#is an actual plausible theory that could be true and has tons of evidence? when it really doesnt ?? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cayenne-twilight · 3 years

Text

Professor Layton Iceberg Explanation

As I said in the tags of the original, the iceberg I made was a meme consisting of both real theories and satire/parodies/fandom memes. If anyone is interested, I can work on an unironic version that only has real theories.

Buckle in because this post is LONG and heavily saturated with lore and information.

Actual theories

Parallel universe 1960s where the world wars didn’t happen. There’s an unused file in Curious Village that shows the year as 1960 and the time machine from UF is set to 1973, ten years into the future. The series canonically takes place in an undefined time period (hence the technological inaccuracies and fantasy elements), but it’s based off the 60s. There’s more evidence but we don’t have time to go over every little thing. I linked my “no wars” theory below but TL;DR the outdated airplanes and underdeveloped medicine in the Layton series imply that the world wars may never have happened. https://cayenne-twilight.tumblr.com/post/632205992162099200/outofcontextdiscord-timegearremix-zonosils-war

The real meaning behind the statue in Future London. In UF, the purpose of the statue is to spark Layton and Luke’s conversation about their friendship. Luke is stressing out about moving overseas and sees himself and the professor in the story behind the statue, but in the bigger picture, Clive must have been the one to commission it. Some theorize that the little boy is Clive and the man is either his father or the professor. One idea I’ve seen is that Clive wishes he could be Luke for real, while another is that he wishes he died ten years ago, and another is that he’s literally terminally ill explaining why he doesn’t care about consequence. Personally, I think “the boy succumbed to his illness” refers to his mental illness seeing as he wanted the professor to save him from his madness as he saved him all those years ago.

True location of Monte D’Or. there are no deserts on the British isles to my knowledge, so it makes the most sense for Monte D’Or to be in Southwest USA where English is the default language, they have a desert, and there exists a city famous for flashy hotels, casinos, and entertainment. What makes it odd is that nobody ever mentions overseas travel, and all the major characters are from England.

Loosha’s origins are not explicitly explained if I remember correctly, but the implication was that her prehistoric (supposedly) species was sealed away along with the garden, allowing them to survive all the way to the time of LS until Loosha was the only one left. The garden provided a good habitat and protection from predators, and it’s logical that they’d slowly die out anyways, but there’s no explanation of any specific factors that led to Loosha being the last.

Beasley is not a bee I wrote a post about this one as well, but TL;DR Beasly lacks several defining bee traits whilst having several human ones. He is not human, yet, by definition, not a bee. It’s possible that he is the result of Dimitri’s testing, but whatever his untold story is, he remains an enigma of nature. https://cayenne-twilight.tumblr.com/post/632381715250282496/theory-beasly-isnt-a-bee

Subject 2’s identity is currently unknown. There is a subject one (parrot) and subject 3 (rabbit) so there has to be a second. For a long time, people suspected Beasly to be him seeing as he’s a bit of an amalgamation and definitely not a regular bee (see above). After the release of LMJ, though, people began to suspect Sherl, the intelligent hound who could speak to certain people but not others. That being said, it’s possible for one to be subject 4. Sherl’s memory of a bright flash matches up with subject 3’s memory of being electrocuted. They never explain why the animals were being experimented on, but it was probably Dimitri making sure the conditions of his machine were safe for humans before reliving the incident from ten years ago.

Lady Violet died from the plague from DB. There’s no evidence for this or anything, it’s just an idea. People say she died from the flu but I don’t remember them saying that in the game, at least the US version. Extending off my “no war” theory: it’s theorized that the Spanish Flu was spread by the travlelling soldiers, so if that’s true, it’s possible for the epidemic to have been averted for some decades. Maybe the Spanish Flu reached England later than in real life. The hole in this is that DB’s plague must’ve been close in time to 1918 while Violet’s death was much later, so it would’ve had to stick around.

Bill Hawks is working with Targent and Arthur Cantabella. There was a force in the shadows buying the time machine technology from Bill. Someone with a ton of money who helped him cover up a freak accident and get away with it completely, a feat that involved shady means like violence by hired thugs. Some theorize that it was Targent, seeking power over time in exchange for a little mafia magic. The Labarynthia project was sponsored by the UK government, so as the PM, Bill must’ve known about it. He probably supported dubiously ethical, high stakes (witch pun) psychological experiments like Cantabella’s and helped him stay in the shadows.

All the NPCs in St. Mystere and Folsense are dead. I make fun of this type of theory later, but they’re admittedly captivating. I’m pretty sure the canon in CV is that the villagers are Bruno and Augustus’s OCs that they made robots of and built a town around, but it’s more interesting to think that the village was there before, and the townspeople died of a plague and were replaced like Lady Violet. In Folsense, there really was a plague and they never explain the NPCs there. They’re either real people who appear way younger than they are due to hallucinations (even the ones who already look old ?), or they don’t exist at all, which is pretty spooky. This part of the story is a gaping plot hole. In a similar vein to CV, the edgy yet plausible theory is that they used to live in Folsense but died of the plague and now live on as hallucinations.

Hershel seeing everything as a puzzle is a coping mechanism for all his trauma. This was a joke but I thought about it for more than five seconds and it makes way too much sense.

Plot holes and unexplained questions that we like to overthink because it’s fun

The downfall of the Azran was vaguely explained in canon by people being so greedy that it lead to the civilization collapsing. It’s not a stretch to imagine that happening, but it would’ve been more interesting with a little more detail.

Layton and Luke are programmed to routinely forget how to walk. I didn’t know whether to list this in the joke section or not, but it’s odd that the characters actively participate in the walking tutorial (as opposed to showing a little memo to the player) as if they didn’t know how to before, especially when they go through this several times a year.

The truth behind Pavel. He’s simply a joke character who teleports, is a polyglot (sort of, at least he wants us to think he is) and is mega confused all the time. He’s a fun character to make crack theories about because of his cryptic nature that even he doesn’t seem to understand.

Miracle Mask deleted scenes. The first trailer for MM featured animations that were not in the final game. One was the Randall falling scene, except in a slightly different style than the one we know. Others were completely foreign, like Layton and Luke pacing across a theatre stage as if Layton’s about to expose someone with a dramatic point. Cut content and “could’ve beens” are always curious to think about.

Evan Barde: secret mastermind. Arianna and Tony’s dad is a mysterious character who died under mysterious circumstances. I think the canon is that his death was a genuine accident, but concept art of him making a creepy evil face suggests that maybe he originally had a larger role in the first drafts of LS than the finished game.

The secret to how Paul and Des pull off their disguises is unclear and will remain unclear. There is no plausible explanation for their shape shifting. Unless Paul is just a little dude wearing a human suit like that one Wizard of Oz species and Des is the best quick-changer ever and hides his naturally feminine legs under his cloak.

Alfendi’s mom. When LBMR came out people scrambled to piece together who Hershel had a kid with, but there’s no way alfendi is his biological son. This happened with Kat as well and her biological parents turned out to be brand new characters, so I’m sure Al will get an adoption backstory if his arc continues, be his parents old major characters or nameless, faceless NPCs.

Granny Riddleton and Stachenscarfen are omnipotent deities. Idk which section this fits best under, but these two characters have some serious power. At first introduction, they’re implied to be robots, but they appear everywhere in later games. They follow the Professor wherever he goes and assist him on his adventures, GR collecting puzzles and housing them by some odd magic, and Stachen teaches you how to walk. They both introduce and supervise the gameplay. By extension, I guess this idea could apply to Albus as well in the prequels. GR and Stachen even had the power to appear in LMJ, something no major character could do. I consider them akin to the velvet room attendants from the Persona games.

Clive’s kill count is a vague subject in the game for the sake of keeping it PG. I don’t know if anyone’s ever mathematically estimated the damage he caused, and I sure don’t want to try, but the game appears to push the idea that he didn’t kill anyone at all, saying they stopped him in the nick of time and things like that, even though we watch him raze the city. If they ever want to bring him back post-time skip, I can see them twisting it so that the mobile fortress cutscene wasn’t a linear sequence of events, but instead a compilation of scenes over the course of hours so that London neighborhoods around him could be evacuated and have it make sense. Knowing Level-5, it’s more likely that they wouldn’t think this deep and do something more lazy, though.

Memes and references

Post-time skip Flora is real references the famous L is real theory from Super Mario 64. Like Luigi in SM64, Flora was also a highly anticipated character who didn’t appear in a new game, in this case LMJ or LMDA. In the end, Luigi did become real in the DS port so hopefully Flora is real will be realized as well.

Hershel can’t read is a veteran fandom meme referring to how in the first few games, especially Curious Village, Layton asks Luke to read every document out loud for him. Perhaps this was an exercise to improve Luke’s reading skills and independent thinking, or perhaps he was just too lazy or preoccupied to do it himself, but this grew into the joke that our genius Professor was actually illiterate this whole time.

Layton’s smash invitation is hidden in PLvsAA. It’s no secret that the fandom would kill a man to get the Professor into the smash brothers franchise. In PLvsAA one of the puzzle artworks features a goat eating a familiar white envelope with a red stamp, sparking the joke that either Layton or Wright got the invitation their respective fans desired, but it got lost along the way.

The science board is the mysteriously vague organization Don Paolo got kicked out of for the crime of being evil. It’s the epitome of liberal arts majors and art school graduates trying to bs their way around not knowing any science and failing miserably. “He was very good at all the sciences, but then the CEO of science told him to stop because he was using the power of science for evil science”. They do this again when “Dr. Stahngun” describes his time machine what with the soolha coils and whatnot.

Hoogland is death cult initiation is a parody of “Mario 64 is Freemason initiation” which is ridiculous, just like the creepy human sacrifice subplot of AL.

You can see the reflection of someone watching you in Aurora’s eye references the famous, creepy Talking Angela theory. In retrospect it would’ve been funnier if I said Angela instead of Aurora.

Every copy of Professor Layton is personalized references the famous “every copy of Super Mario 64 is personalized”

Clive’s fat ass in HD is a meme that originated from the announcement of UFHD, saying that half of the excited fans wanted to cry again while the other half were simply attracted to Clive. If we want to enter real bottom-section-of-the-iceberg-chart territory then let’s say Clive’s character has some sort of psychological siren properties that draw people to him like a magnet and/or Harry Styles.

Things I pulled out of my ass for shits and giggles

Infinite hint coin hack: I’m sure a tech savvy cheater could hack the game for infinite hint coins, but there’s no easy or interesting way. I don’t know why someone would do that though, considering a lot of the hints suck and there are puzzle guides on the internet.

Cringy, unused Randall villain monologue. This joke is derived from the actual scrapped MM content as well as deleted content being a popular element of iceberg charts, but it’s sadly not real. Would’ve been hilarious, though.

