#pov historical counterparts

[averlym]

4 on the angst list with Araleyn please I need them to suffer

4 : "but it's my fault, right?" (prompt list here)

[brother-emperors]

Did you used to like Mark Antony and dislike Cassius? What changed your mind ?

honestly the condensed version of events is that Antony and Brutus became uninteresting, extremely boring as POV characters to me at the same time for the same reasons, that prompted me to look closer at Cassius, and then I decided to spend two years trying to untangle Cassius from Brutus which completed my transformation into a part time Cassius apologist

like, both Antony and Brutus are still compelling figures, it’s honestly the versions of them in media and pop culture that I personally dislike and find boring because it’s not discussing anything I find interesting & frequently I feel like my time has been wasted, while their historical counterparts is more of a ‘wow I hate what you’re doing, keep it up!’

and ofc: the general passage of time. you get older. things that interest you change. being a hater as a recreational activity is fun. variety is the spice of life. people who write about Cassius are delivering poetry and I’m not immune to it. etc etc.

[luulapants]

Goncharov (1973) is a perfect example of how fandom creates a shell around a piece of media and then slowly erodes the core it was originally built upon.

I have been in two fandoms that echo chambered their way to a theory invalidating all of canon, thereby making the source material itself irrelevant. One is the “Scott is an unreliable narrator” theory from the Teen Wolf fandom, which uses an odd POV choice from the series finale (the protagonist telling the story of their final battle to a character in a flash-forward) as evidence that the entire SHOW is actually him telling a heavily edited version of the story to make himself look like the hero. The other is the “Ghostfacers Effect” from the Supernatural fandom which also uses a weird POV episode (told through camera footage from a ghost hunting crew) to argue that, because the characters swear (bleeped out) in that episode but nowhere else in the series, this is evidence that the whole series is censored and edited by the author/God Chuck.

Both fandoms had animosity between fans and show creators, especially from queer shipping bases. Both have a huge amount of fanworks for those ships, and both experienced the “fandom echochamber” effect. Reinforced by positive responses from those seeking fluffy, kinky, self-insert, or otherwise wish-fulfilling stories, popular fanon characterizations slowly drifted until many fanworks featured characters virtually unrecognizable as their canon counterpart.

These drifts are addressed differently throughout fandom: Most people look at it and say, “No, that’s not canon, but it’s fun to read sometimes anyway,” or “This is just my headcanon.” Fanfic readers who never watched the source material are oblivious and perpetuate fanon characterizations as canon. Canon lovers decry the OOC-ness and complain that they can’t find fics about the actual characters they want to read about.

And some start arguing that fanon is actually more correct than canon.

Thus, the erosion of canon begins. “These episodes don’t count because the head writer was garbage.” “They made the character act like that to advance the plot - they wouldn’t have actually done that.” “Everything after this season is basically a different show.” “This happened off-screen but the network was too cowardly to show us.” And, finally, “Canon isn’t real.”

There is no canon. It’s a fanon shell wrapped around a desiccated center.

It’s Goncharov (1973).

Why do we need a source material? Canon isn’t real!

No shit canon isn’t real. It’s a fictional show.

You can’t argue the objective reality of a fictional story.

“But what’s the truth?”

None of it. None of it is the truth. It’s about werewolves. It’s about a gay angel. It’s not real.

You can argue objective reality in real-life historical accounts, analyzing sources and biases and excluded viewpoints. In a fictional story with an unreliable narrator, you can argue about what the text of the narration reveals about them. But there is no argument to be had about the objective reality of a fictional character. They are the text. Everything else is interpretation.

Why can’t your interpretation be what it is: an interpretation? Why can’t your headcanon be a headcanon? Why do you feel the need to saw the ladder off from underneath you? Why does fanon need to be more “true” than canon? Why would you rather have a fandom built on nothing than a fandom built on a text that disagrees with it?

Goncharov (1973) is the perfect canon because it will never disagree with fanon. It has no voice to do so. It is the perfect void that people have been trying to carve into their respective canons for years.

As Andrey said before his final betrayal, “You once told me you built your empire from nothing. You can’t get something from nothing, Goncharov. And so I fear we are nothing.”

[sherbertilluminated]

There are some issues and discourses that Stan Rogers returns to, or at least that's from multiple points of view. We have The Field Behind the Plow and Lies (the agricultural plight from the respective POVs of a husband and wife), The Idiot and Free in the Harbor (young men going west and the towns they leave behind) The Mary Ellen Carter and The Jeannie C (the woman boat I love is gone! What do I do?), and Bluenose and Man with Blue Dolphin (sister ships!). But the most interesting juxtaposition of songs in Stan Rogers' discography, I think, is Northwest Passage and its lesser-known counterpart Take it from Day to Day.

Northwest Passage is one of Stan's most famous songs, and deservedly so: with its rock-quaking harmonies, references to British-Canadian colonial history and meditation on the sublime purpose of Rogers' own career as a traveling musician, the work produces a sense of longing that would be epic if it weren't so futile. While Rogers is ambivalent-at-most about the colonialism inherent in his historical perspective (read: The House of Orange), his choice to focus on the psychological journeys of "the first men through this way" makes projects like the Franklin Expedition sound like exemplary iterations of a universal human journey—these explorers are Just Like You, and their longing for the Northwest Passage is the same, and so is their suffering, so the project itself doesn't sound like an act of colonial violence in Rogers' song. Even the choice to perform Northwest Passage a capella underscores (hehe) the sense of profound isolation that Rogers describes.

But Northwest Passage is a song about captains: men who recognized "the call" to leave their homes for the not-uninhabited Artic expanse and whose journeys make it into the history books. But Take it From Day to Day approaches the Northwest Passage from the opposite direction. Literally.

The song is from the perspective of a common sailor on the St. Roch, the first ship to travel the Northwest Passage west-to-east. And instead of of being overwhelmed by the natural beauty of the Artic or the symbolic resonance of the voyage, he's contemplates more prosaic themes: namely, how much he misses his lover.

