no thoughts head empty the oppressive stagnancy of legacy in ever after high dragging me round the block yet again
it's such a shame that we get so little explanation about the actual mechanics of destiny, which is the entire premise of the show, bc it's so juicy. like what power does destiny hold when you rip away milton's lies and centuries of assumptions and traditions. esp bc despite raven signing herself as the evil queen in the real storybook of legends, when the snow white fairytale actually happens in dragon games she's playing one of the seven dwarves and her mother has reprised her role. like how much of that was because of the characters' actions and how much was destiny pulling on old, familiar threads. keeps me up at night.
a lot of this is probably just like, plot holes and writer hot potato but i like making it that deep, that's half of the fun. my personal interpretation is that fate is a wild thing that desires repetition and they developed the system of fairytale legacy bloodlines to keep those repetitions predictable and contained, instead of wreaking havoc whenever and wherever they please.
which lends itself to some really juicy exploration of how legacy is a duty as much as it is a privilege, and how to be a princess or a witch or a hero or a dragon is to be the same thing in the end: the lamb destiny slaughters on the altar to sate the ever-ravenous narrative. to keep the flock safe. keep the unknown that prowls beyond the beaten path at bay. because if a there is always a mother who will be cruel, or a maiden who will fall into a sleep like death, or a child who will become a bird, isn’t it better to know who, and how, and when? isn’t better if it’s you, who has known your whole life that you must be eaten, be poisoned, be stripped of your humanity, rather than anybody else, who wasn’t raised to see it as an honour instead of a great and terrible injustice?
473 notes
·
View notes
very much an off-the-cuff post so there may well be bugs, i'm still workshopping my thinking here, but—
i seem to see posts fairly regularly in which a member of some marginalized group A is objecting to attempts by less marginalized group B to make connections between discrimination against A and harm experienced by B (the main thing i have in mind here is when people attempt to align themselves with visibly-trans people by pointing out the ways that transphobic legislation also impacts gnc cis people, theatrical crossdressing, &c, but there are definitely also examples along other axes)—
and like. the main objection i've seen from A is 'why do they have to connect my experience to their experience in order to care about it? why can't they just agree that i shouldn't be discriminated against as a matter of, like, compassion for fellow humanity?'
and this reaction does honestly always just seem a little, idk, naive to me?? like, i don't know, it's gotten very popular ime to complain about normies' clumsy attempts to Understand Instead of Just Accepting [this feels potentially linked to like. the way many of us now prefer silently clicking 'like' to producing our own original, maybe clumsy, responses? but don't @ me on that point], probably because a lot of the time they aren't genuinely seeking to Understand but just to point out all the ways our queerness &c doesn't fit their received (unexaminedly conservative) understanding of the world, which feels to us (very reasonably!) like renewed pressure from the establishment to make ourselves fit that established framework, and so we resist… but at the same time, idk, maybe i'm just outing myself as lesser-than-thou here, but for every sort of person i was raised to distrust and have since arrived at genuine loving acceptance/appreciation of, it's involved first coming to understand their frame of reference at least a little? not to say that there isn't a place for shutting up and listening while you're still working to understand, because there definitely is! but i do kind of think this idea that's become popular in certain liberal circles of like, 'you don't have to understand my experience, you just have to respect it,' is fine and true for keeping peace with strangers, but really isn't a recipe for winning friends or influencing people—it's a recipe for keeping people at arm's length where they can't hit you. and then people turn around and want to apply that rule to coalition-building, and get all shocked-pikachu-face when others seek to identify more active points of connection.
...
another ~Radical Objection to Liberal Approaches~ i've seen, though often not specifically in this context (of discussing the way attempts to oppress A have knock-on effects for B), is like—'there's no point in deconstructing their logic because it's fundamentally illogical! insert that sartre quote abt anti-semites!' and like. no, there's absolutely no point in debating their logic with them. but fundamentally when people assert a logical resistance to bigoted positions they are not doing it to Own The Bigots, imo, or at any rate shouldn't be; they're (we're) doing it to reaffirm the basis of their/our own camp's position, namely, we see your knee-jerk fears and reject them; we substitute instead a patient allegiance to logic, that reasons its way into compassion.
that said, obviously there's a conversation to be had here about, like, platforming bad positions, and to what extent deconstructing them is implicitly platforming them! but. i do think that complaining that logic won't win over bigots is missing the very fundamental point that the logic isn't for the bigots: it's for us. we're talking to ourselves; we're affirming ourselves. and yeah, we need to understand that this sort of intra-party discussion doesn't, on its own, constitute sufficient activism! messages need to be communicated beyond the bounds of the party! but i do think i disagree that there's no place for it.
9 notes
·
View notes
If you look at GRRM’s cast of female characters it’s very clear that he does not like or reward the Alicent archetype so it’s no wonder her fans think she’s oppressed. The vast majority of his female characters who have some kind of substantial role in the series are willful and defiant in some way.
hmm... i tried to inquire into this myself and apparently her stans think alicent is a victim because ever since her youth she's been involved in "inappropriate" relations with much older more powerful men against her will. aka king jaehaerys i and viserys i respectively.
and yeah, to be quite honest, i find it very hard to believe that thirteen year old alicent would spend her days accompanying an old dying king because she just felt like it. I don't know any such 13 year olds. it's much easier to believe her father pushed her into that uncomfortable situation in order to advance his own position at court and family's status, and she just obeyed because she didn't know better, as it is expected of someone so young. and even later when she's a full grown adult as viserys' wife, she's still too young to be a mother and finds no joy in sharing his bed, on top of that.
and dont get me wrong, i am the first who's more than willing to frame powerful men as the source of all evil and abuse, both in the fictional and real world. alicent definitely is NOT responsible for the way her relationships with these kings started nor the undocumented harassment she might have suffered by them, as she couldn't have agreed to any of that, at least in one case, on account of being a minor.
as much as i can appreciate all this and recognize how depressing and underwhelming half her life might have been, it still doesn't excuse the way alicent later betrayed rhaenyra's trust and actively worked against her former friend and also against the political agenda that would bring about change (possibly an improvement for victims of powerful men such as herself too!!!).
alicent truly had no business using her own sons by the king she so despised to snatch rhaenyra's birthright away from her so called "childhood companion". if power and agency over her own life were what alicent understandably craved, then she should have gone for it differently.
her options later in life aren't as limited as they were at the beginning of it all, so let's not pretend alicent had no responsibility in what came after.
truth is, she eventually became too absorbed in the men's game and could barely tell her own will apart from theirs. alicent herself stopped identifying as a victim (if she ever had) simply because she found herself rewarded for all her years of patience and obedience by the very men who had used and abused her, first and foremost otto hightower. she was eventually awarded an ounce of power as the "mother" of the king, aka the only other role (alongside that of the wife) that a woman can hope for under the sexist patriarchal regime. and that's enough to win her loyalty forever and bind her permanently to the side of patriarchy. she won't even try to change the very system that has treated her like shit since day one because why bother? it shouldn't be changed and she's at the top of it all now, besides. or so she wants to believe.
so, in short, do i think alicent hightower is a victim of patriarchy as much as basically any other female character in asoiaf? yes, most certainly i do. do i respect her for the way she responded to the system actively victimizing her? hell no, she became part of the systemic problem soon enough, like so many women do nowadays too regretfully
2 notes
·
View notes