa on her journey where they too focus on their negative traits, or are the inverted intentions of Dorothy’s companions.

Tin Man/Tyrion Lannister/Sandor Clegane - Men of sympathetic circumstance and who want to be wanted as they are, or desire to be loved/objects of desire and are understood among others as not having a heart or not able to.

Both Sandor and Tyrion project their feelings of rejection from society and in particular women, noblewomen, and lust onto Sansa (a child, a prisoner of war and an easy, isolated target). They are the most selfish form of desire for the Tin Man’s want for a heart; where the Tin Man desired a heart for the purpose of loving others and everything (although he finds later he never needed a physical heart because he was good and loving all along) Tyrion and Sandor desire a heart from someone else for themselves.

They’re who are typically the ones we want to root for as the underdogs who get their just rewards as they have been abused in their positions or misfortunes in life, but they ultimately fall short because they are simply awful and have built up these defenses and use them against Sansa despite being positions where they could have proven to be the ‘knights’ she yearns for (barring the enormous age gaps which inherently leaves these matches undesirable anyway). 

While Sandor’s backstory regarding his abuse at the hands of his brother are awful, he himself enacts abuse on others - the murder of Mycah, him relaying regret for not raping Sansa when he had the chance (whether or not he meant it, she was a child and it’s an awful thing to regret not doing), and his participation in the unkiss as well as verbally abusing her and gaslighting Sansa. Yet he wants kindness and some sort of love or affection from her regardless of his treatment of her. She sings the Mother’s Hymn for him during the Battle of Blackwater Bay, in a way, giving him some form of (her) heart although that wasn’t what she’d intended to do (she misremembers the trauma so we can assume she was terrified), it can be inferred that Sandor got something from her that he wanted (subconsciously or not). 

Similarly, we have sympathy for Tyrion because although he is highborn, he still faces constant mockery, obstacles, verbal and physical abuse due to his disability and looks. However, he still wants to be lord of Winterfell and he wants Sansa (who he finds himself attracted to) - girl or woman-child or whatever she is. Tywin could have married her off to a Lannister cousin, so Tyrion does have the choice to pass her up, but he chooses to go forward with the marriage and even prepares to take her against her consent (where he molests her and says he could be the Knight of Flowers in the dark; essentially telling her to lie to herself about how she felt about him and the situation) but stops after he feels guilty. Tyrion could have been sympathetic because he isn’t without his soft spots (see his conversation with Jon Snow, his consideration for Bran, etc) but he again falls short. He wants love and affection - but he has rather exacting standards, the same thing that infuriated him about Sansa not finding him attractive.

Like the Tin Man it isn’t that they have no heart. Unlike the Tin Man, however, for Sandor and Tyrion, it’s simply that most of that heart shown consists of selfishness and self-centeredness. Sandor might immediately cop to it and never attempts to hide it, but he tries to bring every man down to his level by saying how awful everyone is, everywhere. Tyrion meanwhile may be capable of kindness, but he shows that he is easy to offend when it is rebuffed or denied, as though he expects payment for such a thing.

Cowardly Lion/Ser Dontos/Joffrey - Characters who have the titles of courtly images; Joffrey is a prince, then a golden king. Ser Dontos is a named knight. Both have the roles in songs and stories where the expected virtues would include courage, grace, humility, honor, etc but ultimately do not have these things even if they have the appropriate titles. 

In TWOO, the Cowardly Lion presents a falsehood or an oxymoron (after all, how can the king of all beasts be a coward?). Joffrey and Dontos do the same. (How can a king be cruel, how can a knight not have dignity, etc). Sansa’s attachment and adherence to songs/stories isn’t really all that different from any of the ideas the Stark kids have about their favorite stories, but in her journey specifically, we see her unraveling popular propaganda in Westerosi high society; she even makes comparisons in her inner monologues. 

Where the virtues of kings and knights are meant to be shown, we see her expectations fall very short of what the title is meant to indicate about the character of the people who hold them.

In both Joffrey and Dontos, they lack these qualities even if we, Sansa, may briefly hold out hope for the better (where Joffrey immediately kills that by suddenly having Ned executed, where Dontos sells her off to Littlefinger despite trying to play her Florian). In particular, Ser Dontos ultimately fails as the CW because he says he wants Sansa to be safe, to be her Florian, but isn’t truthful with her about it, yet he wants to reap the reward for it. Joffrey believes himself to have these qualities but is often called out on it by other characters, playing the CW in the beginning who immediately attacks the Tin Man, seemingly unaware of his lack of character. 

