#ned poins

[rambleonwithrosie]

I wonder if the ye olde Shakespeare fandom had Poins stans who were outraged when he just didn't appear in Henry V...

[withasideofshakespeare]

Poins! Come get your boyfriend! I know you disappeared from the narrative, but he’s been traumatized by the death of his father and is now executing conspirators in the most terrifying way possible.

[codenameantarctica]

David Dawson as ‘Ned Poins’ in “The Hollow Crown - Henry IV - Part 1″

[fuckenwimdy]

in my professional opinion* it is impossible to play or perceive a version of ned poins that isn’t at least slightly infatuated with hal

*credentials: i’m currently playing poins in henry iv

[textsfromthedrunkencrown]

when ur shitpost sideblog gets quoted in a scholarly article about how Poins is fuckin’ gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

[renanmercurialisofficial]

Drop your kin list mercurialis

I had to look this one up, and it said a character you relate to or see in yourself. Personally I have never thought of myself that way, but King Cyrus told me once I reminded him of Agent Stone from Sonic (his grandson was watching it).

[britneyshakespeare]

I wanted to praise David Giles for giving David Gwillim the scar on his face after the Battle of Shrewsbury, that the real Henry V most definitely had from... well

(x)

Because this is the only thing I find really interesting about the true historical Henry V to be honest. And not particularly the wound of it, either. Moreso the fact that he hid the wound and we'll never know what it really looked like. Because we have this miniature of him as a prince, presumably a likeness taken (if taken from life) while he was quite young

And then as far as authentic images of him as King go, they're all taken from the side. Which was not conventional for portraits!

But then whoever put the wound on Gwillim keeps moving it to appear on slightly different parts of his face. Lol. Well.

[rosencrantzsguildenstern]

In 1990s Oregon, Mike (who is based on Ned Poins) is a street kid and sex worker who is searching for his mother. His best friend, Scotty, (based on Prince Hal) is also a street kid and sex worker, but is also the son of the mayor, and knows he can go back to the comfortable wealth of his father whenever he wants, but choses to spend his time with the other street kids. The kid's "leader" is Bob (Falstaff). The two of them leave on a journey to find Mike's mother, taking them from Oregon, to Idaho, to Italy. While in Italy, Scotty falls in love with a girl called Carmella, and leaves Mike and the other street kids behind, taking on his father's wealth, getting married to Carmella, and becoming a prominent figure in society.

The best movie ever. River Phoenix. River Phoenix's best performance ever. Keanu Reeves' best performance ever. Bob is the best portrayal/adaptation of Falstaff ever. Some of the best dialogue ever. Also the scene where falstaff is lying to the group about why he failed the robbery is done SO well in My Own Private Idaho. It's so inherently Shakespearean. Also Mike is one of The characters ever. One of THE best scenes ever (the campfire scene)

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is an absurdist, existential tragicomedy following two minor characters in Hamlet, the courtiers Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The action takes place mainly "in the wings" of Shakespeare's Hamlet, with brief appearances of major characters who enact fragments of the original's scenes. Between these episodes, the two protagonists voice their confusion at the progress of events occurring onstage without them in Hamlet, of which they have no direct knowledge. They also have little knowledge of their own lives, and a creeping fear that they're doomed.

do YOU like 4th wall breaks do YOU like metacommentary on the inherent horror of living in a story that cannot be taken off its rails no matter what you do. this is basically the mother of every other piece of metafiction work. even if youve never seen this play if you create or think about metafiction youve almost certainly consumed something that has its roots in this play. a vote for ragad is a vote for the history & legacy of metafiction!

[laurellerual]

In your opinion, did Theon Greyjoy owe the Starks loyalty during the War of the Five Kings? By “the Starks”, I mean both Robb Stark (on a personal level, as a friend and “foster brother”), as well as House Stark and the North as an institution and region, in it’s own right?

Ok, any answer to this risk to be simplistic.

