#to the book for no reason.. or just ignore important aspects like the films did… i guess im still sad about what they did to mike and family

[pippin-katz]

just letting you know this ask will contain sensitive issues regarding Jewish identity and negative criticism that I’ve seen about rwrb. So I understand if you don’t want to answer at all - but I just wanted to see what your thoughts were about this (as I haven’t read the book but absolutely adore the movie) - if you want to make a separate post or something.

I saw a post on my “for you” feed (can’t find it anymore) that apparently Matthew’s decision to conflate and change Nora and June’s characters is antisemitic and bi-erasure? I only skimmed through it because it was very accusatory and the comments were also very negative.

I can understand being upset about losing some characters and the criticism about Nora’s bi-identity. I can’t really speak about the antisemitism as I’m not fully aware of that aspect from the book. But I was thinking - if they did make Nora bi and she still ended up being with Percy/Pez, would those critics be happy? Or would they still be mad because June wasn’t there for the polyamorous relationship that was hinted in the books?

They’re mad about Richards, Rafael Luna, Liam, divorce-free Claremont-Diaz household, no Queen Mary, no Princess Catherine, no this, no that. And they said it’s not a true rom-com because it doesn’t flesh out the romance between Alex and Henry? I just don’t understand what it takes for them to be satisfied. Casey said themself that if everything was done 100% from the books, fans still wouldn’t be happy with it. I mostly ignore the loud ones who hate the movie with all their being but when it comes up it’s so jarring. I don’t want the hype of this movie to lose out to the noise of the haters and bashers. This movie, and Alex and Henry’s love story has become so important to many people and we want more!

Funny you should bring that up to me of all people, seeing as I happen to be Jewish!

I think I may have seen posts like that in the past and immediately blocked the poster because I knew that if I wrote a response to them it would spiral out of control, and there were too many people in the replies to try and explain this to.

Post Writing Note: Buckle up for this one cause I definitely went on a tangent about Jewish culture, but I felt like it would help people understand, or at least be interesting.

The short version of this is that they are self centered idiots who have their heads up their ass.

Casey is 100% correct that even if they were completely true to the book, they wouldn’t be satisfied. They will always find something to complain about.

They also simply don’t want to like it, or understand it. All of those major changes were made for a reason, and make complete sense/were the right call for what Matthew was trying to accomplish with the film. But they don’t want to hear or accept that.

As for Nora and June, once again, they are being idiots.

Matthew has explained several times that the decision to cut June was a logical director’s decision.

With the limited time the film has, side characters simply can’t have as much detail or development as they have in the book. In the case of June and Nora, he explained that he essentially would’ve been giving half of a character to the two actresses. They would’ve been fighting for screen time, and would’ve felt unsatisfied with the roles. Therefore, he essentially combined the two into one full character to give to a single actress. It makes complete sense, and was the right choice.

Did that remove the polycule dynamic? Yes, but that was a side effect of the decision, not part of the reason. Matthew does not seem like the kind of person to remove something like that for no reason, or purely because it might "make the straights uncomfortable". It was just the way things happened.

Now, let me address Nora.

The thing that drives me a bit crazy about this is their determination to call her intentional erasure.

Just because those traits weren’t brought up in the film does not make them untrue. There is no reason to assume that she isn’t bisexual or Jewish just because they didn’t bring it up. They did not say anything that counters those details, therefore I don’t see them as being changed.

They are also exaggerating a lot.

Now, I’m saying all this as a Jewish person who would love to see more representation of Judaism casually included in characters.

Nora’s Jewish identity is completely irrelevant to the plot and is only mentioned in the book. When Alex wants to call someone on Christmas after his parents fight, he briefly says that she’s busy celebrating Chanukah. That is the only moment in the entire book that Nora being Jewish is brought up, as far as I can remember from the last time I went through to look for it, when I first saw a post about this. I checked again while writing this. Other book readers can correct me if I’m wrong about that, but I know for a fact that it is not something that’s regularly mentioned or relevant to the plot.

Again, I say this as a Jewish person with love, it was not important. I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it until I fucking die: the book had no time limit.

The novel is not a massive one, but it is absolutely stuffed cover-to-cover with content. It’s a book told through Alex’s point of view, giving direct access into his thoughts and feelings through text.

When Alex offhandedly mentions in his head facts like that, the translation to the screen would be constructing a situation where bringing that up out loud is relevant. The other option is to put clues in the environment to indicate it.

The thing about those options though is that Nora does not have any scenes during the holiday portion of the movie. In fact, there is not even a mention of Christmas at all; the only reason we know is because of the decorations around the White House, but no one mentions it. There is only one scene that even takes place around Christmas in the film: Alex’s conversation with Zahra. From there, it’s straight to New Year’s.

Some may be thinking, “But those are so close together, it would still be relevant!” and I hate to tell you that you’re wrong, but there’s an 85% chance you’re wrong.

Chanukah shifts dates from year to year because it’s determined by the Jewish calendar, and that doesn’t match the normal calendar. As someone grew up celebrating it, and still does celebrate it, I can tell you from personal knowledge that most of the time, it happens before Christmas. Yes, sometimes it overlaps with it, or happens afterwards, but I can safely tell you that most of the time, it happens before; for example, this year Chanukah starts Dec. 8th and ends at sunset Dec. 15th. It starts and ends a whole week before Christmas.

Now, I have to also say, and I say this with as much love and respect as I can for all the normal Christians/Catholics out there, we don’t really… shove our holiday in everyone’s faces?

I know that sounds rude, and it might be, but I mean that everyone knows when Christmas is. Everything closes down for Christmas. Whether you celebrate it or not, you’re most likely going to be off-work or off-school for it. No one looks around and goes, “what day is Christmas again?” And most people know the basic gist of why it’s celebrated.

I’m pretty sure that at minimum 65% of the people who read this had no idea when Chanukah was, and have zero clue why it’s celebrated.

That’s not really their fault, it’s just a simple truth about Western society (especially American) that people don’t get educated on Judaism, even indirectly the way they do for Christmas. The same can be said for all of the religious minorities. I’m by no means innocent of being uninformed on the basics of other minority religions. I’m just bringing it up because it’s somewhat relevant.

When it’s Christmas, you know it’s Christmas. Everyone is talking about it and there’s decorations everywhere. And while there’s sometimes a few decorations for Chanukah and maybe Kwanzaa, it’s not common; especially given the unfortunate reality that said decorations are a beacon for hate crimes.

Circling back to Nora, the easiest way to provide indications that she is Jewish is through decorations in her office/apparel choices. I just explained why she would be unlikely to have decorations in her office for Chanukah, but what about non-holiday specific decor?

Well, in my experience as a reformed Jewish person, there's not a lot of decor that's not very obvious or specifically religious in its representation. I say "specifically religious" because Judaism is a culture as well as a religion. I'm a Jewish person, but I don't regularly attend Temple or practice daily prayer. My experience with Judaism stems more from how we celebrate the major holidays, the kinds of food we eat, clothing we wear, and stuff like that, not passages of the Torah.

We also just don't really have as much physical decoration options as Christians/Catholics, at least for Jews who are not devoutly religious.

Judaism is practices aniconism.

Don't be alarmed, most people don't know what that word means; I only know because I learned about it briefly in an art history course a few years ago. Aniconism is the absence of artistic representations of certain figures in religions. Judaism is generally "anti-iconic", meaning it's strongly discouraged to create imagery, specifically human imagery, of God or other saint-like figures from the Torah. It's not completely unheard of, but think about how frequently you see imagery of Jesus in Christianity/Catholicism, or all the famous imagery of God, and depictions of scenes of the Bible and the saints, etc. etc. etc. Jews just don't do that, at least not nearly to the extent or as commonly as Christians/Catholics.

Jews instead have focused artistry into the form of ceremonial objects, i.e. the menorah, Kiddush goblets, etc.

In fact, my Jewish heritage comes from my father's side, so my grandfather on that side has always been a practicing Jew, and my grandmother converted back when they married. They're not super religious, but more so than my parents and how I was raised.

Thinking back to their home, I'm realizing that all of their Jewish "decor" was fine dishware sort of like this they kept in a China cabinet, like this:

Nora's not going to keep fine China in her office.

The only piece of "decor" that I have in my parents' home is not even really decor. This is a super common thing to find in Jewish households. It's call a mezuzah:

It's a little container that keeps a scroll with two prayers from the Torah written in Hebrew by a calligraphist. They are a symbol of connection and protection amongst the Jewish community. They are an ancient tradition. Nora would definitely have one.

However, these go on the doorframes of the entrance to a home. They're not hung up anywhere to look nice. She wouldn't have one on her office doorway, which is glass anyway.

So I've eliminated physical decorations, so how about jewelry?

This is where I'm sure a bunch of those people will shake their fists at me. The easiest and simplest way to imply a Jewish character (especially a female one) is the same as a Christian/Catholic character: a necklace.

Obviously, it is common practice for crosses to be worn on necklaces. Wearing the Star of David on a necklace is also common, but not nearly as common as the cross. I've noticed over the course of my life an increase in seeing them, but they're still uncommon.

And incredibly recently, I actively chose to stop wearing mine because we are at a point of actual danger in the US right now, specifically Florida, where I happen to be so lucky to live.

Regardless, it's debatable on how likely it would be for Nora to be wearing one. I feel like it's pretty split on how much of the Jewish population does and doesn't. So let's take a look at her style then:

The only outfit I couldn't find a clear still image of was the one in the jeep, but there are GIFs of that:

Note: I swear, if this fandom doesn't start posting more content of the side characters, I'm going to throw something; y'all are making it very hard to write my essays!! 😂

Out of her seven outfits, she is only wearing a neck accessory in ONE. More notably, she's not wearing a necklace in either of her formal outfits: the wedding and the party dresses. If she were going to wear a necklace, a fancier outfit usually makes it more likely. She seems to like wearing earrings more. Earrings with the Star of David exist, but I've personally never seen someone wearing them.

So based on everything I've been talking about, and Nora's personality, and her characterization in the book, and everything else, it's probably unlikely that she would wear a religious necklace, if not because she's not heavily religious, then because she just doesn't wear necklaces.

Could you ignore all that and complain that they could've given her a necklace or something anyway? Yeah, you could, but you are just being annoying and overreacting. She's still a Jewish character. People who haven't read the book may not know that, but tons of people who have read the book didn't even remember that. It's not an intentional decision made to erase her Jewish heritage. It is purely a side effect of having very limited time to cover way too much content.

The same can be said for her being bisexual. There's no reason to assume she's not. Hell, we've been joking about the face she makes when she meets Bea since we saw it:

This look alone is enough to make non-book readers go, "oh ship! ship! ship!". She's not straight just because they don't address her sexuality. Again, it was not an intentional decision made to erase her bisexuality.

Look, I'm not saying you have to like it, but for the love of god, stop acting like Matthew is the devil incarnate who made every change and cut out of spite, and to hurt you specifically.

As for the comment about not fleshing out Alex and Henry's relationship? I... I have no fucking words. That's a lie, I have so many fucking words, but I've been writing this for too long, so I'll speed run this:

First of all, if you don't think the romance between Alex and Henry is "fleshed out" in the film, I cannot say anything else than you are a fucking idiot. I don't like rom-coms, but this one is so fucking genuine, emotional, and sweet that even my cold dark soul feels warmth while watching it.

Second of all, how the fuck are you going to make the claim that they didn't flesh out Alex and Henry's romance, while simultaneously bitching about 3+ hours of book content that didn't make it? Do you not have any logical reasoning skills or common sense, at all??

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN: THE BOOK HAD NO TIME LIMIT. THE MOVIE DID.

Alright, that's enough of all that; I have an essay that I wrote the day after the movie originally dropped that went more in detail about that last one, so I'm not going to get super into that here. That's the short version of that, and if you want to hear the long version, go read this.

I hope that cleared some stuff up for you Anon! Sorry for the rambling lmfao

[kingslionheart]

I was wondering, do you think alfred and uhtred had feelings for each other in canon?

ALRIGHT SO. I'm so extremely sorry for taking so long to answer, life has been messy for a while now and I think it has been almost 3 months since you sent this. I have basically written this entire answer little by little every single day since I first received the ask and I have only just now finished reading it again.

EVEN MORE APOLOGIES BECAUSE IT TURNED OUT TO BE EXTREMELY LONG, I'll keep it under the cut!!

Please bear in mind that there are spoilers for the entire show and film and please forgive any possible typo.

OFF WE GO NOW!!

In general I think it is important to note that the last kingdom is a show FULL of queer characters (and I will die on that hill), mostly because there's just so much subtext in the whole show, and Alfred is 100% queercoded.

There are so many aspects of his character that just betray his queerness and the first thing that does that is literally the thing so many blame him for: the way he treats Uhtred.

NOW.

Let's look at Alfred's first scene ever. Alfred appears in 1x02 and he's introduced as someone who considers himself a sinner because of his inability to control his lust. When Beocca speaks to him about the girl he’s currently feeling guilty about, Alfred's immediate first reaction is to banish her, but instead he's presented with the option of bringing her into his service. Now the reason why it is proposed by Beocca is to keep her close to show God that he's able to resist temptation and, when he does resist, to thank this higher being he so desperately believes in. This is something that comes again in 1x03 when Beocca tells him to pray for strenght the moment he almost fails again.

In brief we know that there are two moments when Alfred has to pray: when he resists temptation and when he's tempted.

After he becomes king he reserves a very particular treatment for this girl who tempted him. In 1×04 we can see, for example, that soon after washing his hands, he basically throws a towel at her without a single glance. The treatment he gives her is a cold and distant one and that's the exact same way he treats Uhtred.

Indeed, as he did when he accepted Beocca's suggestion about the servant girl, I actually believe that proving God that he could resist temptation is one of the two reasons why Alfred has brought Uhtred into his service in the first place. The only other important use he had was his knowledge of the Danes, because, at least at this point of the story, the reason of him being such a fantastic sword genuinely does not stand.

In S1 it is very obvious that Uhtred isn't that much of a great warrior, and that makes sense because he's still very young, and at the end of the day he only first made his reputation when he killed Ubba, which, by Uhtred's own admission in the books, was entirely by luck, since he was actually the one who was about to get killed. Of course it is absolutely clear why he would have never admitted such thing, he needed that reputation and that was the first significant chance he got, but the thing is that he had been in Alfred's service for a few years already when that happened.

Alfred gave lands and a title of ealdorman to someone who was a 18 years old who came from Northumbria, a some guy who had absolutely nothing and no reputation whatsover, and that he himself barely knew, even worse a man who looked like a dane and that was a pagan. If you ignore Uhtred's point of view, that's absolutely insane of someone who just became a king who didn't even have that much support from his nobles yet.

It was serving Alfred that granted Uhtred to become an actual warrior with reputation, before that he wasn't one, as Uhtred himself told Alfred in 1×02.

As I said, the only good reason for Alfred to take such a man into his service was to have danish knowledge in court, but even that could have been something quick, you know, learning the basics and then just keeping contact with him as a spy, exactly as he did with Haesten at the end of S2 and at the beginning of S3, but no. Alfred tried his very best to tie him down to Wessex and make sure that he would remain. Why is that? It is to prove that he was able to resist temptation and being in control of his own body.

Alfred was an extremely pious man as many say throughout the whole show and even in the film. He needed to prove himself to God so that he would have had favour from his part and back then there was also the whole concept of "a king who's not able to control his body is not able to control his kingdom". Resisting temptation with a man would have proven it even more than resisting temptation with a woman, especially because, compared to the other servants, Alfred genuinely arrives to a point where he's actually and sort of obviously in love with Uhtred, so it isn't any longer just a body thing but a mind/heart thing, so even worse because that would cause his judgement to be clouded, Alfred himself admits this in 2x06, where he also says that Uhtred is a temptation to him.

The word temptation is an interesting one because Alfred always uses it with a sexual connotation, we saw that in s1 especially, but I want to talk about the episode I just mentioned. Here Alfred talks about Uhtred to Aelswith and he says:

What if all this time, it has been the work of the Devil tempting me? Offering me this warrior, this seemingly loyal and brave man, who piece by small piece, is eating at my soul and clouding what I believe to be right and wrong.

Alfred here, as I said already, explicitly says that he considers Uhtred a temptation sent by the devil, which, with the knowledge of his specific use of that word, can only mean one thing. The fact itself that Aelswith then replies that "this is what the devil would do" is noteworthy because that is a topic once called to attention by Asser in 1x06 when talking about Iseult he tells Uhtred "I know the devil exists, hiding within beauty is a trick he will use often, I'm sure". Aelswith gives Alfred a solution to the problem by telling him to get rid of him, and that's what does, he banishes Uhtred. Alfred talked of Uhtred as a temptation and then he chose to banish him for a while, does it by any chance remind you of something? His first instict in 1x02 about the servant.

