#not to mention that he himself was probably the most important historical figure! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

twistedtummies2 · 22 days

Text

ReCount: Top 31 Portrayals of Count Dracula

The day after tomorrow is World Dracula Day. For the occasion, I’m going to do a countdown of my personal five choices for the WORST portrayals of Dracula I’ve personally encountered. However, I’ve always believed in accentuating the positive: there are, in my opinion, more good Dracula portrayals than bad ones. Even if the adaptations and reimaginings themselves aren’t totally up to par, Dracula himself usually is enjoyable to watch, and there are PLENTY of versions to choose from.

With that said, it’s time for a ReCount of one of my largest lists: “Count-Down,” a month-long Event I held in October of 2021, where I ranked my Top 31 Favorite Portrayals of Count Dracula, along with a number of Honorable Mentions. A LOT has changed since I made that list: all across the board of the Top 31, different versions of Dracula have shifted place. Some that were on the list back then are no longer present now, and some that weren’t present then have moved in since. As for those that were there then, and are here now…nearly all of them have shifted positions in the ranks, for one reason or another. Times change and people with them, and revisiting some of these versions has given me new perspective, while renditions I didn’t know about at the time (or, in some cases, didn’t even EXIST at the time) have only added to the challenge of choosing.

With that in mind, it took a while to figure out where various takes on the Count really placed for me, overall, but I THINK the results here are - at least for the time being - the most honest and fair judgments I can give. With that in mind, allow me to present ReCount: My Top 31 Favorite Draculas (plus some Honorable Mentions).

HONORABLE MENTIONS (Left to Right, Top to Bottom)

Adam Sandler & Brian Hull, from “Hotel Transylvania.”

Sandler famously voiced Dracula for the first three films in this animated franchise. Impressionist Brian Hull took over the role in the fourth feature. I know these cartoon comedies are really popular, and I have nothing in particular AGAINST them, but I’ve weirdly never really been THAT into them.

Alan Swift, from Mad Monster Party.

This Halloweentime production by Rankin/Bass features Swift in the role of SEVERAL famous monsters, as a whole band of Gothic icons join forces to try and steal a secret formula from Dr. Frankenstein, so they can - you guessed it - take over the world. Dracula is the leader of the monster horde, fittingly enough.

The Version from “Anno Dracula.”

I absolutely love this novel series, which blends historical fiction with Gothic Horror, and has many bizarre twists and turns. The premise focuses on an alternate universe where Dracula successfully manages to take over England, turning many of the population into vampires. While his role in the series is important, Dracula HIMSELF very rarely appears, so I didn’t think it was fair to give him a place in the ranks: it’s cool when he shows up, but the books are actually more interesting for other reasons beyond him.

Count Chocula.

Ah, yes, because if draining the blood of the innocent wasn’t evil enough, we now have vampires that give you diabetes. As iconic as this cereal mascot parody of the Count is, he’s not ACTUALLY Dracula, so I didn’t feel he counted…plus there’s just not much to say about him.

James Barbour, from Dracula: The Musical (2011 Studio Recording).

There have been several musical adaptations of Dracula. This one was the work of Frank Wildhorn, and is probably the most popular. None of them are all that great, in my opinion, but this one has some shining moments. Several people have played Dracula in this one, but Barbour’s performance on the 2011 Studio Recording is my favorite.

Kamran Nikhad, from V Rising.

This game only JUST came out, and I haven't played it yet (nor am I entirely certain if I ever will). As a result, I don't really feel comfortable placing its version of Dracula in the Top 31 yet. With that said, based on the lore of the game, the videos I've seen featuring the character, and Nikhad's absolutely bone-chillingly breathtaking vocal work, I see no reason why I can't give this version an Honorable Mention. In this game, Dracula is a tyrannical and highly intelligent vampire warlord, who proves a threat not only to humanity, but even to other monsters. He orchestrates things behind-the-scenes to try and regain his throne, with the player's ultimate goal being to destroy him once and for all.

King, from Kamen Rider Kiva.

This was the first Kamen Rider series I ever saw, and it’s probably my favorite (or, at least, second favorite). A Japanese superhero series inspired by classic Universal Monsters? How can I NOT love it? The main villain of the series is the mysterious King; while he’s never outright referred to as Dracula, that’s clearly who he is analogous to in this universe. Much like Count Chocula, I didn’t feel he actually counted for the main list, but he’s worth an Honorable Mention at least. He is played by Shinya Niiro.

Mark Hamill, from Mina and the Count.

Just like Count Chocula and King, this is another case of a vampire who isn’t TECHNICALLY Dracula, but is clearly a Dracula-inspired figure. There are two characters on the main countdown who are in the same vein, but generally speaking, I wanted to save the main countdown for ACTUAL versions of Dracula. In this series, Hamill plays “Count Vlad,” a vampire who ends up befriending a little mortal girl named Mina Harper. Shenanigans ensue.

Michael McCarthy, from…a completely different “Dracula: The Musical.”

Barbour’s Dracula from earlier was in the musical composed by Frank Wildhorn. McCarthy played Dracula for a PROPOSED stage musical, created by the musical trio of Evans, Orton, and Lynn. The musical had a concept album released, as well as a music video for the “big song” of the show, “Within My World,” wherein McCarthy performed in-character as the Count, costume and all. However, the show never got off the ground. Admittedly, I don’t think the musical was that great on the whole, but it’s still a shame.

Orson Welles, from the Mercury Theater Radio Production.

It’s Orson Welles as Dracula. I think that statement on its own explains why he’s so great. Weirdly enough, while I’ve gained more respect and admiration for this radio version on the whole since 2021, Welles’ Dracula has conversely dropped out of the running. He’s good, I just tend to think of many other Draculas more.

The Phantom Blot, from Disney’s Dracula, Starring Mickey Mouse.

I brought up this very weird reimagining multiple times in past lists, so you all know the basic gist of it by now. Disney has done this concept twice - first as a graphic novel, and later as a children’s storybook - and in both interpretations, the Phantom Blot plays the coveted role of the Count. I love the Blot, in general - one of Disney’s most underrated villains, in my opinion - but I think it’s more for his sake that I like his Dracula, than anything else.

Phil LaMarr, from The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy.

All I have to say here is…if you know, you know. XD A lot of people are probably sad I didn’t include this Dracula in the rankings, but trust me, he’s a funny one.

CHOICES 31 - 26

31. The Count, from Sesame Street.

One of the two “not technically Draculas” I mentioned in the Honorable Mentions. To be honest, I could rank Count Von Count - my favorite Muppet character from Sesame Street - MUCH higher, if I really wanted to, because I really do love him a lot. However, I felt it was too much of a stretch placing him in the upper tiers, simply because while he’s clearly a parody of Dracula, he isn’t ACTUALLY Dracula, but more his own unique character. However, leaving him off the list completely seemed criminal, and I like him too much to just give him an Honorable Mention…so, compromises being what they are, I decided to place him on the countdown, but at the very bottom of the heap. “That’s one! One difficult problem to deal with! Ah-ah-ah!”

30. Gerard Butler, from Dracula 2000.

I’m still not a fan of this movie, and I doubt I ever will be, but I will say I enjoy both Christopher Plummer as Van Helsing and Butler’s Dracula in the film. The movie makes an intriguing (if rather bizarre) change to Dracula’s backstory, revealing that he is actually Judas Iscariot, and his revulsion towards Holy artifacts is due to his past.

29. Hamilton Camp, from Scooby-Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf.

One of the few “Funny Draculas” on this countdown, and a personal childhood favorite of mine. In this animated special, Dracula changes Shaggy into a werewolf and forces him to participate in an annual race between all of the famous monsters. If Shaggy wins, he’ll be turned back to normal, but if he loses, he’ll remain a werewolf - and Dracula’s servant - forever. It’s basically a spooky version of Wacky Races with Dracula as Dick Dastardly.

28. Rudolf Martin, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I know next to nothing about Buffy the Vampire Slayer: I’ve only seen two whole episodes of the show, along with a few assorted, scattered clips. One of the two is “Buffy vs. Dracula.” A lot of people apparently dislike this episode, which depicts Dracula as a sort of self-aware “vampire celebrity” who buys too much into his own hype, but I actually think this was a fun interpretation. Martin would later play the real-life Vlad Dracula - one of the inspirations for the fictional vampire - in the TV movie “Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula.” I doubt this was a coincidence of casting.

27. Francis Lederer, from Return of Dracula.

This film came out the same year as Hammer’s “Horror of Dracula,” and it’s not hard to see why one is more well-remembered than the other. While much of this film is honestly rather dry and dull, Lederer really delivers as a decidedly creepy, unsettling take on the Prince of Darkness, and gets a pretty great death scene to boot.

26. The Version from “Return of Evil.”

This teen novel is the first of a series of stories where the famous Universal Monsters get “zapped” into the real world to cause havoc. While the book is overall pretty decent, and actually has some legitimately scary moments, I feel that the portrayal of Dracula HIMSELF is a bit…confused. As a result, I no longer rank this version as highly as I once did.

CHOICES 25 - 21

25. John Carradine, from Various.

Carradine played Dracula in no less than four films, as well as onstage. While his work was always good, the actual movies he appeared in were less than stellar: in “House of Frankenstein” his Dracula is thanklessly killed off before the end of the first act. In “House of Dracula,” he plays a slightly larger role, and is shown as a more sympathetic character - seeking a cure for his bloodlust - but is still destroyed (quite anticlimactically, I should add) around two-thirds of the way through the picture. The comedy film “Nocturna” is just plain bizarre, and the infamously terrible “Billy the Kid vs. Dracula” is widely regarded as one of those classic “so bad it’s good” type of movies. Had he been given better material to work with, Carradine could have ranked much higher.

24. Vlad Garfunkel, from Phantom in the Twilight.

In this anime/manga series, Count Dracula - going by the alias “Vlad Garfunkel” - has reformed and become the leader of a group of monsters, or “Umbra,” who work to protect humanity from more evil creatures - sort of a Gothic Horror/Dark Fantasy version of the X-Men. (And no, in case you’re wondering, I don’t know why the Count would choose a name like “Garfunkel” as his pseudonym.) The franchise is interesting, but unfinished; both the manga and the anime end on cliffhangers and leave a LOT of unanswered questions behind, and this “pretty boy” Dracula is admittedly a little hard to swallow at times. Overall, however, not bad stuff.

23. Javier Botet, from The Last Voyage of the Demeter.

Described as a sort of cross between “Nosferatu” and “Alien,” this horror film focuses on the tragic misadventures of the crew aboard the Demeter - the ship Dracula takes to get from Transylvania to England. Over the course of the movie, Dracula picks off the crew one by one, killing and/or transforming them as he rations them off. While the movie is admittedly flawed, it’s not necessarily bad, and this more monstrous version of Dracula is an intriguingly frightful interpretation.

22. Richard Roxburgh, from Van Helsing.

A ludicrously over-the-top movie with an equally ludicrously over-the-top Dracula: you can’t say the style and the performance don’t match. Roxburgh’s Dracula isn’t well-regarded by many people, but I personally enjoy this version a lot, even if at times he’s unintentionally hilarious in his hamminess.

21. Chris Sarandon, from TMNT (2012).

This Dracula appears as the secondary antagonist of a four-part story arc, wherein the TMNT encounter several of the classic Universal Monsters. If that concept isn’t good enough, the fact Dracula is designed to have the likeness of Bela Lugosi only adds to the enjoyment factor. And if that’s STILL not enough, then the fact his voice actor is Chris Sarandon - Jack Skellington, the Pumpkin King, himself! - doing a Lugosi impression should hopefully seal the deal on why he’s so great. If Dracula had been THE main antagonist of this arc, I think he could have ranked even higher.

CHOICES 20 - 16

20. Nicolas Cage, from Renfield.

Nic Cage has long been a fan of Dracula, and the Count one of his dream roles. You can be darn sure his chance to actually play the King of the Vampires was a treat to watch. In some ways, his performance reminds me of Richard Roxburgh’s, except in this case the humor is entirely planned. At the same time, his Dracula is legitimately menacing and scary. Cage apparently studied various other past performers to help sink into the role, and it works well: you can see little dollops of other Draculas in his work, but it’s still 100% his own take on the character. I honestly feel bad for not ranking him any higher.

19. Zhang Wei-Qiang, from Dracula: Pages From a Virgin’s Diary.

Again, in this combination of surrealist/Expressionist silent film and dance movie, all of the male characters are depicted in a negative light. Dracula himself is no exception, but there is some interesting ambiguity there: in the film, the so-called “heroes” all hate Dracula less because he’s a vampire, and more for petty and repugnant reasons. One hates him because he’s richer than they are, one because he’s more sexually attractive, one because he’s a foreigner, etc. While Dracula is still the villain, the heroes aren’t exactly good people either: they’re prejudiced and perverse, which blurs the line on who the real monster of the story is.

18. The Marvel Version.

I’m specifically talking about the actual comics here, because - as a future list will show - most adaptations of Marvel’s Dracula are…well…not that great. The comic version, however, is actually a pretty interesting character, riding a fine line between villain and anti-hero, as he’s been the protagonist of stories almost as often as the antagonist. Tie this into the fact he’s faced the likes of Dr. Strange, Spider-Man, and Blade (who was actually introduced in Dracula’s title series, “The Tomb of Dracula”), and it’s pretty clear why he’s awesome.

17. The Version from “Fate.”

In English this take is voiced by Ray Chase; in Japanese he's played by one Ryotaro Okiayu. In the Fate universe, the ties between the real-life Vlad Dracula and the fictional Count are toyed with in a very unique way. In the anime “Fate/Apocrypha,” it’s Vlad III who is summoned to participate in the Holy Grail War, but has the power to physically transform into the legendary vampire. In the game “Fate/Grand Order,” Vlad can be summoned in two different forms: one depicts him as being Count Dracula from Stoker’s novel, while the other is his true self, Vlad the Impaler. In all three of these cases, the relationship the real Vlad has with his literary counterpart, whose name and myth he helped inspire, is…complicated, to say the least.

