#why do showrunners hate their own audiences

[nonpracticinghumanbeing]

So Izzy said a thing.

The thing seems to be a part of a redemption arc and makes him sound like a human rather than a monster.

The Canyon went wild with joy and jubilation. The haters are doing everything they can to rationalize the thing in a way that would fit their point of view. One of these things makes me feel like a part of a wonderful, welcoming, and very queer community. The other makes me perplexed, annoyed, and sad at the same time - in a way that feels very personal.

OFMD is an explicitly and unapologetically queer show. And not just that, it shows a variety of non-normative behaviors (Jackie’s polyamory, Geraldo’s humiliation kink, Lucius and Pete’s penchant for “having an audience” to say nothing of Izzy’s masochistic tendencies) in a completely non-judgmental way, making the viewer feel like all ways of performing one’s sexuality are valid.

Izzy wants to be a part of this world. For all his anger and manipulations, and (yes, let’s call him out for the sake of fairness) his abusive behaviors, he desperately wants to be a part of the world where he is free to love who he loves, in whatever way he is capable of doing so. No matter how much the haters don’t want to acknowledge it, this is ultimately a story about love. Both Con and Daddy Jenkins admitted Izzy is in love with Edward and the fact that the antis are willing to contradict not only the actor (who, may I remind you, was instrumental in shaping Izzy’s character) but also the showrunner is very symptomatic of the larger issue of how queer people have been treated in society.

No one in their right mind chose to become a pirate unless they had no other option. Piracy was fraught with constant danger and meant being an outsider everywhere. The only place one could be more or less safe was between people in the same lifestyle. In OFMD that is represented by the Republic of Pirates, where not being a pirate would get one in trouble. Sure, there is some violence but it comes with the territory and - much more importantly - it’s never motivated by someone being a pirate.

Izzy claims to hate the Republic - and for someone as repressed as him it makes sense. There are people being a different kind of a pirate than Izzy would like there - drunk, rowdy, and undisciplined. He clearly takes great pride in his work and has built his whole identity around being Blackbeard’s first mate. Seeing people be pirates while taking their responsibilities lightly doesn’t fit his worldview because he’s been taught that all of his energy should be spent protecting whatever freedom the pirates managed to carve out for themselves.

Someone once wrote that despite what the popular meme says, Izzy isn’t a real pirate dropped into The Muppet Treasure Island, but rather a hard boiled queer-coded character from a 50s noir movie dropped into today’s Pride. He’s had to keep vigilant against any threat for so long he hasn’t noticed that there was a way to be a pirate/queer and still enjoy one’s life. That one can like frilly robes and be a somewhat competent sea captain. That it is possible to pine for one’s boyfriend and keep one’s crew safe. That being soft doesn’t necessarily mean being weak.

He’s willing to do whatever it takes and sacrifice whatever has to be sacrificed (Stede’s life, Edward’s happiness, his own status of the loyal first mate) to keep his little pirate/queer world safe. It’s this conviction that puts him in the way of Ed and Stede’s relationship and makes him an antagonist. But - and it’s something the haters seem to be incapable of grasping - an antagonist doesn’t have to equal a villain.

Why does Izzy react so violently to Stede, exactly? Why is he willing to go against his captain's wishes in challenging Stede to a duel? Why does he sell Stede out, making a deal with the enemy in the process? Because Stede is a stranger infiltrating Izzy’s safe space. The English are a huge threat, sure, but they are easily identifiable from a distance. Stede seems to Izzy to be something far more dangerous - an outsider worming his way into the heart of Izzy’s world, where he can do truly irreparable damage. The English are cops who chase gay boys around the park. Stede has the potential of being an undercover cop sent into a queer bar in the 1930s to get the dirt on the patrons so they can be blackmailed and arrested.

Of course, he may not be that, but it’s a risk Izzy can’t allow himself to take. With his vision of what it means to be a pirate/queer he's sure he sees through Stede’s ruse. Now, I’m not trying to excuse abusive behavior, as some of Izzy’s choices were hurtful to everyone around him. But as a queer person I do have sympathy for someone (grossly) overreacting in defense of their safe space. Constant vigilance is an inherent part of the queer experience, especially for those living in conservative countries or remembering the times before the Pride.

Like, for example, Con does. Con, who - yes, I will repeat this because it’s super important here - played a huge part in shaping Izzy’s character. Con, who despite having a decades-long career where he often clearly gravitated towards queer characters, only got comfortable enough THIS YEAR (and thanks to this show and this fandom) to publicly come out. Con, who - as a friend wonderfully phrased it - is queer as in start a riot, not as in love wins.

And Izzy is the same. He is a start a riot pirate/queer in a show full of love wins pirates/queers. His way of being what he is is so totally different from everyone around him that it makes him an antagonist. (Sure, there are other start a riot queers in the show - Jim literally kills a man who wronged them and Lucius is very outspoken about his opinions in a way that makes him somewhat radical, but neither of them is as extreme in their ways as Izzy is and neither goes against the main characters’ romance thus becoming an antagonist.) But. The thing is, when you are a part of a minority, when you are being prosecuted and targeted for who you are, you need safe spaces. And those safe spaces need protection, because every freedom can be taken away if wrong people come to power. No doubt the queer movement would look much more tame and palatable to the bigots if we were all the love wins queers. But we desperately need the start a riot queers if we are to survive.

So yeah, you can say Izzy said what he said because he needs a structure and clear hierarchy in his life. He absolutely does. Some of it comes from his submissive and masochistic tendencies, sure (I wrote a lot about that, including a piece for the Above All Else zine). Some of it may come from neurodivergence (some people read Izzy as autistic, I’m not going to discuss this because as a neurotypical person I have nothing of value to say about it). But it also ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY comes from the desperate need to protect his safe space from outsiders.

And there is one more thing the haters conveniently forget about: OFMD is also a show about growth. It’s about Stede turning from a wooden puppet into a real boy and then into a man. It’s about Edward learning there is a life beyond the legend of Blackbeard and peeling off at least some of the leather. And judging from the trailer, it’s about Izzy learning you can be a start a riot pirate while being accepting of the love wins pirates in your life. 

The more I think about it, the more likely I find it that Stede’s “I don’t care what anybody says, he’s actually a good guy” line from the teaser refers to Izzy. But even if it doesn’t, I am 100% sure the haters will be proven wrong. This show never relied on stereotypes and cliches. In fact, it actively does everything to break them (from Jim’s sacred quest for revenge ending up with them befriending Jackie to the only names that get mispronounced being those of white characters) while killing off the real enemies of the pirate/queer crew (Badmintons, Jack, Geraldo) and giving all its characters place to grow.

So, maybe one day we will all learn to love Izzy? 

#ofmd #our flag means death #our flag means gay #izzy hands #ofmd meta #lol i got so pissed off at a really bad take on the line that i'm back to writing meta #thanks to remy for the start a riot / love wins thing! #i'm getting emotional again damn this show #queer representation

[a-doubleh-x]

Why I like Chaggie

Hey! My last casual ship review did pretty well, so here I am with another! Needless to say, but thank you all for the interactions, I appreciate it very much 🥰

Last time I talked about Charlastor, a notorious controversial ship and today I'll talk about a surprisingly controversial ship: Chaggie. Why do people dislike this ship? I'll go a bit into it on the second half of this post, but first I'll talk on the positive I see in this cute couple.

First of all, as a guy in his late twenties who's been on at least one relationship, I will say that I appreciate a relation that's mostly based on comfort and support. Some people might think that's boring or not quite the basis of romance, but I think quite the opposite. Johnathan Decker, a licensed couples therapist on youtube (you might know him from Cinema Therapy) often talks about how safety and mutual understanding are the basis of any lasting relationship.

At the start of the Amazon series, Charlie and Vaggie have been together for 3 years, which is evident in many of their day to day interactions. They're comfortable with each other, they rely on each other and best of all, they still coo every now and then over how adorable the other is.

That is not to say the relationship is without conflict, which in my opinion as a writer it's the lifeblood of any good story. Vaggie is clearly quite codependent of Charlie, which is why a large portion of her self worth is based on being useful to her. However, I think the two of them do a decent job of talking through the problems this brings sometimes, such as episode 3.

I think it's cool that the relationship seems to work despite their rocky moments. Charlie most likely thinks a person like Vaggie is a breath of fresh air in Hell, she's selfless, loyal and dedicated. That's probably the reason why she has so much patience with her, a feeling that I'm certain is mutual. Vaggie is clearly very aware of how silly and idealistic Charlie is, in fact she often tries to nudge her to be careful with her attitude. And even though she may not agree with everything, she still always supports her without appearing judgemental, which I think speaks volumes of her character.

Now, let's talk about the shortcomings in the face of the audience. Some people think there's not enough substance in canon to be sold on the couple, which I think is a valid opinion. Some people argue that Chaggie's relationship is boring and not quite as interesting to watch as Charlastor, which I don't entirely agree with. Some people plain dislike or hate Vaggie because they think she's just a naggy chick who is an awful partner to Charlie in every way, which I *definitely* don't agree with.

My opinion falls in a more moderate standpoint. I think, even in the series, their relationship isn't boring, but it could've been presented better. While I said earlier that I think conflict is good in a story, I think a problem in the series that's probably unintentional is that most of the story beats with Charlie and Vaggie are negative.

In episode 3, they have a fight over their lack of communication. In episode 6, Vaggie puts her own secret status as a fallen angel over Charlie, which harms her later. And in episode 7, Charlie spends most of the episode mad at Vaggie and they make up offscreen, which is something unilaterally most fans believe was a mistake.

To the showrunner's credit, there are some positive major story beats. There's Charlie's trust fall on Vaggie, which was cute. There's their beautiful duet in episode 8. And there's them fighting alongside each other in the final battle.