It's a little silly to think, as Rogers belts out the chorus—"I'm as far North now as I want to come/but Larson's got us under his thumb/and I signed up for the whole damn run/I can't get off halfway!"—how disappointing this perspective on Artic voyages proves compared to the unfulfilled longing of Northwest Passage. Instead, the unfulfilled longing of the anonymous narrator makes Take if From Day to Day into one of Roger's most sexual songs. I beg you to listen to it, if only to count the sensual metaphors and double-entendres.

But whether you have heard Northwest Passage and love it, or you're interested in a more down-to-earth perspective on Ice, I think it's a song you might enjoy.

[elegantwoes]

sansa stans steal everything from other characters/relationships. 'the queen we chose line', dany's dragons, arya's wolf, good queen alysanne, gendry. jonsas steal the 'what do you know of my heart/sister' line from jon and arya, and most recently i've seen them steal the bear and the maiden fair song from braimes. your fave is so boring and dull you have to steal stuff to make her more interesting and unique. she is the most boring character in asoiaf deal with it.

I specifically asked you to provide sources we actually 'stole' those things too, because half of these are outlandish as fuck. I will only address the ones that do have some merit: The Alysanne one.

Anyone who has a basic understanding of English history knows that Queen Alysanne is based off of Eleanor of Aquitane. GRRM flat out said he based Alysanne on Katherine Hepburn's version of Eleanor in the lion in Winter (1968) movie. However this isn't the only time GRRM spoke about Eleanor of Aquitane:

However, with Catelyn there is something reset for the Eleanor of Aquitaine, the figure of the woman who accepted her role and functions with a narrow society and, nonetheless, achieves considerable influence and power and authority despite accepting the risks and limitations of this society.  (x)

The first character GRRM compares Eleanor to is Catelyn and calls them both baddass. Secondly he describes Eleanor as 'the woman who accepted her role and functions with a narrow society'. GRRM describes a type of female character that conforms to societal expectation of womanhood in a feudalistic society and Sansa squarely falls under that category..

Also while Sansa hasn't 'achieved considerable influence and power and authority despite accepting the risks and limitations of this society' just yet we can clearly see that Sansa will go down that route. Anyone who analyses Sansa's narrative arc in good faith knows she will hold a political position by the end of ASOIAF. The fandom has unamiously agreed to this. The only ones who vehemently deny this are antis.

So since Sansa is so extemely similar to Eleanor of Aquitane it naturally makes sense that she is similar to Alysanne as well, but that isn't the correct way to describe this.

It's Alysanne who is similar to Sansa. She is created in Sansa's and Catelyn's image and not the other way around. After all they are the major POV characters with lots of chapters. Alysanne is only a historical figure in Westeros who is only mentioned in one book whereas Sansa is a character who will shape the future.

And this is only aspect to Sansa Stark as a character. There's also her biggest storyline that is related to songs and truths, her identity and autonomy arc, how she is deconstructing and reconstructing what it means to be a true lady (a fine counterpart to her true knight), her romantic storyline is another.

These are all storylines that only belongs to Sansa and aren't stolen from anyone. So you were saying, anon?

[growingnerves]

Trying to find a nice way to put this… what Norman said on that podcast was not okay. Insulting fans and admitting to being responsible for writers losing their jobs with such nonchalance, is downright disrespectful- although I’m thankful the truth didn’t stay buried. It’s careless behavior and it doesn’t reflect well on AMC considering this is a repeated offense.

Not everyone involved in television has to be an excellent public speaker but there should be someone at the helm who understands how to conduct themselves in interviews. Every show needs a spokesperson to be a direct link to the audience: for promoting the show, and making the fans feel included as well as appreciated. As a fan I’ve never wanted creatives to bend to the whim of every loudmouth on social media. Shallow fan service has never benefited any show. However, fair criticism and honest feedback should be welcome. Serving the self-interest of a man with an ego the size of the Eiffel Tower won’t do the show any favors either. AMC, like any other network, presumably wants someone as the face of their series who reflects positively on their brand. I’m hoping we will see some significant changes going forward to win back the trust of the fans. And I believe Melissa McBride’s input is essential to do so.

Viewers are considering ethics when it comes to their TV watching habits now more than ever. We are becoming aware of the optics of the media we consume. We can examine what we know of the practices at individual studios and networks in an effort to support shows that most closely align with our own values. We don’t need to compromise our high standards when there are endless other options. To stay in line with the audience, TV has to evolve alongside us. If AMC can’t keep up with the demand for a diverse cast and writer’s room, I’m not subscribing and I suspect other viewers will gravitate elsewhere too, as they have been.

Women’s voices are valuable even if historically they’ve been taken for granted. Women tend to have a wider outreach in their storytelling than the repetitive POV that is often seen from male showrunners. Men have not been faced with the same obstacles. They haven’t had to contort themselves into a million different shapes to be taken seriously.

Men’s voices were the only ones heard for a long time in film and television. Male protagonists were given autonomy and multifaceted stories, while women’s representation was not prioritized. Women only existed in relation to their male counterparts- and the damsel in distress just isn’t that interesting to watch. Because of this, women have projected themselves into the considerably more compelling male characters, delving into the minutiae to find some semblance of relatability in typically masculine portrayals. This has been a challenge to other marginalized groups on an even larger scale. How long have POC been sorely underrepresented, having to find ways to see themselves in white stories? And the LGBTQ+ community has been limited to watching primarily straight cis romances. The representation we do get is often times minimized to tokenism. The absence of diversity impacts everyone who doesn’t fit the same generic prototype. There are countless experiences and lifestyles that take on a wide range of forms which have not yet been in the spotlight. We don’t need another lone ranger on a motorcycle. Another mysterious brooding male antihero, yawwwwn.

Marginalized individuals have been prompted to work a creative muscle that the everyday man has not- to both suspend our disbelief and also dig into the details to uncover the inherit humanity in stories where we don’t necessarily identify with the protagonist.

These are the voices who are going to be the best conduits for fresh stories because they’ve already had to do the work to investigate human complexity to find themselves on screen, within characters who don’t necessarily look or act like they do. Not only can they build on already existing material but they can introduce original concepts. Television has been oversaturated with the straight white man running his mouth unchecked for too long. We don’t have to settle for that anymore when we can switch over to another show, one that better represents us.

