okay: i’ve done the toe scene from several thematic angles already, but i think a more granular text read is worth doing, because there are some very understandable misinterpretations of this scene floating about that rely on personal feelings and real world standards vs what the text gives us.
now, to be clear about something that feels... sort of obvious, but i will say anyway: when viewed in real life terms, the toe scene is very different. it’s bad to sneak up on people and cut off their toe in the night and make them eat said toe.
like, super really bad. for many reasons. we should not do such things, i do not endorse them. that’s legally and morally wrong and also, gross. yucky disgusting, in point of fact.
but you have to meet fiction where it’s at to analyze it from a ‘what’s the text trying to convey, what’s going on in-world’ level.
and in ofmd’s world, stede wasn’t super phased about ed’s face/off plan, lucius whacked jim in the head with a big branch trying to run away and then didn’t really bat an eyelash at jim stuffing him in a box and planning to murder him, etc. this is a world of outsized comical things happening, some of them violent. it’s like gonzo getting stretched on the rack in muppet treasure island— if we take that as the real world equivalent and go ‘gonzo is secretly traumatized, even if he’s grinning and yelling POOOOODLEY POODLEY POODLEY!!!’, it’s missing the specific rules the story is playing by.
we have to hold the standards of the text in place when it’s not the ‘i know this isn’t canon’s take, but this is how i want to play with the paper dolls anyway as is my right’ headcanon lane. which is not to devalue said lane— love me some of that lane, but it is a different lane.
now, all that said: within canon, we are not meant to be like ‘yay ed! good job! this is a thing we should root for and a good choice! do it more, this is actually good for anybody involved!’ it’s a choice ed makes in full possession of his faculties, and it is a bad one.
however: the toe scene doesn’t come out of nowhere, and the text does not set it up as a method of real punishment or act of singular brutality.
in e9, ed says he’s tired of “making some poor bloke eat his own toes as a laugh.” and drinking all day. and biting the heads off turtles. you know! just normal stuff. (he also says he wants to be just edward, which implies those activities are not what he considers just being himself which is sort of beside the point here, but a very deft piece of writing that i love and wanted to shout out.)
this show is very, very careful with wording in important moments, even while they allowed for an amazing amount of very cool improv to breathe in between those moments. arguing for a lack of intentionality in random areas seems to be a little bit of an odd stance— we all seem to agree they were very careful and thoughtful in general.
so ed tells us there: cutting off multiple toes and making somebody eat them was something that happened enough he brought it up alongside something as commonplace as drinking all day/turtle head mastication, and it was considered ‘a laugh’.
now, i’m with stede (and the overall narrative) when i say where’s the laugh in that? once again: i do not endorse the cutting off of toes. only you can prevent weird toe crimes, by not fucking doing them.
but e9 contextualizes this within the world of ofmd for us. when ed was hiding in plain sight under the mantle and then the legend of blackbeard, he cut off toes for a laugh. it seems like he never actually liked it that much via ‘poor bloke’, but either way the text has told us: blackbeard cut off toes and made people eat them, casual-like and often enough it’s mentioned in the same breath as going on a bender. the text reaffirms this in specific through ed in e9 and in general in e8 through jack.
so, that leads me to izzy. who has lived with and served under blackbeard for years, and who tells us he was initially attracted to that legend when he mentions becoming ed’s first mate in e4.
izzy says he was “honored to work for the legendary blackbeard. the most brilliant sailor i had ever met.”
again, the wording is precise: izzy just told us he first met blackbeard. the legendary blackbeard, to be exact, and the most brilliant sailor izzy had ever met.
so when they met ed was already a brilliant sailor. a legend with a name already made and established, one izzy was attracted to and wanted to work for.
izzy is not so hot at defining his subjective emotional realities or those of the people around him (or... noticing them happening at all) but we see no evidence he is incapable of recalling general timeline of empirical events— in fact, he accurately assesses the passage of literal time as a plot point but misreads the emotional room over and over as well in the same function, so the show is careful with this as they are careful with just about everything.
