#William Shakespeare’s Avengers | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mysecretlittlelibrary · 7 months

Text

A Moment's Silence

Pairing: Loki x Reader

Word Count: 3.4k

Warnings: Oral (f receiving). unprotected sex, marking, praise, Loki got a dangerous mouth but this isn't too bad.

Genre: smut & fluff

Summary: Loki hates when you touch him, and you thought you knew exactly why. // A moment's silence when my baby puts her mouth on me ~ Moment's Silence (Common Tongue) by Hozier

***

The first thing Loki learned about you when you moved into the Avengers Tower was that you are touchy. Not in the 'you're too sensitive' way but in the you're very affectionate way. You're always greeting people with hugs and you cuddle whoever sits next to you during movie nights and whenever you're going somewhere with someone you're either holding their hand or linking arms with them. It's pretty different from the rest of the people living here. Except for Thor, no one here shares your affinity for touch but everyone loves you so they take it in stride. Welcoming your hugs and cuddles and hand holds to the point that most of them have become accustomed to it, expecting it more often than they want to admit.

Except Loki. Loki doesn't do touch and no amount of seeing you do it will make him more comfortable with it. You're no fool. You recognized early that although the others complained when you hugged them there was no real fight in their objections, with Loki it's different. He'd go as far as to disappear on you if you tried to hug him so you stopped. You don't hug Loki, or sit by him during movies, or try to grab his arm on the rare occasion that you're going somewhere with him. Honestly, for a while you didn't spend much time with Loki in general, you weren't sure how to. He was clearly a loner and you assumed you didn't have much in common. He didn't seem eager to bond with you either so you left him to his own devices.

Until recently. You've started spending a lot of your free time in the tower library and evidently, Loki is quite fond of the space too. So you kind of just share it. If you find yourself in there at the same time as him you say hello and pick a corner to do your reading. Sometimes you talk to him a bit and other times you just share each other's company. It's becoming a kind of lovely routine, at least in your eyes. You have no idea if Loki enjoys it as much as you actually but he can be pretty conversational on occasion, usually as long as you're not too close to him.

"Hello Loki." You say when he walks into the library. You've already been here a couple of hours, you honestly didn't think you'd see Loki today.

"Hello y/n. How are you today?" He asks.

"Pretty good. How are you?" You set your book face down in your lap as you watch him walk out of sight to one of the shelves.

"I'm alright! What are we reading today?" Loki's voice carries through the room to you.

"I've picked up a romance for now."

"Not legends and myths for once?" You can hear the teasing in his voice at his question.

"Fuck off I read other stuff." You laugh.

"News to me."

"And what will you be reading today god of mischief? Sifting through spells as always?"

"I was thinking poetry actually." Loki finally appears from beyond the stacks with a book in hand.

"You're a poetry fan?"

"Don't sound so surprised." He rolls his eyes as he sits in the armchair across from the couch you're lying on.

"Well, it's not like you use that silver tongue of yours to recite sonnets." You snort picking up your book.

"Some would say this silver tongue of mine has quite a way with words."

"And I'm sure it does but weaving together lies isn't the same as poeticism. No one will be mixing you up with Robert Frost or William Shakespeare." You muse, your attention drifting back to the story you were invested in before he arrived.

"Your midgardian bards are of no competition to a god you know."

"I'm sure Asgard has its own famous poets of which I'm sure no one would compare you to either." You mutter as you read.

"Now that's harsh." Loki says. You mumble an affirmative dismissively as the drama picks up in the chapter you're reading. Loki takes the hint and leaves you alone as he opens his own chosen read for the afternoon and you spend the rest of the day in silence. Until dinner.

"I'm making dinner and it's movie night. Are you joining us or will you stay here?" You ask, standing up.

"Do you want me to join?" Loki asks.

"I mean- not if you're going to be miserable. I'm just headcounting."

"The others aren't usually as welcoming as you can be."

"Well I w-" You stop yourself. You've only just started to form a friendship with Loki, as much as you enjoy spending time with him you can't outwardly say it. Well maybe you could but you have a feeling the skittish animal approach is best. "I wouldn't be... disappointed if you decided to join us."

"I'll think about it." He hums.

"Alright. See you, maybe." You leave with your book intent on finishing it after movie night. You drop it in your room before going to the kitchen to make dinner. Meatballs, mashed potatoes, and broccoli. It takes almost an hour to make enough for everyone and by the time you're done, most everyone's gathered in the living room.

"Dinner's up! Stevie, Bucky come grab the potatoes and broccoli please." You say grabbing the bowl with the meatballs.

"Coming!" Steve says as he and Bucky hop up from their seats and carry the other serving plates to the big table in the living room where the others are waiting.

"And Sam can you get plates for everyone hon." You say.

"Oh sure." Sam says.

"Get the soda from the fridge too! And the solo cups!" Tony calls after him as he heads into the kitchen.

"Man you coulda just got up and helped out like the rest of us." Sam rolls his eyes but he gets the soda and cups anyway in addition to the plates you asked for. You catch movement in the corner of your eye while everyone is serving themselves and your gaze pops up in time to see Loki strolling into the main room.

"Loki!" You smile before you can stop yourself.

"Brother! Will you be joining us for our moving picture night?" Thor asks.

"Yeah sure." Loki says.

"Brilliant!" Thor nods getting up to clap a hand on Loki's back.

"I made meatballs and broccoli and mashed potatoes if you'd like some. We were just getting settled before we start the movie." You tell him. To your surprise, Loki takes the empty seat beside you and you can only hope your shock doesn't show on your face.

"I haven't missed anything then?" Loki asks.

"Not really." You shake your head. Loki nods and serves himself food.

"Whose pick is it tonight?" You ask once everyone has food in front of them and a few of the boys have already started eating.

"The kid." Tony says, shoveling mashed potatoes into his mouth.

"Yeah! I uh decided on Now You See Me." Peter says.

"Nice." Natasha nods.

"What is that?" Loki asks you.

"It's a heist movie." You tell him. "Peter, have you seen it before?" You ask.

"Uh-"

"It's not like the baby spider's gonna be attempting anything like this." Clint scoffs.

"That's not why I asked. I'm just wondering if he picked it because he wants to watch it for the first time or because it's a favorite." You roll your eyes.

"I've seen it once. I just thought it would be a fun watch." Peter says.

"Well let's start it then. Yes?" Wanda prompts. Peter sets up the movie and soon everyone's attention is on the screen as they eat. It's about halfway through the movie that your usual habits kick in and you lean over to place your head on the shoulder beside you- until you remember it's Loki by your side and Loki doesn't like being touched. You lull your head back and around to tilt the other way. Wanda's on your other side but she's cuddled up with Vision so you'll just chill with your head against the back of the couch. No biggie. One movie bleeds to the next though and apparently at some point you start drifting off. Not for long, maybe 5 minutes but when your eyes flutter open again your head has made its way to Loki's damn shoulder. You pull off when you realize, surprised he didn't shove you away whenever you landed there.

Loki had held his breath when he felt your head on his shoulder. He was reluctant to admit the weight felt- oddly comforting. If anyone asked he'd deny it to high heaven but he was pretty content with you leaning against him and when you'd woken up and abruptly moved he almost wanted to protest. Almost.

When the second movie ends, most of the others start cleaning up the living room. Since you made dinner, this part isn't your responsibility so you get up and excuse yourself from the group.

"Goodnight everybody." You say to the room. "And Loki, thank you for coming." You add just for him to hear. Before you can think better of it your hand runs gently through his hair when you speak to him but by the time he's reacting to it you're already disappearing down the hall to your room. Loki spends the rest of the night thinking about your hand in his hair, your head on his shoulder, the way you so casually thanked him at the end as you left- it was something so unfamiliar that he didn't know how to deal with it. And how insufferable to be up all night over this.

The next day when you enter the library after breakfast Loki is already there sitting on the couch in your usual shared space. You're almost done with the novel you picked up yesterday and your plan is to finish it now.

"Hello Loki." You say to him as you take a seat on the opposite couch.

"Hello y/n." He says. You don't notice the way he looks at you over the top of his book for a moment. He's not sure if he should talk to you about the night before or not. How would he even bring it up? The two of you maintain your usual quiet company for a few hours while you finish your book. When you've read the last page you return the book to the shelf you found it on. While walking back to your couch you almost crash into Loki who at some point stood up when you were looking for a new book.

"Oh shit- my bad Lo." You say.

"You dropped your bookmark." Loki says holding up the flat dragon-shaped metal. You gasp and pat your back pocket where you thought you'd put it.

"Fuck- thanks. It was a gift so- would totally suck to lose it." You say, throwing your arms around him. Loki doesn't feel the urge to magically escape your grasp and he almost stops you when you let him go. Almost. "Sorry- impulse." You mutter grabbing your bookmark from his hand.

"You're usually much better at not touching me." He points out.

"I guess we've been spending so much time together that I kind of forg- sorry man. Won't happen again." You mutter.

"I wasn't- I know that's what you're like. It wasn't a complaint. Just an observation."

"You can say it wasn't a complaint but I know what you're like too. You hate being touched." You scoff.

"That's not totally accurate."

"What?"

"Usually you're right- I do hate being touched but with you I don- it's not that I hate it but I still can't stand it just- in a different way than I'm used to." Loki says carefully.

"What does that mean?" You chuckle.

"I'm- not entirely sure." He frowns.

"Well, what if I- do you mind if I touch you now?" You ask carefully.