Another thing that is very important to point out is that, as I said before, Alfred is considered a pious christian, so we know that Alfred prays daily and a lot, he even uses prayers to establish a political connection most of the times, but that can't prove his piety because many did too. The only times Alfred proves his piety are those when he prays alone and that happens 3 times in 3 seasons, which is funny since we could have expected way more for his reputation, but since it happens so little there has to be a meaning. As we said, we know that Alfred has to pray in two specific moments: when he has to thank God for resisting temptation and when he's tempted.

So very casually the times where he prays alone are always connected to Uhtred.

The first moment it happens is in 2x06, before the scene when Alfred admits that Uhtred tempts him and after the scene when Alfred screams at Uhtred "I do not know you and I could never know you", which is totally "know" as the biblical meaning of the word, if we consider everything that I have said before. The two other times are in s3, when Alfred's love for Uhtred is way more obvious and rather in a more romantic way than just attraction. The first time in that season is in 3x03 when he's there praying, with tears in his eyes, a few weeks (perhaps even a month) after Uhtred has betrayed him, and there he speaks of him and we see that he's hurt and wants to hurt Uhtred in return, so there's an element of heartbreak. The second time is in 3x06, after he has seen Uhtred again for the first time since his betrayal, and there we can find something close to worry for Uhtred's condition as a pagan, because he says that "He is a man in great need of the guidance of God". In 3x08 there's also an interesting hint about his prayers when Beocca hypothyses that Alfred prays for Uhtred's return and the truth behind it is written plainly on Alfred's face. His prayers shifted from a physical attraction type of temptation to something that could very clearly be recognised as love.

S3 is THE proof that Alfred was in love with Uhtred and, while you can already see it in the first episode of it when he watched Uhtred ride away from the city (which he also did in 1×02), that love becomes more obvious immediately after Uhtred betrays him in 3x02, YES THAT SCENE WHEN HE’S CRYING ALONE IN THE ROOM. While I do realise that it could be interpred as crying because his dream of an england was in danger, STILL you know that it is not just that, that man was heartbroken and the worst thing about it is that Alfred totally knew that he had no one to blame but himself, because Alfred is always perfectly aware of the way he treats Uhtred, think about the “I do not, I cannot” in 2x06 when Aelswith asks him if he trusts him, Alfred cannot trust Uhtred because if he did then he would totally fall into temptation, I MEAN LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED TO AETHELSTAN WITH INGILMUNDR.

From that episode onward Alfred is on another level of misery, and that’s truly an achievement considering how miserable that man always is. First of all he’s angrier than ever and that anger reaches levels of revenge, confirmed by Alfred himself in 3×09 when he says this:

It was done to damn you. To inflict pain, possibly. I try to make decisions rationally. However, taking your children was not a rational decision. It was thoughtless. It was selfish.

Here Alfred admits that he wanted to hurt Uhtred and why did he do that? Because he wasn’t thinking rationally, and why wasn’t he thinking rationally? Because it concerned Uhtred. This literally always goes back to 2x06, because Alfred did say there that Uhtred clouded his judgment and that is the proof. When it comes to Uhtred, when Uhtred is around, he just can’t think rationally. That’s literally some romantic shit there.

I made the example of Aethelstan and Ingilmundr earlier and that truly fits this whole part really well, because in the film Aethelstan is portrayed as someone who’s blind and acting in a completely irrational way because he’s in love with Ingilmundr, his oathman. I would also love to point out how Aethelstan is portrayed as a pious christian king who prays and acts only for his own salvation, since he considers himself a sinner for his queerness. There’s so much guilt in that boy and, especially, more than once he’s compared to Alfred: first by Ingilmundr who tells him that he has to be pious so that men would speak of him as they spoke of his grandfather, and second when Aethelstan talks to Uhtred and indirectly compares his sins as worse than the ones of Alfred, so the connection between them is not only about piety, but also sins. Then, no less important, I think it is quiet obvious who Ingilmundr reminds of considering how he was “born a dane but raised saxon”. The parallels are right there and have never been louder.

Another parallel that I want to point out is the connotation between homosexuality and England, that’s particularly connected to the film because in SKMD Aethelstan wants to unite it simply to redeem himself for having a male lover:

Ingilmundr: Perhaps return to your grandfather’s vision for England. Perhaps now there is an urgency to bring the pagans to light.

Aethelstan: Will that cleanse me? Us?

Ingilmundr: Well, surely the greater the lands, the greater the faith. Go beyond what Alfred dreamed of. Look to the islands God made, not the countries ordained by men, and bring all to Christianity. So when you are judged, you will be found in balance. And thus may accept both the sin… and the conquest against it.

Notice how even in this whole thing Alfred sort of remains the greatest sinner of them all, because Ingilmundr here says to bring to christianity the lands that God created and not the ones that men, Alfred, wanted to make, it almost feels as if he’s saying that his sin would only be accepted if he does what God offers him in lands and therefore if he doesn’t put himself above God by being the one who decides which parts to unite and which not. Here Alfred is truly portrayed as someone who has put himself above God in his decisions and thus England would have never cleansed him for his sins, because he was directly sinning while planning it and actually, always back in 2x06, Alfred too considered himself a sinner for the way he was laying the fundations of the country, but not in the way Ingilimundr meant but because “I am reaching out for an England, all in the name of God, yet I am relying upon the strength of a heathen”, so what made him a sinner was his connection to Uhtred.

The thing is that as a consequence in the film England is connected to carnal sins and, indeed, as you have probably realised already when you watched the show, that country has ALWAYS been put in some sexual way, you may call it Alfred’s fav kink. That seriously begins in 1x03 when Alfred is making out with that servant (the same one we have talked about before) and he literally goes like “I will defend you with my life, you stand as everything that is precious, you are Wessex, England, always to be cherished, never to be violated, only to be loved, vigorously”, therefore Alfred arrived to the point of seeing someone as a personification of England and that happens only another time in the show and that is in 2x03 when he says to Uhtred “You are a Saxon who is also a Dane, The very embodiment of the England that must emerge”.

THE VERY EMBODIMENT.

To him Uhtred was the personification of England and now this might be a bittttt too much from me, but even in 3x09 when Alfred is dying his last conversation is about Uhtred and the role he will have in the formation of England, and there Aelswith is trying to make Alfred see that it is wrong because being guided (SO RELYING) by a pagan means straying from God’s rightenous path, but what does Alfred do? He literally defends Uhtred and those are his last few breaths, what has Alfred said to that servant? “I will defend you with my life, […] you are […] England”, and look at Alfred’s final words:

Aelswith: Why are the Danes forever at our door? Because we are being punished, Lord, for the presence of this heathen.

Alfred: He is for England.

Aelswith: He is an outlaw.

Alfred: My England... my love.

Alfred basically dies defending Uhtred and while “My England” could be interpreted as him thinking about the actual country, the whole conversation and the whole parallels both between 1x03 and 2x03, so with the knowledge that to him Uhtred is England, I DON’T KNOW I JUST CAN’T HELP BUT THINK “HMM YOU KNOW WHAT, PERHAPS HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT ENGLAND ENGLAND”

As you have probably understood, I believe that the moment when Alfred confessed his feelings for Uhtred was in 2x06 and he literally confessed them to Aelswith, so at beginning of S3 she has been knowing it for years.

Now let’s see all of S3 from Aelswith’s point of view. In this season her beloved husband is dying and she's painfully aware he is, even more after Alfred confirms it in 3x02. She knows it will happen, thus she tries to stay at his side as much as possible because Aelswith loved Alfred so much and despite everything (cough cough despite his cheating cough cough), then at some point she witnesses her husband's life be put in danger when he is taken as a hostage by the same man she knows he has feelings for. That man escapes and her husband is abandoned by him and, instead of seeing the anger he's showing to everyone, she sees how broken he is because of that, because she knows that Uhtred did not only break his oath but wholeheartedly broke Alfred’s heart. She has to witness not only her husband’s suffering because of his illness, but also the pain he feels because that man he loves has left him. The nearer her husband gets to his death, the nearer she notices the way he wants to forgive that same man who has made him suffer for years now (s3 starts in 891/892 and Alfred’s death happens in 899), then right before her husband’s passing she finds them together in his study, completely alone. She tries to make her husband reason (indirectly even trying to remind him of how much pain he went through because of him) but instead her husband orders her to leave, she probably hasn’t even seen Uhtred return from the room until late in the evening. Her husband dies not long after and she’s hurt because she has lost the man she's stood by and loved for most of her life, but in all of this… Who’s the one who left her husband? Who’s the one who broke his heart? Who’s the one who in a way could have worsed his condition because of the mental pain he had to go through because of him? Uhtred. So she imprisons Uhtred, threatens to kill him, but then accepts to just exile him, but then, in front of the whole of Winchester, Uhtred gives an entire speech about his relationship with her husband arriving to a point in which he even says that he loved Alfred. This is worsened by the fact that, in her last conversation with him, Alfred was going against her just to defend him.

Aelswith’s anger towards Uhtred is the most understandable reaction ever.

A very interesting scene to me, with the knowledge that Aelswith has this insight of Alfred’s feelings for Uhtred, is the scene where she prays in 3x08, because... THE THINGS SHE SAYS!!

Lord God, give me strength and guidance to do your work. If it is right and proper to rely upon a heathen, albeit for violence, then I beg you... show me a sign. Help me. I want my son to remain untarnished by heathen ways. I wish him to be God's king. Pure.

Here she’s praying for Edward in the prospect of a possible connection to Uhtred in case the latter becomes his oathman once he’s king, but it is the last part of the whole prayer that is fascinating, because in this moment she says what a king is if he’s connected to him and, therefore, the reference to Alfred is undeniable: the king had to be “untarnished by heathen ways” so that he could be “God’s king” and “pure”.

Alfred was connected to Uhtred so he was tarnished by heathen ways, he was not God’s king and he was not pure, all because of it.

Alfred eveasdropped this whole thing and when Aelswith noticed him, they both understood exactly what she was truly talking about and the expression on Alfred’s face was one of someone who actually believed those things about himself as well, and indeed you see that a lot in S3 when he shows more than once that he’s scared that he won’t end up in heaven. In 2x06 there's also another hint at that when he says “I am reaching out for an England, all in the name of God, yet I am relying upon the strength of a heathen, the iron of a pagan”, and when Aelswith tells him “You are God's king, lord" his answer is "Yet at my right hand is a pagan”.

Alfred has always been terrified at the possibility of not ending up in heaven because of what he had with Uhtred, but despite all of that he's always defended him and saved his life multiple times, just as Uhtred did with him.

Since Uhtred arrived in Wessex he has risked death more than once in every season, and Alfred has always tried to find a way to save his life:

1x03, Ubba offered Alfred a peace for silver and Uhtred’s head, Alfred refused and told him that he would have returned to the sword if he didn’t accept only to be paid.

1x05, Uhtred unleashed a sword in front of Alfred during prayers, while screaming at him in front of many people of Winchester. That’s a crime that is supposed to be punished with death, Alfred made him crawl instead.

1x06/1x07, Uhtred, claiming to do Alfred’s business, plundered Cornwall and sided with a Dane against a christian king, Alfred was supposed to kill him immediately, even more when Uhtred, supposed to beg for forgiveness, decided to scream in his face that he would never kneel neither to him nor to his God, but instead Alfred accepted Leofric’s proposal of a fight to the death so that “God would decide”, that means he left the possibility of Uhtred’s survival, even more because he chose the exact day for that fight to happen, which, casually, was on the day of a saint he liked a lot, and indeed the day after he called Uhtred and told him that he didn't like the thought of someone dying on that day. He tried to save him by offering him the option of giving everything back and resuming the debt (since it was with the plunder that he paid it), but Uhtred didn’t want to leave Iseult, so he refused.

2x03, he sent Ragnar to rescue Uhtred from slavery.

3x02, first, he was most likely going to forgive Uhtred for desecrating the cemetery; second, he should have senteced Uhtred to death for killing a monk in front of the whole witan and then escaping (thus worsening his actions), but instead he asked for an oath and spared his life; third, after he threatened his life Alfred did order for him to be killed, but as soon as he escaped he simply banished him from Wessex, he could have made someone follow him, but he didn’t.

3x05, Uhtred was an outlaw, while he was in Mercia Alfred could have still had him killed, since at the end of the day he was one of his enemies, but instead he used the excuse of him having Aethelflaed’s protection. Alfred could have killed him and no one would have said anything about it, but he did not.

3x08/3x09 Uhtred was still an outlaw here and Alfred claimed before that he would have killed him if stepped foot into Wessex, but he did not, instead he even assured his protection for when he knew he wouldn’t have been alive anymore to protect him.

Now, I feel like Alfred has a sort of codependency when it comes to Uhtred. That man constantly wants him next to him and he almost needs him to be there, the fact itself that in 2x05 Odda mentions that Alfred always says the same thing about Uhtred’s hall in Coccham “every time we visit”, hints at them being there quite ofter and there was only a 3 years time jump between the first and second half of S2, so Uhtred has had those lands for 3 years, probably even less, so… Exactly how many times have you visited this man in 3 years, Alfred? But, whether there's actually an element of codependency or not, there's certainly something that pulls them together, and indeed it is explicitly said that Uhtred and Alfred are “bonded" and that for that fact alone they can't kill each other even when they should.

In 3×09 Alfred points a sword to Uhtred's throat and asks him if he believes he could kill him, and to that Uhtred answers “we are bonded, you cannot kill me just as I cannot kill you”, and it’s really fascinating because there's a parallel between that scene and the scene in 5x07 when Uhtred and Brida are fighting and, when she tells him to kill her, he screams at her that they “are bound as one, killing you would be like killing a part of myself”, and Brida and Uhtred were romantically involved.

My point is that it is for this exact reason that Alfred was never able to look at Uhtred and excute him as he was supposed to do so many times, even the only time it very nearly happened (1x07) he left before he could see it, and whenever Uhtred was hit by Leofric during the fight, if you look specifically at Alfred, it almost seems as if he couldn't breathe, so you know there’s a kind of “without you I would be lost and I wouldn’t be myself anymore” for the both of them, and you can see that especially in the one who had to live further when the other actually died: Uhtred.

Uhtred very much always clings onto a few things and people, but the more he loses those he cares for the most, the more he loses himself. S3 is truly the start of Uhtred’s sort of radical change, indeed the man in SKMD is almost nothing like the man in S1, and what made it possible was that season.

In S3 Uhtred faces many losses: first he loses Gisela, so literally the love of his life (she was and I will die on that hill), second his brother Ragnar, then he loses Alfred, and not even a few days after his sister Thyra dies.

Gisela’s death has started Uhtred’s fall, and since he got cursed and was, very understandbly, in so much pain, everything escalated very quickly.

He killed Godwin to defend Gisela’s honour and he was obviously hurt by what he perceived as Alfred’s disinterest in defending Gisela, as he himself in 3x04 complains about in a very hurt way that Alfred “allowed her to be called a whore” (even though Alfred did try to make Godwin stop, but Uhtred simply couldn’t hear it because he was too enraged), therefore he betrays him and then subsequentially feels absolutely so guilty about it that he arrives to the point where Leofric, as the personification of his conscience, lets us know that he believed he deserved to died because of what he did to Alfred. As soon as the first occasion arises (Aethelflaed is in danger) he immediately leaves, which you can see was already on his mind as soon as Brida suggested him destroying Alfred, thus he abandons his brother. He then finds out that Ragnar died and he thinks it’s his fault because he left him (though there could have probably been little he could have done to prevent it even if he stayed there), then he suddenly meets Alfred again and he sees how much he's hated by him, or so Uhtred believes, so he falls in an even worse emotional state than before. After some time, Beocca asks him to meet Alfred and Uhtred himself wonders “what makes you think he would speak with me?”, which just shows how much he truly thought that Alfred despised him, but he goes to meet him anyway and he speaks to him. For the first time since they have met they are honest to each other and Alfred shows him actual trust and even love in a way, but then Alfred dies not even a week after (probably the day after they talked actually), so even if they were finally at peace with each other, Alfred still died and they had no way to enjoy that tranquility.

Now all of this took a very obvious emotional toll on Uhtred and I believe that Alfred is one of the biggest because he knew that he going to die, and yet, because of Skade's curse as Uhtred believed it to be, he wasted those final years they could have had together. That man meant a lot to Uhtred and in the books there's this quote that always gets me:

I stood beside Alfred’s coffin and thought how life slipped by, and how, for nearly all my life, Alfred had been there like a great landmark.

And that’s so terribly true because, compared to all the deaths before, it is important to notice that Alfred was the one who was there the most, more than Gisela and even more than Ragnar himself, since the latter left for Ireland right before Uhtred became Earl Ragnar’s son. Indeed when Alfred dies you can immediately see a change in demanor in Uhtred, which is striking because compared to many other deaths he went through, Uhtred remains silent in face of many things, for example during Alfred’s funeral he's imprisoned but doesn’t say a word, the only time he utters something is to tell Finan to do nothing. S1 Uhtred would have never reacted in such a way.

Still in prison, you can see that he goes near a very dangerous edge when he finds out that Thyra died, and that edge is finally overstepped in 4x03 with Beocca’s death, and it is from this death onwards that Uhtred is a completely different person. The process started with Gisela's death, culminated with Alfred’s and exploded with Beocca’s.

