#dani vs ops

[lavampira]

POV: your tank told you to back out of melee range when you get targeted by terrible shout, but you're a silly goose dps and stayed put so you got bit instead of them, and now you're complaining to the tank in voice

[hell-heron]

Obv I'm rooting for Sansa but not enough to put that loli soft porn on my blog so no I will not participate in propaganda

[copaganda-clobberfest]

WELCOME

TO THE FIRST ROUND OF THE COPAGANDA CLOBBERFEST!

“You know that trope? That one trope *Everyone* hates? The trope in which a well meaning antagonist to our heroes, one looking out for the good of a certain community, suddenly does something horrible and drastic to make not only them, but the ideology they stand for the most villainous of all?”

NOW IS THE TIME TO BATTLE THEM OUT! Like Ken dolls, fighting for survival! Like your Polly pockets discarded in the closet, we’ll see which of these bitches jumped that slippery slope harder! Whose character did numbers on y’all, and blew up a bunch of grandmas and babies and hospitals with it!

ROUND ONE

DAENERYS TARGARYEN from GAME OF THRONES vs PRINCE LOTOR from VOLTRON (LEGENDARY DEFENDER)

Dany propaganda (TW: domestic abuse mention, slavery):

“Sold off as a slavewife to a warlord in another country. Slowly rises up gaining the love and trust of the warlords people, eventually becoming their leader after his death. Goes on to conquer another nation and free all the slaves. Deals with her quickly growing list of real and perceived enemies in increasingly awful ways. More stuff happens. Eventually she makes her play for the throne of Kingslanding and forced a swift surrender… but instead snaps… over…? and instead starts killing everyone in the city indiscriminately because the only way to build her great version of the world everyone who even remotely likes the current one has to die.

And then her sorta bf kills her.

Its kinda funny how the US was also founded on a revolution lead by people with Not Great Morals and its media industry loves to now churn out stories where revolutionary figures turn out to be bad guys, actually, so you shouldn’t revolt and just accept your place in their world. Is this actually a British psy-op to get americans to accept the error in the ways and rejoin the UK?”

“daenerys propaganda: the literal in-text justification d&d gave for dany always being secretly evil and destined to massacre innocents was that she was too mean to the slavers that crucified a bunch of children. so they had this domestic violence survivor die of yet more domestic violence. they couldn't even let her go down in battle, she had to be assassinated by her lover in a moment of physical intimacy. (and tyrion, who literally strangled his gf to death and burned a fleet alive, suddenly became the audience avatar fretting about ethics.) the only woman permitted to retain power at the end of the show (sansa) was the one who said being raped and abused made her strong; dany, who explicitly condemned physical and sexual abuse and took steps to eradicate the perpetrators and break the wheel that crushed the oppressed, had to go crazy and die. the script explicitly condemned what they referred to as "liberation theology." d&d are the ultimate centrists and they turned dany into a fox news caricature of an activist.”

Lotor propaganda (TW: xenophobia):

“He wasn't exactly presented as a straight-up villain initially, more like a rogue agent. He wanted to reform his father's evil empire to be less tyrannical and xenophobic (the 2nd one is especially relevant because he's only half Galra. He went from an enemy of the heroes to an ally, then oops! turns out he's actually been a genocidal mass murderer with a god complex this whole time and then he dies in the most horrible way. It's been a while since I watched the show but I will never stop being mad over how they did my boy dirty.”

Always feel free to rb with more propaganda :)

[naetaesarya]

Hello there. I just wanted to ask what's up with that sudden influx of anti-jon/jonerys anons in that one blog. Maybe I'm too naive and not around asoiaf fandom places as much as tumblr, but I thought that the only people who hated jonerys were jonsas/dudebros from other sites who hate dany, not actual dany fans? It makes no sense to me that only one of them should give up on power or everything related to them to "settle down" with the other, or that they are an unequal pairing.

I really don't know. I clearly don't agree with many of that anon or op's views and it reminds me a bit of the Dany fan vs Jon fan fights I saw on westeros.org pre-2015/16 (which is when Jonsa exploded) and some of those could get crazy. When the Jonsa influx hit, it kind of took over so much of got/asoiaf fandom like a fandom covid.

[ao3feed-brucewayne]

[Podfic] lex luthor's ascent from supervillainy to fatherhood

by finemeal Based on this Tumblr prompt. Lex Luthor has recently acquired a son. Weapon? Parole officer? ...Lex now has a teenaged god and he'll be damned if someone tries to take the kid away from him. Words: 28, Chapters: 1/150, Language: English Fandoms: Danny Phantom, Superman - All Media Types, Justice League - All Media Types, Batman - All Media Types Rating: Teen And Up Audiences Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings Characters: Lex Luthor, Bruce Wayne, Danny Fenton, Clark Kent, Kon-El | Conner Kent, Cassandra Cain, Jason Todd, Jon Lane Kent, Jazz Fenton, Tim Drake, Cassie Sandsmark, Bart Allen, Alfred Pennyworth, Damian Wayne, Duke Thomas, Leslie Thompkins, Harleen Quinzel, Pamela Isley, Selina Kyle, Joker (DCU), Jim Gordon, Sam Manson, Vlad Masters, Lena Luthor, Kara Zor-El, Kitty (Danny Phantom), Johnny 13 (Danny Phantom), Clockwork (Danny Phantom), John Constantine, Danielle "Dani" Phantom, Tucker Foley Relationships: Lex Luthor & Danny Fenton, Danny Fenton & Clark Kent, Danny Fenton & Kon-El | Conner Kent, Cassandra Cain/Danny Fenton, Bart Allen & Tim Drake & Kon-El | Conner Kent & Cassie Sandsmark, Danny Fenton & Jason Todd, Jason Todd & Bruce Wayne, Kon-El | Conner Kent & Lex Luthor, Danny Fenton & Danielle "Dani" Phantom, Danny Fenton & Tucker Foley & Sam Manson, Danny Fenton & Jazz Fenton Additional Tags: Dad!Lex Luthor, Based on a Tumblr Post, Originally Posted on Tumblr, Language, This is bordering on, Crack Treated Seriously, Slow Burn, Batfamily (DCU), Selectively Mute Cassandra Cain, Danny Fenton Has ADHD, American Sign Language, Hard of Hearing Jason Todd, Father-Son Relationship, Mind Control, Phantom vs. Superman, BAMF Danny, Social Media, Fluff and Humor, Angst, Danny vs. Joker, Blood and Injury, Lex Luthor Redemption, OP Danny Fenton, Worldbuilding, Manipulative Clockwork (Danny Phantom), This Is Not Going To Go The Way You Think, It Gets Worse Before It Gets Better, Podfic via https://ift.tt/MnPJz5u

