#and much more to do with how it plays into the interests of powerful institutions motivated to influence our shared cultural narratives

[biceratops7]

I’m gonna SCREAM-

We’ve already established as a fandom that Metatron could teach a masterclass on gas lighting, but I wanna talk about how he specifically validates the things Aziraphale cares for while simultaneously devaluing them under the surface.

First off, this moment?

Tells us everything we need to know. It sets the scene for exactly the games Metatron is playing. He makes Muriel feel important while openly insulting them (flat out calling them stupid), aka seamlessly reinforcing the idea that they’re less than to both them and anyone else in the room. He knows he can get away with this easily, he knows that Muriel, lonely, overlooked little Muriel, will be completely distracted by the fact that someone so important is taking an interest in them.

This is already horribly clever, but then later on you realize it’s doing even MORE heavy lifting when he appoints Muriel to run the bookshop. “See? What’s important to you is what’s important to me! I’ve graciously taken the time to ensure your beloved shop is looked after by Muriel. You know, the dim one!” …let’s suffice it to say he’s ensnared too birds with one net for this one, and that a pattern is already starting to arise.

So when Metatron says Gabriel came to Aziraphale because he’s a “natural leader” and “doesn’t just tell people what they wanna hear”? Yah he’s full of shit. Aziraphale struggles with his sense of purpose when he doesn’t have someone or something guiding him, and for thousands of years he’s been terrified of sharing his true feelings and opinions to 90% of people he’s known. Completely just trying to butter him up. Wanna know the real reason Gabriel seeks asylum with Aziraphale?

Exactly this. Gabriel just says so point blank. It’s not because Aziraphale is this person for him, it’s because despite knowing nothing, he has this instinct that Aziraphale is the only one who can possibly understand why Gabriel did what he did. He is, I mean as far as we know, the only other angel who has fallen in love. (In general, let alone with a demon.)

But nope, can’t have that. We can throw the promise of restoring Crowley in the mix to sweeten the pot, but we can’t acknowledge why he’d want that so badly in the first place. So now it’s cause they work so well together. We can praise the angel for the fallen archangel Gabriel himself coming to him protection and guidance, give him a gold star. But we couldn’t DARE imply that it was by virtue of Aziraphale’s courage to choose earthly love over heavenly. How Gabriel didn’t need a leader, but a friend who’s truly known the joys of adoring that “particular person” and the pain of needing to hide it.

Cause then Aziraphale would start getting crazy ideas, like that his silly little human feelings have a great deal of worth. That they have the power to inspire, form cracks in the institution, fundamentally weaken what has controlled and harmed him. We wouldn’t want him to know the true value of the cards he holds when he has the ace in a match against you, now would we? After all…

Metatron uses this ingeniously sinister tactic of taking away Aziraphale’s choice while giving the illusion that he’s actually opening up doors. Notice how he tells Aziraphale he would have the authority to do something as extraordinary as turn a demon into an angel, yet he never once puts the much simpler alternative of just working with a demon on the table? The sleight of hand here is that he’s being offered the opportunity to freely be with Crowley… but he’s already freely with him as is, no bargain to be made. In fact he fought to be. Metatron disappears this accomplishment right before our eyes, while seamlessly maintaining the illusion to Aziraphale that he (Zira) is in control.

He sets Aziraphale up for failure by only providing the option he knows Crowley will not only decline but be deeply hurt by. It’s all so cleverly planned. Once this plays out exactly how he wants, he delivers the finishing blow by diminishing Crowley and his “damned fool questions”. Suddenly doing a complete 180 and emphasizing how foolish and troublesome he is. Metatron was offering Crowley by Aziraphale’s side as The Carrot. Now he’s telling Aziraphale it was stupid of him to want The Carrot, un-heavenly.

Aziraphale’s life, love, happiness, it’s all not only a massive inconvenience for Metatron but a liability. He has successfully taken a weapon from Aziraphale’s hands he didn’t even know he had. Metatron sees the writing on the wall, and he wants it contained.

#THE southern pansy doesn’t even realize he’s about to start a jod damn revolution #quick! annihilate his self esteem so he doesn’t start making people sniff out the bullshit on PURPOSE #good omens #ineffable husbands #season 2 #2x06 #meta #analysis #aziraphale #crowley #Muriel #metatron #Renew good omens #biceratops #Gabriel #ineffable bureaucracy

[wildgeese98]

It's kind of unfortunate that the only bit of characterization for original! Elias that's widely talked about is him being a stoner. It's true that for a long time that's literally the only thing we got. One funny throwaway line. But we do learn a bit more in mag 193 (one of my favorite s5 episodes incidentally) and it makes him a much more interesting and tragic character.

Elias was an aimless rich kid trying and failing to live up to his father's high expectations for him. He was raised to believe that he deserved success and power simply because of the family he was born into. It's implied that this alienated him from his peers leaving him incredibly isolated. It probably also meant he didn't have a lot of control over his own life, following the path he was expected to rather than what he acctually wanted. Even before being marked by the Eye he probably felt like was constantly watched and judged, and found wanting.

The statement draw heavy parallels between original! Elias and Jon. In fact the line between them gets very blurred as Jon "plays" Elias in the statement and Elias's VA plays Jonah in the body of James Wright. Jon and Elias are both parallels and opposites. They were both marked and drawn to the Institute by that mark.

Elias had the conviction that he was destined to be important and he was right the most perverse, twisted way possible. He was only ever there to be used and used completely. To the point were he ceased to be, leaving only his body to puppeted by Jonah.

Jon had no such conviction, and yet he became literally the most import person in the world. But that was only after being moulded and completely reshaped by Jonah. He in a way lost almost as much autonomy and control of his body as Elias did. Though he at least got to keep his mind, for the most part.

This has gotten away from me a bit, but the point remains. Elias, like a lot of TMA characters, is a fascinating person who we only get to see brief snatches of. I think about him a lot. I especially think about how horrifying it must have been to realize, for the briefest moment, that his mind and body were being completely taken over, right before his consciousness was snuffed out.

#tma #elias bouchard #original elias bouchard #jonah magnus #the magnus archives #tma spoilers #i did acctually write a fic about Elias getting bodysnatched by Jonah but im so very self conscious about my writing #im not gonna link it but my ao3 name is similar to my username so u could probably dig it up of u really wanted to

[cross-my-heartt]

I am so sorry for prattling on about this but I'm a million miles down the Crosshair rabbit hole and I WANT TO HUG THIS MAN SO BADLY.

I'm supposed to make this post about all the reasons Crosshair had for wanting to stay with the Empire in season one right? And I wanted to make it solely based on the information he has (from his limited pov) without involving morality or the role his personal biases play in his decision.

I decided to leave all that for another post. Look at just what he has to work with from a factual standpoint for now.

But then I was going through Aftermath and it's so interesting to hear what Crosshair has to say about the Republic and the Empire. I mean sure, he has his chip then but some of the things he says don't sound like chip talk and are all stuff he echoes when he's free of it.

And oh my god, the level of cynicism of this man. I am going to make a full post about it but there's just something heartbreaking when you think about how distrustful and paranoid and just pessimistic he is.