I'll answer a question about Theon with a quote from Jaime:

So many vows... they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets from him. Do his bidding. Your life for his of him. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other."

From the North poin of view? Theon owes the Stark. Lord Eddard decided on a just and merciful punishment for their rebellion to the crown (here I talked about why imo Ned made the best choice then). They also never took advantage of their position of power over Theon, allowing him to grow up enjoying all the privileges that were reserved for their legitimate children.

If we look at the situation from Theon's point of view, we can see one of the great problems of feudal nobility. Who does Theon have to be loyal to?

As a son he owes loyalty to Balon and to the Greyjoys. As Greyjoy he owes allegiance to the Iron Islands. As a Northman he owes allegiance to the Lord of Winterfell. Later he will owe loyalty to the King in the North. But then his father also declares himself king, so what is more important? Furthermore, Theon is a subject of the Seven Kingdoms, before the North declares independence, so he should also refuse to rebel against the Iron Throne because he owes his loyalty to King Joff. But the Starks are also the people who raised him. But it's also the people who separated him from his family. But it was not Robb who made this decision so he is not responsible for it, etc etc…

My conclusion is that it "doesn't matter" that much what choice Theon took then. This is one of the most interesting parts of this conflict I think. No matter what he does, Theon still have to betray.

Only when he'ill complete his growth as a character, he will be able to make a conscious choice that will allow him not to betray himself in the first place. But don't ask me what it will be because I have no idea.

(This post was edited, because in the first version I made a brain fart)

[lightninginapuddle]

Recently, I've been thinking about how OFMD has similarities to sitcoms. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone use the word sitcom to describe this show really, but I feel they borrow some elements of it without fully leaning into it. If we look at the show through a sitcom lens there are some interesting things we can see. Possibly?

A sitcom usually functions with the same characters who always have specific traits, and those characters go through short journeys during an episode, usually learning a lesson, before they go back to the status quo at the end of the episode. In a sitcom, characters aren’t allowed to grow. It's basically its number one rule.

Some of the signs of sitcoms in OFMD can be seen in the symbolism within most of the characters’ outfits. Apart from Stede, they very rarely change their outfits when they are on the ship, no matter the episode, and only wear something else when they leave the Revenge (i.e when they go on a journey).

The threat of the British lingers all season, but episodically the characters go on self-contained journeys that will progress relationships but won’t really change them or the status quo (whether the one we get used to at first, or the one from pirates outside of the Revenge). We see character development but not necessarily character growth.

For example, Jim in episode 4 is under a lot of scrutiny from the other crewmember who don't know how to view them anymore. They get asked questions after questions until they snap and tell them to "keep calling them Jim because nothing changed". In a way, even if the others took most of the episode to understand them, Jim is still Jim, and like Jim, the status quo hasn't changed. They were Jim before, and they're still Jim now. It's really fascinating to me how using sitcoms structures worked in tandem with Jim in this episode.

One character in particular acts as a sort of enforcer (or symbol) of the sitcom status quo: Izzy.

Izzy tries to manage everyone around him, his own boss and the rest of the crew. He sees Ed’s recent transformation (now a "shell of a man posing as Blackbeard") as a terrible thing and refuses to see him change even more. The crew not acting (and obeying him) like real pirates will not be tolerated either as he sees them failing to conform to what pirates are supposed to be. It’s a change from the status quo that Izzy is familiar and comfortable with, and he doesn’t like it one bit.

Remember, characters can’t grow in sitcoms, changing is not allowed.

All of Izzy’s attempts to keep the status quo get increasingly more violent and dangerous. To him, the problem is Stede who he views as the driving force threatening the status quo, with his management style, creative view of piracy and for what he did to his "boss's brain".

At first he lies to Ed about Stede telling him to piss off. Then he tries to kill Stede. When that fails, he conspires with Jackie and the British. By the end of season 1, despite Stede’s disappearance, the status quo is still shattering before his eyes because Ed is still changing. But now, he isn't only depressed, singing break-up songs and organising talent show, he is also physically changing, drapping himself in pink robes. So Izzy threatens to kill him, tries one last time to force Ed back to the status quo.