16. Al Lewis, from The Munsters.

The highest ranking “Funny Dracula” of the bunch (since I placed The Count from Sesame Street far lower). Lewis’ Dracula - typically referred to simply as “Grandpa” - is more like a combination of a mad scientist and a kooky vaudeville magician than anything from Bram Stoker, but he’s certainly a lot of fun to watch.

CHOICES 15 - 11

15. Christian Camargo, from Penny Dreadful.

After being teased for two seasons, Dracula pops up in the third and final season of “Penny Dreadful” as the main antagonist. In the series, Dracula is depicted as the brother of Lucifer himself, and desires the main character - Vanessa Ives - as his Bride, hoping to use her in a plan to, of course, take over the world. The show was rife with darkly Gothic melodrama, as the title implies, but Camargo’s Dracula subverts this: a subtle, sinister, manipulative villain with a silver tongue, whose understated demeanor belies intense power and menace. A surprising and intriguing interpretation.

14. Frank Langella, from the 1979 Film.

When I did this countdown back in 2021, for the first time, Langella’s Dracula ranked MUCH further down. Having revisited the film since, I sincerely have no idea WHY I maligned the movie, or his Dracula, as much as I did. While not perfect, the movie is much better than I remembered, and his Dracula much more impressive: a suave, slick, sympathetic, but still sinister take on the vampire with all the necessary gravity the role requires. I am pleased to now place him in my Top 15.

13. Jack Palance, from the 1973 Film.

Palance’s Dracula was the first of several kinds: he’s the first Dracula to make a direct connection between the fictional vampire and the real-life Vlad the Impaler. He’s the first to be depicted as overtly romantic, seeking the reincarnation of his long-lost bride. And while he is not necessarily the first to be presented in a sympathetic light, he is the first where that sympathy is highly focused upon, making him into a more tragic figure. While not an obvious casting choice, Palance plays Count Dracula excellently, giving him both the elegance of his noble title and a warrior’s vicious ferocity.

12. Klaus Kinski, from Nosferatu the Vampyre.

As of now, there are three remakes of Nosferatu. One is still upcoming, as I type this, starring Bill Skarsgard as the vampire. Another was finished just a couple of years ago, starring Doug Jones as the Count, but has yet to be publicly released. (Perhaps if/when I see both of those, this whole countdown will change again.) The very first was “Nosferatu the Vampyre,” which featured Klaus Kinski as a more sympathetic, but still grotesque, interpretation of the undead Transylvanian. Kinski’s Dracula isn’t a romantic figure, but instead is depicted a lonely, outcast creature who is driven by urges he cannot control; he doesn’t WANT to be a monster, but he HAS to be, which makes for an interesting interpretation.

11. Willem Dafoe, from Shadow of the Vampire.

This was the other version, along with Count Von Count, who I mentioned technically doesn’t actually count (ha ha) as Dracula. However, under the circumstances, I felt this one was worthy of higher placement. In “Shadow of the Vampire,” Willem Dafoe plays “Schreck” - a real-life vampire who coincidentally shares the same name as the actor Max Schreck, and is thus cast under this pretense in the role of Count Orlok in “Nosferatu.” While the film establishes Dracula/Orlok to be a fictional creation, Dafoe is nevertheless playing that character at the end of the day, given the premise, and he does so brilliantly.

CHOICES 10 - 6

10. Duncan Regehr, from Monster Squad.

In this 1980s cult-classic - a sort of combo of “Ghostbusters” and “The Goonies” - a group of teenaged heroes have to face Dracula and several of the other Universal Monsters, when the villains plan to - of course - take over the world. I'm not really sure WHY I love this particular Dracula so much, I just...kind of do. Regehr’s Count is just the right level of over-the-top in the film. Much like Nic Cage and Richard Roxburgh, he’s hammy, yet still manages to have menace and power, and is quite the snazzy dresser to boot!

9. Louis Jourdan, from the 1977 BBC TV Film.

Aside from his role as Dracula in this 1970s BBC production, Jourdan is probably most famous for playing the main villain of the James Bond movie “Octopussy.” So, if you ever wondered what Dracula would be like as a Bond Villain, you’ll basically get it here. Jourdan is debonair, dashing, and deviously devilish, with a coldness and an unsettling calmness that even some of the best Draculas lack.

8. David Suchet, from the 2006 BBC Radio Production.

As usual, not pictured here in costume, because this is a radio version…but I’ll safely say, in this image, one could almost believe it. ANYWAY, Suchet played both Dracula and Van Helsing within the same year, both times for the BBC. In a TV film adaptation he played the vampire hunter, while in this radio version he takes the role of the Count. This is probably one of the most book-accurate takes on Dracula I’ve ever encountered, audio-based or not. Suchet’s work is often overshadowed by Tom Hiddleston’s appearance as Jonathan Harker in this audio play; he’s definitely worthy of more praise.

7. Peter Stormare, from The Batman vs. Dracula.

Inspired by (though not directly based upon) the “Batman & Dracula” Trilogy of graphic novels, this film (set in the universe of the early 2000s animated series “The Batman”) reveals that, after being destroyed by Van Helsing and his allies, Dracula’s remains were shipped off to America, and wound up buried in the middle of Gotham City. When he’s accidentally resurrected by Penguin, Dracula begins a reign of terror, transforming various characters - including the Joker himself - into “Lost Ones”: ghoulish vampires under his command, as he plans to take over the entire city. Interestingly, Stormare would later appear as a totally different vampire, subservient to Dracula, in Netflix’s “Castlevania” animated series. It was weird to see Dracula chewing himself out there, let me tell you…

6. Gary Oldman, from the 1992 Film.

Oldman is to many people nowadays what performers like Christopher Lee and Bela Lugosi were to many audiences of yesteryear: I don’t think any version of Dracula SINCE Oldman’s has been quite as influential and almost universally enjoyed as his. While I do enjoy his performance, and the movie in general, I can’t say it’s one of the first versions that comes to my mind when I think of Dracula, so I therefore don’t feel I can rank this one in my Top 5. Sorry, Lord Shen.

THE TOP FIVE

5. Max Schreck, from Nosferatu.

Often imitated, but never duplicated. The true “OG” Dracula. There’s really not much to say about “Count Orlok” from this silent classic: it’s one of the most iconic and influential versions of the character ever put to the screen, and almost stands in a league of its own. While the silent film itself has some elements that haven’t aged all that well (the movie IS over a full century old now, no joke), Schreck’s work as this repulsive spook is still more than laudable.

4. Alucard, from Hellsing.

I used to say Alucard was one of my Top 3 takes on Dracula, but upon revisitation, I no longer think that’s fair: I just don’t quote him, reference him, or generally think about him as often as the three I’ve placed above him in the ranks. I will, however, still contend that he is one of the scariest versions of the character out there (which is especially impressive, since he’s the main “hero” of this series), and in my opinion the single most unique Dracula of the whole lot: it’s hard to think of a version that does everything this one does, and yet STILL feels like Dracula at the end of the day. Kudos to his voice actors: Jouji Nakata in Japan, and ESPECIALLY Crispin Freeman in English dubs.

3. The Version from Castlevania.

There are no less than three separate continuities for the Castlevania series, and Dracula is a constant figure in all of them…and in all of them, he’s pretty awesome. The “Classic” era, as I like to call it, has evolved over the years, and Dracula with it: starting off as a straightforward villain but gaining more layers and complexities (perhaps a few TOO many complexities, one could argue) as the series went on. Interestingly, Crispin Freeman - Alucard, our previous pick - somewhat recently got to play this version of Dracula in remastered versions of the games “Rondo of Blood” and “Symphony of the Night,” as well as the game “Dracula X Chronicles.” In the “Lords of Shadow” reboot trilogy, Dracula is reimagined as an anti-heroic protagonist, voiced by Rumpelstiltskin himself, Robert Carlyle. My personal favorite version of him was the Animated Series, voiced by Graham McTavish…who, incidentally, appeared in the aforementioned TMNT “Universal Monsters” story arc, playing the demon Savanti Romero. I’m a huge fan of Castlevania and its take on Dracula, and I reference these games and this take on the Count pretty frequently: it didn’t take long for me to realize this version earned placement in my Top 3.

2. Bela Lugosi, from the 1931 Film and Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein.

Lugosi may seem somewhat “hokey” by today’s standards, but there’s no denying that he is almost inarguably the most iconic version of Dracula: anytime someone does a Dracula impression, or a Dracula parody, or dresses in a Dracula Halloween costume, it’s Lugosi they pay homage to before all others. It’s fair to say that no other Dracula is quite as recognizable, even if you haven’t seen either of his appearances onscreen, and for that reason above all others, he earns high marks for me.

1. Christopher Lee, from Various.

I could go into great detail about everything I love about Christopher Lee’s Dracula, because there’s a LOT I could say, but I’m gonna make this as short and as sweet as I can: in my opinion, Lee is the DEFINITIVE Dracula. Considering the fact he played the Prince of Darkness anywhere between ten and fourteen times, depending on how you count, with one of those occasions being (so far) the ONLY Dracula in film to resemble the character Stoker describes in the novel almost identically…yeah. I think it’s hard to argue AGAINST that fact, personally, whether he’s one’s favorite or not. Given the man’s…COMPLICATED relationship with the role, I doubt he’d necessarily be happy to hear it…but Christopher Lee is, nevertheless, My Favorite Dracula.

5 notes · View notes

jeannereames · 1 year

Note

Hello Dr.Reames,

In your novels and lots of other popular works, Philip is usually depicted with dark hair and dark eyes. I wonder if it is a modern creation or it has been recorded in historical source? By the way, do you know the usual hair color of ancient Macedonians? Is it different from some of the southern Greek states, like Athens? Because Alexander is always depicted as blond. I wonder if this is common in Macedonia. Thank You!

As I noted at the bottom of my prior post about Philippos’s thoughts on Alexandros in Dancing with the Lion (which may have generated this question?), we don’t actually know what Philippos’ coloring WAS. No ancient evidence says. We’re told he was apparently very good-looking in his youth, but that’s about it, other than his wounds/scars.

This brings me to your larger question, the usual hair color of Macedonians…we don’t know that either.

And that raises the most interesting fact of all:

Interest in hair- and eye-color was just not that important in antiquity. What I call “driver’s license descriptions” are mostly absent. There might be some reasons for that:

First, most people from ___ area all had the same eye- and hair-color. Remember, lighter shades are mostly a feature of select populations and great divergence a factor of colonial and immigrant activity. If everybody you know has brown hair and eyes…why would you bother saying as much when describing them? Descriptions focus on points of difference.

In Greece, there was some variation, maybe. I’ve mentioned before that red-blond was considered especially beautiful, so Aphrodite was a strawberry blonde, as was Helen of Sparta/Troy. Because it was unusual. Some populations were considered fairer (maybe not fairly…pun intended). Whether Spartans really were fairer or it’s a generalization from Helen is a good question. Athenians were supposedly darker due to Pelasgian (indigenous people) ties…why Hephaistion is dark-haired and quite olive-skinned in the novel. But from pottery—which is largely Athenian, later—it would appear that most people had dark hair. I do remember seeing a teen boy depicted on red-figure pottery with obviously light (probably blond) hair, but it stood out to me, and was almost certainly meant to.

There is some implication the Macedonians were fairer, and the images in mosaics from Pella might bear that out. We see a lot of blondies/redheads. But is that reflecting real people or ideals? Wall paintings show brunettes, too. Supposedly Thracians were known for having more redheads, but is that true or a stereotype?

The plain fact is…the ancient Greeks don’t tend to highlight hair color (or eye color). Maybe that’s because most people had brown hair and eyes, so why mention it? Or maybe hair- and eye-color just wasn’t that important to them.

Descriptions of Alexander himself are exemplar: he’s described as “ruddy-fair”…of COMPLEXION. He walked fast, spoke fast, had a bent neck, a rough voice, and wavy hair and anastole, but no mention of his eye- or hair-COLOR. Apelles is faulted by Plutarch for making him “too dark”…of COMPLEXION. That’s led to a popular perception of Alexander as a blondie, which isn’t unrealistic. And, again, the few probable depictions of him that show coloring show him as a strawberry blond/redhead…except for the Pompei Mosaic, which is supposed to be based on an Apelles painting (maybe). But there are some other Romanizing aspects to it, so his coloring may have been tampered with too (Apelles or no Apelles).

In fiction, Olympias is almost always depicted as having black or red hair…usually as a factor of her “witchy” nature. That’s always annoyed the hell out of me. So as ATG was (likely) blond or red-haired, I chose to make her also a blondie in Dancing with the Lion. I have Alexandros look a lot like his mother on purpose, including coloring and height (or lack of it).

But truth is, we don’t know what color hair (or eyes) she had. Or that Philip had. I chose to make Philippos dark-haired (and eyed) mostly to underscore that Alexandros doesn’t (obviously) look like his father, although he does in less obvious ways. By contrast, my Kleopatra has the dark coloring, but otherwise, she and her brother resemble each other more than a bit. Genetics are fun.

#asks #Philip II of Macedon #Philip of Macedon #Alexander the Great #ancient Macedonia #ancient Greece #Classics #coloring in the ancient world #color in the ancient world #descriptions of people in the ancient world #tagamemnon #Dancing with the Lion

17 notes · View notes

thaliexvii · 1 year

Text

Some Lee lore and my headcanons about him

Anonymous asked:

I was directed to you for some Lee lore/headcanons :) Early life as well as T1/T2 headcanons for Lee please?

Well, first thank you for asking me, Anonymous, I will try to tell you what I think of it even though my headcanon may not be the right one. I love to play him but everyone’s headcanons are different. It is very kind of erenaeoth to propose me for this and I hope it will give you some ideas for some parts. Since this is a long answer, I’ll put the rest under the cut.