In TWOO Dorothy says she’ll miss everyone, but she’ll miss the Scarecrow most of all; below the characters I associate with the Scarecrow are the ones who Sansa might be able to more easily pick out traits (or trick herself into seeing more good than exists) she is most comfortable with (one of the characters below is most obviously not “safe” or the one she has the most affection for, but rather the one she tries very hard, due to her current dependency on him, to project or emphasize what he’s “done for” her). 

Scarecrow/Petyr Baelish/Harry the Heir/Ser Loras - Characters shown or believed to be less intelligent, without depth, or even overrated. They are stuffed with straw, padded with nothing of substance in a person.

Briefly starting with Ser Loras, I included him specifically because even though Sansa has a little crush on him, she quickly realizes that he never had interest in her, and didn’t remember giving her the rose even though it was the highlight of her day when he did. This is an indication to Sansa she doesn’t know him even though she daydreamed about him. She doesn’t truly know him, is what she realizes and he doesn’t know her despite the implicit belief that love or affection can be found and trusted at first sight. He was handsome, seemingly knightly, dreamy, and he turned out to be no one who would have any consequence for her.

Harry the Heir, we don’t know much about as a person beyond the basics. He has one illegitimate child and is currently courting Saffron, who is pregnant with his second illegitimate child. He is a knight. He’s Robert Arryn’s heir. There’s the idea that he’s quite good at knightly actions (jousting, swordplay, horsemanship, etc) and likely indications that he is a little egotistical. From the released chapters of Alayne we’ve seen, he does apologize for his rudeness, but I don’t believe he’ll be around long enough for us to explore his person. Our understanding of him, and I believe Alayne’s/Sansa’s understanding of him will be one of pity, knowing his fate, but ultimately we won’t know him enough for it to be particularly impactful save for how his death will affect Sansa’s actions. 

To that end, Harry has every possibility of being a better suitor than the others that have sold themselves as her beaus, but it won’t last. Where we read that Ser Loras didn’t remember Sansa or seem to care or was invested in her, we’ll see that ultimately Harry is another, if newer scarecrow; ultimately a character of seemingly goodwill, or at least one who won’t wish her harm, but will fall flat by not having substance or not be allowed the time to develop much. 

Admittedly, Petyr as the Wicked Witch of the West is also fitting, but considering we are constantly told in text how dangerous he is forces him to the forefront of our minds as this terrifying endgame boogeyman. Since asoiaf likes to have little twists and turns and defy immediate expectations, he isn’t likely so important to the final fate of Westeros, and by extension, Sansa’s fate. His biggest impact will be having spirited her away to the Vale and keeping her under lock. To that end, he is (one of) the Scarecrow(s) in Sansa’s journey. 

The whole “I’ll miss you most of all, Scarecrow” here applies to Petyr. Not that he represents a positive point in Sansa’s journey home, but he does represent safety, even though it comes at a price. (Where he tells her to call him Father, where he molests her, gaslights her, verbally and psychologically abuses her and she forces herself to dissociate, ultimately piling on the trauma). 

Petyr isn’t stupid, or without a brain, but he is overconfident in his mind, to the end that he will make huge missteps he won’t have accounted for (Jeyne at Winterfell, not thinking Sansa will be capable of fleeing or thinking for herself, believing he knew everything that happened after the Red Wedding, doubting Dany is a dangerous element, underestimating Aegon, etc) despite giving Sansa similar warnings (all while believing she would be too stupid or naive to heed them). He, like the Scarecrow, is a planner but ultimately he will meet an anticlimactic death. He, and numerous other characters, sell the idea (very loudly) that there is more to him than there appears, that he has great depths, that he is one of the most dangerous men in Westeros.

That isn’t to say he isn’t dangerous - he obviously is. He kicked off a violent war, arranged for the deaths of numerous people, has quite a lot of money and power (although he doesn’t have a name with weight). It’s just that with every person who announces how dangerous he is, we’ll see in Sansa’s journey when we see him as his truest self, stripped of his gold and power we will see nothing. He has no great depths to plumb beyond his own ambitions.

He is the Scarecrow who already found his “brain” (where Petyr already has the lesson that his strength is his mind), yet in the end, is still a scarecrow. Just the form of a man filled with straw.