As I said Uhtred always clings to people and Uhtred has always been sort of in denial for Alfred’s death. He always dismissed the actual possibility of him dying, even when he himself noticed the signs, even when Alfred himself told him that he was about to and yet that man was still there like “Skade preys on men's fears, Lord”, says the man who at that time believed every single word she said. The thing is that I believe Uhtred remained in denial even after Alfred died, because yes he was with his God, but there was a part of Alfred that still lived: his dream.

From Alfred's death onwards, Uhtred works both directly and indirectly for the dream of an England, indeed he actually proves his loyalty to that man more after he died than when he was alive, and that has a lot to do with the fact that it was the last connection he had with him, as in a way it was also for Aelswith if you think about it, but also there was the aspect that, before dying, Alfred entrusted it in his hands and, since Uhtred spent the whole of S3 considering himself a traitor and blaming himself for it, if that man shows you one last trust, a trust you have yearned for your whole life, even more with the thing you know is most precious to him, what do you do? You are willing to do anything you can to make sure that that dream happens, to make sure that you can prove your loyalty, to show that you can keep one last oath to him and make it up for the one you broke.

That is painfully obvious in the film.

In the film Uhtred has made Northumbria an unified place, and it is actually the first time the whole of it is under one single king (even if Uhtred doesn’t call himself that), which was what Alfred has wanted all along, because he knew that the main problem would have been that particular kingdom, so with this action Uhtred has paved the way for the upcoming unification of England.

In 3x09 Alfred told him that his last act as king was to make sure that good men held power and that's one of the main things Uhtred was doing. Uhtred has known Alfred for 28 years of his life, he spent countless times with him, so he knew what Alfred would have wanted and every single decision he took in the film was so obviously made with the thought in mind of Alfred's wishes, and indeed Uhtred held the reins until he knew there was someone fitting to rule, a good man, just as his king would have wanted.

One of the most beautiful things to me is that Uhtred was lord of Bebbanburg at the time, so lord of the fortress he has waited his whole life to get back to, and yet he was mostly and more concerned about Alfred’s dream dying rather than the survival of that. Uhtred was also in a situation where he didn’t want to fight anymore, he didn’t even particularly believed he was still a warrior, and yet as soon as that dream was threatened, he didn’t hesitate once. That man was even forbidden to take part of the battle, since it would have been too dangerous for him, but he didn’t trust anyone else to protect Alfred’s dream and thus Uhtred went and died for it.

That man would have never died if he listened to Aethelstan's commands, but he defied them to not betray the little trust Alfred put in him right before he passed.

When he went back to Bebbanburg he didn’t even allow himself to die until he knew that there was an England out there and that Alfred’s lineage was on the throne of it, and during that scene he says that all he wanted was to be honoured in valhalla for “standing by an oath”, which yes can be interpreted as the oath of protecting Aethelstan, but remember that in S3, in Uhtred's mind, he did the most terrible thing of them all by breaking his oath to Alfred. Making England happen was the only way he could have forgiven himself for it, absolutely striking is the moment when the dream is fulfilled and you can how Uhtred is on the verge of tears and I think that has to do with two main reasons: first, he knew that with that Alfred would have finally known and understood how he could have never have betrayed him, and second, Alfred’s work was finished and there was nothing that kept him alive in his mind anymore.

Uhtred died soon after that so, in my mind, he totally met Alfred again at some point. In the show, for Thyra who was in a situation where she still believed in valhalla but was actually a christian, it was accepted the view of being in both places, therefore it is most likely the same for Uhtred, you know, a whole concept of peace rather than an actual place.

Dying for England is the most obvious declaration of love from Uhtred’s part, but if we want to point out actual words, Uhtred in 3x10 says that Alfred was “a man I loved and despised”, and he even calls him “my king”, which is something Uhtred will never do again for anyone. For the other kings he always just refers to them as “our”, therefore he speaks for his people and not for himself, but for Alfred? Oh, that’s a “my”.

For Alfred the thing was different because the man was a christian with so much guilt inside, it would have been way more difficult for him to say out loud that he loved Uhtred.

I do believe though that he did say it in subtext when he told him that “I should have closed my eyes and rattled at Heaven’s gate some time ago, it was the hope of this meeting that has kept me alive”, which is a lot, considering that the man was suffering like hell because of his illness, and yet he held onto life just for the purpose of seeing Uhtred one last time. It is also very interesting that on his deathbed he asked Uhtred “are you here or is it my sickness?”, because it hints at the possibility of Alfred having hallucinatione of Uhtred in the past when he was ill and WHY WOULD YOU EVER SEE SOME MAN WHEN YOU FEEL UNWELL? AND ESPECIALLY WHY ARE YOU NOT EVEN SURPRISED THAT YOUR MIND COULD HAVE CONJURED UHTRED COMING TO YOUR CHAMBERS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT? There’s only one answer to that:

You are gay for that man and you are in love with him.

They both were.

So anon, the answer to your question is: Yes, I do believe that they had feelings for each other.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk!

[andromeda3116]

What did you think about the serenity film? I thought it was awful. I hated almost everything about it. Going to one of your recent posts about "it's canon, but we ignore it because it's badly written" is kind of how I feel about serenity. All I wanted from a follow up film was a Mal and Inara hook up, and what I got was a bunch of characters that completely lost any character development they underwent in the series.

so this ask is years and years old but i honestly never forgot about it so much as i never really knew how to answer

bc like... if what you were wanting was an answer to the ships, then, yeah, i can see the severe disappointment. absolutely nothing is solved vis á vis mal/inara except bringing them back to the place they left off, but.

what they were trying to do, with serenity, was solve the most pressing question -- i.e. the "wtf is up with river" question -- in two hours and change. every other character detail and aspect had to take second fiddle to that because that, had they had a full series to work with, was supposed to be the plot thread.

so everything else took a backseat. mal/inara, simon/kaylee, everything with shepherd book and his story, any characterization for jayne, anything else about the independent movement, all the rest of the concepts and plot threads -- they got sacrificed for the sake of wrapping up the biggest, most important question of the series.

and i get that! i get that that was what they really had to do with the time that was given to them! and so i forgive some issues by dint of --

well, these are explicitly Extreme Situations. so everyone -- particularly mal -- is acting in Extreme Ways.

actually, upon rewatch -- and knowing the deleted scenes, which i do kinda think are critical to understanding the gravity of the scene -- i actually do like jayne asking mal how many of his soldiers besides zoe came out of serenity valley --

because that was the last time that mal was fighting an ideological war, and everyone else died there.

jayne's point is not to attack mal, exactly, it's to ask how many of us are you going to get killed for your ideals this time?

these are the characters that we love, but pushed beyond the extremes that the original show really showed us. and i get why that would be jarring! because we didn't exactly see that they would go this far! because the show didn't last long enough to set this up!

but that's the nature of a situation where a movie has been made to wrap up a show that got canceled too soon.

so, i appreciate serenity for answering the biggest questions and wrapping things up, but i feel like it shouldn't have been necessary, at the same time that i -- tangential to this ask -- recognize that one of the reasons firefly does survive to this day is because it didn't last long enough for the whedonism to ruin it, but i do still feel like it wasn't really earned, character-wise, and felt jarring because of that. it does feel like they were forced into unnatural situations, because they kind of were, and that it was rushed, because it kind of was, but that was a necessity of the situation.

the characters and the story deserved better, not just from the network -- which was obvious at the time -- but also from the creator. this idea and these characters and this concept all deserved better. they had so much potential to be so amazing, but they weren't given the space to actually pan out, and that sucks.

[ravensandherons]

My The Secret History fancast + thoughts on an adaptation (LONG)

Hey guys just screaming into the void here and brainrotting about The Secret History (a Tumblr rite of passage it seems)--but not exactly for the reasons you'd expect. Anyway, I was watching a video essay on why The Secret History shouldn't get made into a film and I found myself disagreeing with a lot of the points the author made (respectfully). A few of their points: 1. The Secret History couldn't get made today because it uses language that uses too many slurs.

I understand how the use of such offensive language (I believe in the book it was homophobic/racist, and mainly from Bunny Corcoran), even when employed with the relevant context and blatantly disapproved of, can still be harmful to hear. But I also know that there are definitely college students today who (unfortunately) regularly use that language, despite the more politically correct world we live in. I also think that responsible screenwriters would take care to add the appropriate weight to those scenes and ALSO point out the more "liberal" characters' own prejudices evidenced in their dialogue (they definitely have them in the book), as Get Out did. IMO those moments were more sinister than the cringe Bunny scenes.

2. The Secret History as a movie would be romanticized instead of being viewed as the critique/satire that it is.

Sure. I fuck with the dark academia aesthetic as much as any other bitch, but... oh my god it was impossible for me to romanticize anything in this book because it was genuinely triggering to read. I grew up with the study of Greek philosophy and mythology being a big part of my life (don't ask), and I went to a small elite liberal arts college in New England. As a freshman, I remember feeling the way Richard did at the beginning of the novel, caught up in the small intellectual, rich friend groups, the rural New England lifestyle, the college debauchery. But I read this book with a lot more experience under my belt and, boy, you come to see through all these characters REAL quick. These rich kids are so puffed up on their intellectualism that they think they can escape the consequences of their actions--it sounds a lot like nearly every motherfucker I met at my college! And Professor Julian is just an older and more hypocritical version of these students, preaching on and on about morality and haphazardly applying theory to elevate themselves above the "common folk." Donna Tartt really captured the frustrating, out of touch, self-important attitude that runs rampant at these privileged institutions. I wouldn't say that's a difficult thing to translate to film as it's been done before (Succession being one of the most prominent examples). And yes, of course there may be a portion of the audience that may choose to ignore the critique/don't necessarily possess critical thinking skills and you'd end up with an American Psycho situation (re: the glorification of Patrick Bateman), but I believe that also had more to do with the fact that American Psycho's critique was in satire form--the humor gave way to memes that removed context from the story. Meanwhile, The Secret History's less likely to be memed because the satire is not absurdist--it's also really fucking obvious that it is a critique because it's written like a Greek tragedy where none of the characters are redeemable at the end of it. Will it be used for Pinterest boards and Tumblr graphics? Sure, but that doesn't necessarily strip away context--just popularizes an aesthetic. And such a thing serves the theme of the story (the obsession with aesthetics above all, especially during the rise of the 80s hyperconsumer culture) as meta-commentary/transmedia storytelling (that parallels our own generation's obsession with using consumption to form our aesthetics and identity).

3. The cast of The Secret History would be predominantly white because that's how it was in the book and that whiteness is an important aspect of depicting the characters' privilege and ability to navigate the situations they find themselves in.

I agree, yes, a good adaptation of this novel would likely be one that had the students/Julian be white, but that also doesn't necessarily exclude POC representation in yet another movie. I think stories that blatantly criticize rich white people, while trendy at the moment, are important when done correctly (Succession!)--AND there are definitely characters that do not have to be white that I think are plenty important (I think Judy and Cloke could be interesting here given Richard's uncharitable depiction of them as unintellectual drug users. Playing into stereotypes is NOT the goal, I think they are foils to the main group in some sense and also come out of this tragedy more or less untouched) (also, you know, the rich white main group do more illicit substances and crimes than they do which I think adequately reflects reality). Adding more POC characters that might not be inner circle but could also be main characters wouldn't be impossible in an adaptation and might help with the point below--I'm thinking detectives, other students and professors, etc. And depending on whether or not you're updating this for the modern day or keeping it in the 80s, I think there's a lot you can play with if Richard Papen was casted as an Asian American (as one myself, having watched the car crash that was the overturning of affirmative action this summer,,, it just feels like there's a lot you can do with that) (I agree with the essayist that making Richard Papen John Boyega might not do a whole lot for Black representation--it feels like there's a certain amount of setting him up with that fancast).

4. The Secret History wouldn't lend itself well to an adaptation because the novel relies mostly on Donna Tartt's prose than anything that could be translated to a filmic structure.

This point I just do not agree with at ALL. I mean, Tartt's prose is excellent of course, and it is told from Richard's perspective, yeah. But here, I just have to point you to Jean-Marc Valee's Sharp Objects or Big Little Lies, based on books. Both are murder mysteries, both are slow burn with plenty of introspective, quiet moments, both are masterful adaptations. What carried me through the novel wasn't the prose but the growing magnitude of dread that spoils the romance of the whole deal. There are so many layers of intrigue too--the enigmatic Julian, the exclusiveness of the group, what mysterious activities they're up to, why Bunny is acting out, whether he'll rat on them, and THEN--will they get away with the murders, will Charles or anyone else in the group confess, will Henry kill again, on and on. Richard's corruption arc was also super fascinating too me--you start out rooting for this guy and at the end he's just like the rest of them. It would be cool to explore the arcs of the rest of the characters as well, even before their murder anxieties. The point is, there is so much material that, if laid out meticulously enough, would make a film or a tv series a medium to enhance the original story's themes and characters.

And now, for the Tumblr tradition: fancast (extremely self-indulgent and incredibly unrealistic)

Richard Papen - Justin H Min

Bro I loved him in The Umbrella Academy I needed more

Henry Winter - Wilbur Soot

LOL alternatively Jacob Elordi but Wilbur Soot is just stubbornly what my mind visualized as I was reading

Bunny Corcoran - Dacre Montgomery

He has the charming smarmy bastard typecast DOWN

Francis Abernathy - Alex Wolff

I need to see him in more things!!!

Charles Macaulay - Drew Starkey

I think he plays psycho brothers pretty well

Camilla Macaulay - Elle Fanning

I mean Gwyneth Paltrow was 100% the right choice but unfortunately that did not materialize... however Elle Fanning slayed in The Great and she's so underrated as an actress

[shunshuntaiga]

Okay so, thoughts on Half Bad: the Bastard son and the Devil Himself as a book fan.

Mind you, it's been years since I read the books so the details are a little foggy through my goldfish memory. This will contain spoilers.

Overall, enjoyable. It's so different from the source material that it's hard to compare the two properly, because even the characters are different from how they are in the books. I hope they continue into a season 2 because I'd like to see where they take the book two story of Nathan learning to control his powers (please please please, give me the shared trance sequence with Gabriel god yes please)

Nathan:

In the books his mental health is a very important part of the story, he's depressed, he's been abused his whole life, and it affected how he interacted with the world as a whole. In the show he's still the Nathan from the books, but as if he'd grown up happy with no mental health problems.

They really toned down this aspect of the show. Giving him a loving grandmother, and friends, and a life outside of being a blood witch.

It made his relationship with Annalise in the books more dependent on her, because he'd never *had* someone who cared.

BTW Annalise? HATED HER. In the books at least, they really did a 180 on her personality in the show. They made her defend him which I appreciated, because in the books she never once fought for him (at least that I can remember) and he still adored her even when she was actively letting her brother(s) abuse him.

I don't believe her gift was Undoing as well. I think is was akin to mind control of some kind? (As I said, foggy on details. But I noticed they changed A LOT of people's powers for the sake of excitement)

She also didn't join him after his escape in the books. That was all Nathan and Gabriel for the longest time, and she only reappeared when her family wanted her to go manipulate him.

Gabriel:

A difficult one. His personality is so different from the books he's basically a different character all together. I still like him, but I miss my soft spoken boy who was more than willing to sit with Nathan's volatile moods.

I do like how Annalise and Gabriel start out hating each other (they hate each other in the books, Gabriel with good reason to) but the fact that they become friends, united in their love for Nathan is really nice.

Also I don't know how they managed to make a show that feels like I'm being queer baited SO HARD with their relationship, seeing as Nathan distinctly chooses Gabriel in the books, but hats off netflix you've done it.

SPOILER

As much as I like an Ot3, I'm not sure how I feel about the Nathan/Annalise/Gabriel thrupple deal they've got working. It feels like they're going to ignore Annalise's emotional manipulation and betrayal of Nathan because they afraid to make the main character "fully gay" (I know he's bi, but he does fall out of love with Annalise and in love with Gabriel and I'm sentimental about that because it was the first queer MAIN character I had ever seen.)

BIG POTENTIAL SPOILER

I have hope for the show NOT killing Gabriel because in the finale *they did his death sequence*. In the book he gets shot while trying to escape hunters with Nathan, and it's slightly Nathan's fault (due to gifts that I don't remember exactly) and Nathan becomes so depressed by his death that nothing matters to him, even after they win the war, that he becomes a hermit in the wild and eventually, using the transformation powers he inherets from his father, turns into a tree, which is irreversible.

He can't lice without his lover and it's the saddest thing.

SLEEPING OUTSIDE:

Okay, so slightly disappointed they changed this bit, but in the books blood witches are categorized by their fear of being trapped indoors at night time. So they sleep outside in the open air.

I understand they changed this because it would have been more difficult to film and it's unimportant. But CELIA DIDNT JUST PUT HIM OUTSIDE IN A CAGE TO BE NEEDLESSLY CRUEL. Yes. The cage is cruel, they glossed over many details of his actual time in her care because it was honestly awful, but being outside was for his own safety because blood witches trapped indoors at night loose their minds.