[sukunasdirtylaugh]

A Promised Princess

pairing: toji fushiguro x f!reader (x gojo satoru)

synopsis: after a knowing one another for two years, toji fushiguro (known as toji zenin in this case), must leave for war in the east. a rebel known as ryomen sukuna, plans to terrorize and eliminate the clans that make up the 4 wings (gojo’s, zenin’s, kamos, and the hirata). upon leaving for war, you promise something any powerful man, even the most vengeful of men, would kill for.

a/n: okay hear me out- yes, this is somewhat written in 3rd pov, but I also want to make note that the historical accuracies and etiquette between japanese/anglo-europe will be very mixed. so if this bothers you, you have been warned. I was just dying to write something like this. please let me know in the comments if you would like to be in the tag list if I ever make a part two (which seems probable).

tags: kingdom au, mentions of war, secret romance, indirect mentions of virginity, and established romance

The carriage rolls around the block twice. No hesitation from the driver, as he exclusively follows his master’s orders: do not stop until the candlelight on the third floor is off.

A young woman, no older than 19, rushes through the gardens into the woods. Her cloak follows her movements with grace so as to not cause commotion and her breathing is but a hitch.

“I came as fast as I could,” he tells her.

“And I read your letter.” Answers she, “What was so urgent you needed to discuss with me at this hour?”

Prince Toji Fushiguro, 21, future heir to the Zenin throne stops in his tracks. His hands, which were on top her shoulders fall to her sides, a formality of which the two of them dropped several months into knowing one another.

He tries to think of something that will relieve the weight on his heart. Her lips, soft as flower buds from her garden, or her hair, as angelic that it frames her face; Toji finds refuge in her eyes.

“A war suddenly erupted in the east.” He says, the script that he had received earlier that morning engraved into his memory, “300 casualties have occurred since, and we worry there may be more.”

He had told her days prior of a rebel named Ryomen Sukuna who had gathered support from locals in a short amount of time. He criticized the regions, the regime, and their incompetence towards the common folk. Something Toji didn’t take lightly.

If he keeps up at this pace, he told her, bodies snug around one another under an oak tree, he could disrupt several cities, trading ports, and harm civilians.

“So you’re leaving.”

“Only for a short time,” he promises, hands wrapped securely around her own before he places a kiss to them. Within the two years of knowing one another, who would have thought that the son of a Zenin could hold so much consideration, devotion to their counterpart.

“If everything goes as planned, I’ll be back in 6 month’s time.”

“Still,” she frowns, “6 months is too long.”

“better that than never.” He closes off the distance between them. “Promise me one thing.” he asks.

“Anything.”

“Promise me that you’ll wait for me,” he whispers against the crown of her head, “that when I return, I will become yours, and you mine.”

“I promise.” she replies.

“Promise me that no man will stand between us. That you will vow your loyalty, your honor to me and only me.”

She holds his hand tighter against her chest. “It’s always been you, Toji.”

Satisfied, the heir to the Zenin clan seals their promise in a deep, prolonged kiss. Hungry, needy, and already missing one another, both pairs of hands run through one another before both clans leave their respective routes.

hopeful for the future.

[archduchessofnowhere]

I'm finally back home so more thoughts about Sisi & Ich:

This movie was screened as part of a German Film Festival and while I'd never been to one before I felt it was exactly what you would expect for a film festival. Like I can't imagine this movie doing well with a general audience.

The movie is so anachronistic (completely made up fashion, modern pop music, modern hairstyles, the actors look nothing like their historical counterparts) that it's really easy to forget this is supposed to be about Empress Elisabeth and Irma Sztáray; because of that I was able to enjoy it mostly as a story about a very toxic, manipulative and dependant relationship between two women. If you like stories about fucked up people doing fucked up things to each other "out of love" you'll like this one.

This, however, made me wish they had gone full AU because every time the story actually did adapt things from real history it did it in a way it annoyed me: so Elisabeth's eating disorder became in a full on screen portrayal of bulimia (something she never had), and her complicated but mostly amicable relationship with her husband was turned into an abusive marriage. From a historical perspective these were the things I disliked the most, since to me they felt tasteless and only for shock value.

Archduke Ludwig Viktor is a character here, and while the close friendship he has with his sister-in-law in this movie is completely fictional (Elisabeth had been fond of him when he was a child but they had a fell out years later and never again got along), I actually liked it; he is kinda like Ludwig II in Corsage but without the weird kissing scenes.

But the character that completely takes the spotlight is Irma. Sandra Hüller is fantastic as her, easily the best actress in the movie. She portrays both Irma's utter devotion for the empress as well as her rage against her in such a gripping way. Really I think the movie is worth it just for her.

Elisabeth, however, was a bit underwhelming. She feels like a manic pixie dream girl for most of the movie; it's probably on purpose, since we see the story through Irma's POV and she idealised her, but personally I couldn't really connect with her character with how unrealistic she felt sometimes. It was a refreshing take, I'll give it that: it's rare to see an elder Elisabeth who isn't a mater dolorosa who's always sad and miserable.

FJ was done so dirty, they just keep making him more and more evil lol.

Every time they made a joke about Katharina Schratt... keep my wife's name out of your fucking mouth!

The England segment should've been cut out because it felt like a completely different movie that pops out of nowhere, and not only isn't even the right time (the England trips were in the 1870s), but also the only thing that achieved was making me loose my respect for Elisabeth's character (the squire was cute tho).

I've seen this movie as LGBT/recommended for LGBT folks so to not disappoint you I'll give you the heads up that the only gay content we get are two hours of unresolved sexual tension between Irma and Elisabeth (and also between Ludwig Viktor and a guy from Elisabeth's staff, the gays just weren't getting it in this movie). That being said Irma is clearly a lesbian (even tho she is never referred as such) and Ludwig Viktor is also openly gay, so there are LGBT characters.

These are just some of the things I have to say off the top of my head, but I'll try to write a full review this weekend!

[breitzbachbea]

Now that you mentioned it I am very intrigued by your human Hetalia au, go on

Thank you very much anon!

So. Basic concept: A world very much the same as ours, but acting mostly hidden from the public eye, are national crime syndicates in every country. Pretty much all are spearheaded by the boss of one noteable family that ensured that position some generations ago (those bosses are the Hetalia nations, ordinary Humans here) and two right hands. The AU is called Like Father Like Son.