The reason the batch desert is because they believe the Empire is worse than the Republic. If Crosshair doesn't because he's naive that means he believes that's false, that the Empire is just as good as, if not better, than the Republic.

Except that Crosshair is the opposite of naive. He's not naive he's cynical because to him, the Republic was just as bad as the Empire.

To Crosshair the world is a sh*tty and merciless place. The Republic couldn't be trusted, the Empire can't be trusted, leaving either is a death sentence (and is he really wrong? just how many times do the batch have a close brush with death after they desert and survive for the sole reason that Crosshair is on the other side?), the rest of the galaxy is dangerous and the only way to survive is selling your skills for the basic right to live.

You're on your own (nobody wants to help you right? the regs rarely did. the Kaminoans saw you as an experiment. the Republic sent you on suicide missions) and the only thing you have is the handful of people you love and the usefulness you have to offer to those who hold power over you.

This is the nature Tech spoke about - that unyielding cynicism, that perpetual harsh distrust that paints the word in such a brutal light.

And all of this makes the rage he feels at the end of the Outpost so much more impactful. Because Crosshair played the game. He felt like he saw through every slimy institution that ever threatened to wipe him and his family out, he did what was necessary, he calculated the risks, he took all the facts into account and still, still, the universe crouched down, looked him dead in the eye and spat in his face.

And I honestly don't know how you even begin to recover from a blow like that.

#tbb #tbb crosshair #the bad batch #I will make a more coherent version of this #with all the quotes and stuff #if he ever gets to Pabu he'll probably short circuit #a safe place? where they're accepted and welcome? where failure doesn't mean something unbearably awful? how in the maker- #my meta

[transmutationisms]

possibly too broad but do you have any thoughts on the discourse around self-pathologizing? seems like there’s weird territory there since there are so many barriers to diagnoses and people should be free to self-report, yet some pathologies are essentially capitalist inventions and it may be more harmful than helpful for people to fixate on them without some kind of external guidance (though i don’t mean to imply they need to consult medical practitioners). i also don’t really think faddishness is the big concern it’s made out to be, but what do you think?

yeah to me this is a good example of how genuinely epistemologically radical critique of psychiatry can become assimilated into pretty staid liberal discourses of self-empowerment / -care / -improvement. pathologisation, imo, is basically materially meaningless if it's not backed by the sorts of institutions and power relations that characterise the psychiatric establishment. which is to say, if we're only talking about diagnostic labels in a kind of personal-choice framework (as so much of the medium dot com industrial complex seems to be doing lately) then it robs these conversations of a lot of their urgency and impact. i don't think overreliance on the language of the dsm is particularly helpful, as a general matter of seeking to develop political consciousness as well as self-knowledge, but i also don't think it really matters one way or another if someone self-dxes or un-dxes. what makes a difference is things like: is this person being robbed of their autonomy? are these explanatory frameworks being imposed on them by credentialled experts levelling their professional status to claim epistemological authority over the psyche? what social and economic violence is being committed here? some rando online relating to a diagnostic label and using it for themself is not doing these things, and may very well be helpful to that person (it may also not. but again the harm here is p limited).

i have said before, a lot of what puts me personally off dsm labels is the essentialism they're in bed with. ie, it's not just a shorthand descriptor of behaviours or symptoms—these terms are pretty much always being wielded as claims to have identified a biologically based 'neurotype', eg, or some as-yet-unverifiable misery-engendering genetic complex, or whatever else. and to be clear, i think these types of claims do actually carry widespread social harm, because no matter what rhetorical games you play, you're never just saying these things about yourself. it's a claim to certain forms of bio-essentialism that both shores up professional psychiatric authority and applies to people besides yourself (this is just the nature of such universalising claims about human biology). but this is an issue that goes so far beyond use or disuse of diagnostic labels; plenty of people who have embraced superficial principles of anti-psych critique still make all manner of such essentialist claims when it comes down to it, with or without grabbing onto a specific diagnostic label. so i think the kind of panicking we see in certain left-leaning circles about self-dx is not actually about this issue at all, and is certainly not capable of addressing it productively.

without going insanely long here i would just add that this is kind of a general answer because different labels have different histories and functions (eg, compare the social and political function of pathologising a depressive episode, vs autistic traits / behaviours, vs a so-called personality disorder). and also, whenever talking about self-dx i think it's important to add that one of the most important functions of these labels from a patient perspective is they function as means of gatekeeping access to certain accessibility measures, so any kind of anti-self dx position in current political conditions will harm people who need those accommodations. and i have less than zero interest in questioning anybody who wants accessibility measures for literally any reason or uses any method to obtain them.

#psychiatry

[ineffable-endearments]

The Crow Road and Good Omens: Further-Out Thoughts

Here are a few more thoughts; they're more interpretive yet than the ones in my original post about The Crow Road.

I see some similarities between Prentice and both Aziraphale and Crowley.

Prentice feels this need to believe there's something beyond this life, in large part because this life can be ended so quickly and so easily, and it isn't fair. Throughout the novel, he is never very interested in organized religion; his interest in spirituality is truly about the feeling that there has to be a deeper meaning to existence than this one life.

Likewise, I tend to interpret Aziraphale as willing to consider that the people who make up his institution are fallible, but still stuck on the idea that Heaven is performing an essential role: someone should be up there Doing Good, or, more accurately, encouraging people to Do Good. He has reservations about the existing spiritual establishment and how reflective of truth it is, but he still has this feeling that there has to be a greater power and a greater meaning that can be given to people, himself included, because otherwise, what would be the point?

Then again, there is a nonzero amount of Crowley in Prentice, too (and I know the point is that everyone has a little of each). Prentice is a college-aged young man trying to figure himself out in a world that can be profoundly unfair, and he wants to be allowed to experiment with the idea of life after death. Considering perspectives different from one's parents is part of growing up, after all. Kenneth is determined to steer his sons toward a specific worldview, and as much as Kenneth's perspective on spirituality is supported by the narrative, his stubbornness is also ultimately the thing that gets him killed. Prentice observes his mother's hands-off approach to ideology may have ultimately been more effective.

Doesn't this sound a little familiar? Prentice wants to be allowed to question, and he isn't willing to just shrug and accept unfairness without an argument. When he can't find satisfactory answers, he also tends to drown his anxiety and depression in alcohol and other substances.

All in all, I feel we may have seen the conflict between Crowley and Aziraphale playing out in Prentice's character development; they are the angel and demon on his shoulder, as usual. But the conflict was resolved in the way that I think and hope Crowley and Aziraphale's will be on a grander scale. Prentice ended up having to surrender his philosophy, especially the life-after-death stuff, but then his deep need for a sense of meaning was satisfied much better by finding that meaning here on Earth.

There's also an interesting interaction between the two stories in relation to the afterlife. Namely, The Crow Road takes place in a universe that presumably works just like ours, while we know for sure that in Good Omens, there is an afterlife of one kind or another. We can't be sure how it works, but we've seen human characters in both Season 1 and Season 2 maintain their consciousness after death. I wonder if maybe in the world of Good Omens, human mortality is somehow being exploited by the higher-ups?

