I love your depiction of Hamilton and Lafayette, it’s so funny! Lafayette is so sweet and happy and Hamilton just has beef w/ the entire world. I can’t wait to see more of their brotherly relations in ur AMAZING art style
God, they're so narrative foil coded
Seriously though, there's some fantastic contrast between them. They're just similar enough (both roughly the same age, both insecure and glory hungry, + their "shared father" or whatever Lafayette said) - and yet they manage to be exact opposites at the same time.
I could say more but I think this bit from Mike Duncan's biography about Lafayette basically gets at what I'm trying to say:
"Like Lafayette, Hamilton grew up without a father. He also lost his mother to a fatal illness at almost the same age Lafayette lost his. But where the tragedies of Lafayette’s childhood made him the heir of a fabulous fortune, the tragedies of Hamilton’s illegitimate childhood left him systematically cut out of his family’s inheritance. So where the dark clouds of Lafayette’s life were lined with silver, the dark clouds of Hamilton’s life were simply dark. Lafayette emerged from childhood buoyant and effusive, Hamilton cynical and reticent. But even though Hamilton started life a penniless bastard on the periphery of European civilization, and Lafayette started life an insanely wealthy heir in the heart of a great kingdom, they fell into an easy friendship. French was not the only language the two young men shared. The also shared a code of personal honor and a desire to prove themselves to the world."
-Mike Duncan, Hero of Two Worlds, The Marquis de Lafayette in the Age of Revolution
Now, I am not qualified to speak on the real figures, but I do like to write. So, there is a narrative opportunity here that drives me insane.
Like, cast Hamilton as brilliant, but overly cynical with a habit of assuming the worst in people, and give him a negative character arc where he comes close to recognizing the potential good of humanity but ultimately falls into his more authoritarian tendencies. Then contrast him with Lafayette who's more naive. He's not quite sheltered but unfamiliar with the sort of selfishness and greed he'd have encountered if he grew up in a more vulnerable financial position. In coming to America he, like Hamilton, is forced to reckon with contempt, greed, and the failings of democratic government. But, unlike Hamilton, still manages to come out of it with a generally positive opinion of humanity.
I'm just saying, if I were writing history to contain ✨themes ✨ they are a perfect opportunity.
132 notes
·
View notes
i think that we often do forget that the black brothers were not inherently good people; they were more or less morally grey, more or less leaning towards the good/bad side. it's hard to fully unlearn beliefs of your family (and i think that many people resonate with this statement, whether we are talking about fictional characters or real, fully-fledged people), and i think that morally grey characters are far more interesting than people who are inherently good or evil.
sirius black
many people (including myself) would say that sirius is leaning more towards the lighter end of the spectrum, given the fact that he actively tried to unlearn his family's beliefs, he ran away from home at the age of sixteen and decided to move in with people who were recognized in the wizarding society as good people, he joined the order as soon as he finished hogwarts, and, even after the unfortunate ending of the first war, he decided to join the order again and stay inside a house that was never a home for him, to ensure the safety of himself, the order, and harry, too. his last act was the attack at the ministry where he found himself, despite the fact that he was supposed to stay inside grimmauld place, and where he died.
however, we cannot deny that sirius, too, had slip-ups. one of them was the prank (to review what happened, essentially, he told snape how to get past the whomping willow, therefore revealing remus' secret to him). in this situation, sirius shows recklessness and a lack of thought towards the consequences that his actions could have towards not only himself, but severus snape and remus, too. his behavior showed a lack of altruism, and a lack of consideration for the people around him, being willing to put them in danger for whatever may have been the reason.
another one would be swm (snape's worst memory), where james is a part of the action too, but the tormenting of snape was unjustified (j&s started the fight, and snape responded) and ended badly. now, i am in no way a defender of severus snape's, but both j&s and him were acting based on either boredom (the aforementioned) and a need for revenge caused by the actions that had happened against him (the latter).
in canon, we are also shown that he does not exactly think the words he says, and the effect they have on people. (“You're less like your father than I thought.” — GoF). i think that sirius had no right to say this to harry, who was just trying to make sure that sirius would be safe. what we need to remember is that, by the time of the action of GoF took place, sirius was still on the run, and the ministry was still looking for him; it would have been dangerous for both him and harry (and whoever might have joined them) to go out of hiding and go meet up somewhere near hogwarts (hogsmeade). harry's response to sirius' request was logical, and sirius' response was reckless and not well-thought.
regulus black
we do not have enough information on regulus to fully state on which side of the spectrum he finds himself on. however, he was known to have held the same beliefs that his parents did and to be an open voldemort supporter (The Slytherin colours of emerald and silver were everywhere, draping the bed, the walls and the windows. The Black Family crest was painstakingly painted over the bed, along with its motto Toujours Pur. Beneath this was a collection of yellow newspaper cuttings (of voldemort), all stuck together to make a ragged collage.)
therefore, to some extent, we can safely assume that he held the same beliefs as him (and, implicitly, his parents). the voldemort collage might have been on the wall for either research purposes or an act of devotion (this interesting perspective has been added by @/werewolfenthusiast) we cannot be sure; however, i am inclined to think that it might have been a mixture of both.
furthermore, i think the fact that regulus only started actively betraying and going against voldemort only after voldemort's actions had direct consequences on him and the ones he loved — kreacher, and this is shown in two acts; (wording taken off the hp wiki)
After becoming a Death Eater, Regulus began to consider abandoning Lord Voldemort, partly because his master mistreated and intended to kill the Black family's loyal house-elf Kreacher whilst setting up the security measures for one of his Horcruxes.
One day, Voldemort asked Regulus for the use of his house-elf, Kreacher and Regulus eagerly accepted as he wanted to please his master. Voldemort used Kreacher to test the defences around his locket Horcrux, leaving him to die afterwards. Kreacher was able to escape using house-elf magic and told Regulus of what had happened. Regulus worked out that the locket was a Horcrux and was the reason behind Voldemort's immortality. This was the deciding factor in Regulus's defection.
therefore, regulus has been shown to feel remorse and to start to realize the lenghts lord voldemort would go through only when his family (implicitly, his house-elf) were targeted. however, by researching horcruxes and trying to destroy one of them, regulus (un)willingly helped the wizarding world towards voldemort's fall.
all in all, the black brothers are two complex characters who, to some extent, held their family's beliefs and values. whether they had actively tried to unlearn them (sirius) or their betrayal was slow and silent (regulus), and neither of them can be fit in the category of inherently good or bad people.
239 notes
·
View notes