[ecto-stone]

:V this is how i imagine what Danny Phantom: Astral Projection game gonna be like. So like unlike normal Gacha game it very much like FGO. With a more refine version commander follower team control System of Astral Chronicle.

You can chose what ever unit you like to be commander and manual control them in battle to lead the back team around. :V there will be no PVP. or Forced Co-Op ( to created a more chill game atmost sphere) The only time Player co-op will be During the World boss Week at the end at everymonth when everyone in Game team up to kill the world boss as many time as humanly possible to get more Concentrated Ectoplasm Cube at the end of the tally up. Or a Stories event like Human Vs Ghost. Where Player pick team and sweep the event stage to get point and resourse. (winner get 50 more skin ticket then losing team) :) cheese strat or just playing the team you want is highly recommended. But what if you bring Max Lv unit to dungeon wouldn't that be wasted. No. The team have what essentially an EXP share or mentor spots. For example my team Have Vlad who is Lv Max. And Dani who is Lv 1. Vlad over flow Exp when he go to dungeon will go to Dani. who is in the Exp Share tag along spots.

[horizon-verizon]

I think it could be correct to say the Radowski article can feel accurate for ASOIAF when the rest of the storyline would really turn out as this better written version of GoT some fans always seem so eager for. The illusion they fall victim to is we would have a 'good' story then, because it would be technically better written. But 95% of the writer's criticism would still stand, and we'd still end up with pointless, toxic, unsatisfying shlock overdoing the subverting expectations shtick.

Disclaimer: This post will undergo several edits even after publishing because I am that person.

Anon's talking about my Twitter thread HERE about a 2021 article writer's critique of GRRM and ASoIaF. And they are referring to the last post about it HERE. And their post kinda reminds me of the latest ozymalek/pheonixashes quote here:

However, I wouldn't say "95%" because:

more than once, Radowski's goes into parochial stances that turn out to be incorrect and relying on what others have said of the text rather than what is in the text--they often actually more reveal how we've been guided into looking to Dany as the readers' AND commonborn's/HUMANITY's hope both by narrative and our pro-feminist/class-conscious selves (ASoIaF being "anti-fantasy" or "having no fantasy/a-fantasy"when that is really just some stupid fans' interpretation)....and this really undermines their point about ASoIaF being even technically horrible

they/she used a particular literary element incorrectly in their critique of how GRRM writes his characters

I'd instead say "70-80". Or that several times, the writer makes their good points, and then sometimes messes it up.

A)

I start to question what do critics mean when they say "well-written"? Morally vs technically, and when "technically" just means aestheically vs moral criticism; is the line blurred there, or do people blur it themselves? "Technically", to my understanding, refers to paragraph formatting, pacing, spelling, punctuation, grammar and vocabulary (i.e., diction); all those things that writers and speakers use to convey meaning almost poetically, that itself could develop a certain style or rhythm either familiar or more on the original side. All are meant to convey the psyche of the character, and the stakes of the events/scenes, and ultimately contribute to the moral spirit of the story. One person says: "I-the-reader am a brain parasite. the characters think thoughts they would never tell me. I see their worst impulses, their immediate instincts, their intrusive thoughts. a lot of it is unsavory, but it's done in such a way that it all feels deeply real and true to life." Does this not mean that the story is written better than what Radowski thinks it is? I'd say "yes".

B)

There is this:

AND

a.

It's weird and self-sabotaging to assume that because (some) fans interpreted the Starks pre-Ned-death as the moral standard of the story that is what the text offers.

The Boltons have been the Starks' ancient enemies--not quite to the level of the brackens and Blackwoods' enmity bc: the Starks always managed to come out on top; there was had lasting "peace" intervals of cohabitation; and the fighting itself reasoned/characterized not by the Blackwood-Bracken Romeon-Juliet family feuding so much as the Boltons being eternally ambitious and ruthless. I think that because they take on their flayed skin and ruthless ambition as their house identity, the feudal system itself creates the Boltons and we have an interesting enough tension of what makes identity/the villain in such a fantasy story. It's philosophical. But hey, I haven't heard or seen criticism of this beyond OP's oversimplification of the Boltons' presence.

Yes, of course, we all can see the Bolton's final end coming from the Starks and yes they are obviously evil. The question is not whether their conflict is complicated so much as the questions about identity present in such a conflict married to the feudal/Westerosi militant preference for male "strength" that makes the Boltons develop pride in such violence that I definitely think produced the crazy, off-the-wall Ramsay Bolton. Another character we can attribute such a social phenomenon to is the ironborn revving/raping society's effect on how men like Euron Greyjoy become who they are.

Oh well, a missed opportunity.

Even me just pointing out how Ned's death launches his family to become many different people is a testament to the deaths/violence/bursts of emotion creating the plot points the OP critic claims do not exist at all.

b.

Like I said in that Twitter thread, the writer makes very true & good points about sexual violence against women, and I personally don't much care for Brienne's story in the way it's almost written for Jaime's not-morally-redemptive-but-self-redemptive arc (as presented by fans as morally redemptive bc it's supposedly getting Jaime away from the "true" abuser/source of evil in his life, Cersei), and I have taken the "soft" goal of identifying where and when GRRM makes his repackaged/reversed subverted tropes because this wasn't a part I pondered as often as I should have.