Unfortunately, the fact their arc is a bit wonky and doesn't have a proper buildup makes it so that the climax (the duet) may feel a bit unearned. I don't want to make this whole post about the series because I could spend all day talking about it, so I'll just say for now that i underdtand why some people aren't sold on the ship.

I will say. Some fans have some very beautiful, gorgeous pictures of this ship. There's this great comic made by squids-and-fruitcake that's been running around about Charlie giving Vaggie a gift for Christmas (here's a youtube link in case you want to watch a dub, I couldn't find the original)

I think it's a great example of why this relationship works: they love each other. They may not completely understand each other's circumstances, but they try every day and are still together because of their mutual effort.

Charlie herself, as Hell's number 1 laughingstock can really use the support and the fact that Vaggie supports her even though she doesn't have all the answers means a lot to her. She brings her stability, peace and affection, all things she lacked until she met her.

Vaggie, on the other hand, who was plunged against her will into a pit of violence and cynicism also needs Charlie's perspective. She loves the fact that she cares about something bigger than herself, that she wants to help damned people like her, which given her circumstances I think it's something she also needs in a fundamental level.

That haz bin my review for today! What do you think? Do you like Chaggie? Do you think it could've been written better? What's your favorite interaction between them? Let me hear your thoughts! It's been fun to put my thoughts down for casual reviews, I hadn't done it before, so expect more in the future while I'm still working on the next chapter of my fanfic.

I think I already have an idea about what my next Hazbin post is going to be about (hint: it has to do with Angel Dust). Thank you again for all the love, hope to see you all soon!

#hazbin hotel #charlie morningstar #vaggie #chaggie #Youtube

[franki-lew-yo]

An 'A-ha!' fandom moment, ft. The Owl House

These comments I screencapped from a user I watch elsewhere really hit like a brick in the face to me. I'm blotting out OP's name, mostly cuz this was just a shower thought they had rather than any meaningful open discussion with people, but it ended up making me realize something (also NO they're not some contrarian AntiSJW type or even hate TOH; they're a very gay+trans writer themselves. Sorry if youknowwhoyouare sees this and recognizes ur posts but you don't allow reblogs or comments and I wanted to present it on my own):

The Owl House was always hampered by being killed halfway through, writing wise and that will always be it's greatest 'sin'. However, OP's comment made me realize how much the show kind of tells you it's characters are flawed rather than actually give them arcs to suggest it, especially in season 1. When I say flawed I don't mean lacking quirks that are relatable but human: Eda is a recluse criminal; King thought he could kill people and acted like it; Luz is a genki girl; Amity starts off as a bully; Hunter...is unfortunately Hunter, ect. Those ARE flaws, character wise, but in the presence of the complete story (as complete as the show will ever be) they really aren't actually flawed, bad people in anyway.

Before I go further, two things: 1, IN ALL FAIRNESS, this is why myself and others particularly LOVE the characters and why TOH was a comfort show for me rather than a 'high-tension narrative'. The characters are a lot of what you want and hope to be like and I think that's really sweet and enjoyable, especially for horror and especially for kids.

2, NO! I DON'T think any particular bad faith cartoon reviewer opinions about coddling certain characters and punishing others IS WHAT DANA and co did at all here! Steven Universe and certain crap-reviewer's takes ON Steven Universe and how it's characters were flawed but overly forgiven by the fandom the show itself are NOT the b-all end-all of this discussion, nor are they the reason The Owl House is the way it is!

The context op was talking about was how in the upcoming hate crime The Last Airbender live-action show the showrunners are going to tone down Sokka's sexism because they think it's 'unlikable'. Even though, we all knew as children that this was an arc for him and it was WRONG, so axing it because we the audience lack nuance to recognize characters we love doing problamtic-sisms is BEYOND annoying.

Op's point is how The Owl House in particular doesn't actually expect much or want much out of it's characters. Or audience. For any infighting early on about how much Amity should 'die' because of reasons, that's really just fandom infighting when you get right down to it. There's nothing on par with the disagreement people have over, say, the Diamonds from Steven Universe and how Steven 'totally forgave them or 'should have murdered them in cold blood' about The Owl House. And like...from a fandom point of view that's good, but otherwise the show is pretty concrete the way you're supposed to see certain characters vs other shows which allow you to make up your own mind.

Avatar, Star vs the Forces of Evil (pre finale), Centaurworld and Amphibia all showcase your protagonists being genuinely, intensely flawed. Sure, maybe some neckbreather crap-pseudocritic complains that they 'made the unlikable' or whatever (i.e. me with Friendship is Magic) but overall the actual point is HOW the characters actually have grown and have ended up with the ending and morality they need. The villains, no not Zukos or 'redeemed' villains who joined the protagonist squad, VILLAIN-villains, will always be at least one serious step behind the protagonists and that's what give the protagonists the cautionary wherewithal to end them like they should and not 'be like them'. It's such a fufilling narrative, there's a reason people like it so much because it's really good when it's delivered well.

Removed from my fandom gaze; the Owl House feels like it's saying it has that ultimate messaging and character arc when it actually doesn't. Your protagonists have the endearing aspirational-part totally covered, but as far as the actual 'edge' and nuance? Well...

Eda is, at most, naughty. She really isn't any kind of morally sidetracked character. She's an outlaw because literally her society is awful to her and she's in the right to be against it. She's cursed but she's not addicted to her potions or hiding it or not really taking care of herself or her loved ones because of it. Her actual biggest flaw is that she's been 'running away' from problems rather than dealing with them, but I'd be lying if that wasn't suggested more than it's actually portrayed; or at least, dealt with fast enough in "Eda's Requiem". A bigger issue I see, even if it's what's also endearing about her, is that she REALLY isn't a flawed caregiver at all. It's portrayed as her most redeeming feature that she's otherwise a good mom and mentor, but Eda having virtually no problems in raising Luz and King just, again, makes her feel ONLY aspirational. All of the angst about 'failing' to parent and making up for it is moved all onto Camilla and sadly all of that angst for her is mostly within an already bloated episode. Eda, while an absolute mood, lacks any real kind of edge. Does she need it or not? I don't know. Discuss, kids.

Luz, like OP says, is treated like this high-energy super-optimist. She's like Star Butterfly in that her fangirlism and impulsivness are supposed to get her in trouble. But, she absolutely just isn't one when you break it down. Besides episode 2, Luz really is never that inconsiderate or lost in her fantasies ever again throughout the show. She never has anything like what Steven goes through where he hops into Larz' body and makes things worse for people by trying to fix things- which is not only good filler but it calls forward to the ultimate ending of Steven's arc for the series - Luz is just sort of adorable. Luz has blindsided by hype moments of weakness, like when she accidentally hurts Owlbert or messes with Amity's secret room, but still always level headed and down-to-earth. Her impulses are always kind of treated like...excusable? Because, again, they usually are. This is a large part about what makes her self-hatred at the end of the show about accidentally helping Belos' feel 'forced'. Even MOREso than what Hunter and Daddy Titan explain about Belos using her, we the audience never see Luz's choice to go back in time and try and get answers from Philip as being anything other than just, you know, logical. Because it is. The show acts like what Luz did was reckless and bad and that she was SOOO overtaken by her fangirlism about Philip and now just how much she has to live with the guilt and regret of helping being duped by him...it just doesn't come off that way at all. She was only so much excited about meeting him and her interest was getting home to her mother. In terms of comparing her to Philip, that's all fine and good, but again it's not 'flawed'. Not really, anyway.

Lilith absolutely has it the worst...but I kinda think people know that. She arguably does have the most morally-gray turning point in the show given what she did to her own sister. But neither the characters nor her nor the show really hold her accountable in any lasting way for cursing Eda. Lilith is the closest we get to that 'Diamond'-dilemma. She does 'make things right way too quickly and it's obvious to even her biggest fans that her character is really rushed in this area. They lampshade what Lilith did and that she was their villain in season 2 and 2B, but lampshading isn't the same thing as progress. As a result, as a Lilith fan you kind of never really forgive her for what she did. None of that's her fault, cause' you know...she doesn't exist, but it makes it frustrating that you the fan watching the show is doing the heavy-lifting in your mind in this area.What you come away from is this feeling of loving the characters for being able to work everything out. They're engaging and nuanced in theory, but you also feel robbed, w or w/o the Disney interference, of them being fully rounded or WHOLE. It kinda feels like 'and suddenly, he wasn't racist, anymore' all the time with every character ever with except Amity's mom, the Titan Trappers and Belos.

The reason everyone dunks on Star vs the Forces of Evil's finale, (besides being salty over ship wars and declaring THAT'S the reason for the drop in quality) is that 'Cleaved' could have not only worked but REALLY worked. It just needed to be better written and processed as an ending. Instead people reviled Star, the protagonist we're supposed to be rooting for, for what feels like impulsive apathy and cruelty towards everyone else by destroying magic, as opposed to it being an actually selfless sacrifice that makes her different than Toffee. Ultimatley, I do prefer The Owl House, unfinished as it is, to any of that. But yeah... I can now never unsee the characters as being what they are: fun but indulgent when they're supposedly complex. Indulgent is never bad u guys, but the problem is when you only have that to go on while insisting you have fully developed characters, there's a lot of the show telling you how to feel and how to come away from it rather than letting you, the audience, make of that yourself. As annoying as fan-wars can be over this stuff and when people are either WAAAY to forgiving of their villain blorbo or form hate-campaigns over Glub Shitto for ruining their life, it is ultimately a good thing that shows give you that chance to really see the characters that way at all.