Now, these syndicates are very much globally connected and when it comes to each other, act less than actual organized crime organisations in real life and more like monarchies or other types of state conducting diplomacy. Also, as is very unlikely for real life and much more common for royality, the bosses have usually inherited the business and had no option to opt out/felt it was the right thing to do. This is nuanced along the way, but again, stark difference to the volatile infighting and general hierarchies from real life organized crime (where the successor is probably NOT the 17 year old son, but a trusted right hand).

But they are, at the end of the day, gangsters. They fight for their own survival and supreme status within the other criminals in their own country and amongst their peers. (Alexa, play 741 Millionen by Tüsn). They don't represent states or governments or even people. They're in it because power is nice and the sunk-cost fallacy is too great to get out.

But because I am a history nerd, they still reflect certain phases and struggles and ideas about nationhood, like their Hetalia counterparts actually would. And here is where it gets interesting.

The protagonists of the AUs mainseries, called also called Like Father Like Son with the subtitle Sangue cattivo non mente on ao3, are the Irish and the Sicilians. So it's my Hetalia OCs (though I borrowed the Sicilian from a friend) Harry O'Connel and Michele Vento, plus Harry's younger sister Sophie O'Connel, and the Human-from-the-start right hands Paddy O'Neill, Charlie Higgins and Marco & Lorenzo Bontade.

And if you're looking for an Irish villain, where do you look to? England. Always the Brits. 'May the enemies of Ireland never meet a friend'. Which is why Arthur Kirkland, along with his right hands Robert Bailey and Tahir Rashid, serves as antagonist to the Irish in many stories. And of course, this makes it easy to present the fight as underdogs vs powerful evil empire, along the line of actual historical conflict. (I am oversimplifying, but we aren't here to argue details right now and in broad strokes, it IS right). If the reader has an inkling of Irish or British history, they will see the parallels. I, as the author, work it into metaphors by the narrative entity (usually occupying one character's POV, tho not to be confused with the character being the narrator). I work it into the general themes, with characters talking about history or historical/cultural backdrops. And of course, by that the characters themselves draw the parallels and pull on old stereotypes to rage against their enemies. Arthur likes to pull out the old stereotypes of the Irish being a belligerent, backward and unreasonable race when he paints Harry as a troublemaker. Harry will paint Arthur a tyrant who can't stand to see another man free when he feels entitled to his property and life. It's so enticing to believe that you know where to stand, to know where's right on the merits of history and the real world alone.

But as soon as you take a step back, you realize how they merely use something bigger and greater than themselves to fight their petty wars. Paddy and Charlie rail against the English after they've kidnapped Harry, they say Arthur thinks the world should grovel before him because it's his righ as an Englishman. But they're never alluding to anything bigger than themselves; yes, Irish are being kicked down, but it's just them. And sure, they may say an Irishman doesn't give up and that's what the English shall see, but it's the rhetoric of revolution without its goals. There's no British threat to Ireland - no fight they can align themselves with, because Arthur certainly isn't aligned with any either. Truly, if they were so committed to it, they would look with more sympathy to Tahir, whose parents came from Pakistan in the 1970s. They'd appeal to him, see the parallels of history with Ireland and the British Colony of India. But while the English tyranny rhetoric is usually reserved for white Arthur and Robert, at the end of the day, Tahir's also an 'English pedant' and haughty prick to them. And Tahir, similiarly, doesn't have much sympathy for the Irish, seeing them as annoying obstacles to their business dealings. He's in this to give his family a better life, he knows there is nothing grand about their enterprise. They all know that. In quiet moments, amongst themselves, they even express it. The farce they play; that the ideals they want to hold they betray; that they are a cancer on the people and country they love.

And I just. I love that. I love how it still has the themes one can ask in more substantial explorations of Hetalia - the constraints of free will, bearing the sins and burdens of the past, how much you can be an individual and how much you are a role. I love how it makes them true individuals, in the end, how it employs history as something that is interpreted from the witnesses we have to the past and told through our own eyes. How it seemingly creates this parallel to real history, but when one steps back, it shows that it's play pretend and it makes the reader sympathize while also keep its distance at times, enjoying a story that is fundamentally about a lot of people making the wrong decisions and living with the consequences. It's a tragedy, a meta-level of mourning - with none of that hope for a future that any reading of history can have.

Thank you for coming to my Ted-talk. I am currently rewriting the main series, because what is up on AO3 was written by a fourteen to sixteen year old and therefore, isn't very good. However, you can still check out my other writing (and the not very good mainseries) here. I also like to make lots and lots of AUs with the many Human characters and the Hetalia characters where they're not burdened by being organized criminals. You can find my ramblings about many of these AUs on my sideblog @i-centri-degli-universi . You will also find a few written works for some AUs on the ao3 already linked.

Thank you for your attention. I hope you have a grand day, anon, as well as everyone who read through this.

[hooodooo]

Hamilton discourse in 2024 🤯🤯🤯

I've realized after careful consideration (I've spent a an hour or so talking to myself and reading different povs on hamilton) that I enjoy hamilton only as a musical. Not as a historical piece of media. Which isn't a nuanced take. I think since I've been in the Fandom I've always separated the characters in hamilton from their real life counterparts, treating them more like ocs than anything. At the time it was because I was a. 9 years old and not thinking critically of media at the time and b. Did not want to put in the effort into researching founding fathers instead opting to watch lams comic dubs. Now I disassociate them because the real people were shit bags, but I still have an attachment to these characters. But i want to separate them from their historical context. And that's probably a bad thing to do because it's still glorifying these people even if there's no association in my head. Not to mention the problems with hamilton outside of glorifying it's (frankly) racist main characters and lmm problems as a writer and person. But I still idolize him and I probably will for several years because the art that he makes really touches me in an indescribable way. It makes me want to create and expand on broadway, and provide actual poc history instead of white history with pocs as the white people. Why is it so hard to highlight real poc stories in mainstream media? Yes, it is wonderful that poc actors are getting work and roles as well written historical characters, but I wish the historical characters were poc as well. It's not like we don't have our own stories to tell. I don't know. I obviously don't know what it's like on broadway or what that process is like, but still.

