Hello Newsies fandom, for your casual viewing pleasure (and because apparently some people think headcanoning the Jacobs family as Jewish is antisemitic), here is the exact passage from the official Newsies novel that states Davey is Jewish and Jack is Irish :D
It's not a headcanon, it's literally written in the source material and, even if it wasn't, this fandom has been headcanoning characters' ethnicities based on their names since 1992. They're street kids living in New York City in 1899, they're going to be a diverse group and the best thing we have to go on is their names. I know my group of mutuals headcanon at least two other characters as Jewish, somewhat if not entirely based on their names.
Like, I don't know how else to explain that headcanoning a character with a traditionally Jewish name isn't "stereotyping" it's literally just being like "oh hey, this whole family has really common Jewish names, it would be fun if they're Jewish" and then we all move on with our lives because it's also literally canon. Like, it would be bad if we were headcanoning a character as Jewish purely because they exhibit behaviors that are also associated with negative Jewish stereotypes but that's literally not what's happening here. Also I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in the non-dialogue parts of the script somewhere but I don't have access to that.
In conclusion, don't be weird about people headcanoning characters as minorities, it's not stereotyping it's literally just people existing.
(Also, I am not Jewish, so I do not at all claim to be any kind of authority on representation. If any Jewish bloggers want to weigh in I will happily read and be open to learning!)
309 notes
·
View notes
any thoughts on how once again zelda was robbed of her agency because her "father figure" didn't listen to her? even if rauru was kinder to her than her father. and that she had sonia who was patient and loving for a little while before she died (just like her mother). i know rauru apologizes for his hubris but still, i wish we saw zelda be upset about it. and even if zelda was such a big part of the quest she still literally sacrificed her humanity once again because of someone else's mistake- because rauru literally didn't listen to the girl from the future that warned you that shit was going to go down. o know nintendo just loves putting zelda inside crystals and stones but i wish we got something better. even if it was her decision to become a dragon... did she have any other choice? it really just feels like they robbed her of agency again just like botw and the games before
i've been trying to figure out how to answer this one. because there are two ways i could analyze this plot point, either from a writer's perspective or an in-story perspective, but neither of those lead to me fully agreeing with your interpretation? I think there's definitely something to be said about zelda consistently being pushed aside in these games, but. well. ok let's get into it ig
from a writer's perspective, I do honestly have quite a bit of sympathy for the zelda devs as they attempt to navigate the modern political landscape with these games. The cyclical lore, though canonized relatively recently, holds them to a standard of consistency in their games in terms of certain key elements. one of those key elements is that there has to be a princess, and that princess must somehow be the main macguffin of the game. The player must chase her, and the end goal of the game must be to reunite the player and the princess. In 1986 this was an incredibly easy sell. women didn't need to be characters. players were content with saving a 2-dimensional princess whose only purpose was to tell them "good job!" at the end. but as society advances, that princess becomes a much more difficult character to write while adhering to the established overarching canon. (as a side note: i don't necessarily believe that the writers SHOULD be held to the standards of that canon. I think deviating from it in certain areas would be a good change of pace. but i also recognize that deviations from the formula are widely hated by the loz playerbase and that they're trying to make money off these games, so we're working under the established rule that the formula must be at least loosely adhered to.) Modern fans want a princess who is a person, who has agency and makes decisions and struggles in the same way the hero does. but modern fans ALSO want a game that follows the established rules of the canon. so we need a princess who is a real character but who can ALSO serve as a macguffin within the narrative, something that is inherently somewhat objectifying.
the two games that i think do the best job writing a princess with agency are skyward sword and botw (based on your ask, our opinions differ there lol. hear me out) in both games, we have a framing event which seperates zelda and link, but in both games, that separation was ZELDA'S CHOICE. skyward sword zelda runs away from link out of fear of hurting him. botw zelda chooses to return to the castle alone to allow link the time he needs to heal. sksw kinda fumbled later on by having ghirahim kidnap her anyway, but. i said BEST not PERFECT. botw zelda I think is the better example because, with the context of the memories, she's arguably MORE of a character than link is. we see her struggles, her breakdowns, her imperfection, specifically we see her struggle with her lack of agency within the context of the game itself. when she steps in front of link in the final memory, and when she chooses to return to the castle, those are some of the first choices we see her make almost completely free of outside influence; a RECLAMATION of her agency (within the narrative) after years of having it stripped from her. from an objective viewer's standpoint, this writing decision still means she is absent from 90% of the game and that she has little control over her actions for the duration of the player's journey. however I think this is just about the best they could have done to create a princess with agency and a real character arc while still keeping the macguffin formula intact--you're not really SAVING zelda in botw. SHE is the one that is saving YOU; when you wake up on the plateau with no memories, too weak to fight bokoblins, let alone calamity ganon. the reason you are allowed to train and heal in early-game botw is because SHE is in the castle holding ganon back, protecting YOU. When you enter the final fight, you're not rescuing zelda, you're relieving her of her duty. taking over the work she's been doing for the past hundred years. in the final hour, you both work in tandem to defeat ganon. while this isn't a PERFECT example of a female character with agency and narrative weight, i think it's a pretty good one, especially in the context of save-the-princess games like loz.
