Agent Rouka's Blog

lesbian meets monogamous space rock

individual shitposts under the cut (i just liked how this canvas turned out all together lol) ->

a visitor on the biodome!!

LOOK AT THEM SILLIES

First of all, they're not real. That part is really important.

Second, one of the advantages of fiction is that it allows you to see the entire shape of a character and their backstory. You can understand how they became who they are, what wounds they're carrying, what fears are motivating them, and what choices led them to where they are.

And now, look at me in my fictional Tumblr eyes for a second while I say this, as I gently grab you by the shoulders:

Sympathy is not the same thing as endorsement.

You can recognize that a character is hurting the people around them while also recognizing that they're hurting themselves.

In fact, I'd argue that's one of the most important things stories can teach us.

Cycles of cruelty, abuse, isolation, and self-destruction don't become easier to recognize by pretending the people caught inside them are cartoon villains with no inner lives.

They become easier to recognize and end when we understand how those cycles form in the first place.

A character can't only be tragic if they're innocent.

They can be tragic because you can see exactly how they got here and exactly how they could have been something else.

You can feel bad for them.

You can understand them.

You can even love them as a character.

And still think the way they treat the people around them is abhorrent.

Those aren't contradictory positions.

That's just engaging with a character as a character. Not as a morality test. But as an idea being explored through fiction.

Sometimes a story isn’t asking you to agree with someone.

It’s asking you to understand them.

And understanding people, fictional or otherwise, is harder than deciding whether they’re good or bad. But it’s also more important, because it’s what actually opens the door to change and self-betterment.

Stories, at their best, aren’t really about verdicts.

It’s popular because Targ fans don’t like the idea of a “lost heir” doing in less than one book what Dány hasn’t done in 5: invade Westeros with an army and start conquering. They also don’t like Dǎny being a kinslayer, so A6 being a “Blackfyre usurper” somehow makes his hypothetical murder by dragonfire OK (even though he clearly believes he’s Elia’s son), even if King’s Landing being razed to the ground is clearly a heinous crime. For some reason (not supported by TWOIAF), they seem to believe the Blackfyres are “evil” and Targs “good”, even though the Blackfyres were all treacherously murdered by the Targ lackeys and never committed crimes on the large scale they did. It’s just a lot of Targ glazing that has people believe someone as “unspectacular” as Aegon could possibly belong to the dragon riding bloodline that was promised. Purple eyes aren’t limited to just the Targs, as a lot of Lyseni have Valyrian features (the Daynes also have them, some Velaryons, Sweets); but the idea that Aegon isn’t Rhaegar’s son because his eyes are lighter than Rhaegar’s is silly, because Viserys III Rhaegar’s full brother has much lighter eyes too.

This is why I will never understand when people insist that Daemon is an arrogant jerk who bullied Daeron’s spawns (some even portray him as a bully to Daeron himself, who is older than him by more than a decade and is far more powerful — WTF). You can’t be an arrogant bully and a jerk while at the same time making friends easily and having people drawn to you. People are not drawn to abusers and jerks.

People who think that Baelor, Maekar, or Daeron were victims of Daemon don’t understand the character that George wrote. There is no evidence that Daeron or his sons were particularly good people, and this is why their fans have twisted Daemon’s character — turning him from a charismatic, likeable person with a warm smile into Ramsay with silver hair. I mean, how can you claim Daeron was a good guy without turning his rival into a devil spawn with no redeeming qualities?

Really, Daemon's cardinal sin here is that he's more neurotypical than your usual fandom-goer (says the AuDHD fandom-goer). The keyword, I think, is "made friends." Having actual friends, rather than hangers-on or shallow crony relationships, requires a depth of investment in other people that's usually a sign of kindness. GRRM doesn't choose words carelessly. "Made friends easily" and "warm smile" paints a very different picture of Daemon than the fandom caricature you mentioned.

Daemon was charming and befriended people easily. Women liked him, but there's no evidence he ever cheated on his wife or even wanted to. He dueled an enemy honorably on the battlefield and made sure he received medical care. He refused to kill children. He died because he loved his kids so much, he ran into a rain of arrows trying to save his oldest son's life. All of this, once again, is canon. The only problem I have with him is that he probably killed people in battle, and if that's enough to disqualify someone from being a good person, then Ned Stark must be the devil.

They all talked about it and agreed that a quick end was preferable to imminent starvation in the coming decade. They were all at peace. ❤️

(Look, I am not a scientist, and while I have grave grave doubts about the scientific merit of this move that Andy Weir made to drive home the urgency of their situation , the lengths to which Eva Stratt's power enabled her to go, and to prompt her little "morality" speech, within the story it is framed as effective in prolonging life on the entire planet for maybe double the time they would have without it.

The fact that all Andy Weir chooses to focus on in this context is a barely explored mention of "morality" over effectivity and the actual alternative of not doing it? Not on me. Nor on the poor penguins.)

ETA: On their way to the big vote.