so izzy wanted to work for a legend. the text tells us so, and i want to be understanding about missing that subtlety in wording and wanting to create a backstory where ed and izzy built blackbeard together. in a vacuum, there’s nothing wrong with that! however, we don't live in a vacuum, we live in a society (tm), and giving izzy credit for ed’s past and his history and efforts unfortunately ends up unconsciously echoing some of the very same patterns the show is deconstructing by purposefully having izzy do that very thing.
because why would we think ed needed izzy to build blackbeard? on this show, of all shows, why would the text be implicitly arguing that ed needed a white man to help create his legend? that he was not smart and careful and talented enough to become the legendary blackbeard on his own, without izzy to guide his steps and keep him safe?
to be honest, on a less careful show, one that emulates old patterns instead of examining and then breaking them, aka ...most shows? i think that would be the story.
ofmd is much more self-aware, as far as i can tell. izzy tells us he wanted to work for a legend and a brilliant sailor; why would we not just believe the characters when they say ed became all that on his own, and izzy was drawn to the legend because ed is just that skilled despite any given limitation the world/his own mind or body puts on him?
that’s not a question i’m asking facetiously. there’s a reason ancient aliens-type shows and theories exist and those kind of people are very rarely like ‘i bet these ancient white people had no fucking idea what they were doing and needed aliens to teach them how to build their massive and technologically advanced civilizations’. sometimes they do argue that! i don't want to argue in bad faith, myself. it does happen on occasion that the accidental condescension gets spread around— but if you look at the bigger picture, there’s a clear pattern in which groups people find it hard to believe did anything impressive all on their own.
and again: i get missing the subtlety here, just like i get missing that fang’s izzy spewing out both ends anecdote is a set-up for a montezuma’s revenge/overall izzy is a metaphor colonizer stuff. i actually missed the montezuma joke myself on first watch, so i’m not out to scold anybody or to be like ‘fuck you for not knowing any of this already’; i’m just trying to point out the fly in the ointment, and hope people think deeper about this stuff before firing off a take that echoes these patterns on accident.
okay, all that said: back to the text and the toe itself.
it's very understandable to process the toe scene as a punishment. ed says threaten me again and more toes WILL BE TAKEN as he does it, which when removed from the larger context of eating toes tuesday being a regular thing in ed and thus also izzy’s old life, seems much more intense.
not to mention that’s how any normal human would react to what the fuck happens there. i myself would be HORRIFIED, once again i do not endorse non-consensual toe cannibalism and have no comment on any consensual versions other than ‘yeah, i read that hannibal fic too, and it was weird then hate to kink shame but i do not wish to have my toe cut off so i may consume it. please stop asking me about toe cannibalism as anything but thematic meat. this is a strange place to find myself in.’
but izzy is not us, the audience. izzy is a daddy moaning little nightmare. he wants to touch fire: he is the least healthy masochist on gay god’s green earth and the deep blue sea. he is weeeeeird about this shit and has never even heard of the acronym ss&c, let alone rack.
he is the sort of man who is like ED. BE A TOE CUTTING LEATHER DADDY. THAT IS WHAT IS COOL AND FUN FOR ALL OF US, NOBODY LOSES HERE. LOL EXCEPT ME! I LOSE A TOE, AND I MAKE IT EVEN WEIRDER WHEN I REFUSE TO BE ANYTHING BUT THRILLED ABOUT IT.
within the world ofmd created, they made sure to set up that Ye Olde Blackbearde cut off toes for a laugh. and one episode after they carefully gave us that precedent, izzy thrust a monstrous caricature of ed in his face and said: this is blackbeard. by no logical leap could izzy possibly be ignorant of the forced toe-eating, regularly done as just a fun little game to play at sea, just like drinking all day, or biting the heads off turtles. not if he’s known ed for years and was attracted to the legend of a man who did shit like that.
so izzy is saying to ed: be this guy again. the narrative made sure we know part of that is being the guy who casually cuts off toes for a laugh.
so when izzy smiles that big ridden hard and put away wet smile and proclaims hey la, hey la my boyfriend’s back? he's being sincere. he wanted ed to be the guy who cuts off toes like it’s not a thing again, and edward did that for him. he’s been reassured that the old blackbeard is himself again, and that’s why he says so.
