#and meant to denigrate her)

[wonder-worker]

something I find especially entertaining about Edward IV's reign is how Scandalous™ it was lol

he married a woman “whose origins broke all established conventions for English queenship” in a secret ceremony without consulting any of his lords and then made it everyone else's problem. he committed regicide, he committed fratricide; he was accused of bastardry, he was accused of bigamy and a 19-year-long sham marriage, he was accused of using necromancy against his subjects, he was accused of being enchanted by witchcraft by both his wife and his mother-in-law (multiple times). his own mother was said to "rule the king as she pleased" in the early years of his reign. he knew he was hot and actively milked it for money. he was vain as fuck: “he was wont to show himself to those who wished to watch him, and he seized any opportunity that the occasion offered of revealing his fine stature to onlookers”. he knew everything about everyone. "he was more favourable than other princes to foreigners". he was “fond of boon companionship, vanities, debauchery, extravagance and sensual enjoyments”; he was "thought to have indulged in his passions and desires too intemperately”; "it was ever feared he was not chaste”. his subjects publicly gossiped about his sex life, his doctors thought he was insane. NOBODY understood how he was still competent despite all this.

honestly, who was doing it like him?

#(the quote is by J.L. Laynesmith) #Edward IV #my post #the original post was written as a drunken shitpost but it's still 100% true #henry viii could NEVER. Even Humphrey of Gloucester pales in comparison I'm sorry to say #(EW was also accused of controlling both Edward and the country but I don't want to get into the propaganda against her right now - however #true or false it may have been in reality - so I didn't include it. HOWEVER it's absolutely true that Edward gave her a great deal of #unconventional authority by appointing her in royal councils for the heir and spare in her own right during her tenure as queen. So there #was an existing basis for the accusations against her even though they were obviously ultimately extremely unfair and prejudiced #and meant to denigrate her) #Elizabeth Woodville #Cecily Neville #english history #its kinda funny how historians often emphasize his womanizing (which very obviously happened tho it's difficult to say to what extent) when #talking about his over-the-top lifestyle. But as we can see: Croyland - who was best-placed to know - emphasizes a wider variety of things #that worried/scandalized his contemporaries. Edward sleeping around was just one of many (and the last on Croyland's list) #I don't necessarily think it should be highlighted as much as it is #(also funnily enough 'sensual enjoyments' was also used to describe *Richard III* on his northern progress during his reign lol)

[coquelicoq]

one important thing about work emails is that whoever you send them to can forward them to anyone else, or reply to you and copy other people. so if you're going to talk about a third party in your email, only say things you would be okay with the third party reading. because people can and will just suddenly CC brand new people on a long email chain, who will then be able to backread anything you've ever said in any of your previous responses that you were sending to only one person. word to the wise.

#i mention this because this just happened to me today BUT it was fine because i already do this #i was writing to client A and mentioned client B who has been making both of our lives harder #but because it's my policy never to trash talk one client to another client (they all know each other btw) #(and some of them are contractors for others of them) #the thing that i said about client B was not something i had to then regret a few days later #when client A for some fucking reason CC'd client B in her response to me #i worded it like 'i'm sorry this has been so hectic and last-minute. it took me a while to understand what client B wanted.' #which has the virtue of being true and also not denigrating client B in any way even though what i meant was #'client B has been so confusing in everything he has said to me that i couldn't give you any advance warning' #but i didn't SAY that. so we're golden #the thing is you will be SO tempted SO often to tell someone that something is a third party's fault #because it will often be a third party's fault!!!!! but you must resist every time. especially in writing #<-this is not universal advice bc sometimes you need to stand up for yourself or whatever. i just mean in venting situations #no venting to clients about other clients. sometimes you need to vent with them in order to build rapport and get them to see you as #an ally rather than an obstacle but you cannot vent ABOUT other people. they can do it but you can't. you have to find other things #to vent about #my posts

[quaranmine]

Honestly I'd love to know what kind of comments you'd be adding to the fic for your mother. Very curious :0 (also I'm terrible at knowing what information an outsider would and wouldn't have and/or would need)

Sure, I'll add a few. (Redacted since my google account is my full name.) Also remember that y'all also got the benefit of my author's notes, but I'm not giving my mom the AO3 copy because over my dead body does she look at that account. I'm giving her a document copy. So a lot of the comments will likely be details you guys already got in either a post or author's note.

^^^ This one is written specifically because my mom, like me, has been going to Big Bend National Park since she was young. A member of my family has gone there nearly every single year since....1965? lol. So it's a fun tidbit for her to know I was thinking of it while writing this. (There will be a similar note when the Pinnacles trail comes up, because I named Pinnacles after a trail in Big Bend.)

me trying to explain Scar's general dramatic flair (i also have a comment somewhere explaining that Scar is dyslexic and that is why he occasionally mispronounces stuff in the fic, and why he says the scientific documents the rangers let him borrow were difficult to get through)

nicknames

My mother and I are both Gary the cat stans. Trust me she knows Exactly what I am picturing here.

^^ a few other comments on the story, ranging from "background character details" to "research details" to "totally unecessary personal opinions"

it's also fun for little self-aware asides:

She already knows a significant amount of the plot, including the ending, because I talked to her about it. That is also why she gets to read it, because the moment I opened my mouth about writing it I basically had to. I don't always talk about my writing with her but I really wanted to talk about this one. So! By talking about it I just made the decision for myself that I'd allow her to read it. She is....very excited haha. And I am too? I mean I think I am going to send it to her and then just immediately go back to my apartment so I don't have to be in the same house as her while she's reading it LOL. The embarassment of people who know you too closely reading your things etc etc. But I'm very proud of this story and I don't think she realizes how good of a writer I can be. She knows I'm good at it (like, she's read my essays and newspaper stories) but not how I handle fiction.

#quara asks #hc_firewatch_au #i considered making ANOTHER copy for general friends/family/other audience as well #since i know at least one friend asked to read it back in december #i wonder if she still remembers she wanted to read it. i may not remind her LOL #i'm picky about real life people seeing my work. it's so much more intensely personal than showing them my other creative stuff #it's also just a deeply unhinged hobby to write fanfiction in general #i'm not saying that to denigrate fanfiction. yall KNOW i love it deeply. #but you gotta admit there's a level of derangedness to showing Normal People(tm) something like this #hi yes i spent a large portion of my last year writing deeply researched & angsty fiction about minecraft blorbos. here go cry while u read #anyway the reason it'd be a whole new annotated copy and not just the same as my mom's is that i've got a specific relationship with my mom #that will influence how all these annotations are written #we're besties btw. #i'm not even worried about killing her at all on our upcoming 16 day trip together! #i feel like that reads sarcastic it wasnt meant to be

[fazedlight]

Why am I obsessed with the rift?

From my first fic to the many many many many season 5 fics I've written, to the fic where the whole thing could've been averted in season 2, to my no-villain-era-for-Lena in season 3 (twice) and season 4 fics......... I seem to have developed a bit of a rift pattern.

A reasonable person might ask: Why?

There's something that itches in my mind: I think either woman would've been fully justified in walking away from their friendship, and yet they ultimately didn't.

It starts with Kara, who is ultimately a fractured person. She deeply values the truth, and yet she's forced to live with various lies, unable to be her full self.

Her identity is in the in-betweens. She feels adrift between two cultures, she knows her alien state while reaping the privilege of passing, she hides core aspects of herself on a daily basis. I'm sucked into the rift, in part, because of who she is and how she struggles to put it all together. I think her frustration will resonate with anyone who's stuck in the in-betweens.

Kara's struggle for identity plants the seed for the rift. The bigotry of society meant she had to have a secret identity in the first place, and keeping the secret from Lena was certainly reasonable for a time.

We can debate endlessly about when Kara should've told Lena - I think it's really hard to find the line between "too soon" and "too late" - but it ultimately doesn't matter. Because it's Kara's kneejerk reaction to Lena's kryptonite that forms the first sort of betrayal, not the secret itself.

Kara screws up - she says something she regrets, she doubles down when threatened and scared. These are common mistakes... but we have super-level circumstances, so we get super-level consequences. And the engine she has inside her that fears loss (which she's suffered to a level that is unimaginable to anyone on Earth) kicks in. She can't lose another person she loves.

But who is she holding onto?

In the series, and in flashbacks, we watch Lena's progression from idealistic techie to cynical recluse. While she's experienced loss and isolation, that's not the cause of her shift.

It's in experiencing her idol and protector become the madman who kidnaps her. It's in realizing her best friend has betrayed her by taking the one thing that could've saved her brother. It's in moving to a new city to start over, and meeting a mentor who uses her to start a global invasion. It's in her partner in scientific discovery being a pawn to her brother, colluding behind her back.

And then there's the final downfall. Her new best friend - her trusted confidant, her hero, the one who made her feel not so alone anymore - is the super who denigrated her, maligned her, spied on her. Lena had two important people in her life at that point, and she sacrificed one for the other... only to find out the other was a lie.

With betrayal after betrayal - Lex and Andrea and Rhea and Eve and Kara - she loses faith that anyone is above their worst impulses.

So she falls to her own.

How can good people do bad things?

There's a saying I heard around MIT sometimes: there are no technical solutions to social problems. It's easy to forget - when you're surrounded by people seeking to improve the world via science and engineering - that you can't solve humanity via technology or logic or rules. Lena forgot this.

Myriad marks a shift in the rift. Kara lied to Lena, antagonized her, spied on her - but her wrongs were directed towards Lena. Lena's initial response - the petty manipulation and the plan to out Kara - were directed back at Kara.

But then the rift fundamentally shifts.

At this point, Lena's wrongs are no longer just about Kara - she's trying to brainwash the world. She mindcontrolled Malefic and enslaved Eve. This went beyond the fallout between two friends.

It's clear that her intentions are still good here. She's not a megalomaniac like her brother, she's not forming an us-vs-them mentality like her stepmother. She's an anti-villain at this point in the story - desperate to find what's true, in a world full of lies.

It's a hard line to walk, acknowledging Lena's trauma and well-intentioned motivations while realizing she's still ultimately culpable for her own actions. But it's important to try to balance, because Lena is still redeemable.

But getting back to the relationship itself - Kara played a large role in pushing Lena to the edge of her trauma, which was entirely motivated by Kara's own trauma.

You hide things so you don’t lose people. I run from people who hide things. I guess we were bound to explode.

Lena says this in my first fic mentioned earlier, and it summarizes the rift as succinctly as I can put it. Their traumas were incompatible, and their relationship should've failed.

And yet.

Delving into how the CW screwed up the rift could be its own essay. They gave us a complex and layered situation, only to gut it with It's a Super Life (beloved/beloathed), the narrative retroactively justifying Kara instead of examining her foils, glossing over Lena instead of delving into her ethical blindspots. The rift was cancelled.

What does that leave us with?

