Thinking about how Will Graham views his anger as righteous which of course extends to Hannibal. A lot of his anger in s2 is over the fact that he finally trusted someone only for that person to betray him but it’s more than that. It’s more than just what Hannibal did to him. What he’s truly deeply angry about is that Hannibal knows his dark nature and not only knows it, but wants him to embrace the very nature he’s desperately trying to suppress.
He’s supposed to be the one that’s perceptive. He’s the one who is supposed to see it all while remaining unknown and unseen. And yet Hannibal recognizes what kind of person he has as soon as they meet. It’s not supposed to be that way. He hates that Hannibal is the one person he can’t hide from. Who will always see through the facade he puts on for others who buy into it. That’s why when Hannibal essentially tells him in s3 that he hasn’t changed, he’s fuming. If just Hannibal can believe he’s changed, maybe he himself can believe it too.
But he doesn’t. And deep down Will knows that’s just what it is too: a facade. Hating Hannibal is really just him hating himself at the end of the day. He takes a lot of his displaced anger out on him. He has these violent murder fantasies about Hannibal that symbolically can be read as him trying to kill off this part of himself. He can’t kill them off. Suppression only works for so long. The fantasies only grow stronger.
It’s only when he gives in at last during TWOTL. When he stops supressimg who he is. When he stops hating himself for it and overthinking about the act of violence. When he allows himself indulgence. This is when he experiences being at peace with himself possibly for the first time ever. At last, the internal battle that rages on inside him calms. The voices in his head go quiet. Even though this is brief, he knows that what he and Hannibal experienced on that cliff is a moment of peace in a lifetime of unrest. He doesn’t take it for granted, which is why he says what he does. When he stops fighting Hannibal, giving into the violence and also his touch as they embrace, it represents that he stops fighting with himself too. And isn’t that the most beautiful thing in the world?
91 notes
·
View notes
with the focus on the revolving door again in ep 16, i just want to say a little smth abt the door as an autistic person myself.
i know some ppl are frustrated with wyw's difficulty in using the door, saying it infantilizes her and that "she's a 27 year old lawyer, she's seen a revolving door before, she knows how they work." but the thing is, it's not abt her being familiar with revolving doors at all. at least not in the way you think. it's not "oh look at this lady, she doesn't understand this door bc she's autistic." it's a sensory issue.
autism affects our senses and the way we process them. what many allistics don’t understand about autism is that we’re not just overly sensitive to sounds and bright lights. we can be underly (is that a word??) sensitive to stimulus as well and have a hard time controlling our senses. this includes all seven senses. that right, seven. there’s the five you know, but also two you probably don’t: the vestibular sense and proprioception. these two have to do with body awareness, balance, and spatial orientation. that’s why many of us walk “weirdly” (if i ever catch you saying someone walks weirdly i am coming into your house and punching you in the face) or are clumsy. we have issues with our bodies in relation to the world around us and often have a hard time balancing. i walk into walls all the time and miscalculate and walk into doorways instead of through them.
so it’s not that wyw doesn’t understand the social concept of a revolving door, but that they’re difficult to navigate through due to her vestibular and proprioceptive sensory issues. i myself have a hard time with revolving doors! so pls no more “this makes her look dumb” or “this is so unrealistic”. if wyw is bad representation and is stupid for having problems with a revolving door, then i’m an unrealistically stupid autistic that walks into walls.
2K notes
·
View notes
there’s a question to be asked i think about to what extent “getting out” can be conflated with “being saved” in this show, and what freedom actually means to any of these characters.
like you can argue that shiv saved ken by voting against him on gojo, but what if your intent behind saving someone is to inflict a worse punishment than if you’d just left them trapped? can a child weaned on poison survive on milk, or are you just sentencing them to a death by inches, starved of the only thing they know? and if you save someone specifically because you know that being saved is the worst thing that can happen to them, is that kindness or cruelty? at what point does a good thing become a malicious act?
and you can say that roman is finally free, but what exactly is he free from? the company? his father? does unlocking a cage mean saving a dog, or are you allowing him out on the street knowing there’s a kill shelter nearby? if the driving anxiety behind roman is that he’s an idiot and a failure—that he’ll never amount to anything, and trying will only lead to pain—and he’s finally cut loose once all of those anxieties have crystallized into cold hard fact in his mind, what has he actually escaped from? if the cage is in your mind, is it even possible for somebody else to unlock it?
the fundamental truth of a tragedy is that even being saved can be a death sentence, if the characters are incapable of escaping the thing doing them the most harm (themselves and their childhoods)
239 notes
·
View notes
Nico and Reyna should have been a part of the seven. Not Percy and Annabeth.