"That's- fine." Loki says, hesitation clear on his face. You lift your hand to his cheek gently and his eyes close when your skin touches his. You let your thumb graze him softly as his brow furrows. Loki's hand snaps up around your wrist moments later and he moves your hand just enough to break the contact. "I can't-"

"What is it?"

"Too much- it's too much. I feel- entirely too much when you touch me, I can't-"

"Can't what?" You tilt your head curiously.

"I don't know how to handle it. I want- I want more than I can have."

"Say more, please."

"When you... do that. When you touch me it- I don't know how to explain it I just want more from you. Like- like I could devour you whole and it would still not be enough and I- I can't, we can't- so you can't touch me."

"Why can't we?"

"What?" Loki's eyes widen at your calm question.

"You're saying we can't but- why? Is it- is it that this is a desire you have but wish you didn't or-"

"No. That's not it."

"Then- why... can't... we?"

"Please don't say things like that. Not if you don't mean them. I cannot take it."

"I wouldn't say it lightly. I don't understand why you're so adamant that I wouldn't want- that you couldn't have more from me if you asked."

"If I asked?"

"Yes. Tell me what it is you want from me Loki."

"Why would you make such an offer?"

"Why wouldn't I?"

"Nobody wants-" Loki pauses, his gaze dropping as if the floor is more interesting to look at than you. "I just wonder how this is advantageous to you in any way."

"Do you think yourself that undeserving?" You frown and his eyes snap up to yours.

"I never said-"

"You don't always have to. Sometimes it's what we don't say that ends up being the loudest." You say. "I'm going to touch you again Loki. This time when it gets too much just- give into that feeling."

"You have no idea what you're signing up for." Loki's eyes are wide.

"I trust you." You whisper and his features melt into a soft grin, as if your words settled something within him. You place your hand on his cheek again, watching his eyes flutter shut as he leans into your touch. The moment stretches for a while until Loki's hands settle on your waist and pull you against him to bring his lips to yours.

The kiss is soft, hesitant, at first- as if he's expecting you to withdraw, but when you drape your arms loosely over his shoulders and deepen the kiss all manner of shyness seems to leave him. The kiss becomes harsher, more desperate, as if he's trying to devour you and give you all he is at once. You match him moment for moment, tongues dancing, hands roaming as you pour everything into that kiss. Loki lifts you and you wrap your legs around him. You pepper his face with sweet kisses as he carries you to one of the couches.

"Are you sure you want to give yourself to me?" Loki asks quietly.

"Are you sure you want to give yourself to me?" You turn the question back to him and he drops to his knees in front of you.

"I have given myself to you a thousand times over, long before now. I belong to you without question." His eyes pierce yours with their intensity as you allow his words to sink in. You almost can't believe he's said it but there's no denying the truth in his voice when he stares at you so earnestly. You clutch his face in your hands, meeting his gaze with equal candor.

"Then you may have me Loki. I am happy to give myself to you." You tell him and he lets out a deep breath. He says something to himself before tugging at the waist of your shorts. You help him take them off of you along with your panties before he speaks again.

"I have wondered for too long how you would taste on my tongue." Loki mutters as he spreads your legs. Before you can fully process the sentence to come up with a response, Loki buries his face at the apex of your thighs. He licks a stripe along your entrance, collecting the evidence of your arousal, letting out a groan as the essence of you floods his tastebuds. You gasp, threading your fingers into his dark hair as his tongue plunges into you, caressing your inner walls, lapping at your juices.

"Oh- oh god." You breathe out, your back arching towards Loki's eager mouth. He groans against you, the vibrations only adding to your pleasure as you squirm against his face. Loki brings his hands up to your thighs, holding you still and open for him as he switches focus, dragging his tongue against your clit in the most delicious way. His movements are sharp, calculated, his eyes on you as he watches what pulls the strongest reactions from you and focuses on those things until your body tenses beneath his hands. Loki pushes two fingers between your walls and curls them as his mouth latches onto your button. The combination is deadly and you can't stop the cry you let out as your orgasm hits you full force. Loki gently works you through it with his fingers and tongue and only when your breathing goes from harsh pants to shuttering draws does he sit back. He makes a point to link his fingers clean when your eyes flutter open.

"Even better than I expected." He says.

"What?" You ask with a breathless chuckle.

"How you taste, the sight of you in pure pleasure, the feel of your skin against mine- all of it, even better than I imagined." Loki punctuates each item on his list with a trail of kisses until he's hovering over you.

"Yes well, how nice to learn that silver tongue of yours is good for more than smart remarks." You smirk and pull him down into a kiss, tasting yourself on his lips and not caring, you simply want to be connected like this forever. Your hands trail down Loki's abdomen, freeing him from his own pants which he shoves the rest of the way off when you can no longer push them yourself. His kisses drop to your neck as he does so.

"You'll have plenty of time to learn all that my silver tongue is good for." He mutters against your skin. You giggle at his words a bit though it's shortlived as Loki chooses that moment to rock his hips into yours and the stretch of his length turns your giggle to a gasp. He takes his time working himself between your walls, allowing you to feel every single inch of him as he pushes deeper and deeper until he eventually bottoms out with a groan. "Stars above you're so- warm." He pants out. He's not moving, you realize, waiting for you to adjust so you tilt your hips forward, grinding against him impatiently.

"Loki please- move." You mewl and that's all it takes. Loki's hips knock back and he drives into you with full force, setting an even pace of deep thrusts meant for you to feel every drag of his dick against your walls.

"This- I'm sure, is Valahala." Loki pants out as he's fucking into you.

"So good- Loki it feels so good." You slip your hands into his shirt, dragging your nails across his back.

"I know my darling. I know." Loki hisses at the sweet sting from your claws. His rhythm doesn't falter as you cling to him, in fact, the feel of your hands against his skin sets Loki alight. You moan breathily, relishing in the way Loki fucks into you almost wildly. The heat of your walls is dizzying and Loki can already feel his release creeping down his spine. He slips a hand between your bodies and finds your clit, rubbing circles against the bundle of nerves. Your back arches as a whimper falls from your lips, the extra stimulation quickly bringing you closer.

"Loki-" You whine.

"Let go for me love. Show me how good I make you feel. Let your release coat my dick." Loki coaxes as his fingers dance along your clit as if he's already worked out all your right buttons to push.

"Oh my g-" You gasp out as your orgasm hits you like a wave crashing.

"Beautiful." Loki breathes. "I could watch you do that a thousand times and never tire of the face you make in ecstasy."

"Your turn now sweetie, show me what face you make in ecstasy Loki." You say gently, one hand threading into his hair. With your encouragement, it doesn't take much more for Loki's hips to stutter as his orgasm means the flooding of your walls in liquid heat.

You both lie still for some time, Loki only half holding himself up to avoid crushing you on the couch. You really can't believe the grumpy god that would straight up disappear if you so much as tapped his shoulder is currently lying in your arms. He can hardly believe it himself, but it's as soothing as he could have hoped. Not that he'd- ever admit that.

***

#marvel #marvel fanfiction #loki #loki fanfic #loki x reader #loki fluff #loki smut

811 notes · View notes

perpetual-stories · 1 year

Text

Tension vs. Conflict: What’s the Difference?

Good morning everyone! It’s my birthday today and because it’s my birthday I thought I’d post today (that’s kind of an obscure reference to Star Wars Guy and his girlfriend lol)!

Conflict and tension in literature help build drama and keep readers engaged through the end of the book. Learning the distinctions between conflict and tension will help elevate your writing and make your storylines more engaging.

What Is Tension in Writing?

Tension in a literary context is the sense that something ominous is right around the corner. Building a large amount of tension as a writer keeps your readers engaged up until the end of the story. Mystery novels are full of tension and foreboding, and they generally feature tense scenes from beginning to end. Working within the genre of mystery writing is a great way to learn how to layer tension into your narrative arc. Good use of tension makes a story worth reading and keeps readers guessing.

3 Tips for Using Tension in Your Writing

Learning to build tension is no easy task. Even the most seasoned professional writers have trouble maintaining tension from beginning to end. Here are a few tips for using tension successfully in your writing:

Foreshadowing: An important part of building tension is using foreshadowing to build dramatic tension and keep readers on the edges of their seats. In Harry Potter, author J.K. Rowling uses flashbacks and backstory to foreshadow the eventual major conflict that will unfold between Harry Potter and the villainous Voldemort.

Inner conflict: Sometimes inner conflict and self-doubt can be layered in through character development and used to build levels of tension. In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the main character wants to avenge his father’s death but is beset by self-doubt, paralyzing indecision, and mental strain. As an audience, there is a sense of tension in every scene as we wait to see if Hamlet will act on his inner desire for retribution or remain stuck in a place of indecision.

A time limit: One great way to build tension in your story is to place a time limit on an action your character has to undertake. By adding the element of a ticking clock, you build tension and increase stakes. This is a common technique used in thriller novels and films as well as action and adventure stories.

What Are the Differences Between Conflict and Tension?

While tension simmers under the surface, conflict is generally out in the open—it's tension realized. Tension might be present an unspoken rivalry between the protagonist and antagonist or in the audience’s awareness of an impending disaster.

Conflict, on the other hand, involves an active clash; maybe the protagonist and the antagonist engage in a firefight or a heated debate, or maybe a character fights off a pack of animals or works to prevent climate catastrophe. Even if the conflict is interior—a character battling low self-worth, perhaps—it still involves opposing forces struggling for supremacy.