as for totk, you put a lot of emphasis on rauru not believing zelda and taking action immediately, which, again, from an objective standpoint, i understand. but even when we're writing characters with social implications in mind, those character's actions still need to... make sense. Rauru was a king ruling over what he believed to be a perfectly peaceful kingdom. zelda literally fell out of the sky, landed in front of him, claimed to be his long-lost granddaughter, and then told him that some random ruler of a fringe faction in the desert was going to murder him and he had to get the jump on it by killing him first. the ruler which this girl is trying to convince rauru to wage an unprompted war on has the power to disguise himself as other people. no one in their right mind would immediately take the girl at her word. war is not something any leader should jump into without proper research and consideration, and to rauru's credit, he DIDN'T ever outright dismiss zelda. he believed her when she said she was from the future, he allowed her to work with him and he took her warnings as seriously as he could without any further proof. but he could not wage an unprompted war on ganondorf. that's just genuinely not practical, especially for a king who values peace among his people as much as rauru seems to. as soon as ganondorf DID attack, giving rauru confirmation that zelda's accounts of the future were real, he began making preparations to confront him. remember that zelda didn't KNOW that rauru and sonia were going to be casualties of the war--she didn't make the connection between rauru's arm in the future and rauru the king until AFTER sonia's death, when rauru made the decision to attack ganondorf directly. I think the imprisoning war and the casualties of it were less an issue of zelda being denied agency and more an issue of no one, including zelda, having full context for the events as they were unfolding. if zelda had KNOWN that sonia and rauru were going to die from the beginning and was still unable to prevent it that would be a different issue, but she didn't. none of them did.
I think another thing worth pointing out with rauru and his death irt zelda is that rauru is clearly written specifically as a foil to rhoam. this is evident in how he treats both zelda and link, with a constant kindness and understanding which is clearly opposite to rhoam's dismissiveness and disappointment. consider rhoam's death and the circumstances surrounding it. He died because, in zelda's eyes, she was unable to do her duty; the one thing he constantly berated her for. Rhoam's death solidified zelda's belief that she was a failure, a belief which she KNEW rhoam held as well. his death was doubly traumatic to her because she knew he died believing it was her fault. Now contrast that to the circumstances surrounding rauru's death. Rauru CHOSE to die despite zelda's warnings, because he wanted zelda and his kingdom to live. rauru's death was not agency-stripping for zelda; in fact, it functioned almost as an admission that he believed her capable of continuing to live in his place. With him gone, the fate of the kingdom fell to her and the sages. he KNEW that he would die and still went into that battle confidently, trusting zelda to make the right decisions once he was gone. where rhoam believed zelda incapable of doing ANYTHING without link, rauru trusted zelda COMPLETELY with the fate of his kingdom. several details in totk confirm that when rauru died there was no plan for zelda to draconify, that all happened after rauru was gone. it was HER plan, the plan which rauru trusted her to come up with once he was gone. and I think it's also worth noting that zelda's sacrifice with the draconification parallels rauru's!! Rauru gives up his life trusting the sages and his people to be able to continue his work in his place. Zelda gives up her physical form trusting link and the sages in the future to be able to figure out what to do and find her. these games in general have this recurring theme but totk specifically is all about love and trust and reliance on others. zelda relies on link, link relies on zelda, they both rely on the champions and the sages and rauru and sonia and they all rely each other. reliance on others isn't lack of agency, it's a constant choice they make, and that choice is the thing which allows them to triumph.
The draconification itself is something i view similarly to zelda's sacrifice in botw--a choice she makes which, symbolically & within the confines of the narrative, is a demonstration of her reclaimed agency and places her at the center of the narrative, but which ALSO removes her from much of the player's experience and robs her of any overt presence or decisionmaking within the gameplay. again, I think this is a solution to the macguffin-with-agency dilemma, and it's probably one of the better solutions they could have come up with. Would I have liked to see a game where zelda is more present within the actual gameplay? yes, but I also understand that at this point the writers aren't quite willing to deviate that much from their formula. the alternative within the confines of this story would be to let zelda DIE in the past, removing her from gameplay ENTIRELY, which is an infinitely worse option in my opinion. draconification allowed her to be present, centered the narrative around her, and allowed the writers to reiterate the game's theme of trust and teamwork when she assists the player in the final battle, which i think was a REALLY great choice, narratively speaking.