However, it is actually incorrect for this person to say that it's "never" explained why Brienne wants to be a knight or imply that her "idealization of knighthood" doesn't itself come from her experience with gender.

I don’t understand why Brienne couldn’t stay at Evenfall Hall and be her father’s Castellan or Captain of the Guard. She’s the only surviving child (and heir) of Lord Tarth, so I’m confused why her father would let her roam Westeros as a hedge knight. It’s also never explained why Brienne wanted to be a knight in the first place.

So just because Brienne is her father's only surviving child, she must, morally, become the lady instead of following her dreams and being a knight (what the original writer leaves us to believe)? The first actual female knight to be customarily trained or to become the better/needed version of the knighthood that real knights (all men) have abandoned in their responsibility and cynicism?

So, there is only one way to live morally, and it is to act inauthentically, to ignore the pleasure one finds in the sword and self-defense, and to be another's more direct "guard"? A guard is an inferior "career" choice for a GNC woman?

The writer expresses that they can't fathom being a knight when there's the option of being a lord or the equivalent. Maybe they should read the book and accept different people, including women, have different perspectives and reactions to whatever empowers them, different developments of being? Not everyone wants to or should hold political positions of power that move & practically organize large groups of people/a community. Some people prefer to just be musicians or writers, poets or parents, doctors but not scientists or philosophers, etc.

blankwhiteshild says it way more eloquently than I in various posts, but the purpose of Brienne and Jaime is to highlight a constant thing GRRM does with his characters: making the marginalized the heroes of the story. The writer of the article winds up reinforcing some "toxic" and misogynist ideas in the process, which in turn puts into doubt their abilities to read or be totally or even well-entrusted to inform people about what's going on in the story and in the characters' minds.

The OP is under the impression that Brienne is trying her damndest to become like a man, transition or be a transgender man, or truly just to reject all modes of traditional femininity (that is really just socially-coded and enforced, constructed femininity) just because she loves to use a sword and does not conform to the Andal ideals of feminine looks. They should have been clued in about the falseness of this sort of thing with there being a politics of desirability and an insufficient binary enforced through femininity characterized as the "opposite" of masculinity--by how she's constantly described as "ugly" and "too much" of a "man". A commentator in that thread pointed out:

So the original critic seems not to have understood where Brienne was coming from, how young she is, or even familiar with her history...which is the entire impetus behind many characters' conflicts with the system GRRM is criticizing but choosing not to criticize through more characters other than Dany & Arya.

Not only that, Brienne "acts like a man" not because she hates women or thinks them inferior and hates herself as Ceresei does. She does not hate herself because she does not take her womanhood as the justified cause for her society subjecting her to abuses or reserving power away from her towards men--she did not develop that sense as Cersei has. She takes up the sword because her build allows and inspires her the confidence and opportunity to protect herself and others, which psychologically fulfills her. Plus she greatly admired and loved Catelyn Stark, who is not at all "mannish" in the social paradigm of Andal feminine beauty at all--Catelyn is rather known for her physical beauty as well as her sense and practice of responsibility. Catelyn also struggles with seeing her past labor of directing her Tully household and being a sort of new authority after her mother dies, having learned all her life that what she performed as a man's job. She constantly vacillates between marrying what women/girls acting out their obedient, subordinate roles versus herself using and wanting more political duties coded or suggestive of "male" from both necessity and necessity-self-generated desire. In all of this, Brienne admires Catelyn, wanted to be her sword shield forever at one point, and never said that Catelyn should be something that she wasn't. The text gives us that Brienne left her father's castle because she knew that she would never fulfill that lady-lord role despite her being able to fight (again, not everyone should be or can be or wants to be a leader in that way), so she left to follow her dreams.

To argue that the text says she is inherently mannish because of this ignores the text AND actually repackages Brienne's struggle with society's evaluation of her worth/her experiences with sexual assault as unreal and unworthy of discussion. It reinforces, ironically enough, that Sansa-stan bullshit of women tending naturally having to be as little as "masculine" as possible to be both considered real women and worthy of admiration. What happened to the love for gender-nonconforming women AND the truth of GNC also still being victims to misogyny and sexual violence--hello, the consequences of anti-trans bathrooms hurting Black/PoC, physically GNC white women and girls! You are attributing sword-wielding and martial activities to only men, just as how medieval men used to justify women being kept out of higher positions of power (Rhaenyra; written by mononijikayu). Again, just bc even I--the reader--am uninterested (at least as I am of Dany) or stupid, doesn't mean that this theme and logic isn't there for anyone to see and observe if they simply applied themselves.

I also find the Starks-as-a-unit uncompelling as hell, esp without their women. Their roles pre-NED-death as sort of societal "fixer-uppers-but-by-being-conservative-and-non-confrontartional-until-the-social-feudal-order" is ethically unsound and thus tiresome. Their individuals Arya, Jon, Bran Sansa (and in that order) are interesting and compelling...but the Starks before Ned dies? Eh.

It's clear that they were meant to be the narrative's designated feudal honor keepers, which really isn't very "honorable" at all (the unraveling/unseating Stark supremacy "traditional values: honor, justice, responsibility, and family" that's really just maintaining the integrity of the oppressive feudal social order). I'd argue that the Starks' dissolution was both needed and necessary to the points GRRM strives to make about class and gender roles. It pushes things off to position the Big 5 as who they need to be for the Long Night, by putting them in positions where they must navigate around constrictions against their transitioned states/identities to prepare Westeros and become leaders in their own right.

There is something visceral and pleasant and morally satisfying to be said about being the socially ostracized/marginalized person, even though not their own intentions, becoming a crucial element to saving the world by redirecting the societies that seek to destroy or limit them. There is something like a grand poetic "compromise" (this is not the right word, but the right word escapes me) there that draws me in because it's often the case for marginalized people to be capable of living in this world ethically confidently and with as much sense in their own agency as possible...as much as they can anyway.