(and that’s why canon set it up so that we would know: this toe thing is an old, established bit, which was not done as anything but a fun little prank.)
now, if anybody wants to write fic in the real world logic applies au, i will not poop upon that party. that’s not my issue, in part because i also think there’s utility to saying yeah but counterpoint, canon: i do what i want.
my angle is that if we talk textual analysis and actual canon, we have to meet stories and characters on their level and look at the world from their perspective.
ed and izzy (and jack, which is a lot of his narrative utility in e8 beyond just throwing a wrench in the works and setting up the arc with the navy and thus endgame, fuuuuuck me running these writers are just ridiculously good) both reaffirm this, in their separate ways.
textually, the person who most hates the toe scene is ed. izzy said be the guy cut toes off again; ed said he doesn’t want to do that. that’s the text itself, no extrapolation.
now, having said all that: i hope and assume izzy will come to realize this shit is very weird and bad behavior, knock it off and then course correct.
to own my personal bias, my activist fantasy is not that men like izzy— or my personal izzys, for values of people who actively hurt me in specific— suffer or that they feel exactly what they made me feel. my fantasy is they wake up one morning, look at me, and go well fuck. i’ve been kinda shitting the bed here, huh? i’m gonna fight for my natural allies now, not against them. solidarity!!!! then i am validated, they can become happier people, and there’s one more of Us and one less of Them. the better world i’m fighting for ultimately wins, in that fantasy.
i’m not saying that’s where anyone else has to be, to be clear; it’s just where i’m at.
so when i try to read the tea leaves on the potential of that being what happens with izzy, i could 100000000% be reading in what i would like to see and not what is there. that’s always a thing that could happen, on any given prediction, and to say otherwise would be silly.
however: when it comes to the toe and its precedent and context, that’s not attempting to suss out future movement. that’s reading the text with my own biases acknowledged and set to the side as much as possible, and trying to see what the characters of this world, with this world’s rules feel about what happened vs what i would feel, in my world with my rules.
because, i must reiterate to close: oh GOD, i do not endorse the nonconsensual cutting off of toes. just don’t do it.
tldr: it’s important to recognize the tropes we might be reinforcing on accident, and though the toe scene is horrifying real world terms in terms of how izzy the character in the text’s world processes it, the toe is ed coming through for him and being the blackbeard of the old days— who we were purposefully told used to regularly cut off toes and feed them to people as a laugh.
...and just. because i think i might have to, just one final time for good measure: please don’t cut off people’s toes. nothing in this piece is an endorsement of doing that in our real world. it's bad.
130 notes
·
View notes
Why are you posting Carlando and even Piarlos content if you don't like Carlos? Math ain't mathing...
well, firstly, anon, this is tumblr dot com, not maths class. i've said repeatedly, and i will say it again, that i reserve the right to be as hypocritical and insane as i want here. after all, it's tumblr - if i can't be insane and hypocritical here, then where can i?
example: anyone who watches my blog at all during a race week will know that i am NO max fan. not in the slightest. and yet i will occasionally reblog maxiel fic recs. why? well, because they're quite often quite well-written. at the end of the day, i'm a fangirl and also a bisexual disaster, so if there's a well-written gay fanfic, the chances are relatively high that i will read and enjoy it. also: i think there's quite a significant difference between fic!max (who i occasionally enjoy) and driver!max (who i despise quite passionately.) fic!max has a lot of background and nuance that can make for fascinating characterisation, and as a writer, i just enjoy that.
now for carlos specifically: please let it be known that i do not hate him the way i hate max. not even close. i am, however, a dedicated chirlie (charles girlie) and anyone who gets in the way of charles doing well is automatically in my bad books. i do try to be at least a little reasonable about it, though, and yes i absolutely do realise that a lot of major fuck-ups this season were ferrari's, not carlos' (see: silverstone 2022.) but yeah, unfortunately the way carlos has handled a lot of interviews this year really rubbed me up the wrong way, and i read one too many comparisons of carlos girlies calling him more talented than charles as well. which.... babe, no.