Anyway, as a result of this difference, Good Omens also has a special opportunity with the "death doesn't give life meaning - life gives itself meaning!" message. Its main characters are immortal. The book already subverts the whole "oh, being immortal sucks, everyone eventually wants to die" trope by portraying Crowley and Aziraphale's motivation to maintain their Earthly lives instead of starting Armageddon. Season 2 added depth to that, and Season 3 has an opportunity to fully flesh out why exactly life on Earth is where meaning is created even when there is no time limit, even if people don't have the inevitability of death looming over their heads.

Another thought: something a little ironic in The Crow Road is that the incident that led to Kenneth's death "should," theoretically, have made Prentice believe in higher powers, if it was really about that. It certainly convinced Hamish. However, the whole conflict between himself and his father was more about the meaning Prentice sought, so instead, it pushed Prentice toward Kenneth's ideology.

I am wondering if this points toward an event that Aziraphale "should," theoretically, take to mean that Heaven is right or all-powerful or otherwise can't possibly be defied, but which will be the very thing that convinces him the entire system is wrong.

Finally, @loverdosis brought up the great point that memory and history are also major conceptual themes in The Crow Road. In The Crow Road, memory and history give the characters their sense of identity. Prentice also mentions it as one way people can achieve a kind of continuity that doesn't infringe on the importance of life itself. And all of that meshes with Good Omens. So far, Gabriel's plot has involved a very strong focus on memory issues, and through that, we've seen that there is something going on with Crowley's memory as well, although exactly what it is - how much of his memory is missing, who took it, whether he can or wants to get it back - is uncertain. Beelzebub described Gabriel's memories as "All your...you," implying that memories are the majority of what gives Gabriel his identity. The memory wipe punishment is very much a death sentence.

After consideration, I would not be surprised to see memory make a roaring comeback as a theme in Season 3. It could even bring themes of identity and purpose with it.

#good omens #the crow road #go3 speculation #s3 speculation #go 2 spoilers #good omens 2 spoilers #go s2 spoilers #good omens book club

[fandomfaeofveryfewf4cks]

Things I noticed the nth time watching Nimona:

Knight armour can get sliced through like nobody's business (Balister's arm), but can take a laser hit without serious, body-altering consequences (Director hitting Ambrosius with a laser made from the same one that apparently has the power to wipe out half the realm, or kill an Immortal being who doesn't feel severe pain from an arrow wound)?

...is this because Ambrosius' armour was made to be more protective than Balister's?

"She manipulated BOTH of us." Ambrosius says this about Nimona, who he had very few interactions with aside from her very blatantly fucking shit up for the institute. How did she manipulate HIM?

I guess it probably makes sense when you consider he was going to arrest the director, implying that he believed Bal AND Nimona, but I dunno. The little rat in my head started running on its brain-powering wheel at all the possible fanfic plots this could lead to.

Nimona as Ambrosius grabbed the Gloreth statue when they fell to the ground.

On the one hand, this could just be actor!Nimona putting dramatic emphasis on how even in death, the leaders of the realm will cling to their hopes and beliefs, or the golden boy finally getting to join his ancestor.

On the other hand, we could make it deliciously angsty (yum yum) and say it is Nimona's personal desire to grab the statue of Gloreth for reasons such as: taking down the monster-killer image of her former friend out of anger and sadness because she never wanted that image to be so true in representing one of the few people who ever cared about her even briefly;

OR, While trying to think about how she would act if she were actually dying, she reaches for the closest thing to a friend that she has, but this is her staging a false death, as that particular friendship was false so this is just fitting, isn't it?;

OR, They wanted it to spread a message that with the fall of the director, would come the fall of the corrupt system they live in, as well as the fall of this narrow-minded view of both Nimona and Gloreth's story as well as Gloreth and Nimona themselves.

Nimona freaking out about the arrow in their leg in the comic vs Nimona treating it like a little scrape not to be worried about in the movie.

This is really interesting to me. In the comic, it's played up for humor like Nimona is almost overreacting, then having Bal take care of her because he does care about her. This shows it as a bit silly, but so very meaningful.

Then you have the movie where Balister is freaking out and it's kind of funny because clearly Nimona is relatively fine about it, so he doesn't really need to make a big deal out of it. Then he helps her and is still very careful about it like with anyone else's arrow wound, and asks her questions so he can better understand them. Again so very important.

I love both versions of these scenes, I just am so curious about why they made such a drastic change.

I love this movie so freaking much. (I knew that already, but it bears saying for the thousandth time. It's just so fucking good.)

For this last one:

TW: mention of police brutality (discussed as a theme in the movie, nothing specific outside of the Nimona movie)

"He's got a weapon." It's not a weapon. It's a phone. But Todd (and who knows how many of the other knights) didn't choose to see it as anything other than what the director told him it was, and destroyed it as he was trained to do. This screams messaging about the stupid, dangerous, and harmful actions of too many police officers who don't check the situation for themselves before acting on "information" they gathered from insufficient data and/or unreliable sources, and combine that with profiling to make decisions that so often end up being harmful and even fatal to others.

#nimona movie #nimona #theories #headcanons #things i noticed #ballister boldheart #ambrosius goldenloin #angst

[wonder-worker]

what did cicely neville do in edward iv's reign?

Hi! Cecily’s entire role during Edward IV’s reign is too long and complex to fully get into right now, so this is just going to be a very brief overview. It’s also not going to touch on her relationship with her daughter-in-law Elizabeth, even though that's somewhat relevant here in some aspects, because that’s also too complex and speculatory.

Ironically, despite the Duke of York’s claims to kingship, it was only after his death and during her widowhood that Cecily Neville truly emerged as a “quasi-queen”. After her son Edward IV had been acclaimed as King in London, and before he left for Towton with the other lords, he summoned the mayor and “all the notables of London” to gather and “recommended them to the duchess his mother”. During his absence, Cecily would preside over his household in Baynard Castle and was probably meant to act as his representative of sorts in the city. After his kingship was more firmly established, Cecily primarily resided at Westminster with him from 1461-64 and regularly accompanied him on several ceremonial and political occasions, such as their visit to Canterbury where she was magnificently welcomed. She also appears to have had a great deal of personal and political influence with her son: Nicholas O’Flanagan, the contemporary Bishop of Elpin, observed in the first few years of Edward IV's reign, his mother could “rule the king as she pleases.”

Cecily’s role demonstrably changed after Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville in 1464. She remained the second-highest ranked woman in the country, but she took a significant step back from high politics (a la Joan of Kent after her son’s marriage to Anne of Bohemia). That does not mean that either of them suddenly became apolitical or uninvolved: quite the opposite*. Cecily remained the head of a large household, her administration supported her son’s, she continued to support a few religious institutions, she engaged in trade, she launched court cases, and she clearly inspired loyalty among her affinity. All of this was fairly standard for a medieval noblewoman, but was naturally enhanced by Cecily’s own prominent royal status. Cecily was godmother to at least three of the royal children: Elizabeth of York, her namesake Cecily, and the youngest child, Bridget. She also played a role in reconciling her son George to the Yorkist cause in 1471, though she did not have the spearheading role which has often been erroneously credited to her by historians (ie: “engineering peace between her warring sons”); instead, it was her daughters Anne and Margaret who took the leading role in achieving the reconciliation, while Cecily probably aided them. She was also clearly perceived to be influential with Edward IV, best evidenced by how the mayors of Norwich petitioned her to aid them against the Duke of Suffolk in 1480, though we don’t actually know the result of Cecily’s intervention to judge whether it succeeded or how effective it was**. Regardless, though, she evidently had a much lower national profile during these years.