The Owl House is, as OP calls it, "tumblr feels" not for being gay and magical and fun and wholesome and indulgent like that stuff is GREAT. It feels 'tumblr oriented' in that it all kind of feels too easy even when it's not for your protagonists. It's never actually "challenging". I guess, in as far as 'good' indulgence is concerned, it's as warm and fuzzy and a happy AU fanfic you found but not so much the Pacifist Ending of Undertale where you really do feel bad if you rectify the good ending in anyway. It's fun and it's comfort food, but not entirely lasting as you want it to be???

Amphibia, I think, was also way better than Owl House in this respect. It wasn't perfect cause nothing is but you really got a feeling for HOW flawed Marcy, Sasha, the townsfolk and even Hop Pop throughout their arcs-- which made it so SO rewarding to see them get their happy endings and come together to defeat the core and be the better people they needed to become.

The Owl House is my favorite where I think Amphibia is the better of the two.

#ramble #the owl house #toh critical #good lord did any of this make any sense Idk #franki's features #I guess technically King had the most fufilled arc #considering he thought he was a dictator-realized he wasn't-and then w he found out his true past was horrified by it but coped #discuss

[canonicallyobserving911]

Eddie Diaz: 7x7, 7x9 and 7x10

Eddie Diaz is my favorite character but I still don't like the storyline they gave him for the end of the season.

(Full disclosure: I did a similar post about Bobby's storyline but before 7x9 airs, I decided to do one about Eddie too.)

It's been a couple of weeks since the plot or whatever TM (showrunner) is trying to do with Eddie's character was revealed (man is obsessed with his deceased wife's doppelgänger but he ignores the woman who's been by his side the entire time) and I still HATE it. Therefore, I'm not looking forward to whatever this raggedy "Vertigo" storyline is supposed to be for multiple reasons.

The main reason why I don't like it is because IMO, Eddie's storylines have always taken a backseat to those written for other main characters and the truth is he hasn't had a storyline all his own since he was involved in the illegal fight club in season 3. All of his other storylines were made to be about someone else or they weren't given adequate room to be developed, i.e., the shooting, his PTSD and his return to the 118 at the end of season 5. His breakdown was shoved into the last 5 minutes of 5x13 then he went to therapy once afterwards but the audience didn't see any more of his sessions.

Also, if his storyline didn't take a backseat, he was sidelined for the majority of a season (for most of season 6, he was treated like a side character with nothing to do for 13 out of the 18 episodes and the ones they gave him in 6x7, 6x14, 6x15, 6x17 and 6x18 were lackluster at best) and they were treated like "This will do" for his character while other mains got-well thought-out storylines that didn't make the audience dislike them.

Three things that have been magnified about Eddie since 7x5 aired is (1) people who already didn't like him (it's possible they're jealous of him because he's so beautiful and Buck's in love with him) despise him even more without a valid reason; (2) people who hate cheating storylines have already dismissed him and are now classifying him as irredeemable and for whatever reason they don't think he deserves redemption or to work through it even though others (Hen and Buck) have cheated too; and (3) those who shipped Buddie before, no longer believe Buck should wait around for Eddie since Buck's in a relationship with a discount dollar store version of Eddie. I mean let's be real here for a minute because the show literally wrote the character of T*mmy to be a cheap bargain basement version of Eddie Diaz.

Aside from him emotionally cheating with his dead wife's doppelgänger 🙄, it appears there was no real thought put into his season 7 arc and for those who've seen the movie "Vertigo", they might be interested but I am not. I get it, he's grieving the "relationship" he thought he could have had with Shannon but wouldn't it have made more sense to let him deal with his grief in therapy LAST SEASON WHEN THEY DIDN'T GIVE HIM ANYTHING ELSE TO DO?

YES! They could have used those 13 episodes to allow him to go to therapy so he could have already worked through this situation with his deceased wife instead of shoving it into the end of an already robust and limited season. Or was the F*X network against letting him move past it too? I think it was poor planning and lazy storytelling but that's just me. Also, why is Maris*l still around? Eddie's storyline could have worked without her so what's the real goal here? It's unclear if his storyline will end the way it did in season 5 with him sliding down the firefighter's pole and rejoining the team like everything had been fixed but hopefully that won't happen this time and he'll get the help he needs.

Finally, as a Buddie shipper, I WILL NOT SETTLE FOR A KNOCKOFF VERSION OF A RELATIONSHIP FOR EDDIE OR BUCK BECAUSE THEY BOTH DESERVE BETTER. Therefore, why should Eddie or Buck settle for something that doesn't compare to EVERYTHING THEY'VE BUILT TOGETHER FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS?

IMO, they shouldn't and it's time for the show to stop delaying their CANON love story. I for one don't want to sit through another season of LIs being thrown at them like javelins and hoping one will stick. This is EXHAUSTING just like season 5 was and I'll watch the episode after it airs so I can fast foward through the parts I don't want to see.

I ONLY SHIP BUDDIE!

#buddie #eddie diaz #evan buckley #911 abc #911 on abc #911 spoilers #911 meta #911 season 7 #911 season 7 speculation #911 speculation #anti bucktommy #anti tommy kinard #anti bummy #anti eddiemarisol #anti marisol #marisol nolastname #I ONLY SHIP BUDDIE!

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

https://www.tumblr.com/ecoterrorist-katara/743680863675580416?source=share

I know that you have already talked about the "female gaze" more than once, but what do you say about this?

Let's get the easier parts out of the way:

1 - The showrunners consider Aang the angel on Katara's shoulder on The Southern Raiders because Avatar is a kids show and the moral of the episode was "Hey, kids, even if you ever meet a truly horrible person don't immediately respond with violence, it could backfire horribly or push you to do something you'd regret later" not because they think she's an object that Aang gets to posses and control - hence them having Aang give her advice on what to do, but not try to prevent her from leaving nor judging her for not forgiving her mother's killer.

2 - Katara's point was NOT central to Zuko in that episode, at least not at first. By the end of the episode he understood and felt compassion for her and her family, but at the start he was only looking for a cheat-code to make Katara stop hating him because it reminded him of his screw ups. It was Zuko being entitled and trying to avoid consequences.

3 - "This thing is like the PLATONIC version of a thing that sometimes happens in romance" If it's platonic (you said it, not me) then it's not a "win" for your OTP. Zuko and Iroh's falling out after Ba Sing Se has lots of dramatic, super intense and heartbreaking moments, just like romances do - but their storyline is obviously not a romance and they are explicitly treated by the narrative as father and son.

4 - "Katara isn't hiding any side of her personality from Zuko" Katara doesn't hide any side of her personality for ANYONE - family, friends, rivals, enemies, strangers. Highlighing that she is herself with Zuko is pointless because she is herself with everyone, including people she does not like, which was the category Zuko fit into at the moment.

Now, onto yet another absurdly long take by this annoyed feminist that has had enough to the "Male Gaze VS Female Gaze" bullshit.

(Check this previous post before reading the rant in case you don't know these terms or what they mean/were supposed to mean)

Zutarians gotta learn that just because a trope is popular, that doesn't mean it is present in every story, and that NO TROPE appeals to a whole group of people, no matter how much they keep insisting that their ship is the "female gaze" - like that thing could ever even exist.

To give a practical exemple so people understand what I mean: Imagine that a woman wrote screenplay about a lesbian romance, which is then filmed by a female director, and edited by a woman. The actresses playing the lead roles also have their own perspective on the story and characters. The movie is then shown to 200 women, every single one of them has their own opinion on it.

Which of the women I mentioned above is going to speak FOR HER ENTIRE GENDER, and decide if that romance fits "the female gaze"? Do we take a survey and whatever points are repeated the most are taken as objectively correct due to being how the majority feels, and thus any differing opinion is treated as lesser and "not what women like" regardless of how many women feel that way? Do we only listen to the proffessional criticts in that audience of women and completely disregard the opinion of any woman that didn't study anything regarding cinema and writting?

Even if somehow it is decided that the movie fits into the "female gaze" - if all those women rewatch the movie years later and some of them feel differently about it, would that affect the definition? If their grand-daughters watch it 50 years later and don't agree with their grandmother's takes on it, does the definition change? If the movie is shown to other groups of women, from different countries, and they all have their own opinion on it that is radically different from that of the first group, which group of women gets to say "OUR culture's way of interpreting this story is the TRUE way women feel about it, everyone else doesn't count"?

If the movie is then shown to 200 men and they all like it, does that turn it from "female gaze" to "unisex gaze"? Does it become "Male Gaze" if the guys get aroused by it, even if the movie was designed to appeal to women and not to them AND there was no exploitation involved? If the 200 women then watch a movie that has scenes that are considered as having been made to appeal to guys, but some or all of them ALSO enjoy it (story of my life), does that make it change from "male gaze" to "Female Gaze"?

Gender is simply ONE out of many, many, many things that can impact how one views fiction - and it doesn't exist in isolation, being affected by generation, culture, language, religion, class, etc. The "Female Gaze" doesn't exist. It CAN'T exist because humans are more complicated than that. It is a concept that is almost fully divorced from reality.

Also I can't help but notice that, because of the way these terms work in the assumption of absolutes, no room for nuance, "MALE Gaze" is meant to describe lazy writting/film-making that is sexist towards women and cases of full on exploitation and abuse in which men were the abusers, and sometimes the label even gets attached to harmless things as a form of bad faith criticism just because guys like it - but "FEMALE Gaze" is NOT about lazy writting/film-making that is sexist towards men (say stories that full on say that a guy hitting a woman is bad, but a woman hitting a man is funny, or using "guys always want it" as justification for scenes of female characters forcing themselves on the male characters).