Wicked Witch of the West/Cersei - The ever present danger that never loses focus on Sansa, seemingly magically out of reach from danger to Sansa’s eyes. Cersei, in a way, is this insurmountable force to Sansa; she is the purest form of danger that exists and it’s why Sansa has no choice but to hide and trust that Littlefinger will keep her concealed.  

Cersei blames Tyrion and Sansa for Joffrey’s death, and especially has a grudge against Sansa for her “red shoes” (her name, her agency, her womanhood, children, beauty, etc, we see her reference snidely about Sansa’s qualities whenever she talks/thinks about her) (see above for what Sansa’s red shoes are) and the action she believes she is responsible for. She has multiple hangers on as Queen Regent (flying monkeys who do her bidding). 

She, from Sansa’s point of view, has all this power and represents someone who can’t be stopped (we see the same thing with Dorothy and the WWW), but yet the Witch dies easily. In TWOO, she’s melted by a bucket of water Dorothy accidentally spills on her. I think this may be an indication that Sansa may have another indirect hand in her death (indirect as with the Purple Wedding), perhaps letting some information she gives be used against Cersei, or something. But ultimately, Cersei, like the Wicked Witch of the West won’t have a particularly “onscreen” death (she’ll likely die in King’s Landing, either by Jaime’s hand, or indirectly through Tyrion when Dany burns it).  

Oz/Man behind the curtain - The songs and tales of Westeros that conceal the darker truths that exist behind what power means; a means of propaganda that Sansa is forced to unveil on her own. While all the Starks learn a lot more about people, the world, truth and lies, politics, etc Sansa’s position in court leads her to pay a lot more attention to what people don’t say. She also develops a deeper understanding of how what she believed came to actually be. She has to learn how to weed out the domino effect stories and songs have, even though at their core they can be appreciated (for instance, that honor and nobility are good things, even if the song/tale about the person isn’t someone who realistically practiced it). 

This saturates court culture across the world, although her focus is on Westeros, but we know that this isn’t just a southron issue; this exists in the north, across the Narrow Sea, within Houses, legacies, and even singular people. 

[divinaes-bookofsecrets]

Hi, how are you ? 🤗 If it’s okay with you can I have a spirit guide tarot reading please ? My name’s Hunter, I’m Taurus sun, Capricorn moon and Aries rising :)) In any case thank you for answering me, have a nice day/night ! ☺️💕🌈

starting shamanic session at 2:36am

Your Spirit Guide is Evaki -------

heres what is known about your rare Spirit Guide

Native American Legends: Evaki (Ewaki)

Name: Evaki

Also spelled: Ewaki

Tribal affiliation: Bakairi

Pronunciation: halfway between eh-vah-kee and eh-wah-kee

Type: Goddess, night, dreams, bat god

Evaki is the Bakairi night goddess, aunt of the twin culture heroes Keri and Kame. Evaki has the responsibility of taking the sun out of the jar it is kept in every morning and putting it back away at night. Evaki is associated with sleep and dreams, and she is sometimes represented as a bat.

Name: Evaki

Nicknames:

Evelyn

Luna Nina (Bakunawa)

Gender: Female

Age: 16

Species: Spirit / Bat

Evaki's personality is a soft blend of calmness and sweetness. She's extremely friendly, treating everyone politely, unless they're rude to her. She usually treats those who treat her poorly with stubbornness and even a bit of a huffy edge. She doesn't like negative emotions, but sometimes they can get to her. She mediates and smudges in order to rid herself of such emotions. She tries her hardest to be the best person she can be. She's very responsible and mature, even if she's not the most competent. She seems to have a desire to be a "leader", wanting to come across as more important and to try and appeal to her higher-ups. But also because she cares deeply about others and wants to help others and do her best. She's a bit of a flirt, often treating her friends very kindly. Though she can be stubborn and she can be annoyed when her friends are acting up (especially Bakunawa). Evaki however is quite brave, often risking her own life for those of her friends and teammates. She is rarely nervous, though she has her fears, she tries her hardest to put them behind her when the situation calls for it. She's very cool, often going with the flow, however she is not used to massive changes and likes to live in somewhat of a routine. She likes to roll with the punches in smaller situations, but the bigger the situation is, the more nervous she becomes. She can be seen as a bit of a "nerd", with her intelligence and love of history and similar subjects, but she doesn't mind being a "nerd". She knows who she is and she loves it. Evaki is portrayed as a kindhearted, brave, and daring girl with an aura of coolness.

