Do you think - all speculation here but let's indulge a bit anyway - do you think, from Armand's perspective when he's in all likelihood just heard Daniel voice his complaints and beg to be turned into a replacement for all Louis' lost, that that could be a part of his choice to then come in when Louis' on his neck? That a part of him was thinking... even if Louis is angry in the moment... that Louis would inevitably do it? (He could, at least?)
He kept him alive all this time. He'd shared with him things he never shares. It's morning and he'd still kept his attention. He's special, Armand knows without needing to hear it out of Louis' mouth.
And like, from his perspective does he see this replacement as the last thing Louis needs? Considering how well filling a void by making another vampire had turned out for him the first time. How he'd been filling a seemingly un-fillable void as it is. How he's unstable, and not in the right mind to be taking on such a responsibility. How it's a bad idea doomed to fail, only a more disastrous mess to clean up in the end if he doesn't stop this now. Or, maybe let's say he's only at all concerned with himself, Armand has many selfish reasons to want Louis to move on. So, he at least finds Daniel, the potential of Daniel, to be a threat because of what he'd be replacing - leading to Daniel as this wedge between something that was already splitting hairs as it was. Maybe it's a bit of both, and either way, whether it's a success or not Daniel poses something Armand can't handle.
Anyway it'll be interesting to see how, or if, they bridge the initial feelings towards Daniel on Armand's part with the Daniel we have now. Cause there's a lot of questions there. There's a strange sense of fondness towards him? At least this is something I'm seeing in their interactions so far.
30 notes
·
View notes
I just saw a post talking of the Black Water Arc and got inspired, but it disappeared into ether before I could interact with it.
Anyways, here's something I always wanted to be cleared out about He Xuan.
Black Water Arc spoilers | Tgcf Book 3 spoilers | White-No-Face reveal spoilers
He Xuan was NOT deliberate in befriending Shi Qingxuan in his plan of revenge. He did not even know SQX was tied to any of it.
He Xuan, immediately upon death, knew only one thing for certain, the heavens had something to do with it. He did not know what, he did not know who. It is cleared upon after the Bai Wuxiang reveals, that He Xuan learning of his fate was a part of Jun Wu's plan. Jun Wu wanted the other powerful heavenly officials weakened and out of his way. So, along with Jun Wu guiding XL to quests that specifically resulted in Pei Ming's loss of power, he also orchestrated a way to bring Shi Wudu down. So he let it slip to He Xuan that it was the water master who destroyed his life and it was him that HX needed revenge against. And this was done only right before the events leading to the Black Water Arc.
Yes He Xuan was driven, for the five hundred or so years, by revenge but it wasn't particular, it wasn't direct. He spent his time in the heavens spying in every possible gods in every possible direction, with hundreds of clones. It was Shi Qingxuan who decided to take particular liking to the Earth Master and be "best friends". So I believe that the centuries of their friendship (or more) was not disingenuous for He Xuan.
In most fan fics and interpretations, it is shown that when He Xuan "likes" or "builds a relationship" with Shi Qingxuan, it's with the prior knowledge that they are in his path of revenge. And I find that so cruel and not in character for He Xuan. Knowing the kind of person He Xuan was in life, how are we to believe he would be so cruel to allow SQX to love him, fully knowing what end awaits them? To ascend is human, to fall is also human. Hei Shui (Black Water) is still He Xuan in death.
Thus, whatever the nature of their relationship was, I maintain He Xuan wouldn't do that (and it would be so especially cruel if their relationship was intimate). This is further shown in his desperate attempts to make Shi Qingxuan see what his brother had done to the scholar he once was, to fall out of support for his brother, to just be fair and safe !
He revenge for Shi Wudu is righteous, it is fair and it is poetic, even. But the end to his and SQX, isn't fair to anyone. In the end they had to be on oppsite sides, as SQX chooses Shi Wudu (and of course they do, Shi Wudu is the parent that cared for them for their entire existence!). And that is a betrayal for He Xuan.
All of this is to say, He xuan loved Shi Quan too, he did not know Shi Qingxuan was someone connected to his destruction, and thus SQX (and him, as well) were just collateral damage in his oath of damage. He Xuan was not cruel and calculating with SQX from the beginning (well he was, but in a deceiving everyone in heavens with false identity and ulterior motives way, NOT in a I know I'm going to cause you unimaginable hurt in the future but will still let you form emotional and/or intimate connection with me way. )
40 notes
·
View notes
Immortality, Motherhood, and Pain: A Closer Look at Annalise and the Doll
Finally revisiting this from ages ago, because the parallels between these two are just SO fascinating. Content warnings for discussions of misogyny, genocide, abuse, and pregnancy/childbirth.
This analysis will cover the parallels between Miss Doll and Queen Annalise through the lenses of the misery of immortality, the trauma of marginalization, and the liberation they find in motherhood. Both the Doll and Annalise are undying, both coded as mother figures, both marked by death, and both very, very alone.