Instead, Female Gaze is meant to either neutral or POSITIVE. "This appeals to women" is used for praise, "this appeals to men" is used as criticism. Women are harmless, men are dangerous. Women are helpless victims, men are evil abusers. Women need to be protected and put on pedestal, men need to be hated and feared. Female desire is inherently pure, male desire is inherently objectifying. And, of course, any woman that disagrees is bad and a traitor and needs to be "called out for being anti-feminist" (aka be condescended to or full on attacked).

This is sexism, pure and simple. Anyone can be a victim, anyone can be an abuser. Anyone can like any kind of story, trope, genre, ship, etc. Desire is a morally neutral thing, and it doesn't become "pure" or "inherently corrupt" depending on the gender of the person who feels it.

The "Male Gaze VS Female Gaze" thing is nonsensical at best and perpetuates a dangerous double standard at worse, and I'm so fucking tired of it never being questioned because people are afraid of being labelled misogynistic.

#anti zutara #male gaze #female gaze #sexism

[sunnysideaeggs]

I really liked your analysis on laena's shifting ages as the plot demands.

I was wondering what was even the need for making Laena so young in the first place? Her story was good enough on its own in the books why change it so drastically to make her the youngest out of all of them and then shuffle her back to look the oldest?

The reason i came to realise was the writers really wanted to whitewash Viserys. Basically give him an out where the stupid audience can conclude, hey look how noble this dude is to deny a 12 year old for this 15 year old. 15years are totes the marrying age! 🤢

In fact, u also notice how much they want the audience to like him, when they give all of his ideas on targ incest to Alicent, who would have been the least likely one to arrange for it.

Another point was I hated when they added yet another actor to portray older laena, when Savannah should have portrayed her. It would have atleast made some sense to show how this is also a young child bride.

Has there even been any backlash to the whole thing for the show? It seems no one notices when women of color are portrayed so poorly.

No offense to any of the actors.

In my opinion, the story changed from its foundations when the show runners decided the main premise of the Dance was the relationship between Rhaenyra and Alicent. By closing their 10 year gap, Aging Alicent down and Rhaenyra up, they messed up everyone’s ages and roles (so they make stuff up or conveniently forget it).

Laena was already younger than Alicent in canon, and it showcases (more than the show anyways) the main and only reason Viserys chose Alicent was lust and the ‘need for heirs’. They could’ve showcased that more had they portrayed Viserys as the piece of shit he was and not the doting father (bc if he’s a pos, maybe he didn’t do right causing a succession crisis).

Consequently, Daemon and his awful grooming of Rhaenyra ‘doesn’t look so bad’ because she’s 14 and not 8. But because they had to whitewash Viserys, she’s younger than Rhaenyra and needs to be portrayed as an adult when she’s still a teen. Then, when she needs to be freezed, they chose another actress (conveniently older than both Emma and Olivia) to sweep their bullshit beneath the rug.

Imo, the revisionist portrayal of the Dance is the thing that messes everything up. The showrunners knew the general public wouldn’t sit right with a story about women being catty about each other (which is probably propaganda anyways) and wrote themselves a tragedy about lost friendship and so so. Consequently, everyone (including Alicent and Rhaenyra) suffers.

#sunny answers ☀️🍳 #anti hotd

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

I think it's really rich how the Loki series showrunners like to talk about Loki's problems and emotions as if he were some moody, hormonal teenager, while currently in the show Sylvie is acting like some sullen, edgy, emo bitch-brat, hating everything and everyone, sticking safety pins in her armor and working at frickin' McDonalds. And this is supposed to be seen as cooler than Loki because her "trauma was worse and her scars are deeper", yadda yadda yadda. Like??? Do they not see their own double standard??? Do they not smell their own bullshit???

I know you aren't watching the show, and the Loki series is your least favorite subject right now, it is mine too, but every time I see something related to it I just. Want to put my fist through a wall. Everything these people have said about Loki is so wrong it's like my brain can't comprehend it. Anyway thank you for being so incredibly patient with all the Loki-related anons, including mine!

And on the subject of Sylvie's armor, I can't stand seeing her wear that design. If she is so special, being "her own person" and all, then she really should stop co-opting Loki's costume and find something else. Something that's just as, um...."original" as she is. 😒

Hey, I love the anons so keep 'em coming! (I know I'm super slow with them though, so sorry about that)

I couldn't agree more about the double standard. It genuinely baffles me that they're so uninterested in one of the most complex characters the MCU has ever had. They clearly understand he's like a magnet for the fanbase, hence all the promo centring him, but they seem so keen to grab that complexity and turn it to shreds in order to make him more palatable, and it's like... he already has a lot of fans kissing his ass. You want more? Don't change him, just make a good series! Get the same freaking character acting the same way he's always been, put him in situations and we'll watch the damn thing even if it's not that good just to see him. What's not clicking?! 🤦‍♀️

It doesn't make sense to me. Disney+ needed the Marvel series to be profitable, and they want a bigger audience and more money. Okay, cool. But why, why do the execs think the only way to get people interested is by nerfing the characters and making them simpler? It's such a classist belief that ""people"" will only understand something if it's on its most superficial state.

It reminds me of this idiot minister in the UK who said he was worried people wouldn't be able to understand The Crown is fiction and not a documentary on the actual events in real life. At the time so many news headlines read "The citizens are so stupid, they think TV series are an accurate depiction of reality!" instead of "This minister is so stupid he thinks everyone is as dumb as him".

Sorry about that, I needed to rant too lol I don't know what Sylvie is wearing now but I suppose she will be wearing the Loki armour still. It is funny, she's not a Loki but she has to wear the suit otherwise no one would remember she's supposed to be a Loki since she doesn't act like one at all. See how Loki is wearing stupid TVA clothes and we all know who he is? But she has to wear the Loki suit.

[incarnateirony]

*Dips glasses in Corporate Oil and looks around*

Alright guys. Let's do this, let's talk about where we really are, developmentally. With the WB, CW, The Winchesters and Gotham Knights (this piece will admittedly focus most heavily on Winchesters, as I know more about its actual development than GK, but the corporate elements of WB will apply to it).

All of it. Because you guys have come to realize there's a lot behind the veil.

Has anyone been watching the Snydercut battle in DC? This seems like a random place to start with for Supernatural, but I promise you, it's critical in understanding what's happened, where we've been, where we've traveled and where we can possibly head from here.

So how is it DC ended up here, and how is it relevant to Supernatural?

Everyone's entitled to their own view of media within reason, depending on their aggression about it proportionately in relation to the actual content and what it is beyond what it's fought about. Personally, I always found Snyder's stuff reductive to characters and just mindlessly operating on rule of cool, but some dudes liked it. So when the first hollering started, I thought, good for you, voice what you believe.

But they never shut up. Instead, they amplified, they got more shrill, all points were taken to the seventeenth degree, VERY bizarre and lowkey threatening videos were made. On and on and on and on and on.

And now they're acting surprised that after literal years of it, the new CEO wants them to shut the fuck up and considers it all a mistake. Gee, I wonder what gave him that fucking idea.

OK. Cool. So anyway, remember the S12 market testing? The stuff I was posting about in S12, that everyone from Patrick to Mary Manchin argued with me about until years later we figured out how to safely clear the receipts without anybody getting blown off the planet with lawsuits?

2016 was leaning closer to modern TV. Closer to the representation demands the younger teen audience generally sets and demands, assuming it will be present on all products. We were leaning that way. So why would, say, Dean and Cas need market testing?

Well, perhaps, it's because in season 9, shortly after Carver recovered the property from near cancellation into being CW's #1 hit above all, the Destiel fandom decided to monkey climb some oblivious business suit without any context of the development chain leading Destiel to where it was at that point. They harassed him until he deleted twitter, they ran multiple articles trying to burn the property down as queerbait, then when the S10 packets dropped with a new sexuality section declaring everybody straight, and everything hit lockdown, they made fucking confused noises and called it Victim Blaming to point out any sort of liability in the dramatic lockdown.

But listen, Chad Kennedy does not fucking care what you think is fair or equitable. He cares about money, his properties, and NOT being torn apart by little shitheads on twitter. For god's sake, his name is fucking Chad, how did you guys expect a Corporate Chad to react.

Less stupid fans had put together books of stats, demographics, and LGBTQ or general audience testimony to package off to elite names in that same S9 year, only for one to survive and move into the room, and be shared by a new showrunner named Dabb, at the same time market testing coincidentally began.

It was already a contentious topic. Turning around a 2005 behemoth that is distinctly not packaged as LGBTQ ware is harder than turning around the titanic and even what berens accomplished was impressive in perspective. I hate market segregation as much as anybody, but it's a reality.

You know what else is a reality?

That the Winchesters is branded as an LGBTQ property out of the gate, as is the developing studio running it, with permission to use the IP, and the potential namesake character there may be reservations over is played by that same studio owner, with 15 years of history.

Zaslav just completely wiped out the upper ranks at WB. Roth had already left and Zaslav called him back personally. Roth, Jensen's mentor, is directly advising Zaslav on properties. So genuinely speaking, who is more qualified than the managing production house owner with 15 years experience with this content and particularly this character to make decisions on what to do with that character, if Roth tells Zaslav to just let Jensen do what he do.

This is a real potential in the air. Other corporate shakeups in the past have sort of been [rolls the dice] "maybe they're not dicks???? no????" but this time there is actually a path through the woods.

Beyond even the queerness of it, the entire structure of the Winchesters is very revealing of how much Roth warned Jensen.

For all the chicken little nonsense about Nexstar aging up, they're actually taking the alternative path I had implied other media outlets were missing, which is instead diversifying the age bracket of content while rotating in things closer to pre-merger CW like (hopefully black) sitcoms. Their new statement is "give us the new, but also give us what we would have had old". They've stated they intend to stay on genre TV but the age restriction isn't just for kids, the content and budget will be more targeted.