Yes, I would say the draw for GRRM's work and ASoIaF is that it puts us into these people's minds without relying on a stream-of-consciousness POV like that of Virginia Woolf.

Bran's becoming the 3-eyed crow and showing that disabled people are worthy and can "do" or be able at important tasks and roles while being still imperfect; Sansa coming into her own against Littlefinger coming from being a bully against her sister from said classism & sexism that favors her; Tyrion, like Bran, his own flops and struggles in living as a disabled man but still being an aristocratic man (Shae)...I'd say that yes, there is a lot of conflicts (not "internal") many characters of ASoIaF go through. Problem is that they are not as actively trying to upend or explore other options as Dany. Jon maybe is closest, but even he still uses slavery with not as much compunction about it as Dany locking up her own dragons to protect her Meerenese people, so...

C)

a.

About how to write violence in a way I do not think is the only effective way to write violence (regarding Oberyn's fight w/the Mountain vs. Chuck Palahniuk’s Invisible Monsters):

vs

However, to say that Oberyn's death itself was unsymbolic and totally absent of anything higher in meaning, that the random stableboy's death did not itself refer to something other than a random stableboy getting smashed is incorrect:

"The luckless stableboy [sic] behind him was not so quick. As his arm rose to protect his face, Gregor’s sword took it off between elbow and shoulder. “Shut UP!” the Mountain howled at the stableboy’s scream, and this time he swung the blade sideways, sending the top half of the lad’s head across the yard in a spray of blood and brains […]".

I would argue that the stableboy getting hit and killed in the crossfire conveys his and other "peasants" protection from higher borns' military, violent activities. The randomness, as we know it now or should now, is meant to convey the randomness begotten from a privileged lack of compassion. That is not an absence of meaning by definition.

However, it becomes trying and consequential when there's very little to no real pushback from those little guys elsewhere in the narrative through collective actions or inside looks at how these people may protect themselves against these people. That perspective is missing and thus undermined. It then is GRRM is saying that there is no out nor even escape/relief. And then you are exhausting your reader more than you should--not to say that you should push your readers' mental and emotional capabilities, but you must be aware of what can bring them (a particular audience) to an unforgiving point of frustration and hopelessness. It may not be intentional, but for writers tasking themselves to be as critical of societies like this and failing to notice such a thing in their own writing is a serious failure that needs to be addressed.

American enslaved people not only physically rebelled through weapons and organized themselves in secret meetings or ran away. The ones who stayed or didn't fight poisoned their masters; held up work; destroyed tools; made as of they were too ill to work; made emotionally healing hymns that themselves were instructions or hidden messages; learned skills "from blacksmithing to dressmaking, to increase their indispensability to those who profited off their labor and to decrease their chances of being sold and separated from loved ones".

The consequence of not letting students know about various ways enslaved people resisted their conditions: "But because insurrections were so rare, when they are taught in isolation, students are left with the impression that the vast majority of enslaved people who did not rebel accepted their bondage. Some even interpret this to mean that African Americans were complicit in their own enslavement."

While common-born people are not slaves because they cannot be sold off and/or separated from families, they also were not completely considered important enough and in many cases "enough" of humans themselves. I mean, even in Essos, do we often hear of how the slaves (slaves by class and war, not race, but it is still the complete objectification of humans for the economic prosperity of a few) resist?

This is why Dany is also even more beloved--she is that "out" and possible rescue., as she--above all the other characters--is thinking about people across and under these class distinctions for their own sake. She embodies the goal that more ethically conscientious readers are looking for (esp those who are the more progressive...and morally correct, tbh).

And I must point out that I agreed with the paragraph formatting the article writer pointed out. If It were me, I would have separated & isolated much of the sentences to convey the quickness of the battle and to emphasize that stabelboys'd eath. If you're going to convey the randomness of his death, why not the isolation of this death by rewriting it to:

Spectators screamed and shoved at each other to get out of the way. One stumbled into Oberyn’s back. Ser Gregor hacked down with all his savage strength. The Red Viper threw himself sideways, rolling. The luckless stableboy [sic] behind him was not so quick. As his arm rose to protect his face, Gregor’s sword took it off between elbow and shoulder. “Shut UP!” the Mountain howled at the stableboy’s scream, and this time he swung the blade sideways, sending the top half of the lad’s head across the yard in a spray of blood and brains […]

Not only is this less drag on my eyes and brain, I have made sure to readers that this moment is emphasized and to be remembered. Of course, with a later hint of some malice or rebellion targeted towards the mountain from maybe a friend or family member of that poor stableboy.

Therefore, the OP comes off of being more like describing how they think fiction writers should write--conflating style with overall storytelling, not the grammar and formatting. And thus, it becomes a lot easier for anyone else to believe this person that they just do not like high-fantasy fiction as a genre, and thus cannot conceive of how speculative, self-subverting, and subtle the genre could and can be. It doesn't help that they used a nonhigh fantasy example for the technical writing for their analysis of violence-creation.

b.

Quentyn Martell was a bit redundant. However, "irrelevant to the narrative" is simply false. With his death, we now anticipate how Dany is going to use or interact with the Martells if and when she ever lands on Westeros and searches for allies....the Martells being those who supported her brother in Robert's Rebellion and from whom Oberyn, the guy who tried and failed to exact revenge for Elia on the Mountain (another theme the OP ignores in their critique of GRRM presenting"bad writing"). It's almost as if the answer to Elia's justice is not going to come from male-on-male "honor" killing, even out of her brother's love so much as Dany having to reckon with her own family's decisions face to face. Apparently, this is not an exciting enough prospect.

It also goes into how the OP thinks how characters' deaths somehow, someway mean nothing in the plot or that GRRM uses expected unexpected death for no reason at all. Which, as I already showed, is untrue and an exaggeration.