What Is Conflict in Writing?

Conflict can come in many forms. Conflict in a story can be a physical fistfight or a passive-aggressive war of words. All that is required for conflict is a manifestation of disagreement or incompatibility between a character and something else. Characters can be in conflict with other characters, with natural forces, or with society at large.

Another type of conflict is internal conflict. Conflict is one of the fundamental principles of narrative and creative writing. In order to write a story worth reading, you need characters whose point of view is in some way challenged and to whom bad things happen. Without conflict, you won’t have a narrative or any meaningful character arc.

4 Types of Conflict and Tips for Using Them in Your Writing

The kind of conflict you use depends on what your plot and subplots are centered around and what your main character wants and needs. New plot points generally introduce conflict or advance existing conflict. Here are some types of conflict to employ in your writing and a few tips about when and how you migh

Person vs. self: An internal conflict is a kind of conflict that only manifests within a character’s head. Though we may see this conflict dramatized through narration or dialogue, or play out in the protagonist’s actions, it is an internal struggle within a character.

Person vs. person: The simplest and most common form of external conflict is when two characters are in conflict with each other. The first stories we are told as kids generally have a clear good guy and bad guy. These stories are early introductions to person vs. person conflict. Person vs. person conflicts are very common, and it’s rare to find a narrative without an interpersonal conflict present at some point in the story.

Person vs. nature: Conflict between a person and forces of nature is a good example of external struggle that can raise the stakes in a story. Some notable stories that included conflict between a person and a natural force include The Old Man and The Sea by Ernest Hemingway and Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe. Consider using person vs. nature conflict if you’re interested in writing a story with one main character and few, if any, supporting characters.

Person vs. society: Conflict between a person and society at large is a type of conflict often found in science fiction. Some notable examples of this type of conflict are found in The Handmaid’s Tale and The Hunger Games series. In The Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen finds herself contending with a dystopian and oppressive United States government that pits citizen against citizen in order to keep dissent down and quell rebellion. If you’re interested in science fiction or narratives about social justice, you might want to consider exploring conflicts that pit an individual character against society at large.

#writing #writing advice #writing tips #original writing #writers on tumblr #writersconnection #writerscommunity #short story #storytelling #writersupportingwriters

2K notes · View notes

highpriestessarchives · 1 month

Text

The Reluctant Ruler Trope: A Philosophical Inquiry into Unwanted Power, Responsibility, and the Burden of Leadership

WC: 3,489

Index

Introduction The Reluctant Ruler in Literature and Folklore The Existential Dilemma of Unwanted Authority Political Implications and the Burden of Responsibility A Special Case or a Universal Relatability? Closing Words

Introduction

“The world is something that was put into your hands and that you must deal with - so you will. You have a rigid back and steady hands, either metaphorically or physically. Is it nature or nurture? You don't know. You are tired of being steady. You dream of feeling alive. Not that you aren’t, but, sometimes, it’s hard to remember that there is a heart between your ribs.” —“Are You A Soldier, Poet, or A King?” quiz by @atlanticsea

Does anyone here remember the “Soldier, Poet, King” quiz that went around about a year or so ago? When I initially took it, I expected “Poet;” you can imagine my surprise when the “King” result absolutely obliterated my mental health.

As I’ve found, a common theme in my writing is the Reluctant Ruler trope, where either 1) a character is thrust into the role of a savior, hero, or king/queen despite not having any wish to lead people or 2) a character assumes the role of a leader without the full understanding of the morally corrupting demands of the job.

The narrative trope of the Reluctant Ruler has long captivated the human imagination, resonating across cultures and epochs. From mythical tales of kings and queens reluctant to ascend the throne to contemporary narratives of reluctant heroes and leaders, this archetype speaks to fundamental questions about the nature of power, responsibility, and the human condition. But what makes this trope such a tragic and believable character? How do we, as an audience, end up relating to and debating the conflicts and moral dilemmas that these characters face? Today, we embark on a philosophical inquiry into the Reluctant Ruler trope, aiming to uncover its deeper meanings and implications within existential and political philosophical discourse.

The Reluctant Ruler in Literature and Folklore

The archetype of the reluctant ruler is deeply embedded in the narratives of literature and folklore, transcending cultural and historical boundaries. Across diverse traditions, tales abound of individuals thrust into positions of leadership against their will, grappling with the weight of power and the burdens of governance.

Shakespeare’s “Hamlet:” One of the most iconic depictions of the Reluctant Ruler can be found in William Shakespeare's timeless tragedy, “Hamlet.” Prince Hamlet, the melancholic protagonist, is suddenly confronted with the task of avenging his father’s murder and assuming the throne of Denmark. Despite being heir to the throne, Hamlet is plagued by doubt, indecision, and existential angst. His famous soliloquy, “To be, or not to be,” encapsulates the profound existential crisis he faces, torn between the demands of duty and the desire for personal authenticity. Hamlet’s reluctance to embrace his role as king stems not only from fear or cowardice but from a profound skepticism about the legitimacy of authority and the corrupting influence of power.

The Arthurian Legend: In the rich tapestry of Arthurian legend, the motif of the Reluctant Ruler is exemplified in the character of King Arthur himself. According to some versions of the myth, Arthur is initially unaware of his royal lineage and is raised as a commoner by Sir Ector. Upon discovering his true identity and rightful claim to the throne, Arthur reluctantly accepts the mantle of kingship, guided by the wise counsel of Merlin and the moral imperative to uphold justice and chivalry. Despite his noble intentions, Arthur grapples with the burdens of leadership, facing betrayals, challenges to his authority, and the tragic consequences of his own choices. His reluctance to embrace his destiny as king reflects the ambivalence inherent in assuming power and the moral ambiguities of governance.

The Biblical Story of Moses: In the Abrahamic traditions, the narrative of Moses provides another compelling example of the Reluctant Ruler trope. According to the Book of Exodus, Moses is initially an ordinary Israelite that ran from his station as a prince of Egypt, content to live as a shepherd in the wilderness. However, when called upon by God to lead his people out of bondage in Egypt, Moses initially resists, citing his own inadequacies and speech impediment. Despite his reluctance, Moses eventually accepts the divine mandate and becomes the revered leader of the Israelites, guiding them through the trials of the Exodus and delivering the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. Moses’s reluctance to assume leadership underscores the theme of human frailty and the transformative power of faith and divine providence.

The Existential Dilemma of Unwanted Authority

Despite not having instances in our lives where we are unexpectedly crowned king or being spoken to by a deity, there are still profound lessons in identity and responsibility that we can pull from these characters.

The Anguish of Freedom and Responsibility

Existentialist philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre asserted that “existence precedes essence,” emphasizing the radical freedom and responsibility of human beings to define their own meaning and purpose in a seemingly indifferent universe. For the Reluctant Ruler, this existential freedom becomes a source of anguish and uncertainty. Suddenly endowed with authority and influence, they are confronted with the weight of responsibility and the moral implications of their actions. The existential angst of the reluctant ruler arises from the tension between the desire for autonomy and the demands of duty, as they struggle with the paradox of being simultaneously free and bound by social expectations.

Furthermore, with freedom comes the moral imperative to act responsibly and ethically. The Reluctant Ruler, however, finds themselves burdened with the weight of moral decision-making, as they navigate complex ethical dilemmas and confront the consequences of their actions. Existentialist philosophy emphasizes the inherent responsibility of individuals to create their own moral framework and to confront the ethical implications of their choices with honesty and integrity. The anguish of responsibility lies in the tension between the desire for moral clarity and the recognition of the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of ethical decision-making. The reluctant ruler must contemplate on the ethical complexities of their role, striving to uphold their moral principles amidst the exigencies of power and governance.

Authenticity and Self-Deception

Central to the existential dilemma of unwanted authority is the quest for authenticity (we already knew this; I wrote two posts on authenticity already that you can check out here and here)—the authentic expression of one’s true self and values in the face of external pressures and expectations. The Reluctant Ruler may experience profound existential alienation as they navigate the demands of their role, questioning whether they are living in accordance with their own genuine desires and beliefs or merely conforming to societal norms and conventions.

In fact, they may be tempted to resort to self-deception—to deceive themselves and others about the true nature of their actions or motivations. Existentialist philosophy warns against the dangers of inauthenticity and self-delusion, highlighting the existential crisis that arises from living inauthentically and betraying one’s own values. The Reluctant Ruler may succumb to the pressures of their position, rationalizing their actions or compromising their principles in order to maintain power or avoid conflict. Self-deception becomes a means of coping with the existential anguish and moral dilemmas inherent in their role, providing a false sense of security and comfort amidst the uncertainties of leadership.

Self-deception ultimately leads to existential alienation—the estrangement from one’s authentic self and the sense of disconnection from the world. The Reluctant Ruler who succumbs to self-deception finds themselves adrift in a sea of moral ambiguity and existential angst, unable to reconcile their actions with their inner convictions.

The Absurdity of Human Existence

“The Absurdity of Human Existence” is a philosophical concept rooted in existentialist thought, particularly articulated by philosophers such as Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. It posits that human life is inherently absurd, devoid of inherent meaning or purpose, and characterized by the fundamental tension between the human desire for meaning and the indifferent, chaotic nature of the universe.