Congrats, we're getting something not just mass produced swill, but things WB is banking its entire network TV future on.

Depending on the response to what properties they chose to order, this is them fighting for their rights to timeslot on Nexstar before Nexstar reappraises 2023-2024 content from other sources being brought in. This is why, for example, Misha commented on the size of GK's budget compared to normal, or why Winchesters had enough time, and budget, to reshoot, which SPN never ever fucking had.

Roth warned Jensen. Because for all the confused noises fandom made about "Why John Mary?" it's actually simple if you think about the world beyond yourself. If you go "maybe other people are different than me?" well.

The 70s. A fanciful, whimsical time. the 50+ audience will live for it. And even with shit like Carlos because they remember the 70s they'll remember their gay friend carlos too. But the cast is young and vibrant and queer to bring in new blood and generations, and Dean (and the eventual others) will be there for the older, middle-aged if you will fans that grew with the series.

Roth warned Jensen. Because Jensen built the perfect product to survive the diversification demands of CW/Nexstar. And made the next potential packaged truly viral product to match its forebearer. And all in a time that Zaslav is searching for strong franchises.

Don't know how far, exactly, we'll get to go but we've never had such a clear path there before. There's a possible path through the woods and we're on it with Dean, looking through the haze to see what light is at the end of the road.

Gotham is also getting the benefit of this to some extent, but Gotham is not itself the launch of a franchise as much as a safe bubble in which to use an existing franchise during a tumult. Both are important in different ways, and both are WB's future stake in TV network share or full collapse into digital by 2025.

"We must see the bigger picture. Even in the darkest hour, our light is waiting to guide us."

-- Supernatural 15x15, Gimme Shelter

#wb #zaslav #roth #production #the winchesters #gotham knights

[ivyblossom]

Creators, Fans, and Shame (mine)

This is not going to be a useful exploration that adds any value to fandom. This is just my personal fannish agony, documented in the hopes that I can leave it behind somehow.

I'm struggling to cope with the fact of a showrunner who actually seems to be pro-fan. I love it, it's amazing, I'm so grateful, it makes me happy, but then it also scares me. Can any showrunner start out pro-fan, and stay pro-fan?

Which, as I say it, sounds ridiculous. Surely people who create media like their fans. But we know the truth of it: creators have hated fans like us forever. We are used to being hated. We are used to be belittled and mocked. There's a part of my psyche that is just pure shielding at this point because I'm so used to it that I've gotten pretty good at blocking stuff out.

You know what stuff: I think I still have a copy of a cease & desist letter from a creator's laywers addressed to a fan for deigning to make fanfiction available on the internet: that's the kind of reaction I'm familiar with and used to. (It wasn't addressed to me, it was to someone I knew, but weren't we all making fanfiction available? Wasn't it sort of directed at all of us?) And all the laughing interviews, the jokes, the dismissal, being framed as stupid, vapid teen girls (why must everyone hate teen girls? I ask you) actors reading fanfiction in front of an audience for gross, humiliating laughs (my heart goes out to the fan writer that happened to: I cannot imagine, I just cannot), the discomfort with our existence, the dismay that we have voices and react to things, the outrage. We get embarrassed by it. We police each other to try and prevent it (I am guilty of this, and I'm sorry).

We have often been fans in spite of creators who behave this way towards us. The communities we build around a shared language and the stories we tell becomes more important to us than the original content. Fanwork is often criticism: a repair job, a rescue, a different, better narrative choice, or character choice. Does this kind of negative creator reaction to fandom make negatively-inspired fanwork more likely? I don't know.

It's tough when you admire creators so much and they turn around and sneer at you and laugh at you. It feels very personal and humiliating. Don't meet your heroes, etc. etc. right? I feel very weird about all this, because these creators that I admire so much, they don't know me, they're not aware of me at all. For good or for ill, it's not about me, really. We become a mass, a collective noun. But still, it is, on some level, also about me. It is personal.

I don't know what to do with any of this. the humiliation of getting scolded by a showrunner you admire, or even the delight of their joy in fandom when it comes, honestly. Parasocial relationships are a trip. I am very embarrassed about them. When I see any of my heroes in real life I am immediately so embarrassed by my own anonymous excitement that I can only pretend that I don't know who they are. My own one-sided admiration overwhelms me. And embarrasses me. That's a me thing.

Fundamentally I'm struggling now because I've believed in creators before and been let down by them. I've believed that they understood us and wouldn't lash out and hurt us in these specific ways. And I've been very wrong.

And you know, I don't even mean the queerbaiting, honestly. I mean being framed by people we deeply admire as silly, gross, dumb idiots who got it all horribly, self-indulgently wrong, you dumbasses. That really hurts in a way that sticks.

I have my own way of dealing with the queerbaiting thing, but maybe that's also just my shielding. Maybe I've created a way to process it to make it okay because of how common it's been through my whole life, and how much I want to be able to love certain swaths of media, I don't know.

But I don't need a story to do certain things in order to love it, or for it to be queer enough for me, or whatever. My struggle is with how creators talk about fans rationally reading stories as queer. David Jenkins called it gaslighting, and I think he's 100% correct. To dismiss and deny that the reading is there and reasonable at all is hurtful in a way that I find hard to describe. Gaslighting is the right word for it, because it's an abuse tactic. And that's how it feels.

And now I'm going to get into this: I want to talk about Sherlock. (Oh god, really? Yes. Yes, I'm going to talk about it, hopefully just this once, and then let it go.)

When I first saw Sherlock S1 when it aired, I thought it was wonderfully slashy in a self-aware way, and given that it's kind of a prequel, "how Sherlock Holmes becomes Sherlock Holmes," and how they were already framing the relationship, I figured that the story would give in to the romance on some level, though I figured it probably wouldn't be in an on-the-nose way. I imagined it would be romantically ambiguous to the end, and to be honest, after 4 series, I will still argue that that's exactly what it ended up being.

I remain perfectly confident in the argument that Sherlock is very much a story about two men who fall desperately in love with each other, but have so much personal baggage that they can't do anything with the truth of that love other than wrestle with it, know that it's true and real, and have to find a way to live with the sheer impossibility of it.

Conceptually, I like that story, even if it's queerbaity. I think it's immensely tragic and beautiful, monstrous and beautiful, and while it would suck for every story to be like that, I loved a story that would play with love in that way. I loved writing fanfiction that explored and pushed through that tension. The fact of the romantic impossibility was a sort of invitation to write ways that it could happen. Is that strange? Maybe that's just a coping mechanism I've developed. Anyway. I was okay with the story. It's sort of queering the backstory of these two men in Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, giving them this fraught romantic history.

There's a whole mess in there about fandom conspiracies and whatnot. I really never understood any of that and I was truly shocked by what happened in fandom when series 4 aired. I'm embarrassed that I didn't see it coming when the signs were there, and that I didn't understand it that fannish shipping had tipped over into something else that I still can't completely wrap my head around, so I won't pretend to have a useful opinion about any of that.

What hurt me the most wasn't the way the narrative about the relationship resolved. It was the way the creators talked about it the queer reading of the story, and about us, after series 4 aired. As if we were gross and silly and wrong. And ridiculous. And offensive. And they were angry with us.

I realize creators see fandom from a very different vantage point than I do, and I'm sure there's more going on than I can possibly be aware of, real life stuff, scary stuff fans may have been up to, but the dramatic reaction from the Sherlock creators dismissing all the very legible and originally self-aware romantic elements of their own story shocked the hell out of me, and made me feel...well, stupid and ashamed, honestly. Because I didn't see any of that coming on any level. I thought they understood us.

I didn't, and still don't, see anything wrong with wanting an implied queer romance to go from subtext to text. I didn't see anything wrong with arguing that it could, or even that it should. What would actually happen in the story was a whole other matter, but the fannish conversations about the potential of the narrative were fair and legit, as far as I'm concerned. I never expected to be told that I was imagining it the whole time. I trusted that Steven Moffat in particular wouldn't do that. And I'm embarrassed that I believed that he wouldn't. I'm hugely disappointed that he did.

And I'm embarrassed that I'm embarrassed, because of the parasociality of it all! Steven Moffat doesn't know me. It's not about me. But, at the same time, it is. I'm part of that collective noun. And I wasn't wrong about that story.

And now I think David Jenkins would not do that to us, and I truly believe he wouldn't, because he's already confirmed it in the text and in conversations about the text. We're free. I think he actually understands. He seems to understand it better than I do. I like the way he frames it. He's given me a way to think about all this that's actually very useful, and healing. And because this story isn't gaslighting us, there shouldn't be a whole dialogue about fans getting it wrong and stupid, sex-obsessed girls. Right?

Right?

I need a hug.

#fannish angst #old Sherlock wounds #David Jenkins #Our Flag Means Death adjacent

[nalyra-dreaming]

Better in the context of what they did in the show, the writers' answer is not the problem. There are things that people cannot understand unless they deal with racism in their own lives, but in the first season we saw the black characters experience all kinds of violence, even at the hands of a partner/family member, and the showrunners failed to address it properly, both in the show and in interviews. They know that the audience is primarily white, so I bet they are not worried about it, but they shouldn't use race to earn progressive points, if they can't handle all the implications of it.

There's a whole lot of assumptions in this ask... And I have seen a whole lot of posts of people who would disagree with you on some of it at least.

And I honestly don't even know how we got here from the previous asks? How did we get here from "not hating on the writers"? Why do you want to shove this assumptions-based racism discussion my way?

#asks #earn progressive points my ass #the first color-conscious show I've seen in a long time #them addressing this shit is exactly the point nonny #or have you deliberately missed the outcry about ooc lestat #iwtv #interview with the vampire #ask nalyra

[ur-frndly-neighborhood-memer1]

Alicent Hightower: Villain or Victim?