So, ironically, by criticizing GRRM's use of character death, and his lack of blatant critique, the OP practices what I think is GRRM's real issue: a liberal lack of real critique on their own absolutes and exaggerations that undermine their credibility.

Let me reiterate: what makes ASoIaF problematic is the lack of perspective and paired over-exaggeration of some violence (most esp the sexual kind against women and girls) for the sake of emphasis that was already emphasized and to make a point that would have already been made without such "emphasis", thus normalizing such violence, even claiming it "necessary". The violence isn't "pointless" as much as it goes beyond the necessary and repeats itself with no relief or seeking hope w/o Dany's anticipatory and present critical role, thus it seems pointless.

Remember, this shit was written in the 80s-90s, published in the 90s, and is now being read and critiqued by people in 2023 who have gotten much more conscious of the need to critique the status quo...but also can themselves fall into reinforcing it when they do not choose to engage with the taboo text/moments with a more distanced lens. And GRRM is still a rich, liberal white man.

[waitingforwinterwinds]

A Clash of Kings - 27 DAENERYS II (pages 383-392)

Dany arrives in Qarth, and finally gets caught up on the gossip from Westeros re: Bobby B vs The Boar.

If the reader had a penny for every time someone claiming to be a Dany fan decided to deliberately bad faith read one of their Dany-chapter-posts and leave hate, the reader would have two pennies, which isn't a lot but is still making the reader wonder if they should just skip Dany chapters in the future. The reader remains "not here for that shit," and would like to remind folks that shit gets auto-blocks.

-

On the walls of Qarth, men beat gongs to herald her coming, while others blew curious horns that encircled their bodies like great bronze snakes. A column of camelry emerged from the city as her honor guards.

This opening paragraph really drives home just how much complexity D&D stripped away to make make Dany a "cool underdog fighting for her every scrap." Like yes, she had to fight for everything, (although she also has a lot of luck and inherent power and status from just having dragons,) but they removed the entire Vaes Tolorro thing, which, yeah okay, only lasted a single chapter, but it also was an important breathing moment that showed Dany's willingness to build, to grow things, to regain her footing in the wake of what was a huge shift in her mentality from leader('s wife) of the khalasar to having almost nothing. (Also, on the subject: D&D making Doreah a self-interested betrayer because they think women have very few settings (bitch, plot device, meek, one of the guys) was absolute garbage. just like them.)

"Qarth is the greatest city that ever was or will be, (...) ancient beyond memory of man and so magnificent that Saathos the wise put out his eyes after gazing upon Qarth for the first time, because he knew that all he saw thereafter should look squalid and ugly by comparison."

Qarth is the Taj Mahal!? I'm sorry, I shouldn't joke about real human suffering. (It's also not a one-to-one but my brain knee-jerk connected.)

The women wore gowns of that left one breast bare,

Why though? Is there a specific reason? Or did GRRM just decide to half-ass the tits out look? I have questions about support, and whether its up-from-under or a wedge-cut from over, like Jane Foster's one-tit armour in Thor. The second one. Also: Qarth sounds so cool. (I hope those sandals the kids were wearing were only golden coloured though, or if not, at least it means they'll never be able to skip leg day.

"A honor as rare as summer snows."

I don't know why but this made me snort. I think it's partly because summer snows aren't rare at all in the north of Westeros, so this changes his sentence for context, but I know he means locally. I think it's also in part because my brain is going "wrong grammar is wrong" because 'honor' is one of those silent(ish) 'h' words that sound like it starts with a vowel, so my brain's like, "it's either "an 'onor" or you're pronouncing the 'h'. "a HHhhhhhhonor."" I might just be very tired.

"We have seen only the parts of Qarth that Pyat Pree wished us to see," she went on. "Rakharo, go forth and look on the rest, and tell me what you find. Take good men with you - and women, to go places where men are forbidden."

Yes, good. Trust but verify, except don't trust these people. Good thinking to send the ladies, way too often authors just ignore female spaces (... unless they're brothels.)

Dany had no wish to reduce King's Landing to a blackened ruin full of unquiet ghosts. She had supped on enough tears. I want to make my kingdom beautiful, to fill it with fat men and pretty maids and laughing children. I want my people to smile when they see me ride by, the way Viserys said they smiled for my father. But before she could do that she must conquer.

Well now I'm sad. ... *pushes season 8 off the table like a cat with a vase*

Beneath Dany's gentle fingers, green Rhaegal stared at the stranger with eyes of molten gold. When his mouth opened, his teeth gleamed like black needles.

Ahhhh, so their teeth are black like their bones! I had wondered about that. Like I got the vibe with the skelies, but living dragons also: check!

"Dragons die." She stood on her toes to kiss him lightly on an unshaven cheek. "But so do dragonslayers."

oh now there's a raw-ass line. It has like an... almost inverse energy of that quote about dragons and stories... what was it...

Fairy tales do not tell children dragons exist. Children already know the dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed. - G.K. Chesterton

What's interesting about Dany's line is her acknowledgment that dragons die, when previously she's mentioned them as being powerful and nigh on indestructible creatures. Usually though she's using the references in metaphor for herself and those around her as a kind of mental housekeeping and protective adjustment, like Arya and her 'fear cuts deeper than swords' mantra.

Coming close on the heels of her talk with Jorah and captain Quhuru Mo of the Cinnamon Wind, it's kind of a blend of her previous imagery and "I understand that I am not in the best position of power, that I can still fail if I'm not careful, but so could my enemy, because they've lost their balance too."

[arledrone]

as usual soupcock shippers are a buncha crackheads at the end of the day

as usual soupcock shippers are a buncha crackheads at the end of the day 

[utilitycaster]

@ulidig I wanted to respond to this reblog but without putting a giant response in OPs notes, but I think the original post is spot-on: it's not entirely about selling out, and for some people it's probably not that at all.I think it is the feeling of a loss of access to the cast.