Well, I guess it left me seeking the rift, over and over again. I'm certainly not the first author to do a rift fic, and I doubt I'll be the last. There seem to be a few different approaches:

Some authors delve into the nuance, having the two characters hash out what they've been through in a way that feels balanced and real. In particular, I love the @searidings fic with the birds i'll share this lonely view. I don't think I have the skill to pull off that type of story.

Some writers lean heavily on one "side" or the other, often with lots of grovelling. This never resonates with me, because at some point in a relationship there has to be the realization that it's "us vs. the problem", rather than "you vs. me". In my mind, these fics miss the layers of trauma that led to the rift.

Some authors make the rift not matter. If you put the characters through hell and back, the anger will lose its thrust, and they'll be left wanting to heal.

I fall into the last category.

There's a moment from permanence by @itllsetyoufree that I especially love, where - in the aftermath of season 6 - Eliza asks Lena why she forgave Kara. Lena can't answer.

We like to think we're logically driven. But in my experience, forgiveness - and a host of other emotions - never work that way. Sometimes "sorry" cuts it, sometimes it doesn't. A lot of times, forgiveness comes from the realization that someone genuinely wants to connect, and that the fallout was relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

Of course, when your fallout includes extra levels of gaslighting and a bit of global brainwashing, making it relatively unimportant requires something drastic.

That's where I end up landing. Putting my blorbos in Situations helps them see the other in a new light - see the other's genuineness, the other's fears, the other's love. Often times, this comes with the simultaneous threat to someone's life (though that's not necessary, especially if it's earlier in Lena's breaking point cutoff).

I do assume - and sometimes imply - that they're also having those discussions, working things out in the background. Because of what I put them through in my fics, I don't think those end up being explosive discussions. It's about figuring out the practical aftermath of what the heart already knows at that point.

Whether I deliver on that is ultimately up to the reader, but that's my approach. Because at the end of the day, love is about cherishing and understanding the person in front of you - flaws and and traumas in all. These stories are driven by loving both characters, and trying to see them the way they see each other.

The rift is a story about love and connection - how those things can't happen without embracing someone else's trauma and without understanding one's own imperfection. Because that's what's at the root of all of us.

And that's why I write the rift.

#this felt good to finally put into words #(note: this approach made writing the pre-S5 fics particularly rough but that's a tangent that didn't fit in here) #(I don't delve into every ethical question either but I wish the show had) #supercorp #headcanon #mel stuff

[swordsandarms]

Man, I forgot how fucked up the scene was and how malicious Septa Mordane is with Arya specifically. You will have people write about how she is some struggling teacher with a peevish tongue sticking student. But she actually brought a child to tears and tried to force her to be seen sobbing in front of her peers.

1. This is not a helpful teacher going around her students to check their work and give advice. She targets Arya specifically (Marcella's work was also imperfect, but she has no power over Myrcella). Her tirade is straight up theatrical and loud on purpose. She doesn't point out what's wrong and how to fix it. It's all about putting Arya down.

2. Myrcella, a visitor, is made uncomfortable and feels sorry for Arya. But for the girls in Winterfell this seems to be a routine. They have been desensitized to this malicious behaviour (Sansa) or even find it typical entertainment (Jeyne).

3. She brings the little girl to tears. There is nothing worse for a child than to be seen crying, especially with strangers around, so Arya tries to leave. The Septa wants her to stay to endure that further humiliation. She is very visibly crying. No "go calm down and wipe your face and then you can return to your work" as some normal teacher/adult might do in such a situation while remaining stern. This is plain cruel.

4. She weaponizes Myrcella's presence to add up to how Arya is "doing everything wrong". Arya tries to "act right" by taking her leave from the Princess. Myrcella is further made uncomfortable by this whole situation, and how she's pushed at the front this way. And the Septa immediately intercepted before Myrcella could or couldn't give Arya leave by making it clear it wasn't about Myrcella - it's about cruelly keeping Arya there to suffer the humiliation of crying in front of her peers, no ifs or maybes. And, again, that is also at the detriment of the guests' comfort, as they are made uncomfortable already and moreso if they had to stay there to hear/watch this girl cry. Creating Arya discomfort is more important, though.

5. Arya's one bold ("misbehaving") act is the horse shoe bit, but we later find out that in such purely denigrating tirades meant only to make Arya feel bad about herself instead of constructive feedback on how to mend her work, the septa would tell her she has "a blacksmith's hands", turning it into a personal fault rather than the technicality of how to do the work.

Vile.

#asoiaf #arya stark

[drdemonprince]

Just chiming in to agree that that person is not a selfish bitch. I'm also really put off by moralistic performances of emotion, and I know in my case it's because it was part of a pattern of abusive behaviour that my mother did.

Anytime you expressed to her that there was a problem with her behaviour, she seemed to genuinely believe that if she put enough effort into weeping and crying on her children's shoulders, and verbally denigrating herself for being an inherently bad an immoral person, and stressing so much that she developed physical illnesses from it, then she could follow that up by asking for forgiveness - as if it would be cruel for us to continue her suffering by denying her that forgiveness. Except that to her, "forgiveness" meant "it's all swept under the rug, I have Atoned By Suffering Guilt, so now it doesn't matter and I can keep doing it again." (I really wonder how much the religious background of her parents' generation came into the formation of this worldview.) And at the same time, she refuses to read news that's "too upsetting" and never engages with literature or media about dark themes "because there's enough of that in real life."

It might be cynical of me to read this pattern into the way people talk online about genocide. But I keep seeing parallels. My perspective is that a) if you're not regulating your emotions well enough to function, then you have less capacity to offer practical help; and b) people who are actually trying to survive genocide want unnecessary human suffering to END, so you're not aligning yourself with that hope by engaging in rumination etc that compounds suffering with not practical benefit to anyone.

But also, watching my mother's behaviour has led me to add perspective c) that a lot of people (in Christian cultures?) haven't developed enough understanding of the complexity of the world and how to relate to it, and genuinely believe that an overblown emotionally affected reaction, followed by helplessness and thereby inaction, is the only possible way for them to respond when they're confronted with upsetting information that demands action from them. Being raised to think in a black-and-white "good vs evil" dichotomy, and thinking about people as "either morally good or morally bad" rather than thinking about people as neutral and behaviours as either ethically helpful or harmful... it doesn't give them a conceptual framework to integrate upsetting information and then carry on getting things done, it's like their moral anxiety gets them stuck and that keeps the emotions escalating.

I see people discussing this pattern in the context of religious trauma, and in the context of the cultural construct of "whiteness" - the discovery of something morally bad has to be followed by an extreme emotional reaction that basically amounts to protesting your own innocence and helplessness to deny responsibility for your direct behaviours (in my mother's case) or complicity in a corrupt system (in the case of overwhelmed average people learning about genocide).

Maybe I'm rambling more than I'm analysing here, but the comparison stands out a lot to me and it's troubling to watch.

yo anon no this is gold, thank you for sharing. This is remarkably astute.

I will add the quick caveat that hyperempathic people who are debilitated by their sensitivity exist, of course, and have very real struggles and none of this is intended to denigrate them. In practice, their behavior can have the impact of silencing criticism or distracting from the issue at hand but being wired that way certainly does not doom a person to behaving in a counterproductive, manipulative manner.

This critique is more about performative over the top empathy as a tactic (conscious or not) of offloading responsibility, and as a pseudo-religious ideology that makes predominately white western cultures particularly ill-equipped to deal with the consequences of their global plundering. almost certainly by design. Most moral teachings that we encounter in the west promote this tactic and ideology, and it gets very deeply ingrained in most us if we don't devote a ton of attention to uprooting it.

thanks for this great response.

[cheynovak]

A new addiction - Part 8   

Jensen Ackles x F/reader (Y/N)    

Warning: 18+, Angst, age difference, Open relationship    

Side note: English isn’t my first language.    

Let's make it very clear I don't want to denigrate, break up or talk bad about Danneel, their relationship or family. I love them and wish both all the happiness.    

This story is pure fiction. Have fun!    

-- Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 – Part 6 – Part 7-- 

--

Story recap:  

Jensen and Danneel are going through a difficult time in their relationship. After being together for so long and married for 14 years the excitement and sexual tension is gone. After going to marriage counselling Danneel had the idea of trying a semi-open relationship.   

Jensen ended things with Y/N, but he can't seem to get over the heartbreak. Will Y/N forgive him? 

 –    

Jensen parked in front of Y/N's house, his heart pounding in his chest like a drumbeat of uncertainty. Months had passed since they last spoke, since he had made the agonizing decision to walk away from her life. Yet here he was, drawn back by a force he couldn't fully comprehend. 

It wasn't that he didn't love Y/N anymore. No, his love for her was a constant ache in his chest, a reminder of what he had let slip through his fingers. But he had convinced himself that it was for the best, that walking away was the only way to spare her further pain and be the father his kids needed. 

As he walked to her front door, he noticed something through the window. Jensen's heart sank as he peered into Y/N's home, his eyes landing on the figure of another man seated comfortably on her couch. The sight hit him like a physical blow, the realization of what he had lost crashing over him with overwhelming force. 

A bitter taste filled his mouth as he watched them, the intimacy between them evident even from a distance. He felt a surge of jealousy rise within him, clawing at his insides with relentless intensity. 

For a moment, he considered turning away, retreating back into the safety of his own solitude. 

But he knew that he couldn't walk away without at least trying to make things right. Even if it meant facing the painful truth head-on, he had to know if there was still a chance for them. With a heavy heart, he rang the bell. Y/N answered, surprise flickering in her eyes as she caught sight of him standing there. "Jensen?" she murmured, her voice tinged with confusion. 

He met her gaze, the weight of his emotions evident in the depths of his eyes. He wanted to speak, to pour out his heart and beg for her forgiveness. But before he could find the words, the other man walked behind her, his eyes narrowing in suspicion as he took in Jensen's presence. 

"Who's this?" he demanded, his tone laced with hostility. 

Jensen tensed, his jaw tightening as he struggled to keep his composure. He knew he had no right to be here, no claim over Y/N's affections after what he had done. But still, he couldn't bring himself to leave without at least trying to make amends. "I... I just wanted to talk," he finally managed to choke out, his voice barely above a whisper. 

Y/N glanced between them, her expression caught somewhere between confusion and apprehension. She seemed torn, unsure of how to proceed in the face of the tension that hung heavy in the air. But then, to Jensen's surprise, she nodded, her gaze softening as she turned to the other man. 

"Could you give us a moment?" she asked gently, her voice tinged with apology. 

The man hesitated, his eyes narrowing suspiciously as he studied Jensen. But then, with a reluctant nod, he made his way to the door, shooting one last glare over his shoulder before disappearing into the night.  

Silence enveloped the living room as they stood there, alone once more in the wake of his departure. Jensen swallowed hard, the weight of his guilt pressing down on him like a physical force. Y/N gestured to sit down.  

And as they settled onto the couch together, the weight of their past grievances hung heavy in the air. But for the first time in months, there was also a glimmer of hope, a flicker of possibility that maybe, just maybe, they could find their way back to each other once more. 