In assuming positions of power unwillingly, the Reluctant Ruler confronts the absurdity of their situation, grappling with the arbitrary nature of authority and the futility of their efforts to impose order and control upon a chaotic world. The absurdity of leadership lies in the recognition of its inherent limitations and the inevitability of failure and impermanence. Despite their best intentions, the Reluctant Ruler may find themselves overwhelmed by their predicament, struggling to find meaning and significance in a world devoid of ultimate purpose.

Here is where another familiar element of existence comes into play: the illusion of control. The illusion of control is a psychological concept that refers to the tendency of individuals to overestimate their ability to influence or control events, particularly in situations characterized by uncertainty or randomness.

For the Reluctant Ruler, the illusion of control becomes apparent as they assume positions of power unwillingly and attempt to impose order and control upon a world that defies their efforts. Despite their best intentions, they soon come to realize the inherent unpredictability and uncontrollability of the events and circumstances they face. This recognition challenges their preconceived notions of authority and power, revealing the illusory nature of their perceived control.

The Reluctant Ruler may initially believe that they have the ability to shape the course of events and influence outcomes according to their will. However, as they encounter resistance, opposition, and unforeseen challenges, they begin to understand the limitations of their authority and the unpredictable nature of the world they seek to govern. This realization undermines their confidence and exposes the fragility of their sense of control.

Moreover, the illusion of control can lead the Reluctant Ruler to engage in behaviors and strategies aimed at maintaining the illusion of power, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They may resort to authoritarian measures, manipulation, or denial of reality in an attempt to assert their authority and preserve their sense of control. However, these efforts ultimately prove futile, further reinforcing the absurdity of their situation.

The existential implications of the illusion of control lie in its confrontation with the fundamental unpredictability and contingency of human existence. The Reluctant Ruler's quest for control becomes a Sisyphean task, as they strive to impose order upon a world characterized by chaos and uncertainty. In confronting the illusion of control, they are forced to confront the absurdity of their condition and wrestle with the inherent limitations of human agency in the face of existential uncertainty.

Political Implications and the Burden of Leadership

Naturally, we cannot talk about the complexity behind the Reluctant Ruler without diving into those whom they govern. In examining the reluctant ruler trope through the lens of political philosophy, we confront the complex interplay between governance, legitimacy, and the ethical responsibilities of leadership.

Legitimacy and Consent

The concepts of legitimacy and consent are central to theories of political authority, shaping the foundation of governance and the relationship between rulers and the ruled. In the context of the Reluctant Ruler trope, the legitimacy of political authority is called into question, as leaders may assume power unwillingly, without the explicit consent or endorsement of those they govern.

Political theorists have long debated the sources of legitimacy in governance, seeking to identify the basis upon which political authority is justified. Traditionally, legitimacy has been derived from various sources such as divine right, tradition, charisma, or popular consent. However, the assumption of power by a Reluctant Ruler complicates these traditional sources, as their authority may not be grounded in the typical mechanisms of legitimacy. Instead, the legitimacy of the reluctant ruler may be contingent upon factors such as adherence to legal norms, effectiveness in governance, or recognition by key power holders.

In democratic societies, where the principle of popular sovereignty reigns supreme, the consent of the governed is considered foundational to the legitimacy of political authority. Democratic legitimacy is typically understood to derive from the consent of the people, expressed through free and fair elections. However, the Reluctant Ruler challenges this notion, as their assumption of power may not be the result of popular choice or electoral mandate. Or, on the other hand, perhaps it was, indeed, the populace that raised them to their position while they continued to protest and fight against it. This raises questions about the compatibility of their leadership with democratic ideals and the accountability of political institutions to the will of the people.

A Special Case or Universal Relatability?

The Reluctant Ruler archetype, emblematic of individuals thrust into positions of power against their will, serves as a focal point for exploring the intricate interplay between existential realization, political pragmatism, and ethical considerations within the realm of political philosophy and ethical theory. Through the lenses of political philosophers and ethical theorists, such as Niccolò Machiavelli, Hannah Arendt, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle, we can seek to elucidate the moral spectrum of the Reluctant Ruler, shedding light on the ethical and existential dimensions of their predicament and the broader implications for human nature and governance.

Political Philosophers:

Thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Hannah Arendt might consider the ethical and political dimensions of the Reluctant Ruler trope. They would examine questions of legitimacy, authority, and the responsibilities of leadership, shedding light on how the Reluctant Ruler’s predicament illuminates broader themes in political philosophy.

Niccolò Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli, a seminal figure in political philosophy, is often associated with political realism, a perspective that emphasizes practical considerations over moral ideals in governance.

Machiavelli’s political realism emphasizes the importance of power dynamics, interests, and strategic calculations in politics. He might argue that the Reluctant Ruler cannot afford to be guided solely by moral principles or existential concerns but must instead prioritize the preservation of authority and the maintenance of order.

For him, the reluctant ruler’s primary concern should be establishing and consolidating their authority, regardless of the circumstances of their ascension to power.

He famously suggests in The Prince that rulers should be prepared to act ruthlessly when necessary, even if it means sacrificing ethical principles.

The ends justify the means in politics, and that the reluctant ruler must be willing to employ any means necessary to achieve their goals.

Ultimately, Machiavelli would likely emphasize the importance of maintaining order and stability as the primary goals of the reluctant ruler. He might argue that the ruler's legitimacy and authority depend on their ability to govern effectively and preserve the social order, even if it requires making difficult decisions or compromises.

Machiavelli might caution against allowing existential angst or moral qualms to undermine the reluctant ruler's ability to govern decisively. He would likely stress the need for pragmatism and flexibility in navigating the complexities of political life.

Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt was a prominent political theorist known for her contributions to the understanding of totalitarianism, the nature of power, and the concept of political action.

Arendt would delve into the existential angst experienced by the reluctant ruler, examining how their struggle with assuming power unwillingly reflects broader themes of human existence. She might explore the absurdity of the situation, where individuals find themselves thrust into positions of authority without their consent or desire.

Arendt would likely emphasize the importance of individual conscience in guiding the actions of the reluctant ruler. She might suggest that the ruler's moral integrity is central to their ability to exercise legitimate and effective leadership, even in the face of existential uncertainty.

She might also argue that political action is inherently bound up with questions of ethics and morality, and that the reluctant ruler's existential crisis serves as a catalyst for deeper reflection on the ethical dimensions of governance.

Arendt might caution against sacrificing moral integrity for the sake of pragmatic considerations, suggesting that the Ruler’s adherence to their conscience is ultimately what determines the legitimacy of their leadership.

Ethical Thinkers

Thinkers like Immanuel Kant and Aristotle would likely explore the ethical dilemmas faced by the Reluctant Ruler. They would analyze how the tension between personal ethics and pragmatic considerations shapes the Ruler’s decision-making process, offering insights into human moral psychology and the pursuit of virtuous leadership.

Immanuel Kant

Kant’s deontological ethics emphasizes the importance of moral duty and universal principles in guiding ethical behavior. He would likely analyze the Reluctant Ruler’s predicament by focusing on the categorical imperative, which states that individuals must act according to principles that can be universally applied.

Kant might argue that the Reluctant Ruler faces a moral obligation to uphold certain ethical principles, even if it conflicts with pragmatic considerations. He would emphasize the importance of acting out of a sense of duty and moral integrity, rather than being swayed by expediency or self-interest.

Aristotle

Aristotle’s virtue ethics focuses on the development of moral character and the cultivation of virtuous qualities. He would likely analyze the Reluctant Ruler’s ethical dilemmas by considering how their decisions reflect their moral virtues and character traits.

Aristotle might argue that the reluctant ruler should strive to embody virtues such as courage, wisdom, and justice in their governance. He would emphasize the importance of practical wisdom (phronesis) in navigating the complexities of political life, suggesting that the ruler should aim to achieve eudaimonia, or flourishing, through virtuous leadership.

On Our Nature

Needless to say, not only can we reflect on our own ethical “what-ifs” in parallel to the Reluctant Ruler trope; through this character study, we can unearth a multitude of political and existential debates and still never settle on a universal answer.

The perpetual debates and unanswered questions surrounding the Reluctant Ruler trope speak volumes about human nature and the complexity of individual experiences. At its core, the Reluctant Ruler archetype encapsulates the fundamental tensions between existential realization, ethical responsibility, and political pragmatism, reflecting the intricate interplay of human desires, values, and motivations.

Firstly, the inability to settle on a universal answer regarding the Reluctant Ruler trope underscores the inherent complexity and ambiguity of human existence. Human nature is characterized by its multifaceted makeup, encompassing a diverse range of perspectives, beliefs, and experiences. The reluctance of individuals to embrace leadership roles speaks to our innate desire for autonomy, authenticity, and personal fulfillment, as well as our inherent susceptibility to doubt, uncertainty, and existential angst. The analyses surrounding the Reluctant Ruler trope reflect the diversity of human experiences and the myriad ways in which individuals examine with questions of identity, purpose, and morality.

Moreover, the fact that many individuals can relate to the Reluctant Ruler trope on a personal level speaks to the universality of human struggles and aspirations. Whether it be the fear of assuming responsibility, the desire for authenticity and self-expression, or the ethical dilemmas inherent in leadership, the themes embodied by the Reluctant Ruler resonate with people from all walks of life.

However, the Reluctant Ruler trope also serves as a mirror through which we can reflect on our own ethical convictions, political beliefs, and existential uncertainties. By examining the complexities of this archetype, we are compelled to confront our own values, biases, and assumptions, and to consider how they shape our perceptions of leadership, responsibility, and human nature. The inability to settle on a universal answer regarding the Reluctant Ruler trope challenges us to confront the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of human existence, prompting us to engage with questions of identity, meaning, and morality in our own lives.

