not sure about everyone who follows me/my mutuals, but i genuinely despise when people say "william has no motive!!!! he just likes killing kids" because im so autistic about this franchise. maybe he has no motivation to YOU. but to me (enlightened book enjoyer) (lie i hate the books but i sure have read them) his motivation is quite obvious. according to that one homosexual seemingly throwaway line from the books, he was extraordinarily jealous of henry & his family. jealously can drive a man to do horrible things, i think.
now, whether you're a willry truther or not, i genuinely believe that his motive was jealously (gay jealously or not doesn't super matter). so he killed charlotte to put a dent in henrys seemingly perfect life. and he continued killing kids because not only did he enjoy feeling smarter than the police who never managed to catch him (in the books they do interrogate him, but he walks free, but in my headcanon they interrogate henry and never even think to look into william as a suspect), but also because he finally felt like he had something to hold over henrys head. he had always felt inferior to henry, and the murder of charlotte & the others, while putting a rift in their relationship/friendship, finally made will feel like he was better than and smarter than henry.
178 notes
·
View notes
sooo i'm watching james somerton's apology video (an unlisted reupload because i do not want to give him money!) and i'm only 2:31/43:01 in but i already have so many thoughts about how manipulatively worded this video is so i thought i'd make a blog post about it, maybe see what some other people thought.
james tries to frame himself as a wellmeaning, albiet privledged, white cis gay man. he tries to say that he was trying to be a voice for the queer community because he wanted to uplift more marginalized members of the queer community. i think this is inherently false.
the way james repeatedly presented himself to his audience was that he was the only person talking about the issues he was discussing (while stealing other people's words, but we'll come back to that in a second). he literally said "people thought i was crazy until i explained it and then they came around to seeing it my way" (maybe he didn't say it exactly that way, i'm paraphrasing, but you get my point). him trying to say that this is not what he did is so obviously untrue. he DID do that. multiple times. he propped himself up as the only gay creator talking about the issues he discussed, and rarely promoted other queer content creators. if he wanted to be a spokesperson for the queer community, he would have at least mentioned other queer people who talked about issues he found important, rather than just stealing their content and reposting it as his own. it's disingenuous to call himself a spokesperson when he never highlighted the people he was supposedly speaking for.
it wouldn't be bad, per se, if james was actually trying to be a spokesperson for the queer community, though i think that even if that motivation were true, it'd still be misguiding. while allyship from more privileged members of the community is important, it feels like a bit of a white savior complex for him to claim that he wanted to be a spokesperson for the queer community. plenty of other people are much more qualified to be spokespeople for the queer community, and i personally think that if the queer community did have a spokesperson, it would make more sense for them to be a black trans woman instead of a cis white gay man.
and back to the stealing part. if you wanted to be a spokesperson for a community, you'd respect them. you'd credit their work. you'd make it clear where you were quoting them, and you'd promote their content, not just the content you're citing or borrowing from, but other things that they create that you find meaningful or interesting. james never did this. if someone made an intelligent article about queerness in media, he wouldn't promote it. he'd steal it, and use it along with some stock footage with an intro he bought to make a video where the only acknowledgement the article would receive is a vague "based on" credit, assuming they'd get anything at all.
so, no. i don't believe james is telling the truth. he had many opportunities to come clean. he was called out before, and instead of being honest, he chose to lie. and i hope that the best job that he can find in the future is being a fry cook at burger king, where he can experience just a tiny taste of the exploitation that he utilized to make thousands of dollars off of small queer writers.
50 notes
·
View notes