"I was an idiot," he admitted, his voice tinged with regret. Y/N looked at him, her eyes searching his face for any sign of insincerity. But all she found was raw honesty, the depths of his regret laid bare for her to see. "I let you go, and I shouldn't have," he continued, his words tumbling out in a rush of emotion.  

"I was scared, and I thought I was doing the right thing by walking away. But I was wrong. I was so, so wrong." His voice wavered with the weight of his confession, each word heavy with the weight of his regret. He reached out, his hand trembling slightly as it brushed against hers, a silent plea for understanding. 

"I love you, Y/N," he whispered, his voice barely more than a breath. "And I know I don't deserve another chance, but I'm begging you to give me one. Please." 

Y/N's eyes softened, her heart aching at the vulnerability in his voice. She had spent months trying to heal the wounds he had left behind, convincing herself that she was better off without him.  

"I don't... I can’t, Jay. I'm seeing someone," she admitted quietly, her voice barely above a whisper. Jensen's heart sank at her words, a pang of jealousy twisting in his chest. He had known deep down that there was a chance she had moved on, but hearing it confirmed made it all the more real. 

"I see," he murmured, his voice tinged with disappointment. 

Y/N looked up at him, her eyes filled with a mixture of regret and longing. She had never stopped caring for Jensen. "I'm sorry," she whispered, her voice tinged with sadness. "I never stopped loving you, Jensen. But I can't keep waiting for something that may never happen. Who says you won't walk out on me again?"  

He knew he had no right to expect her to wait for him, not when he had been the one to push her away in the first place. "I understand," he murmured, his voice barely more than a breath. "I just... I wish things could have been different." 

Y/N reached out, her hand coming to rest against his cheek in a gesture of comfort. "I wish that too," she admitted softly. "But we can't change the past. All we can do is learn from it and try to move forward." 

"Friendship... does that offer still stand?" he asked tentatively, his voice barely more than a whisper. Y/N smiled softly. She knew how much it had meant to him when she had offered him the chance to remain in each other's lives, even if their romantic relationship had come to an end. "Yes," she said quietly, her voice tinged with sadness. "Of course it does." 

As Jensen rose from the couch, the weight of their conversation still heavy on his shoulders, Y/N stood up as well, silently walking him to the door. There was a somberness in the air, a bittersweet realization that they were both moving forward.  

At the door, Jensen turned to face Y/N, his heart racing with uncertainty. He wanted to say something, to express the depth of his feelings one last time before he walked away. But before he could find the words, he leaned in and pressed his lips against hers in a quick, desperate kiss. 

Y/N's breath caught in her throat at the unexpected contact, her mind reeling with a flurry of conflicting emotions. For a brief moment, she found herself responding to his kiss, the familiar warmth of his touch stirring something deep within her. 

But then, as quickly as it had begun, Y/N pulled away, Jensen’s eyes filled with regret. He knew he had overstepped, that he had no right to act on his impulses when she was with someone else. "I'm sorry," he murmured, his voice tinged with apology. 

She opened her mouth to respond, to reassure him that it was okay, but before she could speak, she heard a voice from behind her. "What the hell is going on here?" her boyfriend demanded, his tone laced with anger as he stepped into view. Y/N's eyes widened in shock as she turned to face him, her mind racing with panic. 

"I... I can explain," she stammered, her voice trembling with uncertainty. 

But before she could say another word, Jensen stepped forward, his expression grave. "It's not her fault," he said quietly, his eyes locked with hers. "I kissed her. I'm sorry." Y/N's boyfriend's face twisted with rage at Jensen's confession, his fists clenched at his sides. "Get out," he spat, his voice filled with venom. 

As Y/N's boyfriend's anger flared, Jensen's instinct was to stay, to make sure Y/N was safe. But before he could utter a word, Y/N stepped forward, her eyes filled with a mixture of fear and determination. "Jensen, please go," she whispered, her voice barely above a pleading tone. 

Jensen didn’t immediately respond. "You need to go, Jensen," she insisted, her voice firm despite the fear in her eyes. "Please. I'll be okay."Reluctantly, Jensen acquiesced, his heart heavy with worry as he turned and made his way to the door. He stole one last glance over his shoulder, his eyes locking with Y/N's for a fleeting moment before he disappeared into the night. 

Later that night, as Jensen sat alone in his study, the events of the evening replayed in his mind like a broken record. He couldn't shake the feeling of unease that had settled over him, the worry for Y/N gnawing at his insides like a relentless beast. 

Unable to contain his concern any longer, he reached for his phone, his fingers trembling slightly as he composed a message to Y/N. "Hey, I just wanted to make sure you're okay. Please let me know you're safe. "He hit send, his heart pounding in his chest as he waited for a response.  

Seconds stretched into minutes, each moment feeling like an eternity as he stared at the screen, willing it to light up with a reply. And then, finally, a notification flashed across his screen, signalling the arrival of a new message. With bated breath, he opened it, relief flooding through him as he read Y/N's response. 

As Jensen read Y/N's message requesting to meet up, a wave of apprehension washed over him. Despite his relief at knowing she was safe, he couldn't shake the lingering worry that lingered in the back of his mind. Still, he knew he couldn't ignore her plea for help. With a deep breath, he typed out his response. "Of course, where would you like to meet?" 

When he arrived, he found Y/N waiting for him, her expression tense with worry. Without a word, he pulled her into a tight embrace, holding her close as if he could shield her from whatever danger lurked in the shadows. "What's going on, Y/N?" he asked softly, his voice tinged with concern. Y/N's eyes filled with tears as she looked up at him. 

Jensen's heart dropped as he noticed the bruise marring Y/N's cheek, a stark reminder of the violence she had endured. His blood boiled with anger at the sight, his fists clenching at his sides as he fought to contain the rage that threatened to consume him.  

"He... he lost control," she whispered, her voice barely audible over the sound of her ragged breaths. “I had to tell him about us. He didn’t understand why I would let you back in my life.” Jensen's heart shattered at her words.  

"Come on," he said softly, his voice filled with urgency. "We need to get you to a hospital." Y/N nodded weakly, her hand trembling in his as he helped her to her feet. With a sense of determination, Jensen guided her to his car, his mind racing with a thousand different thoughts and emotions. 

As they sat in the hospital waiting room, Y/N's gaze remained fixed on her hands, her mind consumed by a whirlwind of guilt and self-blame. Jensen sat beside her, his presence a silent source of comfort in the midst of her turmoil. 

"I'm sorry," she whispered, her voice barely above a hoarse whisper. 

Jensen turned to her, "What for, Y/N?" Tears welled up in her eyes as she struggled to find the words to express the tangled mess of emotions churning inside her. "For everything... for dragging you into this mess. I never should have asked you to come inside. I should have known he would react like that." 

He reached out, his hand finding hers and giving it a gentle squeeze. 

"Y/N, none of this is your fault," he said firmly, his voice filled with conviction. "You didn't deserve any of what happened tonight. No one has the right to treat you like that." 

But despite his reassurances, Y/N couldn't shake the feeling of guilt. She had known her boyfriend had a temper, had seen the warning signs, and yet she had foolishly believed she could change him. "I should have kicked him out sooner," she whispered, her voice tinged with regret. "I should have known better." 

As Y/N gave her statement to the police at the hospital, Jensen stood by her side, offering silent support in the face of her fear and uncertainty. The officers listened intently as she recounted the events of the night, their expressions grave as they took note of her injuries and the severity of the situation.  

Throughout the days that followed, Jensen's presence became a constant source of comfort for Y/N. He cooked her meals, helped her with everyday tasks, and listened patiently as she processed the trauma of what had happened. 

As night fell and Y/N prepared for bed, she found herself lingering at the doorway of her bedroom, watching as Jensen walked through the hall to his bedroom. "Thank you," she said softly, her voice filled with gratitude. Jensen turned to her, a gentle smile playing at the corners of his lips.  

Their eyes met, a silent understanding passing between them as the weight of their shared experiences hung heavy in the air. And then, before she could overthink it, Y/N stepped forward and pressed her lips against Jensen's cheek in a tender, grateful kiss. 

Jensen's heart skipped a beat at the unexpected gesture, warmth spreading through him like a wildfire. "Goodnight, Y/N," he murmured, his voice tinged with emotion.  

As days turned into weeks and Jensen continued to stay with Y/N, their bond grew stronger, and the familiarity of living together became comforting. They fell into a rhythm, supporting each other through the ups and downs of Y/N's mental recovery process. 

However, their newfound peace was shattered when Y/N's ex began causing trouble. He made harassing phone calls, sent threatening messages, and even showed up uninvited at their doorstep, his anger and resentment palpable. 

Jensen felt a surge of protectiveness towards Y/N, his determination to keep her safe overriding any fear or uncertainty he might have felt. Together, they sought legal help and implemented security measures to keep Y/N safe from her ex's harassment. 

Despite their efforts, the situation remained tense, with Y/N feeling increasingly anxious and vulnerable. In moments of fear and uncertainty, she turned to Jensen for support, finding solace in his unwavering presence by her side. 

One evening, as they sat together in the dimly lit living room, Y/N turned to Jensen, her eyes filled with gratitude and exhaustion. "Jensen, I don't know what I would do without you," she admitted softly, crawling against him, taking her shoulder in his hand and giving it a reassuring squeeze. 

Jensen felt a rush of warmth flood through him. The familiarity of her touch, the comfort of her presence, enveloped him like a soothing balm, banishing the shadows of doubt and fear that lingered in the corners of his mind. 

For a long moment, they remained locked in each other's arms, the world outside fading into insignificance as they sought solace in each other's embrace. But then, as their closeness deepened, Jensen felt a shift in the air, a subtle tension that crackled between them like electricity. 

Y/N's breath caught in her throat as she felt the heat of Jensen's body against hers, the rhythm of his heartbeat echoing in her ears like a distant drum. She found herself drawn to him in ways she couldn't fully comprehend, the boundaries between friendship and something more blurring in the haze of their shared emotions. 

And then, before she could stop herself, she leaned in and pressed her lips against his, a silent plea for comfort and understanding. Jensen's heart skipped a beat at the unexpected contact, his senses reeling as he tasted the sweetness of her lips against his own.  

In that moment, all thoughts of fear and doubt melted away, replaced by an overwhelming wave of desire and longing. He deepened the kiss, his hands tangling in her hair as he pulled her closer, the world around them fading into nothingness as they lost themselves in the intensity of their shared passion. 

But as their kiss grew more heated, a voice in the back of Jensen's mind whispered a warning, reminding him of the complexities of their situation. He pulled back slightly, his breath coming in ragged gasps as he searched Y/N's eyes for any sign of regret. 

With a gentle movement, Y/N shifted, pulling herself onto Jensen's lap, seeking solace in his comforting presence. Jensen held her close, his arms encircling her protectively, his head rested against her chest while he felt Y/N's fingers moving through his hair.

A soft kiss on his head.