To be honest, that's always been something that is weird for me. I have pretty rigidly defined boundaries for parasocial interactions; it creeps me out when people are overly familiar in any scenario. But I do get it; if you watch early campaign 1 episodes, they were cheering for every few new viewers, and I think the fans ordered them pizza at one point. Dani Carr essentially got her job through the early fandom.

The thing is it hasn't been like that for a very long time; the fandom is just too big and there have unfortunately been several incidents where fans felt they were entitled to access, and pulling back seems very reasonable.

I think gen z is actually much worse about this (I'm a millennial); it feels like with some people there is a sense that if someone is on social media it's akin to meeting them in person and you can ask things that are wildly inappropriate.

There are things I'll miss; I suspect that Talks just won't be able to take fandom questions, and some of those questions made for great moments. But it really is more than almost any show does - to submit questions to NADDPod and D20, both of which have large but not quite as huge audiences, you need to have a paid subscription.

In terms of fandom I've been in, it reminds me McElroy brothers; if you listen to live shows from 2011 and 2012 they would go get beer with the fans, and that is just not really doable when you're filling a concert hall vs. when you're filling a stand-up comedy venue.

I think this gets conflated with "selling out" in the sense that once something gets popular it can feel less personal, even though what it means to any individual fan shouldn't, in my opinion, rely on whether there are 10 other fans or 10 million. But I agree with the original post that the complaint really isn't about sponsors or merchandise; it's people mad about the very natural consequences of something they like getting popular.

[glittergradient]

some thoughts on the bury your gays trope, supernatural/the 100 vs. the haunting of bly manor

I saw this tweet and, in light of the whole Supernatural fiasco and subsequent social media uproar, I feel like sharing some thoughts.

Firstly, I want to say I agree with this post. I don’t believe that all queer characters have to have perfect happy endings all the time; not all queer character deaths fall in the 'bury your gays' trope regardless of context. I believe, in fact, that context makes all the difference between a satisfying ending and a harmful one. I can't say I am a big fan of tragic stories (personal preference), however I am capable of appreciating the tragic element when it's done in a way that feels meaningful and true to the story, when the tragedy adds something to the narrative instead of taking away from it.

And this is exactly where I believe The Haunting of Bly Manor succeeded, while Supernatural and The 100 failed. (more below the cut)

While I agree with the op’s original point, they then go on to talk about Lexa's death in The 100 and how, in their opinion, Lexa sacrificing herself to save Clarke in the City of Light was the most poignant way her story could have ended. And I understand where they’re coming from, but the thing is, that's not how Lexa actually died. By the time that happened, she was already dead, only her consciousness was still alive in the Flame. Lexa died because of a flying bullet that wasn't even meant for her, not during a fight, not as a sacrifice, but because of an accident. She was arguably one of the most compelling characters in the show, the surface of her potential had barely been scratched, and yet she was killed off to deliver some cheap shock twist at the end of an episode. The context also matters. Lexa’s death happened right after she and Clarke were finally able to act on their feelings for each other; right when their story seemed to be starting, abruptly and pointlessly it ended.

There is a difference, a striking difference, between Lexa's death and Dani's death in The Haunting of Bly Manor.

Dani, also a lesbian character in love with another woman, dying at the end of her story, after several years of happiness and commitment, as the culmination of a beautifully told tragic tale of love, loss, memory, trauma and sacrifice, is NOT the same as Lexa dying because of a flying bullet in a rushed and dismissive cheap plot twist.

As for Supernatural, I found Castiel's death to be executed more tastefully than Lexa’s. His death is not the issue per se, in my opinion. If it existed in a vacuum, it could be accepted as an emotionally fulfilling ending, as the poignant culmination of a 12-year-long character arc, a moment of self-actualization that feels true and meaningful to his story. However, once again, context matters.

It matters, because Supernatural is a show where 'nothing ever stays dead'. Cas himself had come back from the dead multiple times. The idea that he couldn't come back the one time he died right after being canonically established as queer doesn't feel right and inevitably reeks of the 'bury your gays' trope. It matters, because Cas actually was resurrected, but he was never shown again, he was barely even mentioned or mourned in the final two episodes of the show he'd been a fundamental part of for 12 years. Even his resurrection was only implied, rather than explicitly confirmed, by a passing comment made by a guest star, minimizing the importance of the revelation itself. If you got distracted for about 5 seconds while watching the finale, you might have missed the fact that one of the most important characters had been resurrected (off screen).

Castiel didn't just die, he was erased. He was canonically established as queer and then, at once, erased from the narrative. Of all the times he died, this was the only one where his best friends, his family, weren't even allowed to show emotion and sorrow over his demise. The long-overdue highly emotional love confession he delivered in his final moments to his best friend of over a decade remained unanswered and unaddressed, as if it never happened.

The Haunting of Bly Manor succeeds where The 100 and Supernatural fail, because it does justice to its characters, to their story and to their love. Dani's death does not fall under the 'bury your gays' trope because her final sacrifice actually enriches the narrative of what is, at its core, a tragic romance. It's sad, it's heartbreaking, but as a viewer, you don't come out of the experience feeling like the characters you've come to care about were done wrong, like they were wrongfully erased from a narrative that refused to accommodate them. Dani's death doesn't represent the end of her and Jamie's story, but an inherently fundamental part of it, something that adds depth and nuance to an organic narrative of tragedy and romance, the two main elements the fabric of the story is made of. Unlike Lexa, Dani is not stripped of the possibility to live her truth and her love as soon as such a possibility is presented to her. Unlike Castiel, her final sacrifice doesn't erase her memory, instead sublimating it.

It is possible to write tragic endings for queer characters that still feel emotionally fulfilling in spite of their tragedy, or even because of it, endings that do not erase queer voices, but honor the complexities of their stories. But this is not what The 100 and Supernatural did: Lexa being allowed to act on her love for Clarke, finding peace in it, only to be killed moments later; and Castiel being allowed to speak his truth, finding happiness in vocalizing his love for Dean, only to be erased from the narrative right after, are not and could never be satisfying conclusions to queer narratives.

