Who Is Scout's Ma?
She's a character we know extremely little about, however when you stop to consider the IMPLICATIONS of what little we DO know, things start to get interesting:
1. She lives in the roughest part of Boston ("if you were from where I was from, you'd be dead") but dresses quite elegantly.
2. She had 8 boys, all of whom she raised BY HERSELF, and yet somehow she finds the time to maintain this impeccable appearance.
3. Scout clearly loves and admires her to a point where it's one of the few things he'll drop his "tough guy" act for, and dialogue in the comics like "Ma's gonna kill me if she finds out" implies he also still fears her disapproval, despite being a fully autonomous adult.
4. Spy, despite what he likes to pretend, is clearly head-over-heels for her. He even had her likeness engraved on his fanciest gun! (Note the distinct hairband & hoop earrings) For a man who avoids attachment to the point where he never lets anyone see his face, that's an unusual degree of infatuation.
5. None of Scout's brothers left Boston while he was growing up, despite a few of them presumably being adults by then. Not only this, they were still all getting into fights together, implying they were both continuing to live with or near their mother and brothers, AND had reasons to brawl with others beyond just some adolescent street scuffle.
My Theory:
Scout's Ma is the matriarch of a Boston-based crime family.
It explains her elegant appearance, how she and Spy were able to meet, why their bond clearly goes beyond a one-off fling, why she was able to be in Scout's life so much despite the financial burdens of being a single mother of 8, and why all of said 8 were continuing to get into fights with other locals. They weren't just some street gang, they were enforcers. It also explains why/how Scout got into mercenary work, his many mafia-themed weapons, and why he continues to fear her ire even as an adult.
Plus, take a look at this unused angle of the last photo from Meet The Spy:
You'd THINK a single mother from the rough side of Boston wouldn't appear so in-her-element on a fancy date with The Spy, and yet her appearance and demeanour here just SCREAM "confident and in control."
Scout's Ma is Boston's Godmother, and I desperately wish to see someone draw her as such.
569 notes
·
View notes
Liliana telling Imogen, "You know how much I miss just taking care of those horses? You know how much I dream of just walking the fields and making breakfast at sunrise? All that was taken from me" really brings to mind something that Laudna said to Imogen in episode 49:
"If you wish to have a quiet life in a cozy cottage in a field, raise horses and just be, no gods or fates or destiny can keep you from that."
That's the crux of why Liliana's argument fails to be convincing. Laudna is right--at any moment in this journey, Imogen could have decided she didn't need to do this and found a cottage to settle down in. At any point in 14-16 years of wandering Exandria before finding the Verity, Liliana could have gone home and had all the things she feels were "taken" from her. But she didn't, and that was her decision, not the fault of the gods, or Predathos, or any other force she thinks kept her away. She decided she needed answers more than that cozy life she loved so much. Foisting the responsibility of that decision does not erase that it was hers
532 notes
·
View notes
How I (roughly) imagine this scale:
1- I see myself as a faster reader than the average person. I can breeze through a text quickly and still understand almost all of it
2- I read at a "normal" speed. I need to pace myself but can consistently read and comprehend a text in a reasonable time frame
3- I see myself as a slower reader than other people. It takes me a long time to get through a text and if I try to go too fast I won't understand it
Obviously this can vary by your mood, the type of text, etc. and this is a very imprecise scale with some overlap, I'm just casually curious!!
468 notes
·
View notes
Hey, so do you ever stop to think about how the premise of Lord of the Rings being an in-universe book written by some of the characters who lived through that story means that they decided what parts and perspectives to use to tell that story...?
And when our authors weren't there to experience the events themselves, they have to rely on what they're told about them by the characters who were there, right...?
Okay so stop and think about the Glittering Caves.
We never actually go to the caves in the narrative. Tolkien LOVES describing nature and natural beauty, but we don't actually see the caves described "by him" the way we do other places. Obviously Gimli's words are Tolkien's, yes; but we only see the caves filtered through his words about them, after the fact.
When Gimli and Éomer and the other Rohirrim take refuge there, the narrative doesn't follow them. Obviously from a narrative standpoint this is to keep the focus narrow, and not to interrupt the battle-sequence with a long ode to the beauty of the caves, and to create tension in the reader who doesn't know if these characters are okay or not. Which all makes sense!
But think about it in terms of the book that was written in Middle-earth by the folk living there. Why DON'T we get to have a direct experience of those caves? Gimli obviously related several other parts of the story that none of the Hobbits were there to witness to them, and which were written into the books as Direct Events Happening In The Narrative (think of the Paths of the Dead scene, for one of the more visceral moments!). So why not the Glittering Caves?
Was it because they wanted to keep that narrative focus and tension, and so they didn't include his perspective on that part of the battle? Perhaps, that's certainly a possibility to consider.
But also consider: when we do hear about the Glittering Caves, what we hear is Gimli telling Legolas about the Glittering Caves. THAT is the part of that event that is considered of importance to include in the book: not Gimli's actual experience when he was in them, but rather the part where he relates that experience TO Legolas.
And I kind of just THOUGHT about that today.
And went HUH.
241 notes
·
View notes
I think such a big reason my trans manhood feels almost... bigendered is simply because in the eyes of most people (specifically cis people with whom I interact with most), I straddle this weird line wherein I am a man and often am seen as one, but I am also clearly undefinable insofar as cis theory goes, clearly queer, clearly outside of manhood if one only accepts cishet, patriarchal manhood. This definitely used to be a source of dysphoria for me, but I think now that I've transitioned, it's been interesting to explore this more. Am I wholly a man? Yes. Am I a man of multitudes? Yes. Do these multitudes contradict? Well, that depends on your definition of "contradiction"
342 notes
·
View notes