I don't have the book at hand to quote, but what struck me when I was reading it was John going desperately from how he had to make them his hands and fingers!! to keep them!! he IMMEDIATELY segues into how he's so sad he had to feed the revenant beasts his fingers to keep them away :( it was so awful that they made him do that :( like he makes them possessions then having objectified them he justifies having to destroy his Things to keep himself safe. which I think is where he and Harrow are going to diverge. (noting that they've already taken very different tactics as far as the order of what gets kept safe)
It's the very next line! This quote picks up exactly where the last one left off:
That's definitely a legit way to read this passage, though it's not the way I prefer to. I mean. Hypocrisy found in God, fork found in kitchen. Come on. But yeah, that's an undeniably fucked up trajectory.
More seriously, I see John's chapters of Nona the Ninth as a confession, rather than as a justification. It's not meant to be coherent or consistant, just emotionally honest. He's expressing how he felt in the moments he made his decisions and asking to be understood, but he's not asking to be affirmed, or forgiven. "Just as there can be no forgiveness for me," and all.
The way in which his story does make sense—the way he's choosing to frame it—is fascinating for what it shows about John and what he's so deeply afraid of, in his heart of hearts. He loved them, and he sacrificed them, and then he sacrificed them again, but at least they didn't leave him.
And yet even in his confession there are still levels on which he seems to sincerely not understand what he's done wrong—mostly surrounding the autonomy and personhood of other people. Like you said, he objectifies people. He loves them as extensions of himself, because that is the only thing he understands as being real. He has no peers, as he is God. His closest friends are his fists and gestures, the fingers on his hand. As necessary to him as a limb, and losing them cripples him, but he doesn't understand them as people in their own right at all. And that lack of respect and understanding leads to him treating them horrifically.
It's kind of sad, in a way. Not to jump tracks completely, but the way John loves reminds me of this quote from episode 55 of Welcome to Night Vale:
It's presented in the context of a romantic couple, but it works more broadly. lt seems like the only way John knows how to love is by subsuming what he loves into himself, becoming one. Leaving him once again alone.
What's interesting is that he appears to know this about himself. Right in this quote, he directly compares himself to the Resurrection Beasts. Revenants that crack open worlds to eat their souls for sustenance, then pack the dead shells onto their exteriors to become part of themselves. As he sees it, the difference is that the Resurrection Beasts will eventually be satisfied. He won't be.
As for the parallels between John and Harrow, I don't think we need to look for where they're going to diverge. I think we can point to where they already have. And it's a fair comparison, to a time before John was God.
Look at John's reaction to his cult schisming, here:
He loves his friends, but he doesn't trust them. Deep down, he believes their love is conditional. If he fucks up, if he's caught slipping, if he admits he's wrong, he'll lose them. He's terrified of anyone finding out he's flawed, of the ugly parts of him being known, because he's certain anyone who sees that part of him will leave. He's gone ten thousand years like that, compounding lies to make them stay.
Harrow has a similarly harsh expectation of herself, but she's already taken her leap of faith, and let the mask drop. She's told the people she loves exactly who and what she is, with the full expectation they would punish or abandon her for it. With the full expectation Gideon would kill her for it, in the pool scene. And Gideon embraced her. She confronted Ortus with her failings in the River, and Ortus comforted her, and still chose to stay and risk his life to save her.
The people who loved John would have done the same for him. Did do the same for him. They stayed through his breakdown, they stayed by his side until it killed them, but John could never let his guard down enough to trust that they would have done it just for him. He couldn't submit to the mortifying ordeal of being known.
This is all, of course, working with the basic premise that the way John treats people is horrific, and he did have all the opportunites in the world to stop. He could have taken that plunge any time in the ten thousand and thirty-something years he's been alive, if he'd been strong enough to accept the consequences or believed in the rewards. It was all so fucking avoidable, but here we are. My favorite kind of tragedy.
203 notes
·
View notes
Margaret of Anjou’s visit to Coventry [in 1456], which was part of her dower and that of her son, Edward of Lancaster, was much more elaborate. It essentially reasserted Lancastrian power. The presence of Henry and the infant Edward was recognised in the pageantry. The ceremonial route between the Bablake gate and the commercial centre was short, skirting the area controlled by the cathedral priory, but it made up for its brevity with no fewer than fourteen pageants. Since Coventry had an established cycle of mystery plays, there were presumably enough local resources and experience to mount an impressive display; but one John Wetherby was summoned from Leicester to compose verses and stage the scenes. As at Margaret’s coronation the iconography was elaborate, though it built upon earlier developments.
Starting at Bablake gate, next to the Trinity Guild church of St. Michael, Bablake, the party was welcomed with a Tree of Jesse, set up on the gate itself, with the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah explaining the symbolism. Outside St. Michael’s church the party was greeted by Edward the Confessor and St. John the Evangelist; and proceeding to Smithford Street, they found on the conduit the four Cardinal Virtues—Righteousness (Justice?), Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. In Cross Cheaping wine flowed freely, as in London, and angels stood on the cross, censing Margaret as she passed. Beyond the cross was pitched a series of pageants, each displaying one of the Nine Worthies, who offered to serve Margaret. Finally, the queen was shown a pageant of her patron saint, Margaret, slaying the dragon [which 'turned out to be strictly an intercessor on the queen's behalf', as Helen Maurer points out].
