"Together."

Alternatively titled: The importance of “Blair, we’re not living in Paris in the Twenties.” and “we both wish we were”. Or, more specifically, the importance of Paris in this conversation.

I often times see comparisons of Chuck and Blair to gangsters in the 1920s. It’s a comparison the GG writers have made repeatedly (the outfits and speakeasy in 3x07, Chuck’s comment about the 1920s in 4x22, the use of “Bonnie and Clyde” in 6x10) and one I have personally felt the urge to write over the past few weeks. But as I started to think about them in that setting (and, unfortunately, repeatedly saw comments disparaging this comparison as proof that Chuck and Blair are a dysfunctional relationship), my mind kept coming back to this idea of them wanting to live not only in the 1920s but, more specifically, in Paris.

Most presentations of life in the 1920s in America bring up this idea of unimaginable wealth, gangsters, and prohibition, which was eventually repealed in 1933. (“Boardwalk Empire” and The Great Gatsby are two examples.) At the time, though, the 1920s in America were centered around what you cannot do – a ban on alcohol thanks to prohibition, censorship of film through the Hayes Code, institutionalized racism – and, despite the presentation of lavish consumerism, the country had a very troubled economy where people were relying upon credit and prices were quickly destabilizing, which is why you had people like Bonnie and Clyde robbing banks.

During the period between the Great War and the start of the Great Depression in 1929, Paris was seen as the cultural capital of the West. Expats from America including F. Scott Fitzgerald and Earnest Hemingway and from around the world were moving into the city because of its artistic and intellectual scene and higher level of freedom in artistic, intellectual, and social expression compared to their homelands. The city became a place of leisure; modernity in art, architecture, and fashion; and consumption of consumer goods (i.e. cars) in order to create a society free from the terrible outcomes and oppression of war. Paris was also a place of sexual freedom – people could admit to having desires and write about those desires without censorship.

All of this brings me back to why it’s important to pay attention to Chuck’s emphasis of their mutual desire to live in Paris during the 1920s. Chuck and Blair like to scheme and they, especially Blair, like to be in charge with others doing their bidding. It would make sense to cast them as gangsters, and the setting they are presented in on the show certainly sets up for comparisons to the lavishness and lawlessness of speakeasies and parties where alcohol flows. After all, it is what they do on the show many, many times.

Throughout the series (and underlined during her conversation with Eleanor in 5x24), Blair expresses an interest in art, architecture, fashion, and Paris, which are all things she would revel in during this time period. While not painted during the 1920s, Blair’s favorite painting, Dejeuner sur l'Herbe, would have shocked society in its depiction of a nude woman casually lunching with two fully dressed men. In other words, Blair enjoys stepping outside the confines of what society allows and engaging in individual and artistic expression. (Case in point: her burlesque show at Victrola.) Blair also has an appreciation for artistic expression through her love of classic films and books.

Furthermore, the emphasis on sexual freedom where people can admit to having desires and express those desires without censorship is important for Blair as an individual and as a member of a couple. One of the things I love about GG is how Blair took charge of her sexuality. She expressed her desire to have sex with Nate repeatedly and, ultimately, it was her decision to have sex with Chuck. Through her relationship with Chuck, Blair was able to express her sexual desire in whatever form – role playing, “she likes to watch” in 5x22, the handcuffs in 5x23, her limo sex dream in 2x08 – without judgement from Chuck. Dan judges her for not enjoying the missionary position in 6x05, and both he and Nate discuss how “bad” sex with her is in S5.

We also know that Chuck appreciates novels and films: he and Blair engage in sexual play based on the characters from Wuthering Heights (3x21) and Anna Karenina (3x13), he is seen reading a book multiple times during the series, and enjoys musicals (4x10). Most importantly, though, Chuck embodies the tolerance Parisians enjoyed during the 1920s. Eric discusses the fact that he is gay with Chuck and asks for advice from Chuck because, as he put it, Chuck is the only one who never judges him. He asks Serena “what’s so bad that you can’t even tell me”, reads all of Dan’s book, and admires his friends (especially Blair) for who they are without judging them or asking them to change. Blair also does this for Serena, reminding her that they are sisters and nothing Serena does could ever make her let go.

When I started watching Gossip Girl, very recently I might add, I went into it thinking that I was probably going to hate it. Little did I know this damn show was gonna take my blog over completely. I watched the pilot, liked it well enough, and thought why would anyone ship Blair and Chuck? I know they are endgame, I’ve been on Tumblr for years. I’ve seen the gifs. I shipped Dair before I ever watched a single episode of Gossip Girl. (And don’t get me started on Dan the sociopath, that’s a whole other post/)

But then a funny thing happened…I got to episode two. And realized quickly, that everything they wrote for Chuck in the pilot was basically taken directly from the book series. The show IS NOT the book series. It’s just not. Do I believe that Chuck’s actions in the pilot were wrong? Of fucking course. He tried to forcefully kiss two girls when they told him no. He was a self entitled rich kid that I immediately despised. But then episode 2 came, and then 3, and by 1x07 I was locked and loaded with a new favorite character. 