Closing Words

What initially appears as a narrative device in storytelling reveals itself as a mirror reflecting the intricacies of our own ethical frameworks, existential dilemmas, and political realities.

At its essence, the Reluctant Ruler archetype embodies the universal struggle between autonomy and responsibility, authenticity and conformity, freedom and obligation. Yet, beyond the realm of fiction, it prompts us to reflect on our own ethical convictions and existential uncertainties. Are we, too, begrudging in our own lives, navigating the delicate balance between personal desires and societal expectations? Do we confront the existential angst of freedom and responsibility, or do we succumb to the illusion of control and self-deception?

Moreover, the Reluctant Ruler challenges us to examine the legitimacy of political authority and the ethical responsibilities of leadership. In a world where governance is often characterized by power struggles and moral ambiguities, how do we reconcile the demands of pragmatism with the imperatives of justice and integrity? How do we ensure that those in positions of power govern with wisdom, virtue, and compassion?

Ultimately, the Reluctant Ruler trope serves as a catalyst for introspection and dialogue, inviting us to confront the complexity of human nature and the ethical dimensions of governance. As we scrutinize the unresolved questions and perpetual debates surrounding this archetype, we are reminded of the enduring relevance of philosophy in our quest for understanding, meaning, and ethical clarity.

In the end, the Reluctant Ruler challenges us not only to ponder the existential dilemmas of fictional characters but also to confront the ethical complexities of our own lives and societies. It is through this introspective journey that we may gain deeper insights into the nature of leadership, autonomy, and the human condition, and perhaps, find a path towards a more just, compassionate, and authentic world.

133 notes · View notes

victusinveritas · 8 months

Text

John Gielgud as Julius Caesar, Robert Vaughn as Casca, Richard Johnson as Caius Cassius, Diana Rigg as Portia, Jill Bennett as Calpurnia, Richard Chamberlain as Octavius Caesar / Augustus, Charlton Heston as Marc Antony and Jason Robards as Marcus Brutus in a promotional photo for "Julius Caesar" (Stuart Burge, William Shakespeare, UK, 1970).

Video Clip: http://home.scarlet.be/~pvandew1/avengers/gastop_julius_caesar.htm

#diana rigg #john gielgud #robert vaughn #richard chamberlain #jason robards #charlton heston #richard johnson #shakespeare #julius caesar #1970s #movies #promotional stills

166 notes · View notes

anukulee · 9 months

Text

Podcast and Interview Listens (Tom Hiddleston Edition)

Here is our precious bean, in all of most of his podcast glory!!!

If you have Apple Podcasts or YouTube you are going to love this!!! Trust me I had these on repeat during my walks!!! So when I found out their was a new interview I immediately thought maybe you all would love it too 😊 🥰!!! So how about it, will you all like it? I hope you do in order to tide you over even just a little before…..

@muddyorbsblr @mochie85 @michelleleewise @mcufan72 @iamlokisgloriouspurpose @ijuststareatstuffhereok89 @villainousshakespeare @november-rayne @lotsoflokilove23 @sailorholly @simplyholl @sserpente @smolvenger @queen-paladin @wheredafandomat @five-miles-over @the--sad--hatter @eleniblue @chantsdemarins @clandestineloki @evelyn-kingsley @enstatia @xorpsbane @loki-smut-library @lady-rose-moon @lokisgoodgirl @lokisbirdofhermes @lokisprettygirl @lokisprettygirl22 @mochie85-archives @friggadottirr @lokiburdenedwithgloriouspurpose @lokibug @holdmytesseract @ashereads @glitchquake

#repost #tom hiddleston #interview #podcast #voice audio #asmr #his voice #mr tom hiddleston #mr. hiddleston #congrats to mr. hiddleston #dammit hiddleston #hiddlestoners #tom hiddleston soccer #hiddlesarmy

72 notes · View notes

wonder-worker · 6 months

Text

“Although (Elizabeth of York) was presented as the ultimate Tudor trophy wife, her position and popularity were potential threats to her husband’s authority.” - Lauren Rose Browne

*sigh*

When are we going to move past this dismissive, simplistic and frankly rather problematic image of Elizabeth of York? Derek Neal encapsulates what exactly is so troubling about it far better than I could, which I'm quoting below:

“The first Tudor consort is mainly remembered as a dynastic symbol, one element of an equation: York plus Tudor equals peace. In this interpretation, handed down to us by the Tudor chroniclers via Shakespeare, Elizabeth accomplished her most important work, if not without lifting a finger, merely by proffering a finger for a wedding ring.”

We need to stop defining Elizabeth of York by the basic purpose of her marriage and queenship and begin understanding her through the actual practice of her queenship.*

Because the fact of the matter is, Elizabeth of York was a tremendously successful queen. She was an able intercessor, an active administrator of her lands, and a patroness in her own right. We have evidence that Henry listened to her on matters that people often assume he acted alone or only through his mother's advice. She contributed culturally to the court, including festivities and building projects, and played an active and positive role in queenly diplomacy, including but not limited to her involvement in her sisters’ and children’s marriages, her correspondence with the Pope and foreign rulers, and receiving important ambassadors in her husband’s absence**. She may have some discreet influence in some appointments in the Crown Prince's household. In short, Elizabeth of York excelled in spheres of queenship that were both conventional and powerful, because the two could and did co-exist, because medieval queenship was inherently political and the lines between public and private were blurred to the point of non-existence for queens just as they were for kings. As we can clearly see, Elizabeth was not presented as a “trophy wife” any more than literally any queen consort before or after her; she was, in fact, an evidently active and influential queen who greatly inspired both her daughter and her daughter-in-law's queenships respectively.

Furthermore, Elizabeth of York’s position was not a "threat" to her husband. Why would it be? As J.L. Laynesmith (whose reading of Elizabeth I don't agree with either) says, "Identification with Elizabeth of York's kin aided Henry VII in gaining an entire kingdom." The Croyland Chronicle, a contemporary source, likewise emphasizes her importance in cementing Henry VII's position: in Elizabeth "there could be found whatever appeared to be missing in the king's title elsewhere." Elizabeth of York's position, in fact, bolstered Henry VII's kingship, and this extended far beyond his marriage to her. We must remember that while Henry Tudor was Lancastrian in blood and allegiance, his fight for the throne was very much as a Yorkist claimant - specifically, a claimant for Edwardian Yorkists against Richard III's rule (The events of 1483 were a violent conflict within the Yorkist dynasty, not an external threat against the Yorkist dynasty). You could argue that Henry VII's road to the throne was, effectively, as Edward IV's symbolic heir rather than Henry VI's (who was quite irrelevent to the current conflict, tbh): Henry Tudor was the prospective husband of the Yorkist heiress and the 'avenger' of the dead Yorkist Princes. This was the widely recognized interpretation of contemporaries like Croyland and William Caxton*** and was also how he gained the majority of his new support in England which (without discounting his own initiative, actions and clear competence) were essential to both make him a credible threat and ultimately win Bosworth. He relied on several of her father's former councilors as well, ensuring a great deal of continuity between their reigns. In this context, Elizabeth of York's "position" as the Yorkist heiress, cemented by her formal proclamation as Duchess of York, was not a disadvantage to Henry VII but an indispensable advantage to him. Elizabeth herself was aware of this and played an important role in image politics for the new Tudor dynasty: "Her role as a daughter of the house of York was a major aspect of her identity. Whereas her mother and Margaret of Anjou had adopted emblems personal to them...Elizabeth of York used her father's white rose. Other Yorkist emblems such as the sun in splendour and the falcon and fetterlock were also used in Tudor iconography." As you can see, Elizabeth's contribution went far beyond merely standing at Henry's side with a wedding ring; she was actively involved in cementing the image of the Tudor dynasty in her own right, and was equally invested in doing so. In short: Elizabeth of York's "position" was not a threat to her husband’s rule; it was vital to her husband’s rule. In fact, her unique position was so important that, even years later, post-contemporary Tudor depictions gave her a uniquely equal footing to her husband: for example, in the first pageant of the coronation procession for her granddaughter Elizabeth I, Elizabeth of York was depicted as "a stabilising and legitimising force of the dynasty, and, incredibly, as the equal to her husband" - as Lauren Rose Browne herself writes.

You cannot claim that Henry VII needed Elizabeth of York to bolster his kingship and also claim that he shunted her aside because her position was a threat to his kingship. You cannot claim that Henry VII used Elizabeth of York’s Yorkist heritage to his benefit but also claim that he tried to avoid any implication of her royal inheritance. Those are fundamentally contradictory and make very little sense. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Even more baffling is the idea that Elizabeth of York's "popularity" would have somehow been a threat to her husband's authority. She and Henry lived in a world where queens were meant to embody "the feminine element necessary to legitimate sovereignty", to perform their role as Marian-like intercessors on behalf of their subjects, to engage in appropriate charity and almsgiving, and to provide "models of womanhood for the realms' female subjects"****. If Elizabeth of York was "popular" due to the reaction of crowds gathered to watch her coronation, or because of the gifts she was frequently given by her subjects, or because she was hailed as the "most gracious and best beloved Princesses in the world" after her death, her popularity means that Elizabeth was successful as queen and is an indication of how much her queenship supported and endorsed Henry VII's kingship. A popular queen benefitted the King, not the other way around.*****

(What's especially funny about this traditional interpretation is that the only actual way Elizabeth of York's position and popularity could potentially worry Henry and become a genuine "threat" to his authority is if Elizabeth herself was actively opposed to Henry and was using them against him to undermine his rule (for whatever hypothetical reason). Which would automatically indicate agency on her part and ALSO end up contradicting the "trophy wife" image. So....?)