Last Specter Puzzle 031: Light Height tracks and records children’s intelligence level. It doesn’t, but it’s always fun to make fun of arguably THE most ridiculously difficult puzzle in the franchise. (Seriously, do they expect 7+ year olds to know trigonometry???)

Hershel struggles with tea addiction. Hershel from the games drinks tea in moderation, but the manga begs to differ. He has a tea set in the Laytonmobile, and an attempt at teatime while driving causes him to crash.

Folsense is a metaphor for Alzheimer’s. This is inspired by those edgy kids’ show theories where everyone’s in hell or something, but nobody has ever said this.

London Life is reality and the plot of the games is all in Luke’s head. That’s one way to fill every plot hole. How funny would it be if Luke made up crazy characters and stories based off his fellow townspeople Sharkboy and Lavagirl style. “This dude who lives in a castle and asks people to give him all their money for nothing in return is a vampire from 50 years ago involved in a tragic love story”.

Secret ending encoded into Tago’s Head Gymnastics. It’d be crazy if there was, and Dimitri would hound Tago for the secret to time travel. If you didn’t know, the Layton games started as an adaption of Akira Tago’s puzzle series, except they decided to add a story to make it more interesting and marketable.

Daily puzzles datamine your DS. I’m bad with technology but is it even possible to datamine a DS??? Idk, but I think my DS lite from 2008 is safe.

390 notes · View notes

aspoonofsugar · 4 years

Note

I hope it's okay to ask, what do you think about the theory of Zhang, Luzurus and Tserriednich being illegitimate children? Do you think is a red herring or something plausible?

Hello anon!

Tbh I have never heard of this theory before now, so I don’t really have many thoughts on it. I guess that when it comes to Zhang Lei, all comes down to it:

Here, he might be referring to Onior as his father either because he considers him his father and has a special relationship with him or because Onior is in fact Zhang Lei’s biological father.

In short, I can see why this theory might have been born in reguards to Zhang Lei, but I don’t understand why it should reguard Lazarus and Tserriednich as well. Is it because they have, like Zhang Lei, ties with the other two mafia families? It could be possible that both Onior and Brocco Li have had illegitimate children with two queens and that they have tried to take care of their kids by having them become close to their respective mafia families. Assuming that is the case, though, I think we should make some considerations.

1) I wonder if Nasubi knows about this. After all, he, as a King, can have multiple kids with multiple wives and even with lovers. However, I doubt queens are given the same degree of freedom and, even if they were, their half-children should not have any right to the throne. After all, Morena is Nasubi’s own daughter and yet she has no right because she was not born from one of Nasubi’s wives. However, it is also possible that Nasubi might be willing to close an eye both to avoid scandals and because it might be an unwritten rule of Kakin, as the second consideration will try to explore.

2) Onior and Brocco Li have utilitaristic reasons to support the princes tied with their mafia families. This is true both if Zhang Lei and Lazarus are their biological children and if they are not. That said, if they are, I can see their births having to do more with interest than with love. Brocco Li and Onior could have had a biological son among the princes, so that he would have represented the interests of their respective families. This would be an interesting twists because it would show how the rule according to which “second rate” children have to stay uninvolved in politics is clearly a farce.

In short, if the theory is true, it could be used to highlight the hypocrisy of the Royal Family and how intertwined with the underworld it actually is. It is precisely against this hypocrisy that Morena is rebelling. As a matter of fact she has the same blood of her half-siblings, but, simply because her mother was not a queen (and we have seen how queens can be of modest origins, like Oito), she is considered second rated. If Lazarus and Zhang Lei are indeed illegitimate children (and even more illegitimate than her, in a sense), but are still treated as princes and tolerated, then I can see it exasperating Morena’s hatred.

Speaking of her, Morena and Tserriednich seem to break the pattern. As a matter of fact, Morena is Tserriednich’s half-sister and not his mother. I personally think that Tserriednich being associated to the Heil-Ly family has to do with both him and Morena being foils of Kurapika and Chrollo, as I have written here:

Morena is set-up to be a foil to both Chrollo and Kurapika.

She and Chrollo are both outcasts and both are leading a group. However, their powers are somehow opposite. As a matter of fact Chrollo steals others’ powers and has stolen even the ones of his comrades in order to fight Hisoka. Morena’s power on the other hand lets her comrades gain new abilities the more they kill.

What is more, both her and Chrollo have religious imagery associated with them since Chrollo is associated to both Jesus and the devil and Morena is wearing a crown made of thorns exactly like the one Jesus wore. Moreover they both encourage their respective groups to create chaos. And they both don’t really care about their own lives.

Kurapika and Morena are foils in the sense that they are both doing the same thing, but in completely different ways.

If we consider what is happening in the first tier and in the lower ones we can notice how Morena and Kurapika are being the most active players right now and how, in a sense, what they are doing is similar. As a matter of fact they are both trying to make normal people develop nen abilities, but they go at it in opposite ways.

Kurapika is trying to do so in a pacific way. He is using Bill’s power, which isn’t particularly dangerous, so that people can easily awake without hurting themselves or others. Kurapika’s objective in doing so is trying to preserve the status quo, so that the princes can survive until the boat reaches its destination.

Whereas Morena is trying to have people develop hatsu abilities through violence which specifically targets the status quo and the society Morena herself was born in. Let’s also underline how the members of her group are considered civilians and not mafia members.

Now, the way nen is used by these two characters is interesting to me. As a matter of fact nen has been introduced since the beginning as something which must be kept secret and which only few people know about. However, both Kurapika and Morena are trying to increase the number of individuals who can use this incredibly strong and dangerous power. Actually, Kurapika is doing so even if it goes against the rules of the hunter organization.

And here:

At the same time Tserriednich’s power reminds me a little of Emperor Time. As a matter of fact both powers are connected to time and to seconds passing specifically.

For now I don’t see many similarities other than a generic connection to time, but from this we can already see how the two characters have a completely different concept of the value of their respective times.

Kurapika doesn’t care at all and is ready to throw it away in exchange of a power which can help him to reach his objective.

Tserriednich on the other hand is incredibly self-entitled and his power basically lets him gain ten seconds for free.

I think this difference mirrors Kurapika and Tserriednich’s opposite and extreme mentalities. Kurapika doesn’t care about his life and ends up putting himself in danger for others, while Tserriednich cares too much about his own persona and can’t see others (for example he never suspected Theta could be planning to kill him and is genuinely surprised when he sees it happening).

This difference is also shown in the current chapters where Tserriednich is concentrated on his own training and doesn’t care much about others, while Kurapika is trying to give the greatest number of people possible the chance to use nen and he is ready to use ET in order to do so. This despite the fact that, as Bill points out, there are no guarantees that the people Kurapika helped will help him in return.

However, since they are both set up to be foils of two major characters, they will probably foil each other as well. If that is the case, Tserriednich being an illegitimate child could come back to bite him in the ass, especially because of the high opinion he has of himself.

Finally, if this theory is true, it might be interesting if it played some role in breaking the rules of the succession war. After all, it has been stated by Kurapika that the war is happening because of a system of vows and conditions. This is why Kurapika thinks that if even one person is able to forfeit, the whole system will crumble on itself. As for now, we have seen two attempts to give up on the war, but they both failed. On one hand Halkenburg tried to rationally not take part in the war, but uncounsciously he wanted to fight to change his country. On the other hand Kachou and Fugetsu tried to run away, but failed. In the end, it is possible we will have a successful attempt. Who knows? Maybe having some illegitimate children taking part in the war will help breaking the system.

In conclusion, I do not know if this theory is true. So far, the most convincing evidence is Zhang Lei’s conversation with Onior, but it could be explained in another way. That said, it could be an interesting way to use the mafia family motif in relation to the three princes. This is why, in my answer, I mostly rambled about some interesting implications of this theory and how it could influence characters and themes. Basically, I am neutral to it so far. It might be true, but there is not a ton of evidence.

Thank you for the ask!

#hxh #hxh meta #succession war arc #dark continent arc #asksfullofsugar #anonymous #hxh theory

23 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 5 years

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Last Thursday, the 2020 Democratic candidates covered a wide range of topics during the three-hour debate, including health care, race and criminal justice, immigration, gun control and climate change.

But what issues do voters care most about? In our FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll, conducted using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, we surveyed the same set of respondents both before and after the debate to find out what issue was most important in determining their vote in the primary. And what we learned was Democrats are most concerned about defeating President Trump — nearly 40 percent of respondents said this was their top issue. For reference, the next-most-common top issue — health care — was picked by just 10 percent voters before the debate and 11 percent after.

So what issues should the candidates be talking more about? Less about? And if Democrats care more about winning this year, what’s the best way to talk about beating Trump?

A lot of Democrats really want to beat Trump

Share of respondents to the FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll who said that each issue is the most important to them, before and after the debate

Share for whom issue is most important issue Pre-debate Post-debate Ability to beat Donald Trump 39.6%

–

39.6%

–

Health care 9.9

–

11.0

–

The economy 8.0

–

8.7

–

Wealth and income inequality 7.9

–

8.4

–

Climate change 7.4

–

6.5

–

Gun policy 4.2

–

4.8

–

Immigration 3.3

–

3.7

–

Something else 3.3

–

3.5

–

Social Security 3.4

–

3.2

–

Education 2.5

–

2.4

–

Racism 3.0

–

2.4

–

The makeup of the Supreme Court 1.7

–

1.7

–

Taxes 1.3

–

1.3

–

Jobs 1.9

–

1.1

–

Foreign affairs 1.3

–

0.7

–

Crime 0.7

–

0.4

–

The military 0.3

–

0.4

–

Sexism 0.1

–

0.2

–

From a survey of 4,320 likely Democratic primary voters who were surveyed between Sept. 5 and Sept. 11. The same people were surveyed again from Sept. 12 to Sept. 16; 3,473 responded to the second wave.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): Well, to state the obvious, the candidates should be talking about their ability to beat Trump.

It’s important to a ton of Democratic voters.

And the more it goes untalked-about, the more other candidates are ceding that ground to Joe Biden, IMO.

Electability is a very fuzzy concept without a ton of data behind it, so pretty much any candidate can make a plausible argument for their “electability.”

sarahf: What are some ways candidates can do that, though?

I know Biden has leaned into his performance in head-to-head polls against Trump, but as we know … general election polls don’t really tell us that much about the strength of candidates in the primary.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I mean, it’s a little tricky. If you talk too much about electability, you raise the salience of the issue, which might work to Biden’s benefit.

ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): On the other hand, the fact that electability is a fuzzy concept can also be difficult for the candidates to address directly — for example, the female candidates.

nrakich: Amelia, if you ask me, the female candidates should be trotting out the studies that show women do just as well as men when they run for office!

ameliatd: Well, but those studies aren’t about presidential candidates! Most political scientists agree that people don’t cross the aisle to vote against a woman (or for that matter, to vote for a woman) — party loyalties are stronger than gender bias. But that’s not an easy sound bite, and it also may not be especially reassuring to voters who think sexism was a factor in Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016.

natesilver: In particular, I think it’s risky (by which I mean dumb) for any candidate other than Biden to talk much about his or her head-to-head polls against Trump, because Biden still does better than any other Democrat in those polls by some margin.

sarahf: But is that what will convince voters someone is electable?

nrakich: Amy Klobuchar is pointing to her past election results, where she really ran up the score in the swing state of Minnesota, as evidence that she’s electable. The problem is that she just hasn’t gotten a lot of attention for it (although voters in our poll thought she was slightly more likely to beat Trump after the debate).

sarahf: How else can candidates talk about their ability to defeat Trump without getting into their performance in head-to-head polls?

natesilver: I thought Warren’s response to Delaney in the second debate was good. Basically, like, if you’re not running on ideas, then why are you even running?

nrakich: If you’re Klobuchar, you can also argue that a moderate candidate is better positioned to win over swing voters. Or if you’re Kamala Harris or Cory Booker, you can argue that a black candidate will have the most success increasing black turnout (which could help Democrats win back Midwestern states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and might put new states, like Georgia, in play).

natesilver: I’m not sure that the candidates themselves do a lot of good by litigating more complex points about electability with the public. Their campaigns might do it on background with journalists, but it’s probably best left there.

ameliatd: I agree with that, Nate. One recent study did show that people were more likely to rate female candidates as electable when they were first reminded about how many women won in 2018 — but I don’t think having the candidates make that pitch will necessarily work.

sarahf: But if the best way for a candidate to run is on their ability to beat Trump, how can their stances on other issues help them accomplish that? Or make them seem more electable?

Let’s start with an issue that a lot of voters also care about (it was the second most popular pick for top issue in our Ipsos poll) — health care.

Should Democrats being talk about health care more?

Less?

nrakich: Exit polls showed that health care was the most important issue to voters in the 2018 midterm elections, which obviously worked out well for Democrats. So I think that’s good ground for the candidates to focus on for the general election.

For the primary, maybe less so — it depends on their position on health care!

natesilver: I remain convinced that health care is the best issue that Sanders has going for him.

Although, according to our poll, Biden actually gained ground with voters who prioritized the issue. Warren and Harris have been somewhat stuck in the middle on health care, though, and I think it’s a real problem for them.

nrakich: But Nate, what about those polls that show that a single-payer health care system is less popular, even among Democrats, than building on Obamacare (with, say, a public option)?

natesilver: At least Sanders has leadership on the issue. True, Biden has the most popular position. But Harris and Warren got nothing.

sarahf:

Who voters think is best on health care

Among the 435 respondents who said health care was the most important issue to them in an Ipsos/FiveThirtyEight poll

candidate share of respondents Bernie Sanders 32.9%

–

Joe Biden 28.8

–

Elizabeth Warren 16.5

–

Someone else 6.4

–

Pete Buttigieg 3.3

–

Kamala Harris 2.8

–

Amy Klobuchar 2.2

–

Julián Castro 1.5

–

Beto O’Rourke 1.3

–

Andrew Yang 1.3

–

Cory Booker 0.9

–

Poll was conducted from Sept. 5 to Sept. 11 among a general population sample of adults, with 4,320 respondents who say they are likely to vote in their state’s Democratic primary or caucus

Yeah, going into the debate, Sanders had the lead among voters in our poll who prioritized health care. (But Sanders wasn’t the only candidate to gain potential supporters among voters who prioritized health care after the debate — Biden, Yang, Warren and Buttigieg all made bigger gains.)

ameliatd: Part of the challenge, too, is that people still don’t understand the details of all of these plans — for example, Medicare for All, as Sanders and Warren talk about it, involves getting rid of private insurance. That could be more and more of an issue for the candidates on the left. Warren and Sanders keep saying people don’t like their insurance — but that’s not really true.

The health care debate is hard because people want something better, but they’re also afraid of losing what they have.

sarahf: Yeah, the branding of “Medicare for All who want it” that Buttigeig and others are pushing is pretty ingenious, even if it’s just as difficult or costly to pull off as the version of Medicare for All that Sanders and Warren are pitching.

ameliatd: It is weirdly off-brand for Warren to not have a detailed plan on health care. But maybe she’s trying not to get beaten up in the fight over Medicare for All.

natesilver: It’s very off-brand. And, sure, there might be tactical reasons for it. All of which goes to my theory that Warren is more of a politician than she’s assumed to be, which you’d think is a pretty normal thing to say about someone who’s a professional politician but will probably come across as something of a hot take.

I dunno, sometimes Warren’s strategy seems predicated on the idea that she doesn’t need to throw a lot of elbows or make a lot of tight pivots to beat Sanders.

sarahf: Well, if part of the primary is to pitch voters on big ideas, it makes sense to me that Warren isn’t curtailing her vision for Medicare for All just yet.

ameliatd: I wonder also if she thinks there’s too much competition on health care. It can be pretty difficult to follow which candidate is proposing what and what the actual differences are. It’s simpler to just say she’s with Sanders.

nrakich: I do find it interesting that Warren is doing so well in the polls despite not really emphasizing the top two priorities that Democratic voters cited in our poll (electability and health care).

sarahf: In its analysis of swing voters in 2020, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that in addition to issues like health care, where Democrats have a big advantage among voters (18 percentage points), Democrats also have a whopping 38 percentage point advantage on climate change.

So … should the candidates be talking about climate change more?

(According to an analysis by Bloomberg, only 6 percent of the third debate was devoted to it.)

nrakich: I think you have to draw a line between the primary and general election for a lot of these.

As you alluded to with that poll, Sarah, I think the eventual Democratic nominee could have success by talking a lot about climate change next year.

But the differences between the primary candidates on climate change are pretty in the weeds, so I’m not sure whom it would help to talk about it more.

I also think the failure of Jay Inslee’s campaign to win on climate change showed that the issue just wasn’t a big differentiator either (although IMO he had other problems too, like not being very inspiring on the stump).

sarahf: That’s interesting, Nathaniel. So unlike health care, where there’s an incentive for the candidates to hash out their differences, maybe something like climate change should be saved for the general?

Do others agree?

nrakich: Yeah, I think there are pretty major differences between the candidates on health care. And having a nominee run on single-payer vs. a public option could be important to swing voters in the general. But I don’t think Republicans will attack a nominee any harder if he or she is trying to get the U.S. to net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 instead of 2050.

ameliatd: Well, another difference between health care and climate is that they’re both fairly technical, complicated issues, but one has a direct and personal impact on people’s health and bank accounts, while the other is more diffuse. It’s harder to get concrete on climate change, too. Which is sometimes why you end up with candidates talking about banning plastic straws.

natesilver: Also on climate — the political willpower to get things done when Joe Manchin is the median vote in the Senate is far less than any of the Democrats’ plans would like.

In some ways, I’m surprised Democrats haven’t spent more time talking about structural issues, like gerrymandering, adding new states (Puerto Rico, D.C.) and things of that nature.

sarahf: I mean, they did wade into blowing up the filibuster in the last debate.

Do you really think that’s good politics for the candidates, though?

natesilver: Oh yeah, sure. I think it’s a good way for Warren to differentiate herself from Sanders, for instance.

ameliatd: Blowing up the filibuster seems like it’s become a way for candidates to say they’re serious about passing their agenda. So it’s kind of a proxy for how far the candidates are willing to go, and how much they care about compromise.

nrakich: I think it has the potential to be good politics, Sarah. People don’t like it when they perceive the system to be unfair, and Democrats can pretty easily make the argument that the system is currently biased against urban dwellers, people of color, and others.

Gerrymandering is a good example of something that few people defend. But no Democrat is out there shouting about it from the rooftops.

Voting rights also don’t register very high on the priority list when voters are asked what issues they care about, but there is a lot of political science research that says that politicians can influence what voters care about. And I bet the issue would become more salient if a top-tier candidate talked about it more.

ameliatd: I have also wondered why the Supreme Court hasn’t been a bigger issue so far — it is more unpopular with Democrats than it has been in 20 years, and progressive activists are advocating for some pretty big court reforms, like increasing the number of justices on the bench. And if you’re talking about roadblocks for your progressive agenda — a Supreme Court with a conservative majority is certainly at the top of that list.

nrakich: Maybe it hasn’t been very salient in the primary because it’s assumed that every possible nominee would appoint pro-choice, pro-voting-rights, generally liberal justices?

ameliatd: But there are differences between the candidates on how to approach the Supreme Court — big ones! At least seven candidates still in the race are open to the idea of adding justices to the court, according to The Washington Post. And some have talked about changing its structure in other ways (adding term limits, for example) which would also be quite dramatic.

nrakich: Good point. Maybe Democrats aren’t bringing it up, then, because the issue risks activating Republican voters in the general election?

ameliatd: It is definitely true that the courts historically have been a motivating issue for Republican voters and not really for Democrats. But I think there’s potential for the Democrats to make the Supreme Court into an issue that their voters care about.

natesilver: And I think after Kavanaugh’s nomination last year, there’s still an open question about whether which party gets most motivated by the Supreme Court has shifted. In a Gallup poll just before the midterms, roughly as many Democrats as Republicans called Kavanaugh an important issue in deciding their vote.

That said, I don’t think calling for Kavanaugh’s impeachment is a very wise general election position.

ameliatd: No, I agree — a focus on impeaching Kavanaugh seems tailor-made to rile up Republicans. I think part of the issue is that there just isn’t a clear message among Democrats about the Supreme Court or the judiciary in general. Some people want term limits. Others want court-packing, or they want more talk about the type of judicial nominees the candidates would nominate.

sarahf: But what about an issue where Democrats don’t have an advantage (like the economy) and are in a weaker position among voters than Trump? In that same poll on swing voters, KFF gave Trump a 12-point advantage for his handling of economy. And in our Ipsos poll, we found that economy-focused Democrats gave candidates worse marks across the board than voters focused on four other top issues, suggesting that economy voters were maybe unsatisfied by what they heard in the debate.

nrakich: Yeah, I think Democrats could stand to talk more in the primary about the economy in the traditional sense, like jobs.

For the general election, though, that does seem to be a good issue for Republicans (for now).

natesilver: Isn’t the obvious way for Democrats to talk about the economy to talk about inequality and how the economy ain’t workin’ for some people?