(part 1)

While we're all waiting for season 2, I thought an essay about Alicent Hightower would be nice to understand her character and her motives better. Is she really a villain or a victim? Let's analyze!

Before I start analyzing, I wanna start with asking a question: what is character development?

If we go by the definition, it's "In literature, character development is the craft of giving a character a personality, depth, and motivations that propel them through a story. Character development is also defined as how a character evolves throughout the course of a story."

The point of a character development isn't about making the character a better person. It can be though; such as what we've seen with Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender, and of course with Jaime Lannister from Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire... These are the characters who eventually became better people and actually put an effort to redeem themselves.

Yet, there are also characters who started off bad but only became worse in the process instead of being good. Zuko's sister Azula, or Jaime's sister Cersei are good examples for this. They didn't get any better as the series continued. Just the opposite, they were bad and they only became worse. Which is a good thing, at least for me, because I don't think all villains should be redeemed. They're not any better than their irredeemably megalomaniac and tyrannical fathers after all. And speaking of the fathers, Ozai and Tywin are also good examples for this character archetype.

However, there's another character archetype... Not only the characters who became good from bad, or went from bad to worse, but also characters who were good but eventually ended up being bad... Yes, I'm talking about Alicent Hightower.

I know many people in fandom, especially Black supporters collectively hate Alicent. And I understand this hatred. After all, she made her son usurp Rhaenyra's throne even though she was the King's true heir... And yes, Alicent is definitely a villain in the book. She comes across as a pretty Cersei-ish bad guy. Vain, cold, self-centered, manipulative, hostile... It's easy to imagine her like Cersei Lannister. Which is why many fans often compare her to Cersei.

However, Alicent in the show is a very different song. The showrunners clearly intended to make her more sympathetic and relatable to the audience. Because Alicent doesn't start off villainous. Just the opposite; we see a courteous, understanding but also overly anxious and shy teenage girl. She literally picks her fingernails and make them bleed whenever she's uneasy or stressed. Do I even need to explain how sad this is? She was tearing apart her fingernails during the tourney, and Rhaenyra had to stop her friend from hurting herself... And that's just sad.

(Couldn't find the exact image, but them holding hands is still cute)

When the series starts, we don't see an ambitious Alicent who is actively scheming to become the Queen. In fact, she didn't have any personal ambitions of her own but was only used by her father Otto as a pawn.

Because even if some people disagrees with me, I never believed Alicent was trying to seduce the King in the first place. We've seen that she was only doing what her father was telling her to do. And at this point, she had no power to object to him, she wasn't Queen at this point. But yes, Alicent was indeed being close and "friendly" towards Viserys. However, I wouldn't say she was trying to manipulate him at all. I think she was being empathetic. Because she also lost her mother at such a young age, and she was alone with no one there to comfort her and allow her too feel the agony. As she said, everyone told her to move on. So, Alicent knows better now. She knows this is not how you should treat people who just lost someone they loved. And she knows Viserys is feeling lonely. And she genuinely wants to make him feel better. Not because she really wants to seduce him though. She is trying to help him, because she is an empathetic person, just like when she comforted and helped Rhaenyra.

So far, Alicent isn't a power-hungry b!tch who is plotting to steal the throne. But just a teenage girl who has no choice but obey her father's commands. Yes, she actually ended up marrying Viserys, much to Rhaenyra's shock and disappointment. And she technically betrayed her best friend. But again, I wouldn't say it's Alicent that we should blame here. It was Viserys who didn't tell his daughter about his marriage plan. He should have informed Rhaenyra about the whole thing, and he should have done it in privacy, not announcing it in front of a public.

Even Tywin Lannister was informing his children about his marriage plans before announcing it. Because things need to go accordingly. That's how you set up political marriages. Yes, Cersei and Tyrion hated it, but they weren't taken by surprise at least.

But Viserys really took Rhaenyra by surprise there in front of the whole council, which wasn't professional at all.

But this is where most of the fandom started to hate Alicent even more. Because they say Alicent was so blind with her ambitions that she didn't hesitate to betray her best friend. But that's not even true. Yes, Alicent shouldn't have been visiting Viserys, and even if she was, she should have told Rhaenyra about this marriage. But as I said, she didn't have much choices due to her father's orders and King's wishes. If you want to blame anyone, then blame Otto for using his daughter like a sex object instead of treating her like a human-being. And let's not forget, it was totally Otto who literally said "Go and sleep with your bff's dad after he lost his wife. Oh, and make sure you wear your dead mom's dress too!" So yeah, we all know who is actually the guilty one here...

But let's not forget, even after marrying Viserys and getting pregnant with Aegon, Alicent still made attempts to keep her friendship with Rhaenyra. She genuinely cared about Rhaenyra and valued their friendship. So, she isn't a heartless b!tch that some people in fandom are trying to make her.

And even after Aegon's birth, Alicent still had no personal intention to make him the King. Let's take a look at her interaction with Otto about this topic:

Instead of directly saying she wants her son to be King, Alicent replies that "What mother wouldn't?" Again, it's not her personal wish. But in that political system, mothers/fathers would want their sons to be Kings. Remember when Catelyn wanted Sansa to be Queen? Or how proud she was when Northerns followed Robb as their leader? Or how eager Cersei was to crown Joffrey? Or Mace Tyrell repeatedly trying to set up marriages for Margaery to make her the Queen? Anyone with political ambitions would want to make their child a King/Queen.

But Alicent had no such interest. Because she really loved Rhaenyra and was supporting her right. Also, she saw the heavy burden of being a King. She is living with Viserys, she sees all its conflicts and struggles, she sees how the pressure of the throne slowly destroys him. She wouldn't want her own child to go through what her husband was. So, the answer of this "What mother wouldn't?" question should be no mother who knows what it's like. But then, why does she want it for Rhaenyra? Mainly because she wants to keep her own son away from bearing this burden. And also because she really thinks Rhaenyra is strong enough to deal with it. As she told Otto, Rhaenyra would be a good Queen.

________________________

I don't want to make this post any longer. So I will continue writing in part 2. If you agree or disagree with me, let me know it!

#alicent hightower #hotd #aegon the second #aegon ii #Aegon Targaryen #Viserys Targaryen #Rhaenyra Targaryen #otto hightower #house of the dragon #character analysis #Alicent #team black #team green

[stranger-rants]

I’ve been in the Billy community a long time before I became active online. But I’ve noticed more people are starting to grasp the criticism Billy Hargrove fans make of the show and fanbase. Not everyone tho there’s still a dubious amount of hate and harassment thrown at marginalized creators in the Billy fanbase. Especially racism thrown at BIPOC Billy fans like myself who don’t fit into the fandoms stereotypical racist monolithic assumptions about BIPOC fans in the Stranger things fandom. But I was wondering if you had any ideas to why that could be? Since you’re outspoken about how it took some time for you to empathize with Billy’s character. I’ve kinda just accepted I don’t understand where this shift is coming from I started to just become content with the abuse I faced online for liking Billy Hargrove as a character and knowing that Netflix’s knows this shit happens but they’d probably never speak out against it being to afraid to upset their market audience. I kinda acquired this “Boo hoo 😭” attitude around me connecting to this character’s story and getting hate for it but I’m glad to see more understanding around how a person like me can like him. I’m still angry tho. But I got anger issues.

ANYWAY I LOVE UR BLOG 🥸

Thanks as always for the love 💜

I made a joke about this on my main blog before... how I hate characters because I would want to fight them in a parking lot, but not in the way where I think I am objectively better than people who like them or something like that.

It's okay to hate characters, but nowadays people turn dislike into a performance of morality. They're not honest about their hate, and they're not much interested in confronting that because they're so convinced they're right.

I think these people just want to be seen as better than everyone else. I think there are people who use "the right language" to perform morality without having to commit to questioning real systems of oppression or their own role in it.

It's why they'll call out Billy's racism, but do nothing to confront the racism within the overall narrative or the racism informing the narrative on the outside (i.e. the way the biases of the showrunners influence the way characters of color are treated).

It takes hard work to confront your own biases and work towards a better society. I struggle all the time managing my emotions and saying/doing the right thing when someone says or does something not great to me. Every day I struggle!

It is hard to not hold a grudge and to not want a severe institutional consequence for harm done, but I have been trying for years now to empathize with the pain and suffering people go through regardless if they're A Good PersonTM.

That being said, this is fandom. Fandom and the participation in it is not inherently activism. Liking the "right" content doesn't translate to doing the right thing for society. There are politics in stories, yes, but being in fandom isn't revolutionary.

I don't know if that answers your question, but I hope it helps. I didn't like Billy at first. I did think he was a brat (still do) and I found some of his behavior repulsive (still do). However, I never thought he deserved what happened to him. Ever.

#asks

[emileesaurus]

AMC IWTV PILOT THOUGHTS, mostly critical, mostly unfiltered, bear with me if I phrase something clumsily

Calling the original interview (which they're implying is the original book, somehow, even if it didn't get published in this universe) "a fever dream told to an idiot" makes me want to 1v1 the showrunner. It's so disrespectful that everyone watching with me had a simultaneous "dude, bad look" moment.

The lore changes are honestly baffling. Loved Louis saying "it was my last sunrise" while doing a 10AM interview behind tinted windows. Why get rid of the death sleep! It's such a big thing! (Why do they still sleep in coffins in this, actually? I wonder if they'll explain next episode?)