Evaki likes active activities like archery and flying. She likes to hone her skills and combat to a fine "T" and takes pride in her achievements. She's a bit of an athlete, but also loves to read books and learn about different cultures and world history. She likes dancing and singing, but doesn't show it too often. She enjoys nature and animals, especially the night sky and bats. She also likes food, mostly sweets, fruits, and naturally, bugs. She mainly enjoys hanging out with her friends. However, the animals she doesn't like are owls, snakes, raccoons, and hawks (the enemies of bats). She also has a bitterness towards bullies and evil-doers, as well as those who disrespect the things she and her friends are passionate about. She's also sensitive to bright lights and harsh winds.

Evaki's powers include her powerful sleep dust, which causes foes to fall asleep. and lose their memories. Very useful after the fight's been won! She can also communicate and sometimes control bats, but this is rare. She can also fly and run very fast and gracefully, thanks to her defeating Bunnyman and absorbing his powers. Her weapon of choice is a bow and arrow, which she is insanely good with and can shoot like a master.

What does Your Spirit Guide Look Like?

WHY HAS EVAKI APPEARED TO YOU ?

WHATS THE MESSAGES FROM SpiritGuide ?

Number 530 is a blend of the vibrations and attributes of number 5 and number 3, and the influences of number 0. Number 5 brings the influences of major life changes, making important choices and decisions, expansion and opportunity, adaptability and versatility, personal freedom, resourcefulness and life lessons learned through experience.  Number 3 resonates with courage, forgiveness, natural skills and talents, open-mindedness, self-expression and communication, optimism and enthusiasm, growth and expansion, manifesting and manifestation. Number 3 also carries the vibrations of the Ascended Masters. Number 0 is the number of the Universal Energies/Source, the beginning point, eternity, infinity, oneness, wholeness, continuing cycles and flow, developing one’s spiritual aspects and connecting with the Higher-self, and denotes freedom from limitations. Number 0 also amplifies the energies of the numbers it appears with.

Angel Number 530 indicates that the life choices and decisions you have made will bring about positive changes that will encourage auspicious opportunities to present in your life. It is also a message that you will be devoting more of your time and energy to your spiritual pursuits and your life purpose and soul mission.  

Angel Number 530 is a message that the changes you are going through are in direct alignment with your life path, plan and purpose. Continue on your current path with enthusiasm and confidence knowing that these changes are taking place for a higher purpose. Trust that you are safe and protected along your journey and the angels are beside you all the way.

Angel Number 530 encourages you to trust your intuition and inner-wisdom and allow your angels and the Ascended Masters to aid, assist and support you through these transitions. Use your natural communication skills to uplift and enlighten others. 

You can transform your life into one filled with more love and joy simply by being more self-aware each moment. There are no limits other than those you place upon yourself. Allow yourself to grow and transform in ways that suit your true self. Manifestation requires faith and trust.

Number 530 relates to number 8 (5+3+0=8) and Angel Number 8.

Personal Message for January 25 - January 31

Teamwork may be a strong theme for you this week across more than one area of your life, Taurus. You may choose to team up with a partner who shares a passion in an effort to learn something new or begin a new venture. You might also choose to sign on to a visible project in your community or with your family. This week may bring around the repaying of a debt that you had counted as lost, so repayment in one form or another may surprise you in a good way, and it may even alter your perception of someone you may have judged because of that. A lighter, brighter period is beginning where your financial picture is concerned. An invitation you receive soon may involve something that causes you to feel fearful, but you may not want to turn it down because of the people involved. For example, if you have a fear of flying, it could mean a trip to someplace that requires a flight. If you really want to go, then fight your fear.

-- Divinae🌬🌪🌟🌟☄🔥💧🪐🌦❄⚡⚡🌈⚡⚡🌟🌟🌌🌊🌍🌐🌍🌐🌍🌐🌍🌐🏨🌐🌍🌐🌍🌐🌍🌐🌏🌐🌎🌐🌎🌐🌎🌋🏝🏟⛰

[adapembroke]

Reading Tarot Like The High Priestess

My first exposure to the High Priestess in the movie The Mists of Avalon, a retelling of the myth of Arthur from the perspective of the women in the story. The character who most embodies the High Priestess in the first part of the film is the high priestess Vivian. She is powerful, mysterious, and magical. Like the Magician, the High Priestess is a master of all the elements, but, while the Magician’s magic comes from tools, Viviane and her priestesses use none. If they want to light a pile of sticks on fire, they uses their mind. If they want to lower the mists, their only tools are their hands. The source of the Magician’s power is external. Even if the Magician works with metaphors, the metaphors he uses are ones that have meaning in the outside world. Viviane and her priestesses find the source of their power internally. When a young priestess fails to light a pile of sticks on fire because she is distracted by visions of her brother, Viviane doesn’t tell her to get better at using her wand. She tells her to concentrate, to control her mind.