First, in maybe historical details, if the time period of Tekken 1 was around 1994-1995, (Lee’s car from Tag is from 1999 but then that game is a bit of an anachronism, Lee was born during the Mao era in China (1949-1976 (around 1970, maybe 1973 if the car is some hint)). It was a time of many events and once Mao died in 1976, the Chinese economic reform (Gǎigékāifàng), known in the West as the opening of China, started in 1978, opening up of the country to foreign investment. The ‘BoluanFanzheng’ (Eliminating Chaos and Returning to Normal) was then a program attempting to correct the mistakes of the Cultural Revolution.

The Honda S2000 was manufactured in 1999 though it was shown as a concept car (Then called SSM) at the Tokyo Motor Show in 1995 so maybe Lee spoiled himself by already getting one of those futuristic cars in advance? He seems to love cars as we see him driving around for a bit in Tekken Tag 1, possibly as a way of relaxing and escaping the suffocating life with Heihachi or to get noticed, or probably both.

Of course, little Lee must not have understood all that was happening, maybe he does remember Mao’s state funerals and a few other events, maybe he remembers his parents having a little red book, but didn’t understand most of the events, but anyway what was important to know was that the opening may have been the reason why Heihachi was in China as a new investor and found Lee who was living in the streets.

My art of Heihachi finding young Lee Chaolan in the streets after a fight with other kids. (the background is a backstreet in Shanghai)

When Lee ended up in the streets, he probably was old enough to somehow fend for himself, since a three-year old would not have been able to steal food or find a shelter or anything like this and would possibly have found another parental figure to take care of him (of course, he could have found someone else who abandoned him, have lived in some homeless child shelter and escaped, but since there was no mention of it and Lee definitively took Heihachi as his father figure, I feel he was definitely alone once his parents died, with no people of importance around him). I think Lee didn’t have a big extended family and his parents must have died quite suddenly since otherwise he may have been taken under the wings of someone or some organization instead of ending up in the streets. In my headcanon, Lee is from Shanghai, and his immediate family died in a fire in an area with poor quality housing that exacerbated the fire.

Lee probably ended up living in the streets for a while, since he had time to learn how to fight to the point of looking like something of interest to Heihachi, who had to be really impressed by that kid’s fighting talent to decide he would make a good rival for his son. Of course, Lee could have begun to fight other kids even while his parents were still alive, but with the way it is said in his bio “Lee's parents died when he was a young child, leaving him to fend for himself on the streets. Facing a hostile environment each day, he quickly became a skilled scrapper with reflexes that were amazing for a boy of his age”, it seemed to have been out of necessity that he started to fight, so, once in the streets.

This time in the streets and all its dangers probably toughened him in many ways and made him more distrustful of anyone. However, Heihachi was able to pass through those defenses and take him out of the streets, probably by offering him food and then promising him the world, telling him he would be in a rich family and never lack anything. For Lee, once he dropped his defenses and opened up to another person for the first time since his parents, Heihachi suddenly appeared like a savior, all cheerful, saving him from the street and even from death... Lee certainly felt gratitude that quickly turned to love for his new adoptive father. Lee was indeed grateful for the rescue, so he somehow wanted to repay his savior and be appreciated by him. Heihachi was now his new father, his new father figure, the one who took him out of poverty and offered him a new life and the one he opened up his heart to. Heihachi’s approval became something very important for Lee from now on.

And with Heihachi being a narcissist, he probably kept reminding his new son of all he did for him and probably often mentioned that Lee owed him everything. Even though he adopted him and Lee owed him everything, Heihachi never gave his family name to him. This must not have been a decision from Lee, to somehow honor and remember his biological parents, but a very calculated one done by Heihachi, who somehow wanted to make Lee feel not worthy enough to be a real Mishima and to fight to deserve a place into the family. He did not adopt that kid to give him a charmed life or out of fatherly instinct, he just wanted a rival for Kazuya. If Heihachi had wanted to name Lee (first name is Chaolan, Lee is the family name), Mishima, Lee would have had no say in this, no matter how much he would have wanted to honor his biological parents. So it was a Heihachi decision to show his adopted son that he wasn’t a real Mishima and it was not Lee’s decision to honor his dead biological family. Heihachi wanted to tell him: “I’m your savior, your father, but you are not worthy to fully be my son, unless you fight for it.”

Heihachi is indeed his savior so, Lee is at first very grateful and loves his adoptive father, he owes him so much but once adopted, once he had given his heart and devotion to him, he is hurt to discover that in fact Heihachi does not really care about him and is in reality a mean father to both him and Kazuya. He notices that Heihachi is really mean with his biological son, Kazuya, but also that Kazuya is the only one who really matters to Heihachi, the only one their father really focuses on, either in anger or in pride. Kazuya is the real Mishima, the important one, but also somehow, for some reason, hated by his father. Heihachi mostly ignores or humiliates Lee and mistreats Kazuya. But also, this makes Lee jealous since Kazuya is the real son, the one Heihachi’s thoughts are on, the one who mostly represents the Mishima prestigious family in events. Lee is somehow the proof that Heihachi was so generous to have adopted and raised that child, not a source of prestige himself. He had to bring honor to the family and act as it was requested but to show how Heihachi raised him. Heihachi was not feeling with him the emotions he did with Kazuya. And what also give Lee more of an inferiority complex, is that Kazuya is the eldest. Lee is the second one, the other son. The not important one. This is another thing that Heihachi wanted Lee to feel so that he would fight to be noticed and consider Kazuya as his rival, the one to fight against. Heihachi did not want to give a brother to Kazuya, he wanted to give him a rival. Lee probably did not care about fighting for money, the company, and larger prizes at this stage, since, as a kid, all those things were far from his mind. He probably only wanted food, shelter and a loving family, but Heihachi forced him to fight for his place in the family and spoiled the brotherly relation Lee could have had with Kazuya by introducing that rivalry. But in fact, just to say, neither Kazuya nor Lee could have won the title of best son since the real son was Kuma, the only one treated with some affection by Heihachi… Heihachi always cared far more for his bears, Kuma I and II, to the point of dressing up his second one and offering him the Mishima Zaibatsu, maybe as a joke and trying to take it back like in Kuma’s ending in Tekken 4 but Alisa talks about him having been considered to be the next CEO of the Mishima Zaibatsu in Tekken 6. Alisa: The bear in question was once a candidate to head the Mishima Zaibatsu. Lars: A bear running the Zaibatsu? Who comes up with this stuff? (Lars doesn’t know his dad…). Maybe after the whole Kazumi devil attack and his attempted murder of his son, Heihachi put all his love and affection on his baby bear... He had no place for humans anymore so Lee never stood a chance.

My art of Heihachi sending his children to school with the help of his favorite baby. In my headcanon, the Mishima polytechnical school already exists so they have the same uniform as Jin will have.

Of course the wealthy things Lee received were nice, mostly compared to having nothing in the streets, but it was constantly accompanied with stressful demands and expectations. Not only did Lee have to learn Japanese, he also had to learn Japanese customs, high society customs, how to write, and a few other remedial courses since he didn’t go to school when he was in the streets… And also, he may have been good at fighting but now he had to change his street fighting style to the Mishima ryu fighting style and learn the martial arts discipline while performing in his fights against Kazuya. All this forced him to study hard and learn fast. Lee was very intelligent as his bio says: “Lee was a prodigy both in smarts and martial arts”, so he succeeded in learning all of this probably quite fast but at the cost of his calm and peace of mind. He always had to perform for their father to show he was worthy of having been adopted. And when Heihachi shows he cares more about his bear than him, this must hurt him a lot. It probably turned him into quite a stressed child with his inferiority complex, always trying to please and satisfy his father, to not bring dishonor to Heihachi’s prestige and his claim that he raised that child. But Heihachi was not a supportive father. He seemed to have always told Lee that he was a disappointment, probably not good enough to be a Mishima. In the ending of Tekken Tag 2 when Violet has abducted his family to test Super Combot DX, Heihachi quickly mocks Lee over his robot: “You think were impressed by that hunk of junk? Pathetic!” and once Combot loses its head thanks to DJ, Heihachi says: “See? Nothing more than a disappointment!”, as if he’s saying, “See? You’re a disappointment, as always.” He then starts to laugh, somehow probably angering Lee who likely heard this a lot of time. Though Violet/Lee keeps his cool and makes them explode. So Heihachi always tried to make Lee feel like a disappointment, probably always threatening to send him back in the streets if he was not worthy enough, reminding Lee of his lowborn origins and his power over him. As we can see in the ending in Tekken 6 where Lee tied Heihachi, Kazuya, and Jin to missiles, as soon as the ball doesn’t reach him, Heihachi starts to laugh at Lee and tells him quite familiarly that he missed and once he discovers that the balls are explosive, he orders him to stop it right now, using his authority on him again. Heihachi seems to think he still hold authority over his adoptive son, like in Tekken 6 again, in scenario mode when he discovers that Lee built a new company, he says: “When did Lee (He does call him Lee, not Chaolan, to underline he is not a Mishima) have time to build up a corporation like this? I don't approve of this!”

To make Lee feel even more inferior, Heihachi also seemed to manipulate him by humiliating him with the spankings and noogies, as seen in the Tag games (All through Tekken Tag, if you pair Lee with Heihachi (with a certain combination of clothes) Heihachi spanks Lee or gives him a noogie at the start of each fight and when they lose, he grabs Lee and spanks him, he also spanks him in Tag 2 when they lose). Heihachi is always ready to mock Lee and it really shows that he was used to humiliating Lee. Lee is always a joke for Heihachi. He first took him as a rival for Kazuya but he also considered that kid as his thing and never respected him. He could do whatever he wanted to Lee, he was his toy. About the spanking, maybe it is also a form of Heihachi venting his own frustrations over his own father since as we can see in the continue scene of Tag 2, Jinpachi also spanks Heihachi… But Heihachi really treats Lee like a child, even when Lee had become an adult. He doesn’t take that son seriously, contrarily to Kazuya, who is the number one threat. Heihachi probably didn’t spank Kazuya anymore since he threw him from the cliff since Kazuya somehow scares him as a demon child. Heihachi sees a danger in him and Kazuya is not a joke like Lee. Even when innocent little five years old Kazuya did nothing wrong and ‘may’ only have that demon inherited from his mother, Heihachi is repulsed and scared by him. His fear and attitude then proceeds to turn Kazuya really evil… When Lee is grabbed by his father in the games for the spankings or noogies, Lee somehow does not resist much, he is more docile while Kazuya is even uncontrollable when tied in a space suit (Heihachi’s ending in Tekken 6).

Lee giving a revenge noogie to his father. Picture graciously provided thanks to @claudioseraph

That childish treatment is another manipulative attempt by Heihachi, to make Lee try to gain his father’s approval and do as his father requests, to finally be respected. But Lee respected his father and obeyed him, like a good son. Unlike Kazuya, who always showed Heihachi how much he hated him, calling him Oyaji (old man) and giving him hate letters, but he was never humiliated like this directly. The punishments for Kazuya seemed to have been more physical while those for Lee were more manipulative ones to humiliate him, even the physical ones were softer than the ones Kazuya received. Heihachi knew Kazuya would not be controlled like this - he could not use the need for affection or fear of losing everything on Kazuya since Kazuya already lost all those he cherished and didn’t want his hated father’s affection, but Lee could be controlled like this… Reminding Lee what he owed him, threatening to take it away from him, showing him some prizes he could win if he obeyed and giving him some compliments (very rarely but those few would give Lee hope for getting some more later) was a good trick, the rest of the time Heihachi would just ignore him, making Lee again work for his attention and approval. Having experienced how hard it was to live in the streets, Lee never wanted to go back there again and still thought that the abuse he lived in the Mishima house was better than starving in the streets. Even if they were often crushed, he had hopes of one day pleasing his father.

Lee’s wish, a loving father. (Panel from Tekken 2 comicanthology)

Lee was probably torn in all those feelings, he owed Heihachi, he still loved him, Heihachi was his father figure, and in return he wanted his love and approval but he also now really saw how Heihachi was to him and Kazuya. Maybe he felt he deserved the punishment and insults his father gave him since maybe he thought he may not have worked enough to please him, maybe he tried to convince himself that Kazuya deserved to be beaten for his insolence and stubbornness but I think he didn’t dare tell himself that in fact Heihachi was a bad father. Maybe if they both changed things a bit, Heihachi would be satisfied with them… Abused children always feel guilty and confused…

Despite not knowing why it happened exactly, Lee was aware of the war between his father and brother and he knew he was only caught in the middle of this. He somehow was on both sides while also being against both. When he was young his preoccupations were only to survive, to try to please his father so that he was not thrown out or punished but also to comfort his brother. Because even if they didn’t always get along, they still were brothers. Lee and Kazuya growing up together might have made them not only rivals, like Heihachi wanted, but also have brought them closer, since they are among the only two who knew what kind of a person Heihachi really was. Lee still wanted his father’s approval, still loved him, but he was not blind. Despite not knowing the real deep story, Lee was the only one who somehow understood Kazuya’s rebellion at the abuse while all the servants never saw any of this, or pretended to never see, and Heihachi made Kazuya pass at the little pest that needed to be punished. All narcissistic parents always shine in front of other people while only showing their true face to their abused children. In such a hostile and cold environment, it was good to have someone else, for both Lee and Kazuya. To feel less alone and know someone else knew the life they had. They might have fought often, have disagreements and jealousy but still they certainly cared for one another. They played together. They saw the abuse, fear and sadness the other lived. And they comforted each other. Until Heihachi pitted them one against the other again. So both Lee and Kazuya were rivals in things Heihachi forced them too, which also turned into a real rivalry, but also were brothers brought closer by the abuse. In my headcanon, they were homeschooled until highschool to hide the abuse and Heihachi not trusting his devil child Kazuya to behave.