I also kind of wish they spent less time focusing on his sister and built up the relationship between Celia and Nathan. Because they had a special, weird bond in the books.

I did enjoy the show as a whole, and if they make more, I will watch more. But yeah, I have a lot of thoughts because I really loved these books when I read them.

[dzpenumbra]

4/4/23

I misread the date of an entry I put on here the other day as "4/4/23". Like... one of those "I could've sworn, clear as day" misreading as you're clicking through windows kinda thing. Welp, lets see if this is going to be a memorable entry or if that was just a weird random moment.

Today I did... very little. And I'm pretty glad. I mean, I worked until 4 in the morning last night. So I gave myself permission to just... chill.

Of course, I went and wrote a 2 page script for my desire path project... You know. Because I was going to "chill"... But honestly, it was a good thing to do. I just decided to stream of consciousness it, like I do here. And it came out pretty damn good.

I listened to this podcast with Dan Carlin a few weeks ago, I really like his Hardcore History series a lot. He had Rick Rubin on, and they were talking about doing audio books and recordings of scripted stuff, and how it's so hard to like... find your voice when you're reading scripted stuff, versus improvising. Which is super true. And I struggled with that a bit today too. It always sounds a bit like I'm reading, like I'm forcing emotions, like I'm a little ahead of what I'm saying or something. But I'm sure, to a listener, they barely notice it at all. Because of that... I'm actually a bit on the fence with this. I decided to let myself just wing it and see what came out, and that usually sounds approximately right, at least like syntax-wise. When I write like this, I emulate my vocal speech, and I've gotten in a really good habit of writing like this... with breath spacing and emphasis and whatnot. So, reading back a script, it's pretty easy to get what I was going for. But... it still feels... forced. I guess. It's not the same, you know?

So I'm tempted to maybe... take down the bulletpoints from each paragraph, the main things I want to hit on, and then just hit record and start talking. I mean, that's how I got the original script, it was literally that process, and now I read it back and I don't see a single problem with it. And that was first try. So... I dunno...

So yeah, with the video itself, honestly... I'm not really sure what I'm going to do for B-roll. I might go to one of the local college campuses and find an actual desire path in the wild and film there. And also go to a nearby park and film a real walk in the woods. It's a good start at least. I can see clips in my head, but I keep envisioning it much more complex than I think I can pull off reasonably.

I'm gonna level here. It's me being intimidated by the concept of not using footage or stills grabbed from the internet. It's the concept of having to produce all the footage and graphics myself. Alone. I mean, if I had a friend to help out with filming, or even to go with me, this could be a fun day. And it still might. But yeah, that's where my whole social deprivation thing sneaks its fingers in and starts torturing me. "This would be such a fun thing to do with other people". That even snuck its way into my script! It's how the thing fucking closed!

"In my head, I picture this project… but with… 10 shrines.  50.  100.  And all the connections between them, walked and pathed by dozens of people.  Each with their own stories and experiences, each with their own unique imprints on the environment.  That's a colossal undertaking that I currently lack the resources and technology for… but one that I would love to take on some day.  I think the end result would be stunningly beautiful."

I swear, this hunger for social contact just pervades every aspect of my life. It corrupts things, it ruins things. But it's like... as important as eating and sleeping, so like... how can you ignore it? It makes so many small things in my life into such huge factors. It ramps up the intensity of every minor social interaction by like... several orders of magnitude. It makes everyday social interactions like making eye contact in the hallway and nodding your head into like... giant major life decisions. They legit feel that way when you haven't seen a human face in over a week. I mean that.

Ooooo story time. This was the first time I experienced --- okay, I'm stopping myself, it's definitely not my first time experiencing social isolation, that was probably freshman year of college... and I had a roommate... (figure that shit out)... --- let's say... extreme social isolation. That sounds more like I'm talking about a bag of Doritos or something. Cool. I was... wow, I can actually timeline this pretty accurately... so my relationship with my ex from college ended around... 2010? The summer after we graduated college. It took me about 4 years to be ready to date again. Because that's what it's like to be me. So, I think it's safe to say that this hike was in 2014. I had finally decided to go on a date with someone that I met on a dating site, she was from the Midwest and was doing god knows what out here. She was renting an apartment at a ski resort during the off-season, in summer. It was not a good match, let's just put it that way. I had been planning my thru-hike of a section of a major trail nearby for a while. That summer, I had been training rigorously, because... I hike barefoot. Building up to the trip itself, a few weeks before, I was working my way up to 6-8 miles a day, every day. It ended up being a good pace. I remember this girl because she was supposed to drop me off at the trailhead, and she fucking ditched... by breaking up with me. That day. Yeah. Super sweet sendoff. So, my mom dropped me off.

I got a shit ton of Clif Bars and granola and shit, I had my big army surplus rucksack with zero back support, I don't even think it had a chest strap. Oh my god, I remember, it didn't and I had to... XD... I would take my shirt off and tie it between the straps to distribute the weight across my chest! This was before I got my dog, man... So yeah, that was like... my first time in complete isolation. Night one, after about... an online calculator is saying about 9 miles... I made camp for the first time. I was on the top of a mountain, basically. I made camp late, I was expecting to make it to an actual shelter, but I was about a mile shy when it started getting dark. I found a clearing, and while scavenging in the low light for some kind of wood... I found tons of fresh moose droppings. All over the place. And it was like... August, I think? Fuckin spooked me real bad. I kept hearing shit moving out in the woods, ugh.

I remember waking up that morning at dawn after sleeping pretty crappy and looking around and just seeing fog in all directions. I was literally inside a cloud. It was cold and wet and I just hoofed it to the shelter nearby to get water. God, I can feel the cold wet rocks under my feet just memory-flashing back there, good lord.

My hike ended up being 3 days total, about 25 miles. At the time, it was probably the longest I had been in complete isolation, and I had seen a decent amount of people in passing. I think what really made that another level though... compared to like... my isolation the past few years? Was the fact that I had zero entertainment, zero distractions. It was just me... and my head... and the ground under my feet... and the weight of my pack... and the sweat... all day long. And honestly, I could take it. It wasn't that bad. That said, I was on benzos at that point, pretty sure... so... grain of salt. XD

I ended up tapping out after a big series of mountains. I had my friends (at the time) come and pick me up, cashing in my one phone call I was allowing myself to bring a phone for. My ankles were giving out. After all of that, it wasn't even my feet burning out that made my hike end... it was my ankles. Probably the weight, honestly. Because I trained hiking distance, but not with weight really, not that much weight at least.

So I guess the reason I'm telling this story was... when I met them... It was insanely overwhelming. Every time I met a person on the trail it was insanely overwhelming. And what I noticed with that... that "cabin fever" kind of effect... is that it tends to off-put others as well? I can be much more animated and intense, I guess? I'm sure if you've ever encountered someone coming out of extreme isolation, you probably know what I'm talking about. Like dangling a steak in front of a starving dog or something. That kind of intensity. It freaks people out. And that... I really don't like making people feel that way. At all. I don't like having that effect. So... the combination of those factors: 1) lack of recent social experience adding anxiety, 2) overwhelming sensory experience, 3) them being freaked out by my intensity, 4) my insecurity about being intense... That's a 4x combo, that's a lot of shitty factors all swirling around. And every single one of those factors are natural effects that take a very conscious effort to override. And I have no choice but to go and expose myself to them. The longer I am away from people, the longer I put it off, the more intense it gets! It's like a goddamn chinese finger trap! Ugh.

So yeah, isolation and exile really fuck with people. That's a big part of why the WHO was very explicitly telling people "You need to check in on people who might be isolated, it's very important." Motherfuckers have no idea how serious that shit is. And I want to say this outright - I have tons of experience being isolated. From a very young age, too. So... I have a huge natural advantage to be able to tolerate this more than others. Most people crack much sooner, from what I've observed, so like... this really isn't anything to fuck around with. Just, for the record, I guess.

So like... yeah. It's not surprising that me saying "other people" keeps sneaking its way into my projects and whatnot. It would make my life so much easier. Like, think of it this way. I just did that path project where I did 100 runs from one location to another. By myself. Screenshotted it, by myself. Drew the paths, by myself. Exported 101 images one-by-one, by myself. Redrew them by hand one by one, by myself. Edited, smoothed the strokes and finetuned each one of the 100, one by one, by myself. How much more do you think I would have gotten done in the same amount of time if I had... one person helping me with one part of that? XD

It constantly feels just out of reach.

I just... don't know how to reach out to people. Like... I don't know where, or how. I know what to say, kinda, I can fumble through it, but I don't know to whom, and in what forum. Post on Instagram? I haven't posted there since October. No one who follows there would be interested in working with me, I guarantee it. I mean that. I would put money on it.

So... my recent goal has been to find an artist community. Where I can meet and socialize with other artists locally. Maybe not even to get help with projects, maybe just to have someone to fucking talk to who is even remotely like me. I think it would be good, if I can find one. It feels like most groups are like... focused towards exclusively women or LGBTQ or something, and I haven't really found a group that I think would be welcoming towards me, honestly.

So yeah, I went on a huge-ass tangent there... XD Story-time tends to do that...

I started prepping the hoodie for the natal chart addition, I should be good to start adding in outline sections for that tomorrow. I chilled and watched MrMoon tonight and had a good time. Kinda just hung up my hat and watched the stream. And there was someone in chat raging about a running joke in stream - a reference to the movie "Donnie Darko", which was one of my favorite movies growing up, from the character Cherita Chen. She would say "chut up", which was like... her catch phrase. And the reference to that film and all the associations with that type of film, the reference to the line and the tone and image... like... it's a clear reference, an inside joke for people who have seen the movie, and someone is teasing the streamer, and he says "chut up", and they get it.

And this dude came in hot. And started making accusations of fucking racism, and saying "I'm Asian, this is offensive, someone needs to take a stand against this!" And... I started to notice that like... okay, there were over 1300 viewers. Like... no one was responding to him. They were just ignoring him. They were watching the fucking show! XD And this guy actually goes to the lengths of writing a paragraph and highlighting it in chat, tagging the streamer and everything. And I'm saying this right now, I was looking around like... "where are the fucking mods?" This guy is like... in someone's chat... screaming outrage about a long-standing inside joke in the stream. It's like straight-up heckling, I remember people used to get fucking escorted out by security for doing that shit. Like... just leave. If you don't like the humor? Just leave! Just literally click any other link. Let Twitch investigate this guy if you truly, honestly think he's indoctrinating a new anti-Asian hate group or whatever weird accusation you're extrapolating from a movie reference. Good lord, man.

The funny thing? I remember teasing my ex a bit because sometimes she would mix up sh and ch? Very subtly, very rarely. Residual from being raised in a family that was half Latvian, half Brazilian. And I mean... both immigrants half/half. So... I don't remember which parent that accent slip came from, but I would strongly wager it was the South American mother. But neither of them were Asian! So it's not like you could even really say it was specifically done to be derogatory or "hateful" towards Asian people, it's not even a trait specific to Asians. And, the most important part of all, there is absolutely nothing "hateful" about a retrospective, nostalgic callback to a memorable character. It's literally honoring that character, bringing it back into the social conversation. You think you're doing that character a favor by hiding her? Burying her in obscurity? Because you want to take offense to someone mimicking and referencing a fictional character? And react to it by literally saying "it's basically like using a slur." You're just picking a fight, man. For real. Making a joke that has nothing to do with anyone's race... is not hateful. Pouncing on someone and accusing them of being a racist? That is 100% hateful. 100% fueled by hate, and a thirst for some form of "vengeance" or "justice".

Like... that character, Cherita, was a really brave portrayal of an actual severely bullied kid... It really broke the mold of how Hollywood would shy away from actually showing what real bullying looked like, and what actual emotionally scarred people looked like and acted like in a highschool setting. It was a big step forward for entertainment. And this motherfucker thinks that character was an "Asian stereotype"? Because she had a bit of an accent or something? Way to cheapen the character, dude.

Ugh, it just threw off the whole vibe of a really tense situation in RP. I wish I didn't get so affected by stuff like this. But I mean it, witch-hunting and hateful accusations... they really deeply upset me. Really really bad shit has come from those things historically. Really bad shit. And it's like I feel all the ripples from the past when stuff like that happens. When I see and feel that kind of energy coming out. Retribution, justice, vengeance, righteousness. It just upsets me. So I guess I had to get that out.

But yeah, the day was good. Low key, chill, and good. I don't know if the salt crystal is going to work, but I put one of the seed crystals into a plastic milk jug lid with some solution and... we'll give it about a week and see what comes of it. Who knows, worth a try.

I also decided to join this streamer's Discord, so... I have some kind of social group that's relevant to my current interests there. I really should find an art Discord that I can socialize in somewhere. I just... have no idea where to even start looking, honestly.

Bed time.

[mprosperossprite]

This post contains discussion of racism, misogyny, and intersection of these ideas in the TOG fandom.

Though the conversation around the racist tropes sometimes employed in depicting Joe is valuable and important, I do not have anything productive to add to that particular conversation. Instead, this post aims to examine the ways in which Nile has largely been overlooked by fan created content for The Old Guard and suggest ways in which each of us as individuals might make this fandom a more inclusive place.

One last preamble: I’m an white woman. I am speaking here from a place of ally-ship. And I am still learning how to best be an anti-racist ally in all elements of my life. This post is coming from the best of my knowledge at the moment, hoping that maybe it’ll make a difference to somebody.

Alright.

I want to begin with a story: a couple of weeks ago in the Book of Nile group chat one of our members noticed that the stories and AU’s and ideas we were constructing for each other the previous week had focused on Booker, had given Booker the extensive backstories, had articulated Booker’s complexity more thoroughly. She posted that she had noticed this along with a note along the lines of “we can’t do better if we don’t recognize the patterns.”

So here’s a pattern that I’ve noticed that is particularly disheartening to me: Nile Freeman, a black woman and the main character of The Old Guard, has the least amount of fanworks created about her.

On AO3 she has the fewest tagged fics. On tumblr, there is much less fan art created for her. In discord servers, Nile is rarely mentioned.

This fandom has become dominated by Joe and Nicky.

I do not mean to discount Joe and Nicky. Their depiction in an action movie is groundbreaking queer representation. They are fascinating individuals and fascinating in how they make their work partnership, romantic and sexual relationship flourish for an unimaginable length of time. Their story touches on themes that have long excited storytellers: the power of love above all, fate’s matches and soulmates.

Nevertheless, the way this fandom has diminished and ignored Nile Freeman is a collective act of misogynoir. All of us are complicit.

Racism is structural. Misogyny is structural. It is no one person’s fault. It is no individual’s moral failing. None of us can single-handedly fix it.

Nile’s erasure from the TOG fandom is nobody’s fault. As the opening anecdote illustrates, even those of us who actively seek out fan communities focused on her are guilty of backburnering Nile to a white man.

But, my experience working in one of the most racist systems in the US has helped me learn that though I can’t individually end racism and misogyny (and other structural inequalities), I can be aware of how my actions might reinforce these structures, and I can make deliberate choices to make my own actions as anti-racist and as feminist as possible.

So, TOG fans who are reading this, I ask you to pay attention to the content you’re creating and consuming in this fandom.

How many stories have you read or written recently that have included Nile as a full, complex character in her own right (and not a catalyst or ancillary support for Joe or Nicky or Booker)?

How much fan-art with Nile has crossed your dash recently? What percentage of it is just Nile reacting to Joe and Nicky?

How many conversations have you had in group chats and discord servers that examine Nile’s backstory, her journey in the film, her future with a fragmented and hurting Old Guard?

How many headcanons have you crafted about Nile’s role in the guard’s little family, about the way her principles and desires might reinforce the others’ views or change them?

Furthermore, I hope that as you do this, you’ll notice the reasons that you haven’t seen or engaged with content about the film’s main character. I urge you to push beyond superficial explanations.

I just like the romance aspect of Joe and Nicky. Okay, but who’s to say Nile can’t have romance too? Booker, Andy, Quynh, heck, even reincarnated Lykon or OC’s or characters from other franchises, are all available to appreciate and love on Nile Freeman.

I usually just have one ship in a fandom. Okay, but what about fic celebrating the joys of an intercultural found family or fic delving into Nile being a badass millennial warrior? Those and others are all stories that are interesting and exciting too!

I just love that Joe and Nicky are canonically queer. Absolutely! Me too! But this isn’t a reason to shun or ignore a character whose heart and intelligence and courage drives the plot of a movie we all claim to love.

And then, once you’ve paid attention, I urge you to make a change, to work against the misogynoir in our fandom. Even small things make a difference.

Reblog just one piece of content where Nile is the focus each time you log into tumblr

Read a fic once a week in which Joe and Nicky aren’t the primary characters

Write a subplot in your current fic which explores an element of Nile’s character

When I said we can all do better, I meant it. I’m not excluded from responsibility. In case you're curious how I’m taking my own advice, here’s my plan:

I’ve been bad about reblogging anything lately, considering reblogs are the lifeblood of tumblr. I’m going to seek out some of the Nile fanart I’ve skimmed over recently and queue it up. This blog is gonna have more Nile than it even did before.