[lavampira]

cotanking with @hythlodaes is almost like syncing brains to a fault, like. no we don’t need to communicate our swaps because we know in our hearts what the other is doing. yes we’re going to actively nuke each other ending up on the same platform with AoE again and again and again—

[aboveallarescuer]

What I said about the Meereenese Blot (which is actually the name of the blog; the series of essays is called Untangling the Meereenese Knot):

What some people think I said:

This is especially stupid when these "people you disagree with" were the ones who stirred shit by coming into a post that wasn't about her, by insulting the OP and by equating Dany stans to toxic Sansa stans (y'know, the ones who call Dany a rapist, a slaver, a pyromaniac, a white supremacist, a tyrant, a mad queen, etc... and that's about book!Dany, not show!Dany) and calling us a "cult" (nevermind that we bring up textual evidence to back up every statement we make) without caring to know how much Dany is hated and what we actually say about Dany (or about Sansa, for that matter; by mentioning her, that person was the one who turned that situation into a Sansa vs Dany problem when we barely talk about her). Also, that person mentioned the Meereenese Blot specifically to argue that Dany isn't a hero, and the MB itself views Dany negatively based on double standards (I'll mention a few below).

Look, I agree that everyone should read this series of metas (the main reason why I'm still in this fandom are the metas, after all). They have changed how the fandom interprets Dany's ADWD storyline for the better and they make some good observations about the political situation in Meereen. However, the conclusion about how the peace was real is obviously flawed. The essayist goes out of his way to justify why it's okay that the former slaves in Yunkai are being re-enslaved or why the fighting pits being re-opened is okay (it's not). He was also the one that dichotomized Dany into mhysa (her so-called 'peaceful' side) and mother of dragons (her so-called 'violent' side) even though these aspects of her identity coexist and strengthen each other, exaggerated her torture of the wineseller and his daughters without acknowledging that she learned that it was wrong and that it was acceptable by the standards of her time, said that the Dany of ASOS who chose to stay and bring peace is "dead" (nevermind that Dany turning her eyes back west is no different than any feudal lord fighting for his birthright), etc.

So, while they helped to explain why Dany's ADWD storyline is not as simple as 'she sucks at ruling', they also popularized lots of interpretations that judge Dany harshly. I know many Brazilian casual fans that reference it from time to time to talk about Dany and take everything it says for granted. Despite their good points, people are allowed to resent this series of essays even if it's not as bad as antis say it is. It pisses me off that so many people take them as the go-to metas to understand Dany's ADWD storyline.

Seriously, think about it.

Saying that Dany has "two" sides and is only going to listen to her "darker" impulses moving forward is as bad a take as saying that Arya has become "violent" and "broken" and won't ever be able to live a normal life. Why is the latter rightfully viewed as hate and the former isn't?

Why do people rightfully criticize the argument that "show!Dany saying that she'll burn cities to the ground is foreshadowing that she'll burn KL" but don't do the same about how the essayist argues that, by choosing fire and blood, Dany's "peaceful" side is now "dead"?

I'm tired of that. As I said in this post's tags, a lot of bad takes about Dany were not challenged and viewed as hate like they were for Arya or Catelyn or Sansa when they should have been throughout the years. The hate she receives now from jonsas didn't come out of nowhere, it's a culmination of everything that's been thrown at her.

I'm not saying that these metas shouldn't be read because they definitely should (in fact, I and Júlia often read lots of metas that we don't agree with and reply to their points accordingly), but they are overrated and should receive a lot more criticism than they have.

[esther-dot]

OMG I forgot about sending that ask LOL The first thing I saw yesterday after waking up was your reblog of another mockery of that Barbrey D post, and I just couldn't help myself. Sorry for receiving a weird rant. And it seems I'm not done yet.

That post was one of the dumbest thing I've seen in a while. Though I applaud the originality of it. That was definitely a new approach to this fandom's immemorial crusade of downplaying Sansa's importance. I actually think BD will play a role too, but in Sansa's court. I haven't extensively studied or theorized but I have always had the impression that she'll be one of the first who'll back Sansa's claim bc Manderly gets the other Stark. She needs her own Stark so to speak, and the only free one around will be Sansa. But to think that she'll play the MAIN role in defeating Boltons, leading the North after their fall??? Will she rebuild the Winterfell too? Because it means so much to her I'm sure, the seat of the Starks...

Then again how am I supposed to take someone who thinks Dany will have nothing to do with burning of KL seriously? That Chekov's gun will not go off, really? The character who has dragons (and got those dragons by burning her slave alive for revenge) will never use them for their main purpose? They seem to like quoting GRRM but conveniently ignore how he called the dragons nuclear weapons. He was just joking, I guess.

I didn't know the op so I looked around their blog to get a sense of where that post is coming from, just to be sure. And oh boy... You know the GRRM interview where the reporter asks what Ice and Fire means and he refers to both the Others and Dany as threats to Westeros, right? Like it's literally right there, it's from his mouth, he says things going on north of the Wall and Dany with her dragons on another continent are much greater and more dangerous threats Westeros ignores. And what did they get from that interview? "OMG I knew it! It's going to be Ice vs Fire, Others vs Dany! She is going to destroy them and save the world!!" *doublefacepalm.gif* It's really sad seeing education system failing people in action, look at them, they can’t even comprehend simple answers given in interviews. Yet they have such confidence that despite their egregious media illiteracy they are absolutely sure if themselves that they are the ones who understand ASOIAF and think other people who don’t follow their interpretations are actually the ones who can’t read.

No take backs. I’m a Fat Walda as QitN fan now. 😂

I really like your take on it. I think in general we focus so much on the POV characters it’s easy to overlook the secondary ones who help advance the plot in their way. That’s my issue with people who act like Robb’s Will means Jon will inherent Winterfell and Sansa is disinherited (and some think she’s delegitimized?) because, uh, what will the Northerners think about this? They’re going to have opinions, they’ll get dialogue. Anyway, your view incorporates the impact of these characters, so I love that.