Tldr; still in the hamilton Fandom, but I hate the actual founding fathers and treat the hamilton characters as their own separate entities. This is probably not good, but I've developed a deep emotional attachment to this show.

[narwhalandchill]

(4.7 TCG leaks but Big Lore Implications? Maybe)

Well. This is (was) certainly an interesting Moment.

See. narwhal coming in TCG right? i obviously lost it we are all aware. so i was checking that shit out Instantly the second it was uploaded onto hakushin to see the kind of playstyle theyd given my beloved

but there was something else. see. tldr the narwhal starts at only 5hp but it basically eats all your discarded cards to increase its own max hp and dmg dealt (also takes into account the dice cost of the discarded cards). which i Love its so on brand and lore accurate. but anyway. its ult is to summon the electro dude whose dmg and duration is also affected by the cards eaten and their dice cost. such a cool kit right?

But then i saw what they Call the knight summon guy in the first uploaded version of the card kit in ENG

...SHADOW OF THE ANCIENT WHAT NOW????

and like. okay. okay. thats pretty fucking insane this is why i was looking so forward to the narwhal getting a card bc . sometimes tidbits like these just. Happen thru TCG. just casually like that (like parsifals Curiously Familiar Appearance for another relevant one).

bc like. an ancient nemesis huh. on one hand could reference surtalogi since the descriptor for the phantom in 4.2 patch previews in several languages (not sure what the in game stuff says these days) did have some similar wording to surtalogis CN title. also obviously fuels my personal foil hat agenda of surtalogis whole "keeping this very much sentient cosmic being as a Pet TM" being something that from the narwhals POV is very much like. a demeaning act of imprisonment and being used against its will as a pawn (im such a surtalogi hater dude. i Dont trust him). so like thats one option for the. whos the nemesis whose shadow is summoned. its surtalogi. but also ancient is a funny wording for when the guy is very well around to this day so

then theres the other option. bc the narwhal 4.6 namecard speaks of ajax intent on challenging the narwhal again and references hunting for the same whale the "third time" which like. most simple route u could just be seen as. okay despite just freezing up during their 1st encounter at 14 and doing jack shit to "challenge" it he still considered that the "first" hunt, fontaine was 2nd and next is 3rd.

but theres also the. what if the first hunt was the historical ajax of the myth? whose reincarnation our ajax may be? bc if His destiny was also to oppose the narwhal back then in celestias grand plan and possibly had the same constellation tying him to it too. would THAT be the ancient nemesis the knight in the narwhals stomach is the afterimage and shadow of? hmmmmm.

like dude i was. Actually losing my fucking mind bc this might be THE closest thing to a direct confirmation that If ajax has reincarnated over the samsara/cycles whatever . if That is the case. then this "ancient nemesis" being og ajax would then Very Much Imply that both his and Our Ajax' destiny in all incarnations has Always been tied to the narwhal in some way and that his "role" and "duty" in celestias decreed fate is to be its counterpart and opponent (read: tragic soulmate) . of Some sort. like yes inconclusive still but this couldve been such a massive fucking deal dude

Anyway .

then they removed that descriptor in the next update to the beta info on the new TCG cards 😭😭😭😭

so now its just called a dark shadow whatever 😔😔 this is So Sad. but. i have Witnessed the original so its not getting out of my head. what does it meannnnn

why would the narwhal be emulating its nemesis as the force that protects the source of its power that lies within it (like. we Had to be eaten in order to get close to that source in the AQ fight)??? did it eat that doomed soulmate nemesis (og ajax moment Surely) in the past and is now carrying its remnants and constructed shadowy afterimage within itself?? or does it represent some sort of control/power source surtalogi (if hes the nemesis) has inflicted upon the narwhal in order to keep it weakened and/or sufficiently subservient to be kept as a "pet"???? MANNN

obviously. since this was a clearly incomplete beta version text (like the narwhals kit was unfinished in ENG during this part) that was Very swiftly deleted (whacking myself over the head for not checking what CN said while this version was still up) its not like. something that can be referenced as legit confirmed canon lore for the narwhal since its not making it to live. but im just. Curious. like. even if its outdated text that was removed. Surely there HAS to be a Reason that description was originally written to describe the dark shadow summon.

so is this a case of. its no longer meant to represent an ancient nemesis, that was old ass lore for the phantom knight dude thats never going to happen and thats why they cut it. like fair enough it happens. old pre launch beta genshin stuff was directly a honkai sequel/spinoff but they changed that. it could always just be that

ORRRRR then. hear me out. that its STILL true but that the writers simply realized they dont want to reveal their cards (ha ha) on the subject just yet??? they dont want to leak this potentially Massive lore drop through a random TCG update?????? we arent meant to know the meaning behind the shadow just yet????????? 🤨🤨🤨 Surely

anyway. forever mourning shadow of the ancient nemesis as a descriptor . but i Have to post it here so that yall can at least know. this existed. this WAS a thing. so whats it mean...

(also if this turns out to be all legitimate and og ajax Was the ancient nemesis. Possibly the funniest way my original "who the fuck even thought the purple dude in the whales stomach was going to be childe" take from way back could be Technically proven wrong JSJAISJSJSISKD . if it was ajax. but just not. this one)

[coraniaid]

I finished He Who Drowned The World, the second book of Shelley Parker-Chan's Radiant Emperor duology, a little earlier today.

It is very good, arguably even better than the first volume, especially if you like any and all of the following:

frequent internal monologues about gender and gender expectations (from ... basically everyone with a POV, I think)

pairs of characters who are very clearly thematic mirrors of each other and know it and obsess about it

characters who are incredibly smart and observant about everything except their own emotions

a great number of weirdly uncomfortable sex scenes

characters repeatedly persuading themselves that if they just do one more horrible thing it will justify all the other horrible things they've done up to this point

... which, I suspect, if you're reading this post you probably do.

I look forward to it being randomly deemed ineligble for the Hugos, or whatever we're doing for books I like this year.

(That said, the use of real historical people's names for characters who very clearly are not them and do not really behave in ways their historical counterparts would have done takes a little getting used to, I'll admit.)