This entire thing is because I reblogged a (very well written) post about Chuck and how he loves selflessly. And I agreed whole heartedly. You can read that post HERE. 

Love changed Chuck Bass. Blair changed Chuck Bass. Did he make dumbass mistakes at various points of the series? Duh. So did everyone else. But do you know what Chuck did that no one else did?  

He went to therapy. He started to better himself, and not just so he could be with Blair, but for himself. He let himself love and let himself be loved by the people in his life. If you think the perfect character is the one that never changes, then you’re wrong. Give me someone broken and hurting, someone that sees in himself what needs to be changed and works to become a person worthy of love. 

Blair and Chucks relationship is a journey of being ready and right for one another. It’s about self health mending the bridge to a 'healthy’ relationship. Chuck and Blair are two characters, like normal humans, that have had relations with others that’s effected their own individual makeup. From the top down -stemming from their parents. Although Blairs mother loves her, her encroaching need for perfection created its own monster so to speak. It bred within Blair her own need for perfection, validation, and in ways are responsible for her old eating disorder and own need and yearning for love. Chuck like Blair lacked a stable sense of love within his home. In fact his father created within him a belief that he was not good enough, capable, or worthy. His actions/reactions created the expectation that Chuck should always be ready to be met with disappointment. This breeds within him a desire to be capable - useful - and a secret yearning for not only love but also family. A yearning he seeks to dispel because such a thing would have been a weakness inside the household he grew up in. This of course is what fleshes his destructive nature as well as his nothing matters - I don’t care attitude.

As they shift into a relationship the baggage they carry also entered into the relationship. Even after they get past this mindset that says I have to be strong and to be strong I have to be “on top - in power” their core issue still remains. And just focusing on Chuck that thing was fear of love. The concept that loving meant weakness. That loving led to disappointment. The belief that he was undeserving of it. The lack he had in it for himself. His absolute fear of losing it.

I have always and will always attest that Chuck was in love with Blair before that night in Victrola. Victrola was an awaking of possibility not interest. That night in front of him she showed a side of herself that neither one of them knew she had. He’d always invisioned her the girl that’s destined for the fake fairytale and the shining white knight and that night ignited the thought that maybe the dark prince (himself) was a viable option. The audience had already been shown that there was something different in his interaction/intention with Blair than with other women. He was a womanizer, even a danger to women - we could get into how women were objects and tools often times used to folder his self destructive mindset (but that’s another conversation). There was this understanding between Blair and Chuck, a tact that was the same in them and thus respected on a different level from others. They had that easy ability to look at eachother and communicate without the need to exchange words. He had his own repertoire with Blair that had nothing to do with Nate and one he lacked with Serena even though they’d all known eachother for so long and had been bonded as close-to-loose friends. He’d always been in the want for his father’s validation- that’s why he even made Victrola and it’s Blairs opinion he ask for. Her opinion was held at a high standard in his eyes. When they’re in Victrola, she ask him to guard her drink - mind you she knows all about his rep - this scene is layered to present the audience with many things and here is her trust in him. In answer the writers show us intentionally just how different things are with Blair. Even though he finds that he’s a viable option he doesn’t take the route of influencing her in any sort of way, does not seek to take advantage of her. Hell shes not even drunk in the limo - he drunk her drink himself. And when things does move to sexual, he asks her is she’s sure - choosing to give her an out if she so desires. When he pursues her it’s not with the knowledge of someone newly interested but someone whose paid attention for years to gain know how. And by that I mean her and Nate had been dating for years and yet he knew nothing about Blair - from her real personality to her likes and where to get those likes from and yet Chuck knew EVERYTHING. Blair of course had not directly told him of most of these things cause that’s not how their relationship was - she didn’t tell him the things she would have said to say Serena. But Chuck would watch her and listen. Anything Nate regurgitated and forgot about he seemed to have retained.

So chucks love for Blair was always in existence but the boundary that had always held that at the bay was his belief….their belief…that girls like her were supposed to get with a certain type of guy - this is a issue they comeback to several times throughout their journey, def for Chuck because of his fear of his deserving of it. Then came the next level of issues that saw to the first ending of their relationship - when his father reminds him that he’s being weak chasing after Blair instead of focusing on what’s important. This was a tactic his father raised him on and one he used to control him not once but many times over - it created his belief of love and a constant battle of it when it came to a career or even a 'serious’ mindset. It was an issue that popped up and distorted their relationship a number of times and in a number of ways. This manifested love being with boundaries, or on his terms, in ways he still felt in control with - and I mean all love not just romantic love when I say that. When people say Blair changed him what they really mean is that Blair challenged his concept of love and refused the stipulations he built with it. She always demanded he rise above.