While Kazuya was the little revolted devil in his youth and Lee was the well-behaved child, I think the roles somehow slightly inversed during their teenage years. Lee, who first probably was a nerd at school, loving mathematics (he was math teacher in Blood Vengeance even if it’s non-canon) and science like robotics, realized that his charm and beauty was attracting some students. So, enjoying the attention some people now were giving him, he started to flirt and exert that charm. He was the one others were fawning over, he was the one who got the attention, and he loved it. Despite still doing all the chores and training his father requested of him and still getting high grades at school, he decided that since he was almost invisible to their father, and tired of how disciplined all his Mishima life had been since then, but being also a bit more assured that he would not be thrown out of the house now that Heihachi put so much effort into schooling him (even if that threat probably came back sometimes but more rarely), he would become a bit more disobedient and he would also party with friends, somehow showing off his wealth to them to get more attention, and coming home back after curfew. Maybe sometimes being late at school, now busy smoking in some corner with other teenagers to look cooler and be more appreciated than the well-behaved nerd he was at the start of the school (Lee is often shown smoking in pictures). This probably pushed Heihachi to keep spanking his undisciplined teenager Lee, showing Lee even more that his father was not taking him seriously. But he also discovered that he could get others’ attention with his looks, his money and his flirting. If his father could not give him attention, he would get it elsewhere. Though he still wanted to be loved by his father but had found another way to heal his hurt over it. Meanwhile Kazuya also calmed down his angry revolt and was more focused on training to beat Heihachi one day. His angry tantrums were now useless, he was more calculating and less emotional.

But once they were adults, all would change again since Lee and Kazuya were now being implicated more with the Zaibatsu. Lee then began to realize that if he really could surpass Kazuya, he really could gain all of this fortune… Not just having great clothes and cool stuff like rich teenagers do, like he was enjoying until now, but being obscenely rich… even powerfully rich… Now not only was Lee confused between his love for his father, his need for approval, his fear to disappoint him, his own disappointment with how Heihachi was, his resentment for how he treated them, but now he also realized all he could gain from it. At first, he just wanted a loving family, he could now see that this would never be the case, but he could now have all this wealth… Yet he still hoped for his father’s love and approval… And between Kazuya and Heihachi things were still going well enough that Heihachi decided to teach Kazuya the more secret Mishima moves while he would instead send Lee to the United States, to the San Francisco Mishima Zaibatsu branch to complete his education. Another Heihachi calculated move that made both brothers jealous of the other. Lee was jealous of the favoritism and Kazuya was jealous of Lee’s freedom. A lot was going on in Lee’s head at this time. Not only was he jealous that Kazuya was getting the secret Mishima moves and time spent with their father as he was pushed aside in the U.S., he felt that his father did not deem him worthy of learning them (Lee never got to learn those moves in the games). Lee felt he had disappointed his father somehow and felt a lot of jealousy toward Kazuya…

So to forget his jealousy, his feeling of being pushed aside, feeling unloved and considered like an employee only, Lee started enjoying his freedom. He was in the U.S. far from the controlling presence of his father, far from Heihachi and Kazuya’s mysterious war, he had money, fame, he could party… Of course, he had a job for the Mishima Zaibatsu but he still could spend the rest of his time enjoying life… Trying stuff his father never allowed, more than cigarettes and coming home late, anyway not like Heihachi cared... He had the best in everything, he just didn’t have Heihachi's affection and esteem. But still, he had to keep up in his fighting, to impress his father when he would confront Kazuya again. He still did not want to displease his father. He still wanted to show him that he was worth something. So that his father would not really get rid of him. He may not throw him out of the house but he sends him halfway across the globe… So he hired a trainer, Marshall Law, and started to fight in underground tournaments, gaining his nickname Silver haired demon. Marshall Law and his friend Paul, and some other friends Lee made were not exactly the most elegant people so Lee let go a bit of the elegant costumes he had in Japan or at his work hours and dressed more like a rocker, wearing jeans and leather jacket. He was hanging with people from poorer backgrounds, like from where he originally came from. Maybe for a while, he felt like he could be pushed away from the family and those ordinary people were more his real social class and was a bit curious about them while wondering where he belonged… Though he would never tell them. No one had to know he was poor at first, no one had to know anything of his private life, in fact, but he liked to look like a rocker sometimes, meet simpler people and leave that corrupt world of business.

Lee relaxing with Marshall and Paul before a concert.

Because now that he was working more in those circles, Lee discovered how corrupt those practices really were. Not only the normal ones, that he had nothing against, it was the way it was, but also the horrible crimes, the threats, the murders… I always feel he had something to do in Mister Chang’s murder. Well, at least knew something about it. It happened when he was in the U.S. having a good position and learning of all the practices the Zaibatsu was using to get their way… So Lee probably knew (maybe a reason why he financed Julia’s researches, out of guilt of having something to do, even if barely, with her grandfather’s death). And he probably realized the full extent of the Mishima Zaibatsu’s corruption and evil practices, but did nothing against it. It may be troubling but it still was the way a business, some businesses, worked… (I feel that time period was when Lee was more selfish, caught up in his insecurities and ambitions). Lee still hoped he would get the Zaibatsu one day if he was not fully pushed away from the family, like he feared. Maybe he also had that small hope that maybe in fact his father trusted him enough to send him in the U.S… So he had to honor that trust. Either prove to his father that he was worth something or honor the trust his father put in him. Heihachi may be far away on the map but he was still very close in Lee’s mind. Lee still had to prove himself to him and please him. His stressful nature probably came back and he may have started to appease it with alcohol and maybe even drugs sometimes. He was realizing that things were getting more and more serious. He was enjoying the power, freedom, and fame his position now gave him but he would have to prove himself worthy to keep it while Kazuya was still near their father…

Lee probably didn’t fully know what would happen but he could feel something would happen between Kazuya and Heihachi. Either they become close and he is thrown away or they hate each other like they always did and one dies… The fact that one of them may lose everything probably troubled him very much. Lee really seems to undergo lots of changes at this time. I think Kazuya and Lee have grown more apart as brothers, they are not as isolated together as they were when they were children and they do not seem to have the same kind of life. And Lee does want to win everything but that impending family war was probably troubling him much. He probably does not want his brother to die or Kazuya to win everything and somehow both options were probably scaring him. He could not lose that rivalry but he could not accept his brother being killed. Or their father. He still owed so much to his father… And even if Lee still loves Kazuya, he does want to have the great life and prestige that Heihachi is showing before his eyes. If he is not rejected by Heihachi, if he can get his hands on all that, he will. When he was younger, he mostly wanted a roof, food, and love from his family but now the money and power did corrupt him more.

Once the first Iron Fist Tournament arrived and Lee truly realized that he could get the same as Kazuya if he wins, in fact get more than Kazuya, win the whole Zaibatsu, right now with that tournament, despite not being a full Mishima (so his father does care about him to deem him worthy enough to fight for it) he definitely does not want to back down. He may get on bad terms with Kazuya, but that is a once in a lifetime chance. Besides, it is also what their father wants, he must make him proud. His father will see he is worth something. Lee has a chance to not be the adopted child anymore, to not be the little brother anymore, the second one in everything, he can be a full Mishima by gaining the Mishima Zaibatsu and he won’t back away.

So when the first King of Iron Fist Tournament happened, Lee went back in Japan to participate. In the end, he was beaten by Kazuya before his brother went to beat their father and gained the Mishima Zaibatsu. The Tekken 2 bio says that once Kazuya won the tournament, Lee was mentally and physically destroyed and, in an old unconfirmed biography but very frequently found on Internet, Lee would have been so crushed that he fled to the mountains, screaming (somehow incapable of confronting his problems and showing his emotions. Lee does seem to be quite emotional by his ending where he jumps in joy and laughs in Tekken 1). In any Tekken 2 bio versions anyway, he had some kind of breakdown and depression. Lee still needed to prove himself to his father, to himself, and by this, he had to become a real Mishima and be better than Kazuya in many things to prove his worth and belonging. Kazuya learned the secret moves, Kazuya won the fight and the Zaibatsu, their father died… What did he have anymore? It put a lot of pressure on Lee’s shoulders which explains why Lee was totally destroyed after he lost to Kazuya in the first tournament.

Both brothers now believed Heihachi to be dead, Kazuya finally had his revenge and threw him down from a cliff. Lee knew that this tournament was the conclusion of Heihachi’s abuse towards Kazuya and him and he probably was relieved by it. Maybe once he calmed down about what he lost, he even joined his brother for this reason after the tournament. He knew that tournament was in fact an elaborate way for Heihachi to kill Kazuya and he was horrified by it. He still didn’t understand why Heihachi always hated his son so much. Though he also was disappointed to have lost his chance to win the Zaibatsu, Lee was probably still confused in his feelings toward his father. He may have been torn then between mourning his father's death or feeling relieved that his tyrannical attitude was over but he also understood why Kazuya killed him. They both knew that façade of cheerful, generous and philanthropic man, was hiding something much uglier.

Once Kazuya was at the helm of the Mishima Zaibatsu, he took Lee as a secretary. Despite Lee’s talents and knowledge of the Zaibatsu, he didn’t give him a better position, possibly to humiliate him since he was resentful that Lee tried to steal his inheritance. Lee accepted Kazuya’s offer since he didn’t really have any choice. He could quit and leave the Zaibatsu but then would lose all chances to one day get a better position, maybe even the Zaibatsu, and he probably had anxiety at the thought of trying to get a job elsewhere since he didn’t have faith in himself, he got his job at the Zaibatsu because he was Heihachi’s son. Heihachi never allowed him to be independent and confident in himself. Lee was now depressive, he wasn’t in a state to fight for anything anymore, so he then went to work for Kazuya as his secretary. He thought that Kazuya will probably stop being angry at him, he will probably elevate him to a better position soon and maybe, without Heihachi to pit them one after the other, they could get along…

My art of Lee and Kazuya celebrating a new beginning as brothers.

The fact that he tried to get the Zaibatsu and that Lee could not hide his frustration of having lost, brought Kazuya’s resentment upon him and it didn’t start as the best relation but working together, in the same office each day, also brought them closer once more. I like to think Lee tried to get along with Kazuya during that time and Kazuya calmed down in his anger. If he hated Lee, he would not have taken him near him, he wanted to annoy him, yes, but not get rid of him. Lee was one of the closest people to him (I often played Tekken bowl with both the brothers for this… throwing bowling balls at Heihachi’s head). Kazuya also could get along with Lee as long as Lee knew who was in charge. (You need to see @erenaeoth’s headcanons for Kazuya, they are excellent. It is deep and thought about the Kazuya he roleplays and writes him. Kazuya is not just a mean villain, all his life is taken into account). Hanging out together, Kazuya also probably helped Lee in getting out of this mourning and confusion by reminding him of how their father was toward him, toward them, how Heihachi was a monster, which probably brought Lee to more freely feel a lot of unavowed resentment toward Heihachi. Without his father to manipulate him, he started to realize and dare express all the hurt Heihachi did to them and that he didn’t deserve that treatment from his father.

With Heihachi gone, Lee thought that the crimes he knew were happening at the Zaibatsu, like the murders and threats to people who didn’t comply, like what happened to Mr. Chang, could now be a thing of the past. But Kazuya didn’t intend to let go of Heihachi’s efficient way of ruling the Zaibatsu so instead of stopping the crimes Heihachi was doing, Kazuya continued them and doubled down on it, bringing a bad reputation to the Zaibatsu. He more openly started committing heinous crimes, he had abductions and murders carried out and even started experimenting on endangered animals. Lee was very disappointed but again he did nothing to stop it for fear of losing his job, his advancement in the Zaibatsu, and he still hoped to get along with his brother. Maybe it was even out of fear of Kazuya, since, in Tekken 7, he does mention that he possibly was banished because he knew of Devil “I believe the real reason the Mishima family banished me was because they suspected I knew about the devil within Kazuya”. (The Mishima family consisted then of only Heihachi since he killed everyone else but maybe you could add Kuma, his favorite son. Little seven years old Lars had nothing to do in this of course, he wasn’t there). So Lee possibly may have witnessed Kazuya’s devil during that time. I like to think Lee and Kazuya really tried to be close, they were the only ones who knew all of the other’s life and traumas, but it just didn’t work out: Kazuya was too bossy, Lee too jealous, they didn’t have the same life or interests for the most part and they completely disagreed on how to rule the Zaibatsu. They both were frustrated that the other didn’t see their point of view.

So Kazuya kept on taking the Zaibatsu in a bad direction, once more attacking the Chang family (to get the amulet they had, like Heihachi had done), Kazuya ordered Michelle Chang’s mother to be abducted, another reason why Lee would feel guilty toward them and help Julia’s research for a while. He also abducted Doctor Bosconovitch to get his precious knowledge and scientific talent on creating intelligent fighting animals from endangered and even extinct animals and creating robots like the J.A.C.K, the doctor had previously made for Russia. So Prototype JACK was now upgraded. In my headcanon, Lee worked with the abducted Dr Bosconovitch on Prototype JACK, which gave him the knowledge required later to work on his robotic company and to even help repair Alisa.

There seems to have been a time where Lee was also a bad guy and killed the old man who trained him so that he would not tell Kazuya but that seems to be a very old version and non-canon anymore if it ever was, like the running to the mountain thing (but maybe it was why Lee was the bad guy in Tekken: the Motion Picture). Then in other versions, the old man turned into Wang, who of course wasn't killed and Wang asked him to save the honor of the Mishima Zaibatsu, meaning that despite Lee working for Kazuya, Wang had faith that Lee would be kinder than Kazuya and Heihachi (Wang was tricked by Heihachi in Tekken 1 and believed him to be a good man for all those years but by then had finally realized what Heihachi was, maybe even suspecting him of having killed his friend Jinpachi, Heihachi’s father. What Wang really knew was never confirmed but Jinpachi did tell him before disappearing that he had to stop the Mishima bloodline and later Wang tells Heihachi that he won’t fool him again).