Stealing the hover bite pseudo-sex from the 94 movie but making it way less hot in spite of the full ass? Also awkward. I liked the thumb bite, that was kinda hot, but the rest of the scene was… like a worse version of another scene in the movie! The one where they share the girl at the play! The blocking was even the same, but their positions were switched. Odd choice to reference it so heavily when they're claiming to be so much more faithful.

The dialogue was… not good. Anytime something was almost subtle, they made sure to have another character say something to undercut it. It doesn't feel like a show that trusts its audience to handle nuance or complexity.

BRO THE SHITBOX SCENE???? Why was that even there! It was so vulgar and crass and unnecessary and I don't know what it added other than showing what Louis has to deal with in his demeaning life, but between that and Lestat killing Lily, I'm pretty unhappy with the brothel material so far. And hearing the N word ten minutes in was jarring. Not sure RJ was more qualified to write this than he was the plantation storyline.

Lestat CONSTANTLY infodumped about his backstory, but not in a way that allowed any other characters to interestingly or meaningfully react to it, which was so frustrating. He told Louis more about his past before making him in this episode than he did during all of Interview, but there was zero emotional weight to it. It felt more like Rolin Jones trying to prove he read the books by throwing in easter eggs. Look! Lestat is mentioning that he composed this song for a violinist he knew! Ignore how nonchalant he sounds while saying it and how totally meaningless that is to Louis, our point of view character! It's there for the audience, but what does it mean to Louis? Textually, nothing. I'm devastated, as someone who's made her hobby trying to write those specific reveals. It was just… there.

And as someone with a PhD in Loustat, their interactions didn't feel authentic to me. Lestat's speech in the cathedral was so weird. He fell for Louis because he saw him threatening Paul with a knife in the street, and he interrupts Paul's funeral to neg Louis for ghosting him after they fucked, which is pretty awful even for Lestat — who should understand grief! He fell for Louis in the book because he was mourning Paul so intensely, and his sensitivity and strong (if hypocritical) moral center intrigued him.

Here, I'm less sure what appealed to Lestat; this is a very very different take on Louis, and it seems more like he was attracted to his capacity for violence and… idk, something about the way he's stifled by social mores? I'm not trying to be dense, I couldn't get a good read on Lestat's motives, in spite of his long-ass monologue. I don't think the extra bonding time deepened their relationship, and I don't know if we gained anything by having Lestat drop the L word right away. Where is my two century slow burn?

Speaking of that: Lestat appears to be the cultured one this time and I hate it? Lestat introduces Louis to opera (while Louis has to pretend to not get it); Lestat owns his own luxury townhouse in the Quarter (the Rue Royale townhouse belonged to Louis in the novel). Where is the conflict with Louis thinking Lestat is an uncultured hick? Where is the angst of Louis thinking Lestat only wanted him for his money if Lestat is a property owner who dropped the L word before he ever turned him? Louis is supposed to be able to hold his intellectualism over Lestat, but this AU seems more like Lestat introducing Louis to that world? I can see why that would appeal to this version of Louis, if that's typically not allowed to a Black man, and I don't want to ignore how his race and time period inform his relationship to culture.

But it feels like they took away so much of the character's gentle, intellectual, introverted nature to give him "more of a spine." He admits in the confession scene that he's run to the bottle and the card tables and etc. his whole life. Paul died the morning AMC Louis was turned, well after Lestat had decided he wanted to make Louis his companion; in the novel Paul's death was the impetus for Louis's moral decline. It's an odd reversal, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Why did they make his relationship with Paul so much more antagonistic and then make Paul's death so obviously not Louis's fault? Don't get me wrong, I'm not team "Louis did it" by any means, but it feels weird to have Louis PULL A KNIFE ON HIM but the day he dies they just have a nice conversation. He really just walked off the roof because he's cRaZy!

Does this Lestat kill mostly evildoers or not? I know in the books he's inconsistent about it, but this is supposed to be The Real Prince Lestat, so you'd think the writers would have a set idea of what his deal is, ethically speaking. So far his kills have been 1) a lamplighter; 2) a sex worker who Louis paid too much attention to; and 3) two priests. I want to know what he's going to claim he does! Also that exploding head punch was hilariously excessive!

Louis gives his whole monologue about the drumming of Lestat's heart while the music is a glorious swelling string section with absolutely no percussion. I thought that was marvelously bad sound design.

This take on Daniel sucks ass lmao

EDIT: I forgot to mention that between the cathedral scene and the dinner with Paul, Lestat is coming off as way more of an arrogant reddit atheist than he ever did in the books, where to me it seemed like he always had a strange sort of respect for sincere religious belief (as someone who lost his faith himself). idk, I know his thoughts on God fluctuated along with Anne's, but it struck me as out of character to have him so angrily fixated on this whole "religion is a lie" thing that he would trigger himself with it at the dinner table and self-righteously kill two priests.

idk dudes, I really wanted to say something positive, but I didn't enjoy almost any aspect of it. Maybe episode two will be less dour? These are just my initial impressions, maybe time and other perspectives will give me additional food for thought and I'll soften on some of it.

But chat with me if you've seen it! I'm curious to hear from other Loustat fans in particular, since it seems like a lot of us are really into it, and it just... didn't feel like my ship at all except in the most superficial possible way. I'm bummed! I wanted to be wrong, but most of my concerns have so far ended up being well-founded.

#ass before absolution #<- my new amc iwtv tag #vc #my inbox and messages are always open for people who want to scream in private ✨

[princesssszzzz]

I don't think they'd sacrifice Rhaenys or Jace's deaths just to give Daemon a villain moment though. Those characters die in very dramatic ways; in Rhaenys' case her death is practically half the characterisation we are given about her in the book and the only thing she gets to do in the war. If they want Daemon to do something terrible then he could be responsible for blood and cheese.

Before the show came out I would agree. After S1, they maybe would be willing to do that but who knows. I think Condal really wants to smack people over the head to show he’s a bad guy because he’s always getting defended. He was so annoyed by the reaction to the finale he might just add something crazy just to spite black stans. I don't have strong opinions about Daemon so I don’t care who he kills generally, I could just see why they would want him to kill Jace and have Jace's death be like the red wedding and he’s taken out by his own team member. They messed up by keeping Laenor alive bc at this point Daemon hasn’t done anything to show he’s willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants. It’s all talk with him so far. He’s also been written as a solider for team black’s cause instead of his own. I don’t think Rhaenyra and Daemon want the same thing but as of right now they can benefit working together. He’s gonna kill greens and his emotions about his brother’s death will die down but the rest of the dance there’s no way his entire story is just wanting to kill Aemond. I think GRRM names him Rouge Prince because he’s supposed to go rouge instead of being a loyal soldier, especially for someone else’s kid to be king. If Ryan and Sara just want people to hate Daemon and not root for him, killing Jace would mean more than greens. He’s killing characters like Vaemond, random servant dude, Aegon’s kid no one really cares about them or will remember them by the time the show ends (the general audience it’s only the fandom that goes hard for fictional deaths) I really just see Alicent’s line dying off as a side quest for Daemon he hates them so much 😂😂 but the real mission here and importance is House Targaryen, the bloodline, and dragons and Jace gets in the way of that.

Aegon’s son dying is less about Daemon and more about Aegon’s motivations. That’s even the same for House Velaryon because they’re starting off with saying yeah we don’t care about Harwin’s sons being here but of course we’ll end off with a real Velaryon taking over Driftmark. I hope Rhaenys is done justice they already fucked her over 🙏 Anon if your team black brace yourself because the showrunners don’t like Daemon

#don’t fuck Rhaenys’ death #Ryan Condal wants evil Daemon #her and Daemon will have lots of beef in S2 #but yeah I think her death will stay the same #idk about Sara Hess though she just says crazy things in general #she’ll write just about anything regarding Daemon #hotd asks

[giftedpink]

Why Shauna eat Jackie's ear?

I went way overboard on this I'm so sorry

Answer under the cut

Okay so the thing about this question is that there are multiple answers and IMO they are all equally plausible and valid. I don't think in the show they are ever going to explicitly state "Shauna did it for this reason", so it is purposely left open to audience interpretation. Now, some of the people who work on the show have given interviews and given what their answers are to this, so there are some explanations that we know they were thinking of when they wrote and shot the scene. And before you read all this, my own personal opinion is that all of what I'm about to say is part of why she did it.

I'll get into those in a bit, but first I want to start with the simplest and most surface level answer: she ate the ear because she is a pregnant starving teenager, and she was hungry.

Now, do I think this is the real answer? Not really, no. It's probably part of it, but a very very small part. However it is still part of the puzzle of the whole, and I would imagine if someone were ever to find out that Shauna did this, whether in the 90's or in the modern day, this would be what SHAUNA'S answer would be. Not that I think she believes it, but it's what she would tell other people, because its the easiest answer to explain away. I also think it's important to note that for some viewers, this will be the only answer. Not everyone consumes media with a very analytical and critical eye, which is fine! Enjoy your shows however makes you happy. But it does mean that in a situation like this, people who watch shows in that way probably won't bother looking past the surface level. My mother, for example, is someone I watch Yellowjackets with, but she uses TV as a way to turn her brain off, so I imagine for her it really is as simple as Shauna was starving.

Now for the freaks like me, who DO over analyze everything, there are a lot of layers underneath that hunger Shauna was feeling that we can dig into. I'll start with what's a little more textually supported and was spoken about by the showrunners, and then at the end I'll get into some of my own headcanons.

So, lets look at the word hunger. We've already discussed the literal meaning of Shauna's hunger and how it motivated things, but the other definition of the word hunger, the verb version, is applicable here as well. Shauna hungered for Jackie. They were best friends and had this very complicated and twisted friendship, a constant push and pull between desire and love and hate and sharpness. Teenaged girls have these deeply intense friendships that are just so, so complicated sometimes. To quote the showrunners "It’s about this very specific friendship that Jackie and Shauna had, where Shauna loves Jackie, but also was always in her shadow. She adored this friend of hers, but also in some ways, was always wanting to kind of destroy her — maybe that’s going a bridge too far? But I think that is very relatable to a lot of people who are in these intense friendships."