Enough with the traditional patronizing dismissal of Elizabeth of York. Give her the credit she's due.

*What's particularly silly about hyper-focusing on the point/purpose of Elizabeth of York's marriage (a political alliance and dynastic unification) is that fundamentally, its purpose was ultimately no different from the vast majority of other English royal marriage since the Norman conquest (sans, say, her parents'). Most of them were politically arranged and/or politically motivated, just like Henry and Elizabeth's. It would be ridiculous to judge Isabella of France or Philippa of Hainault's lives and queenships solely based on how politically important their marriages were, right? They obviously had an impact apart from that and beyond that. What exactly is different about Elizabeth of York? Admittedly, her and Henry's situation wasn't exactly the same: he needed her as a potential bride to cement his position as a threat to Richard III and as a King of England; and an English princess becoming an English queen consort was unprecedented at that juncture. But ultimately, there's no reason for why Elizabeth of York's entire life and queenship should be defined and decided on the basis of how and why she married Henry VII. She lived for almost two decades after that. It's more than a little frustrating.

**From what I can make out, so much more evidence has luckily survived for Elizabeth of York's diplomatic activities compared to many of her predecessors, and with far more details. I would literally kill to get similarly detailed evidence for Elizabeth Woodville. So it's certainly strange when Elizabeth of York's role in diplomacy is not emphasized more when it comes to her queenship - especially because it is, ultimately, an expected element of queenship which queens were traditionally meant to excel at. My guess is that it's not highlighted as much because it actually gives Elizabeth agency, which historians often refuse to do.

***Edward IV definitely wasn't the first or only one to claim the red dragon (it was used for/used by many others, and some poets used it for Henry himself in the early 1460s). However, at that point in time in England specifically, it would have very much been Edward IV who was most commonly and universally associated with it; after all, he was the one who won the throne and ruled for more than two decades. Its association with Edward IV is also what would have been the most familiar to Caxton, who established himself in England only in the 1470s, and who was a supporter of Edward IV's family (aka: the Woodvilles) during that time. His support of Henry (who he did not know) during this time would have been through that context as well, rather than loyalty to Henry in his own right.

****Obviously, we can recognize how problematic such inherently gendered expectations are now, but contextualization is important.

*****Elizabeth of York's popularity as queen, at least in the beginning, may have been partly due to the fact that she was English princess who grew up in the public eye, was the daughter of a fairly well-liked king, and the fact that her marriage played a vital role in "uniting" the two rival dynasties. So her circumstances probably played a role in her popularity as well. But we shouldn't discount Elizabeth's own affability and charm, nor her evident generosity, nor the fact that however this popularity emerged, it was Elizabeth who maintained it, and it ultimately signified the success of Elizabeth's queenship and bolstered her husband's kingship.

Sources:

Lauren Rose Browne, "Elizabeth of York: Tudor Trophy Wife", "Tudor and Stuart Consorts: Power, Influence, and Dynasty

Derek Neal, "The Queen's Grace: English Queenship 1464-1503"

J.L. Laynesmith, "The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1545-1503"

Retha M. Warnicke, "Elizabeth of York and her six daughters-in-law: Fashioning Tudor Queenship

#sorry this annoyed me a lot and I wanted to rant #elizabeth of york #henry vii #tudors #15th century #english history #my post

51 notes · View notes

casp1an-sea · 24 days

Text

FANDOMS

if anyone actually reads all this, I’ll be impressed

Tv show themes through the years playlist

I colored the ones I cared most about in each section if none are colored it means I care about the things in that section equally.

Star Wars:

Original Trilogy

Prequels

The sequels are alright but I pretty much only care about Hux

Rouge One

Star Legends

wars Infinites

Star Wars as written by William Shakespeare

Star Wars Clone Wars

Star Wars Bad Batch

Star Wars Rebels

Andor

Mandolorian

Obi-Wan Kenobi Series

Star Wars Visions

Tales of the Jedi

Anything Lego Star Wars

—————————————————————————

Marvel:

the movies (I’m not caught up yet)

Falcon and the winter soldier

Loki (not caught up)

Wanda Vision

Avengers Assemble (literally so weird and silly) (not finished with season 5 cause it’s ass)

spider verse

Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movies

Andrew Garfield, Spider-Man movies

—————————————————————————

Games:

Twisted Wonderland (read through book 6)

Ultimate Shark Simulator

Hogwarts Mystery (not caught up)

KOTOR (not caught up)

Star Wars Asault Team

Minecraft

—————————————————————————

Anime:

MHA (stopped watching mid season 4)

Ourran

BSD

Angels of death

Darling in the franxx

Saki k (haven’t seen season 2)

—————————————————————————

Minecraft SMPs:

EVO

Dream SMP (not caught up)

Empires SMP

X Life

After Life

New Life

Rats

Pirates (not caught up)

Trafic Light/Life Series (I only watch Jimmy, Joel, and Martin’s POVs)

—————————————————————————

2000s Kids shows:

MLP G3 and Friendship is Magic

Wild Kratts

Octonauts

TMNT 2012

Odd Squad

imagination movers

Dinosaur Train

Lego Friends (The og version)

Monster High

Ever After High

Avatar the Last Air Bender

Sofia the first

Elena of Avalore

dinosaur train

—————————————————————————

Weird Sci-fi and Fantasy Shows:

Doctor Who (only on the 4th Doctor)

Read All About it

H2O Just Add Water

Wolf Blood

Fragle Rock

Mako Mermaids (only watched season 1)

Alien Surfer Girls/Lightning Point

Thunder Stone

Girl From Tomorrow

Ocean Girl

Sparticle Mystery

Elephant Princess (featuring Liam Hemsworth)

Eerie Indiana

Girl’s World

House of Anubis

A girl named Jo (not sci-fi or Fantasy)

Hardy Boys Nancy Drew Mysteries (not sci-fi or Fantasy)

Blue Water High (not sci-fi or Fantasy)

The Prisoner

Spell Binder

Just Add Magic

Maddigan’s Quest

The Next Step (not sci-fi or Fantasy)

Return to Jupiter

Rocket’s Island

Parallels

Silver Sun (not caught up)

—————————————————————————

Disney Plus Telenovelas:

Violeta

Soy Luna

Bia

Intertwined

O11CE

L-Pop

—————————————————————————

Misc fandoms and shows:

Percy Jackson (currently only read the lighting thief)

Harry Potter (not caught up, I do not support J.K. Rowling)

The Tick (og cartoon version)

Monk

The Outsiders (movie, book, and 90s Tv series)

Alex Rider (the show not the books)

Wild at Heart (never finished)

White Collar

National Treasure Edge of History

The Lodge

Descendants

Z-O-M-B-I-E-S

Gilligan’s

NCIS New Orleans

Hell of a Boss

Hazbin Hotel (not caught up)

Heart Stopper

OFMD (not caught up)

Julie and the Phantoms

Disney in general

Tinker bell

—————————————————————————

Book series:

The Final Six

Horizon

Thea Sisters (when I was little)

Chronicles of Narnia

Wizard of Oz

The black stallion

Series of unfortunate events

#Just some little things for my intro post #fandoms list

16 notes · View notes

aintinacage · 5 months

Text

Let’s do a headcount.

William Shakespeare’s Avengers (Part 31/?)