Unless the economy actually goes way south, in which case you have a lot more things you can say.

nrakich: Yes, but we did offer “wealth and income inequality” as an issue in our poll, and those voters seemed to have different perspectives than the “economy” voters.

If we’re talking about the primary, I think Warren and Sanders have gotten pretty far by talking about inequality, but our poll does suggest there’s a subset of voters for whom that isn’t what they want to hear about the economy.

sarahf: And while trying to motivate voters around economic inequality sounds good in theory, in practice, I don’t think it actually moves the dial much. Although, there is evidence that voters are keen on a tax on the uber-wealthy, so maybe that’s a good tack for Democrats to take in talking about the economy more?

ameliatd: Right, talking about making the wealthy pay their fair share seems like a smart way for Democrats to approach this.

But what do you think voters want to be hearing on the economy front, Nathaniel? In our poll, “jobs” was listed as a separate option and not that many people seemed interested in hearing about that.

nrakich: Yeah, Amelia, I’m not quite sure. Given their candidate preferences (i.e., voters who prioritized the economy also liked Biden and were much less likely to be considering a vote for Warren or Sanders), maybe those are the fiscally minded voters who oppose Warren and Sanders’s efforts to redistribute wealth.

In other words, business-friendly Democrats?

natesilver: I do think Democrats need to be careful on this issue.

Socialism is still not a popular concept with swing voters. Maybe it will be once the millennials and zoomers take over. But for now, it’s a big general-election vulnerability for Sanders, for instance.

nrakich: Wait, this is the first time I’ve heard zoomers as a nickname for Generation Z and I love it.

natesilver: “Let’s get the economy workin’ for workin’ people and make the rich pay their fair share” is probably fine for a general election message. “Let’s topple the entire system” maybe isn’t.

sarahf: But as Nathaniel said earlier … this is the primary. And isn’t socialism more popular than capitalism among Democrats?

So, similar to some of the candidates being more radical on health care, isn’t there an argument to be made they should dream bigger on the economy, too?

natesilver: Well, yeah, but part of what smart candidates do is avoid driving wedges on issues where it might give you a slight advantage in the primary but a big disadvantage in the general election.

nrakich: And while it’s true, Sarah, that Democrats think more highly of socialism than of capitalism, their views of capitalism are still mostly favorable, according to the Pew Research Center. We’re also forgetting that 40 percent of Democrats think the most important thing is to beat Trump! I can imagine plenty of pro-socialism Democrats being persuaded to tone down the rhetoric (but maybe not the policies — Warren is basically doing this) in order to avoid being general-election poison.

ameliatd: Also, isn’t Warren’s wealth tax, which would be applied to rich people’s accumulated fortunes rather than just their income, be an example of Democrats dreaming big? She seems to be doing a good job of selling it as “just making the rich pay their fair share,” but it’s still a pretty radical change from the status quo.

sarahf: That’s fair, Amelia.

And to wrap, if candidates could only run on one issue — and it isn’t beating Trump, because let’s treat that as the overarching argument of everyone’s campaign — what would it be?

nrakich: I think it’s got to be health care, especially if you’re not a single-payer Democrat. Follow the playbook that worked in 2018.

natesilver: It depends on the candidate. For Biden, it’s electability. For Sanders, it’s health care. For Warren, it’s … I’m not sure, exactly? But I think probably inequality.

nrakich: Breakin’ Sarah’s rules (“and it isn’t beating Trump”), Nate …

Intriguing side question: Is it a problem for Biden if he runs on an electability argument during the primary and then doesn’t have a clear rationale for running come the general?

sarahf: What other issue does Biden have to lean into? Health care, maybe?

natesilver: Maybe Biden could adopt a signature issue — or two.

I’m not sure what it would be, though. Guns, maybe?

ameliatd: We didn’t talk about gun policy, but I’ll be interested to see if that has sticking power as the primary moves forward. That’s a big priority for voters right now, but maybe it’s also an issue like climate change where the candidates struggle to differentiate themselves.

Also, I am shamelessly dodging the question, but personal characteristics are also important to voters. A Pew survey from last month asked Democrats to name the most important factor for deciding which candidate to support, and 28 percent named something like honesty or competence. About the same share pointed to a policy. So … maybe policy just matters less than we assume?

nrakich: Great point, Amelia. We basically just did a whole chat on issues while ignoring the fact that people mostly don’t vote on issues!

ameliatd: Shut it down, guys.

natesilver: But you can still vote on the aesthetics of a candidate’s policy positions even if you don’t care about policy per se.

Like, people can like the idea that Warren has a plan for things, even if they don’t know what those plans are, exactly.

nrakich: Right, but to the original chat prompt, does it matter, then, what issues are and aren’t being discussed?

As you pointed out, Warren doesn’t have a meaty health care plan but still gets credit for being issue-driven.

ameliatd: I wonder if Warren’s focus on an overarching theme like corruption can also help with the perception that she’s honest, or something like that.

But then it does make you wonder how much the details matter, as opposed to how the issues fit into a candidate’s overall brand.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #A FiveThirtyEight Chat

1 note · View note

my-arya-underfoot · 7 years

Text

Debunking the Sansa-Lyanna Parallels

For whatever reason, the Lyanna = Sansa interpretation has been getting increasingly popular in the fandom. There’s this growing theory that Sansa and Arya are both equally like Lyanna and represent the different sides of her. In the extreme, there’s arguments Sansa is actually more like Lyanna than Arya.

“Arya and Sansa represent two faces of Lyanna.” “Denying one is actually denying Lyanna’s story in complete.” “Sansa’s romantic soul and Arya’s wild nature.”

Which, honestly drives me crazy – because you have to twist all three women out of character to justify the parallels.

There are way too many Lyanna/Arya parallels to explain here. If anyone wants a summary here are some good ones. But tbh, it’s not even something you need meta for – the books are incredibly explicit about the parallels, from their personalities (“wilful”), Stark-ness (wolf blooded), skills/interests (sword fighting and riding) and appearance (Northern beauties). Ned, Harwin and Bran all compare them outright.

Meanwhile, here’s the one explicit Lyanna/Sansa comparison: “He could still hear Sansa pleading, as Lyanna had pleaded once.” – Ned, AGoT.

Btw, this is not an anti-Sansa meta. Sansa has multiple parallels to other characters and inherits traits from many family members. (Ned, Catelyn, Jon, Sandor, Dany, Lysa, Cersei, Littlefinger, Brienne etc.) And there’s obviously overlap in characters she and Arya share connections with. But Lyanna Stark is not one of them. This is a debunking of the general Lyanna = Sansa evidence (book based).

Sansa/Joffrey = Lyanna/Rhaegar

1. Sansa was blinded by love for Joffrey, Lyanna was blinded by love for Rhaegar

A. Don’t know how anyone missed this but – we don’t know the full Lyanna/Rhaegar story. The whole point of the event is how murky it is. We can't assume it was as simple as Lyanna being blinded by "love" Rhaegar and losing all common sense like Sansa did around Joffrey. That’s one of many interpretations. It could have been about the prophecy, closer to a straight kidnapping, Rhaegar being the one blinded by love, Lyanna running away by herself initially. Using the most unreliable story in the entire series as a basis for this theory is headscratching.

B. Lyanna is presented as perceptive and realistic about men, not idealistic. From actual quotes: Lyanna “Robert will never keep to one bed.” Lyanna “love is sweet dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man’s nature”?? That girl was blinded by infatuation for Rhaegar? Blinded in the way Sansa you-literally-tried-to-kill-my-sister-in-front-of-me -but-I-repressed-it-to-keep-my-fairytale-alive, was by Joffrey? Doesn’t line up.

C. A far better comparison to Sansa/Joffrey is Lyanna/Robert. Both Sansa and Lyanna were faced with marrying a young, handsome noble who was friends with the family and would give them status and a comfortable life. Sansa was overjoyed and Lyanna was unhappy. Both were faced with unpleasant truths about their betrothed: Joffrey was a monster and Robert was unfaithful. Sansa, the romantic rewrote events, idealized Joffrey and convinced herself he was wonderful and she loved him. Lyanna was clear-eyed, cynical and stated the facts. Completely opposite reactions.

D. Fun fact. What character saw Joffrey for what he was, is good at reading people's true character and isn't blinded by looks or status? Arya.

2: Both Sansa and Lyanna fell in love/had romances with Princes

We’ll put aside the question marks over R/L. Let’s say it’s a straight love story. It’s still starkly different from Joffrey and Sansa.

A. Sansa/Joffrey was an arranged marriage – Rhaegar/Lyanna was a forbidden affair. For most of the time Sansa was “in love” with him, Sansa’s relationship with Joffrey was fulfilling expectations of what she should be doing. Only at the eleventh hour did Joffrey become "forbidden.” Meanwhile, Lyanna and Rhaegar fell in love while they were both betrothed/married. It was always a rebellion against acceptable behaviour. Again, Lyanna/Robert is a much better parallel to understand the characters.

B. Even if R/L was a love story…then the argument is Rhaegar did love Lyanna and it was mutual. Sansa and Joffrey wasn’t mutual because he certainly never loved her.

C. Apart from being Princes I’m still waiting on similarities between Joffrey and Rhaegar. Aerys? Sure.

3: Lyanna and Sansa both betrayed their families for love/infatuation and started a war

A. We still don’t know what went down between Rhaegar and Lyanna. Certainly, not enough to parallel Lyanna running off with him to Sansa betraying Ned to Cersei.

B. Again, Sansa’s “betrayal” of her family was to uphold her arranged marriage. Lyanna’s “betrayal” was to turn her back on society and arranged match, and vanish for months with a married man. Vastly different circumstances.

C. Sansa going to Cersei was notably out of character for "eager to please since she was 3" Sansa vs. "wilful, wild" Lyanna and Arya. In the same book (chapter?) Sansa even compares her disobedience to feeling "almost as wicked as Arya."

D. The causes of both wars were complex and Sansa at least played a pretty minor role in hers. Her actions in contributing to the War of the Five Kings aren’t given nearly the same weight as Lyanna’s disappearance.

4: Sansa is more likely to run away for love than Arya

A. Um. No. Sansa is repeatedly characterised as dutiful and living by society's standards. Her causing the scandal of the century by running off with a married guy/someone unsuitable? No way. Not if she was in Lyanna's situation with a comfortable future before her. We see Sansa persuade herself her situation/match is fine – rather than flee from it – with Joffrey.

B. You know who is known for running off? Arya. In her first chapter, she runs away from being a lady, she runs off after the Trident incident, she fantasies about running home while in KL, she’s literally on the run for ACoK-ASoS, she runs from Harrenhal, the Brotherhood, Westeros itself. If one of the Stark girls has a *screw all this, I’m outta here* attitude, it’s Arya. And a teenage Arya running away from an arranged marriage? 100% plausible.