Living in the Mishima garden since Jinpachi and Heihachi allowed him, Wang possibly knew Lee since childhood and probably knew that he was a good person. He possibly saw that Lee still was, despite the situation Lee was now in, since Wang decided to put his trust in him to bring back honor to the Zaibatsu and restore it to the way Jinpachi intended it to be, by stopping all those crimes that both Heihachi and Kazuya did. Wang possibly did not want Lee to become like him: not taking action only to regret it later. He probably had affection for that little child who was cut off from his Chinese culture, since Wang seems very traditional. But unlike Heihachi, Kazumi, Jinpachi, and Wang, Lee and also Kazuya have never really been attracted to the traditional side - they never have traditional clothing, unlike many other characters. Lee only finally had a Chinese armor in Tekken 7 (my headcanon is that Wang gave him) and nothing traditionally Japanese. He had an old costume in Tekken 6 but more of an historical 18th century European costume (and the rapier item move to go with it). I imagine growing up, he probably watched seventies animes, like of course all those mecha animes that were legion, and Rose of Versailles, an anime happening during the 18th century, that is full of elegant people and full of roses and dreamed about this romanticized side. Wang is a more traditional person, more from the time period before the Cultural Revolution (he probably left China in 1966 if not earlier, when Mao ordered the purge of all capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society to preserve Chinese communism). He probably wanted to teach Lee the more traditional Chinese customs. Maybe if he had the occasion, Wang may have helped Lee keep his Chinese language and write Chinese, though Heihachi probably watched so that his children were not influenced by anyone else but him, limiting contact with old Wang. But now Wang could freely get to Lee.

More historical looking clothes Lee likes (and a vampire cape) and his childhood animes, full of roses and robots. (Rose of Versaille/ Berusaiyu no Bara, and the robot ones, UFO Robot Grendizer and Mazinger Z)

But one thing is sure and canon, and that is that Wang offered to train Lee for the upcoming tournament (that Kazuya organized once he learned that Heihachi was alive). Wang was the boost that helped Lee get out of his apathy and depression. He acted as his mentor then and Lee always showed a lot of respect toward him afterward, calling him master or teacher in each game. So being given Wang’s trust, probably helping him in having more faith in himself, pushing him to listen to his conscience against those crimes, Lee decided to participate in the second King of Iron Fist tournament. His ambitions were to get the Zaibatsu, to stop Heihachi from getting it back, but also to stop the crimes Kazuya was committing with it. Yet by this time, Kazuya had also in his own internal struggle after meeting Jun. And his battle between Devil and Angel, between embracing revenge or love, which would weaken him against Heihachi in the tournament. Jun seemed to have been a good influence on Kazuya, she seemed to appease his paranoia and resentment. Lee probably knew Jun a bit and probably knew she had a good influence on Kazuya but he weirdly suspects her of being to blame for all that’s happened in Tekken 6 scenario mode. Lee Chaolan: "Kazama Style Traditional Martial Arts Dojo." Hmm, does someone here have a connection to Jun Kazama? Alisa Bosconovitch: Yes. One of her blood relations opened this dojo. It may be worth our while to investigate Lee Chaolan: I see. Perhaps the cursed blood of this family is to blame for all that’s happened.

I wonder if Lee had found out about Devil at the same time he knew Jun was going out with Kazuya? But technically Jun was in fact taking away that devil… In my headcanon, I prefer to imagine he noticed that she had a positive effect on Kazuya, I had read in the very old wiki that he helped her try to exorcise Kazuya by keeping Heihachi at bay and fighting him, which is why he is Heihachi’s sub boss in Tekken 2. But it was a passage that had no real official proof and got taken away since now everything has the official sources. But I would like to think they got along and wanted to save Kazuya…

Once Kazuya lost, Heihachi proceeded to punish his sons, both of them since he was angry at Lee for taking Kazuya’s side. He threw Kazuya in a volcano, apparently killing him, and expelled Lee from the Zaibatsu. He didn’t kill Lee, maybe he did not do it because, after all, despite the way he treated him, Lee had been his son for years, and even not loving him, he could not do that, Lee was not like Kazuya, he was a normal human, not a monster like he perceived Kazuya, and he felt a bit of pity toward him, so he expelled him from the Mishima Zaibatsu. He probably left him with nothing since in Tekken 6, Heihachi does seem angry to find out that Lee built himself some successful company so if he had given him something, he would not be surprised like this. Heihachi probably wanted to humiliate him once again by telling him, “Without me, you are nothing. I made you, I undo you.” In my headcanon, he brought him back to China, to the same street he found him in, to remind him what he was before. Being a narcissistic father, Heihachi wanted his son to see that he could do nothing without him, like he was nothing before meeting him and that since he betrayed him to go to Kazuya, he would not enjoy what his father could give him anymore, which also explains Lee’s constant anger toward Heihachi, who tried to humiliate him once again by exiling him with nothing (and also explains Lee’s revenge that are always kind of humiliating for Heihachi. Payback.).

With his many failures, the stress of competing, now truly realizing that he was nothing and never would be anything for Heihachi, and his brother’s brutal death (I headcanon Lee was in the helicopter, waiting for his turn to be punished by Heihachi so he knew what happened and was traumatized), Lee seemed quite worn-out once he was expelled. I think he really was destroyed and depressed when Heihachi got rid of him, he never really had the chance to rise from his previous depression when he lost the Zaibatsu to Kazuya. And it probably took some years before he could come back stronger, he didn’t build Violet Systems in a day. (I like to imagine he had to work and was a math teacher for a while like in Blood Vengeance before he started his company, I also headcanon that he put some money aside before he got expelled and could use it to partly help to start his project, but knowing his way of life, he probably spent most of his previous money on cars, clothes, parties, and beauty care sessions so he didn’t put that much aside). Since he was expelled and tried to hide himself when coming back, I feel that Violet Systems only recently became successful and Lee probably started implanting it in Japan only when he dared come back as Violet in Tekken 4.

But despite being miserable and shattered then, he probably would have kept hanging around his family if he had not been exiled by Heihachi. Somehow depressing and frustrating, that exile probably saved Lee’s life. Otherwise, he probably would have gotten even more corrupted by all the Mishima ways, by his resentment and frustration, while exiled and away from the toxicity of the Mishima family, he had time to think it all over without a bad influence around. He was alone. He could think by himself without trying to appease or please anyone. He first had that resentment and depression but like it was said in Tekken 4’s prologue, the idea of revenge left him so he started his new life and gained new confidence in himself. Maybe he learned to relax once exiled and this is why he is often seen taking life the good way, everything is excellent, his twenty years away probably helped him gain confidence in some of his capacities and gain some serenity. Until he went back toward the Mishima family… in a way to prove himself to them again…

In terms of his personality, I think Lee’s flirty and charming side is an attempt to get esteem and love from people since he lacked those things. But also he will never want real commitment or really give his heart. He will flee since he has to protect himself. Despite often being around a lot of people, I think Lee is a solitary person. I think he got hurt too much in his relations with his family. He was friend with Marshall and Paul before Tekken 1 and trained with them but there is no mention of it anymore, we do not know why but it seems none of them are trying to be friends again. I think Lee wants to keep people away from him. He looks very welcoming but his heart is hidden since he does not want to be hurt.

It is said that after his exile, Lee distanced himself to lead a solitary life. If we believe Harada, his secretaries are robots too, so he is surrounded by robots instead of humans. Of course, not all people who surround him are robots, he has a lot of humans at his parties, like for example, Tiger Jackson, who in my opinion seems to come often to those parties since he’s even got a place of honor on the couch in the Pool Party stage in Tekken 5 when Lee is not on it (not a robot, unless the lights on his clothes somehow indicate something… though in fact I do not think so). Apparently a solitary life full of parties, so not so solitary… Then how was he solitary? By not getting attached to anyone. All those people all come there for superficial reasons. They are not close: they party. If you can see the lyrics to Plastic Love, it might be a bit like this. He was hurt in his previous relations with his family, he doesn’t want to be hurt again so I think Lee decided to close his heart to any deep relations. It’s not because he has some show off and exhibitionistic sides that he truly shows himself. He is in fact a secret person, presenting a superficial side to keep people far from his real self. Violet is the proof of that. He used the flamboyant Violet when he needed to be hidden, he played superficial to a larger degree to protect himself. Violet acts more expressively, crazily and even ruder than Lee who is more classy and polite. He uses that personality not only to reach Heihachi in Tekken 4 but also to boost himself with self confidence. Violet seems more carefree and it is probably good for the stress Lee feels normally. Violet is an escape and an armor, underneath his sunglasses, Lee is protected, like an armor. He is invincible. He is excellent.

In love as well, Lee seems quite superficial and to keep his distances. I don’t think he even wants more than admiration and attention. When he flirts with his secretary in the Fight Lab of Tekken Tag 2, he flirts like a teenager and seems to mostly have fun being rejected rather than winning her. Like he doesn’t want to really catch her, he also doesn’t want to be caught, and shows it clearly by having many women around him, warning anyone that he isn’t serious. His goal does not seem to be to have a deep romantic relation, he likes to offer the image of the sexy man or romantic man with roses but he always keeps his distance.

Maybe the only person he may get closer to now in terms of friendship would be Lars but even then, maybe not. They have a plan to make and are carrying it out, but they are not that close. Lee was interested in being his friend, maybe even brother since he seemed to know who Lars was, and he did offer to help Lars and seemed a bit disappointed when Lars refused (though Lee was also secretly already helping Lars’ army, Yggdrasil, with his money before this…)

Lars telling Lee he cannot involve him in this, refusing his offer when Lee asks to join force with him. Lee remains a bit frozen before he acts all “I don’t care, that’s fine.”

Julia was a good friend, as Lee mentions, but she is now reduced to streaming to get money, indicating, not that Lee doesn’t necessarily want to help her, but likely that all his money is going to Yggdrasil now… but still, again, maybe they are not that good friends since apart from the Tekken 6 scenario campaign, it never was mentioned that he was friend with Julia, again it might just be out of guilt for her family suffering at the hands of the Mishimas. Like Alisa, Julia also thinks he is strange, maybe another way to keep people away and avoid being seriously close to anyone. He does likes to flirt and even has some kinky sides, like we can see when he plays with Anna in her interlude in Tekken 5, he roleplays with her at first, then the loser seems to pay a price. I think the fun here for him was the risk of being punished, not being punished. Anna seems to be more the dominant one and enjoyed winning while Lee accepts his fate, maybe coming from the fact that Lee always obeyed. He lost the game so he had to comply...

Anna and him also seem to be friends but not serious lovers since Anna went to get married and Lee didn’t do anything. I think it is a side they both have and appreciate: they leave the other their freedom. They are friends with how they both seem to regret having to fight each other in Tekken 6 scenario campaign: Anna: “Yes, I became Kazuya Mishima’s bodyguard in order to work against her. But I never thought you and I would end up as enemies.” Lee Chaolan: “Neither did I.” Anna went to get married but Lee seems to fear commitment.

Lee is that self-assured seductive guy throwing some ‘Excellent!’s a bit everywhere, he doesn’t want to show the unsure, bitter and resentful person he is underneath. He wants people to see someone who has never been poor and never has been hurt. And being near him could get people hurt since he knows he doesn’t want to be closer. My headcanon about Lee is that he is a cis man, grey ace, polyamorous, akoiromantic, sensually attracted, pansexual. But that is my opinion. He likes to be sensual and look sexy but doesn't need to go further. He also wants affection from many people to feel loved but does fear to show himself too much, that is why the relations never go too far emotionally and seriously. Once he gets their love, he leaves to not go further and either hurt them or be stuck with any people who see deeper actions as commitment. That fear of commitment also comes from his past since he was hurt a lot and does not want to be hurt again so he leaves it more 'superficial'. He loves to be wanted, to be the center of attraction, like he never was in his family and that is what matters to him. Someone closer would dig too much to see the real him and, since he left the suffocating Mishima family, he is free and intends to remain free.

The forty-eight-year-old Lee is less hurt and more sure of himself; he succeeded with his business by himself; he has also somehow learned to let go, like he abandoned his ideas for revenge, and he does spend a lot of time relaxing to appease his stressed nature. He still has his moments and his need to be alone. We see how he is still unsure when he just beat Kazuya in Tekken 5 interlude, he says it like it was a surprise then jumps in joy. And falls, then quickly gets up and acts like it never happened. Even though he is more sophisticated in later games, then, he still seems to have a more anxious side underneath that he tries to hide.

As for his family, in the games, Lee now seems to hate Heihachi but he only seems to focus on the rivalry or be angered by Kazuya, but all his interactions with him are not as hostile as with his father. He does receive Kazuya with calm in the Tekken 6 scenario campaign:

“Kazuya. I wasn't expecting a personal appearance. Rebel army? Nonsense. I'll ask you to cease these mad accusations, unless you have some proof. Ahh, you always lacked elegance, Kazuya.” While he loses it when Heihachi invades his place: “What? Why are you in my palace?! You have no right being here! That's enough! It's time I released years of resentment upon you!”

And in his Tekken 5 interlude: Lee: Kazuya why do you always get in my way? Kazuya: You’re the one who won’t stay put, you maggot. Lee: You stole the position in the Mishima Zaibatsu from me! Now it’s time to take back what’s rightfully mine. Kazuya: You have no idea what’s going on. It’s a shame how stupid you are. Lee: Shut up! Quit your rambling and fight! Come on.

Though insulting, calling Lee stupid and maggot, Kazuya seems more dismissing of him, scornful but he doesn’t have the hate for Lee that he has for his father. Lee is an annoyance, not an enemy. And Lee seems to be angry as a part of their rivalry but not for some personal hurt, even when he worked for him as secretary. Of course it annoyed him, but his anger toward Kazuya still seems more like a matter of rivalry, while Heihachi hurt him more. So their relation may have turned bad with all that happened between them, but still to a lesser degree than the one between them and their father. It is Heihachi who is at the center of all Lee’s revenge endings, rather than Kazuya. Lee sees that Kazuya is the product of his father’s mistreatments and hate, another reason to push some anger toward Heihachi. Though he does seem to blame it all on Kazuya to the journalist in Tekken 7… “his blood has cursed the Mishima household.” But I think it’s on the devil inside him that he really puts the blame. And he will fight against Kazuya in that war now going on but again, it is to stop the war, not a revenge thing.

