WAIT OK SORRY IT'S SUPER LATE BUT you're losing me?
I will accept this late message because I love you, and because “You’re Losing Me” is exactly the song that my original text post complaining about Swifties missing the point was about haha
the Swiftie lyric: “I wouldn’t marry me either a pathological people pleaser” and also to a lesser extent “I’m getting tired even for a phoenix always rising from the ashes”
the lyric we should be paying attention to: “who only wanted you to see her” and “lose something babe, risk something. choose something babe I’ve got nothing to believe unless you’re choosing me”
ugh the reaction to this song drives me up a wall. to pull out “I wouldn’t marry me either a pathological people-pleaser” WITHOUT finishing the line?? are you nuts??? because the end of the line gives us so much context!!! he’s not losing her because she wanted to make the whole place shimmer and he wanted to hide and found her people-pleasing ways annoying, no! he’s losing her because all she wanted, the only person at the end of the day that she wanted to please, was him. but actually the song keeps going, it tells us even more as Taylor does what she always does: gives very clear instructions of exactly what he needs to do to dig them out of this hole. and it’s not pay more attention to her, it’s choose her. she said in “Cruel Summer”, we say that we’ll just screw it up in these trying times, we’re not trying—and he’s STILL not. he won’t risk. but he can’t keep going on in this same way, floating in limbo forever. and so she has nothing to place her faith in, her faith that was always so strong.
basically what it comes down to is this. the popular reception of this song I’ve seen is so focused on the one pathological people-pleaser line that it’s somehow spun an interpretation of the song as about falling out of love when you’re convinced you’re unlovable. it’s just a shade off from the “what a shame she’s fucked in the head” of “champagne problems”; the blame is turned inward, except for very brief moments where it looks out at him to spit specific accusations “I know my pain is such an imposition”, ���don’t you ignore me I’m the best thing at this party” etc. and I think that’s absolutely bullshit. “You’re Losing Me” is definitely not about pulling away and sabotaging the relationship, and it’s not even about someone doing a bunch of little hurtful things in the relationship. it’s about the relationship dying because one person won’t make a choice about what the relationship is and what it means. it’s Taylor giving the final word on the feminine experience of being taken for granted and strung along. it’s about waiting for someone to commit to you, and they never do. it’s about when you wanted to give everything, but your partner will only ever give a little, so you have to stop giving. to me, this is just clear. and I think the only reason that it hasn’t been taken note of is because the culture wants to go on believing that taking the “step” of living together while always keeping the back door open is somehow “good for the relationship”. but it isn’t. it’s not the familiar violence of being left, “this thing was a masterpiece til you tore it all up”, but it is just as destructive. it just kills you slowly.
17 notes
·
View notes
I've read some historians defend the Seymour faction recently, and was wondering if Gross included the defense. It is that while they did plot to neutralize Anne, they were probably only aiming for annulment and banishment like had been done to Katherine.
No, Gross didn't include that. That's been a more recent defense, I've read it too, from both Weir & Mackay.
Yeah, the defense is interesting because...it seems more like a strawman argument/ moving the goalposts than anything else. I have never read anyone claim that, it doesn't make sense that back in February of 1536 or whatever, they would be plotting Anne's judicial murder. It was unprecedented, how would they have even conceived of it?
The squeamishness people feel in regards to the Seymour faction is that when it did reach that fever pitch, they did not flinch. They readily accepted it. They didn't speak in their defense, in all likelihood, because Anne and George Boleyn being permanently removed along with their supporters (and poor Mark as collateral) meant their rise was more firmly secured.
A lot is made of Anne as Henry's 'mistress' then wife was sort of their blueprint. But I think, when they were moving strategically, Anne's queenship, was, maybe more so than her as mistress. The prospect of Anne alive, banished, insisting she was still queen as Catherine had, and attracting public sympathy (and anyone that doubts Anne ever had that, I mean...she had it more than she ever had in the Tower, a 'ballad of derision' aimed at Henry&Jane was not nothing), was a daunting one. It was very convenient for them that that was never going to happen. There was never the potential of a lightning rod to attract public sympathy and detract from their own reputations and status when it was permanently extinguished (think on Edward Seymour's animosity towards his nephew's half-sister, Elizabeth, when she was a teenager and all the pieces sort of start falling together...).
The defense that they could not have said anything in defense of, or to encourage mercy towards, those about to be judicially murdered as they waited in the wings for the spoils, because oh no, the potential wrath of Henry frightened them so much, is also a weak one. Maybe it was the potential risk/loss of their future rise that frightened them so much. But the idea that anyone that ever spoke on behalf of those accused of treason were going to doubtless be arrested by Henry is a fiction created for the purpose of defense to the morally indefensible, this genre of pretended fair-mindedness, pretended symmetry (the Boleyns benefited from the former Queen and Princess’ demotions and exiles, not their murders), both-sidesism. Cranmer was the only one that spoke in Anne's defense, and he was protected by Henry for the rest of his reign. It's like the fiction that no noblewoman could ever refuse Henry's bed because he would inevitably 'ruin' them and their family financially for their refusal. This is such a readily accepted narrative at this point that it doesn't even seem to matter that there's not a single example of Henry ever doing that, that in fact, in the few recorded instances of refusals to be his mistress (respectively, AB and JS), that he didn't do that to their families in retaliation, and arguably even elevated them (timelines are iffy for the AB courtship, but we do know that the ‘for a thousand deaths I would not wound’ was reported April 1, and that Edward Seymour was promoted to Gentleman of the Privy Chamber some weeks before that...it’s possible they coincided, or that the first did not negate the second).
But I digress. It didn't seem to 'terrify' Jane when she interceded on Mary's behalf when she was about to be arrested. So, no, I don't think the prospect of encouraging mercy towards these men and woman 'terrified' the Seymours, I think they just had no compulsion to do so because it wouldn't benefit them (and, fwiw, Mary’s reinstatement as heir would/could have benefited Jane by netting herself Imperial support, and it wasn’t like it would’ve reversed principles of primogeniture...if Jane had a son, which clearly recent events had shown she needed to, he would still inherit above Mary, we can consider it a gesture of the moment/circumstances...or you can decide it was because she was ‘selfless’...an adjective that probably doesn’t really fit either AB or JS, both of whom were benficiaries of, at the very least, their predecessor’s disgrace and repudiation). That's why they're popularly thought of as a group with no scruples. It really just does not seem like they had any, even if they never ipso facto encouraged the arrests, they accepted the windfall over six corpses. There's no way to spin that into something palatable, unless you truly believe the Boleyns, and their supporters, and a court musician, were all evil people with no redeeming qualities that 'got theirs'.
10 notes
·
View notes