Holding each other in a loving embrace.

-- 

Are we ready for one last chapter... a Happy ending 😏 🔥

Please feel free to like, share or comment. Make sure you check out my masterlist.   

--   

Tags:  

@mayafatimakhan @anundyingfidelity 

#fanfic #fluff #smut #the boys #x reader #jensen ackles #soldier boy #the boys amazon #dean winchester #spn #18+ content #18+ only #18+ blog #jensen fucking ackles #jensenedit #supernatural #x y/n #y/n #x y/n smut #fem reader #x female reader #reader insert #spicy content #the boys series #angst #angst with a happy ending #light angst

[heartofstanding]

Seeing your views on Margaret of Anjou, I was told that Margaret of Anjou was firm, brave, but too radical, revengeful to the enemy and extreme political measures, which led to her failure. I want to know your views on the reasons for her failure?

Hi, sorry this took so long! I've been busy and this got very long. The short answer to all three, however, is that she had a shit-ton of bad luck.

The slightly extended version of is:

The Treaty of Tours which brought her to England had terrible terms for the English and thus terribly unpopular. As the face of the treaty, she was unfairly blamed for.

England was losing the Hundred Years War, badly. Her marriage was meant to bring peace but the only peace to be gained was through defeat and capitulation. Margaret was blamed for failing to live up to unrealistic expectations.

There was something of a succession crisis, the long wait for Margaret to conceive and give birth to an heir did nothing to easeit and only added to her unpopularity.

The long wait for an heir meant there was fertile ground for rumours and gossip, specifically the idea that she was an adulteress and Edward of Lancaster a bastard.

Henry VI's sudden mental breakdown, (probable) limited recovery and imprisonment left Margaret as the figurehead of Lancastrian rule and resistance. It made her the target for Yorkist propaganda attacks.

Following the Battle of Towton, the Lancastrians were in a weak position to negotiate with potential allies, meaning they made great concessions that were then seized upon by Yorkists to turn the general public against the Lancastrian side.

Severe weather hampered the Lancastrians on at least three occasions: Towton, Barnet and Margaret's return to England in 1471.

She lost. Yorkist rule continued to denigrate her and the Tudors weren't interested in challenging that idea.

Want more detail?

The Problem of Determining Personality

To start with, we don't know a whole lot about Margaret's personality. We don't know a whole lot about any medieval individual's personality, the evidence simply isn't there to tell us about their personal thoughts beyond brief flashes of insight. It's a fraught issue, as Rosemary Horrox points out, with reference to Margaret herself.

We also have to contend with the layers and layers of propagandistic narratives. Again, this is true for almost every figure in medieval history (cf. A. J. Pollard on Elizabeth Woodville). When we shift through the Lancastrian, French, Yorkist, Tudor and more narratives about Margaret, how do we know which one is telling the truth? The virago Yorkist writers derided is unlikely to be the true Margaret but that doesn't mean that the tireless heroine of French writers is the "true Margaret" either. Both images are stereotypes, both come from biased sources. Nor does acknowledging that the image of Margaret as the virago was a propagandistic creation that served Yorkist interests mean that Margaret must have been the exact opposite and she was really sugar, spice and all things nice.

These type of stereotypes are attractive to historians and historical fiction writers alike. They're simple but dramatic. They work well with other stereotyped figures, with "accepted" versions of history that are accepted because they've been repeated so often that they now seem true even if the evidence isn't there or doesn't tell us the things we think we know. It produces a simple, coherent narrative which confirms our own biases. The image of Margaret as radical, revenge-seeking and extreme is often tied to the narrative of Richard, Duke of York as a noble, hard-working and good man who was forced to rebel against his king (who is not rightful king, of course, because that's York) due to the plots and schemes of Margaret and her cronies. Margaret's inability and unwillingness to acknowledge and accept York's greatness becomes the reason for her defeat. She's just too petty and self-serving. She brings it upon herself. She could have been safe - but she unfairly and evilly attacked York and he was simply forced by her actions to rebel.

I don't find that view of York convincing. I don't find that view of Margaret convincing. It's too simplistic, too much of a children's tale where the good guys are so good and the bad guys so bad that the bad guy forces the good guy into any acts that are morally dubious. There's more than a little misogyny in it too, blaming a woman for the actions of a man.

"The Bad Queen" and Queenship

Margaret has long been seen as the "bad queen", a woman who abjectly failed as queenship and was the reason why the Wars of the Roses broke out. I've already discussed some of the issues with that view but I want to talk about a couple of other points.

One: the Lancastrians lost, which cemented Margaret's reputation. As Katherine J. Lewis has pointed out, if the Lancastrians had been successful, Margaret would have likely been celebrated for her bravery and steadfast loyalty that saw the restoration of her husband and son. Instead, they lost and the Yorkist narrative about her became the norm.

Two: Margaret appears to have behaved as a conventional queen for as long as possible. She did not arrive in England and immediately begin she-wolfing it up and instead tried to behave in a way that lived up to gender expectations, even when she was forced to move beyond them (cf. Helen Maurer's comment here).

Three: when we talk about the ideals of queenship, we have to realise that while these were kind of a job description, they were subjective and often based in misogynistic "ideals" of womanhood. e.g. "motherhood" reduces the queen to her reproductive ability and this was something she had little to no control over. An infertile queen is often deemed to have "failed" at the "most vital" aspect of queenship by modern historians and commentators (for an alternate view, see Kristen Geaman on Anne of Bohemia) but very rarely is there an acknowledgement of how misogynistic this standard is.

Margaret was not a popular queen before the Wars of the Roses began. She became queen in a situation where she was set up to inevitably fail. She arrived in England to pageants hailing her as a bringer of peace, as the figure to end the war with France, but the terms of the treaty that included her marriage contract ensured that any benefits she could bring were minimal. There was a short, 21-month peace, a paltry dowry, the outlay of considerable expense to bring her to England, and her father had little to no influence with Charles VII of France to be able to help any future negotiations.

Another factor was that the surrender of Maine and Anjou came to be widely associated with her marriage. It wasn't an official condition of the marriage but it does appear to have been promised at the same time. It was disastrously unpopular in England and it very likely inflamed tensions within the nobility. Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset held large amounts of territory in Maine and Anjou and was made Lieutenant of France to make up for these losses, which offended his predecessor in the role, Richard, Duke of York. It has been argued, though I'm not convinced, that York continuing in the role would have at least maintained, if not improved, the English position in France instead of the massive decline that followed.

None of this was Margaret's fault. She was 14 years old when her marriage was negotiated. She had no role in negotiations beyond the symbolic. There is also some thought that the English side was hamstrung by Henry VI's instructions to make a peace at any and all cost. We don't know how she felt about marrying Henry or about the surrender of Maine and Anjou beyond speculation based on preconceived ideas of what she was "like". We don't know what she was really like to guess how she felt about these things. And even if she was in favour of the surrender of Maine and Anjou, she was still a teenager when it happened. Are we really saying that a bunch of experienced adult men fell over themselves to do exactly what a teenage girl wanted even though it was disastrously bad for England?

Margaret had basically walked into a scenario where she had very little chance of being the peace-bringer she was expected to be and her popularity suffered as a result. She wasn't the one making choices - at best, she might have influenced others to make choices, but most of the problems with France that she was blamed for began before she set foot in England.

The Succession Crisis

Margaret also walked into a succession crisis.

Typically, the succession crisis tends to be talked about as occurring from after the death of Henry's last paternal uncle and his heir, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, in 1447 but I would suggest that there was an underlying anxiety about the succession that predated Gloucester's death. Since 1435, Henry VI's one and only heir had been his ageing and childless uncle Gloucester (before 1435, Gloucester's elder brother, also childless, had been the heir), who was not terribly popular with Henry and his court. On one hand, Henry and his favourites did not want Gloucester to become king because they disliked him and his policies. From another perspective, Gloucester was getting on in years, childless, unmarried and possibly in poor health, so if he became king, he wouldn't be expected to reign long and if he managed to produce an heir before his death, the chance are this heir would still be in single digits when he succeeded the throne. If there was no child, the question of the succession was wide open. As it was, Gloucester died two years after Margaret's arrival and there was no longer a clear heir.

I know that you're probably thinking, "York, though. It's York." Well, yes and no. York probably had the claim with the least complications. He was Henry's closest male relative who had not descended through the female line or through a legitimised bastard line. But there were were two other lines that had viable claims to the throne: Somerset and Exeter.

Exeter's claim derived from from Elizabeth of Lancaster, the daughter of John of Gaunt and his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster, making her the full sister of Henry IV. Somerset's claim was derived from John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset who was the eldest son of Gaunt and his third wife, Katherine Swynford. The Beauforts had been born bastards but legitimised by both the Pope and by Richard II. This legitimisation did not contain any clauses barring them the throne (this was done under Letters Patent in Henry IV's reign), quite possibly because Richard appears to have chronically avoided making any pronouncements on the succession and quite possibly because the there was little reason to imagine the Beauforts in contention for the throne.

Somerset was probably Henry's preferred heir. Since Exeter derived his claim through the female line, naming him heir meant that the female line counted in the succession and if it did, York had a better claim to the throne than Exeter and Henry, as he was descended from Lionel of Antwerp (Gaunt's elder brother) through the female line. It risked exposing the weakness at the centre of the Lancastrian claim to the throne which would in turn would reveal the reigns of Henry's father and grandfather were illegitimate. York seems to have never been particularly close to Henry; as Michael Bennett pointed out about Richard II (who, like Henry, faced a similarly uncertain and difficult succession), it's hard to love your winding cloth. But Somerset was a favourite, a Lancastrian from a cadet line and Henry's closest living paternal relative who was of legitimate birth.

These competing claims and the uncertainty about who would succeed caused anxiety. If Henry died childless, who would become king? How would these claims be settled? Would there be civil war and strife? What would it mean if the Lancastrian dynasty came to an end and a new one began?

So it's easy to imagine the pressure on Margaret to conceive and bear a child was almost certainly immediate on her arrival to England. Bearing a child would help ease these anxieties considerably, continuing the Lancastrian dynasty, putting to rest any civil discord caused by competing claim and ensuring a peaceful succession. In view of the unpopularity of the marriage to Margaret, it would also be seen as having a legitimising the marriage.

The Long Wait For An Heir

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. It was eight years between Margaret's arrival in England and the birth of Edward of Lancaster.

We don't know why it took so long. There's speculation of course - a delay in consummating the marriage due to Margaret's youth, the stress and pressure of the situation, Henry being too pious for sex, Margaret undergoing rigorous fasting as part of religious devotion, Henry requiring a sex coach, Henry being the medieval equivalent of asexual and/or sex repulsed, or there being some subfertility issue. There's no real evidence, one way or the other.