I’m going to keep writing Book of Nile and Joe/Nicky, but I also want to consider Nile’s relationship with Andy and Quynh if it was sexual and romantic and fabulously queer and polyamorous. Gotta finish my current long-fic first, but then there are some fic ideas percolating I hope to get down on paper this summer.

I’m going to seek out Andy/Nile and Andy/Quynh fic on AO3. I haven’t read very much of either of these ships and I want to see more of what these authors have to offer. (If y’all have recs, hit me up!)

So to conclude, we can’t do better if we don’t recognize the patterns. I hope you’ll join me in consciously thinking about whose narratives with the TOG universe are being prioritized and whose narratives are being ignored. I hope you’ll join me in taking action, as small as they might be, to lift up those narratives that have been overlooked due to racism and misogyny that, again, is nobody’s fault but is everyone’s responsibility.

Finally, if you’ve made it to this point, thank you for your time and attention. What we pay attention to matters, and I’m grateful that you decided to pay attention to this.

[hellsbellschime]

Why Jaime Lannister's GoT Ending Was Actually Bad

Nearly every aspect of the end of Game of Thrones earned ire from the majority of the show and book fandom, but one aspect of the show's conclusion that seems to have frustrated fans across the board was the ending for Jaime Lannister. More specifically, that after a seemingly solid and nearly complete redemption arc, he returned to Cersei and King's Landing to die in a manner that somewhat works as a metaphor but didn't resonate well with the audience at all. And, while Jaime's ending was a flop, it didn't fail for the reasons that many viewers seem to think that it did.

The Lannisters are obviously some of the most complex and important characters in A Song of Ice and Fire, but one of the most interesting aspects of their family dynamic is that it was established far before the contemporary storyline actually began. And, while Game of Thrones seemed to paint it as if Cersei was a source of toxicity that Tyrion and Jaime couldn't get out from under the thumb of, the truth is that the bad apple that spoiled the bunch was never Cersei, it was always Tywin.

One of the most meaningful and important themes of George RR Martin's work is the long-term effects that abuse has on children, and there isn't really any example that is more present and potent than the horrific effects that Tywin's abuse had on all of his children, and how it affected them in different ways.

Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion all have some of the most intriguing points of view in the entire story. And one aspect that all of their POVs seem to share in common is that while nearly everyone in their world perceives them as a villain, they all see themselves as victims. And the truth is, both sides of this coin are correct.

Yes, the Lannister children have done many horrific, irredeemable things in their lives, but they have also been the victims of extremely traumatic abuse that understandably altered their outlook on the world and on themselves in general. There is a balance between victim and perpetrator that needs to be struck with their characters, but one of Game of Thrones' bigger flaws was its inability to do that.

Unsurprisingly, nearly every character's book point of view grants themselves more sympathy than they should. Almost everyone sees themselves as a better person than they are or is capable of rationalizing away their bad deeds and focusing on their more positive decisions and personality traits. But this is of course one of the many ways in which George RR Martin utilizes his POV traps.

Translating a story that is told through the eyes of the characters themselves and filming it from a more objective third-person perspective means that plenty of important information is going to be lost in that translation. But one of the fatal flaws when it comes to the Lannisters is that, while Game of Thrones does still present Cersei as pretty forthrightly villainous, the narrative pretty drastically whitewashes Tyrion and Jaime. Essentially, it seems to take Tyrion and Jaime at their point-of-view word and treats them like they're much better people than they truly are. Thus, Jaime's ignominious end with the supposed biggest baddie of them all feels like a betrayal of his character development when it really shouldn't be.

Every character needs to be held responsible for their own choices, but the downfall of House Lannister really does rest in the hands of Tywin, and Game of Thrones ignoring that fact did a disservice to every one of the Lannister children in one way or another.

Yes, out of all of the Lannisters, Jaime was as close as Tywin could get to the golden child of his dreams, but it's easy to overlook that while Jaime may have been the favorite on the surface, every single one of Tywin's children was disgustingly mistreated, and the effects of his abuse all showed themselves in different malignant ways.

While Jaime may have gotten preferential treatment over his siblings, Tywin was never anything other than a terrible parent, and more importantly, Jaime's superior treatment only told him exactly how he could expect to be treated if he ever failed to live up to his father's high ideals. And of course, in many big and small ways, he did ultimately fail to live up to Tywin Lannister's exacting standards.

Tywin was a terrible parent because he was an abuser, but he also raised his children with his own values of pride, entitlement, and superiority. Obviously, the notion that they were simultaneously failures who had earned their own mistreatment but were also Lannisters who deserved to be above everyone else is opposing perspectives that are in constant conflict with one another, but it also seems to be how Cersei, Jaime, and Tyrion see themselves as constant victims while still perennially victimizing others.

George RR Martin has repeatedly discussed that one of the strongest themes of his work is the idea of the human heart in conflict with itself. Game of Thrones lost the plot with this in nearly every character adaptation, but Jaime's was one of the worst, largely because he is a character who has done some of the most monstrous and most heroic things in the story. He is both the man who doesn't hesitate to murder a child and the man who stopped a king from slaughtering thousands, and therefore his inner conflict is extremely vital.

Jaime's character arc in Game of Thrones follows a classic redemption arc almost perfectly, but that clearly doesn't seem to be the intent behind the character in the books. Yes, there is a part of Jaime that wants to be redeemed, but he does often revert back to his more brutal and nihilistic side, and his desire for so-called redemption seems to be driven more by how he wants the world to see him rather than how he wants to be.

And in that sense, the show did him a great disservice. Because there are many ways in which Jaime hasn't healed from Tywin's abuse, but the fact that he still seeks the approval of others in a rather superficial manner rather than developing a deeper understanding of true honor and justice is one of the clearest indications that, while Jaime does want to get out of the path that his father laid out for him, he is still crippled by what Tywin told him being a Lannister meant. And ironically, Tywin's belief about what being a Lannister means has essentially trapped all of his children into trying and failing to live up to that example simply because they can't survive unless they do.

Because ultimately, it's not necessarily just about what Jaime, or Cersei, or Tyrion wants. At some point, every single one of them has made obvious indications that they don't want to be a part of the legacy that Tywin Lannister laid out for them. But, when Game of Thrones presented Tywin as a super-intelligent master strategist instead of a completely unnecessarily violent and aggressive asshole, it made all of the Lannister children's choices harder to understand.

Both in the A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones fandoms, Tywin is typically put up on a pedestal, and that's completely baffling. Many viewers and readers perceive him to be brilliant and badass, but everything that Tywin is famous for actually makes him seem like a complete moron upon further contemplation. Winning battles by absolutely obliterating your enemies is a terrible precedent to set for many reasons, but one of the biggest is that it essentially requires all of the Lannister children to maintain this scorched earth policy because Tywin's hyper-aggressive superiority complex has put them in a position where they almost always have to choose to kill or be killed.

And, his cruel and dishonorable behavior as well as Jaime's reputation as the Kingslayer essentially guarantees that even if Jaime completely changes as a person and becomes the hero he wants to be, he really can't ever become that in the society that he lives in simply because the stigma around the Lannisters is something he can't escape.

That is one of the great tragedies that Game of Thrones failed to articulate, and that is one of the biggest reasons why Jaime's character conclusion was so off-putting to the audience. Because the audience saw the result of where this character arc would naturally go, but the story never actually took the steps to get there. In fact, the show went out of its way to erase a lot of the obvious building blocks that are leading up to both Cersei and Jaime's demise that makes it clear that, while they're obviously responsible for their own choices and actions, the groundwork that Tywin's abuse and cruelty laid and set in stone was something that they couldn't control, prevent, or undo.

Game of Thrones largely presented Jaime's characterization with the implication that if he could only escape Cersei, he would be a good man. But the reality was, if only Tywin hadn't been his father, then all of his siblings would have been better people. They may not have been good, but they almost certainly wouldn't be the kingdom-destroying villains that they became.

I also think the TV series likely bungled his character in that his story is meant to be a subversion of the classic redemption arc rather than the straightforward bad guy to good guy story that Game of Thrones told. George RR Martin obviously doesn't like flawless characters, and nearly every person in A Song of Ice and Fire does good things and bad things all the time, they never go in a straight line from point A to point B. So, of course it was going to be incredibly jarring when the show did move Jaime in a straight line from point A to point B and then abruptly gave him an ending that is probably somewhat similar to his end in the books.

But with that in mind, for all of the faults in Game of Thrones and the way they handled Jaime's character arc, I don't really understand the idea that his character was ruined by his ending either. These characters are clearly designed to never be just one thing, and if Jaime killing King Aerys or trying to kill Bran doesn't singularly define his character, then going back to Cersei in the very end shouldn't either.

[jamlavender]

Gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss: Mrs Coulter, misogyny and the His Dark Materials TV show

The show went hard on misogyny as a vital part of Mrs Coulter’s backstory, and I want to talk about how they did it, and why, and how it might have been done better. This is quite long (when is anything I write not, let’s be real) so it’s under the cut. Read on for thoughts on women, power and fictional villainy.

As a quick disclaimer, though: I’ve enjoyed the show a lot! I’m so glad they made it! Ruth Wilson is mesmerising as Mrs Coulter! There’s so much to appreciate about the show overall, including many aspects of Mrs Coulter’s portrayal. But the HDM team have also made gender politics and misogyny very explicit themes of the show – particularly season two, particularly season two, episode five – and I think it’s fair to critique that.

Let’s be clear: Mrs Coulter is a villain. She murders kids by tearing out their souls. She kills and tortures friends and foes alike without a second thought. She abuses her daughter. She upholds and advances a totalitarian regime. She’s a Bad Person, as confirmed by God himself with the unforgettable line: “You are a cesspit of moral filth.” She’s fucking terrible, but, in life as in art, many of us are fascinated by how such awful people are made. What drives someone to commit atrocities? I am keen to see such questions examined in fiction, because I don’t think exploring a character necessarily means excusing their actions, and because it’s interesting (I mean, of course I find her fascinating, I’ve written a novel’s worth of fic about her). However, after a few snarky comments (“What sort of woman raised Father Graves, do you think?”) and some subtler commentary on sexuality, gender and power (her unsettling MacPhail with the key in the bra in S1E2), S2E5 drew a weird line between sexism in Mrs Coulter’s professional and academic life and her vast and senseless institutionalised child murder, and the longer I’ve sat with that the more I’m like: what the fuck?

Look, Mrs Coulter doesn’t tear apart children to search for sin inside them and poison Boreal and break a witch’s fingers because she’s experienced sexism in the workplace and in her education. That’s… a very odd thing to imply. We have to remember that there are lots of women in Lyra’s world, all of whom will also have experienced sexism, misogyny and other forms of marginalisation (many in more expansive and pernicious ways than Mrs Coulter, who’s a woman, yes, but also white, wealthy, highly educated and very thin and beautiful), and none of them are running arctic torture stations. She will have experienced misogyny, absolutely, and that will have affected her in various ways that inform how she approaches her work, but to imply that being denied a doctorate is the reason she became a sadistic killer is frankly bizarre. Here are a few of the lines from that episode with my commentary:

“Do you know who I could have been in this world?” What does this mean? If she’d been roughly the same person in our world, the answer is: Margaret Thatcher, which is probably a step down for Marisa, all things considered, because the Magisterium is far more autocratic than any recent Tory government and would be a much easier institutional environment in which to enact her cruelty. What we’re supposed to think, clearly, is that she’d have been a different person: a scientist and a mother, and she’s had this realisation because she saw a woman with a baby and a laptop and had a three-minute conversation with Mary. This doesn’t make sense. We live in our world! It’s less repressive than Lyra’s world but it’s hardly a gender utopia. If Mrs Coulter had chosen the scientist-and-mother life (which, as I’ll revisit later, she could have done in her world but chose not to because of her megalomaniac tendencies), she’d still have been affected by misogyny here too. Our world is not kind to young mothers, nor young women embroiled in scandals, nor is the world teeming with female physicists. It might be a little better, sure, but it’s hardly as if those gendered challenges would have been solved.  

“What do you mean she runs a department?” This is just the show forgetting its own canon. Marisa, you ran a massive government organisation (the GOB), including a huge murder science research initiative in the Arctic. That’s a much bigger undertaking and much more impressive than running a university department in our world. Pull yourself together.

“But because I was a woman, I was denied a doctorate by the Magisterium.” This is the show flagrantly ignoring the source material to make a clumsy political point. In the books, there are women with doctorates (notably Hannah Relf, also a major player in the new Book of Dust trilogy) and at least one women’s college full of female scholars. Now, would that women’s college likely be underfunded and disrespected compared to the men’s colleges? Almost certainly. But saying that is different than saying “I couldn’t get my doctorate!” when women in Lyra’s world can. The show knew what point they wanted to make, and were willing to ignore canon to do so, which is frustrating. Also, given that there are female academics and scientists in Lyra’s world, and that Mrs Coulter is a member of St Sophia’s college, it’s clear that she could have lived that life if she so desired. But she didn’t want that, because being a scientist and academic at St Sophia’s imbues her with no real power, and that’s what she craves.

I’m not opposed, in theory, to exploring Mrs Coulter and misogyny in more depth, but I think doing so through an examination of the sexual politics of her life would have made a lot more narrative sense and been much more powerful. It’s better evidenced in the text – her using her sexuality to manipulate people and taking lovers for political sway is entirely canon, as is her backstory where genuine love and lust blew up her life – and it links much more closely with the most shocking of her villainy, which involves cutting out children’s dæmons to stop them developing “troublesome thoughts and feelings,” referencing sexual and romantic desire (and what Lyra and Will do to save Dust is clearly a big ‘fuck you’ to those aims). She even says this to MacPhail in TAS, “If you thought for one moment that I would release my daughter into the care - the care! - of a body of men with a feverish obsession with sexuality, men with dirty fingernails, reeking of ancient sweat, men whose furtive imaginations would crawl over her body like cockroaches - if you thought I would expose my child to that, my Lord President, you are more stupid than you take me for.” Don’t get me wrong, she’d have been a villain regardless, but I do believe that there’s a much stronger link between her sexual and romantic experiences and her murder work than between professional and academic stifling and child murder. It would have been a lot more interesting and a lot less tenuous.

However, the show is trying to be family-friendly, and digging into why this terrible, cruel woman might want to cut the ability for desire and love (and other non-sexual adult feelings, I’m sure) out of people could get dark. We know that the show doesn’t want to go there, because they’ve actively toned down her weaponising her sexuality: in the books, she has an established sexual relationship with Boreal, whereas the show made it seem like she’s been stringing him along all this time, and made it about potentially ‘sharing a life’ together rather than fucking, which was clearly the arrangement in the books. Also, I think Ruth Wilson said she and Ariyon Bakare filmed a “steamy scene” together, and given that only a single chaste kiss between them aired it must have been cut. I think they deliberately minimised the sexual elements of the text, particularly regarding Mrs Coulter (the mountain scene with Asriel, which I did still love, was also a lot less horny than in the book) and replaced that with another gender issue, that of professional sexism, as if the two are interchangeable, which they are not. This is a shame, both for Mrs Coulter’s character and also for the story as a whole, because the characters’ relationships with sex and desire are an important part of the books! (If this minimised sexuality approach means that they don’t use the TAS scene where Asriel threatens to gag her and she tries to goad him into doing it, I’ll scream). Overall, I think they missed the mark here, which is a shame because I also think it could have been done well, if they’d been bolder and darker and more thoughtful.

Why might this happen? Why might the show take this approach? Why might it be latched onto by viewers? Personally, I think the conversations we have about women and power are very simplistic, which leaves us in a tight spot when we see women seizing power for themselves (even in fiction) and weaponising that against others, not just other women but people of all genders, because we struggle to move past ‘women have overall been denied power, so them taking it ‘back’ is good,’ even if that immediately becomes a hot mess of white, corporate feminism and results in the ongoing oppression of many people. I think we are so hungry for representations of powerful women that we – producers and viewers alike – struggle to see them as bad, because it’s uncomfortable to be so intoxicated by Mrs Coulter effortlessly dominating the men around her, subverting systems designed to marginalise her for her own benefit, and generally being aggressive and intelligent and ruthless, and then realise that you are entranced by someone who is, objectively, a terrible, terrible person. It can be hard to realise that if you channelled the energy of someone who mesmerises you, you’d be the villain. So instead of sitting with that (more on this below), a lot of legwork goes into reworking her villainy into, somehow, a just act, a result of oppression, as her taking back power that has been denied to her, rather than grappling with the fact that for anyone to desire power in such a merciless way, even if they have to overcome marginalisation to get it, is really, really dangerous.