(On a more personal level, we also have a very sweet anecdote from Elizabeth Stonor who spoke of a meeting between Cecily and Edward in October 1476 at Greenwich: 'and ther I  sawe the metyng betwyne the Kynge and my ladye his Modyr. And trewly me thowght it was a very good syght’.)

Cecily’s numerous titles are also interesting. Immediately after Edward IV’s ascension, she called herself “the Kyngs Moder, Duchess of York”. Variations of the title included references to her late husband, but she primarily defined herself in relation to her son, through whom her current position and power derived. As Laynesmith says: "narrative accounts, particularly chronicles, had naturally used the phrase ‘the king’s mother’ to describe women in the past, especially Joan of Kent. However, it was Cecily who turned this into a specific title in her letters and on her seals." A few months after Edward's marriage was announced, Cecily adopted a new title, now styling herself as: “By the ryghtful enheritors Wyffe late of the Regne off Englande & of Fraunce & off ye lordschyppe off yrlonde, the kynges mowder ye Duchesse of Yorke.” This referenced the Yorkist perception of her husband, Richard Duke of York, who was called the "true and indubitable heir" of England. In 1477, a herald for the wedding of her grandson Richard of Shrewsbury styled Cecily as “the right high and excellent Princesse and Queene of right, Cicelie, Mother to the Kinge”. This was once again linked to her husband’s status: Cecily described him in her letters as “in right King of England and of France and lord of Ireland”. All in all, Cecily’s various designations appear to have been designed to signify her own importance within the regime, to uphold the claim of her late husband, and to strengthen Edward IV’s position by promoting him as the son of the supposedly rightful heir. It’s also very possible, as Laynesmith has suggested, that “it was as her queenly power diminished [after the early 1460s] that her claims to queenship were more elaborately emphasized in wax and on parchment”.

Cecily’s role and prominence, and how it changed overtime, is best demonstrated by the number of times English subjects offered prayers for her soul in return for grants. Between June 1461 and September 1464, there are twelve instances of grants made to people who offered prayers for her. (To compare, during the first three years of Elizabeth Woodville's queenship, there were sixteen grants of the same type. So, Cecily didn't quite reach the level of the queen, but she came close; it was quintessential "quasi-queenship"). However, mentions of Cecily dramatically deceased following Edward IV's marriage: over the next 19 years till 1483, she is only mentioned five times, and in all cases Elizabeth Woodville was also listed before she was. Three of these mentions are in 1465, likely reflecting contemporary unease with her son's controversial marriage and the perceived unsuitable origins of the new queen. After that, however, Cecily is mentioned only twice: once in 1476 and once in 1481, with the latter being a grant to her own son-in-law Thomas St. Leger***. This fits well with what I mentioned above about her quasi-queenship in the early 1460s, followed by a much more reduced role and lower national profile in the future years.

Hope this helps!

*Oddly, Cecily is not mentioned at all in contemporary reports for her daughter Margaret’s wedding. Laynesmith believes that she was unwell, and that may as well be true, but Margaret's celebrations went on for a great period of time and it does seem conspicuous that Cecily was entirely absent from them all. It's also worth noting that a letter from the Milanese ambassador Giovanni Pietro Panicharolla on the marriage wrote that "the king, the queen, her father, and the king's brothers are all disposed to it" (sidenote: it's VERY interesting that the queen's father is mentioned before the king's own brothers and male heirs) but made no mention of Cecily. Nor, iirc, was she mentioned in the tournament held to celebrate Anglo-Burgundian relations. It does clearly seem as though Cecily did not play a notable role in the marriage, and relevant diplomacy, at all. (Laynesmith's claim that Cecily had "helped lay the ground for" the marriage because she *checks notes* dispatched both her sons to Burgundy in middle of a civil war 7 years earlier, with many fluctuations in Anglo-Burgundian relations in between, is, I'm sorry to say, nonsense). ** Laynesmith believes that "Cecily’s intervention to control Suffolk perhaps marked a turning point in the duke’s violent career because when he resorted to force again the following summer his victim successfully reclaimed the manor from which he had personally ejected her." I think that Laynesmith is being far too assumptive and that we don’t even know the result of Cecily’s intervention in 1480 to somehow credit her with entirely different case one year later that did not even involve her, lol. ***Even more oddly, Cecily’s own son Richard didn’t include her among the list for who to offer prayers for in his college in Middleham in 1478. This was despite the fact that he had included Edward IV, Elizabeth Woodville, his wife Anne, his sisters, his dead brothers and his dead father. It’s incredibly striking, and I wonder what could have happened to cause her exclusion, especially since she was included in religious foundations by both Edward and her son-in-law Thomas St. Leger? Laynesmith claims that "this rather suggests that Richard's own piety was not consciously influenced by hers", and sure, that seems obvious, but it certainly can't have been the only reason. Was she merely overlooked (unlikely), or did they have a quarrel at the time, or was it for another now-unknown reason? Whatever the case, it's a small but intriguing detail to me.

Sources:

"Cecily, Duchess of York" by J.L. Laynesmith

"A Paper Crown: The Titles and Seals of Cecily, Duchess of York" by J.L. Laynesmith (The Ricardian)

"Cecily Neville: Mother of Kings" by Amy License

#ask #cecily neville duchess of york #edward iv #english history #cecily neville #my post #queue

[bubbl3s-dot-jpg]

My thoughts about TMAGP 7 before reading anyone else's:

Oh my god we got a lot of stuff today

Celia recognizes Chester's voice which could imply a few things: One, Jon is alive in this universe and she met/knew/heard of him. Two, Jonny Sims is playing an entirely different character with whom Celia has met/known/heard. OR three, Celia has previous experience with the fears. All three are equally likely in my opinion, IF it weren't for the next piece of information.

Sam got an email from someone named John. (I checked the spelling on the official transcript and that is how it is spelled). The email was internal. I'm not going to jump to conclusions about this because of how this is spelt and because Jonny is known to reuse names. (See Jared and Gerard, and Michael). However, if I were a writer, I wouldn't mind using common names for smaller characters that may or may not show up again, but would mind severely if a major character shared a name with a minor character. Jury's still out on this for me.

Colin doesn't allow external devices into his workspace. I didn't think about it much in earlier episodes, but I think it is notable that we only hear him occasionally and never from his own devices. Sam brings in external devices, or he's out and about, in a place where devices can hear him. He could be worried that they interfere with his work, but Sam had described him as otherwise paranoid and worrying about interference seems to be something not worth fighting about. This leads me to believe Colin knows something is going on.

The mention of hilltop road is interesting. I'm aware that Hilltop road is a road an therefore could have multiple addresses, but since it was such a significant part of MAG, I think it is worth noting what happened there. To me, it feels like a bunch of avatars, or a cult, similar to that of the Lifeless Flame attempted to bring a bunch of items that could possibly be fear-adjacent (like Leitner books) into a place of power. That's pure speculation, however.

Lena has attempted to murder at least two different people, and they both suggest "disappearing again". I have no idea what this could mean, but it feels relevant to me. I'm keeping this in mind for future refrence.