Henry VI's sexuality and piety are one of those sort of myths of the Wars of the Roses, embedded in the narrative as a "truth" but lacking contemporary evidence (as Bertram Wolffe points out, there is little direct, contemporary evidence for Henry's piety, most appears in retrospect as part of an explanation for his failed kingship and part propaganda for the (Tudor-sponsored) efforts to canonise him as a saint). The evidence of a sex coach is based a historian failing to understand how a medieval king's bedrooms worked and going, "we don't know that these people in attendance on the king at night in his bedroom left when he had sex with his wife so... sex coach? Please buy my book!" We don't know that there was a delay in consummation or that Margaret was considered too young for sex (for comparison's sake, Henry's grandmother, Mary de Bohun, conceived her first son - Henry V - around her 15th birthday). Margaret herself complained of poor health caused by rigorous fasting during times of "many sufferings and tribulations" but we don't know that she was fasting throughout these early years. We don't have anything like medical records for Margaret (or Henry) to know how she tried to manage this childlessness.

But we generally don't know why a medieval couple was childless. Where we do have evidence, it's often speculative (e.g. Kristen Geaman's work on Anne of Bohemia suggests Anne suffered at least one miscarriage based on a letter she dictated).

What we do know is that Henry and Margaret never attempted to promote the image of having a chaste marriage, even though it would have provided a bulwark against criticism of their childless state - they were choosing the holy, pious option. The birth of Edward of Lancaster and Henry VI's joyous reaction to the news of Margaret's pregnancy also suggest that they were trying for a baby. I think this suggests there was some kind of uncontrollable issue, possibly medical, causing their childlessness than it being a deliberate choice to assign "blame" for. It was, in short, just bad luck.

The long wait for an heir meant the anxieties around the succession and continuation of the Lancastrian were not quickly eased. In some ways, they might have been exacerbated. Before his marriage to Margaret, there was no reason to believe that Henry would struggle to have children when he married (or at least, there is no evidence this was the case). Once married, though, Henry's continued childlessness began to appear to be an issue that couldn't be easily or quickly resolved, perhaps even being a permanent issue.

We know, too, that their childlessness was used to criticise them from as early as 1446, and Margaret was the chief target of this criticism. An example of this comes from 1448, where one felon in Canterbury gaol accused his neighbour in the isle of Thanet of saying:

oure quene was non abyl to be Quene of Inglond but and he were a pere of or a lord of this ream he woulde be on thaym that shuld hepe putte her doun for because that sche bereth no child and because that we have pryns in this land

There does seem to have been some view that in marrying Margaret, Henry had betrayed his promise to marry a daughter of the Count of Armagnac and the lack of children from their marriage could be seen as a sign of God's disapproval. It would have added to the unpopularity Margaret was already facing.

While the news of Margaret's pregnancy does seem to have been greeted with joy, the long wait for such news had exposed Margaret to ample criticism and hatred. It made it easy for the allegations of Margaret's adultery and Edward of Lancaster's illegitimacy to take root. It meant that when Henry VI had his breakdown, there was no son who could serve even nominally as a regent for him and the question of who was to govern while Henry was incapable exposed the conflicts between York and Henry and York and Somerset.

Conflict with York

A lot of the conflict between York and Lancaster began with York's quarrel with Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. Somerset was considered a favourite of Henry VI and Margaret but we don't know how much Margaret was responsible for his position in comparison to Henry or how much York's quarrel with him was really him quarrelling with the crown without openly doing so and risking a charge of treason. It does seem likely, imo, that Margaret had sympathies with Somerset given her husband evidently trusted him, but we don't know if that's true and even if it is, it was Henry VI who ostensibly promoted Somerset.

Despite the retrospective reading we put on the events leading up to the outbreak of war with the First Battle of St. Albans, we lack surviving evidence for Margaret and York being in direct hostility to each other. As Helen Maurer says:

If there is no concrete evidence of hostility between Margaret prior to the crisis of 1453-54, there is some indication that they were on reasonably good terms. York's recent biographer, P.A. Johnson goes so far to characterise Margaret as a 'politically neutral figure', whose attitude prior to January 1454 was 'if anything sympathetic to York'.

There is no evidence that York opposed Margaret's marriage to Henry. We have evidence of Margaret intervening in a property dispute in York's favour and giving York and his servants' generous New Year's gifts. The gifts to his servants in 1453 were of the same value as she gave the to the servants of Somerset and Cardinal Kemp so there was no deliberate slight there. In 1447, they were higher than the gifts she gave the Duke of Gloucester's servants (although alienated from Henry VI, Gloucester did outrank York so you'd expect his servants to get the more valuable gifts), the archbishop of Canterbury and duchesses of Bedford and Buckingham. Maurer speculates this was to reassure York in the face of his appointment to the lieutenancy of Ireland. We also have evidence of an outwardly cordial relationship between Margaret and Cecily in the early 1450s. It is not enough to suggest Margaret and Cecily were friends or what they really felt about each other but it does suggest they were both invested in keeping up at least the facade of cordiality.

The relationship between Margaret and York did sour some point. It's impossible to know what was the fatal blow was or who was the first to turn hostile. It may have been Margaret's attempt to claim the regency when Henry VI suffered his breakdown, it may have been York's imprisonment of Somerset during his protectorship, it may have been when York lost the protectorship, it may have been the rumours of York's involvement in William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk's murder in 1450.

Maurer notes that Margaret probably viewed the First Battle of St. Albans as an alarming attack on Henry's royal authority by York. She would not be wrong to do so. York may have felt justified and may have been justified in taking action to remove the individual he saw as a threat to his own authority - Somerset - but he raised his banners and fought a battle against his king. A battle where the king, Margaret's husband, had been injured. Regardless of whether or not York was "justified" or whether or not Henry pardoned him, his behaviour was, actually, treasonous (and it is likely he was only pardoned because Henry felt forced into it).

We can argue about the semantics and justifications for York's behaviour but it doesn't really matter when it comes to Margaret's reaction. York had raised an army against his sovereign and fought against his sovereign's own forces in a battle where his sovereign was wounded in the neck. There is no world in which Margaret would not see York as a threat to her family after this. If we argue that York was justified in this action because he perceived (correctly or not) that Somerset was a threat to him, then we must also accept that Margaret had every justification in viewing York as a threat to her family.

I tend to get the feeling that by 1456, Margaret and York were both in the same position. They were at a point where they viewed each other as a threat to the safety of their position and family. Whether one was more justified than the other is impossible to say. It's likely, though, that York held considerably more responsibility that the myth of him as the noble-hearted man forced to rebel to save himself.

The Problem of Henry VI

Another factor in "who do we blame for the Wars of the Roses" is Henry VI himself. We don't know when he began ruling in his own right and what periods, if any, he was unable to rule beyond the breakdown of 1453-54. We don't really know if the criticisms of his favourites, i.e. Suffolk and Somerset, were really criticisms of individuals who were ruling for him or if they were more in line with the attacks on the favourites of Edward II and Richard II. In the case of Richard II, the Lords Appellant maintained the image of loyally serving Richard while purging his household, threatening him with deposition, executing his friends, and placing themselves in positions of power by claiming that they were merely rescuing the king from the influence and bad advice of his evil councillors. This doesn't mean they didn't also have a grudge against the king's favourites, that their attack on them didn't really matter (after all, they killed a lot of them), but by focusing on the favourites, they maintained the image of loyalty to the king which helped them sidestep a charge of treason (though they also forced Richard to pardon them) and maintain popular support.

All of that is just to say that this may very well have been the case with Henry VI. York's attacks on Somerset (and maybe Suffolk, since he was rumoured to be involved in Suffolk's downfall and murder) may have simply been an attack on Somerset, perhaps justified or not, but York may have also been using Somerset as a proxy for Henry.

If he did, his quarrel could, at its core, actually be with Henry. It also raises the possibility that, after Somerset's death at the First Battle of St Albans, Margaret was simply the last one standing between York and Henry and so became the proxy for his attacks on Henry. This only intensified once York gained custody of Henry, and Margaret, with Edward of Lancaster, was out of reach and leading Lancastrian resistance.

We know that Tudor efforts to rehabilitate and canonise Henry tended to place more blame onto Margaret to absolve Henry of blame. All of this means that in terms of "how responsible, really, was Margaret for the policy decisions that alienated York?", we simply don't know. She may have served as a receptacle for blame (though personally I think she was more involved than not) or been the prime actor but we can't negate the possibility that some of the things she was blamed for were actually Henry's fault.

On the subject of Henry's mental illness... obviously, neither he or anyone else are to blame for it. Certainly, no one wakes up and goes "I know, now I shall have a deliberating mental illness that will ruin the kingdom, I totally want and will this to happen". But it did make things... very difficult. The medieval monarchy just wasn't set up to deal with a king with a severe, incapacitating mental illness (this was also the case with Charles VI of France). It tended to aggravate factionalism as nobles jostled against each other for power and influence. It placed the queen in an unenviable position of trying to protect her family and govern for the king while also appearing politically neutral, above factionalism and still living up to the ideals of queenship and only wielding soft power. Even if Margaret had managed to be appointed as regent for Henry, the case of Isabeau of Bavaria who had been regent for Charles VI suggests she wouldn't have fared much better.

On top of that, Henry's breakdown came at a bad time. He was unable to recognise Edward of Lancaster as his son upon his birth, which may well have provided some of the initial fodder for the rumours of Edward's illegitimacy. Once again: none of this was Henry's fault but it all had an impact on how much Margaret was viewed and blamed for Lancastrian failures.

Military Defeat

Margaret was widely regarded as the head of the Lancastrians and very likely this was true during the times when Henry VI was unable to rule (i.e. due to mental illness or breakdown, during his imprisonment by Edward IV). However, she was not a military commander and there is no evidence she ever donned armour or was present at any battle (we know she was in Scotland at the Battle of Wakefield, not personally overseeing any indignities heaped on Richard, Duke of York's corpse, for example). When she was travelling with the army when a battle took place, she probably stayed nearby in reasonably secure locations, such as a castle or abbey, a short distance away from the battlefield.

Responsibility for the Lancastrians' military defeats should be laid at the feet of those who actually commanded the Lancastrian forces, not Margaret. We don't know if the Lancastrians had better commanders to say that was Margaret's fault for not appointing better ones (and given the position was often granted to those of high rank, this seems likely - to appoint a man of greater ability but lesser rank risked disaster, as the narratives about the French defeat at Agincourt tells us). This is something more down to misfortune than any choice Margaret could have made. We know that Margaret had wanted to return to France following the news of the Earl of Warwick's defeat and death at the Battle of Barnet but was overruled or convinced otherwise by other Lancastrians. Had she gotten her way, the Lancastrians may never have gotten another chance (or at least a better chance) to challenge Edward IV but they probably would have survived.

There were also elements of bad luck in the Lancastrians' military defeats. The Lancastrian forces at Towton were blinded by the snow and their arrows ineffective against the wind. At Barnet, a heavy fog caused confusion amongst the troops. Storms delayed Margaret and Edward of Lancaster's return to England in 1471; had they arrived earlier they might have been able to take a better position or unite with Jasper Tudor's forces and won the Battle of Tewkesbury. Had the weather been against Edward IV and the Yorkist forces at Towton or at Barnet, had Edward IV's return been delayed by storms - well, the Lancastrians might have won.