[reginarubie]

if Rhaenyra reminds her of Cersei who does Allicent remind her of? the situation that Rhaenyra is in is the fault of Otto and her father? she did everything in her power to protect her family instead Otto and his daughter, from the beginning they sought to take away from her her right to the throne. compare to Otto and Rhaenyra? The only reason she became cruel was because of the deaths of her children. By supporting the greens, she goes against what the Starks decided, and becomes Otto's puppet

Hi nonny!,

I think you commented also under the fic, sorry for being unable to reply sooner.

I think you're taking too literally what you read forgetting that it's the biased POV of characters who don't see the whole picture.

I guess by your ask that you may be a fan of team Black and whilst I stand with Shireen on this one (that I would choose neither and that the whole thing of choosing made things so bad to begin with); that is also a very idealistic view of something very tangible and plausible, historically speaking.

Rhaenyra is also inspired by one of my fav historical women, Empress Maud.

But it's also true that in asoiaf Rhaenyra does remind of Cersei. Both women were protecting their children I don't argue with that, tho they put their children in that position themselves — we can stay here until the next coming and argue that it shouldn't matter that they are bastards, truth is that in our world that matters less, but in their context bastardy has an incredible weight and people moving in-context have been raised and see things a certain way that is considered acceptable — because they chose to lay with men who were not their husbands and have children with them.

It is a sad society, one in which Laenor could not be openly himself and whilst the whole supportive Rhaenyra is a show-news, as in the book she's very cruel to him for this sexuality (going far enough to actually stain his reputation not only because of his preference toward men, but also suggesting he may be a pedophile as well), Rhaenyra same as Cersei is a victim not only of her time and society but of herself as well.

What more, in the show is made even more clear that the children were not Leanor's. Whilst in the book the doubt could remain to an outsider — as Rhaenys had, had the dark hair of House Baratheon thus the children could have inherited her look instead than the Valyrian one, and Laenor did not have dark skin — in the show such a doubt is completely dispersed as the children of Laena and Daemon (which could be the genetic counterpart of Rhaenyra and Laenor) had darker skin than their father, something that did not happen with Rhaenyra's children.

So, putting what Rhaenyra did in the right context and society in which she moves, whatever happened to her children was not only a product of society but also of Rhaenyra's actions. Who had children with a man not her husband and who wanted to put them on the Iron throne and the seat of Driftmark as if they were trueborn.

And whilst we say they should be able to inherit from the mother, as we do it whilst looking at it with a modern perspective you forget than in doing so Rhaenyra was illicitly robbing Baela and Rhaena of their birthright (Driftmark).

With Laenor and Laena both dead, Baela and Rhaena came before any other contestant to Driftmark as trueborn and half Velaryon by blood. Instead that show she had understood how universal the change of law Viserys had made could be, and actually make a good change, Rhaenyra forwarded her bastard son (who had no right to Driftmark) to the seat of Driftmark thus robbing Baela and Rhaena of their birthright (the very same thing she accuses Aegon of doing, btw) binding them to humiliate themselves (always in the context and views of the society) by having to bind themselves to bastards who had no right to the seat they could claim by law only so that Rhaenyra could sit on the Iron throne and pass it on her bastard son, in an attempt to keeping what had been their mother's home.

So, if Baela was right to be mad at Aemond (as I've seen some Black stans saying) because he stole Vhagar from her because she wanted to claim her mother's dragon (forgetting Vhagar is not a land, but a sentient being) shouldn't Laena's girls also be mad at Rhaenyra to force them to marry her sons to inherit Driftmark which actually is theirs by law?, especially when, as Lucerys says himself he has doubts over claiming Driftmark when he never learned the Velaryon way (another misstep by Rhaenyra btw).

Try and see it from Sansa's perspective.

Rhaenyra's line ended with Aerys and Daenerys (and Jon but she doesn't know that), both rulers Sansa despises. Aerys for what he did to her family and the Realm, and Daenerys for who she is and what she threatens to do to the Realm (which she ends up doing btw, so her preoccupations were founded)

Rhaenyra wants to rob other women of their rightful claim (like Cersei did to Stannis and Renly and Shireen) by forwarding her bastard born children, she means to use them the way she refused to be used when it came to her. Sansa herself has been overlooked time and time again because of her claim, or people tried to use her because of it. She despises those who try to do the same and Rhaenyra is doing the same to Baela and Rhaena.

Rhaenyra has shown her cruel side (Sansa witnessed Joffrey making a bard chose between fingers and tongue; Rhaenyra demanded the head of a man who told the truth, and the tongues of other men who said the truth — which is book canon — and it's easy to see how Sansa would feel about that since her lord father was executed because he told the truth about Joffrey — always about bastardy come to think of it)

Rhaenyra wants to put her bastards on the throne above those who are trueborn (her first three children are bastards and, if we actually take the show as form of canon, even Aegon and Viserys are bastards as Laenor is still alive somewhere) and she killed, or is rumored to have had an hand in the death of her husband to then marry her own uncle. Which again how could Sansa not think of Cersei, who plotted for her husband's death and had no qualms in admitting her incestous relationship with Jaime. All things Sansa knows; what more she wants to put her children in the seat of her dead husband, though they hold no right over it, over those who actually have that right.

Aemond might have killed Lucerys, the same boy who maimed him, in battle above Storm's Ends (one was nineteen, the other fifteen — both too young, but — they were both considered adults for the context and society), but Rhaenyra and Daemon went after Jaehaerys who was SIX and had yet to do anything to be a threat save being born. You see the blatant difference from two men (for the time and context; though still too young to take part into war) and men against children. How is that better than what Cersei did in the book (and Joff in the show) with killing all of Robert bastards, who btw, didn't pose any kind of threat save being born and resembling their father?

Is it very difficult to see why Rhaenyra would remind Sansa of Cersei?, especially knowing that Rhaenyra would act in such a way that the people would turn against her?, raising the taxes as a direct result of the way she went head-on into war and becoming paranoid and acting out because of it?, how does any of that not remind Sansa of Cersei?