I am long past the point of being upset about this, but it’s still something I feel is worth talking about.
Percy and Annabeth had their story. They had five books of that story in fact. Their arcs were pretty much completed by that point. Sure, there was room to expand the scraps that were left untouched, and I definitely think they should do that, but to do that there was no need for them to be parts of the seven.
I am aware that this would completely change the narrative of the story, but they can still be parts of the Argo crew
Now, when I say that, I mean that they'd function in a similar way that Nico and Reyna did in the original books
Reyna is a new character and Nico is one that’s far from having been developed to his fullest. Making them parts of the seven would give them more time to shine. Especially Reyna. The dynamics of the characters on this shp would need to shift and change from the beginning!
Like- Think of how this would effect the politics of Camp Jupiter? The fall into Tartarus? The blood of Olympus!?
And honestly I’d love for Percy and Annabeth to be tagging along to the quest, just not as part of the seven.
But of course, the people wanted Percy and Annabeth, and Percy and Annabeth was given too the people. They were even thrown into Tartarus for the people.
Judging from the reaction people had to Jason in The Lost Hero, the reason why Percy and Annabeth were a part of the seven is, of course, very clear, but that doesn’t mean I think a more interesting story could have been told if it had been Reyna and Nico.
161 notes
·
View notes
i'm starting to notice vol.3 has a very interesting theme of blue here, between the cover, draco wearing lucius's ice blue robes to the ministry (son & heir indeed), andromeda + tonks telling draco he looks terrible in ice blue (oh hello extended metaphor), draco wearing DARK blue to hogsmeade, draco FEELING blue over not being able to protect hermione/ron and hermione being close/theo's general situation. hopefully if it's not too spoiler-y, would you want to speak to the rationale behind this?
Totally! Fashion is one of my hobbies, it is one of the (many) indulgent pleasures of writing Lionheart to get to dress up my blorbos in fun little outfits, and part of that is doing Motifs with color and silhouette. E.g. Hermione's core colors are pink and gold, with a frequent accent of red; whenever Draco notices her wearing something, it's usually in one of those colors. I wanted to uncouple the normal association of pink, a feminine color, with unseriousness or frippery or silliness; like nah, Hermione is serious as fuck and the smartest character in the core cast, and she's also (1) a girl who (2) likes pink. If you wanted to read into that, you could say it's the color of a flush, which is literally blood rising. It's passion and affection and love — and it's also just a nice color for a coat to be I can't believe you asked a question about Draco specifically and I immediately wrote a hundred words about Hermione okay BACK ON TOPIC:
I feel like you kind of did all the heavy lifting for me in the question — blue is a color tied in several places to Draco's patrilineal heritage, and Draco's been wearing it a lot, not coincidentally, as his relationship with his mother strains. He's also been referring to himself more pointedly as a "Malfoy"; he tries to evoke Lucius's image and model his behavior at the Ministry; he introduces himself to the first years by his last name; he boasts about his family fortune, a.k.a. Lucius's money, to Hermione in Hogsmeade; and one of his first thoughts when Hermione's hurt is about how a "Malfoy" should be able to stop this. His mother — who comes from a more powerful wizarding family, incidentally — doesn't even register to him as a part of his pedigree/identity. So he's doing all these things that subconsciously link himself to his father even as he's increasingly vocal about rejecting his father's legacy. Curious, that.
Unfortunately, you can't be Malfoy unless you're Lucius's son. And I'm not surprised Andromeda doesn't think the color suits him.
24 notes
·
View notes