This isn't to say that nothing was Margaret's fault. Margaret's delay at returning to England during the readeption was also partially credited to her own mistrust of the situation (a fair if ultimately fatal judgement, given the risk involved to her son and Warwick's untrustworthiness as an ally). The delay meant that Warwick struggled to muster forces under his own authority to deal with Yorkist resistance. This situation wasn't all her fault, though. Her delay was also caused by Louis XII of France, who had refused to let her leave until he got guarantees from Warwick about English support against Burgundy and the storms mentioned above. Another factor is that Warwick was simply reaping what he had sowed - very few Lancastrians had reason to trust the man who had been the chief ally of York against Henry VI, who had put Edward IV on the throne, then attempted to crown George, Duke of Clarence before allying himself with Margaret. He also seems to have been heavily involved in the creation and promotion of the stories slandering Margaret and her son.

We should also be wary of suggesting, as B. M. Cron does, that Margaret of Anjou was partly to blame for her son's defeat and death at Tewkesbury because she didn't let him fight in battle before Tewkesbury. For a start, Lancastrian hopes rested on Edward's survival. He was the viable alternative to Yorkist rule, the figure around whom opposition could gather, and the future of the dynasty. Putting him at risk was a very bad decision. His death meant the end of Lancastrian hopes.

Secondly, Tewkesbury was the first major battle he was actually of an age to fight at. Was he supposed to fight at Towton when he was 8? Hedgeley Moor or Hexham when he was 11? Thirdly, from the few accounts of his time in exile, we know he was military-minded and dedicated to martial exercises so it seems he was prepared as much as was safely possible. Finally, it is unclear whether Edward engaged in the battle proper or whether he was killed attempting to escape when it became clear the Lancastrians had lost.

Summing Up

In short, there were a lot of factors in Margaret's failure and a lot of them compounded on other. Her initial unpopularity only grew as the the English position in France weakened and as the years went by with no sign of an heir. As unrest broke out and Henry was incapable of responding or ruling, Margaret became the de facto head of the Lancastrian court and the focal point for anger at the way things were being governed. Yorkist and later Tudor propaganda built on all these factors, depicting her as the central flaw in Lancastrian rule, the one reason for its failure.

We simply don't know what Margaret was really like. The image of her as a radical, extreme figure bent on revenge fits into narratives that imagines Richard, Duke of York was faultless in his actions, that she had pushed him to an extreme and he reacted in order to save his own life. The idea that Margaret could have felt similarly threatened by York's actions is never once considered, yet she had every reason to fear him.

Do I think Margaret was entirely the innocent in the Wars of the Roses? No. Of course not. But she probably was at fault for far less than is typically attributed to her.

#asks #anon #i think more than anything that we need to be far more sceptical of yorkist narratives than we are #margaret and edward of lancaster were living figures who served as a focal point for resistance against yorkist rule #of course the yorkists were going to use propaganda to denigrate them and try to manage the problem #margaret of anjou

[cosmic--dandelion]

So how did we get from this

To this?

Let's talk about the history of Beelzebub!

Beelzebub is strongly associated and indeed often conflated with Baal, a Hellenistic era pagan god worshipped everywhere from the Canaanite city of Ekron to Greece (where he was known as Belus) to Egypt as far back as 1400 BCE. He is first mentioned in the Books of Kings (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16) as Ba'al-zəbûb, meaning "Lord of the Flies" in Hebrew, a possible corruption of "Lord of the High Place" meant to denigrate the deity after he was appropriated and repurposed as a false god, then a demon. Baal worship was extremely difficult for the early Christians to stamp out, so they basically stole other people's mythology and used it as a free idea bucket to fill out the Bible's rogues gallery.

While it's true that in some Ugaritic texts, Baal is depicted as expelling flies and causing sickness, he was still held in high esteem in ancient Canaan and Phoenicia as a powerful deity who controlled the sun, storms, and fertility and who defeated Mot, the god of death and the underworld. The ancient world could get pretty scatological at times! After all, one of Beelzebub's contemporaries, the Egyptian sun god Ra, was often depicted as a dung beetle, then a prominent symbol of rebirth.

Some scholars think he might have even been the same god! Beelzebub seems to have been the ancient world's go-to demon because the name has been used interchangeably with everyone from Lucifer, Satan, and even Hades in some gnostic texts.

Unfortunately, we don't have much information about Beelzebub's pre-Christian origins other than some iron age ruins in what is now modern day Israel that suggest his temples were decorated with little golden flies, which is pretty neat.

Interestingly, Jesus himself was accused of being a worshipper of Beelzebub multiple times in the New Testament. Maybe the Pharisees were projecting?

Throughout the Middle Ages, Beelzebub reappeared again in the Lantern of the Light (where he was associated with the sin of envy), De Occulta Philosophia, Princes of Hell, and other demonology texts. 16th-17th Century French Inquisitor Sébastien Michaelis elevated him to the rank of fallen angel in his book The Admirable History of Possession and Conversion of a Penitent Woman: Seduced by a Magician that Made Her to Become a Witch, translated to English in 1613. It was around this time Beelzebub started to become strongly associated with witchcraft. Michaelis should know; he burnt over 14 women accused of being witches!

Unsurprisingly, his name came up repeatedly during the Salem witch trials.

Beelzebub and fellow demons new and old bounced all over different classifications of demons during the 1500s and 1600s. In John Milton's epic poem Paradise Lost, first published in 1667, Beelzebub was part of an unholy trinity consisting of him, Lucifer, and Astaroth. Occultist Johan Weyer decreed that Beelzebub was the Emperor of Hell, having led a successful revolt against the devil. German theologian Peter Binsfield described him as the Prince of Gluttony in his 1589 Treatise on Confessions by Evildoers and Witches. Before that, he was associated with Envy, then Pride.

We even have his personal signature! (At least according to the Grand Grimoir, an anonymous text on black magic of unknown origin)

Beelzebub's physical appearance is even more diverse. He's been depicted as everything from a leopard, a feminine man as tall as a tower, a snake, a calf with a fly's face to...whatever the literal hell this is:

"'dressed like a bee and with two dreadful ears and his hair painted in all colors with a dragon's tail"

Jacques Albin Simon Collin de Plancy (1793 – 1881)'s Dictionnaire infernal was among the first to depict Beelzebub literally as a fly. No duck feet, no lion's mane. Just a fly.

Still better than this.

As Plancy was a skeptic influenced by Voltaire, the book was first intended as a folklore compilation but was later modified to fit with Roman Catholic theology after he converted, much to the consternation of his admirers. Many of his lurid illustrations later appeared in S. L. MacGregor Mathers's edition of The Lesser Key of Solomon...for better or for worse.

Put Adrammelech in Helluva Boss you cowards.

So basically, Beelzebub has been a public domain character since before King Tut was laid in his golden sarcophagus, and people have been just making shit up about him for millennia. What's your favorite depictation of Beelzebub? This is mine:

Nothing beats 2nd Edition Dungeons & Dragons artwork.

#helluva boss #queen bee #beelzebub #character design #meta #demonology #history #mythology #long post #vivziepop #dandelion watches hellaverse #religion

[mindibindi]

Was it Perfect? No. Was it Joyous? Yes.

Okay, I did a bunch of shitposting yesterday but now it's time to collect some coherent thoughts on what I liked and didn't about "The Giggle", the Doctors' bi-generation and RTD's HEA.

───── ⋆⋅*ੈ⋆｡✶.ೃ࿔𖦹 ✩₊˚⋆ ─────

Donna: I would’ve liked Donna to have a little more to do in the final ep. She just worked out the arpeggio thing and followed the Doctor round trying to have earnest conversations with him. When she was sat with the Doctor and the Toymaker, I kept thinking she was gonna insert herself into the game and insist she be dealt in too. Instead, it became another case of supernatural male genius vs supernatural male genius. Maybe this is me being greedy though. Because the last ep was ALL DT and CT and the whole anniversary season has been very focused on Donna and the Doctor. They had to make room somewhere for a fabulous villain (which he was), a new Doctor (also fab) and the UNIT ensemble (fab-est of all), so I guess that meant a little less Donna.

Donna did have some great moments, including annihilating those creepy puppets (which made me lol), meeting Mel and refusing to let the Doctor die alone. I do think Donna should’ve been the one to lust after 15 (much like she did when meeting Captain Jack), but maybe this older, settled version of Donna is less thirsty. As for UNIT, no doubt she will be fired regularly but then promptly rehired because she’s so indispensable (and beloved). Best of all, I love the idea of her, Shirley, Mel and Kate going out for post-work drinks while Donna’s two husbands wait at home, tapping their watches and wondering where their ginger chatterbox has gotten to.

Male Parthenogenesis: Now, RTD knows his DW lore far better than I do and apparently there is some precedent for this. But I still say the metacrisis from ep 1 could have been used to better effect in this episode, with Donna essentially healing the Doctor with her excess regeneration energy and Rose creating the new Doctor with her share of the metacrisis/regeneration energy. Because, modern understandings of gender and deep-dive fan knowledge aside, Doctor Who pretty much revolves around the idea of male parthenogenesis, man birthing man, passing on history, tradition, power, experience and greatness. Socioculturally, asexuality is fairly unfamiliar to us, but we are all indoctrinated with patriarchal, heteronormative narratives from birth. And historically, men have expressed their fear and envy of the power and potential of women/pregnant people by attempting to steal it for themselves, control creation myths and birth male gods and monsters. All the while, they completely disavowed (even denigrated) the role women/pregnant people have played in birthing this world. Through the lens of heteronormativity, regeneration offers men and boys eternal power and godlike creativity. So yeah, I would’ve liked a grown woman/mother and a trans girl just coming into her power as a woman to get a little of that regeneration action that usually belongs to the boys (with the exception of 13). Not because women and birth parents are defined by this biological function but because the male urge to own and control birth, creation and reproduction still has very real-world impacts for girls, women, enbys and trans people.  

Bi-generation: So. The big question is: Does bi-generation diffuse the power and pathos of THE Doctor? Yes. Does it follow that this is a bad thing? No. Not necessarily, not in my mind. I am not a fan of showrunners rewriting known history for shock value or fan service, but I’m not sure this is either. I understand the argument that there is power and meaning in the idea of death and rebirth, letting go and moving on, changing and learning with experience. But for all of that to be owned and embodied by one usually male/male presenting person and played by a popular, powerful cis-het male actor is a problem embedded in this show from the get. NuWho has consistently made an effort to alleviate the inherent power imbalance built into the format, distributing the incredible power of the Doctor amongst a community of extra/ordinary human beings. Some showrunners have been able to do this better than others. That said, we’ve also had a good long stint of the Doctor being a singular, tortured genius who no one quite understands, no one can ever really equal. Whatever gifts companions and their families bring, the Doctor will always be bigger, older, wiser, eternal. But, through the magic of bi-generation, his power can be shared, his centrality dispersed, his reach limited, his experience idiosyncratic, and his knowledge discrete.