191 notes · View notes

thebigbookfanboy · 7 months

Text

Random Kaplan family headcanons (P1 of ?)

~~~~

Jeff and Rebecca met at the age of twenty-five. Rebecca's brother and Jeff's sister were put together by a matchmaker and decided to try and introduce the two families.

All of their sons are named after playwrights (William Shakespeare=William (Billy) Kaplan, Eugene O'Neill=Eugene (Gene) Kaplan, Samuel Beckett=Beckett Kaplan)

Billy is the oldest (nineteen), Gene is the middle child (seventeen), and Beckett is the youngest (fourteen).

Gene and Beckett are also mutants, but Eugene doesn't use his powers, and Beckett's haven't activated yet.

Jeff and Rebecca legally adopted Tommy when he was seventeen

Jeff has undiagnosed Autism. He and Rebecca agreed not to get a professional diagnosis.

Beckett is Autistic and has ADHD, Gene has dyslexia and Billy has dyspraxia and have all been diagnosed.

Gene is obsessed with dreams and sleep (like, he wants to study it at university and stuff)

Tommy likes arts and crafts and often makes bookmarks and gives them to friends as gifts. He doesn't like using hot glue guns, though.

Jeff knits to relieve stress and to keep his hands steady.

Gene does knitting and crochet, and Beckett does embroidery.

Rebecca calls herself Dr. Rebecca Oure-Klum (her maiden name) to her patients. And Jeff just tells them to call him Jeff.

Billy, Beckett, and Gene used to have a massive Minecraft world that they played on together, but now only Beckett plays on it.

Gene goes to a private boarding school for high achieving students.

Everyone at Beckett's school avoids him because of Billy and the John Kessler thing.

Beckett posts superhero fanfiction online (but never includes The Young Avengers because to him, that's weird). Jeff and Rebecca support it because they think fanfiction and fanart are healthy ways for teenagers to explore gender, sexuality and creativity; they do not read them, though, Gene does and occasionally does fanart for Beckett's fics, but keep them on the down low.

Gene has a crush on Marvel Girl (Jean Grey, not Rachel). Beckett has a crush on Iceman, Spider-Man, and Human Torch.

Jeff and Rebecca made a swear jar for English swears, a swear jar for Yiddish swears, a swear jar for Hebrew swears, and a swear jar for made up language swears. They have over 5,000 dollars in them.

Gene once got Northstars autograph. He also once got Jean-Paul Beaubier's autograph. So far, he's the only person to have figured out his identity by himself.

They live next door to William and Madeline Drake.

The reason Gene and Becket weren’t home when Mother took over is because they were both on multiday field trips to Xaviers School for Gifted Youngsters.

Gene cries when dogs die in movies. A Dogs Journey broke him.

Like Billy, Jeff sleep talks. A lot. Mainly about the structure of a heart and different heart conditions. Often about Rebecca.

#people with dyslexia can be really fucking smart okay don’t come at me #i am attached to these characters now #theyre pretty much ocs now #billy kaplans brothers #kaplan family #william kaplan #billy kaplan #billy maximoff #tommy shepherd #thomas shepherd #tommy maximoff #william maximoff #thomas maximoff #jeff kaplan #rebecca kaplan #eugene kaplan #beckett kaplan

26 notes · View notes

antvnger · 9 months

Note

For the Shakespeare game, I’ve got two if that’s okay Ant-Mun.

1) Puny god.

2) It seems to run on some sort of electricity. Yeah well, you’re not wrong.

((That’s totally okay!

So #1 goes like this…

HULK Rawr!

LOKI — ‘Tis enow! You are all far beneath me! I stand o’er you - a god! - thou creature dull. And I shall not be silent whilst thou bully—

[Hulk grabs Loki by the legs and repeatedly smashes him from side to side.]

HULK A puny god.

And #2 goes like this…

STARK Inside, how doth it look?

ROGERS —The board doth use some type of electricity, no doubt. Curse all those years that I in slumber lay!

STARK Indeed, thou art not technically wrong.

The Bard’s Avengers Game

#for the ant mun #ant mun #the bard’s avengers #avengers #assemble ye avengers #the hulk #loki #steve rogers #tony stark #william shakespeare

9 notes · View notes

foul-z-fowl · 1 year

Text

Soooo I know probably no one cares, but I was bored this afternoon and decided to make a list of historical period dramas following the history of the English monarchs

(Note: these are all DRAMAS. None of them are perfectly historically accurate, several of them are downright offensive. Also, several British monarchs are multiple depictions and some had none. I did my best, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Do your own research on each of the films for any triggers or content warnings.)

William the Conqueror- The Early Life of William the Conqueror, up to the Battle of Hasting and the Invasion of 1066

1066- William the Conqueror, the invasion of England and the Battle of Hastings

[William II does not have any film dedicated to his life or his reign (that was usable, anyway]

[Henry I does not have any film dedicated to his life or his reign]

Pillars of Earth- This series does not focus on it, but it is set to the backdrop of the Anarchy, which is absolutely fascinating, and it is a crime we do not have any good films about Empress Matilda

The Lion in Winter- Henry II and Elanor of Aquitaine (another woman who needs her own miniseries)

Richard the Lionheart (2021)- Richard I

King John (1899!)- John I [ALL of the other movies with these two were fucking Robin Hood movies]

[Henry III has never been depicted in film]

Outlaw King- Edward I

Edward II- Edward II (this is Piers Gaveston erasure that I could only find this one film)

The Dark Avenger- Edward III (and Edward the Black Prince as a bonus!)

Richard II- Richard II (any adaptation works, there are multiple)

The Hollow Crown- Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V

The King- Henry IV and Henry V

[Henry VI has no film depictions of his life or reign. WHICH IS A CRIME GIVE ME MARGARET OF ANJOU YOU FUCKING COWARDS!)]

The White Queen- Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, and Henry VII (plus a fuckton of other historical figures)

Richard III: The Princes in the Tower- Richard III, Edward V

Richard III- Richard III (any adaptation will work, there are multiple. Be forewarned that although modern portrayals tend to be sympathetic, Shakespeare thought he was dick and it shows.)

The White Princess- Henry VII (plus his family)

The Spanish Princess- The last years of Henry VII's reign, the beginning of Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII's marriage, and Prince Arthur! (Still salty we haven't had a KING Arthur yet)

The Tudors- Henry VII (+plus his six wives and Mary I) (Henry VII has an absolute fuckton of movies about each of his wives, I recommend picking a few more from the list) (also, be warned that this show is as historically inaccurate as shit, but good for drama)

The Prince & The Pauper- Edward VI (I don't think this one is very historically accurate either, but the most interesting thing about this Edward was his birth and death sooooo)

Lady Jane- Jane Grey

[Mary I has no film depictions of her life or reign (GIVE US A MOVIE YOU COWARDS!) (She does appear in the Tudor's and in some of Elizabeth I's shows though)]

Becoming Elizabeth- Elizabeth I (plus her siblings, I think)

Reign- Mary, Queen of Scots (VERY historically inaccurate, but one of my favorite period dramas. Mary's story is also very important to Elizabeth I and James I's)

Mary, Queen of Scots- Mary, Queen of Scots & Elizabeth I (2018) (this show covers the time in between Mary arriving in England and being executed)

Elizabeth: The Golden Age- Elizabeth I

Elizabeth I- Elizabeth I (2005)

Mary & George- James I & VI (This one isn't out yet, but none of James' other movies are that great- like AT ALL, and this one looks like its shaping up to be interesting)

[Charles I has no film depictions of his life or reign (which is very disappointing- this guy was so awful he got his head cut off and caused a civil war! Where's the vilification?)]

To Kill a King- Oliver Cromwell (+ a little Charles I)

Cromwell- Oliver Cromwell

Charles II: The Power and the Passion- Charles II

[James II has no film dedicated to his life or reign (another one that's a shame, this guy was so unpopular he was ALSO chased off the throne. Down with the Tudors, I want to see some Stuart movies)]

[William III and Mary II have no film dedicated to their joint reign.]

The Favourite- Anne I

[George I has no film dedicated to his life or reign]

[George II has no film dedicated to his life or reign]

Queen Charlotte- George III (and Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz)(this one also isn't out yet, but it will be in 2023)

The Madness of King George- George III (and George IV)

A Royal Scandal- George IV

[William IV has no film dedicated to his life or reign]

The Young Victoria- Victoria I

Mrs. Brown- Victoria I

Victoria & Abdul- Victoria I

Edward the Seventh- Edward VII

[George V has no film dedicated to his life or reign]

The Woman He Loved- Edward VIII (and Wallis Nazi Simpson)

Bertie and Elizabeth- George VI (and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon)

The King's Speech- George VI (and Elizabeth Bowes Lyon

The Crown- Queen Elizabeth II

Spencer- Charles III (and Princess Diana)

89 notes · View notes

alicent-vi-britannia · 1 year

Text

The parallels between Code Geass and Hamlet

In the first episode of R1, when Lelouch and Rivalz go back to Ashford Academy after the former defeated a noble in a game of chess, Lelouch reads a book. For a fraction of a second, we see that this book is Hamlet, a tragedy written by William Shakespeare between 1599 and 1601 and it is his most recognized work (some would define it as the quintessential Shakespearean and I personally call it the epitome of Baroque). This is a detail that called my attention because it wasn’t necessary to give the book a title. They could perfectly invent one or leave it empty. Instead, the creators of Code Geass opted to choose a real and distinguished work of English and world literature. I read Hamlet a few years ago and it's fresh in my mind, at least I remember it more than other books I've read, and I drew parallels between the two as I reminisced and came up with some interesting results that I'd love to share with you.

To do this, I have to gut the play of Hamlet. Therefore, if you are one of those who don’t like spoilers, or stop wasting time and go read Hamlet, which is on the internet, or, if you are lazy, go see the Kenneth Branagh film, which is Hamlet word for word (hence it is an even longer movie than Avengers Endgame) or continue reading my comparative analysis and I will convince you to give this great work a chance.

Hamlet is the story of a Danish prince who has just returned home to attend the funeral of his father, the king, who recently passed away. But then he hears that a ghost with a striking resemblance to the late king appears in the castle at night; so Hamlet is encouraged to investigate and manages to meet with the ghost that, in effect, is real and it is about his father who has crossed the threshold of the afterlife to entrust him with a mission: to kill his uncle Claudio; for it turns out that he killed his own brother to ascend the throne and marry Hamlet's mother, Gertrude. This is the first act of the play and constitutes the premise of it; as well as establishing its two main themes: revenge and madness.