C. Also, falling for someone unsuitable? How about that infamously wilful younger Stark daughter? Arya falling in love with someone forbidden - *cough* bastard blacksmith *cough* - would be totally in character.

5: Both Lyanna and Sansa were held prisoner in the South during war

A. This parallel undermines the previous basis for Lyanna being a romantic. (I.e. The argument that she wasn’t a prisoner but went willingly with Rhaegar).

B. Let’s say Lyanna was kidnapped – still starkly different from Sansa. Sansa was held as a political pawn and on show. Lyanna was kidnapped for unknown, possibly personal reasons and hidden away from society. Sansa has more parallels with Elia’s role in the war than Lyanna’s.

C. If we start making a list of every character who is held prisoner during wars – Jaime, Tyrion, Ned, oh look Arya! – we’ll be here forever. Very weak parallel.

Lyanna and Sansa are romantics – Arya is a realist/cynic

To reiterate, everything we see of Lyanna’s reaction to Robert indicates she’s a practical realistic, not a romantic. But let’s break down the evidence.

1: Lyanna cried over Rhaegar’s song so she’s sentimental like Sansa not Arya (“The dragon prince sang a song so sad it made the wolf maid sniffle…”)

A. Yes, Sansa's more sentimental and loves songs. But interpreting the scene as a Lyanna/Sansa parallel, blatantly discounts the rest of the sentence: “…but when her pup brother teased her [Lyanna] for crying she poured wine over his head.” NEVER in a million years would Sansa do that. Not at a public Southern tourney and feast. Man though, you know a Stark girl who would do that? Who is far more wild and playful with her brothers? Arya. The Sansa parallel lasts Iess than a sentence before we’re back to Lyanna/Arya.

B. The fact Benjen bothered to tease Lyanna at all suggests it was out of character for her. I can't see the Stark boys teasing Sansa for crying, as it's the kind of thing she'd be likely to do all the time and wouldn't be ashamed of it. No point in teasing her. Teasing gutsy, sighing-over-songs-is-stupid Arya for crying though? Sure.

C. "Sang a song SO sad it made the wolf maid sniffle." The point is the song was exceptional in being able to make Lyanna cry. It’s “man, that’s unusual” not “oh, typical Lyanna sniffling away”. That comment is more about the Lyanna/Rhaegar relationship, not Lyanna’s allegedly sentimental personality.

D. Arya likes songs and Arya cries. That’s not exclusive to Sansa and Lyanna. This great meta goes into more detail both about the significance of songs for all characters in Asoiaf and how emotional Arya can be. But enough to say, Arya may not love songs as much as Sansa does, but she likes them and has favourites – Nymeria, Wenda the White Fawn etc. For all we know Rhaegar was singing a Nymeria/Wenda fanfic. And Arya cries a lot throughout the books, right from her first chapter over messing up her needlework.

2: Sansa and Lyanna both loved flowers. Lyanna was crowned Queen of Love and Beauty at the tourney at Harranhal = Sansa was given a rose by Loras at the Hand’s tourney.

A. News to me that “flowers” are a motif exclusive to Sansa’s character. Not only are flowers sprinkled all over the series, they’re more present in Arya’s story. In Sansa’s first chapter, Arya brings Ned purple flowers (Ned who brings Lyanna's statue flowers) and is excitedly discovering new plants while Sansa is sitting in her carriage. Not to mention the heck ton of nature imagery in Arya’s chapters. This is a weak link.

B. Lyanna gets a crown from a prince who spurns his wife? Sansa gets a rose from an implied gay guy? Much love. Much romance. Much parallels. If GRRM wanted that parallel, he’d have actually crowned Sansa QoLaB. There are hundreds of tourneys in the series, both of them attending doesn’t mean anything.

C. This is the same tourney where Lyanna first beat up a bunch of squires and may have gone on to dress up a knight and compete in the joust. Go ahead anyone who wants to argue that’s a Sansa not Arya move.

3: Arya has no interest in romance, Sansa and Lyanna do. Arya thinks love is stupid and Sansa is silly for liking it

A. Still very little evidence of Lyanna being some diehard romantic.

B. We cannot compare a 9/10yo Arya to a 15/16yo Lyanna. That’s skipping Arya’s entire puberty a.k.a when girls start to explore romance, love and sex. You can't take a few lines from a child as a blanket statement of Arya's views for love forever. It’s also comparing a Lyanna who grew up in a secure environment until she hit her teens vs. Arya who was thrust into a warzone as a child. Sorry Arya isn’t thinking about romance while starving on the run.

C. Arya’s dismissal of romance is entwined with her own insecurities about failing as a lady, her ‘ugliness’ and being inferior to her sister. It’s a defence mechanism for something she worries she can never have. Also, she rejects Sansa’s versions of idealised love and conventional expectations of romance – not love full stop. Lyanna didn’t seem sold on the conventional marriage set up either.

D. Despite her age and circumstances, Arya still manages to have a ship tease with Gendry – a relationship more genuine and straightforwardly romantic than anything Sansa’s had. (Not discounting her complex dynamics with Sandor, Joffrey, Willas, Harry and Tyrion).

E. For the record, in the same conversation Arya told Ned Dayne "love is stupid" that people like to cite, she was mortally offended by the suggestion that her father loved anyone else ever other than her mother.

Sansa represents Lyanna’s “beautiful and feminine side” and Arya her “wildness and rebellion”

These aspects are not exclusionary and there's no indication Lyanna had these two opposing sides. In the same conversation that Ned tells Arya that she's like Lyanna, he refers to Sansa and Arya as "different as the sun and moon." (Not “two sides of the same coin” as is commonly quoted - that’s about the Targs).

So really. "Arya, you're the opposite of your sister! And almost exactly like Lyanna!" = "Sansa is like Lyanna". But let’s go through.

1: Lyanna and Sansa the beauties

A. Arya is beautiful as well. For more detail go here – she’s growing into her looks. She doesn’t think she’s beautiful but other characters are commenting on it. Trying to imply Arya is “too ugly” to parallel Lyanna, so Sansa has to fill that part is gross on multiple levels.

B. Arya is explicitly describe as looking like Lyanna. By Ned. Lyanna’s brother and Arya’s father. If Arya isn’t beautiful, then Lyanna isn’t either.

C. Lyanna wasn’t a conventional Southern beauty. She was a “wild” beauty, Northern looking and even boyish. None of which matches with Sansa’s appearance – but all of which tallies with Arya.

2: People saw Lyanna and Sansa’s beauty but not “the iron underneath”

A. Ned's comment about Robert not seeing Lyanna's iron seemed far more about Robert’s blindness than Lyanna hiding her iron. The conversation was about Robert’s version of Lyanna, not how Lyanna herself behaved.

B. Nothing suggests Lyanna “hid” her iron. She publicly tipped wine over Benjen, she beat up the squires in the open. There's little indication she hid her strength under courtesy and ladylike behaviour like Sansa did.

3: Lyanna and Sansa were feminine

This may be the argument that raises my hackles the most. For a start this bizarre use of ‘feminine’ gets thrown around without defining what it means. So, just what.

A. Let’s assume ‘feminine’ refers to Westerosi ideal of the perfect lady that Sansa embodies: Girly, concerned with appearances, gracious, a submissive wife etc. Then…everything tells us Lyanna was the opposite to that. She was off wanting to carry swords, squabbling with her brothers, resisting marriage proposals and possibly entering jousts. None of that is traditionally “feminine.”

B. If we take a wider view of feminine as women owning their gender, femininity and role as a woman – Arya isn’t a genderless blob. Her being disguised as a boy and Faceless Men training is about how desperately she clings to her true identity…including her gender. She constantly corrects people about being a girl, takes on a caring and even maternal role (Weasel) and has female heroes.

C. Suggesting Arya is less “female” than Sansa – and thus unworthy of paralleling Lyanna – because she has traditionally boyish interests and fails the Westerosi ideal is pretty appalling tbh.

Random Parallels

1: Lyanna and Sansa were betrothed to a Baratheon

A. Not sure how anyone missed this – it was kinda a major plot point way back – but Joffrey wasn’t a Baratheon. He didn’t act or look like a Baratheon. He was a Lannister through and through.

B. You know who did have a major connection to a Baratheon? You know a Stark girl, Robert’s son legitimately fell for? Oh whoops, Arya. While Robert and Gendry are very different and the Arya/Gendry relationship is more genuine than Robert’s infatuation with Lyanna, it’s a more concrete parallel than Sansa/Joffrey.

C. Don’t know how many times I can say this, but the Joffrey/Sansa vs. Robert/Lyanna parallels highlight Sansa and Lyanna’s differences not their similarities.

2: Lyanna and Sansa Defend the Weak (Howland Reed and Dontas)

A. Yes, Sansa does defend Dontas, that was a great moment. But "defending the weak" is a recurring theme for Arya, while it’s a one off for Sansa. Arya has Mycah, Weasel, going back for Gendry, saving the Northernmen, hanging out with the defenders-of-the-helpless Brotherhood without Banners, saving Sam in Braavos, "they should have killed the masters not the slaves" etc. Arya's story is entwined with defending/befriending the oppressed and downtrodden. Sansa's is not.

B. Arya and Lyanna had much more similar approaches to defending Mycah/Howland scenes in physically beating off the attacker. Sansa's approach differed in using diplomacy and flattery. And "saved someone once" is a pretty loose thematic parallel.

3: Lyanna rejected Robert = Sansa rejected Tyrion

A. Sansa was horrified at marrying a dwarf old enough to be her father after she'd been a prisoner of his abusive family for months. Lyanna didn't want to marry a young, handsome lord who was a good match and arranged by her family.

B. Sansa resisted Tyrion yes, but she didn't reject him and she didn't run away. She endured. Again, going with the Lyanna-went-willingly-with-Rhaegar/ran away version of events – Lyanna rebelled in a much more blatant way.

C. Sansa/Joffrey is a much better parallel to Lyanna/Robert, than Sansa/Tyrion. How Sansa reacted to that situation – an ideal, arranged match – is an accurate point to compare her character to Lyanna. (Man, people really hate these Sansa/Joffrey vs. Lyanna/Robert parallels).

This Ended Up Very Long and I’m Sorry

Ultimately, the problem with framing Sansa as an equal half of Lyanna is you have to mischaracterize all three characters to get there – Claiming Sansa is more likely to rebel, that Arya has no soft side and Lyanna was a blind romantic. Until we get more book details on the Rhaegar/Lyanna relationship, the main argument falls apart.