So Shauna loved her, but felt like she was second fiddle to her. To use an overly poetic simile, Jackie was like the sun to Shauna. She was warmth and light and goodness and everyone loved her, but she also cast a huge shadow. You could say Shauna was the moon but I think in reality she was the Earth. The Earth needs the Sun to survive, but at the same time its stuck forever in the Sun's orbit, and eventually the Sun is going to destroy itself and the Earth both. There was probably some jealously on Shauna's part, of wanting to be the sun for once. But that jealously was coming from her OWN view of Jackie, of seeing Jackie as this star popular girl and going "why can't I have that?". And I think Shauna didn't even understand herself in what WAY she wanted that. Did she want to be that or possess it for herself? Regardless, I think this next quote sums up where I'm going with this pretty well:

"And so the next step of that is consumption, right? I literally want to consume this person, because I love them so much — but I also want them no longer to exist in a way. I also want to keep them a part of me for my entire existence. We were playing with that kind of plasticity on a psychological and emotional level, and not just have it be about, 'Oh, I’m gonna eat the ear!'”

So, Shauna loved Jackie, and also she hated her. She wanted to preserve her forever but also wanted to destroy her. So she ate the ear. An act of preservation and destruction in one.

Now for some of my own musings on it. I think grief and guilt may have both played a large part in it. Straight up, people do irrational things when theyre grieving. They have bizarre responses to things when they've experience trauma, and all of these girls are traumatized. Shauna is well WELL down the path to being completely unhinged at this point, so an impulsive decision like this isn't that strange when you think about it. And the guilt part I think is 2 folds: 1, she feels guilty for causing Jackie's death in the first place, and 2, she feels guilty that she broke the ear.

She doesn't want anyone else to know that she's been moving the body around in there. She also doesn't want to feel like she's commiting MORE violence against Jackie. And she really doesn't want her illusion of the whole situation shattered. So when the ear breaks off, shes confronted very starkly with a dead body in front of her again, she realizes she harmed this body again, and she realizes if anyone else comes into the shed and sees it, theyll know she isn't just talking to the body. We see that she tries to reattach the ear and fails, so in my opinion I think part of her eating it was a knot of not wanting anyone else to find out about it, and also not being able to just GET RID OF a piece of Jackie. I mean she already killed her, now shes just supposed to throw away a literal chunk of her and not feel guilty about it? So it just ends up in her pocket.

She can't bury it because the ground is frozen, she can't toss it away because of the guilt, and she can't just leave it lying around. So she eats it. She consumes this part of Jackie so that it will always be hers, it will always be a part of her. Everywhere she goes, Jackie is now literally part of her. Shauna gets to have this ownership of Jackie through her consumption, while also preserving her forever in a very fucked up way.

Now the last piece of all of this for me is, of course, the homoerotic subtext of Jackie and Shauna's entire relationship. They were completely obsessed with each other. Jackie wanted to control Shauna's life to make sure she didn't leave her side. Shauna wanted to fuck Jackie's boyfriend because it was the closest she could be to Jackie. Both the closest she could be to BEING her and the closest she could be to her in this physical, intimate way that (I personally believe) they both wanted but had no way to articulate. And their desire for each other was buried inside of them, and complicated by all the other stuff going on in their lives, including just the horrors of being a teenaged girl, so it became this razor sharp thing that hurt both of them. They cut each other so, so deeply because they felt for each other so, so deeply. And then Shauna loses all of that, and it's her own fault, and she's also losing her mind, and now shes broken a piece of Jackie off and she just- she just needs to have this piece of Jackie for herself. To have it for just herself forever and to get to say "Jackie was MINE. She was mine and now I've proven it because this piece of her is now a piece of me". She loved her, and she lost her, but in this way she will never, ever lose her again.

And jesus fuck I really did write an essay, I am so sorry for completely going off when you were probably just looking for a meme answer like "nomnomnom" or something LMAO but thanks for giving me this opportunity to word vomit all over the place.

#yellowjackets #shauna shipman #jackie taylor #yellowjackets spoilers #this is literally an essay so #if u read this thanks i guess

[certifiedskywalker]

So, House of the Dragon…

This first episode felt like coming home: a stinking, blooding, violently familiar but oh-so fond, home. Westeros is back, but has it retained its knack at awing audiences?

I think so, but I'm nervous. Here's why.

Spoilers for House of the Dragon.

As I said, House of the Dragon truly did feel like a homecoming. Delving back into Westeros' deep and dark corners gives this show an edge as we, the viewers, are already connected to this world. We are returning to a place and people that, at some point during the run of Game Of Thrones, notwithstanding season eight, we fell in love with. For better or for worse.

The Houses, the High Valyrian, the histories, the armors, the dresses, the DRAGONS! We're back people, in all of GOT's glory and (nearly) none of its dead weight! The showrunners gave us it all! The gore! The Joffrey-esque, typical Prince entitlement that breeds more gore! We were fed that medieval lawlessness that incites a chaos that leaves viewers disturbed, dreading, and desiring.

And, as we all know, chaos is a ladder. With its cast in King's Landing, House of the Dragon reminds us of that fact by referencing GOT's early seasons as a fantastical political drama. Hand of the King, Otto Hightower, is already playing this Game Of Thrones, mostly to keep Daemon Targaryen from ascending as heir to King Viserys. While he mourned the lost Queen and Heir for the Day, Hightower could see opportunity through the smoke of the funeral pyre. He sent his daughter, Alicent Hightower, to comfort the loss-ridden King Viserys; thereby planting a seed of power for him to sow later.

Lest I fail to touch on the titular Targaryens directly, let me do so now. I hate them all, but I love them too. Viserys is so wonderfully characterized as a rather buffoonish King, loyal to his family save where duty intervenes. Like every patriarch, he is blindly obsessed with lineage and blood to fault, to the point where he would so willingly spill the blood of his wife. So, I guess you could say, like any King, Viserys is loyal to his family...as long as it ensures power.

Perhaps that is why he is so quick to demote Daemon: he sees that hunger for power is far too strong in his little brother, the second born. Their bond embodies the cycle of familial betrayal for the sake of personal ambition. Viserys withholds from Daemon. Daemon feels betrayed. Daemons acts out in a way that betrays the little trust Viserys holds for him. The cycle continues...and has.

The twist in House of the Dragon is that we witness the last betrayal. Daemon, who has been set to inherit the Seven Kingdoms during decades of lost heirs, who has been living a life of a lavish Prince, is deposed as next in line. He, then, is no more different than the likes of Otto Hightower: a second-born damned to feast off of only what he can take for himself. No wonder Daemon hates Otto. He is him, even more so at the end of this first episode! This begs the question of the series: what will Daemon take to feast upon?

Rhaenyra. How wonderful it is to see another young, Targaryen woman take the literal reins. A dragonrider, stubborn, thrill-seeking, and life-loving. Though, a coming-of-age story like this is one to be weary of in my book. The treatment of Daenerys Targaryen in the later seasons of GOT was deplorable and my fear is that HOTD showrunners will treat Rhaenyra, who is so similar to her descendant, as a do-over. A character reformed, but not necessarily to fit the shape of this new story.

I say that only because I watched the After the Episode feature at the end of this first episode of House of the Dragon. The showrunners, in my opinion, have entirely misinterpreted parts of their own production. One stated that King Viserys made his choice to save his son out of duty and, while true, for Kings, for Targaryen Kings, duty is so warped by the pureness of their blood, their power, that it was hardly duty at all the drove Viserys to kill his wife. The same applies to the so-called 'love' between the brothers. Yes, Viserys loves Daemon and vice-versa, but only for the promise of power that each ensures to the other. As long as there is a Targaryen atop the Iron Throne, they will be taken care of...until that pesty cycle of betrayal comes up again...until Daemon is deposed by Rhaenyra.

However, one could argue that Viserys only acts to keep a Targaryen on the throne for the sake of the prophecy. You know, the Song of Ice and Fire. I hate this. Not in the same way I hate-love these Targaryens. I truly hate the inclusion of the Song of Ice and Fire, the prophecy of the Long Night. Sure, it was around, lingering as prophecies often do in fantasy settings. But to name it? To make it such a driving force for Rhaenyra's ascension? No.

If anything, this undermines the heart at the House of the Dragon. Instead of trusting viewers to see the connections, hear them in the old names of these new characters, instead of letting us naturally fall back in love with a world we have been without, the showrunners drew a Stark throughline. One that was unneeded and harms the true humanity that this coming-of-age story could hold. Instead of having Rhaenyra feel driven to Queenhood by duty, by learning about her kingdom and wanting to change things, to mend her family, to break the cycle (does this sound familiar?), they gave her something that places her beyond our reach: the weight of prophecy. The weight of the Targaryen lineage, the madness that we saw come from Targaryen's preoccupation with prophecy.

Tyrion said it best: "Prophecy is a half-trained mule. It looks as though it might be useful, but the moment you trust in it, it kicks you in the head." So, I fear the writers of House of the Dragon may have to brace for a strike.

That being said, I am so looking forward to where this show could go that I am more than willing to brace right alongside them.

This story is fruitful and wild and full of whimsy. And DRAGONS. Did I mention that at the top? I hope I did.

#house of the dragon #the house of the dragon #daemon targaryen #rhaenyra targaryen #viserys targaryen #hotd #got #game of thrones #a song of ice and fire #asoiaf #tyrion lannister