And Ed punishes him for it and goes right back to being Blackbeard. And Izzy is happy, because the status quo has been preserved.

But what Izzy failed to realize then is that all his schemes didn’t matter, he was always too late. Change had started happening before Ed even met Stede, because Ed was already changing and nothing Izzy did could stop this. And just like that, the show goes against the number one rule of sitcoms.

(side note The show still borrows sitcom elements in season 2 (mostly with the self-contained stories, like the curse suit or Ned Lowe, though this one does have repercussion in episode 7), but the status quo of season 1 is completely shattered and they never get to a point of creating a new one. We could argue it's actually even more broken by the end of season 2, with Izzy gone, Ed and Stede staying behind to build their Inn, the Crew off on the new Revenge and the Republic of Pirates destroyed.)

And Izzy realizes his failure to maintain the status quo by the beginning of season 2. What he expected didn’t happen, because Ed changed and he's not playing along and being the Blackbeard Izzy wanted him to be. This is Blackbeard, he looks like Blackbeard, acts like Blackbeard, talks like Blackbeard but this isn't like before. This one is more dangerous, more unpredictable than ever and it's now affecting the crew. This isn't the status quo, not really. Ed is on a rampage with one self-destructive goal in mind, and Izzy himself will help put an end to Blackbeard and at the same time the status quo, something he desperately clung to once upon a time, by shooting him.

Sitcoms put their characters in often uncomfortable situations where they have to confront some of their flaws. Ofmd does that to some degree, but also pushes its characters to the point where change happens in response to really difficult situations. Lucius is pushed off the ship by Blackbeard and subsequently lives through some really traumatic times that forces him to change, to become harsher, angrier. Jim's thirst for vengeance leaves them by the end of season 1, and they grow so tired of violence after being forced to work for Blackbeard, they shed this side of them to protect and uplift others (Fang, Archie) become caring when once they used to hide every part of themselves from others.

Izzy himself, symbol of the status quo, cannot hold it together anymore either. Because he loses his leg and it changes him because it changes the perception he has of himself. He says so when he looks in the mirror, wondering who he is. He pushes back at first, lashing out, he rejects the change, rejects this new reality. Until he sees the new leg the crew made for him. It might not be the leg he had before, but there is no going back to the Izzy from the past. That Izzy was alone, the new one maybe could not be. Thus starts his own transformation, effectively embracing the change and letting go of the status quo.

Meanwhile, Ed learns the same lesson, because Buttons turned into a bird in front of him, hitting us over the head that in this show, even if we borrow from sitcoms ... People can change, they should be allowed to, and they do.

[ardenrosegarden]

for the ask meme; Ned Poins, Henry IV. or if none for him, Hal (specifically in Henry IV.)

Ooh, these are good!

Poins: Frozen Pines, Lord Huron

Henry IV: The Nights, Avicii

Hal: Birth of Serpents, The Mountain Goats

send me a 🔊 and a character and ill say a song from outside their source media that reminds me of them somehow

[withasideofshakespeare]

I would pay real money to hear Falstaff mutter “get a room” at least once after Poins shows up in scene 2 of 1 Henry IV.

Hal: Good morrow, Ned

Poins: Good morrow, sweet Hal-

Falstaff: For God’s sake. Get a room!

And it works so well because Poins immediately turns to Falstaff and harasses him for (seemingly) no reason.

[codenameantarctica]

David Dawson as ‘Ned Poins’ in “The Hallow Crown - Henry IV - Part 2″

[mephistopheles]

ned poins disappearing halfway thru the henriad:

[fineandwittie]

I did a thing. I should probably be embarrassed about the thing i did.

I'm kind of not?

Shakespeare fanfic. That's the thing I did.

[heartofstanding]

the histories + texts from last night, 114/?