In their winning pose in Tekken Tag 2, Kazuya keeps his stoic air while Lee makes a small smile, somehow showing some familiarity and no real hate between them both.

#lee chaolan #tekken #headcanon

32 notes · View notes

iphigeniainaulis · 2 years

Text

Summary: nothing important, just my personal opinion on the symbolism of eyes, accessories and the Moon in Ikevamp

Warnings: minor spoilers for all routes, mild spoilers for Shakespeare and Faust

I just want to say that Ikevamp is probably one of the best otome games in terms of character design. So many tiny details, and the more you read, the more hints you actually find.

Let's take, for example, Shakespeare. The Act 1 suggests that the Bard of Avon is the main villain of the story. He knows about the revival of the Duke of Wellington and Antonio Salieri, plays a major role in Vincent and MC’s separation, helps Gauguin to bring Theo to the cliff where they play cops and robbers and just acts suspicious in Leo’s route. Many routes include this chapter where Comte rushes to Will’s private villa and asks whether he is behind the drama with historical figures being brought back to life.

However, Act 2 slowly but gradually dents our confidence. Here we get a chance to meet with the mysterious ‘shade’ in church and find out that during all this time Will has been a double agent. As the story unfolds, Shakespeare’s portrayal also begins to change, especially in terms of his attitude towards Vlad’s ambitions and methods used to achieve them. William from Act 1 acts like a mad genius who is in desperate need of a tragedy that can move everyone's heart, and he won’t hesitate to do everything he can to create his masterpiece. But Will in Act 2 reveals the duality of his soul, showing us that behind that mask of evil goodness there is room for fears, questions doubting the fundamentals of his lord’s moral views and actions Will has to perform himself as his agent on the way to building ‘a perfect future’. In Jean’s route, for example, William is genuinely frightened with Vlad using his power to control Gilles de Rais’s mind, driving the former solder to the point of madness, and Dazai’s route proves that this feeling of pure horror further leads to triggering Will’s psychological trauma as he receives the greater vampire’s ‘gift’. Shakespeare’s own route puts an end to Will’s moral searches, giving an answer regarding what side the writer chooses to be on.

The looks and costumes help us to follow the character’s story. The most catching part of Will’s appearance seems to be his famous heterochromia, the symbolism of which has been probably discussed earlier, so I'll point at the key moments. The bard’s right eye is the color of gold while his left eye is crimson red. And for a good reason.

The red color is considered to be polysemantic. In some cultures it is used to describe love, energy and the welcoming heat of fire, in others — it stands for blood which reminds of wars, danger and violence. There is, however, one thing that unites all these feelings, and it is called passion. Passion can give us energy and strength to move forward, but it can also blind us with anger and jealousy.

Shakespeare is blind both physically and metaphorically. His red eye is blurry with blood as a result of a childhood’s disease, thus he can’t see anything with it. At the same time, William’s mind is obnubilated with the fear of being not good enough — which is basically the main symptom of the impostor syndrome, hence his desire to write the best tragedy possible in order to prove everyone, himself included, that he does have the talent many praise him for.

The other eye is golden. Here my guess is that this color is mentioned as the opposite to the darkness caused by William’s half-blindness. Golden is another word for ‘light’ desired by Shakespeare’s kind side. This bright side of him makes Shakespeare cherish and enjoy his friendship with Vincent (though it still doesn't prevent him from using the painter as the main source of information coming from the mansion). This kindness dictates Will to help MC when she is attacked by those bastards in the first chapters of his own route. And this very gentleness of his heart is a driving force for his inner protest to Vlad’s wish to kidnap MC in Comte’s route. As you remember, Shakespeare obeyed his lord’s command only under the brainwashing spells and later expressed sincere regrets regarding not being able to stop the pureblood.

The combination of good and evil, red and golden is an allusion to William's connection with both Vlad (whose eyes resemble crimson moon) and Comte (in the prologue MC describes his gaze as ‘spun gold’).

Why do I mention the character’s costume at the beginning? Because it enables us to answer what side Will is on even without reading his story.

If we look at the attire of the Evil Trio, we can actually see that everyone wears a small crescent moon shaped brooch — a particular sign of belonging to their secret community.

William doesn't have one.

🌙

This is where I was originally planning to stop. In spite of it, I got really interested in the meaning behind those brooches, so I decided to delve a little bit deeper. Again, these are only my own speculations. Probably, Vlad’s route contains the explanation, and I'm dumb. But I haven’t read it yet, so let’s continue.

In general, we can analyze the symbolism behind the crescent moon in two different ways, relying on our knowledge of either mythology or heraldry.

The crescent symbol has been used in various legends as a divine attribute. In Ancient Greek and Roman mythology the crescent moon is said to represent Selene/Luna, lunar goddess, and some stories suggest that the curves of the crescent shape remind the bow used by Diana, the goddess of hunt. In ancient Egypt people honored the moon god Khonsu whose name can be translated as ‘a traveler’ — a pretty interesting coincidence, considering Vlad’s abilities to travel through times and spaces as an immortal vampire and by using the door. Thus, the crescent shaped brooch may point at the pureblood’s divine origins, explaining on of the reasons why other immortals call him ‘the son of God’.

On the other hand, the brooch can be a reference to Vlad’s homeland.

This picture illustrates the coat-of-arms of the Hunyadi family from which, according to some historians, comes the coat-of-arms of Wallachia, the region ruled by the House of Draculesti. A black raven is depicted in the center with a ring in its beak. Later on, the Hunyadi coat-of-arms was added with the image of the crescent in the top right.

This tradition was further fixed during the reign of Mircea I, the grandfather of Vlad the Impaler, though it slightly differed from the original image as we can see the cross occurring in the central part of Mircea’s seal.

The same image was on the seal of Radu IV, Vlad’s nephew, with the moon replaced to the left.

Not only that, during the period when Vlad was the Voivode of Wallachia he ordered to mint new trade coins. Up until today only two such coins were described in Romanian numismatic papers. This is one of them with the image of Vlad’s coat-of-arms inside the inner linear circle. Inside the first field there is a waxing half moon and a six ray star below it.

Curious as it is, if we overlay the shapes of a moon and a cross one another, we’ll get the image most close to the original version of the Trio’s brooch.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't dismiss the third idea that the crescent brooch represents fate that brought everyone together in the XIX century.

To begin with, the moon plays several roles in the game. Visibly, it acts as a mirror reflecting MC’s feelings and inner thoughts. The prologue shows how much she is frightened of the sudden changes in her life and the prospect of not being able to go back home. XIXth century France is dangerous, and this specific view of the world is emphasized with the nature descriptions. That's why in Arthur’s route the crescent moon is written as a ‘gibbering madman’s smile in the dark sky’, in Vincent's route — as a ‘mocking grin’ fueling MC’s anxiety.

The Moon in Ikevamp universe, however, is often described as a silent embodiment of fate, the theme of which runs through the story like a golden thread. The crescent moon takes the role of a powerful force, guiding MC through the door (in Isaac’s route MC even asks herself, 'Had that moon guided me? Was I under its sway?'), dominating behind the walls of the Musee du Louvre (in Leonardo’s route MC thinks, ‘I wound up in an eventime world ruled by a crescent moon’).

The epilogues of some of the stories contain the scene where MC is shown to enjoy the view of the sky and remembers how the same crescent she saw on her very first night in the mansion was a harbinger of a major turning point in her life. A very clever choice of structuring writing as it allows to logically loop the plot.

🌗

This is where I need to stop, but I want to say just a few more words about two other members of the Trio. Faust and Charles. What does the crescent mean for them?

Now, I’m not a huge fan of searching for a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no one there. This is the exact reason why I had to abandon the theory about the link between the brooch and Charles's past as an executioner. It's too far-fetched whereas we have a far more satisfying answer. Wearing the brooch, Faust and Charles show loyalty to their sire. At least, in the case of Charles it does seem true, taking into account his obsession with Vlad.

But with Faust it's a bit more complicated.

The central conflict in his route is called 'man against self' or, more precisely, a priest searching for and finding the lost faith. These searches stem from a plethora of moral dilemmas such as the right of a man wearing a cross to rebel against God watching the injustice of the world; the existence of so-called ‘fair sacrifice’ when in order to save hundreds of lives you have to kill one or vice versa.

Faust himself is portrayed as a ridiculously cynical and unprincipled man who doesn't scorn to experiment on corps and sincerely despises any sign of human weaknesses. At the same time, this very man is the one who supplements the citizens with the medicine without taking any money, spends his free time with orphans and despite looking genuinely annoyed cares about their well-being, knowing too well what it's like to be deprived of love and compassion. He’s given up on merciful Heaven because he’s never been a subject of mercy. Still, everyday he goes to church and listens to confessions of his parishioners.

I don't want to spoil other details of his route, but I think it's of particular importance to discuss MC’s words she tells him in the final chapters. As I understand, their meaning is somehow close to

‘your hands are what give others hope’

This is such a beautiful and touching way of saying that despite Faust telling her multiple times that he sees no hope in the future, in reality he carries it deep inside his heart. Otherwise, he wouldn't see the point in being revived as a vampire and rebelling the very principles of the world’s existence, he wouldn't listen and give a helping hand to the praying people in church, knowing a common belief that a person can to speak to God via priests as his voice on Earth.

No matter how hard the obstacles were, how painful and lonely he felt, Faust never wanted to lose hope and faith in his abilities to change his destiny by creating a world where everyone’s prayer can be heard.

How on Earth is the crescent moon involved here?

At this moment you should know I am a myth nerd.

The crescent was associated with goddess Hekate in the Roman Time Period and in Late Antiquity. While she wasn't originally a lunar goddess and a part of the Pantheon, Hekate was still known as the deity of dark magic, medicine and necromancy. Faust, as mentioned before, is attracted to alchemy, pharmaceutical and paranormal studies as well as experiments on the dead. According to the legend, he also used to practice witchcraft.

Alongside with that, Hekate had an important mission of guiding the lost souls. A crescent, her attribute, was incorporated in many poems and writings as a metaphor for hope that the moonlight gives to travelers as they try to see the road in the darkness of the night.

So, Faust’s crescent shaped brooch in the game may be another way of proving that in spite of all his bravada and claimed indifference, the truth is he always wears hope on his chest, though he can't see it as he doesn't listen to his heart (that's why the brooch is on the right and not on the left).

Hope drives him forward, makes him use everything he can —knowledge, experience, will — to create a brighter future. Hope creates aspiration, and aspiration nourishes hope. In fact, this is what brings Ikevamp Faust close to Goethe's character.

In Part I Scene I: Night there is a marvelous monologue of Faust addressing the moon.

‘O, may you look, full moon that shines, On my pain for this last time: So many midnights from my desk, I have seen you, keeping watch: When over my books and paper, Saddest friend, you appear!’

He wishes to leave the material world he lives in in order to achieve his greatest goal — to learn the irreversible laws of the universe. As he speaks, the moon becomes something more than a lifeless object, it represents his aspiration, distant and difficult, almost impossible.

‘… And need you ask why my heart Makes such tremors in my breast? Why all my life-energies are Choked by some unknown distress?’

#ikemen series #ikemen vampire #ikevamp #ikevamp shakespeare #ikevam vlad #ikevam arthur #ikevam leonardo #ikevamp theo #ikevamp faust #ikevamp charles #ikevamp comte #ikevamp dazai #ikevamp jean #ikevamp vincent #ikevamp napoleon

49 notes · View notes

littlebigmouse · 2 years

Text

Everyone is out here theorising that Jacob Hopkins will kidnap or attack the witches or join forces with not-so-dead-Belos. And don't get me wrong, I fully agree, dude is an antagonist and he kinda sucks, but can you imagine - Hunter, having seen the statue of the Wittebane's wants to find out more about them and thus visits the Gravesfield Historical Society. The witch kids haven't been in Gravesfield for long enough for the incident with Jacob to have come up yet, so he has no reason to avoid the building and/or the curator in question. Also, as long as he wears a hat, he does look human, so- Jacob Hopkins, recently humiliated but otherwise neither charged nor harmed, finds a scrungly looking teenager at the front desk. Jacob assumes the guy is here to ask for more game cards - they're out of stock - and is ready to send him on his way, but instead the boy shyly asks about the founders of the town. Jacob is startled, but pleasantly surprised, and a short conversation later, where Jacob has only shared some basics, the teenager is still there! and eager to learn! Slowly but surely, Jacob starts giving him a tour of their exhibits, shares all the tidbits and anecdotes. The teenager flinches when Jacob mentions witch-hunts and stares at the town crest for a solid thirty seconds with an expression so heartbroken Jacob doesn't even say anything about the clear drift in attention. The teenager remains polite and reserved, asking clarifying questions, but always in strange or round-about ways. Jacob does his best to answer any and all enquiries with his usual enthusiasm, and it must be working because well, the kid's still here, isn't he? "Why do you want to know all this, anyway? School project?", Jacob asks, an hour into the tour. The teenager doesn't meet his eyes, hasn't for a good while of the tour, really. "Something like that. I just... recently moved here. Wanted to figure out some of the... town history I guess. I don't know much about, uhh, local history? Yeah, so. Sorry, if I, uh, was wasting your time." And well, Jacob can't have that, encouraging the local youth to learn about their anchestors IS his job, after all, even if it's not his most important calling. And also, Jacob can't be sure, of course, the teen is being dodgy at best, but he thinks he can spot a fellow lonely nerd. The move must have been hard, judging by the eye-bags, and the scars speak for themselves. Bullying, probably. Either way, Jacob has found a kindred soul, and if he can make the life of one teen a little less miserable, and instill some respect for history? He doesn't even have to think about the offer, when they are done with their tour, almost closing time, and the teen is eyeing a shelf of books in a corner of the building. "Feel free to come back tomorrow, if you want to learn more, or learn about history in general, or just... need a quiet space to hangout. Not that many people come by here these days, anyways." And the kid - Hunter, he introduced himself - nods and almost smiles. "Thank you, I appreciate the offer, I think I will." Anyway and that's how Hunter became a flat-earther for week before Luz and Co nipped that in the bud hard.