Immediately, we distinguish several parallels between Lelouch and Hamlet: both are princes who decide to take revenge for their deceased parents against a member of their family, who is precisely the monarch of their kingdom, after receiving a supernatural summons (the ghost of their father, for Hamlet; the Geass, for Lelouch); however, none of them imagine that on this journey they will lose themselves and the beings they love. Throughout the plot, Lelouch and Hamlet will be assisted by C.C. and Horace respectively. Horatio is Hamlet's friend and, like C.C., is the voice of reason and is Hamlet's greatest confidant. He is present in most of the scenes in the play, always accompanying Hamlet and conversing with him. Even in his soliloquies, which are the moments when Hamlet bares his thoughts, he is there; as well as C.C. who remains on Lelouch's side. Neither Horacio nor C.C. take actions in the plot, they limit themselves to being simple spectators and both, additionally, wanted to kill themselves, but they were stopped by Hamlet and Lelouch who wanted them to continue living, for different reasons that I won’t go into details.

Both Hamlet and Lelouch are gray characters that critics and fans of their respective works like to argue about by raising the classic debate: is Hamlet/Lelouch a hero or a villain? In any case, the conclusion is the same for both: they are two of the most human characters both in Shakespeare's work, in the case of Hamlet, and in the anime industry, in the case of Lelouch (if you want an answer , don't think too much about it: both are undoubtedly tragic heroes).

As someone who loves Shakespeare and Code Geass equally, I think Lelouch is a hybrid of Hamlet and Macbeth (another great Shakespearean character). This is because Lelouch and Macbeth live tormented by their crimes, however, they continue to justify themselves that the blood spilled would be in vain if they stop. On the contrary, Hamlet is a bit more pusillanimous and very indecisive (he's not an action type, he's more contemplative and thoughtful).

Although Hamlet has sworn an oath of vengeance in the first act, he doesn't take action right away because he doesn't fully believe the ghost's accusation or so he says (in my opinion, it's because he's afraid to act); so Hamlet decides to check if his uncle is the murderer of his father and find out who are his allies and his enemies by faking his madness (yes, like Lelouch, Hamlet has acting skills) . Of course, his alienated attitude causes strangeness at court, especially it baffles Polonius, who is the king's adviser and an impertinent bootlicker for Claudio, and that motivates him to investigate. At a certain point in the play, Gertrudis, worried about her son, confronts him alone in her room, while Polonius, who is a gossip, hides behind the curtains to spy on them. Hamlet spots Polonius's feet and, believing that he is his uncle, savagely stabs him, only to discover that he wasn’t who he thought he was. This stupid mistake will affect the children of Polonius, which will lead to the great tragic ending of the work.

On the one hand, there is Ofelia, the sweet and innocent youngest daughter of Polonius (well, I presume that she is younger). She is in love with Hamlet and has had affairs with him, they have even consummated sexual relations; but ever since he assumed the role of his madman, Hamlet has been cold and somewhat cruel to her, on the grounds that he believes she is part of plot. Returning to Ofelia, the pain caused by the murder of her father at the hands of the man she loved drives her crazy and leads her to commit suicide. In a sense, her tragic fate brings me back to Shirley.

Like Ofelia, Shirley is in love with Lelouch, due to which she suffers from the barriers he imposes and she is left disoriented, while being curious about his strange behavior (Hamlet's feigned madness, on the one hand, and the Lelouch's efforts to hide his double life, on the other). Her feelings are conflicted when she finds out that her lover is the murderer of her father. It’s worth noting that neither Hamlet nor Lelouch had the intention of killing the father of their respective love interests. It was all a unfortunate accident. From here on, Shirley and Ofelia's paths diverge, but they end at exactly the same point: dead and Lelouch/Hamlet are indirectly guilty, or at least that's how they both feel, because, despite everything, they did love Shirley/ Ophelia.

On the other hand, there is Laertes, the impulsive and bellicose eldest son of Polonius. Laertes has a brief but forceful introduction that is, at the same time, a prelude. Laertes warns his sister that she should be careful around Hamlet because he fears that his love for her is insincere and he is only taking advantage of her. And he adds something like this: "if I find out that Hamlet hurt you, I'll kill him" (of course, Shakespeare says it in a more sophisticated and beautiful way than me; that gentleman did know how to use language properly). Saying that, Laertes leaves for France. When the news of the terrible deaths of his father and his sister reaches his ears, he returns to Denmark to take revenge on Hamlet and I’m inevitably thinking of Suzaku.

Like Laertes, Suzaku was immersed solely in his own business, but when Lelouch kills Euphemia, Suzaku turns to revenge by vowing to kill him (Shakespeare is known for his love of building narrative parallels between two characters, and Code Geass is rife with this kind of parallelism, the most obvious being that of Suzaku and Lelouch: one way or another, they end up becoming the other in the second season). Needless to say, Euphemia's death was an irremediable event as a result of a foolish joke, like Polonius's death that was a mistake. Two tragic accidents. (By the way, coincidence that Suzaku went crazy over Shirley's death afterwards? I don't think so). Suzaku and Laertes are blinded by pain and anger and, although Lelouch and Hamlet try to reach a middle ground, both flatly refuse to listen to reason; which pushes them into a confrontation that, to a certain extent, is sponsored by the enemies of the respective protagonists. Claudio, who already knows that his niece has discovered his crime and intends to end his life, manipulates Laertes to get rid of Hamlet. Charles never deliberately uses Suzaku's anger for his benefit, but Suzaku serves him and his empire, which works to their advantage in a certain way.

In the end, the poison of hatred corrodes Laertes in a literal and metaphorical sense, since he ends up perishing in the duel against Hamlet, being wounded by his own poisoned sword, although he doesn’t leave without first revealing the conspiracy he was hatching with Claudio and make peace with Hamlet, as he understands that his judgment was clouded.

And, to all these, what happens with Hamlet?

Well, he is killed by Laertes in said duel of swords (yes, they kill each other). As is Lelouch dies impaled by the sword wielded by Zero (Suzaku) in the Zero Requiem. Just like Laertes and Hamlet at the end, Lelouch and Suzaku also manage to settle their differences and make peace for the good of the world. And, just as Lelouch kills Charles, Hamlet gets revenge on him by murdering his Uncle Claudius.

See that Hamlet and Lelouch have in common that, though driven by a desire for justice, both are both victims and responsible agents of the misfortunes that befall them, their loved ones, and their nation, as Denmark falls into the hands of of a foreign king and I’m not going to dwell on the consequences of each battle of the Black Knights and the Zero Requiem, I trust that you remember in broad strokes how many losses and how much havoc there was in the world.

Also see that both characters are haunted by death. In addition to the deaths that I mentioned and that are attributed to Hamlet, we must add those of his mother and his two childhood friends who succumb to the hatred and pain that Hamlet feels since his friends obeyed orders from his enemy and he believed that his mother was in cahoots or, in any case, that she didn't love her father because her mother got married quickly because she got married quickly, which, in his eyes, was a betrayal (yes, a lot of people die in this play and, in fact, I think it is the play that honors that Shakespeare meme that wanders Facebook saying that he has no idea how to finish his play, so he kills to all the characters; although it isn’t quite like that either, Horacio survives, a few characters who don’t appear again and Fortinbrás, who is the foreign king. Basically, it's like in Code Geass, all the important characters die except for C.C., the UNF members and the background characters).

I must say that in a certain way it reminds me of Lelouch because he blamed all of his family, not only his father, for the misfortune that fell on him, his mother and his sister (this is because they didn’t respond for them). Lelouch hates his siblings as well and was equally responsible for the death of his mother. Hamlet's mother, Gertrude, dies by mistake, but he was indirectly to blame.

Oh, I almost forgot! Horace tries to commit suicide, but Hamlet stops him because he needs him to tell his story.

Hamlet and Lelouch suffer more from the consequences of their own actions than those of others, that includes their enemies. Their vendettas consume them and make them lose themselves in madness; for until the damage is done, Hamlet and Lelouch are unable to see the destruction they leave behind.

We could say that Hamlet and Code Geass address the stories of two great men who fight to keep their sanity, if not they have already lost it.

I dare say that Hamlet is the most prominent tragedy in general culture (I think if I asked you to talk about tragedy you would think of Shakespeare and this play specifically) and I think it's great that they introduced this detail in the first episode of Code Geass because it's a subtle statement of intent: none of us knew what we were going to find in this series, so it ended up surprising us. Code Geass is properly a beautiful tragedy and no one better than Shakespeare to present it to us. I don’t rule out at all that Hamlet has been inspirational material for Code Geass. I perfectly imagine Okouchi in his house thinking: “hey! What if Laertes and Hamlet had been childhood best friends? That duel would have been more intense! Oh yes!”

Joking apart…

Maybe Shakespeare influenced the good reception that Code Geass had in me. I love tragedies. I love tragic characters. I love Shakespeare. I consider myself an admirer of his work and I recognize his influence on my writing. Hamlet isn’t my favorite work by the English playwright, although I enjoy the story and how things are handled, I find it hard to connect with Hamlet; unlike Lelouch, to whom I already professed eternal love. Anyway, I still have a lot of Shakespeare plays to read and fall in love with.

I hope you liked this analysis. I loved writing it, even though it took me longer than I had calculated. You should turn it into a video so that it lasts forever and ever. Let me know in comments the opinions of him. We will be reading soon.

PS: no, it's no coincidence that the Lelouch from my fanfic, Code Geass: Bloodlines, is a Shakespearean fanboy. I must even say that to build the dynamics of my Lelouch and C.C. I was inspired by Macbeth and his wife; just as I was inspired by the character of Brutus, from the tragedy of Julius Caesar, for my Suzaku.

#code geass: lelouch of the rebellion #code geass #code geass: hangyaku no lelouch #lelouch #lelouch lamperouge #lelouch vi britannia #c.c. (code geass)#shirley #shirley fenette #lelouch x shirley #shirlulu #suzaku kururugi #suzaku #hamlet #william shakespeare #shakespeare #tragedy

90 notes · View notes