The joy, of course, is that Mrs Coulter is not real! She’s not real! Adoring fictional characters does not mean condoning their (imaginary) decisions, nor do stories exist for each person in them to fit neatly into a good or bad box so you know who you’re allowed to love. Furthermore, fiction can be a fabulous tool for exploring and interrogating the parts of yourself that, if left to bloom unexamined, might perpetuate beliefs or behaviour that cause harm to others. Mrs Coulter doesn’t need to be a feminist or taking down the patriarchy or a righteous powerful woman to illuminate things about gender, power and feminism for those reading and watching. In fact, it’s important that we explore what happens when women (most commonly white, wealthy women, as she is) continue to perpetuate brutal systems under the guise of sticking it to ‘men,’ because it happens all the time in the real world, and it’s a serious issue. Finding characters like Mrs Coulter so cool and compelling doesn’t make you a bad person, but it might tell you something about yourself – not that you want to be a villain or kill kids or whatever, but something about how you relate to your gender or women or men or power – and that knowledge can be useful! We all have better and worse impulses, and finding art that helps us make sense of ourselves, both the good and bad parts, is a gift that we should relish.

Anyway, tl;dr, Mrs Coulter doesn’t need to be sympathetic or understandable or redeemable to be brilliant – but you wouldn’t know that from how she’s been portrayed in the new adaptation.

[the-fae-folk]

What is a Fairy?

I suppose they probably need some explanation, especially nowadays. Fairies (Faeries, Fay, Fey, Fae, or even Fair Folk) could be considered a type of mythical being. Some have described them as spirits, others as ghosts of the deceased, some deified ancestors, prehistoric precursors to humans, personifications of nature, pagan deities, or even angels and demons in the way of Christian traditions. Often they encompass a metaphysical aspect, being depicted as spirits or beings who transcend the physical universe and world that we know. Or given features of the Supernatural, such as magic or extrasensory perception, which allow them to violate or go beyond the laws of nature. Even sometimes Preternatural, which something abnormal or strange and explainable but still within the boundaries of the natural laws of the universe (for example I could say someone is a preternaturally good cellist, and mean that they are impossibly good beyond expectations or even belief, but I’m not saying that they are actually magical...just that their apparent abilities and how they gained them are unknown and very strange to me.) But what is a fairy? Well you already know what some of them look like. Many people might immediately picture Tinkerbell from the animated Disney feature film, or even from the original Peter Pan novel by J. M. Barrie. And they would be correct, in part. Tinkerbell is a depiction of a Pixie, a specific type of fairy. But there are lots of fairy types, I don’t actually think there’s a complete list. (I should probably try to make one at some point, but no promises.) During some points in history the label of fairy was used to mean magical beings who had a mostly human shape. Gnomes, leprechauns, goblins, pixies, dwarfs, elfs, etc etc etc. And at other points it also included non humanoid magical creatures such as Unicorns, Dragons, Kelpie, Basilisk, and more (Sometimes these were referred to as Fairy Creatures). So where did they come from? Well the funny thing is that Fairies don’t actually come from only one area or set of myths. They are a strange combination of the folklore from all over Europe (and possibly beyond) and include ideas and stories from Celtic, Scandinavian, Nordic, Germanic, French, and English Folklore and Mythology. As these stories were passed around and intermingled and changed they brought about the collective creatures we know today as the Fae or Fairies. The Renaissance, Romantic Era, Victorian Era, Edwardian Era, and even the Celtic Revival Movement of the 19th and 20th centuries all had their influences on the stories and ideas connected with the Fairy folk, some significantly less helpful than others. Even the Fantasy Literature Genre, with Tolkien at its forefront, has added and changed much about people’s view on these creatures. So lets talk about some basic things you’ll want to know when dealing with Fairies. The first thing you might want to remember is that many people view the Tuatha Dé Danann (Supernatural gods, goddesses, heroes, and kings of Irish Mythology) as being the source for Faeries, or at least one of the strongest influences. Celtic Folklore and culture is easily one of the most visible bits of Faerie lore that you can find these days, but there’s a lot more that starts showing up when you begin to dig. Another thing to note is that the Renaissance, Romantic Era, Victorian Era, Edwardian Era, and the Celtic Revival Movement had a massive influence on how people saw fairies. They would mix folklore from different areas of Europe, attempted to prove the existence of fairies through scientific means, created artistic depictions of fairies, and much more. Often they sanitized and shrunk the fairies until they were mostly harmless or relegated to the outskirts of human life as a curiosity. Which brings me to the next point. In a lot of older folklore, from all over Europe, fairy beings are often depicted as being incredibly dangerous. Kidnapping humans or human babies, causing crops to wither, water to dry up, food to rot. They could lure people in with magic into a fairy ring of mushrooms and make them dance forever or make them forget their life. Sometimes they even played with time itself. A person could dance with the fairies only to find that they’ve been gone a hundred years when they try to go home. And many beliefs have depictions of some kind of Otherworld, a world apart from our own, or layered over it like an extra dimension we are unable to perceive or directly interact with. Sometimes its a land of the dead or a hidden underground kingdom, other times is a strange and fantastical country with its own laws and ways of doing things. As these stories meshed together we got what is known as Fairyland. The land which the fairies dwell in. Though some believe they simply live on Earth, hidden in the wild, or among us. Some reoccurring ideas are often connected with fairies, though not all have stayed the same as the original lore they were born from. The idea that Faeries, for whatever reason, are unable to or will not lie. This is a very important idea because the Folk are also simultaneously depicted as deceptive. Like particularly vicious lawyers they will play with words, never quite lying, but purposefully leading you astray or tricking you into a bad deal. They will often obey an oath, promise, or deal exactly to the letter, but ignore the intent behind it in order to twist it to their own benefit or amusement. Whether or not fairies are immortal depends entirely on where you draw your folklore from. Sometimes they are immortal; deathless, not mortal. Unable to die in spite of starvation, terrible wounds, age, or anything else. They are bound to life for all time. But some stories depict the stranger Fae Folk as being Eternal. Beyond time, always having existed and always existing, sometimes cycling, sometimes directionless and boundless and everything. Some tough concepts to get your head around, but nobody really agrees which one fairies are. In some folklore they’re even depicted as mortal, same as you and I, but a lot longer lived and harder to kill. A reoccurring motif in older Folklore is the need of humans to try and ward off fairies with charms and totems. When they were not depicted as outright malicious and dangerous, sometimes being thought to cause illness and death or bring about disastrous misfortune or steal a person’s name and voice, fairies were still mischievous and valiantly unhelpful. So people had all kinds of lucky charms to protect from them: like four leaf clovers, various plants, or actions like wearing your clothes inside out to confuse them. Iron is said in many beliefs to burn them, and certain herbs they view as sacred and will refrain from touching the bearer. A few more things. Christianity plays an important part in this discussion, though many people don’t like that. In many places myths and legends were wiped out by Christianity, either intentionally or simply by the very fact that it was trying to convert people in Europe and old pagan beliefs were seen as nonsensical. But still stories persisted despite this. Many old Myths and Folkloric beliefs were recorded for posterity by Christians, and some stories were altered and we are unable to see exactly how much (Beowulf). A lot of fairy stories remained too, only Christianity painted them as fallen angels or even demons of a kind, who could be kept away from Holy Ground, or were forced to kidnap humans to pay a tithe to Hell (or be taken themselves if they couldn’t pay). So folk beliefs, though generally discouraged by the church as superstition, remained quite strong all over Europe for a very long time. The last three things you need to know. One, there are many people who still believe in Fairies, though their beliefs often vary, sometimes wildly. Witches who claim to work with them. People who believe in them through their religions (usually pagans and other non christian groups). People who claim to have encountered or been abducted by them. And many others. While I personally do not believe in Fairies (though I like to keep an open mind, just in case), I do believe that the beliefs, cultures, and and rights of these people ought to be respected. Which leads me to other mythical beings that are similar to Fairies but hail from cultures and peoples outside of Europe. It might be tempting to label some of the spirits from various Native North American Tribes or from Chinese Folklore (or many others) as fairies. Don’t do that. If Fairies are real, you have to consider that there might be other mythical beings who fall under different categories and groups. And even if they are not real, it is extremely disrespectful to the people of those cultures to take their stories, myths, beliefs, and folklore and try to mesh it in with European Folklore. (this is exactly what the Victorian and Edwardian Era were guilty of.) And finally... Some people might tell you that they know everything there is to know about Fairies. Don’t believe them. Even I, who have spent years and years studying European Faerie Folklore, find new things about them every day. I have sources I’ve found and haven’t yet had the time to look into, areas of study I’ve had to neglect. There is so much about Fairies to explore that it’s quite literally impossible for any one person to know all of it. Personally I’m doubtful that a single person can even know an eighth of it all, you can hardly imagine how much there is. And while there is a great deal of it buried on the internet, there is even more offline. Books which are out of print or have never had their contents uploaded, cultural stories passed down in various European groups which are saved from oblivion only by the oratory tradition, and the remains of all kinds of long dead or vastly changed civilizations who believed in the Fairies and tried to work with or avoid or appease them. All the misinformation and personal gnoses out there also make it a lot harder to find accurate information about traditional folklore. And that’s not even counting the multitude of inventions and ideas spawned by fictional literature surrounding fairies. There is simply too much. But of course... Since when has something being impossible ever stopped a human from trying anyway? If you’re still interested, then who am I to discourage you? Go, jump right in. There’s so much to learn about the Faerie Folk.

[bleulone]

i love your analysis so much! i have a question as well, like, how do you envision polin's sex scenes ? thanks for your answer (:

    Hey! Thank you very much :)) I have no idea if they are that even good but I’m happy you like them. It’s just my brain tending to produce some iNsIGhiTfUL analyses though they usually end up drowned under a huge wave of stupidity and horrid spelling/grammatical mistakes XD. So, about Penelope and Colin’ sex scenes, I guess we’re getting spicy in this house 🌶. I mean, I don’t blame you. Who’s not hot for Polin ?! The steamy Polin hours have already begun and they’re legit challenging my patience. (Be still my Polin heart, be still).

   Okay, without further ado, let’s talk about sex baby, shall we ? It’s a pretty long answer/meta so bear with me.

    I don’t know if you’ve read Romancing Mister Bridgerton, but a quick reminder (for those who haven’t... yet), there are a bunch of iconic steamy scenes that I’m dying to watch on screen. First we have the famous “thank you” scene where Penelope, now a 28 year-old spinster, asks Colin to kiss her because she doesn’t want to die without having been kissed... then ends up thanking him— which happens to be humiliating for our 33 year-old boy because he thinks that she thinks he did it out of pity while he absolutely did not. The man definitely felt butterflies in his stomach... and in other places as well lol. We also have the ICONIC carriage scene where Colin gives Pen’s generous bosoms™ the attention they deserve. This is followed by his proposal. Later on, after the announcement of their engagement, there’s a pretty hot make-out scene on Lady Violet’s sofa. Finally, we have their first time in Colin’s bedroom, after sneaking out of their own engagement party... which leads Colin to push the wedding date forward. At this point, I just love their horniness, especially Colin’s who’s just so freaking amazed by Penelope for more than 300 pages straight (duh! who isn’t ???).

    When you say envision, I suppose you mainly refer to the way those scenes will be filmed right ? I’m afraid I don’t have an advanced knowledge in film-making but let me start by telling you what elements need to be depicted. I would love Shonda and Chris to capture the real essence of our boos’ feelings : the yearning, the love, the respect and the guilt (specifically on Colin’s side) in their eyes. The more we move forward throughout the seasons, the more we see different layers of the perceptions of they have of each other, going from a childish idealization/immature ignorance to a sudden realization. A mature one. Penelope goes beyond the facade of the charming devil-may-care guy to meet the seriousness and temper of her significant other. Meanwhile Colin discovers how confident, powerful and attractive this woman is and always has been. It echoes what I’ve written about the importance of the gaze in Polin’s love story in this meta. By the time season 4 hits, man... their heart eyes and eye-fucking will jump OUT XD, all fibers of their beings, burning with need. The fact that this evolution took literally years is very emotionally painful, which is why I find it important to keep the slowness aspect of their relationship before and during their love making. I’m really looking forward a slow build-up toward their intimacy. It would differ from Daphne and Simon who merely shared one hell of a kiss in Lady Trowbridge’s garden then shared their sexy times after they married or Anthony and Siena’s rough sex... In fact, there’s a certain (sweet) ardent tenderness in Polin I like due to the fact that they’re slowly (re)discovering each other, as adults. Since they were both introduced in season 1, the audience will have all the time in the world to notice numerous evidences of the many natures of love they have for one another : from an affectionate and friendly love to a more carnal and enduring one.

    Okay so, in terms of filming, with Netflix’s Bridgerton being a show which promotes the female gaze, it wouldn’t be that much of a surprise watching those sex scenes being shot from Penelope’s perspective, like it was the case with Daphne in the first installment of the series. Most of the time, sex scenes in Historical Romance are not gratuitous. Their presence serve an important purpose in a hero/heroine’s journey. In Penelope’s case, they’re here to help her learn to embrace and love herself. In other words, sexuality is synonym of freedom. I don’t know if they’ll show a lot of skin, but I won’t be complaining considering the fact that we’ll have the chance to get a chief kiss treat on screen : a plus size woman in a major successful Netflix period drama getting a love story as romantic and steamy as other more “fit” female characters. No, your weight doesn’t prevent you from being desirable at all. As far as I’m concerned, I haven’t watched a plus-size female character portrayed as an attractive protagonist in a period drama (please if you have, let me know, I can be wrong). Having a beautiful half bare curvy body like Nicola’s being equally filmed like numerous slim actresses will be so inspiring and powerful to watch, especially for (young) women who struggle, like Penelope, to love their body shape which, to them, doesn’t “fit” the “beauty standards”. By showing her female gaze and portraying her as seductive, Pen’s “supposed” imperfections transform themselves into mighty assets, loved and worshipped by our dashing Mister Bridgerton. That’s body positivity at its finest darling ;).

    It will be deliciously erotic watching the undressing process being exquisitely slow, garment by garment, while their gaze are all heated and hungry. Their sex/make-out scenes should be tender and passionate, sweet and raw. The lightning, colored by a dark blood orange yellow or a blue depending the locations^^. Moreover, the depiction of the exploration of Penelope’s desire can translate itself thanks to multiple close ups. For instance, I can imagine a few ones on Pen’s fingers gently roaming over the smooth skin of Colin’s firm chest and back/touching his hair right after he removed his shirt. And a disheveled Colin letting his hands and lips making a journey of their own, mapping, conquering the alluring unknown territory that is her gorgeous voluptuous body... kissing her on the places he knows oh too well will give her pleasure (is this me wanting him to go down on her?— um yeah I sure hope it IS! If he doesn’t, trust me imma riot... AGAIN). Even a close up on her face while Colin is performing his addictively pleasing torment will be a marvelous proof of the female gaze. By the way, why not even adding a post-coital scene after their first time ? I can picture Penelope waking up first and contemplate her handsome soon-to-be husband. She’d bring her hand to his face and let it travel all around his forehead, his cheeks, his lips, his neck and let it rest on his heart— making sure that what she’s just experience was real... obviously, Colin will wake up in the process and he’ll take this as his cue to go for another round of sexy times under the sheets.

   Showing Pen reaction is essential according to me because she was stuck with the idea that she would never experience the luxury of being loved, giving pleasure nor receiving it... she ended up being happily wrong. Throughout her multiple intimate encounters with Colin, I want her to progressively realizes that she can be an active partner. In the carriage, she knew she had an effect on him, but it’s not until their first time that she actually realizes it. Hence the reason why I WANT the mirror’s introduction in one of their sex scenes. Here’s as a little reminder an excerpt from chapter 18 :

“I want to see you sitting up," he groaned, "so I can see them full and lovely and large [about Pen’s breasts]. And then I want to crawl behind you and cup you." His lips found her ear and his voice dropped to a whisper. "And I want to do it in front of a mirror."

“Now?” she squeaked.

He seemed to consider that for a moment, then shook his head. "Later," he said, and then repeated it in a rather resolute tone. "Later.”

   It would be such a shame if the show doesn’t use the incredible potential of this object (/kink). I mean, the symbolism is pretty clear. Penelope has always fled her “ugly” reflection but it seems like Colin wants to show the real her, the beauty that holds every single inch her alabaster skin and the effects they have on him. Thus, I would love to watch a scene where Colin just praises the alluring goddess and siren that is Penelope Featherington. Just imagine! Just IMAGINE the power of this scene : a shirtless Colin sitting behind her on a bed, meeting her gaze in the mirror, his lips touching her right ear, biting and licking the lobe sometimes, whispering all kinda of dirty yet poetic words to her while letting his hands caress her thighs, her hips, her arms, her lovely bosoms™... oof. At the same time, a wonderful and harmonic instrumental music will play in the background and match the melodic partition of shudders, breathes and moans let out by our lovers. I can imagine Luke inspiring himself from his performance in the 2019 short film, Youth In Bed. The way he conveyed the awe and the yearning on his face, in his eyes with his mouth slightly open when he knelt before his partner Shun Yin was just captivating and— and so Colin! I cannot help but bring myself to picture Ethan, the character he played in YIB, in a Polin steamy scene. I cannot unsee this anymore jsksk. I mean, all this gifset radiates this book4chapter18!Colin, you cannot tell me otherwise!