like i said at the start, i am fully aware that i'm a hypocrite lmao. but i'm not HERE to be unbiased. we are watching a sport - everyone is biased towards their favourites, and i'm not going to apologise for that.
and as for carlando and piarlos - i treat them the same way as i would maxiel. carlos might not be on my favourites list as a driver, but he's an interesting character to explore in fic. i am at the end of the day a writer, and i like interesting characters to explore, so yes, i am quite happy to post carlando or piarlos or very very occasionally even charlos content (because akira is the best and might convert me one day. we'll see.)
anyway! the last thing i wanted to say to you, anon, is just a gentle reminder again of the PURPOSE of fandom. it is an escape from real life, somewhere where we can come to have fun. the same rules and restrictions and - dare i say it - morals that we use irl do not apply here. they just don't! fandom should be about what makes one happy, and nobody really has the right to police that, i don't think.
so tl;dr - anon, i am here to do whatever it is that makes me happy in that moment. if that's carlando and/or piarlos, then that's what i'll do. if you have a problem with that, then i'm happy to point you in the direction of the Unfollow button, lmao - curate your experience! see what you want to see. have fun!
x
10 notes
·
View notes
Stop misappropriating the abuse and trauma cults use through purity culture for your stupid fucking shipping discourse? Holy fuck no wonder everyone hates this whole discourse.
Since when is "priests getting shuffled around after raping kids and kids being told they're sinful because they had bodily reactions to being SAd" comparable to "Bobo the clown said my ship was cringe"
I'm not gonna answer this with The Aristocrats, as a I threatened, because I want to make a very serious point to this anon:
Purity culture isn't just religious abuse. It is most widely connected to religious abuse. Including actions in the Catholic Church and all fundamentalist Christianity. It's entire existence is about terrifying and indoctrinating people into being fearful of their own actions and bodies so that they feel certain that moving out from the "umbrella of safety" (to use a fundamentalist term) will result in them being harmed in ways they can't imagine. This is generally happening at the same time as they are being harmed by those who are supposed to be keeping them safe from all those terrible, worldly evils. Like speaking up when you're being abused. Believing you are not responsible for the actions of a rapist, and many, many other things that any person with an ounce of self-worth and good sense (two things not allowed in fundamentalist circles) knows are true in abuse situations.
But the point of the purity culture as identity in the above-mentioned circles is to teach people from birth that they aren't to have their own feelings, ideas, or instincts. They are only to follow the feelings, ideas, and instincts on the approved list in order to stay within the structures they know and feel safe in even as they feel very unsafe.
That being said:
Purity culture can also exist WITHOUT a religious structure while still being about controlling the thoughts, feelings, and actions of everyone within it. In terms of fandom, purity culture is groups of people stating that if you write something uncomfortable or gross or immoral, then YOU must be uncomfortable or gross or immoral and therefore, not worthy of the safety and moral superiority of the group.
Purity culture without religion teaches black and white thinking, encourages thought policing, and shames anyone who steps outside of a very narrow definition of good and bad by turning an entire group of people against them for being "bad".
Just like in religious circles.
Just like in the cult of fundamentalism.
Purity culture is a term taken by fundamentalists and turned into a whole way of life because the goal of fundamentalism is to make people too scared to leave. Purity culture in fandom does the same thing. It uses fear and threats of abandonment/harassment to control the way people act because a group of people decided they didn't like something, so they must try and wipe it out rather than simply ignore it.
I am not mis-using the term because "Bobo the clown said my ship was cringe." My use of the term is intentional and precise because what is happening in fandom spaces now is non-religious purity culture cult thinking. My use of the term does not invalidate or water down the use of it in conversations about religious abuse and trauma. With or without religion, purity culture is a dangerous cult of "us vs them" that is built to demoralize and eradicate those deemed unworthy.
1K notes
·
View notes