If we're talking parallels, it's less that "Sansa was one half of Lyanna" and more "Sansa was the inverse of Lyanna." One was dutiful and one rebelled, one went for her arranged marriage, one rejected it. Which makes sense as Sansa is a foil to Arya…a character who, as the books made clear from the start, does parallel Lyanna.

There are plenty of characters who connect to both Arya and Sansa. Ned and Catelyn reflect different aspects of their daughters. Brienne has two sides that reflect the two of them – both a romantic idealistic and unconventional woman. Let’s talk about those parallels instead.

#my lyanna meta #arya stark #lyanna stark #arya and lyanna #sansa stark #lyanna stark meta #stark meta #arya meta #sansa meta #anti lyanna sansa

254 notes · View notes

owlswithfins · 7 years

Text

A Justification of Drarry

Here’s a fairly extensive compilation of Drarry ‘evidence’ (it got kind of lengthy so the rest is below the cut) <3

I’ve been an avid Drarry shipper for almost as long as I’ve been a Harry Potter fan, and I’ve noticed that deep within the fandom, everyone seems to agree that it’s a Legit Ship. It tops the charts of AO3 and Wattpad and comes in as a close second on FF, and most people on tumblr accept it as plausible even if they aren’t die hard fans. Outside of this black hole we’ve all been sucked into, however, I’ve been yanked into heated debates about the legitimacy of Drarry.

Of course, this is often because some people are only interested in canon ships or don’t ship slash. For others, it’s just not their cup of tea. This post isn’t meant to convert the above naysayers, especially since, like I said, most of us here don’t need to be converted. This is more of a toolkit of evidence and arguments to justify your love of Drarry to people who “just don’t understand” or think “you just want every character to be gay” or that “you’re reading into things too much”.

Sometimes the best response is the always faithful “fuck you, I ship what I like” or the slightly more intellectual “I subscribe to the Mark Twain quote ‘never regret anything that made you smile’ and Drarry is my one true joy in this life so shut the hell up”. Other times, these debates get derailed quickly and leave Drarry shippers feeling like “maybe we got it wrong this whole time?” which is not a Great Feeling.

As such, I’ve compiled what’s essentially a shit ton of ammo from various sources to cite in these situations. Feel free to use it as you like, whether that be fortifying your own belief in this beautiful ship or passing out flyers door-to-door like a Drarry missionary. Now, we have seven books, eight movies, and bucket loads of interpretations to get through, so this could easily become a certified mess (and I’m not even going to go into every piece of evidence). As such, I’m placing the rest of the content below the cut, organized by objections and their counter-arguments to keep things nice and neat. On that note, lets begin.

One of the most common objections I hear is that Drarry isn’t legitimate because Harry is straight. Now, for some of us, this is irrelevant, since we ship based on the potential a pairing offers instead of requiring canonical pining (not that it isn’t there--it is--trust me, we’ll get to that), but for others, this is a critical point of concern. I would like to start by asking, who says Harry is straight? (please click here for some strategically placed self-promotion and on-topic humor)

To start, Cedric Diggory. (I’m talking about the angelically pure pre-Cursed-Child Hufflepuff god, not Cedric I-was-so-embarrassed-I-became-a-Death-Eater-and-murdered-my-friends Diggory, to be clear). If the mere name isn’t evidence enough, allow me to jog your memory:

“Cedric Diggory was an extremely handsome boy of around seventeen.” (GoF)

And also:

“Exceptionally handsome, with his straight nose, dark hair, and grey eyes.” (GoF)

And for those of you who aren’t yet convinced:

“‘You just weren’t concentrating properly--’

‘Wonder why that was,’ said Harry darkly as Cedric Diggory walked past.” (GoF)

PURE GOLD. Harry be like, “No homo, but when Diggory walks by I can’t concentrate. I just have this intense urge to comment on his extremely handsome face”. I think we can safely say that Harry is, at the very least, bicurious. I’d even go so far as to say he was never really all that into girls at all. Sure, he had a thing for Cho, but he didn’t exactly come back with the most resounding commentary.

“‘Well?’ Ron said finally, looking up at Harry. ‘How was it?’

Harry considered it for a moment. ‘Wet,’ he said truthfully.” (OotP)

And yes, there was Ginny, but in HBP there were multiple scenarios when Harry was far more interested in Draco than whatever Ginny had to offer.

"'And even better than that -- Malfoy's gone off sick too!'

'What?" said Harry, wheeling around to stare at her. 'He's ill? What's wrong with him?'

'No idea, but it's great for us,' said Ginny brightly. 'They're playing Harper instead; he's in my year and he's an idiot.'

Harry smiled back vaguely, but as he pulled on his scarlet robes his mind was far from Quidditch.

Maybe it’s just me, but in my experience, people generally don’t obsess over people they hate when they have the opportunity to spend time with their crush. So maybe Harry is straight (I doubt it) but I think we at least have a case for reasonable doubt. As such, the sexuality objection has been shot down.

The next common point of opposition is that Drarry shippers are just “making it up” without any basis in canon. To counter this, we could go through every book and sort out exactly which lines serve as evidence, but that would take far more time than I have on my hands. Instead, let’s do a basic overview.

The course of their entire relationship is based on their first two meetings. In Madam Malkin’s, Harry started to associate Draco with Dudley, and this snap judgment caused him to choose Ron, his first friend, over Draco. Of course, Harry’s loyalty is part of why we love him, but this totally brushes aside Draco’s point of view.

For Draco, this was his first experience with someone outside of his parent’s rigid pureblood circle. He’d been taught that bragging and insulting “inferior” people were the ways to impress and make friends, so he did exactly that. And, likely also for the first time, Draco was rejected. Coming from a place of privilege, this rejection was heartbreaking, and by turning down his handshake, Harry cemented Draco’s future. Instead of benefiting from each others’ knowledge and principles, they became enemies.

Draco was, to Harry, a mere annoyance in the way of the bigger problems during the first five years at Hogwarts. At this point, I think it’s safe to say Harry felt nothing more than an irritation for Draco Malfoy, as one would feel about a particularly determined pest. Draco, on the other hand, saw Harry as his number one priority. His bullying focused on Harry because their feud was personal, unlike the more casual bullying Draco partook in regularly. His issues with Ron and Hermione were likewise based on Harry--Ron was the friend Harry chose over Draco, and Hermione was a Muggleborn, yet she became friends with Harry when Draco couldn’t.

Draco spent a ridiculous amount of time tormenting the Golden Boy, from climbing a tree for taunting purposes to making the ‘Potter Stinks’ buttons to joining of the Inquisitorial Squad just to get back at Harry. Now, I’m not going to go and say these things meant Draco was secretly in love with Harry the whole time (I’m also not going to say he wasn’t). Rather, this one-sided enmity was grade school pigtail pulling at best and full-blown obsession at worst.

Of course, Draco wasn’t the only one to become obsessed. Throughout the entire series, the two had an almost uncanny ability to sense each other, from Draco recognizing Harry based on his breathing to Harry being able to tell what expression Draco made purely by his tone. Even so, it wasn’t obsession on Harry’s end...until HBP. I mean, honestly, the bi who lived got it so bad his sixth year that even Ron was tired of hearing it:

"'Can you think of any way Malfoy--?'

'Oh, drop it, Harry,' said Ron." (HBP)

Let’s not forget when the weariness turned to full on ignoring:

"'Oh, and Malfoy knows, of course,' said Harry to Ron and Hermione, who continued their new policy of feigning deafness whenever Harry mentioned his Malfoy-Is-a-Death-Eater theory." (HBP)

And ah, the Marauder’s Map. Harry’s obsession with watching Draco’s name was especially notable in this book--even more so given JKR’s comment that Harry watching Ginny’s name in DH was a sign that he was in love with her. Let’s take a look, shall we?

"Despite his determination to catch Malfoy out, Harry had no luck at all over the next couple of weeks. Although he consulted the map as often as he could, sometimes making unnecessary visits to the bathroom between lessons to search it, he did not once see Malfoy anywhere suspicious." (HBP)

And, of course, JKR’s most precious gift to us:

"Harry, however, had never been less interested in Quidditch; he was rapidly becoming obsessed with Draco Malfoy." (HBP)

While the first five years were rife with Draco’s antics and Harry’s relative apathy, the moment Draco stopped giving Harry his undying attention, the tables turned. Harry had grown so used to his frequent encounters with Draco that he couldn’t stand the thought of being ignored, or *gasp*, the idea that Draco might actually have more important things to do than fight with him all the time.

This was also an interesting time because Draco finally experienced true darkness. Whereas Harry had been exposed to harsh reality as a young child, Draco was relatively removed from it all. Sixth year was when Draco caught up with Harry maturity-wise. Suddenly, he understood the truth of what his family stood for and who Voldemort was, and he was trapped, just like Harry was on the light side. It was the first time Harry began to see Draco as something more than a petty annoyance because it was really the first time Draco had been more than a petty annoyance.

We’ll visit the bathroom scene and the events of DH in the next section (Salazar, don’t even get me started on the wand thing), but even without those significant moments, it’s becoming clear that Harry and Draco have a lot of potential. They’re interconnected in an obsessive way that seems more extensive than that of normal enemies, and it’s no longer a one-sided affair.

The next objection I come across fairly frequently is the ever-present “but they hate each other!” My response to this is...nah, they don’t. Not really.

To start, most of their fighting was either simple childhood rivalry or all talk. Even when things escalated, they didn’t truly want to hurt each other. In many cases, they actually saved each other.

Remember in HBP when Draco petrified Harry and tried to send him back on the train? This could be seen as a simple “I hate you so I don’t want you at school”, but that’s inconsistent with Draco’s character thus far, given that his Hogwarts days practically revolved around tormenting Harry. Why send away your favorite toy? Perhaps this is stretching too far, but I’m not the only one who thinks that, just maybe, Draco did it to protect Harry.

To fully understand this theory, we have to go back to second year. In CoS, Dobby came to Harry with an abundance of praise, despite living in the Malfoy house, where the defeater of the Dark Lord was likely only spoken about negatively. Where did Dobby get his positive opinion of Harry Potter then? Ahem. May I direct you to...

"’everyone thinks he's so smart, wonderful Potter with his scar and his broomstick--’

‘You have told me this at least a dozen times already,’ said Mr. Malfoy, with a quelling look at his son.” (CoS)

Draco’s so-called ‘taunts’ sound quite a lot like compliments in disguise, and Dobby’s so-called ‘rescuing’ of Harry looked quite a lot like Draco’s train charade in HBP. To keep Harry safe, Dobby went through elaborate efforts to keep him from coming back to Hogwarts. Then in sixth year when Draco was aware that Death Eaters would soon run amuck in the school, he tried to send Harry away from Hogwarts on the train, almost as if he was trying to protect him.