Lena makes mention of "real work" which leads me to wonder what everyone is doing there. People have speculated that the OIAR is feeding the eye in the same way the Magnus Institute was and I think I agree with that. However, Magnus' goal with the institute was to start the eyepocalypse. Is this what Lena is doing? If so, how? Is she doing it the same way Magnus was, by taking a already fear-touched person and using them as their avatar? If that's the case, what is the point of the files that they are reading?

Gwen's family is rich. I don't know if it was mentioned in MAG that the Bouchards had money, but I think it's more relevant here. It also explains her entitlement and the fact that she watched two attempted (and one successful?) murders and decided that this was the line of employment she wanted to continue. I'm biased because I have a history with the name, but we're only seven episodes in and I already don't like her.

Last and very least, Alice thinks Norris's voice (possibly aka Martin's voice) is whiny.

This was a way longer post than I meant to write, but I'm interested in seeing where the fan discussion goes. This was such a plot-heavy episode that I'm still taking time to digest it. I'm also really interested in seeing how my theories and thoughts evolve.

#jonathan sims #tmagp theory #tmagp spoilers #alice dyer #celia ripley #colin becher #gwen bouchard #lena kelley #i'm going insane #this is so much for one episode #especially since i havent written about any of the others like this #maybe i will from now on #TMAGP #TMAGP 7

[alexanderlightweight]

I love your writing! ❤️

I was wavering between this continuation and another, but could you do one for when Alec resigns and/or retires because of Imogen declaring Jace as the HOTI?

Ah thank you so much!

I appreciate 💜

Here is more! I hope you enjoy

-

Magnus redesigns his lair the instant Alexander is deeply asleep.

First, he changes all the wards to no longer allow nephilim blooded individuals the privelege of allowing them to find his home. Which means that he’ll have to ensure Alexander is kept safely inside the wards unless portaled out, or provided with a pass to the wards.

The latter which Magnus will have to be convinced to give him, since Magnus doesn’t trust the rest of the New York Institute or the Clave to actually leave Alexander be.

First, Magnus relocates to the heart of Brooklyn rather than on the outskirts closet to Manhattan. There is no longer a need to be easily reaches and found by Alexander, and so Magnus takes his lair back to a giant, empty but well maintained apartment building that has been waiting for him to return.

Magnus creates a foyer and a waiting hall and takes the first part of the floor below what will be his and Alexander’s home and the roof and turns it into a maze of rooms. Magnus will no longer let anyone into the inner sanctum of his home beyond Cat and Ragnor.

The waiting hall won’t be used often, but it will be used and that is enough for Magnus to create it. Many of his clients meet at Pandemonium but with the shadowworld in turmoil, it will be better for them to come to Magnus. The wards ensure that he can portal any client into the foyer and the wards will keep them there, ensuring there are no nasty surprises. Any nephilim who attempt to thwart Magnus’ previous goodwill will find a nasty surprise if they hitch a ride on a portal for someone else.

Magnus hums in pleasure as he adds a little drink cart and some obscure texts that he knows will interest at least half of his clietnelle and then he ensures that no one will be able to sense or know that Alexander resides with Magnus.

It’s a mutual benefit.

Magnus doesn’t need his clients concerned and wary because a nephilim is nearby and Magnus doesn’t need to be concerned about Alexander's safety if he can’t be accessed.

As much as this is for his clients, this is also for Magnus and Alexander.

Magnus wants his boy to be safe from the reminders of the war he’s leaving behind. Because it’s possibly the bravest thing someone has ever done, just because they loved Magnus that amount.

The wards Magnus levies are to protect the integrity of his position and the secrecy of their identities.

Because Magnus’ power comes from not just his magic but his identity, how he’s known to his people and how he’s trusted because of how he’s known.

However, it’s not the only reason that Magnus is finally separating his work life from his personal life.

His identity as the High Warlock of Brooklyn will no longer be so intrinsically tied

It is also to protect the sanctity of Magnus’ lair, the home he’s building with Alexander. The intimacy of a relationship that Magnus has longed for and finally found to be so much better than his darkest hopes.

So Magnus will not let either identity interact here, where they must be separate.

Let the world see Alexander with him at Pandemonium, when they are both prepared for the roles they must now play.

But here, Alexander will never have to play a role other than the ones he wishes to.

So Magnus will ensure that both worlds are kept separate, here in the heart of his domain.

—

“So, what are the plans for today?” Magnus asks, reaching over to kiss Alexander’s brow and sighing in contentment when Alexander’s sleepily nuzzles up against Magnus’ jaw.

“I’m a retired nephilim commander.” Alexander sleepily rasps and he sounds petulant and exhausted, “you said I could just stay in your bed all day long if I ever left the Institute. What happened to that?”

Magnus freezes and swallows, because he did say that and a small part of him had even meant it. He just has tried not to think about it, because Alexander has always been very clearly focused on his goal of leadership.

Which, has just conveniently imploded.

“Well,” Magnus murmurs, voice low and dark as he pets over Alexander’s shoulder. “I did say something like that, didn’t I darling? Is that what I should do then? Keep you here? In my home? In my bed? Make sure the clave can’t ever find you again? After all, it’s not as if they deserve to have you back.”

Alexander smiles up at him, delight on his face because he will always be surprised by such sincere praise. But Magnus just wonders at how Alexander doesn’t even seem to care that Magnus is sincerely making plans now to keep his boy close and pampered and out of the war.

Because if Alexander isn’t on the side of the clave — if Magnus can keep him out of politics and fighting beyond self-protection and defense of Magnus himself — then Magnus can keep Alexander without a single worry of being distracted from protecting his own people. Magnus no longer has to worry about what will happen if they end up on opposite sides of this war.

“M’kay.” Alexander tells him, “sounds nice.” And then, Magnus’ sweet, precious boy falls back asleep, like he hasn’t just given Magnus a gift of a lifetime.

Magnus watches his sleeping form and marvels at the trust he’s being shown, the adoration he’s being given and Magnus vows to never let it go.

#writing wednesdays #writing wednesday #lumine writes #magnus bane #alec lightwood #malec #shadowhunters #shadowhunters au

[spiderfreedom]

Politics is for power - towards radfem organizing

There is a lot of amazing radfem theory on here but it usually stays within our circles. Now the nature of Tumblr is that within 5 years, it will inevitably leak out somewhere else, but we must speed that up.

The major people who would be sympathetic to our cause are gender critical feminists. Not all of them, but some of them would definitely be interested in some of our arguments. We should find gender criticals who we think might be interested in some of our arguments and start communicating with them. A lot of gender critical women are on Substack. We can comment on their pages with extra resources, Substack writers are usually grateful for more material to reference. We can subscribe to them (if you have the money) and contact them directly with experiences that they can then further write about on their platforms.

It’s time we become active political forces. Any successful political movement requires action on multiple different fronts. We need to reach out to influential people. We also need to be active on social media as active as the enemy is. If you can’t post publicly with your current account, then make a new one using a new email and start posting. Don’t just post about radfem stuff but post about other things. We are full human beings, and radical feminism is just part of us, and we need to show the world that. Use your accounts (use emails from gmail or protonmail or other email services) and then post on Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, etc. Because this is not your main account, do not be afraid of being banned. We are fighting a digital war as much as anything else. We are fighting things like Sh1n1gam1 Eyes which literally try to censor us. We know people like our ideas when they don’t know it’s coming from us. Take advantage of that.