Miss doll and Annalise are the only characters in the whole game who are undying. You can kill them, but not meaningfully - not in any way that matters - and they seem to know it. Neither will try to stop you, nor will they fight back, should you choose to attack them. They will come back, and your violent betrayal will have seemingly meant nothing to them. They both are very aware they will outlast whatever violence you may inflict upon them. It's evidenced in their dialogue:
If you attack, Annalise says:
“Enough. If only Our life was so easily forfeit… Grieve not, for Us.”
“How sad this is. If only Our life was so easily forfeit…”
If you attack Miss Doll, she used to say:
“I must have displeased you. Go on, shut me down… Even so, this vessel will remain in your service… So have no fear."
I think this point of comparison highlights just how deeply they've both been desensitized to violence and abuse. They do not beg for mercy, they do not put up a struggle - they only remark on it with distant chagrin. They both seem keenly aware that their flesh need not be in one piece to fulfill its purpose.
But where Miss Doll was made to embody the Victorian patriarchal ideal of womanhood, Annalise wields womanhood as her last weapon against the dehumanization of the church’s genocide through her queendom. Upon being resurrected the next time you return to the dream, Miss Doll will act as though nothing had happened at all. However, if you bring her flesh to the Altar of Despair, Annalise will call you an arrant fool, and remind you that “Vileblood or no, forget not; We are thy Queen”. Miss Doll kneels to serve the hunter, while the hunter must kneel to serve Annalise. Miss Doll has been conditioned to passively accept dehumanization and submission, yet Annalise demands respect through your submission even in her dehumanized state. Miss Doll is subjugated by the trappings of womanhood, while Annalise is lifted from subjugation by her womanhood, in some ways.
I find this fascinating, however, because while Miss Doll appears in every way as a pure, demure Victorian woman was meant to, they are also dehumanized through the denial of gender. To Gerhman, their creator, they are nothing more than another tool of the workshop. An object. Even the Doll themself uses neutral "I" pronouns to refer to themself in the original translation. I think it is pertinent to note that the only canonical reference to Miss Doll as a "woman" comes from Eileen. In the original Japanese text, she refers to the Doll with a term of endearment reserved for young girls. Miss Doll's appearance is the historical ideal of the subjugated woman - yet when Eileen confers upon her the status of "woman", she does so in an endearing and humanizing way. Therefore, for both Miss Doll and Queen Annalise, the status of womanhood is a rebuttal of their own dehumanizing subjugation: Annalise as "queen", and Miss Doll as "daughter".
Both characters are arguably seeking/find liberation through motherhood. Miss Doll gets "Childhood's Beginning": their creator and animator have both been put down, the hunt is finally over and they are no longer bound to serve its participants, nor must they watch their beheadings. They cradle the newly ascended hunter. It is a highly atypical “motherhood”. It exists in the performance of the role rather than the biology of childbirth. In the same way, the Doll possesses a highly atypical “womanhood” which exists in performance alone, rather than in biology or even identity — but nonetheless, it is real, and it is hers. I, perhaps too optimistically, choose read it as humanizing for them; because unlike their “womanhood”, Miss Doll is allowed to choose this for themself rather than having it imposed upon them.
In the same vein, Annalise seeks to birth a child of blood for a similar but perhaps more somber reason. She wants a child because she wants an heir — which is to say, because it is the only way she may once again have kin. Because it is the only way she may fulfill her duty as Queen. She witnessed everyone she ever knew or loved — surely her own family included — slaughtered before her eyes. Annalise seems to seek motherhood in order to be a homemaker - in the most literal sense possible. She wants to rebuild the community, the home, which was so brutally torn away from her. She wishes to restore honor to Cainhurst. For Annalise, having a child is an open act of rebellion against the genocidal eugenics-frenzied bloodthirst of the Church. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason Alfred is so hellbet on destroying her, why the Executioners imprisoned her the way they did, was to strip her of bodily autonomy so she couldn’t “reproduce”. Her desire for a child is her way of seeking liberation for her and her people.
In this sense, taking up the role of a mother, of "women's work", is what confers the agency upon both Annalise and Miss Doll which had been otherwise stripped from them. Annalise's by the genocidal eugenics of the Church, and Miss Doll by the pact of servitude she was seemingly born into.
98 notes
·
View notes
Not seeing enough about how the king was heavily implied to be a closeted homosexual who chose tradition and the crown while burying his heart/desires, making him an obvious foil to Henry, who makes the opposite decision with Alex.
“Princes cannot be homosexual” and the way he clenches his hands as he said it, he was definitely told the exact same thing when he was a much younger man.
It’s just a very layered choice and makes an interesting point about cycles of homophobia and violence, and it was the one major change that felt purposeful in the film.
Also, it’s Stephen Fry. ‘Nuff said.
[Oooh and continuing along the thread of cycles of homophobia and violence: Miguel.]
110 notes
·
View notes