    Also, I would love Shonda and Chris to keep Pen and Colin’s cute/emotional pillow talk. One thing I really love in JQ’s books is the concern she gives to her male protagonists about potentially hurting their partner during the act of penetration. Colin is a rake, and what his experience with women taught him is that he needs to be very gentle with the love of his life. It was so adorable seeing him not wanting to harm her and asking her to tell him if he does anything she doesn’t like 🥺. Plus, before actually doing it, Colin and Penelope shared a few kisses and just laid down side by side, confessing their love. Though our boy kept feeling guilty about not returning her love after all these years. He desires nothing but to make up for the lost time and show his love and desire during this special intimate moment. I hope they’ll keep all of chapter 18’s dialogue. It’s just so telling of our boos’ feelings, you see.

    All in all, I can’t wait to watch those Polin steamy scenes. As much as I may sound crazy, I want them after two other seasons of pure pining and yearning in order to have a very good payoff. I’m not an expert on depicting intimacy on screen, but I loved so far what Lizzy Talbot, the intimacy coordinator who worked on the show, have done in season 1. Sex scenes in Bridgerton seem very real and dive you in the intimacy of the moment, leaving you all flustered and hot. So probs to her! I have faith in her work and have no doubts about what her and the directors will serve us in future seasons. Though, in the end, I think it’s mostly up to the actors, Nicola and Luke, to see if they’re comfortable filming sex scenes.

    If you guys have any suggestions or wishes for those steamy polin scenes, please do share them :) by commenting on this post or by sending me asks! I’d love reading your thoughts/take on this very important matter ;)) 

[renegadepack]

so, it looks like there’s going to be another twilight book...

and i have mixed, mostly negative, feelings. on one hand, i’m honestly excited. i’ve loved this series for probably more than half my life. (i’m 24 now, for context.) i saw every movie in theatres. i went to the midnight release of breaking dawn (and stayed up until 7am to finish reading it, and walked to the bookstore that morning to secure my place in line, and stared at the countdown for hours on end some nights because i couldn’t think of anything else, and... you get the picture.) i can’t find it anymore but i’m 95% sure i’m wearing a handmade “team edward” shirt in my seventh grade yearbook. my copies of the books are destroyed, because i read and loaned them to friends that much. i’m pretty sure there was a period of time i carried at least one book with me everywhere because i was probably rereading it.  i’ve been running a pretty active twilight blog for over 18 months now, and i honestly don’t plan on going anywhere for awhile.

and in running this blog, i’ve done my best to educate myself on the issues in twilight. when i was younger, and a much more vocal fan, i was made fun of a lot for liking the books (and everything else; this was just more ammo.) and it was because i was a girl, liking a book by a girl, written for girls, about a girl. and yes, twilight did receive misogynistic critiques, undeserved, just because it was “a girl thing.” and that’s never cool. but i, and so many fans of this series, and so many people of this series, are white. and no matter how much mocking twilight receives for being a “girl thing,” that is nowhere near the amount of criticism and hatred it should receive for the racism embedded in every. single. page. of the books. twilight is written by an incredibly racist white woman, and that can not, and should not, be ignored.

the quileute tribe is a real group of people living in washington state, and stephenie meyer, a white woman, used their real histories, and twisted them as much as she wanted to fit her stories. the tribe itself, on the “truth vs. twilight” page through the burke museum, says “ Treated as fictional werewolfs, the Quileute people are portrayed as mythic characters in a fantasy role, rather than as human beings.” in co-opting their stories, stephenie meyer removed their rights as human beings, in a world where native people are already oppressed. in her books meyer: describes the wolves as “out of control,” has her main characters (a white family) constantly refer to the people as “dogs,” sexualizes them (most of these characters are 14-16, and she describes them as looking like grown men. jacob black, a 16 year old, says he looks 25. they are almost always described (by our adult narrator) as being shirtless), and has them imprinting on children. emily young, one of the native women, is assaulted by her fiance and it is brushed aside. leah clearwater, another native woman, is constantly treated as a bitter harpy and hated by nearly every character, despite valid reasons for her acting that way. they literally turn into animals. that’s just a small sampling of the things she does to her native characters in her books.

twilight is a work of fiction, but works of fiction have real life consequences. in my time in this fandom, i’ve seen fans of this series perpetuate the same racism that smeyer does. there are posts calling them dogs, and advocating for violence against these characters. there are fanfic writers writing these teenagers in sexual situations. on a larger scale, again from the burke museum's series, “In the wake of the popularity of the book and film saga, the Quileute Tribe has been forced to negotiate the rights to their own oral histories, ancient regalia and mask designs, and even the sanctity of their cemetery.” 

this series has caused real-life, negative consequences for native people, and the renaissance is a part of that. you can be a fan of twilight, and make memes, and write fanfic, and create art, and still read the books and watch the movies, and however else we enjoy this series, but it is wrong to ignore this deplorable aspect of the books and their fandom. 

in the wake of a new book, and a likely new wave of fans (and more returners), please keep this all in mind. enjoy the new book! enjoy the old ones! and the movies! and fanfic and share with your friends and have fun. but please also use this as an opportunity to educate yourself, and to educate those around you. advocate for change for the quileute people, and for all native people. we can do better as a fandom.

we can do better as people.

under the cut (so it can continue to be updated!), i’m going to compile as many resources as i know to help educate people of the quileute tribe. anti-native racism, how we can help, and other ways we can make a difference. please let me know of any further links you may have! if i link your post and you do not want it linked, let me know and i will remove it asap.

most important: the quileute tribe is currently working on their move to higher ground project. many of their lands are currently in flooding danger zones, and this project is (as the name suggests) working to move to safer areas so they can continue to thrive. if you are able, please consider donating to that project here.

if you are reading this past 5/28/20, i am no longer updating the links. due to tumblr’s update allowing pinned posts, i made a smaller, easier to navigate post. please see my pinned post for that info.

it is also linked here!

[marcsundar]

The Indie Contemplation

At one am I decided not to write a short story. Plenty of reasons so, I decided to put down the pen and forget about it.

What story could I tell? I mean; that has not been told before? There is no originality left in the world.

There is merely so much regurgitation of the same story template one can fathom. And as an author of tales, there is only so much of the same shit I can commit to a page without feeling completely guilty for doing so. I have a responsibility not to write The Reciprocal Verse (albeit in different words) and pawn it to a new, research-lazy generation.

I decided not to write a short story – due to the fact that I am unassumingly average. There are many writers out there and although I have read many authors who I, in my categorically biased opinion, are significantly worse than I am; I have certainly read better. More successful, patient and learned people. I suspect that my average, mediocre and ordinary tales will simply be another internet shelf product of vast median. Nothing terribly benign; though nor el spectacular neither.

I decided not to write a short story due to the fact that I am in doubt as to whether I can actually write anyway. Writing is a tailored art – tailored to a reader.  Why should I write if it is not to be read? My main issue is who is my audience and how can I write to them – if I do not know who this person/persons is/are? I can only write for myself as my audience and reader… but what then for the art of writing when I can merely daydream my stories in a wistful haze?

And on this note, I have decided not to continue writing this short piece due to my overly scientific genetics. My words and sentences are far too structured in the way of me to make an original piece by me. Sadly far more important to my writing than an originality in human kind as a whole. Which is another aspect of this scientific thinking – I should be more artistic or, even, more faithful. Produce writing of inspiration without the need for a coherent structure or ‘my own’ structure which limits everything I do.

I did not write a short story at 1am this morning since I figure my work would not sell. I’d gain no money from the effort and since I need this to live; what’s the point? I’ll stick to the day job I have to get up for in a few hours. Which leaves me little or no time to stick it up on a freebie website somewhere.

Five minutes later I made a coffee – this being a further reinforcement to my desire not to write. It wouldn’t be read; let's be honest. I’d like most of the world to read it and be famed as a writer of the piece. But it won't be.

My full time job dictates that I will not write a short piece of literature on this lanterned night. I have a career – its second best to the lark of being an author; true say but unfortunately that is all it is. A lark (not a business). I may as well ignore the cries of spoilt generations and settle for second best. (Tell Madonna it is not personal.) Tell regurgitative Hollywood (or any other film industry) that I appreciate you like to sell, but on this occasion I cannot buy. My full time job pays and I’m good at it. There is expansion available and I support those whom I love rather than follow my set whim or dream egotistically.

Apologies for this one – but I have decided to shut down my computer and not write a short piece tonight. This is because you the reader will not be important enough. That’s right; you will read for your own pleasure which will give extremely little in return.  I won't be there when you read the piece I did not write so I cannot even see the smile on your face right now… importance can be measured by vocation – an agent, publisher etc. and what chance to you being that? I work with statistics in my day job and without boring you with deriving a formula or complex calculation: the probability is very low.

Reminding myself of universal inequality and the fact that clever late Stephen Hawkins thinks there is no such thing as perfection in the universe; I will not write a short ditty. I only really want perfection and since there is none – I cannot appeal to the world and why try myself? It is an impossibility not an improbability. Better efforts spent elsewhere; rather not on the challenge of perfection but the object of leaving a mark..? well if I were the only one then I’d be very special but time has it that I’m not. Future has it that I will be forgotten, regardless.

I have ceased to write a short story this morning, five minutes before I have to get up because I don’t have the time and I cannot be bothered to make the time. I’m lethargic – disdain or hormones or what-have-you.

The issue of putting down a pen has come to fruition due to the explained fact that life will continue. The purpose of a piece of literature should always be to stop life; to make the reader contemplate the end – the point where a piece becomes life or death. Any tears or passion which go into ink is just not quite enough. There is no guarantee of putting the best of oneself; thus the warranty be passed to the author. No point in writing a half-arsed effort just coin produce. Just to – fill the ‘gaps’ between masterpieces. Put in your maximum – none of this ‘I shall save hard core for my bigger, widely accepted, highly marketed project.’ No no! write the best short story that one can expend. Then do it all again for the next and then the next… directly from your heart.

A reason I shall add to my bank for not writing the thoughts I have in my head is the additional chore of having to market my own writing. I can’t just write… I have to market! I need to find an audience and behave in my written word to satisfy them. I’ll need to think outside writing – where to publish my deed; for example. A book in a shop or an online page – a magazine or a note on a social network. I choose, or at least, I must appreciate that someone else takes in the marketing of my short piece. Its not just about writing.

Finally, I’d like to point out a grandiose reason why I will not write a short story tonight… If I did write a short piece right now, I believe that whatever I write may just end up sounding oh so bitter.

[lukeskywalking]

genuine question, why do u think THG movies were good? i thought that they deliberately, ironically ignored the actual point of the book (some really good political commentary) and kind of turned it into a teen love affair, personally and it bothered me

I definitely see where you’re coming from. I too have a similar issue with them - they were closely following the success of the Twilight movies, so there was a big focus on the “Team Peeta vs Team Gale” aspect and things of that nature.

However, I would argue that a lot of these issues came not from the movies themselves, but from the marketing of them. The constant articles comparing Peeta to Gale and calling them “heartbreakers,” the Capitol Coture merchandising, “Which District are you” quizzes, shit like that held more of an effect on skewing the movies’ message in my opinion.

There are definitely things I wish the movies had done better; Peeta’s physical disabilities were absent, and I wish they had gone a bit deeper into things like Katniss’s trauma after Prim in Mockingjay, Peeta’s hijacking, and how Finnick was forced into prostitution. The latter three were present, and I understand they had time restraints + a lot of material to cover, but I thought those things deserved more attention.

Ultimately though, when comparing THG to other YA film adaptations, I could definitely see them putting more of an effort to be faithful to the books. They succeeded where franchises like Divergent and Percy Jackson failed. I noticed them including smaller details and moments, which I appreciated as someone who obsessed over these books as a kid. And, I just found them entertaining.

It’s also tricky because the books are limited to Katniss’s first person perspective. The romance with Peeta/Gale IS an important factor of the books (though for more symbolic reasons than teen romance ones), and that’s easier to flesh out when we have Katniss’s direct commentary on them. The movies didn’t have that, which is fine with me - I think having her narration would have been a bit hokey and taken me out of the world. Though the lack of it did make it a bit harder to get a fuller understanding of that aspect. I personally thought including Peeta’s moment with the primroses was a suitable substitute for Katniss’s “dandelion in the spring” monologue - more of a show-don’t-tell depiction of it.

Basically, I think it’s really hard for movies to make a truly faithful adaptation to a book, and I wish these movies had been marketed way better. All things considered though, I thought they did a pretty good job within the content of the films. Your critiques are definitely understandable though!!!

[florencewellch]

IT Chapter Two: A Failure.

I will be criticizing the characterizations, the plot, the horror aspects and I will be comparing the film to the 1990 miniseries and the 1986 novel.

Characterization:

Ben. While he is still similar to his book counterpart, the writing for his character in the movies could have been better, because apart from being the lovesick poet and the history buff (a role which belonged to Mike in the book and in the 1990 miniseries), he didn’t get much of a characterization beyond that. In the novel, Ben was still a curious kid, who was interested in architecture and physics, and he was still a hopeless romantic, but he was not quite the poet the movies and the fandom makes him out to be, and as he stated in the book the reason why he liked haikus is because they are “structured poetry”. He was also the one responsible for building the dam in the barrens, the silver bullets and the underground clubhouse, which, except for the latter, were all excluded from Muschietti’s films. Another important moment from the novel, which was left out of the movies, was the scene where he stood up to his Gym teacher, who was complicit in the bullying he suffered at the hands of his classmates, which could have been in the second film, instead of his flashback with Pennywise, who was disguised as Beverly, a scene which didn’t provide the viewer with any new information about the character and its sole purpose was to pay homage to the 1990 miniseries.

Beverly. The movie at its worst never gets as bad as the book did, but one would expect that two movies made in the 21st century would be more progressive than a novel written in the 1980s, while certain aspects of the character were slightly better handled in the movies, it was not as good as it could have been. In the first film, Beverly is an outcast due to false rumors of promiscuity, an odd choice, because in the novel and in the miniseries she was bullied for being poor and wearing secondhand clothes, and because classism was still an issue in 1989 (the year the first film is set), it’s still is todays, so that was an unnecessary change. As was the fact that she didn’t interact much with other Losers, aside from her love interests (Bill and Ben), but perhaps the most infuriating decision was turning her into a damsel in distress and removing her role as the sharpshooter of the group. There are still positive aspects in Ch1’s treatment of Bev, she was given a personality while her book counterpart was an incredibly flat character. In the second film the scene where she is physically assaulted by her husband is played for shock value, while in the novel Beverly left her husband severely injured and he was later killed by It, in the 2019 film this scene was never addressed in a meaningful way, so it just comes across as gratuitous violence. Perhaps the best decision the second movie made regarding Beverly’s character was replacing the one-night stand she had with Bill with just a kiss to show that those childhood feelings no longer existed.

Bill. He was much better handled in the movies, while in the book the other Losers (except for Mike and maybe Stan) idolize Bill, in the movies they don’t, which makes them equals. My only complaint would be that scene in the second movie where he tells Audra that he wishes she would be like that woman he wanted. This would have made sense if they were going to stick with book arc and have him cheat on Audra, because he was still attracted to Bev, but that didn’t happen so that scene felt out of place with the rest of the film.

Eddie. He is the case of a character who was relatively well-written in the first movie, but then suffered a complete personality change in the second film. While in the first movie Eddie was brave and kind, traits which his book counterpart has, Ch2 Eddie was mean-spirited and cowardly. Most of his arc and coding was given to Richie, because the director thought that his fear of illness and relationship with his mother was enough, but he failed to realize that his fears of illness/germs and that feeling that he’s rotten are due to his internalized homophobia. And Muschietti didn’t even do a good job at handling what remained of Eddie’s arc (his fear of illness and relationship with his mother), he played it for laughs.  He did not even let Eddie have agency over his death, in the novel he chose to sacrifice himself to save Richie and Bill. In the movie he still saves Richie from the deadlights, but he turns his back on It, giving the creature the opportunity to stab and thus losing any agency the character had over his fate in the book and the miniseries. He also butchered his death scene, which in the novel was when he finally accepted himself:

“Fading, fading back. Becoming clearer and clearer, emptying out, all of the impurities flowing out of him so he could become clear, so that the light could flow through, and if he had had time enough he could have preached on this, he could have sermonized: Not bad, he would begin. This is not bad at all. But there was something else he had to say first. “Richie,” he whispered. “What?” Richie was down on his hands and knees, staring at him desperately. “Don’t call me Eds,” he said, and smiled. He raised his left hand slowly and touched Richie’s cheek. Richie was crying. “You know I … I …” Eddie closed his eyes, thinking how to finish, and while he was still thinking it over he died.” (Stephen King, IT pp. 1086-7)

 And Muschietti replaced that with a scene that made Eddie’s death all about Richie’s grief and changed his last words to “I fucked your mom”. All the emotional impact his death had has been completely lost.