The org post spoke on chucks selfless love and while I agree with the sentiment I don’t believe in selfless love - love is always an exchange, so I wouldn’t call it that because it in my opinion disregards a portion of his character. People who lack or battle with the ideal of self love tend to seek love from others to replace that validation in themselves. People love them and thus they tend to go the mile and then some for these people - at it’s core it’s a reward for putting up with them. They tend to have a mind framed in 'these’ are my people because that’s their love point, so what happens to chuck when the biggest portion of his love point start to recede?

With fear it turns into an object - Blair became an object. She’s mine - she loves me! You don’t understand what we have. You have to be with me. These things, the fear of losing that foundation, really losing it, because when it comes to Blair she’s still loved Chuck no matter who she’s been with, he’s the only person she’s been in love with, she’s always still at the end of the day had that he’s a part of me - we’re family mentality…it created this need to hold on so tight to the point of extreme. When that emotion became dangerous for her and too painful for him - he shut it all down. And of course since things are worse we’re at another level of detrimental. Harming of self using others is still a form of self harm. So of course we’re at a stage of seeking outside help. People can give us all the love in the world but a lot of times in the concepts of things like self love, drugs, drinking, self harm, etc - we need to seek outside help. And that’s what Chuck ends up doing.

When chuck apologizes to Blair he says - “I’m sorry for losing my temper the night Louie proposed to you, sorry for not waiting longer for you at the Empire State Building, sorry for treating you like property. I’m sorry for not saying I loved you when I knew I did. I’m sorry I gave up on us when you never did.” (Or something like that my memory ain’t perfect)

And when she implies that she’d always be there for him he says it’s okay if that changes, I’m gonna take care of myself.

People like to focus on the apology…and I understand because it IS important. This was him stepping up, taking ownership for the aspects of love he’d let her down in, the ways he’d allowed his fears and stipulations/control on love to jeopardized their relationship and bond. But it is the aspect of him saying it’s okay if you’re not there for me because I’m gonna take care of me, that is the wonderful part. This is the stem of growth. That’s self love. And having that ability to love himself stops her from having to bend over a barrel to give him EXTRA support. We all must come into a relationship with a stability in love for ourselves to be able to really truly meet someone else with the love they deserve. When we don’t come with our cup atleast half full we end up trying to pull out of our partners what we need to fill our cup and end up taking beyond the capacity they are capable of giving while still having some for themselves. That’s why the relationship ends up being so complicated and such a struggle for both parties (def the one that’s trying to replace whats now being depleting from them).

When they really started their relationship back up it’s under the management of both of them. Under the rule and stipulations they’ve both come up with to help them feel safe and guided as both individuals and as partners on equal footing putting forth the work and effort to achieve their outside goals and promising to have understanding and communication when it came to their needs and fears with the ability to empathize when the other hit a road block.

So the fact that people complain about Chuck and call their relationship toxic is funny to me, def when their alternative is that she should’ve ended up with Dan (the egomaniac that represented fraudulent love and had constant demeaning concepts for Blair in both judgement and in his actions of revenge towards her 🙄).

Chuck and Blairs relationship was about two people who had unhealthy concepts/beliefs of love built on their lack of it and their desire for it and how those two forces would come together in theory. It was about the battle and struggle of going from little to no love to the greatest love they end up knowing. It at its core is about healthy love. You cannot show the struggle of getting to that state without first presenting the audience with the tumultuous relationship. The fact that people don’t get that, that they so easily miss the story and all that character just so they can stick to one character action as a flaw is…😪

If you write a story about a relationship where one party is struggling with drug addiction and the negative effects it has on the party thats sticking around to help them through it but they make it through in the end - people would understand and get it. So why is it when someone writes a story about a relationship where one or both parts struggle with the aspect of having only been raised on negative love markers and the negative effects that then therefore has on their relationship but they make it through in the end - why is there such a lack of empathy for not only the characters but the story and the writer(s) who write such things?

This was a really long reply 😬…I’m so sorry. It just annoys me the treatment characters like this get when majority are just regurgitating malformed opinions. The fact that people like op still have to go through lengths to defend their likes of characters/ships as though this is the Purity Olympics… is truly befuddling. There’s a difference in having a debate about it and sending people hate just cause you don’t like the character that resonated with them 🙄.

“Hold on I still want you. Come back I still need you.”

“I’m not losing her again. Clarke I need you.”