#toh #toh theories #toh spoilers #toh hunter #jacob hopkins #luz noceda #the owl house #toh mini fic i guess #anyway jacob gifts him a deck of hexes hold'em cards to bond with other teens #and hunter asks if he knows how to play #and jacob obviously doesn't #and neither does hunter initially #at first they make up their own rules #but luz eventually teaches him and thus hunter starts regularly playing a witch's card game with your local conspiracy nut #jacob teaches hunter so many things about the human realm!#most of them are wrong and bad but they both had the spirit!#yes i'm aware that could be very dangerous that's the joke #hunter comes home like 'i learned many things about gravesfield today such as did you know that chemtrails caused the- why are you staring'

62 notes · View notes

sunnixsunshine · 2 years

Note

Just image meowth learning some of the conspiracy theories about him.

Him Arceus? Some sort of desguised legendary Pokémon? Puffffftttt

Although some butterfly effect certainly could be interesting… what if more wild Pokémon got interested in learning to speak or write? Like to tell humans not to destroy their habitat or to not capture them? Some could see how Meowth technically stands as an equal with his human counterparts and become interested

Just food for thought especially since you mentioned that Meowth stayed 5 years in the past and was a key player on historical events. That can cause some serious butterfly effect

Oh he hears them! He, being a cat, tends to find spaces to hide/sleep on lazy days so he's overheard tons of ridiculous theories. His favorite is probably him being a time traveler from a future where pokemon have taken over and humans no longer exist— its only 25% true, the rest he'll break a rib from laughing so hard.

When he gets home and hears of the internet bred theories, that's when he feels a bit lightheaded. There's too many of them and none of them even make much sense!

Oh there's consequences from him staying! Most of the events after the games' events were small, but still important enough to be acknowledged in books and schools all the way to the current year. Maybe Laventon published a Meowth centric book all about the species, many many years before it was supposed to be published, especially by a different author/scientist. Things about Meowth were discovered before they were supposed to be.

I wouldn't really say many pokemon have learned from him and tried learning to talk/write like him, however. Perhaps some pokemon have tried through the years, but not many were successful in becoming fluent in human speak. They got close, but they didn't have the drive, real reason, or wide resources Meowth had.

But the biggest affect Meowth had on the past, and by extension, future was the opinion on Meowth as a species;

Maybe there was an attempt to bring Meowth over to Sinnoh and domesticate them there, but Glameow and Purgly were too aggressive with their territory and killed the Meowth people tried to bring over? But regardless, Meowth became a big figure in Sinnoh, which brought a lot of tourism to Kanto, which made Kanto flourish, so to further capitalize on Meowth's image, Kantonians would come over with their pet Meowth and make profit over that— so now, in modern times, Meowth is a really big craze in Sinnoh, from figures of good luck(the maneki neko) to a whole festival in Jubilife celebrating not just the species, but Meowth himself and his endeavors. So then maybe Dawn would be more enamored by Meowth at the start???

Possibly due to the attention to the pokemon, Meowth is also sought out by pokemon hunters. More people know about the amount of good luck the Kantonian variant brings compared to the Galarian and Alolan. So maybe as a result, Meowth is rarely seen anymore. They're either hiding or so many of them are caught that the number of wild Meowth have gone down. Meowth's influence and historical fame have caused dangerous repercussions to his species.

Or there's an overpopulation of Meowth in Kanto and maybe they were even successfully domesticated in Sinnoh and soon they were bred, released, and overpopulated. They've become somewhat of an invasive species, but they're so celebrated, no one is willing to do anything about it. Oh oh!!!! A Sinnoh variant Meowth maybe???????? An ice type because it's in Snowpoint!

This is actually really fun to think about 👀

#ask #pokemon #pokemon au #pokemon meowth #meowth in hisui au

33 notes · View notes

onetrackminded · 6 months

Text

Upon watching HBomberguy's newest video on plagiarism, I realized I've never had a creative thought of my own.

I'm probably being dramatic, but looking back on my previous endeavors on social media, I see now how easily other's content and ideas can be flagrantly appropriated without anyone raising an eyebrow.

My partner, a year or so ago, convinced me to get a TikTok account. I eventually caved and did, but found the act of doomscrolling only worked to ruin my day. So I started creating content for a time.

I wouldn't say I had a -following- really. The height of my account hovered around 15,000 followers which, on TikTok, isn't many. The reels that comprise the user's experience take up very little time, therefore you need to follow a significant amount of creators in order to customize your "For You" page.

On my account I talked about psychology and neurodiversity, which are big interests of mine. I was shocked at how well received my videos were and thought people must enjoy what I had to say. I don't think I realized the gravity of the situation. When people listen to you, you are beholden to the truth, otherwise you do harm.

Most of the videos I created were opinions, and strongly-held ones at that. Sometimes I'd read an article and discuss it's contents without knowing the source material the article actually used. Another video I made discussed a historical figure. In that video in particular, I took the same facts about said figure from a YouTube channel without citing them.

In my mind, I was creating a synthesis of information I found interesting or useful or cool. I didn't care to take things as seriously as I should've because I never expected to have any audience at all, let alone one that would trust in my videos.

Thankfully, I quit making videos regularly. The amount of time and effort it took up, especially with how buggy the app is and how technologically illiterate I am, wasn't worth it. The entire platform, along with the community, stopped appealing to me. I deleted my account just a little bit ago.

HBomb's video was excellent. It made me realize the importance of what influencers do, and how unprepared I was to try and take that responsibility on for myself. Even with this blog, I struggle to see a point in discussing anything outside of my own, direct experiences. I'm not educated enough to truly synthesize studies and regurgitate them with my own analysis. I barely graduated the 12th grade.

One of the YouTubers HBomb discussed at length in his video is a man by the name of James Somerton. I've been a fan of James' for a bit now and always got excited for his videos. I wouldn't call myself a die hard fan, but certainly a regular viewer.

As it turns out, almost all of his videos are nakedly plagiarized from smaller, more obscure queer creators. HBomb also did a compelling section on James Somerton's seeming misogyny, as it's the only original thing you hear in any of his videos.

Obviously it's unfortunate and upsetting that James plagiarized so many underappreciated queer creators, but I was more interested in his misogyny for a variety of reasons. For one, I remember watching many of the videos HBomb cited and my reaction to them.

In James' video on Jeffery Dahmer, he discussed how white women fetishize murderers, especially when they're gay. If they didn't kill women, it's easily to separate yourself from the victims and dehumanize them as a result--or so the argument goes. HBomb points out how even James himself mentions how Ted Bundy was similarly fetishized despite killing women, unintentionally undermining his own point.

There are other examples of his misogyny. For example, James in one of his videos discusses how women often use gay men; objectify them via the "gay best friend" stereotype. Sure, the gay best friend stereotype certainly deserves criticism, but the way in which he evokes WOMEN as a the sole enablers of this harm is concerning to say the least.

I don't think it's a coincidence that I often fall for creators and YouTubers who harbor biases against people such as me. That's not to say I'm a woman (James has also misgendered afab enbies), but I'm certainly perceived as one.

It seems as though the pattern I trend towards is one of self debasement. I repeat trauma everywhere I go. I don't blame myself for liking James' videos--many people did and still do. I suppose I just marvel at how my thought processes work to uphold my trauma-ridden core belief that I'm not shit.

I remember watching James' videos and feeling weird about his comments on women. I enjoy true crime (in a self-aware kind of way, I'd like to think) and become interested in the psychology of serial killers. That aspect of me likely would have been seen by him and many others in his community as being close enough to fetishization.

I also remember watching the video where James discusses women who have gay best friends. My gay best friend, we'll call him Rick, was a manipulative person who took advantage of me in many ways. I knew that by the time I saw James' video, yet I remember beating myself up for engaging in a stereotype (despite the fact I was innocently trying to be a good friend to a fellow queer person).

It's all very confusing. The leg work of figuring out what is true and not true is a daunting one. I fall for cons every single time it seems. I believe I have vulnerabilities that make it easy for manipulative people to exploit. As much as I would love to believe my social isolation tactics and "vetting" system has fixed my issue of abuse blindness, I'm starting to realize how false that is. We are all subject to misinformation and trickery. We are all also capable of espousing manipulation and trickery, even when we don't realize it.

1 note · View note

symphonyofsilence · 2 years

Text

The real tragedy of Fëanor never getting rembodied is that we'll never have a Bilbo/Fëanor interaction in Valinor.

#I just wanted to see how it would go okay #Bilbo is the ONE person who would have no problem roasting Fëanor #but he'd also fanboy so hard #he's a certified history & language nerd & Fëanor is the ultimate linguist & historian he had established a school!#not to mention that he himself was probably the most important historical figure!#but nothing could have stopped Bilbo from being a lil shit #& he would get away with it cuz he always does #he could sing about the exact moment Elrond's abandonment issues started in front of Elrond in the house of Elrond & get away with it #lord of the rings #silmarillion #the silm #lotr #tolkien #jrrt #bilbo baggins #Fëanoro #feanor #my two cents #ok but maybe Bilbo wouldn't have been the only character who would roast Fëanor Nerdanel could would and canonically did

165 notes · View notes

serpent-of-the-silver-plumes · 3 years

Note

would you mind talking more about bart and unreliable narration? I always hear people say unreliable narration but I've never seen any concrete examples from media I actually consume so I'd love your thoughts

Oh absolutely!! I actually wrote a thing about this a while back but then went 'this is not well written' and it got buried in my drafts, so I’m glad to have an excuse to pull that up and rewrite it. (Also sorry, this got really long.)

Basically, at one point I was listening to a podcast (Be the Serpent, ep 4), and they categorize different kinds of unreliable narrators into three types: the narrator who knows they are lying to you, the narrator who is lying to themself (and therefore you), and the narrator who is lying because they are missing some key information. I would argue that the three main pov characters of the Bartimaeus Trilogy each represent a different type of these unreliable narrators.

Going in backwards order, Kitty is the narrator who lies because she is missing some key information, at least until the third book. As a commoner, even one who is part of a resistance movement, her knowledge of magic is extremely limited and biased. Were we to go off of her point of view alone, we would get an inaccurate view of this world and the power dynamics that exist within it: that magicians are somehow special in holding magic and that they have evil demons who work alongside them in shared mischief/hunger for power/whatever.

However, because the books include other points of view, the full impact of that unreliability is not realized.

Similarly, Nathaniel lies to himself, especially in the later books. He ignores how much he personally contributes to upholding a system that depends on the oppression and slavery of other sentient beings, and squashes down the last traces of his moral compass. I don’t think he ever really questions the system of government or if it should be there and work the way it does.

To some extent, we do see through his unreliability as well, because Bartimaeus is around to keep a check on him and tell the reader that no, the magicians and their imperialism are bad, that spirits have very good reason to hate humans, and give us other world building details that contradict what Nathaniel believes.

But some of it is about what is going on inside Nathaniel’s own head, so there is also a lot that can’t be fully seen by an outside perspective that has to be assumed by the reader. Like he will deny the sentimental feelings he has towards Ms. Underwood and the guilt he had over Kitty’s supposed death and the fact that he even remotely cares about Bartimaeus, but actions speak louder than words.

Because both of these characters’ unreliability stem from a lack of understanding, having other perspectives in the book in some ways cancels out their unreliability, and actually ties their unreliability more to their character development than as a plot/narration device. Kitty grows more reliable throughout the series while Nathaniel gets less so until the end. This doesn’t make that unreliability useless though, especially in a series aimed for children. By getting each character’s point of view, we can see where they are coming from and how the knowledge and views they have affect the way they act, but there is also someone else to point out how they are wrong, to make you question how true what each individual says is.

Bartimaeus is entirely different from the first two characters. His narration is told in first person, unlike Nathaniel and Kitty’s third person. He talks directly to the reader and goes off on tangential footnotes that are not necessarily part of the events currently happening in the story. Because of this narration style, he also has the power to lie more directly to the reader than any of the other characters.

Given his life, it is understandable how he has gotten into the habit of lying. Every moment of his existence on Earth is spent under the power of someone else, so he lies in order to protect himself. There are some instances where he lies to his masters in order to escape punishment or to lead them into danger so he can be set free, but he also lies about his feelings because he cannot afford to be emotionally vulnerable.

For the most part, I think it can be assumed that the dialogue and most actions that happen in his pov chapters are told as they are, since much of that lines up with what goes on in the other characters’ perspectives, and also there are at least a few things that show him in a less-than-flattering light that he would probably leave out or change if he could. Instead, the lies he tells are largely about his past and his emotions, often done through exaggeration or omission, and cannot be collaborated by others.

When lying about his past, Bartimaeus frequently exaggerates his prestige and role in history. In Ptolemy’s Gate, Bartimaeus says that he talked to King Solomon about Faquarl’s tendency to brag about his historical importance. Even beyond the obvious irony, in the prequel we see Bartimaeus’s time at Solomon’s court, and while it isn’t technically impossible for him to have talked to Solomon about Faquarl, the timing and circumstances make it extremely unlikely. Although his other stories cannot be proven or disproven with what we know, this instance and his general tendency to brag outrageously makes it very likely that Bartimaeus at the very least embellishes.

However, despite being super showy about his past, Bartimaeus doesn’t actually include much important information. He very rarely talks about his great feats as a thief or assassin or anything else. When he lists his accomplishments, he describes building walls and talking to important historical figures. There’s a post somewhere (if I find it, I’ll link it) that explains this as being a way for Bartimaeus to try to take control of his reputation and therefore his life; by associating with safer jobs, he is less likely to be summoned for very dangerous and morally reprehensible jobs.