In any case, I don't think it's right to say that zelda was completely robbed of her agency in botw and totk. Agency doesn't always mean that she's unburdened and constantly present, it means she's given the freedom to make her own choices and that her choices are realistically written with HER in mind, not just the male characters around her, and I think botw/totk do a pretty good job of writing her and her choices realistically and with nuance.
162 notes
·
View notes
I got it in my head that Jin has always wanted to be a dad, but once the war starts and he starts becoming the Ghost, that road seems to shut on him. Who wants to live as the wife of a marked man, and what could he pass to the heir of a disbanded bloodline?
But I can't see him being single for the rest of his life, and I don't just mean casual sleeping around. He would be one of those people who somehow get locked down, and once he's quietly married he'll sit there wondering, "When did this happen?"
I do see him as bisexual, especially given that samurai were allowed to have relationships with other men (it's a specific age gap type of relationship, but from what I've read, that doesn't mean the door was shut on adult samurai having relationships with each other either), but when it came to actual marriage, it was expected that they end up with women because of how people expected gender roles to work when it came to starting a family.
So...I think one of two things could happen:
He has a child with Yuna. I absolutely do not ship this by a million miles (no hate to the ship, I just very strictly see them as bros), but she's the only woman he can get close to without dragging her into danger by association with him. It's very much a case of "my best friend and I made a pact that if we're still single by forty, we'd get married."
Or he finds a woman who willingly throws herself into a life on the run, or already is, and they become inextricably involved with each other. It could even be Tomoe. He sneaks onto the mainland on a mission, to the capital of Japan itself...and, well...
I have a lot of complicated feelings about this, given that Jin was most likely raised being taught that blood is everything. But the way he was raised, his relationship with his elders, and eventually the found family he ends up with at the end of the game tell a completely different story.
17 notes
·
View notes
just curious- somewhat in relation to your fic- but do you think Eliza would have been accepting towards Alexander's and John's relationship? if she ever found out.
Nope. And I highly doubt she ever knew either.
Although we don't have anything that indicates Eliza's opinion on sodomy, it is likely safe to assume she was probably your average, period-typical, homophobic, upperclass woman. Maybe even a bit worse considering she was a devoted christian, and was just a judgmental person in general. Eliza was religious and was adamant about it all considering she was often the one instilling religion and proper Christian behaviors in her kids since Hamilton wasn't really a religious person up until the last few years of his life.
I don't see her as being anywhere near accepting, and I often see people comparing it to the Reynolds affair which is just refutable—Infidelity and affairs were actually a commonplace thing of the day, and it wasn't like the Hamiltons' were sheltered from this issue with Hamilton's own family, and their association with others like Gouverneur Morris. Hamilton and Eliza shared the same class with many couples and families that were a victim of such, so honestly, I can imagine it being more forgivable than sodomy (Plus the whole infidelity loop that twists them in since Hamilton was still in a relationship with Laurens when marrying Eliza). And that point, Eliza would have definitely left.
And there are arguments that she supposedly would have been if she didn't mind Baron von Steuben associating with the family, which leads to the unfortunate truth that; even if she did, let's say, know about the Baron's inclinations, it wasn't her choice or say who associated with the family. Ultimately it was Hamilton's, and as much as he loved his wife, I highly doubt he was consulting her about that stuff. Also it's faulty to even consider she knew, as the Baron wasn't foolish with this sort of thing—He was smart about being good with making friends with the upperclass society (Y'know, like the Schuylers'). And honestly, all the rumors surrounding around why he got discharged from the Prussian army and the conclusion being that he was gay probably weren't even true. It's more likely he was just released from service because the army was downsizing, it's incredibly hard to believe he could have just been so open about his sexuality to people, especially enough so to get discharged. If anything, the most critical thing was that he remained a bachelor. So, I highly doubt Eliza knew of that either.
And now it comes down to, would Hamilton tell her? I don't think so. Nothing suggests he ever did, and that she ever knew even after both men's deaths. Sure, Hamilton confided a lot to his wife, but this would have been too grave to share. Additionally, there wouldn't be any reason to, Laurens was dead and Hamilton ended up pushing the memory of him far away.
But since you brought up my fic, I'll add on what separates some of my opinions and then my stories; it's fiction, and despite some of my beliefs like Eliza never agreeing with this sort of thing, or that Laurens and Hamilton would have fallen out of contact had he lived, it doesn't mean I'm always going to implement the most realistic thing in a fiction story I'm writing for fun. It's all about being hypothetical, and exploring those what-if's—So, please remember I'm not always going to be displaying what I say here in my work. Sometimes I will, but in this case where SFP is just a fun little project I started writing for fun and interactions I wanted to imagine, not everything is going to be the most realistic case in scenario.
65 notes
·
View notes