Tank: Who would you kill out of the four of us David?
David: Milo, easily.
Milo: What the fuck, man.
David: Well, Ash would be too easy, he’d probably be into it.
Asher, now standing in the doorway: What the fuck, man!
—- —- —-
Welcome to my Wolf Boys Headcanons! This includes David, Milo, Asher and Tank/Darlin’.
- Asher and Tank used to practise kissing together in high school.
- > Milo walked in on them once and very quickly decided it was none of his business.
- David really likes the Terminator movies and used to have a poster as a kid that he’d gotten from Gabe -> who had gotten the poster when the first movie came out. Now he has the poster rolled up in a box of keepsakes.
- > Asher sometimes teases David about his leather jackets because of his early obsession with the movies.
- Asher and Milo have had Star Trek versus Star Wars arguments and Milo is pro Star Wars just to fuck with Ash.
- All four of them had nerf gun fights when they were kids along with some of the other pack members.
- > Asher has swallowed one of the nerf bullets. Don’t ask him how he did it, even he doesn’t know. Although he swears he remembers the taste of blue and orange plastic.
- > David shot Tank in the eye by accident and did not talk to them for like a week because he couldn’t build up the courage to apologise. Milo and Ash found it hilarious.
- Asher starts sporadic games of truth or dare when he’s bored, and somehow his truths are always worse than his dares.
- > During one of these games David dared Asher to climb a tree in his wolf form, as a joke. Asher did not take it as a joke. He fell from said tree and broke his arm.
- Ash and Milo got their ears pierced together. Originally Ash had convinced Milo to pierce his ear for him, but when it eventually got infected Marie banned any future attempts at unlicensed piercing.
- It took a bit longer for Tank and Milo to become friends again after Tank returned to the pack. Although, a quick jab at Amanda and Christin from Milo got the two talking and joking together like they used to.
- Milo beats everyone at Mario Kart and that’s why they never play it.
- > David mains as Bowser (a shock to no one), Asher plays as either Rosalina or Baby Luigi, Milo’s a Shy Guy man, and Tank plays as Yoshi.
The amount of people I see on tiktok blaming Lucien for Nesta and Elain's kidnapping and their subsequent transformation into Fae is startling! Like... how many lines did you skip ahead in ACOMAF? Did we even read the same text? I hate to be this person but oh my God!! Are these people acting dumb or did they honestly not understand the simplest things in these books? These people are the reason why I'll defend Lucien until the day he gives me a reeeeally good motive not to.
Their reaction when Ianthe's evil plans with the King of Hybern were revealed 👇🏼:
I can't explain how this bit made me feel. There was something inexplicably ferocious and otherworldly in his expression there?..I have never seen this face before. Not even in another actor. Where and how did he conjure up that facial expression there?? Still can't shake that feeling.
I wish more people would remember that we're all playing in a free-for-all sandbox. No character is your personal property that you can object to when others misinterpret them. Yes, not even your blorbos are exclusively yours (except ocs of course).
You see a bad take? Move on. Vaguepost if you have to on your own blog to vent your frustration. But leave that 'bad take' post alone.
I'm so tired of all this policing in the name of canon. Fiction isn't fact. It can be debated. It can be twisted to fit the reader's perspective. Someone cherry-picking quotes to justify their reading of a character or situation does not make them a flat-earther ffs!
Fandom is supposed to be a safe place to explore, to indulge in a diversity of perspectives. Where you see a one-dimensional dot, others may see a zoomed out galaxy. But you wouldn't discover the hidden dimensions if everyone only ever agreed it was a dot and nothing more. If people have to conform to one universal interpretation of canon, then fandom ceases to be a safe place and becomes a censorship.
This is fandom. Do not make it a battleground. Learn to respectfully disagree instead of outrageously attacking. Be a little more tolerant. Allow space for weird takes. Agree to disagree.
A while back I posted about how in the book Benedict Arnold: Patriot and Traitor by Willard Sterne Randall the author confuses John Laurens for Henry Laurens on two separate occasions.
I also posted about an unbecoming portrait of John André that I found in the book. In the same post, I mentioned that the author speculated that John André was in a homosexual relationship with Sir Henry Clinton, so now I'm here to share the details, or rather...lack thereof.
During the American Revolution, John André was quickly promoted (within about two weeks) to chief of the British intelligence operations. About this, Randall says:
There were also some Loyalists in New York City who believed that John André had risen so far so fast because he was having a homosexual affair with the commander in chief. There is no proof and very little in print on the subject, but there have been persistent rumors ever since. There is that suggestive remark by the staunch Chief Justice Smith about young men, men "without reputation, young and raw," rewarded for no apparent military ability or achievement and former staff officer Stephen Kemple's disgusted comment about the "unheard-of promotion" of "boys not three years in service." But if Clinton chose to alternate his dalliances between the sexes, he was much too discreet, as was André, to leave any evidence behind. André, the would-be thespian, was always playing a role, but there seems more than acting or the obsequiousness of the courtier in his notes to Clinton, nor are they a son to his father. His letters to Sir Henry are so strikingly intimate, self-deprecating, and ever solicitous to cover up Clinton's faults. And Clinton would one day be even more immobilized than usual when he lost his intimate young friend. Moreover, the evidence of the documents does not fully explain the venom directed toward Clinton by other career officers and Loyalist leaders (461-462).
Randall mentions "persistent rumors" but does not provide examples, and references intimate letters, but does not provide excerpts. Sure, I could locate their letters online and read them for myself, but why does he not provide any context to substantiate his argument? This would have been the perfect opportunity to do so.
There are also no footnotes or endnotes related to the two quotes referenced in the above text, which is a bit bothersome.
Ultimately, this is perhaps the most bizarre speculation I have personally come across (so far!) in my reading and now I'm wondering...what do you think?