He does generally try to portray himself as clever and collected and just generally more cool than he actually is. There’s a moment at the end of the first book where he describes himself as trying to calm Nathaniel who is freaking out, and then the next chapter is from Nathaniel’s pov which describes him as being the calmer one while Bartimaeus is a fly anxiously buzzing around.

I don’t remember the exact line, but in the second book there’s an exchange that goes something like this:

“____” I said calmly.

“Stop your whimpering,” Kitty said.

The way Bartimaeus portrays himself is straight up contradicted by the more factual account of the words and actions of someone else. And presumably there are plenty of other times that we do not see contradictory evidence where Bartimaeus straight up lies about how he is reacting to something.

But one of Bartimaeus’s most unreliable points centers around humans. Throughout the books, he constantly talks about the ways he has killed and would like to kill his masters, if given the opportunity. Nathaniel is an exception, one that Bartimaeus does admit to the reader, but even in the third book when he talks the most about how he would kill Nathaniel or even join a demon rebellion if Faquarl offered right then and there, Bartimaeus does not actually follow through on these threats when he gets the chance. Despite all of his talk about how much he hates humans, Bartimaeus has as much of a positive relationship he can have with as many humans possible, given the circumstances.

A lot of his unreliability centers around Ptolemy, which is what some of Bartimaeus’s biggest lies of omission are about. In the first book, we do get the sense that Bartimaeus has a soft spot for at least some humans. His excuses of saving and looking after Nathaniel in order to avoid Indefinite Confinement, while likely not entirely false, do fall a bit flat. We even get a mention of “a boy I had known once before, someone I had loved.” Although this is not explicitly connected to Ptolemy at this point, mentions of brown skin and the Nile make a pretty obvious connection to Ptolemy, especially as Bartimaeus describes taking on Ptolemy’s form several times later on. There is a less obvious hint too, “I sat on the ground, cross-legged, the way Ptolemy used to do.” Even without knowing much about what kind of relationship Bartimaeus had with Ptolemy, that kind of detail shows ‘a devotion to detail that could only come with genuine affection, or perhaps even love.’

It isn’t until the third book until we learn anything substantial about his relationship with Ptolemy, and even then he doesn’t tell the whole story. The fandom jokes about how Bartimaeus just casually mentions in a foot note that he prefers a lioness form because the manes are annoying, and it’s not until the flashback that you find out that the mane is part of what got Ptolemy killed. And even with the flashbacks, you still never see the time that Ptolemy visited the Other Place.

There are a lot of posts on this site that talk about how Bartimaeus absolutely was idealizing Ptolemy, and how there’s some evidence that he isn’t the perfectly sweet never-did-anything-wrong innocent child that Bartimaeus describes him as (notably that part where he was vaguely annoyed that people kept coming to him to ask for help and interrupted his research). Not that Ptolemy secretly sucks or anything, but it’s really easy to let nostalgia skip over the less dramatic details of Ptolemy being an actual human being with flaws.

In summary, I would argue that all of the trilogy protagonists are unreliable narrators to varying extents, and Jonathan Stroud is a genius for how he manages to make it all work.

#bartimaeus #nathaniel #ptolemy #kitty jones #my post #kitty #unreliable narrator

169 notes · View notes

ironwoman359 · 3 years

Text

This is probably not the best place to ask, but you’re also a Christian woman too. I was wondering what you thought about what the Bible says about women and how we must submit to husbands and some other stuff that has me (a potential ace) Christain woman kind of terrified. I would go to my church but social anxiety and my church is pretty conservative. I don’t want to think that we’re just second rate citizens with this. Um…that’s all. You don’t have to answer. Love your Tumblr. It’s one of the main ones I look at. Thanks for countless enjoyment!

— — —

(I’m responding on the submission and not the ask because the ask refused to post properly, I think it was too long for Tumblr’s fancy)

So I know you just asked for my thoughts and not a biblical interpretation lesson, but I didn’t spend 3 months writing an exegesis in college for me to never use those skills again, so buckle up for something of a long answer! (literally, this is almost 3 thousand words, so....sorry about that) *rubs hands together* The thing we need to take into consideration when reading the bible is Interpretation; any truly honest biblical scholar would tell you it is a mistake to take every word in the bible at its literal face value, ESPECIALLY since most of us are reading translations of scripture, not the original ancient hebrew/greek/aramaic/whatever else. So when interpreting scripture, we must consider these things:

Author (Who wrote it?)

Audience (Who was it written for?)

Context (What is written around it?)

So the verses you’re referencing are Ephesians 5:22-23, and in the NIV, they read as follows:

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Isolated from author, audience, and context, they sound pretty sexist, don’t they? And male authority figures have used these verses as justification for the oppression of women for centuries, just as white men used the passage only a few verses away, Ephesians 6:5, as justification for the oppression and ownership of black people (Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ). So let’s look at each of the points above in regards to Ephesians 5 and 6. First, who wrote it? Sometimes that can be a tricky question to answer, but in this case, it’s actually very easy (though there is still a bit of fuzziness/debate). Traditionally, Ephesians is one of the Apostle Paul’s letters to the early church. Specifically, to the body of believers in Ephesus, a Greek city that was a part of the Roman Empire at the time. According to two different study bibles I have, the letter of Ephesians was not addressing any particular problem that the church in Ephesus had (as was often the case with Paul’s letters), but was meant as an encouragement of faith and to increase his readers’ understanding of what it meant to be a follower of Christ. So now what about the Context? Why are the verses at the end of chapter 5 and beginning of chapter 6 so damning to our modern sensibilities? To answer that, we must look at the passages both in context to the verses around them, and in historical and cultural context (which is where 1 & 2 come into play again). Going back to the beginning of chapter 4, which is subtitled “Unity in the Body of Christ” (and remember, these subtitles and groupings were come up with LONG after they were written; we grouped sections together in a way we thought was most logical, which honestly for a book as short as Ephesians I would argue is barely even necessary), we can see that the letter from chapter 4 onward is about living a Holy and Godly life. Chapter 4 urges us to be “completely humble and gentle, be patient, bearing with one another in love” and warns us against living “as the Gentiles* do, in the futility of their thinking.” *Gentiles in this case meaning not neccesarily all non-Jews, but non-believers. AKA, we should live like Jesus lived, WWJD and all that jazz. If the Holy Spirit is in our hearts and our relationship with God is at the forefront of our lives, then that should show clearly in our actions. The very first verse of chapter 5 reads “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” Chapters 5 and 6 especially are meant to act as a sort of guide for how a follower of Christ should act. There’s some stuff about obscenity, greed, sexual impurity, 5:15 sums it up pretty well basically, “Be very careful, then, how you live- not as unwise but as wise,” and then we reach the all important verse. Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” That’s a full sentence, just that there. Submit to one another. The following three sections are all subsections of this point: one for Wives submitting to Husbands, one for Children submitting to Parents, and one for Slaves submitting to Masters. But when looking at all of these, bad shepherds (ie, racist, sexist assholes) like to ignore that first bit, submit to one another, just as they like to ignore 5:28, which says “husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself;” or they ignore 6:4 which says “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord;” and they ignore 6:9, “Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” I do highly encourage you to read chapters 4, 5, and 6 in full, or at least start at 4:17, which is where Paul starts talking about “Living as Children of Light,” because it makes the intent of these apparently damning verses much more clear. Paul is stating that as Christians, we should treat everyone around us with honor and respect. According to one of my study bibles, the grammar of the original Greek suggests that the “submission” involved in all three sections is intended to be mutual submission, and is to come from a filling of the Holy Spirit. However, to be quite frank, Paul still Lived In A Society. A highly structured, patriarchal society, in which all members of a household (women, children, slaves) were expected to submit to the patriarchal head of that household. Male children until they reached adulthood, Slaves until they were freed (remember that, while by no means a purely morally good thing, the system of Roman Slavery was VASTLY DIFFERENT from the Atlantic Slave Trade that men later used this passage to justify existing), and women, unfortunately, for their whole lives. In another one of his letters, what is now the book of Galatians, Paul says in chapter 3 verse 27-29 that “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” This would have been radical at the time. Paul is promising all people of all genders and classes that, in the eyes of God, they are Equal, One, and all “sons,” meaning that they all have a right to the Inheritance of the Father (remember, at this time and in this culture women did not get any inheritance, and younger sons got significantly less than the firstborn. Paul assures the believers that they ALL are equal receivers of the Promises of God). But this equality that Paul speaks of was, in his eyes, a spiritual equality. He was not particularly concerned with overthrowing the earthly patriarchal society that subjugated women and lower classes, but rather instructed all members of that society who also were Believers to submit equally to one another out of love and respect, for they were all Equal in God’s eyes and would be Equal in heaven. This is why he both tells women to submit to and obey their husbands, but also husbands to love, cherish, and care for their wives. Children, obey your parents, but Fathers, don’t be dicks to your kids. Slaves should obey their masters (slavery was much more like a job that you weren’t allowed to quit until your boss said so) but Masters shouldn’t abuse their slaves. There are Societal Authorities, and Paul is telling his readers “look you can’t just go around not respecting those Authorities, but also hey, if you’re the Authority? That’s not a free pass to be an asshole.” As one of my study bibles puts it, “Paul counseled all believers to submit to one another by choice…this kind of mutual submission preserves order and harmony in the family while it increases love and respect among family members.” Paul is basically saying “it’s better for everyone if we all get along, and remember that Christ had a servant’s heart, and intentionally lowered himself for us, so we should do the same for each other.” And while a patriarchal class system is still super sucky for like 80% of the people involved, at least it’s a whole lot more bearable if everyone involved is being a Nice, Good Member of that Society. You mentioned being worried about being treated like a “second rate citizen.” The fact of the matter is that when this was written, women were second rate citizens; that is the context in which Paul is writing. And while I firmly believe that that was wrong, in every sense of the word, Paul wasn’t especially concerned about challenging that aspect of society. Priority one was “Spread the Gospel” and Priority two was “Don’t Get Killed while Spreading the Gospel.” Speaking of Paul, let’s talk a little more about Saul of Tarsus, shall we? In all literary analysis, it is important to examine the author’s beliefs and what biases may have made their way into the work. And while we believe the bible to be a Holy Book, it can and should be subject to the same rules of literary analysis as non-religious texts. First, you must ask yourself, what do you believe about the bible? There are four general ways of looking at it (which are called Theories of Inspiration).

The bible is the Divine Word of God, dictated word for word across centuries directly to its human authors by God Himself.

The bible is the Divine Word of God, written across centuries by men Inspired by the Holy Spirit. While they are writing in their own words, this Inspiration means that the bible is Wholly Perfect with no errors.

The bible is the Divine Word of God, written across centuries by men Inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, because they are imperfect, fallible men, there is a possibility of errors in the text, both in the account of events that happened and in the teaching therein.

The bible is a collection of accounts written by men, with no Divine Intervention from God. It is not Holy, God’s Word, or Infallible.

I was raised to believe theory 2, but now I personally believe theory 3. And since I’m the author of this analysis, it is through the lens and bias of theory 3 that I now present my next point: Paul was sexist. I don’t think he was maliciously so (see again, Galatians 3, and the statement in Ephesians 5 that men should honor, cherish, and care for their wives), but he was a product of his time who had ingrained ideas about women and their place in society. This does not A) mean he was right about how women should act OR B) mean that we should toss out everything he had to say, about women or otherwise, because he was Problematic. Most biblical authors were, in fact, Problematic. Either by our modern standards, due to the time in which they lived, OR by the standards of their own time, because God liked to use Imperfect People (we’re all imperfect, but He liked particularly imperfect people) in His plans. David was an adulterer and murderer. Paul happily sent dozens of Christians to their deaths. Peter was hotheaded and super prejudiced against Gentiles and Samaritans. And most of them were, in one way or another, sexist, racist, and homophobic. These biases then found their way, intentionally or not, into their writings, and then other racist, sexist, homophobic men used those writings to justify systemic oppression of anyone who was not like them. Oppression that is not Christlike. So where does that leave us, in our 21st century application of scripture to our daily lives? We must examine how it was to be read at the time (which we have done), and then see what we can apply from it to our own lives. For myself in my marriage, I look again to the original grammar of Ephesians 5, that indicates the submission is to be mutual. I “submit” to my husband, and he “submits” to me. In other words, our relationship is built on Trust, Clear Communication, and Respect for one another. Sometimes we have to compromise, and I have to put aside my own desires for his sake, or he must set aside his own desires for my sake. It is a willingness to listen to one another, to approach conflicts with an open mind, to consider each other’s feelings before we speak. It is an equal, mutual submission based on love for each other, which doesn’t contradict what Paul says at all. God created all people to be equal. Humans are stupid sometimes and try to insist that we know better, try to create hierarchies and use the bible to try and justify that, but that doesn’t mean those humans are right. If your church is trying to make you feel less than because of your gender, or if you date somebody who pushes TradWife rhetoric and tries to use Ephesians as their justification, then you Run, and feel justified in doing so. (Especially if they also try to use Paul’s words to tell you why you owe your partner sex; see again, Paul was not only sexist but also lived in a patriarchal time when women were second class citizens that had very specific expectations placed on them AND he wasn’t even in a relationship himself, forgive me if I take his advice on my sex life with a grain of salt. Without doing this whole process again, a good modern reading of “don’t deprive one another” is “don’t use sex as a weapon in your relationship/withhold it for bs reasons when you’re mad at each other, etc. Like all other relationship things, sex (or a lack thereof) with your spouse should be based on mutual trust, communication, and love, not petty arguments or the standards of others.)

Trust me, as an ace woman myself, I totally get the fear. I’ve felt it myself, in the past. But God’s intentions for you are not that you become a doormat or servant to a man. If a romantic relationship (or any other partnership) is part of His plan for you, then the bible clearly states, both in Ephesians and elsewhere, that it should be one built on Love and Trust, not Subjugation and Servitude.

I hope this helped you, and again, sorry it was so long XD. Have an amazing day! <3

#christianity #biblical analysis #religion #anti trad wife #ephesians 5 #ace things #taylor talks #for a loooong time

180 notes · View notes