If anything Daenerys is less foolish than Rhaenyra in this aspect, she knew she had nothing for her campaign west save her dragons, which were still too little and could be killed, she raised three armies and conquered cities east to gain labor-force, blindly loyal armies and coin enough to finance herself coming back to Westeros; though she foolishly began something as a show of force she doesn't know how to finish.

Anyway, digressing and dissecting something about which we know very little still.

I think it's not farfetched to see why Sansa would be reminded of Cersei upon seeing Rhaenyra's behavior and actions.

Alicent is putting her trueborn Targaryen children on the throne knowing well enough that Rhaenyra would not easily let them live when at least half the lords of the Realm's rather see a man on the Iron throne than a woman. It's a matter of how society works.

Remember what Sansa did when Bran returned to Winterfell?, she took the side when the lords named Jon (a bastard) king over the trueborn daughter, because Jon had shown his worth and she believed in him, yet the moment Bran returned she wielded rulership over Winterfell, her only agency, to her brother tho he was younger and possibly could not have children, because he was Ned Stark trueborn son.

Also Sansa knows perfectly well the Greens aren't stinchi di santi, as we say in Italy (all high and mighty). And yet Aegon III and Viserys II were never went after by the Greens and survived the Dance, whilst Rhaenyra had no qualms going after Jaehaerys. Also they hold the distinction of not being completely unreasonable and needlessly cruel.

Syrax eating Vaemond's remains is book canon, and it's something terrible and atrocious. It's cruelty for cruelty's sake (which is why they took it off from the show).

As far as Sansa has seen the Greens take care of each other and are united, Alicent tries to steer her children toward mercy and piety (from what she's seen) and tries to avoid too much bloodbath.

Is she perfect? Hell no.

In fact Sansa doesn't go to Alicent. She goes to Aemond, who has shown he can be gentle and has shown (the streets scene) he knows how to avoid riots (a bit like he said in the show, he is competent to do his duty — as he showed during his time as Prince Regent during Aegon's illness) and who values loyalty over ambition (he knows he's better fit for the throne and yet he supports his brother completely), something Rhaenyra has not shown. Sansa doesn't think of Alicent when she thinks she's alone and without a pack, she thinks of Helaena standing up for her. She thinks of Helaena begging to be killed in her son's stead and having to witness his death. She thinks of a boy of four (it's 126 in the fic) who had no fault and was brutally murdered just because he was Aegon's heir (the same way Rickon was brutally killed by Ramsay in the show). She sees Aemond and is reminded of Jon, the brother who defended her, and of Bran the brother who was maimed because he climbed too high and saw what he shouldn't have.

What part of her going to Aemond after speaking to Otto makes you think Sansa is becoming Otto's puppet? Do you think Sansa to have been LF's puppet because she kept him around until she could do away with him?

Again, Rhaenyra's line brought the Realm to the brink of self-destruction even before the dead stepped past the Wall (remember she doesn't know about Jon's parentage, though it was his Stark's duty — defending the North from the enemies that lay beyond the Wall — that moves him) and almost destroyed House Stark as well. Under the rulership of her line the castle of the Wall stopped being manned until basically one a handful still could hold off the wildlings (let alone the dead and the Others).

If she were to move the strings, instead, could she ensure the North come out stronger? This is the question she asks herself.

Also, never forget House Stark has a knack for not breaking an oath and still moving around it to get the best outcome. Cregan didn't move from the North until most of the Dance was done with, and it was during the Hour of the Wolf, when Cregan basically put in order the Realm that Aegon III was betrothed to Jaehaera (Aegon II's daughter). And again, Sansa knows what Rhaenyra's line will mean for House Stark, she's going to defend House Stark and the North.

Also, she compares Otto to Rhaenyra whilst knowing very well there are differences, because Otto has no qualms in using her and possibly put her in death-peril to divide the Blacks, and Rhaenyra does the very same. In the aspect of how far they'll go to reach what they want, they are similar (though Rhaenyra will show to be much worse, as she will have Jaehaerys brutally killed) and Sansa acknowledges they are both a threat.

Sansa is not becoming anyone's puppet, Sansa is a player outside the board, so to speak. Remember Petyr's lessons?

Anyone is your enemy and anyone is your friend.

And Ned's lessons.

Love is a surer way to loyalty then fear.

Sansa has entered the game, and she's a difficult player to beat not only because she knows snippets of what may happen, but because she has a goal the others can't even envision. And if they don't know what she wants they can't know how to move her, instead she knows what they want.

Remember, Sansa is the kind of woman who would work around an oath or break it, if it meant ensuring the safety of those she loves. She's the kind of woman who looked past the obvious advantage of having a queen in love with her brother in her grasp because that didn't mean she would be a good queen.

And that kind of player is the worst player to defeat. I said it once and I'll say it again, the game of thrones never has a clean cut victory or defeat; and yet Sansa is a victor, because she reached her goal. Ensuring the North went free and Jon was spared (she wanted him to return as king, as she herself says), being loved.

A puppet? Sansa is the mastermind and she has started to play.

I hope I have resolved your doubts about why in my story things are approached in a certain manner. Sorry again for not managing to reply to you under the fic, but as you've seen I am not replying to comments there as I am very busy, tho I read them all and had intended to reply to your query, happy to be able to do it here!

As always thank you for dropping by, and hope you have a wonderful day! All the love ~G.

[ao3feed-usukus]

much ado about nothing

read it on AO3 at https://ift.tt/AFntLVB by CommanderCryptic “Dude. What the fuck are you doing in the middle of the football field?” Or: England, from the year 1870, accidentally time-travels to one of the most mundane alternate realities possible: an American high school. But once he meets America's high-schooler counterpart, he quickly finds out that the spirit of competition never dies, even across different universes. Words: 1375, Chapters: 1/?, Language: English Fandoms: Hetalia: Axis Powers Rating: Teen And Up Audiences Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply Categories: M/M, Multi Characters: America (Hetalia), England (Hetalia), Norway (Hetalia), Romania (Hetalia), Prussia (Hetalia), France (Hetalia), Spain (Hetalia) Relationships: America/England (Hetalia) Additional Tags: Eventual Romance, Comedy, Romantic Comedy, Time Travel, Alternate Universe - High School, Drama, Historical References, POV First Person, Football, Silly Funny Fun Times, Disney Channel Core, California, Alternate Universe - Human read it on AO3 at https://ift.tt/AFntLVB

[inky-duchess]

PoV Historical Counterparts: Edward

Edward IV: Edward was born the oldest son of the Duke of York, the most powerful man in the kingdom. A tall, imposing figure, Edward was one of the most skilled battle commanders and warriors in the country at a young age. When Edward's father died in the chaos of the Wars of the Roses, Edward was forced to step up and protect his family. He ended the civil strife in the kingdom both on the battlefield and in his court, often pardoning his enemies and making them his allies. Edward also acted as head of his family, caring for his mother and his two younger brothers. Edward constantly forgave the youngest of his brothers the Duke of Clarence for his numerous offences.