Over the years, the Doctor has accrued a lot of trauma and tragedy and suffering and longing, all by virtue of this incredible power. This burden was never been more wetly portrayed than by DT so it’s fitting that he be the one to release both the power and the burden of the sad, wet, lonely Timelord by SHARING IT, by becoming plural rather than singular. It may not feel satisfying, partially because it feels unfamiliar. The trope of the lone tortured genius is recognisable and relatable. We know it well, from so many narratives. Personally, I can’t imagine Ncuti Gatwa as a lone tortured genius. I want him to have a new joyous start. And hey, if you miss the tortured Doctor then 15 has all of time and space in which to once again start accruing trauma and tragedy. But I think it’s good, and time, for 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 to drop their load and come down to earth. No longer a god, an avenging angel, an objective overseer, but essentially, a human being. Which is kinda what he/she/they wanted to be all along. This IS the death of one version of this show, one version of this character, but it isn’t being offered without regeneration and rebirth right there on the horizon.                   

Happily Ever After: RTD is not like other showrunners. He’s a bold and marvellous beast who isn’t afraid to change things up, especially when they’re not working or have outlived their usefulness. We’re often told that happy endings are trite, trivial, insignificant, unrealistic. Drama, tragedy, sorrow and suffering: that’s where all the weight and meaning of life lies. And look, RTD can write tragedy and pathos as well if not better than the best of them. He could have given us “Journey’s End” or “The End of Time” redux. He could have given twisted and complicated and harrowing. He chose not to. Because, unlike SO MANY SHOWRUNNERS, RTD knows when to write an ending, when to resolve tension, when to heal wounds. It’s common practice, especially in the American television industry, to just…never end, never resolve, never stop, never state, never land. To just flog a creative horse until it drops dead. (At least, this was the television I grew up with; streaming services have altered this model somewhat.)

Doctor Who is exactly the kind of intellectual property that could’ve (and could still under Disney) fall victim to the capitalistic urge for moremoremoremoremoremoremore, despite the fact that such endlessness eventually exhausts creativity and, with it, audience interest. A capitalist never wants the revenue stream to end. But a real writer, a true creator is bold enough to know where to place a well-timed full-stop. In my opinion, RTD read the room and wrote an ending. An ending that the show and the world needed. An ending that shared power. An ending that celebrated ordinary humanity. An ending that healed trauma and prioritised love. An ending that still allows for new life, new potential, new discoveries, new structures, new understandings, and new joy. All of that is totally on-brand for RTD. Those themes of multiplicity, humanity, healing, love and possibility pervade the 60th anniversary specials from beginning to end. They were built into the fabric of each episode. And they’re also the very essence of Doctor Who.     

#dr who #dw #dw specials #dw spoilers #dw 60th #doctor who #doctor who 60th anniversary #the giggle #donna noble #rose noble #the celestial toymaker #the doctor #the 14th doctor #the 15th doctor #the doctor x donna #14 x donna #david tennant #catherine tate #tennant x tate #ncuti gatwa #rtd #russell t davies #nuwho

[toweringclam]

I've alluded to it before but my personal theory of what Millia sacrificed for Angra: Her self-image.

Whether or not it's truly a Forbidden Beast (I think it is, but w/e), it stands to reason that Angra might follow similar rules to Eddie. Granted, it's hard to extrapolate with only one data point, but there's such a strong association between shadow and eyesight that it'd be weird if there wasn't some connection there. He sacrificed a sense to control a being that obscures that sense.

Hair is very often associated with beauty, especially for women. It's one reason why ascetics shave their heads. In Buddhism, hair is associated with vanity. It's a barrier to true consciousness. Therefore, having hair that she could control could be considered the ultimate vanity. It obscures her internal sense of self.

We see this in the Night of Knives drama CD where she constantly denigrates herself, especially at the beginning. She compares herself to a doll, a body pillow, a slave. She can only define herself through the way other people see her, and Zato-1 sees her as a possession. Through the story, she gains the strength to defy him, but even post-timeskip, she still struggles. Her song "Love the Subhuman Self" is about how she still can't see herself as beautiful. It's even possible that the only thing she can see in the mirror is Angra.

I think it's worth noting that, while Zato's pact was made willingly, hers was not. The exact circumstances are unclear, but it's pretty clear she didn't know what the results would be, and that Zato-1 wanted her to do it. I think it was meant to be another means of control and abuse, which makes their current relationship ironic. The person who once robbed her of her humanity is now her most unwavering supporter, as he now defines himself through her.

#guilty gear strive #guilty gear #guilty gear lore #millia rage #millia guilty gear #zato 1 #guilty gear zato

[horizon-verizon]

Thoughts on Daenerys publicly executing the former slave and how she went about it in S05x02?

In a word? Not great. Boo.

The show rewrite & repurposing of Mossader &seems like it was meant to rewrite progression of the "error" Daenerys makes with her dragons by essentially adding another one that I'm sure they didn't think was an serious error. A way for them to try to make Dany seem a worse leader & thinker than she really is. I don't like how the show basically tried to make her look tyrannical by making her violently suppress the actions of someone who was both devoted to her and really had already been shut down before when he was saying the right thing. Which was to just get rid of this harpy-hire dude at the very least and at most what she said abt sending a message.

I also hated how it made Mossader look irrational & nearly "savage" through a display of fanatics--in how he almost dreamily said he did it "for her", posing Daenyers' goddess-like stature as easily shiftable to threatening. Foreshadowing that horrible erroneous ending of her becoming a Hitler figure. Like the scene was saying to us she inspires generationally brutalized and dehumanized brown people to the point of irrational "frenzy" and she cannot even be nuanced or sympathetic as she had been before in her ruling for Mossader. This pathetic-ized person who had at one point called her Mhysa and believed in her.

But the narrative the show pushes is not even fair itself to this man (hypocritically) & is just using him to denigrate Dany; becasue why are we making the only male brown former slave besides Grey Worm do such a thing AND be as I said "fanatical" towards the white Dany??! This man, who was put on their council as the voice and reason of those freed Meereenese...appears to us as totally unreasonable bc we know and he "should" have known that there were consequences for disrupting the Westerosi-style of "fair trial" and "honor"...The trial would be a false one, bc this guy will not be let off or go free. His crimes are obvious. Even if we did posit him going free, he'd likely just go back to being a hire for the harpy!

Plus we saw how actual ineffectual and emotion-based/false honor-based actual Westerosi trials can be through both of the trials against Tyrion: at the Eyries; esp the one at the Red Keep after Joffrey dies. So much for fairness of the superior Westerosi style of justice! (another hypocrisy of the writing itself)

So the show has Dany simultaneously "fails" Mossader, and utterly. As if the bonds she has with the slaves and her mission really don't mean anything to her.

After all, does she not marry Hizdahr, reopen the fighting pits (later) to stop the killings of the freedmen...Then she kills the freedman who was supposed to rep them all??

And the points Hizdahr & Barristan Selmy tried to make against killing the dude besides the trial..."poor and young"; "Why should he want to bring back slavery? What did it do for him?"; " I don't know it, and I'm the head of a great family."...why are we even indulging in these stupid protests?!!! We know his presence is so the other nobles feel they have say and influence over Dany, but there was no rebuttal (or at least a sign from her dismissing Hizdahr, whether he sees it or not) from show!Dany against his absurd "logic" about "going easy" on this guy. Huh?!

Subsequently, she loses a lot of faith from the freedmen who beg for not only Mossader's life but for her to not bend to the masters' clear attempt to confuse the priority. Which is their total freedom at those masters' expense. Which is exactly what D&D wanted bc they hate her, refuse to understand her, and lost interest in this series.

It was just a huge mess!

CONTEXT for comparison

a)

Mossador died differently in the original book series ("A Dance with Dragons -- Daenerys II"):

In the show, he gets executed because show!Daenerys wanted to re-establish a peace of between the freedmen and the former (not so former) slavers and elites of Meereen. Some, if not all, of these elites formed the group "Sons of the Harpy", and in the show one of these are captured. Show!Mossader didn't believe that any of the Masters would just lie down and allow Daenerys' end to legal slavery in Meereen stick. And that they'd eventually somehow either get this prisoner out OR this Master would be somehow saved in the process of a the trial that was planned for him:

MOSSADOR: Sons of the Harpy, they want to put a collar back on my neck. On all of our necks. Please, Your Grace, you must kill him. DAENERYS: It would send a message. BARRISTAN: I think you should exercise restraint, Your Grace. DAENERYS: Why? BARRISTAN: For one thing, he may have valuable information. DAARIO: The Son of the Harpy has no more valuable information. BARRISTAN: How do you know that? DAARIO: Because I questioned him. HIZDAHR: And the information you did get, he is young and poor. MOSSADOR: He is born free. HIZDAHR: Why should he want to bring back slavery? What did it do for him? DAENERYS: Perhaps the only thing that gave him pride was knowing that there was someone lower than he was. MOSSADOR: They pay him. Great families afraid to do a thing. They pay poor man to do it for them. HIZDAHR: And how do you know this? MOSSADOR: Everyone knows this. HIZDAHR: I don't know it, and I'm the head of a great family. BARRISTAN: We do not know what this man did or didn't do. (to Daenerys) Give him a trial, at least. A fair trial. Show all of the citizens of Meereen that you are better than those who would depose. Teach them a better way. MOSSADOR: I do not know the place from where Old Ser comes. Things maybe are different there, I hope. But here, in Meereen, before Daenerys Stormborn, they own us. So we learn much about them or we do not live long. They teach me what they are. Mercy, fair trial: these mean nothing to them. All they understand is blood!

So he preemptively and vengefully kills the prisoner, and as you see here, he expresses no regrets about disobeying Daenerys and doing it:

DAENERYS: Why? MOSSADOR (Valyrian): For you, Mhysa. You wanted the Harpy dead, but your hands were tied. I set you free, as you did all of us. DAENERYS: He was our prisoner, awaiting trial. You had no right. MOSSADOR: He would rather rip your city apart than see slaves lifted from the dirt. DAENERYS: There are no more slaves. There are no more Masters. MOSSADOR: Then who lives in the Pyramids? Who wears gold masks and murders your children? When Grey Worm came to us, I was the first to take up the knife for you. I remember the look on my father's face as I struck down his Master, who had traded his infant son for a dog. My father died in the fighting. If we allow the Sons of the Harpy to return us to chains, he never lived. DAENERYS: The Harpy's life was not yours to take. Once, the Masters were the law-- MOSSADOR: And now you are the law! DAENERYS: The law is the law. Take him.

Mossador died differently in the original book series ("A Dance with Dragons -- Daenerys II"):

He's one of the many freedmen murdered by the Sons. And it's not until the 4th episode that her 2nd husband will appear, and he matters bc this is about how she gets on Drogon and re-orient her goals.

b) Attempt at a Summary (How Dany Actually gets to Marry Hizdahr, his role, and Riding Drogon out of the Pit.)