The power of the mind and intuition, this is the power of the High Priestess.

The High Priestess’s Magic is Intuition

How do you talk about intuition? It’s so different for everyone. Some people have a very physical experience of intuition. When they’re about to do something wrong, they literally feel it in their gut. Other people see colors or hear a skeptical grumbling noise from a guide. Some people just know things and have learned to trust that, even if they can’t give a reason. Some people are particularly adept at noticing signs and omens. Some people need tools to help them hear their intuition. They practice automatic writing or morning pages every morning, or they start their day with a Tarot reading, or are very particular about knowing what all of the astrological transits are and how they effect them. 

All of these diverse ways of hearing from inner wisdom is beautiful, if you know what your style of intuition is, but it can be a nightmare for someone who is just starting to figure out how to work with intuition. You need intuition in order to know what your style of intuition is, and with so many options, it can be really difficult to figure out where and how to listen.

The dictionary is no help with this whatsoever. The word “intuition” comes from the Latin word intuit which means “contemplate,” which is a compound word of “to look” and “upon.” So, intuition is the thing you look at, but what are you looking at, exactly? Definitionally, intuition is like an onion. You try to get to the center of it and find nothing but air. The dictionary isn’t wrong. The messages of intuition may (or may not) be dramatic for the person experiencing them, but intuition is private, subjective. There is really nothing for anyone else to see. 

Intuition relies on what the political theorist Hannah Arendt called “a silent dialogue between me and myself.” It is in this idea that we begin to get some insight into what intuition really is. It is a way of communicating with yourself. Arendt called this silent dialog “thinking,” but intuition is more than thinking. Thinking is communicating with your rational self. Intuition communicates with parts of yourself that have nothing to do with rationality at all, the sides of yourself that are a little closer to the animals and a little closer to the gods.

The first type of intuition, the animal side, is often called your “gut.” I call it the “animal side” because it’s the kind of intuition animals have. It’s the part of you that has an animal sense of people and places. It’s highly attuned to danger and safety, friend and foe. It’s the part of you that will not shut up about avoiding that stupid stairwell at work, even though you never run into anyone there, and taking it shaves five minutes off your walk to your bus. It’s the part of you that looks at someone you’ve never met and says, “That person is bad news.” Or it’s the part of you that’s kind of like a golden retriever, who meets someone for the first time and desperately, happily wants that person to be your friend. 

The second type of intuition, the divine side, is what people usually mean when they say intuition. It’s a little bit ethereal and mysterious. It’s the part of you that knows this pendulum is for you and not that one. It’s the part of you that knows your friend really needs a hug, even though they haven’t said anything and everything about their body language says they’re fine. It’s not rational. There is no rational reason why the pendulum with the quartz stone and the moon handle is better for you than the amethyst stone with a quartz handle, but something in you knows, even before you try the pendulum, that one is for you, and the other one is not.

The more mystical expression of intuition has historically been associated with women. Some, even today, call this type of intuition “women’s intuition” and deny that people who aren’t women have access to this type of knowing at all. This is wrong. Intuition has nothing to do with estrogen or gender signaling. Everyone, regardless of their gender has intuition, but if you don’t identify as a woman, you may have a difficult time finding people in the media who use intuition to make decisions and look like you. Until this problem is fixed, sitting with the lack of representation can be, itself, a way of working with the high priestess.

The Dark Goddess

One of the High Priestess’s symbols is the moon. This marks her as a priestess of the Dark Goddesses. Dark Goddesses like Ceridwen, Hekate, and the Morrigan are comfortable with the darker side of human nature. Hekate is the goddess of witches who aren’t necessarily nice. Ceridwen is famous for her anger, and the Morrigan chooses those who are to be slain on the battlefield and eventually merged in the lore with the ban sidhe, the fairy monster who wails for the dead.

Why does the High Priestess come now in the Fool’s Journey? Why do we jump from the optimism of the Magician to a priestess of the goddesses of anger and death? 