Henry Tudor: Henry Tudor was born the last scion of a bastard line of the Plantagenet dynasty. He grew up far from the throne in the care of his relatives while his mother lived elsewhere. Henry was introduced early to battlefields at the tender age of fourteen, where he witnessed the death of his foster father William Herbert. His uncle Henry VI was restored to the throne after losing it, elevating Henry's status. As the chaos of civil war ravaged through the kingdom's heirs, Henry eventually came to the throne after a short campaign against the reigning king. Though plagued by a few rebels, Henry restored peace and stability to England.

Edward III: Edward III was the son of the powerful Queen Consort Isabella of France. Despite his father's weaknesses as king, Edward proved to be more his mother's son, an able politician and a battle commander. Edward was famed for his prowess as a knight. Edward was a reforming king, eager to hammer out the problems that plagued his predecessors. Edward was much in love with his wife, Philippa of Hainault and had a loving relationship with his children. Edward was an extremely popular king, the commons and nobility both fond of him.

Octavian Augustus Caesar: Octavian was the distant relation to Julius Caesar, one of Rome's most powerful leaders and generals. He was made his heir despite there being older and better choices for the role. Octavian quickly made a name for himself both to the people, in the Senate and on the battlefield. He saw off all his rivals, taking down the might of Antony and Cleopatra in a fell swoop of political acumen and military genius. Octavian became Rome's first emperor, bringing about the Pax Romana, a period of unheard of peace and prosperity for the city and empire. He brought military reforms to the empire and left Rome built of marble where it had once been built of brick.

Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester: Robert was the son of Lord Dudley, Duke of Northumberland the most powerful man in the country. As a young man, his father plotted to place his brother on the throne in a coup. The plot was overturned and Robert lost both his father and brother to the axe. Robert was held in suspicion on account of his father's and brother's actions. He remained a stalwart ally to Princess Elizabeth during her troubling times under the reign of her sister. He was rumored to have been Elizabeth's lover and was considered for a long while that he might have become her husband. But it was not to be. Robert was married to another woman but remained a close friend to Elizabeth who loved him until the end of her days.

Taglist: @authoressasusual @you-reblogged-from @word-by-word @trapped-inadystopianovel @wanderingalonelypath @mysthicrider @thebestmollygrue @reignnyx @viola-cola @anomaly00 @thewordsinthesky-andstars @heldinhishands @ladywithalamp @scribonaut @dawnoftheagez @writing-in-rain @saxoniowrites @writeblrfantasy @mayawritesbooks @valiant-wielder

[elegantwoes]

Its time we start propagating that third tier side characters like Ygritte and Val, and history figures like Lyanna, Alysanne, Rhaenys and Naerys are the ones being given relevance when we draw parallels between them and a POV main character, also called a central part of the books by the author himself, Sansa Stark. She was created first and is the princess archetype of the story so all the apparent things Sansa stans 'steal' from these characters 💀💀 belong to her first and foremost.

Technically Lyanna shouldn’t be included in there because she isn’t a history figure, but the rest I absolutely agree with you, especially on Naerys. Like Sansa is the only person who even mentions her for the first few books. And Sansa is the one who draws parallel with herself to Naerys and wants her husband to be like Aemon the dragon knight. Like George RR Martin is hammering down that Sansa is the character who has any form of narrative connection to Queen Naerys and the romantic pair Aemon/Naerys is (almost) exclusively tied to Sansa’s romantic storyline. Sansa also deals with an Aegon the unworthy in Joffrey. He even flat out says he wants to be like him and have multiple women:

("A king can have other women. Whores. My father did. One of the Aegons did too. The third one, or the fourth. He had lots of whores and lots of bastards." - Sansa III, A Storm of Swords.

Sansa says she’s Queen Naerys and Joffrey says he wants to be Aegon the unworthy. The only one missing in this equation is an Aemon the dragon knight figure. Now who could this person be? Well I can think of someone. A young man who frequently screamed he was Aemon the dragon knight in his childhood in Winterfell. We got three people saying they are a historical figure that conveniently are stuck in a love triangle. The fandom can deny this till their faces turn blue, but clearly Sansa/Jon are a Aemon/Naerys pair.

And even though George RR Martin is extremely obvious in his parallel still certain people try to take this and make it all about their favorite character and favorite ship. If there ever was case of ‘stealing’ a parallel and storyline then this falls squarely in that category, but antis will never admit to this, because if they did they would be admitting that Sansa has something desirable in their eyes that they want to give to their faves.

Naerys will never be remotely similar to either @rya or D@ny. At most D@ny looks like Naerys in terms in looks, GRRM flat out said that, but he also said that’s where the similarities stop. She may look like Naerys in appearance, but personality wise Naerys is described to be timid and Dany is fiercer. And @rya has zero association with Naerys.

The character who shares the most similarities with Naerys will always be Sansa. Another character who is like Naerys is Cersei, but in her case it’s foil. Cersei is her darker counterpart. She does the very thing Aegon accuses Naerys of (cheating and passing her child as his). Elia Martell is also very similar to Naerys (fragile health, reproductively abused, and humiliated by husband. Rhaegar literally does what Aegon IV wanted to do). Perhaps one could argue that Margaery has a small similarity to her too, since she compares herself to Naerys and Loras to Aemon, but that’s it. There are no other characters like Naerys. Especially not the characters whose fans desperately try to steal this parallel and storyline.