Bk!Dany does have an arc where she at first tries to acclimate or compromise with the former slave masters for the sake of peace in Meereen but comes to realize that her efforts is simply not going to work. She reopens the fighting pits where former slave gladiators would fight after Hizdahr zo Loraq petitions her several times and brings some famous gladiators to beg her to reopen them. She, like in the show, marries Hizdahr and makes him her royal consort when he meets her condition of bringing some 90 days of peace (the high priestess, the Green Grace Galazza Galare suggested a marriage to him). Absolutely no murders or attacks against freedmen nor those few nobles who actually are obeying Dany. In this observation and despite what another noble, Skahaz mo Kandaq, warned about Hizdahr being the the Harpy, leader of the Sons of the Harpy. He was one fo the nobles who decided to abandon the slavery society and "ways" other nobles want to keep going. Again, she wanted that peace and dismissed his warning, and Hizdahr starts to show his true colors in his dismissing Skahaz from his position as the leader of the new Meerenese "city watch", or police, and appointing one of his own cousins. He says that this is to get more of the nobles on her side. (He's not the Harpy, but he's definitely closely tied to them.)

They reopen the fighting pits to celebrate the wedding; Hizdahr insists the fighters volunteered. Hizdahr offers Dany locust treats, it turns out they are poisoned later on when we see Strong Belwas get very sick from them and it's only due to his large and heavyset body that he survives. Dany sees that he's very into the violence, in a way that gets mixed with a sexual excitement at it. During another fight, Drogon appears, Hizdahr calls for people to kill Drogon, and Daenerys jumps into the pit to calm and try to bring Drogon to heel, she's flies off, Drogon basically leading her. Dany, half starved & dehydrated, dreams of her brother and hallucinates Jorah Mormount (those close to her who've betrayed her) but it's also her reflecting on her persistent guilt for the girl Drogon killed that motivated her into the mistake of locking up her dragons. Narrowly escaping a Dothraki scout, she and Drogo fly to another place, eating horse, and that's where the scout's khal, Jhaqo, and his warriors find her. Resumably to try to rape & kill her or to to take her back to Vaes Dothrak to the dosh khaleen and become one of them forever.

In all the time Dany was gone, Hizdahr has been trying to use his marriage to Daenerys to rule Meereen in her absence and a plot (he likely enabled even by just taking instructions) to retake the city gets foiled under Barristan Selmy, Missandei, and Grey Worm's leadership. There are prisoners they take & essentially they are now running the city in Dany's name, waiting for her return. Hizdahr is one of those prisoners. But in the show, Hizdahr died at the pits when a Harpy stabs him.

#asoiaf asks to me #Hizdahr zo Loraq #Hizdahr's characterization #Mossador #got s5e2 #Galazza Galare #Skahaz mo Kandaq #game of thrones 2015 #got #game of thrones

[the-empress-7]

My blogging skills are a little rusty so please bear with me. I want to discuss Early Years from a Problem -> Solution standpoint.

I am about to use Camilla's work to illustrate a point, it's not meant in any way to denigrate the cause or Camilla's efforts around it. Let's take her work with domestic violence for example. Her work 1. Is about raising awareness about the problem 2. Supporting organizations that provide resources to victims of domestic violence. I don't see anyone complaining that Camilla hasn't delivered something tangible or even single handedly eradicated the problem despite being attached to the cause for years and years. Cause you know, that would be an absurd expectation.

Now let's take this example in the context of Early Years. Catherine's work is intended to improve to the quality of life that the entire society provides to children between the ages of 0-5, which fundamentally is meant to prevent problems that people face as adults i.e. Addiction and Poor Mental Health

Guess what? Catherine has already provided solutions /resources for the problem end of this sad equation....just look at her work with Heads Together or Action for Addition. She is now working on the preventative end of the problem...hence Early Years.

When it comes to solving any problem correctly, the intended solution actually has to solve the problem. For example if I wake up tomorrow and decide I want to solve the problem of child hunger across my entire country, it wouldn't be enough for me to just build a new food bank in my area. See my point?

She is literally trying to solve a multi-generational social problem from both ends of the spectrum, and let's be real, there is no human on this planet who can solve this problem on his/her own. It's a shame that some people can't see this and have chosen negativity instead.

[de-sterren-nacht]

Not to be too rude because I do get where you’re coming from with “pls don’t sexualize the bazett she deserves better”, but is she flat? In Hollow Ataraxia Avenger has a line stating something along the lines of “it’s a shame such a stacked body is wasted on her” or something because of her personality; been a while since I played it but I do remember that line for… reasons.

I think it's important to remember two things.

One: Avenger is a misogynist. This is a pretty obvious trait that he has, and one that's meant to be seen clearly by the audience. He's rude to women and disrespects and insults them whenever he speaks with them. This is because he's a mirror image of Shirou; in Fate/Stay Night, Shirou struggles with his impulse to protect women, even though almost every woman he knows is much more capable than him, most notably in Fate route where he conflicts with Saber over her fighting for him because of his misogynistic beliefs, which are an outgrowth of his unhealthy desire to save everyone. Avenger's more traditionally-understood misogyny is meant to contrast with Shirou's "chivalrous" misogyny, especially in how it is an outgrowth of an unhealthy emotion; in Avenger's case, his hatred for everyone.

Two: Every sentence that Avenger says is him talking completely out of his ass. Both out loud and in his internal monologue, Avenger is written to enrage everyone he speaks to; it just so happens that in his internal monologue, the one he is speaking to is the reader.

Avenger also makes a comment about how Bazett is "actually 13" because her mental age is "ten years younger" due to her having never had a real childhood; this is not meant to be a serious comment on Bazett's maturity, but rather is meant to show how Avenger's ideas of maturity and sexuality are warped, to reflect his feelings about himself as someone else who never had a real childhood and to demonstrate the denigrating way he thinks and talks about women. It's written in an inflammatory manner because Avenger just naturally speaks in an inflammatory way. I think his comment about Bazett's figure is meant to be read this same way; he's reducing her to a figure he hasn't even seen because he's a misogynist who speaks in an extremely rude manner. It shouldn't be seen as an authoritative statement on her canon appearance.

#authority questioned #incoherent rambling

[jamoncitofail]

The fanon antics you posted drived me nuts! I think the post was great! Someone reblogged saying that Aiura was a slut. What is your opinion on that?

Well, the things that Nopsi said are true.

By definition Aiura is a “slut”. The problem is that people use it to bash and denigrate her (and that’s why they use the word “slut” instead of just saying that she likes sex 🫠).

Another problem I see is that people say that Aiura is a slut to make Teruhashi “better”, or to say that “Saiki wouldn’t date someone that sleeps around”.

But also, I used the wrong word lol. I meant to use the word “whore” not “slut. I’m an idiot (and English isn’t my first language) so I fucked it up and used the wrong one.

Conclusión: People shouldn’t use the word slut (a word, that even if by definition it’s accurate, it’s degrading) to describe a 16-17 year old, specially when it’s only to make your ship “better” and make it more valid 👍

So no, I wouldn’t call her a slut

#saiki k #saiki kusuo no psi nan #tdlosk #mikoto aiura

[mothfishing]

i never read tlt myself but i have a bunch of friends who have and have been begging me to read it to and so i’m super confused ??? i have never heard about the racism…

anonymous asked: can u tell me about the racist elements of tlt... id never heard this before and i follow a lot of people who talk about the series a lot

anonymous asked: I hope this isn't rude but what even is the deal w the locked tomb. I remember vaguely hearing abt it being like "the best shit ever" and then that it had some really intense scenes/Themes then learning the creator was a grade A creep and then like nothing. What is even going on in the book???

yeah ofc! lumping all three of you's questions together since it's essentially the same one (also at #3 it's not rude)

oh god where do i start...so i read the first book and hated it pretty early on, but my intention had been to read the entire series so i could more completely express what was so grimy about it, since this book gets a lot of praise. despite my best efforts it was too rancid and i stopped partway through book 2.

thus i'll focus on book 1 criticisms first cause that's the book i finished, but i do have some series-wide criticisms as well. warnings for racism, pedophilia, ableism:

the author has this absolute obsession with physical features, and in particular she frequently praises features associated with whiteness while denigrating features associated with people of color. like constantly constantly constantly you see blue, purple, and hazel eyes given loving descriptions like amethyst, violet, while brown eyes are almost exclusively compared to dirt whenever they're mentioned.

only two characters in the first book are described as brown-skinned, jeannemary and colum. jeannemary is a "brown, bricklike thing", and colum is a yellow-brown lump. gideon's own personality is stupid horny idiot who's only good for her strength, which uh...A Choice given that, while she isn't described as brown in the first book, the cover art does still depict her with brown skin and harrow with light skin.

i'll also note that colum and one other character, silas, are both from the eighth house. outside of the book muir said they were both white, but in-book they're quite frankly associated with caricatures of east asian people to the extent that best case scenario is she used said caricatures to prop up her depiction of white people you weren't meant to like. like........in particular i wanna note silas constantly reciting religious mantras, as well as their description as "violently servile", which is so strongly associated w caricatures of east asian people. and once again she literally describes colum as yellow,

the post didn't mention it bc i wrote it in 2 seconds out of frustration, but it's also astonishingly ableist to the point where, while reading, i got frustrated and made a list of every time a symptom came up so gideon could insult whoever had it................arthritis, osteoporosis, blindness, hyperthyroidism, all of these came up as insults. "oh but the first three are because they're old" do you have to bring up conditions associated with elderly people???

plus cytherea is a character with a romantic terminal illness, constantly described as beautiful because of her frail (and white, blond, blue-eyed) body...im disabled myself i'm not saying disabled people can't be described as beautiful/hot/etc, but it felt fetishistic here and like the focus was less on her personhood and more on how she was weak and "rescuable" basically.

i'll also note the age gap between palamedes and dulcinea, people who literally met when they were 8 and 15, which was romanticized as "oh dulcinea took his feelings seriously because she's used to not being taken seriously because of her illness :)"

now series-wide...i didn't get to this myself so i don't have a whole lot to elaborate here, but the whole thing is a christian imperial empire run by a māori man and i just don't trust a white kiwi with that sorry.

also-also i'm not a lesbian/wlw at all myself, but friends of mine who are read the book with me and we noted gideon was. not even butch. both her presentation and protector role had been foisted upon her by someone who did not let her forget she owned her. everyone talking abt lesbian rep and then the main couple is a master and servant whose culminating arc in the first book is gideon becoming the perfect servant...also once again, harrow is light skinned and gideon is brown skinned.

finally, tamsyn muir has written even more explicit creep shit so i just genuinely don't know why it is she got popular in the first place. you don't need to know this to despise her work, but wow! (sorry to the person whose reblog this is, op deleted)

#asks #anonymous