Mike. No doubt he was the character who got the worst treatment in both movies. In the first movie, he was barely given any screen time, his role as the history buff in the group was given to Ben and they killed off his parents. In the second film, they didn’t even give him his a proper place to live in, he was just leaving in an attic, they had him steal artifacts from Native Americans (I’ll discuss that later), drug one of his friends, lie about the Ritual of Chüd being effective and he was the only Loser who didn’t even get a flashback of their own. While in the book, he was the historian, had the best parents and was one of the most important Losers. The only positive change that Muschietti made was having Mike go down to the sewers with the group for the final battle.

Richie. Even though he was played by Bill Hader, he wasn’t given the opportunity to be funny, apart from 1 impression, which was improvised. Also they removed his struggles with his sexuality in the first film, which was poorly retconned in the second film, his own bi-coding in the book was ignored and replaced with Eddie’s gay-coding (whose sexuality was left ambiguous at best), had him try to run away every 5 seconds (which something he never did in the book, he is one of the most loyal Losers), made his parents negligent just to add more unnecessary angst, because Muschietti thinks trauma = nuance. And just flattened an interesting character and took away any charm he had in the book, miniseries and Ch1.

Stan. While he was still the least developed Loser in the book, we never even get his POV, he had more character traits than just “the kid who gets annoyed easily”. In the book he was an eccentric kid with an equally eccentric sense of humor, had an interest in ornithology (completely left out apart from that puzzle), a good relationship with his parents who encouraged their son’s hobbies and weren’t as orthodox as the movies portray them. They replaced his encounter with the dead boys in the Standpipe for a painting (apparently that was Andy projecting himself onto Stan), which makes no sense because the dead kids offended him and Stan is a logical person, he would not have been scared of a painting. And they romanticized his suicide, framing it was an act of heroism, which sends the wrong message about suicide and is inaccurate, because the reason why the Losers were able to fight It is because there were seven of them, It was even scared of them. So, saying that his death was necessary to keep the Losers united just misses the point.

Issues with the Plot:

Raising the stakes to be more dramatic ended up hurting the story, while in the book the Losers’ decision to stay and fight It was one of selflessness, they decided keep a promise they made when they were eleven years old, in the second movie if they didn’t destroy It, they would end up dying, so this decision became one of self-preservation.

In the movie if they didn’t kill It, they would end up dying. This damaged the plot and eliminated the feeling of friendship, in this movie the Losers barely felt like old friends and more like co-workers. Another odd choice  was to include the Ritual of Chüd, turn into a Native American ritual and portray them in a stereotypical way and it was also unnecessary to include that, because the ritual doesn’t work, so the viewer just wasted an hour watching the Losers looking for their tokens and in the end It was killed by the power of bullying. Another flaw of Chapter Two is its runtime, the movie is almost three hours along, most of the flashbacks were unnecessary and its structure is rather disjointed.

The film also fails to address important scenes in a meaningful way, while in the book the murder of Adrian Mellon was based on a real event and was included to condemn this action, the film never addressed it (it wasn’t even mentioned afterwards), instead it was played for shock value. Probably because the actual scares of this were not effective at all, instead of relying on practical effect and trying to create tension, the filmmakers decided to use CGI for all these scenes. It would have been wiser if they had only used it in essential moments, for example, when It turned into a giant spider. In an attempt to avoid the criticism the 1990 miniseries faced for keeping the spider while also trying to stay faithful to the source material, they decided to create a ridiculous hybrid, a giant clown with spider legs, whose death was caused by the power of bullying. Ironic for a movie which was supposed to condemn such a thing. What the viewer was left with was a dull, unimpressive, charmless movie, filled with problems  caused by the director’s failure to understand the source material and the characters.

[imaginesmai]

Mob!Tom Holland - Fawn (4)

This is inspired by  Don’t play with fire , @peaceisadirtyword. It’s an amazing Ivar fic, take a look if you have time! 

Please, understand that Richard is just a character and I don’t tolerate neither excuse his behaviour. Previous parts  in the general summary. Click here to read the previous parts!

Plot: Tom is everything Richard isn’t, and soon then man you fell in love has a side you’re not willing to see

Warnings: described violence, although in the next chapter we’ll see the whole thing!

It ended up being a routine, much to your survival instinct dismay.

After the second time you ‘failed’, Richard decided that he would made you go to the club again and again until you achieved something. The first times were horrendous, because you actually tried to endure there for a while until running out. Richard left you every time there and went with his friend to drink the night away, as you waited in the back door for a solution to come down from the sky. He didn’t seem to care much about not getting any information, just enjoyed leaving you there.

That solution ended up being Tom Holland, which didn’t surprise you at all. Those first times you met him in the back door, just like that Monday. Sometimes, it was him who was already there, and he choose to ignore how you seemed dragged from hell itself. And sometimes, he exited the club a bit later, and you chose to ignore how he followed you out of the club.

Not once Richard asked or cared what you did when he was away from home, so you decided to spend less and less time in the club and more time outside with the brunette. Tom and you always went to Dom’s, a place that for sure sold the best burgers in London. They were greasy and you were always alone, but it was worthy if you could see Tom trying and failing to throw some fries on his mouth.

By the second week Richard made you go to the club, you weren’t nervous anymore. You went there on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday, and Lisa was starting to become your friend. As long as you ignored what she did in the club, you discovered she was a funny girl to talk with.

And eventually, something happened and nothing was the same anymore. You stopped worrying for Richard every night, and started looking forward to meeting Tom. You started noticing things about Tom, like how he carried a gun everywhere he went and how he didn’t have a neat relationship with his brother Sam. He never talked about what he did outside the club, and you never asked why there was a stain of blood on the collar of his jacket, just the same day some rapist had been found dead in an alley.

What Tom did wasn’t what you thought a gangster would be doing. He didn’t seem to have fun intimidating people, or killing for diversion. Every single crime you had related to him in the month and a half you had seen him, was well deserved. Rapists, murders, and some politician who had been stealing to their poor employees. Richard didn’t seem to see it that way, thought.

So you decided to lie to him.

You didn’t say anything of what you discovered about Tom to him, just kept saying that the situation was complicated and that you couldn’t reach him. It meant more hard words from him and more days of ‘duty’, but each day you cared a little bit less about it. You should have guessed, that as everything good, it wouldn’t last you long.

“No, I mean it. That’s – that’s offensive. Take that back”

“What? It’s not offensive, it’s the truth. Deal with it”

“I can’t believe I’ve been sharing a desk with you for so long” Tom pointed at you what intended to say a threatening finger, although it held a curved fry. “Take that back, fawn. I promise I’m gonna lock you in a room with Harry and a book of bad jokes”

You snorted at the threat and poked your tongue at Tom, who gasped offended. You were the only ones in Dom’s at that hour, although you always were. The clock tickled five in the morning and you knew that, even if it was Saturday, it was late for you. But you couldn’t seem to leave Tom that day.

A few hours ago, you had gone to the club with Lisa and hadn’t bothered in ordering anything. Richard had stopped giving you the earpiece, just left you on the entrance and left. He asked you in the morning, when he came home drunk and wasn’t needed in the police station. So you went straight to the back, and since then you had been discussing with Tom about Disney.

“Harry is not even that bad” you joked. “At least he has a good taste in films”

“Sorry, but Bambi is not even qualified as a film”

“Bambi is the perfect animated film, and you can’t change my mind” you leaned back against your seat.

“There is death, a murder, the mom dies, someone shoots a gun, a neglecting father, and – oh, how could I forget. A fire that kills almost every animal” Tom discussed. “The film should be rated”

“Well, Bambi and the other animals are adorable, and in the end the father is good”

“All fawns are adorable” Tom scoffed. “There is a reason why I call you fawn”

You had gotten better at controlling your nerves and blushing when Tom was around, but every now and then he managed to make you blush. You shifted in your place as Tom listed the reasons why Avatar is an appropriate move for kids.

The mood in the cafeteria was perfect, in every aspect. Richard didn’t care about what you wore anymore, so you had chosen plain jeans and a blue shirt with flowers. Tom was comfortable around you, which meant that he wasn’t what Richard described you the first time, but more of a nerd. Sometimes, you thought what would you do if you ever saw the other side of him, and that were the only moments of doubts you had when you were with him.

But you erased them quickly.

“I didn’t take you for the type of guy who liked Disney” you commented when Tom had finished, while he was busy with his drink.

“Oh, we haven’t started with Disney yet. Wait until you hear the whole PowerPoint presentation that Harry has done about why I’m the living version of Belle”

The twin brother had become quite close to you too, since he had started something with Lisa, that neither of them put a name on. You had discovered that, behind the sarcastic sadism, Harry hid quite a brain. He wasn’t too good when it came down to patience or being calm, but he could scan all the details of a building with just a few seconds there.

“Just so you know, we’re not some kind of terrorist organization” Tom said, not looking at you. “We’re just a family, that tries to take care of those holes the police leave uncovered”

“I never said that” you shrugged, surprising yourself by how little what Tom had said affected you. “For all I know, you’re a nerd with bad taste in films”

“And here we go again” Tom chuckled but he visibly relaxed. “I’m gonna make you a list with all the things you have to apologize –“

Tom’s last words were interrupted when the door of the local opened. The glass piece it the back of the wall and miraculously didn’t broke, but made a echoing noise that had both of you cringing. Laughs and loud steps were heard from behind you and by all the noise they were making, you knew there were a group of people. They were all male voice and a sudden smell of alcohol and horrendous cologne filled the place.

From your seat, you couldn’t see the door, just the back of the bar and Tom’s darkening face. The sweet and joking expression he had had since you met him dissolved like water, and instead came something you hadn’t seen before. His jaw clenched and his fists followed close. You had kind of grown used to the blush on his cheeks, but it disappeared too. His whole body changed its language and, even if it wasn’t directed at you, you flinched.

It was what you had yet to see of Tom, the gangster he was. Your feet became cold and had nothing to do with the night breeze. Something told you that you wouldn’t like what was happening behind you, but you turned your head anyway. You were praying that they weren’t some type of rival gang who had some business with Tom, or Sam and the blonde woman who hadn’t stopped staring at you since the first day.

Your eyes met green ones, that were already staring at you with a raised brow. You would have preferred to find any of the other options, because as soon as Jacob saw you, you knew your little paradise with Tom was over.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if Richard had his own apartment, you knew the place you would see him was your house. He never went to his own place anymore, only when he was working on an important case or wanted to have a small party with his friends. Until he found a buyer, the apartment would still be his, even if he lived with you. The proof of that were his scattered clothes on the ground, his toothbrush on the bathroom and the desk covered by files.

He was there when you entered that morning, after having spent the night with Lisa. Tom hadn’t asked you many questions when you had left the bar, because he seemed as eager to leave as you. And when you asked him to leave you in Lisa’s apartment and not in the corner of your street, he hadn’t said anything either. It seemed like he had his own thoughts about Jacob’s group on his own.

The clock hit eleven thirty as you walked past the door of the living room, where Richard was working on some files. He was wearing his uniform except for his shoes, and looked concentrated. Suddenly, all the fear you had feel seemed a bit irrational. Richard had been the one who wanted you to become close to Tom in the first place, there was no way he would be mad now.

“Morning” you said, crossing your arms.

Richard looked up from his work and you saw the most sober image of him in months. He had shaved, his hair was gelled back and his eyes were clear. It almost looked like the man you fell in love with.

“Hey Y/N” he gave you a soft smile, not typical of the man who had left you in the club with no ride back. “I didn’t expect you until later”

“Lisa had some errands to do” you shrugged, not moving. “I thought you didn’t work on Sundays”

“Well, I’m finishing something” Richard looked down at his files and then back at you. “Go and take a shower, I can make you something to eat meanwhile”

The living room went back to the peace before the conversation, with the only sound of Richard’s pen moving through the paper. Things were too weird to be real, and there were three options for that. First one was that he didn’t know anything about last night because Jacob was still sleeping, but the good mood didn’t match with the Richard of the last month. Second one was that he knew and that he was happy about it, yet he would have said something. And the last one was that he knew and was disappointed, or angry; though you knew he would be voicing out his anger out by then.

You decided to not wait anymore. You took off your green jacket and hang it in a chair, knowing you would put it in its place later. Walking up, you sat beside Richard and propped your elbows on the table. You didn’t bother in looking to his files, because you were sure that that would make him angry.

“Have you talked with Jacob?” you said.

You didn’t want to think that the straightforward way you said it had anything to do with Tom, but it was sure that you felt more confident in talking out since you had known him. Having someone to listen to you and not interrupting was a nice change for once. Richard didn’t seem to mind that you had interrupted his work, just let the pen on the table and mimicked your posture.

“Yes I have” he answered with a small smirk.

“I’m sorry I didn’t tell you sooner” you blurted out before he would get angry, and since a really long time you didn’t feel sorry at all.

“I’m not angry” Richard chuckled, and you gave him a hesitant smile in return. “Would I have preferred that you had told me before? Yes. But I understand that you wanted to have more information before giving it to me”

“I’m… glad. That you understand” you tried, and lie felt sour on your tongue.

“It’s okay. Besides, you’ve already given me something” Richard hoisted himself up with his elbows, and made the face you recognized from when he was excited about his work. “The guys have gone to Dom’s this morning, and the man had a few things to share with them after a little… pressure. Turns out the Hollands have an illegal place in the countryside, where they facture weapons”

“They sell weapons?” you raised your brows. You weren’t surprised at all, but you tried to make it believable for Richard.

“Yep. Jacob has gone there early in the morning, and we’ve caught them” Richard tusked his tongue and fell back into the chair. “None of the brothers were there, just the weapons and some other guys who don’t speak English and know nothing. At least we got a good grip on that Dom’s guy. I don’t think he’ll be seen with the brothers anytime soon”

Dread set itself on your stomach at Richard’s words. They were filled with some sick pride that you had never heard, and that explained the weird mood in the room. You barely knew Dom; just that he was a nice middle aged man that kept the place always open for Tom and his brother’s. Sometimes other people went, like workers or Jacob’s group. And he was always generous and funny.

Judging by Richard’s word, you worried about Dom’s fate.

“What have you done?” you muttered, and your face must have shown the horror you were feeling because Richard scoffed and looked away.

“I haven’t done anything” Richard rolled his eyes. “I only sent the guys”

“You didn’t go?” you asked, trying to believe him. Richard would never lose an opportunity like that.

“No” Richard assured you. “Just Jacob, and some friends. Only Jacob interrogated him”

“And what did he do?”

“Nothing out of the law, Y/N. Don’t be such a cry-baby” Richard said, looking back to his work. “He’s just a bit roughened up. Jacob left him in his house just after. Didn’t even need the hospital”

It was as if you were again in the club, struggling to breath between all those people and stress. The air left your lungs at Richard’s confession, who seemed unbothered by it. He just started playing with the pen and looked distracted.

“Since you can’t wait and are being quite noisy” he interrupted your train of thoughts. “I might just tell you the whole thing. You don’t have to go back to the club this week”

This week, meant that you were coming back still. That the information, even if you hadn’t done it intentional, wasn’t enough for Richard. Surprisingly you didn’t feel relived, because you wanted to know if what Richard had told you was true, and the only way of doing so was by Tom. You didn’t have his number, didn’t know where to find him or what places the Holland owned. That meant you wouldn’t know about Dom for a week.

The guilt swallowed you whole and you noticed how your eyes became misty. You started to think about the chances you had had of preventing that. Tom wouldn’t have been there if it wasn’t for you, and if Tom hadn’t been seen there, Dom would be probably making greasy burgers.

Still, you didn’t show neither the disapproval of not going back neither the guilt for Dom. You just showed Richard a small smile and let him think that the shock was because of the scared fawn he thought you were.

“Hey” Richard stretched his arm and gripped you by your elbow. It was gentle, but strong, letting you know that he didn’t want you to pull away. “I’m proud of you. You did good”

“You promise?” you asked him again, and your voice broke. “That you didn’t have anything to do”

“You know me” Richard squeezed. “I’m not violent. I didn’t do anything, just Jacob. I could never hurt a fly, Y/N”

You begged to your brain to believe him, while your inner voice screamed at you.

Want to know more about me? Here is my Masterlist! Feedback is always appreciated!!

Tom Holland/ Peter Parker taglist:

@delicately-important-trash

@lexxxistrips

@smilexcaptainx

@aikaterrina

@zalladane

@gypsystuf (since you didn’t answer me, I just put you on the general taglist. Let me know if you want to change!)

@nikkixostan  

Tom Holland Fawn taglist:

@averyfosterthoughts​

@killerqueenvibes​

@spideylovin​

@fantastic-fans​

@addictofsupernatural​

@americaswritings​

@itsjusttor​

@sunflxwer99​

@dramione-winchester-mccall​

@nicolettalauren​

@coveredinthemessimade​

@spideydobik​

@runway-to-my-aid​

@yeahimcrying​

@herondale-snow-carstairs​

@softstarkk​

@atomicwinneralienhairdo

@watson-emma​