If you have money, donate to people you trust in and believe in. I strongly recommend AGAINST working with conservatives or Republicans. In the long run, they always pervert our arguments, and it ends with most people not trusting us. Working with conservatives is NOT realpolitik or pragmatics, it is short term satisfaction at the cost of long term control. There are more of them than there are of us, which means they are the ones who have the power to control the narratives on their platforms.

Finally, if you are lucky enough to have real life radical feminist networks near you, take advantage of that! If you are good at organizing in real life, try to start one near you. We need a real division of labor to cover short term tactics and long term strategy. Your city may have a local feminist group that is working on something like violence against women. This is worth getting involved in. It will take a while to build up large institutions that we can use for long term strategy.

Whether you have a thriving local scene or can only do digital activism, there is a role you can play. You don’t have to stop posting theory, but let your imagination soar - how can you take theory beyond radblr? How do we do the work of long term convincing people? There are a lot of motivated and intelligent people in this scene. It’s time for the next big wave of feminist organizing.

#radical feminism #mypost #radblr #politics is for power

[ilikethisacompletelynormalamount]

It feels like Andrew Scott and Paul Mescal are lifelong friends, even though they insist their bond formed while working together on All of Us Strangers, the new drama from Looking and Weekend filmmaker Andrew Haigh.

On a Friday afternoon in Los Angeles in November, the pair remain in their own world. A cacophony of publicists and camera operators swirl around them, in the thick of a string of media interviews, but Scott, 47, and Mescal, 27, sit calmly shoulder-to-shoulder in a press room having their own private, whispered conversation. It's difficult to make out, which only makes you want to know what they're saying that much more. And when you pry, they shrug it off.

Perhaps this was what Haigh was talking about when he said, during an awards-season Q&A for the American Film Institute, that the three of them went to a concert in London together and his actors "completely ignored" him most of the day. "We didn't!" Scott insists. "That's not true," Mescal adds, laughing. "That's a little bit of hyperbolic directorial license," Scott says. "We need to have a word with him." *

*(emphasis entirely mine, because, seriously Andrew Haigh, wtf was that interview)

It's no wonder the internet has fallen for the bond between these Irish gents, fawning over photos of Mescal attending Scott's birthday party at a club.* The pals say they only knew of each other "a little bit" prior to All of Us Strangers, but "not as well as we know each other now," Scott quips — alluding to the sex scenes they shot together for the movie. "We know everything. The whole kit and caboodle!" However, once people see the film — part romance, part ghost story — it's their emotional bond they forge on screen that stands out... and often leads to overt sobs from the audience.

*(a club that was definitely NOT in Spain, no matter what you may have read on Twitter, just so we're clear. It was also the wrap party for Vanya, which had just ended that evening in London, so unless he has super powers, Spain's not possible. Also, Andrew was surrounded by other friends and practically everyone involved in the play, not there with just Paul FFS. Sorry, sorry, carry on. )

...

Scott and Mescal joke how it was their Irish heritage that helped them understand what Haigh was going for. "The means to express is something that we as a culture are still processing," Mescal says. "I think that's why Irish actors, generally speaking, are good at playing the stuff beneath the surface. A good healthy dose of repression helps the ol' acting." The connection these actors forge through performance is palpable. It was a surprise even to them how affected the audience became when they attended their first public screening of All of Us Strangers in Los Angeles earlier in the week. "I was balling," Scott recalls. "We had to do a Q&A afterwards. I was really emotional."

...

"To play being in love or falling in love with someone, it's the best, completely wonderful thing to be able to do," Scott says. "We were starting to get to know each other [as people], as well. Beyond our preliminary friendship, it was like both of those experiences were coexisting."

This was a very good article, you should absolutely click through and read it all so that EW knows that we are interested in this film and these actors!

(Thank you for indulging my asides, I just had some things I needed to get off my chest 😆)

#andrew scott #paul mescal #all of us strangers #andrew haigh #entertainment weekly #jamie bell #claire foy #his beautiful smile #fucking spain *incoherent grumbling*

[schmergo]

I've recently done a little bit of research for some stuff adjacent to the production of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes that I'm in right now and, in checking whether certain scientific institutions and inventions would have existed during the time of the play, I discovered something kind of interesting: many of the ones I've looked up were coincidentally established within 5-10 years of the setting.

The first bunch of Sherlock Holmes stories, the source materials for this play, came out between 1887 and 1893. The Natural History Museum? Opened fully in 1883. The Prime Meridian? Officially established in 1884. Tower Bridge? Built between 1886-1894. The Tube running northwest from Baker Street? 1880. London's first electrical power station? 1882. Those are just the ones I happened to look up. Telegrams are common in the Sherlock Holmes tales, and by the later Sherlock Holmes stories, he's using a telephone and even automobiles are mentioned.

Reading the Sherlock Holmes stories with that context of a world full of rapid changes and advancements, I feel like it comes across differently. It seems to say, "There's a scientific answer for everything." His unique detecting style, based on simple observations, made it seem like the age-old problems of crime and criminals could be defeated by logic and reasoning. I think there's a level of idealism, that even the most difficult crimes are solvable and bad actors are no match for modern scientific knowledge.

Reading Sherlock Holmes cases often gives the comfortable feeling of order and justice being served. I think that's the same reason true crime content is so popular today in another age of rapid digital advances-- and if we guess the solution, it's doubly satisfying. It's also why Sherlock Holmes is so easily translated to modern day.

But that also makes me think about another book and another equally iconic character that came out around that same time period: Dracula, published in 1897. And Dracula takes a lot of the same themes and seems to say the exact opposite.

I think one of the biggest things that surprises first-time readers of Dracula is how modern Dracula feels and how much technology is used in the book. Like the Sherlock Holmes stories, it was set in roughly 'modern day' when it was written. The 'good guys' use trains, telephones, typewriters, and even blood transfusions. But when Dracula, an old-world monster, arrives in their modern newfangled city of London, all of that technology is useless against him. And so is any ability of theirs to deduce a simple scientific explanation for what's going on.

When Dracula starts sneaking into their friend’s house and sucking her blood each night, the signs are obvious, right down to the puncture marks on her neck. The reader and audience knows what’s up waaaay before the characters do. It’s infuriating! You want to jump up and down and yell, “A VAMPIRE IS KILLING HER!” But why don’t they see what’s right in front of their faces? Because they’re thoroughly modern upper-middle class British people who live in a scientifically advanced world and believe in reason.

The chaos of true evil is more powerful than logic and reason. To defeat him, they need to get on his level and use superstition and religion and folklore. It's the polar opposite of a story like "The Hounds of the Baskervilles," published five years later.

All that said... I would love to see a Sherlock Holmes and Dracula crossover. How long would it take Holmes to deduce that he had run into a real vampire? Would he make all the correct observations and keep coming to the wrong conclusions? Would he be able to accurately predict the patterns of Dracula's behavior when his opponent has superhuman abilities and can transform into multiple different types of animals?