Of course, that’s mostly theorizing, and some of you might not be convinced, but don’t worry. We’ve got a lot of explicit demonstrations of non-hate (for lack of a better term) as well. Take, for instance, the bathroom scene. It’s hard to tell if Draco would have been able to perform the Cruciatus curse if Harry had let him finish so we won’t talk about that, but Harry’s sectumsempra was a Big Moment in the Drarry world.

“'SECTUMSEMPRA!' bellowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand wildly. Blood spurted from Malfoy's face and chest as though he had been slashed with an invisible sword. He staggered backward and collapsed onto the waterlogged floor with a great splash, his wand falling from his limp right hand. 'No --' gasped Harry. Slipping and staggering, Harry got to his feet and plunged toward Malfoy, whose face was now shining scarlet, his white hands scrabbling at his blood-soaked chest. 'No -- I didn't --' (HBP)

As soon as the feud between them began to get real, Harry felt immense guilt and regret. It was one thing for them to taunt each other and fight, but as soon as he realized he’d caused true pain, he started backtracking. While his real enemies were finally starting to cross over to the okay-to-kill list, Draco was still firmly in the safe zone.

Later in HBP, we see another example of Harry’s non-hate. When Draco is about to kill Dumbledore in the tower, Harry watches as he lowers his wand. When Dumbledore dies, Harry doesn’t go after Malfoy--he goes after Snape. A lot of things were happening at once, but even in this moment when he was finally proved right about Draco’s activities, there was some part of him that didn’t blame Draco for what happened. He’d finally seen him become human during the bathroom scene, and he watched Draco’s wand “drop by a fraction”, so he knew the Slytherin wasn’t a murderer. If Snape hadn’t stepped in, Draco might have even switched over to the light. If Snape hadn’t stepped in, Dumbledore wouldn’t be dead. When he catches up to the two, he fires his curse at Snape, not Draco, again suggesting something other than hate.

While guilt is a passive emotion--making the bathroom scene a “hindsight’s 20/20” moment--and the climax of HBP was more of an internal shift, in DH we see their non-hate become more intentional.

“‘Well, Draco?’ said Lucius Malfoy. He sounded avid. ‘Is it? Is it Harry Potter?’

‘I can’t--I can’t be sure,’ said Draco.” (DH)

In Chapter 23 of DH, Draco risked his life to save Harry. Some people have criticised that he should have given a solid “no” if he really cared about saving Harry, but uncertainty was the only thing that kept Harry alive. If Draco had given them a negative, they would have killed him anyways. It was only the possibility that he might be Harry Potter that allowed him to live long enough to escape.

Harry later returned the favor when he saved Draco from the Fiendfyre.

“‘It’s – too – dangerous – !’ Ron yelled, but Harry wheeled in the air. His glasses giving his eyes some small protection from the smoke, he raked the firestorm below, seeking a sign of life, a limb or a face that was not yet charred like wood. . . . And he saw them: Malfoy with his arms around the unconscious Goyle, the pair of them perched on a fragile tower of charred desks, and Harry dived.” (DH)

Even though it would have been easier to let Draco die--even when Ron all but told him to leave Draco to burn--Harry saved him. By this point, both of them had risked their lives to save the other, and I think it’s fair to say that, whatever’s between them, it isn’t hatred.

That leaves us with the final objection I’m going to discuss in this post (essay?): the argument that Harry and Draco just aren’t right for each other. This one, while seemingly simple, has a lot of analysis to work through, and it’s also the one that separates Drarry from other popular ships in the fandom.

To start, they challenge each other in a way no one else can. Whereas Ginny grew up idolizing Harry, Draco spent those years sneering at the Golden Boy for his fame. Harry, who never wanted to be anything more than “just Harry”, needs someone like this in his life. He needs someone to see him as he is without his titles. Someone who hates his fame as much as he does. Someone who won’t let him get away with things just because he’s the Savior, and won’t confuse childhood awe with true feelings.

Likewise, Harry challenges Draco by meeting his prejudices and bigotry with full force. I don’t think Draco ever really did anything evil enough to need redemption as many fans seem to think (since, like we discussed earlier in this post, he was just a kid being taught his parents’ values, and as soon as the reality of the war hit, he was no longer on board), but he does need to understand the pain he inflicted through his bullying and be corrected in his misinformation. Draco’s ignorant blood purist comments would piss Harry off and inspire lengthy lectures (that you know Draco would profess to hate but secretly grow to agree with) which would help him become a good person when he wasn’t in the past.

In that same vein, Draco’s influence would help Harry find balance. Throughout the series, house rivalries shaped Harry’s point of view to the point where he barely thought of Slytherins as human. He repressed his dark traits, like Parseltongue, out of fear, and he pushed people away when unity could have altered the course of the war for the better. Of course, none of us can blame him for this, since his experience with Slytherins warranted such beliefs (most of the Slytherins in his life caused far more harm than good to him and his friends), but these beliefs are also part of what gave Voldemort so much power over him. By seeing Draco’s humanity and experiencing his love of the dark arts, Harry could begin to heal from his own deeply-ingrained prejudices and find acceptance of all parts of himself.

Beyond the value they’d bring to each other, let’s talk about this from a story perspective. It all comes down to the fact that they’re two sides of the same coin (cliche, but it sums up their relationship more accurately than anything else). Both of them were poster children for their respective sides, but while Harry was taken in by Mrs. Weasley and used by Dumbledore, Draco was raised by Lucius and made into a pawn by Voldemort. No matter how their paths veered, they always came back to each other in the end, so of all the people to end up together, the two who are constantly paired in every situation make the most sense out of anyone. When you really start to look at it, Drarry seems downright inevitable. The two were pitted against each other from the start, but that’s part of what makes their eventual unity so appealing. In a story about rifts and prejudice, light and dark, their pairing rights wrongs and signals a shift towards a better future. In the end, Drarry isn’t a superficial pairing at all. It’s the ultimate resolution.

2K notes · View notes

lovethefinalseason-blog · 7 years

Text

PL 7B, Ep 7: Driving Miss Crazy

Only four episodes left forever and after this there will only be three until we finally found out who uber A AKA AD is. The writers are certainly throwing a lot of red herring suspects at us. Obviously whoever is AD needs to be a tech genius, have a ton of connections, hold a grudge against the liars and want revenge for Charlotte (Cece/Charle)’s murder. Of course, we still don’t know who actually murdered Charlotte and the topic isn’t broached much on the show. I’m starting to wonder if we will ever find out or if the AD revelation will even make sense. Let’s be honest, we all know it won’t. Literally nothing makes sense on this show. The most obvious candidates for AD are Caleb and Mona - both incredibly smart and tech savvy but unless one of them turns out to be yet another illegitimate child of Mr. Hastings, I don’t see any real motive. Then there’s the Spencer has a twin theory. It was plausible a few weeks ago when she mysteriously met with Wren at the airport (and I do really hope Wren makes another appearance in the last 3 episodes, I’ve long held a Wren is A theory), but I’ve not seen any evidence of evil twin Spencer in the last two weeks. This week’s episode offers no new clues but it did give me one genuine shock moment and a very cute engagement story. So let’s get on with it then!

Aria has finally decided to take those salsa lessons with Ezra - side note, normally Aria’s fashion sense borders on ‘maybe you belonged in Radley’ but tonight her outfits are all very cute, especially her bright pink salsa sandals. After class, Ezra is annoyed because he keeps getting texts from his brother Wesley - remember Wesley! Ezra’s younger brother who was very adorable and age appropriate for Aria. They kissed once but then decided it wasn’t right. True to form, Ezra’s mom doesnt like Wesley’s new girlfriend and doesn’t want her to come to the wedding. Aria feigns interest in the story and sees that she received a text from AD. Ezra is oblivious to AD and thinks she’s just worried about the wedding. He tells her he’ll take care of it and leaves. When he’s gone, Aria opens up the facetime with Paria who’s still threatening her with the mystery file. Paria tells her to deliver a gift to Spencer and her family. Aria says no, she doesn’t want to hurt her friends anymore to which Paria responds “does the groom know you once referred to him as a ‘twisted conniving predator’ and that you wanted the police to charge him.” Aria says that was 6 years ago and Paria laughs and says luckily for me there’s no statute of limitations on this. Actually fact check - there is. In Pennsylvania victims under the age of 18 who were born before August 27, 2002 have 12 years after their 18th birthday to file criminal charges. So they are still within the statue of limitations and it literally took me 5 minutes to google that. You could’ve done the same PLL writers.

Marco shows up to Hanna’s apartment to talk to her about the flooding at the Radley hotel. A witness saw her and Caleb there that night. Caleb says of course they saw me, I live there. Hanna stupidly tells the cop that Caleb helped her mom upgrade the security system in exchange for a room at the Radley.

Spencer is helping her parents pack up their stuff for the move (remember Spencer’s mom got elected as a state senator so they are selling the house and moving to Harrisburg). Emily is there and mentions that Ali is off visiting her brother Jason in NY. This makes sense considering that 3 parental figures show up in tonight’s episode, so they probably couldn’t afford to also have the 5th liar. In one of the boxes marked “trash”, Spencer finds a a blanket from Radley Sanitarium. Her and Emily think it’s the blanket she was brought home in. Before we can get sentimental (and wonder how Spencer didn’t find this blanket sooner), Hanna texts saying “need to play the game.”

Hanna is freaking out about any other evidence that Marco might’ve found - especially the shovels they used to bury Archer Dunhill. She insists they have to play the game. The liars remind her that it doesn’t work like that, you need to be chosen, and then Hanna looks at Aria and asks why she hasn’t had a turn yet and Aria is like umm...i dont know. Just then, Mona walks in and it’s Spencer’s turn to freak out, wondering what the F she is doing there while trying to hide the game from her. Hanna finally tells them that she already told Mona about the game. They need Mona’s help because she’s smart (duh). Mona has a short list of AD suspects - “starting with Jenna Marshall and ending with Mary Drake.” Apparently Mona also helped replace the windshield on Hanna’s car after they killed Archer Dunhill making her an accessory. This begs the question - why isn’t Mona a piece on the game? She was part of the original dollhouse kidnapping. She also hated Charlotte and had every motive to kill her. This could indicate that she is AD - makes sense but feels too much like another Lucas-esque red herring. It could also be that whoever is AD knows the four of them killed Archer but doesn’t know about Mona’s involvement. Or AD knows that leaving Mona out is torture for her because all she’s ever wanted was to be included in the group.