Full disclosure: I’ve had that blog blocked for a while, so I only saw that post because it was reblogged onto my dash and when I realized who it was, I just scrolled on by. They’re part of the group that simultaneously says the Dark Dany theory is all about shipping and also make jokes about how Dany should do war crimes as a treat. It annoys me that so many seemingly neutral ASOIAF blogs fill the tags with posts about how awful Sansa fans are because some of us are cool with Dark Dany...even though they also kinda know it’s happening? If you accept Dany burning KL, how are we haters for talking about it? How is it sexist for us to say if you burn a city, murder women and children, you’re going out a villain? How is objecting to burning people alive about shipping? 🤷🏻‍♀️

And this:

“The character who has dragons (and got those dragons by burning her slave alive for revenge) will never use them for their main purpose?”

Is a really good point. I don’t mind if Martin has Jon believe he needs Dany (I just realized if we’re looking for who got what from the books I can make an argument for Jon getting Aemon’s belief in Daenerys “Daenerys is the only hope”— and hell, let’s just toss in boatbang as being stolen from Sam and Gilly while we’re at it), but, there’s just no way the dragons are actually the answer. Even if Dany goes North (I honestly don’t see how there’s time for that), but even if she did, it would be about her losing her armies/dragons and being driven to take drastic action in the South because she’s suffered catastrophic losses, making her desperate.

As for Martin calling the dragons nukes, I saw this take in the tags and had to take a screenshot:

I think there’s no reasoning with people this determined to misunderstand what the author clearly stated. Just like you said OP took the Martin quote out of its context. They don’t want to believe it, so they refuse to hear it.

[sayruq]

1/Just saw a post were the OP was (w/no malice) pondering if GRRM would really introduce the real Aegon so far into the series. And it occured to me: some people are coming at this from the perspective that if real Aegon exists, then he is the RIGHTFUL heir so his endgame HAS to be the IT. But even if you aren't a Jon or Dany stan it doesn't make sense for a new character to eclipse the mainstays like that, ergo he MUST be fake. Basically they still think is ending in "rightful" Targ Restoration

2/They aren't getting that the Targs are one of the big problems that the gods and man are trying to quashed out. So yes, Aegon can be real, because he's going to die, just as Dany will die, just as Jon will deny his Targ heritage, ending the House once and for all. If you think the Targs has any God given right to Westeros, you're already on the wrong path.

they don’t understand his function in the story. aegon is replacing the lannisters and creating a new status quo. he also meant to fix some immediate problems in westeros. people expected dany to team up with the starks to kill all the villains- the lannisters and the others but grrm is adding aegon to the equation and removing the lannisters. what does that make daenerys since she’s not rescuing westeros from the lannisters?

also like you said, they think it’s a waste for elia and rhaegar’s real son to die in the end so he must be fake and his death must be a punishment for ‘usurping’ thereal targaryens. they also mistakenly think he is coming towards the end of the series. twow and ados are going to be 2 large books. imo adwd is the middle point of the series. the first half was dominated by the starks vs lannisters and the second half will feature the dance of dragons 2.0 and the invasion of the others and towards the end both storylines will converge.

[ao3feed-brucewayne]

[Podfic] lex luthor's ascent from supervillainy to fatherhood

read it on AO3 at https://ift.tt/MnPJz5u by finemeal Based on this Tumblr prompt. Lex Luthor has recently acquired a son. Weapon? Parole officer? ...Lex now has a teenaged god and he'll be damned if someone tries to take the kid away from him. Words: 28, Chapters: 1/150, Language: English Fandoms: Danny Phantom, Superman - All Media Types, Justice League - All Media Types, Batman - All Media Types Rating: Teen And Up Audiences Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings Characters: Lex Luthor, Bruce Wayne, Danny Fenton, Clark Kent, Kon-El | Conner Kent, Cassandra Cain, Jason Todd, Jon Lane Kent, Jazz Fenton, Tim Drake, Cassie Sandsmark, Bart Allen, Alfred Pennyworth, Damian Wayne, Duke Thomas, Leslie Thompkins, Harleen Quinzel, Pamela Isley, Selina Kyle, Joker (DCU), Jim Gordon, Sam Manson, Vlad Masters, Lena Luthor, Kara Zor-El, Kitty (Danny Phantom), Johnny 13 (Danny Phantom), Clockwork (Danny Phantom), John Constantine, Danielle "Dani" Phantom, Tucker Foley Relationships: Lex Luthor & Danny Fenton, Danny Fenton & Clark Kent, Danny Fenton & Kon-El | Conner Kent, Cassandra Cain/Danny Fenton, Bart Allen & Tim Drake & Kon-El | Conner Kent & Cassie Sandsmark, Danny Fenton & Jason Todd, Jason Todd & Bruce Wayne, Kon-El | Conner Kent & Lex Luthor, Danny Fenton & Danielle "Dani" Phantom, Danny Fenton & Tucker Foley & Sam Manson, Danny Fenton & Jazz Fenton Additional Tags: Dad!Lex Luthor, Based on a Tumblr Post, Originally Posted on Tumblr, Language, This is bordering on, Crack Treated Seriously, Slow Burn, Batfamily (DCU), Selectively Mute Cassandra Cain, Danny Fenton Has ADHD, American Sign Language, Hard of Hearing Jason Todd, Father-Son Relationship, Mind Control, Phantom vs. Superman, BAMF Danny, Social Media, Fluff and Humor, Angst, Danny vs. Joker, Blood and Injury, Lex Luthor Redemption, OP Danny Fenton, Worldbuilding, Manipulative Clockwork (Danny Phantom), This Is Not Going To Go The Way You Think, It Gets Worse Before It Gets Better, Podfic read it on AO3 at https://ift.tt/MnPJz5u