Or, given Holmes' somewhat addictive and adrenaline-driven personality, his superior attunement to his senses, his surprising revival from the dead, and his innate instinct to 'catch his man' at any cost... would he himself make the most dangerous vampire of all?

#sherlock holmes #dracula #literature #books #mysteries #novels #classic literature #english major

[sleepymarmot]

Reddit user autumnscarf on power and powerlessness in DAI:

The Inquisitor's story is pretty much that they're a cog in a machine. They're a symbol being used by an organization. They are not, by themselves, that powerful. Other than having the Anchor there's nothing special about the Inquisitor-- they wouldn't have made it to the top without Cassandra, Leliana, Josephine, Cullen, etc. standing behind them. You can't just do whatever you want because there are a lot of powers that be and you're not actually that powerful... Yeah, you have a magic hand, the Inquisition needs you to be alive and seal the rifts, but that's about as far as it goes. You can't do anything to Leliana because she's just as crucial a figure to the Inquisition as you are, if not more, because she has people who are really, truly loyal to her, and not to an object buried in her hand. You can't do anything to Vivienne once you let her in because she knows how to play politics-- once she's established herself as part of the Inquisition in the eyes of others, it doesn't matter much to her (or anyone else) whether you've changed your mind on her being there. You can judge some people and not others primarily because no one is standing up for the people you're judging, or they're willing submitting themselves to your justice (or have been submitted to you by more powerful organizations who don't want to deal with them themselves, such as Florianne). A lot of the judgments you get, you get because their relevant governments are too busy internally tearing themselves apart to actually govern. It's not like the Warden, who comes labeled with, "Wardens do whatever it takes to stop a Blight," and who doesn't have eyes on them at all times. The Warden can get stuff done under the table. They can be assholes. They can be completely ruthless. They build their own reputations from beginning to end, and are not responsible for others-- just themselves. By the time the Warden has to carry the Landsmeet and later Amaranthine, they already earned their clout of their own accord (or gone the 'might makes right' route because Loghain sets himself up as the head of the snake). This is the same for Hawke, especially in the event their entire family dies. For the Inquisitor, it's the other way around. Your reputation is built for you, so you're more beholden to the institution that made you. I think it's interesting how political Inquisition is, yet you can't really throw your weight around because the power you have is not your own.

#good meta found in the comments of a really random post #dragon age

[goblins-riddles-or-frocks]

If Leigh hadn't given Zoya Alina's storyline what role do you think she would've played in the next books? Right now she kinda fills in the gap that Alina left as the chosen one 2.0 but if it wasn't that what do you think would've been her story?

I mean that’s really hard to say because then what is the story going to be about? So much of KoS and RoW hinge on that rehashing. Removing it results in a completely different story— which is something I’d be fine with lol but it’s definitely not a case of like what would have happened instead.

Anyway, I personally love Zoya as more of a foil to the Darkling and filling that role of institutional power vs being placed as an Alina type who’s suddenly come into abilities she does not understand. With how much the original trilogy was about the threat of corruption inherent to power, the KoS duology did not engage with it… at all. I think partially because LB wanted to put the conflict to rest as something Alina like… fixed… to uphold the R&R ending. But it’s too neat, and just uninteresting? And Zoya and Nikolai were Team Morally Dubious from the literal beginning! Bizarre to have them refitted to Lawful Good with zero quandaries whatsoever. And it’s just more meaningful imo to see them working to uphold any sort of greater good, that the choices are taxing and dubious and sometimes very morally compromising.

I think Zoya and Nikolai are really interesting and can be super complimentary in how they operate on different sides of a gray morality spectrum. Zoya is ruthless and selfish, she has limits but she’s somewhat just out for herself and the people she cares about. Nikolai is greater good focused but he operates on a means to an end style of morality that’s literally presented as the starting point to where the Darkling ended up. That is bound to result in many ethical clashes! They have very different values!

Anyway I basically just wanted to see Zoya as the new scary power behind the throne. I wanted her as the new Darkling essentially in terms of being the shadowy figure who is doing the dirty work, and willing to get her hands way dirtier because her limits are different from Nikolai’s and she’s willing to go some fucked up places for her convictions. (The Alina to her Darkling lmao)

Like it’s not expanded on in KoS at all, but I see Zoya as something of a zealot tbh? She starts out as the Darkling’s devout follower, then somewhat grudgingly switches her allegiance to Alina. With both of them out of the way, I think Nikolai would fill that role for her. But not necessarily Nikolai the person, vs Nikolai the king and all of the hopes she’s placed on his rule making a difference. Which is to say, I think her devotion would mean she’s perfectly happy to go behind his back or hurt him in some way to protect him or help his rule. Like she is absolutely the person who would order fucked up assassinations that he might have qualms about without telling him because it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Arc-wise I also just wanted to see her struggle way more with the Darkling’s ghost and the values he instilled in her. Navigating the aftermath of that kind of disillusionment, and just trying to figure out what she believes in at all.

Anyway in the version of KoS that exists in my head, there is no new magic or world ending stuff. They’ve fully exited the fairy tale. It’s just politics and the miserable business of piecing a country back together after a civil war, and also recovering from the trauma of everything that happened. But while Nikolai’s come out of it determined to Fix Ravka and Deserve being king and to be nothing like his father, Zoya has come out the other side determined to be efficient. And I’d just love to see them hurt each other a lot on the path to understanding each other and trying to grapple with the above questions of morality, and where to draw the line re: selfishness or destroying oneself for a cause. And most importantly shfhff I do not want an answer!

They’re team Morally Dubious! They live on a precipice! There’s no easy answer beyond just trying to do their best at any given moment and make some ethical trade offs and just hope really hard that overall they’re going in the right direction.

#grishaverse #KoS pissed me off so bad with constantly being like ‘Zoya is ruthless’ [Zoya is just mildly snarky sometimes] #let her kill!!! #i ramble sometimes #all the bendy punctuations #a mysterious stranger has appeared #meta #zoya nazyalensky #zoyalai #king of scars #tagging these last for reasons

[ladymirdan]

What is your opinion on the "Female Space Marines" thing, Lady Mirdan?

Are you trying to get me cancelled, my good man? 😅

Strap in. This is gonna be an unhinged and unfocused ranty wall of text.

Short answer: 

Female space marines are a primaris level of a bad idea, and I really hope it doesn't become canon.

Slightly longer answer: 

I feel like people forget that the Imperium are bad guys. Even the Emperor's “dream” for the Imperium is a fascist utopia, with all its horrible connotations going along with that.

There are good/interesting people/characters mixed into this mess, and I find it so interesting to see them interact in a world where the morals are (sometimes not) so radically different from the one we are living in.

The Imperium is a horrible, xenophobic, misogynistic, misanthropic hellhole. 

The rotting carcass of the Emperor on a golden throne is a perfect metaphor for this.

The only thing that matters is brute strength or power/resources.

Human lives are very cheap in the Imperium. I have heard the argument “It doesnt make any sense to ignore half of your population when making space marines”, yes it does. Geneseed is rare and valuable, but humans are not. There is always someone willing to give up their son for a chance to get the God Emperors' blessing.

But let's say it is possible. Geneseed is fully compatible with female anatomy. Would someone still do it? 