Anyway, back at the Radley where Caleb apparently lives, he runs into Hanna’s mom Ashely with a new lob haircut. She’s tells Caleb she is concerned and wants to talk to him in private. She’s been in a meeting with the Rosewood police about her burst pipes and she’s wondering if he really had anything to do with it and if it’s because he’s protecting Hanna. Caleb looks Ashley in the eye and tells her that Hanna is not in trouble. Again, this also brings up some “could he be A feelings”. Caleb is very good at lying, he didn’t even flinch when he just lied straight to Ashley’s face. He’s also a tech genius and what do we really know about him except that he once lived in the ceiling of Rosewood High School. Again, I think this is a red herring and while I think it would be pretty awesome, it would seriously piss off a slew of Haleb fans.

Back at Spencer’s parents house, Aria shows up with two bags of food. Spencer is mad about Mona. While she packs and bitches to Aria about it, Aria takes out a burner smart phone and connects it to the Hastings bluetooth. She then drops the phone into one of moving boxes, then says she really needs to get back to wedding planning with Ezra and leaves. Literally a minute after she leaves a phone call between Mr. Hastings and Mary starts blasting in the room where Spencer is packing. It’s Mr. Hastings yelling at Mary for burying Jessica in his backyard and Mary saying “I didn’t have a choice, if it wasn’t Jessica, it would’ve been me six feet under.” Mr. Hastings runs in and freaks out trying to find out where it’s coming from. He finds a speaker then runs outside to find Mary. The recording doesn’t stop though and Mrs. Hastings also runs into the room looking disgusted at what she’s hearing. When Mr. Hastings come back in, she asks who recorded that conversation and he says “how should i know it was 100 years ago!” to which Spencer corrects him and says 6. Mrs. Hastings immediately picks up the phone to call the police but her husband says no and Spencer agrees. While Mr. Hastings definitely looks guilty, Spencer is just afraid that Marco will show up.

Mona is over at Emison’s inspecting the the board game. Mona tells Emily that she knows who paid for the procedure to get Ali pregnant. Instead of telling Emily, she says she has an appt with the dr. the next morning at 11 where she will pretend to be Emily’s girlfriend. If I was Emily I’d be like

At the brew, Hanna and Caleb are talking - she is worried her mom is going to know they are lying. Ezra comes over with some coffees for them - hey remember when Ezra bought the brew? Yea he still owns it somehow. Ezra, oblivious to the board game and everything happening around him, complains to Caleb and Hanna that his family is ruining is wedding. He just wants a private ceremony for two. Just then Aria walks in and a super happy Ezra asks her to stay for dinner but she says she’s not hungry and goes upstairs to their apartment (yes they live above the Brew).

The next morning, Emily and Mona show up for their doctor’s appointment, talking about their fake artificial insemination. Emily acts weird when the doctor asks the question “have you ever been pregnant before.” Mona tells the doctor that they were referred by another patient of his, Alison Dilaurentis and the doctor immediately tells them he can’t help them and they need to find another doctor. When they leave Emily tells Mona she thinks this was a stupid idea. Mona tells her that some ideas take longer to execute, then takes out a “fertility now” magazine she stole that has the doctor’s personal address on it.

Spencer finally finds the burner phone that Aria planted and looks like she might finally be putting some puzzle pieces together..

I think she finally figures it out because she calls Aria and tells her that there’s a burner phone in the box that is ruining her family. Aria acts innocent asking her how it got there and Spencer says she doesn’t know but she needs to her mom about the game. Aria tells her no, Mona might still figure out who’s running the game. Ezra comes in and she hangs up on Spencer fast. Ezra finally asks if she’s ok and then tries to change her mood by playing a song for their first dance. She doesnt have a good reaction to it, and Ezra thinks that she has reservations about the wedding. Ezra says he knows there are things that he’s done that cant be undone and can’t be forgiven. He thinks she still has doubts about whether she can trust him and that there’s a part of her that can’t forgive him for taking advantage of her and her friends for the sake of a book (OR FOR BEING A PEDOPHILE) She says nothing, just gives him a hug.

As Spencer leaves her parents’ house, she sees a car lingering with it’s lights on out front. It’s Marco. She asks “when did we go from dating to stalking” and he says that he’s there to do another followup interview. Marco says Ashley told him about her and Caleb’s past relationship and asks her if her interest in him has anything to do with her suddenly needing a cop in her corner. She looks at him and says “if you have anything to say it can be in your office, under flourescent lights and i promise it will not be me who’s embarrassed.” He gets back in her car and she watches him drive off before getting into her own car. Before she can start the ignition, Mary pops up from the backseat, covers her mouth and says “drive.”

Mary brings her to the Lost Woods Resort, the creepiest hotel that I’m surprised the cops still haven’t found. Mary says it’s sad that Spencer is afraid of her. I mean, popping up in the backseat of someone’s car would make anyone afraid of you. Mary tells her that she didn’t plant the phone in her house but she heard the recording while she was waiting outside. She thinks the hospital probably recorded it as they recorded a lot of her phone calls. Mary looks at Spencer and says, you’d be surprised at the things you’d have to do to protect yourself. Suddenly we’re treated to the most awkward flashback transition. It’s 6 years ago and Mr. Hastings is letting Mary into the Hastings’ residence, he tells her “take a good look because this is the last time you’ll ever be allowed in here. You’ll never see Spencer again.” As they are arguing, Jessica walks in and says “I thought we were taking care of this.” Apparently Mr. Hastings and Jessica planned to murder Mary but Mary got the best of them and gave the medications meant for her to Jessica instead. They were identical twins so they had the same medical problems (I guess some sort of faulty drugs mixed with a heart condition killed Jessica). She’s tells Spencer that she’s been cheated out of so much, most of all knowing her then asks if she’d consider staying with her.

I forgot to mention that Hanna went back to a cabin in the woods where the liars apparently stole the shovels they used to bury Archer Dunhill. A security guard catches her and she tells him she needs a shovel to dig her car tire out. He tells her that all the shovels were taken. A few scenes later Hanna comes back to her apartment freaking out to Caleb about the missing shovels. As she’s yelling her mom comes out and says “hello stranger”. Apparently the rooms in this apartment must be soundproof because she didn’t hear anything Hanna just yelled about being wanted for murder. Ashley asks Hanna if Emily is still living there and Hanna tells her that she moved in with Alison. Her mom looks at the two of them and asks if they are moving in together then. Caleb tells her the situation isn’t permanent. Ashley then looks directly at Caleb and says “I know you’re back in Hanna’s life, I just want to know why.” Keep in mind, Hanna is standing right there and she’s like um, hello mom, I can hear you. Caleb says he’s here because he needed Hanna’s help, he needed to figure things out, like how he felt about her. He says she’s the best thing that’s ever happened to him. He cant imagine his life without her and he doesn’t want to. Ashley is like...what are you saying? And Caleb says “I want to marry your daughter Mrs. Marin. No bells and whistles, just the two of us exchanging vows, finally making it official.” Hanna smiles and Ashely with literally no excitement on her face possibly due to too much botox finally says..well, we now have something to toast!

When we get back from a series of seriously annoying Iliza Schlesinger commercials we are treated to the worst scene that’s ever happened on pretty little liars to date. And that scene is Aria’s black and white musical dream of herself in a toilet paper wedding gown in prison watching Ezra get beat up by other dancing inmates while Mona sings jailhouse rock. No, I was not on shrooms while watching this, this is a real scene that really happened. It’s also a full three minutes long and ends with Mrs. Hastings looking at Aria and saying “I wouldnt piss on you if you were on fire”.

When she finally wakes up, she’s on the couch with a sleeping Ezra. Her phone vibrates - “You’ve waited long enough your reward is downstairs at the brew - AD”. She then goes downstairs to the brew, begging the question if they jointly own this coffee shop, how is it still open while they sleep on the couch upstairs. Who’s running it right now? Aria not so secrelty starts looking under things and in books and baskets around the coffee shop. She finally spots a piece of paper under a table leg and picks it up. It’s an envelope marked “Aria” and inside is a puzzle piece with a note - “Connect this, you’re almost there” As she’s looking at the piece, she feels someone watching her looks up and sees Mona staring at her.

Earlier that day Mona and Emily went back to the doctor’s. Using his home address, Mona somehow found out that he got cash to pay off a medical school bill loan overnight. They demand to know who paid him. He doesnt have names because it was all handled electronically but he does have a donor’s ID number. Mona accepts that because of course she’ll be able to figure out who it is.

When Spencer finally gets back to her barn, her parents are there looking at the letter from Mary. Mr. Hastings is pissed and says that it’s all a manipulative ploy. He yells that he was protecting the family from a deranged sociopath who was trying to ruin their lives and he would do it again. He then looks at Spencer and says “If someone continually threatens you Spencer, I don’t think you would do any different.” It’s almost like they forgot that someone used to stalk their kid AND KIDNAPPED HER. After he leaves, her mom picks up the letter and hands it back to her. She then tells her to start unpacking boxes because they aren’t going to Harrisburg, shes forfeiting her senate seat. She can’t risk having her husband’s attempted murder in her past. Spencer tells her that Mary didn’t bring the recording into the house and her mom says really, who did? Spencer looks like she’s about to say something - will she tell her mom about the game? That the stalking is happening again? Unfortunately, we won’t find out this week.

Hanna is frantically walking through the woods with a flashlight and stumbles on a tent. When she opens it, Caleb is inside and she asks why he wanted her to come here. When he dropped her mom at the hotel he decided it was better to be off the grid because her staff looked suspicious of him. Hanna asks if his proposal was real or was he just trying to throw her mom off the scent. He says he would marry her right this second if they could find a bear who was licensed. Hanna takes out wine and cigars from her bag. She slips the paper ring off one of the cigars and slips it on his finger. He does the same to her with the second cigar. They then start making out and the camera pans away to lots of clothes coming off, much like the first time they had sex.

Back at Emison’s we are supposed to be scared of a hooded figure hovering over the board game, but it’s just Aria of course connecting the next puzzle piece. As she does the phone lights up “Congrats your grand prize is behind you.” She turns around and finds her never filed police report in a vase on the shelf.

Emily, super pumped from besting the doctor earlier, gives Mona the phone Spencer found in her house. She asks Mona to find out whatever she can from it. As they get to the door of Mona’s apartment, Emily tries to come in to show her something and Mona brushes her off, saying they still have tomorrow then quickly goes into her apartment and locks a thousand locks and watches Emily leave through the peephole. I know we’re supposed to be suspicious of all the locks on her door but let me just say again, these girls were tortured and kidnapped. They should all be locking their doors and closing their blinds but none of them do, so obviously Mona really is the only smart one. Mona sits down at her desk, turns on her computer and starts typing. The camera pans out and we see a large evidence board with newspaper clippings, photographs, yarn, the works and in the corner - the four missing shovels.

0 notes