To answer that question, I’ll add another chapter to the story about Silicon Valley from “Reading Tarot Like The Magician.” In the beginning of the life of a technology startup, things look shiny and wonderful. You’re the Magician. You have this wonderful idea, and you know that no one else in the world has ever thought of anything like it. You feel like a genius. All you need to do is raise your hand on the right street in Palo Alto, and you know that all of the bankers are going to come running with their checkbooks begging you for the privilege of giving you cash. 

You start to do the work. It goes well. You start to actually manifest some things in the world. 

Then disaster strikes. You find out about a rival who came up with your idea six months earlier than you did. You make some appointments with bankers, and you feel like you’re speaking a foreign language when you talk to them, and they can’t understand what is so genius about your work. You learn that your idea isn’t actually that easy to implement. It’s hard work, and you’ve already quit your job, and you don’t own anything but your laptop and a box of frozen burritos. Your apartment is a tiny corner of somebody’s garage the size of a cubicle that you share with fifteen other startups. 

You reach a dark night of the soul, and you come face to face with what kind of person you are when you’re miserable and under pressure. Ideally, you acknowledge your negative emotions. You figure out how you’re going to deal with being so angry, depressed, and jealous without causing anyone harm. At the very least,  if you are going to keep going, you have to turn inward and face yourself. You need to connect with the part of yourself that wants to continue doing something difficult when so many things in the outer world—including rationality itself—seem to be against you. The part of us that stands between us and the darkness, between our rationality and the things we know that transcend rationality, this is the High Priestess.

Many people first encounter the High Priestess archetype during dark times in their lives. Until they go through those times, their lives simply don’t give them a reason to turn inward, and they have no reason to do the kind of intense contemplation that making friends with this archetype—and developing intuition—requires. If they come out of it, they will be more powerful and more intuitive and in more control of themselves than they’ve ever been, but like the High Priestess, they must do this work without tools.All they have are their will and their hands and their eyes and their gut.

With one exception.

The High Priestess’s Book

The High Priestess’s only tool is a book. Why this exception? The reason for this comes back to the dictionary definition of intuition, which is so deeply connected with “contemplation.”

Contemplation in most usages is just another word for thinking, but it also has a deeper meaning. In Druidry and some branches of Christianity, contemplation is a meditative act that is often assisted by reading sacred texts. This practice is sometimes called lectio divina, which translates as “divine reading.”

Divine reading is another gateway to developing intuition, one that is not quite as soul-tearing as the dark night of the soul. Engaging in that “silent dialog between me and myself” is difficult when you’re first starting out, and it can help to start by having a silent dialog between yourself and a book. 

In divine reading, you turn your attention to a passage from a sacred text or poem, and after you’ve read it once, you go back and turn your attention to word or phrase or sentence that draws your attention. You don’t try to justify your decision rationally. You just go with the thing that stands out to you. And you think about the passage for a long time. If you think about it long enough, you find that you are, eventually, no longer dialoging with the book at all but dialoging with yourself. If you allow the dialog to go on long enough, you usually discover the reason why you chose that passage in the first place. Even if the reason for your choice remains mysterious, the decision to honor your intuition enough to act on it be an essential first step in learning to hear and work with your intuition. 

The High Priestess in Divination

Like the Magician, the High Priestess is a beginner. She stands at the door of intuition. She accesses the waters of intuition behind her—and their attendant goddess—remotely, through the moon on her head and the book in her hands. Some come to her and ask her mediate between them and the Dark Goddess, but she knows there is only so much help they can get from the outside, and so she directs them back to their own wisdom.

As diviners, it is essential that we have a working relationship with intuition. Intuition tells us which cards to read or stones to throw. It guides us to the most important areas of a birth chart to focus on, and it tells us that this interpretation of a card is right and not that one, but there are times when intuition itself is the answer. There are times when a reading refuses to give answers and redirects our clients—or ourselves—to that deep inner knowing. 

“Know yourself,” the High Priestess says. “Trust yourself.“

When you work with the High Priestess while doing divination, you are fundamentally alone. When you are learning her lessons, circumstances will conspire to make sure that you have a lot of alone time, or you may find yourself withdrawing into the darkness to commune with yourself. Don’t fight it. Darkness and quiet and solitude are necessary to begin to hear your own voice, and it is only after you have explored the dark corners of your soul that you can begin to hear the sides of yourself that rule your intuition and speak without words. 

This post was originally published on Aquarius Moon Journal on 21 February 2020.