My guess is: probably not. 

The Imperium can't even come up with a new pair of shoelaces without the inventors risking being called heretics. None of the bigger, more established chapters would risk it. Entire chapters have been wiped out for less.

I would also expect that the Ecclesiarchy would be rather unhappy with the Astartes dipping their toes into their own military recruitment pool. Terran bureaucracy is not a thing to be taken lightly.

Can’t Roboute Guilliman just go in and make it a thing?

Maybe, but why would he want to? What has given anyone the opinion that Guilliman is a “good guy”?

He often (in my opinion) wrongly gets accredited as the primarch of reason/tactics/politics when he is clearly the master of Propaganda. 

He is memed to be this chivalrous boy scout when he absolutely is not. That is his carefully crafted public image.

Look at what types of men he chooses to promote when given the chance. Strong and dumb, every time.

But how about the chaos space marines?

Here we actually have an argument to do it. We have seen in several books (Nightlords, Fabius Bile etc,) that human fertility drops dramatically in the warp.

Here every body counts, and they have to be more economical with their initiates.

Fabius Bile himself is working hard to make this a possibility. Even though he wants to do his own thing and not just more space marines, they are close enough for me to be called female space marines, and I'm fine with them. The EC can have them… but do we really want them to?  

What about the other Traitor Legions then?

Most of the traitor Legions leaders grew up in the Imperium and shares a lot of their sensibilities and morals. 

I would doubt that the Black Legion would be fine with it even IF (big if) Abaddon himself were ok with it. A lot of his warbands would be pissed. There aren't good and rational people; they are just as brainwashed as the imperials. (I imagine a good re-enactment of this happening would be the Templin institute’s comment field on their video about this, but with (actual) curses and no profanity filter)

But GW has done bigger retcons in the past!

Yes, they have. And most of them have been handled badly.

I fully believe that female space marines CAN be introduced in a good way. 

Do I trust GW/BL to do this well? Absolutely the fuck not.

I have read a good number of BL books by now, and I think I have come across well-written female characters… twice?

But my friend has a kitbashed army with female space marines, and he wants to play with them. Hell yeah! Can I see it? I love kitbashes, and I much rather see a female space marine on the table than an “Angry marine”, for example. I’m not bothered in the least by anything fan created. It is GW I don't trust.

You don't want female space marines because you are a sexist!

I'm not gonna bother defending against this because that would make me a hypocrite.

Yes, the primary reason I don’t want female space marines is so I can have a harem of imaginary big, buff boyfriend waifus that will never ever have an unmotivated, badly written love interest written in. Do you have any idea how rare that is to come across in a fandom? 

#warhammer 40k #warhammer #wh40k #space marines #female space marines #my take

[qvincvnx]

do you have a post about b a b e l? I haven't read it yet but would loooove to hear why you personally dislike it

legend thank you. some spoilers below.

good things about babel

(sort of a good thing): interesting magic worldbuilding conceit. the idea is that lexical gaps across translation power magic, and that as europe gets semantically linguistically closer, magic is fading - time to for the institution to exploit east asian languages! this concept conceptually fucks. however every single thing about the execution was awful that this actually pisses me off more, because i want to read the book that actually does this and now i never can because this came out first.

bad things about babel, in approximately ascending order of how agonizing they make the experience of reading it

literally the basic execution. the prose is clumsy; it's historical fiction that's trying to be historical-voiced and the character voices are completely indistinguishable from 1. one another 2. your average twitter user. this is incredibly embarrassing for the author but it doesn't even seem to be something on her radar to be embarrassed about; this is the first thing i noticed as off and the thing that kept me closest to DNFing throughout. if she would like to teach intro colonialist theory seminars with modern jargon and terms then the author could have done that as an academic. it would have been really lovely to have something of a window into how this issue was being discussed at the time! what frameworks contemporary colonized and colonial people used to understand their own resistance to british rule... but absolutely no research on this was done (if it was, none of it was in the text)

apes the craft of more effectively written books without understanding what made them effective, which is just genuinely agonizing to read. particularly notable here are its attempted utilization of footnotes but it is not jsmn. yk. there's a chapter that's just one sentence, with a footnote that takes up the whole page with a bunch of diagrams, and then the next chapter repeats the previous sentence with a comma and goes on into the prose... you didn't have to do that... (this one is admittedly kind of BEC-y) (also the copyediting was not great throughout i found a number of problems. that is not really the author's fault but it felt like the book was trying to literally precisely gaslight me about what good prose looks like)

ahistorical in the extreme. again, i cannot express this effectively but it really demonstrates a lack of basic effort and care throughout. as this reviewer notes regarding oysters, the author seems incapable or unwilling to imagine how people might have thought or felt about something if it's different from how she feels about it. the author's note devotes like 7x as much page time apologizing for slightly altering how long it takes to get from oxford to london as it does for CHANGING THE CORONATION DATE OF QUEEN VICTORIA in a book that's in large part about the expansion and impacts of GLOBAL COLONIAL EXPLOITATION. one of these things impacts the part of the world she can clearly imagine - her oxford, where they serve oysters - and the other one has massive global implications.

NONE OF THESE CHARACTERS WHO ARE TRANSLATORS CARE ENOUGH ABOUT LANGUAGE TO DELIGHT IN LANGUAGE. all of the discussion of translation is pretty rote, but also like... my friends who are into language and i joke, we play with sounds and words and cross-language puns. none of the characters seemed to actually enjoy their academic passion. stressed me out on their behalves (also no one, like, studies, but this is typical of the genre)

this isn't really a full point but it annoyed me SO badly it's going in here. MC describes a later-revealed-to-be-bad female character as something like 'giving feminists a bad name'. A) it is set in the like 1830s and the word feminist makes no sense in context B) yOU WROTE HER ACTING LIKE THAT, SHE IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT PERSON WITH FREE WILL. YOU MADE HER DO THAT. basically you can clearly see the author's strings moving the characters around, the author tries SO hard to make sure you like and dislike all the correct characters that it is like can you please just let them move around and act like human beings.

by extension - incredibly flat characterization. the characters move to the beat of the plot, rather than seeming internally consistent. the MC's father is villainous in a very specific way - condescending white man's burden pushing for economic/cultural influence and assimilation of talented ~colonials into the imperial core - right up until the MC needs a justified reason to murder him, at which point he is magically revealed to have been a virulently racist war hawk trying to spur on the deaths of thousands. like, sure, okay, racist one way will be racist another, you could do this effectively - but again, you can see the author's hand in these matters and the timing of these revelations, and she is clumsy with her dolls.

i am not an expert in these matters personally but i definitely did find it ironic that babel's thesis is "empires are bad!" and then it immediately undercuts itself discussing china like "unless they are empires run by poc, then the protagonists should root for them" like skill issue all empires are bad definitionally. thanks.

i was thoroughly underwhelmed by its attempt to engage in class politics. really embarrassing.

it's dark academia with no homoeroticism in sight

#hopefully this made sense. the last bad point is half a joke (it should be lower on the list it's just a better punchline) but it is true. #idk how to tag this for people who don't want to see this without it going in the tag. i'm sorry. #i'm sure i'm forgetting things these are just the instances i screenshotted and which therefore stuck to my brain better.