The meanings here are complex and have been variously interpreted. An initial reading of the programme found a message of messianic kingship: the Jesse tree equating royal genealogy with that of Christ had been used at the welcome for Henry VI on his return from Paris in 1432. A more recent, feminist view is that the symbolism is essentially Marian, and to be associated with Margaret both as queen and mother of the heir rather than Henry himself. The theme is shared sovereignty, with Margaret equal to her husband and son. Ideal kingship was symbolised by the presence of Edward the Confessor, but Margaret was the person to whom the speeches were specifically addressed and she, not Henry, was seen as the saviour of the house of Lancaster. This reading tips the balance too far the other way: the tableau of Edward the Confessor and St. John was a direct reference to the legend of the Ring and the Pilgrim, one of Henry III’s favourite stories, which was illustrated in Westminster Abbey, several of his houses, and in manuscript. It symbolised royal largesse, and its message at Coventry would certainly have encompassed the reigning king. Again, the presence of allegorical figures, first used for Henry, seems to acknowledge his presence. Yet, while the message of the Coventry pageants was directed at contemporary events it emphasised Margaret’s motherhood and duties as queen; and it was expressed as a traditional spiritual journey from the Old Testament, via the incarnation represented by the cross, to the final triumph over evil, with the help of the Virgin, allegory, and the Worthies. The only true thematic innovation was the commentary by the prophets.
[...] The messages of the pageants firmly reminded the royal women of their place as mothers and mediators, honoured but subordinate. Yet, if passive, these young women were not without significance. It is clear from the pageantry of 1392 and 1426 in London and 1456 in Coventry that when a crisis needed to be resolved, the queen (or regent’s wife) was accorded extra recognition. Her duty as mediator—or the good aspect of a misdirected man—suddenly became more than a pious wish. At Coventry, Margaret of Anjou was even presented as the rock upon which the monarchy rested. [However,] a crisis had to be sensed in order to provoke such emphasis [...]."
-Nicola Coldstream, "Roles of Women in Late Medieval Civic Pageantry," "Reassessing the Roles of Women as 'Makers' of Medieval Art and Culture"
10 notes
·
View notes
Stolen from Scummy's reblog because I wanted to do it too!
Note that most half-filled squares are ones that are technically true, but it's under specific circumstances and rules, will explain below
So, for now, some Blorbos from me:
-Intense in loves and passions (for Nobunaga, for MC once they get together, for trying to get Mitsuhide to take better care of himself, in his care for others, dude is just passionate for his loved ones!)
-His love for Nobu and his interactions with Mitsuhide can get a little fruity, not gonna lie.
-Technically orphan since we don't really hear much about his family aside from his poor upbringing and having to be a bum to get by until Nobu came into his life. Agas in discord has also told us about RL Hideyoshi and how much his mom loved Kennyo and I think that's funny to think about sometimes.
-Frequently violent but only when it comes to protecting his loved ones. He thinks one of them is in trouble and the man will go feral trying to find a way to help them. Overall speaking, he's not particularly violent, I don't think though.
-----
-Nothing anyone says is gonna make me change my mind about this man being bisexual. Nope, not happening.
-Technically a tragic backstory as he frequently does Team Oda's dirty work of spying and torture, but his tragic backstory is not quite to the extent that some other characters go through, like poverty, figure-headness, and killing a loved one.
-Technically frequently violent, but it's mostly in the pranks he pulls. Not ferally violent, in a sense. He's sneaky about his violent tendencies. You don't want to mess with his wife, after all.
-Divorced? He's a double agent that always goes back to his ex (Team Oda).
------
-Being an immortal vampire means you must have some complexities and that doesn't excuse you being fruity, monsieur.
-Technically an orphan as I don't think we hear much about his birth family as we do Leonardo and Vlad. They're mentioned sometimes but no word on their current status as he tends to focus more on his found family. Until I get confirmed status, he's orphan status to me, thus why the creation of his found one.
-Divorced from Vlad, duh.
------
-Listen. Listen. Devon/batteryrose was onto something with shipping Nokto and Slivio. Plus, been thinking of finding ways of shipping my OC and him with Rio. Just something about Nokto and the Bentonite princes does something to my mind, okay?
-Technically an orphan after what happened to his and Licht's mom, plus the whole reason for the Belle procedure is because his dad died. Maybe it doesn't count because he was an adult when his dad died, but, technically speaking, both his parents are dead, so...
-Murderer by technicality because of Blood-stained Roses Day (all the princes at the time were said to have participated, so, technically speaking). He also tried to poison some merchants for a business deal, so attempted murderer too, technically?
-----
-Have you seen this demon when his family is in danger (actual, perceived, or otherwise)? He will go absolutely bat-shit feral when his family is in danger! Once you're under his wings, nothing will stop him from going to the absolute limit and beyond for you.
-Technically divorced from the Celestial Realm because of Circumstances™️, not from a specific person.
-Also on a technicality, because of that... whole war with the Celestial Realm, so some angels were more than likely killed, right?
13 notes
·
View notes
I still dunno my opinion on the "if you don't have a reason to live live for me" speech. Objectively wild thing to say, Xie Lian! Wild thing for a Twenty Year Old to say, both more and less wild for a god - you're uncomfortable with being worshiped and treated as above other people but you're fine telling a 13 year old to make you the meaning of his life, Xie Lian? Absolutely bonkers speech in that respect! On the other hand, weirdly, that's... not entirely out there advice? I have heard of something similar (though differently-phrased) used by plenty of people in a state where wanting to live for their own sake is hard to reach - if you can't keep going for yourself, to keep going because you have to feed your dog, or your sister would be sad, or whatever. Sometimes even religion is that external reason! "I can't want to live for myself but I know my god wants me to keeping going so I will" is a perfectly functional reason to keep going until you are in a state where you want to live for your own sake! But then, for one thing, that method is an incredibly delicate thing to advise someone else to use, especially if the advice-giver is using themself as the external reason, and secondly there is still a bit of a difference between that and making someone the meaning of your life.
4 notes
·
View notes