A Bunch of Miscellaneous Stuff

Unfortunately, I cannot share their optimism that there's going to be a big narrative turning point (or that it would be good).

This has resulted in some frustrating interactions. I feel like many of these fans have picked up on the plethora of moral and logical inconsistencies found in Sjm's writing. However, they still have a strong enough emotional attachment to either the series or Sjm as an author (often because they like ToG or Cresent city) that they don't want to engage with the idea that maybe, just maybe, Sjm truly is that bad of a writer.

It's especially frustrating, because the two most preferred retorts tend to be either that the series is still unfinished and it's unfair to critique an unfinished story or that Sjm is a woman and therefore any assertion that she isn't clever enough to do a big rug pull is born out of misogyny...

First off, the unfinished story point, it doesn't matter that the series isn't complete yet. A book series, especially a traditional published one, is made up of individual books, each of which is expected to follow a complete story arc. So, if the individual books in the wider series don't work on their own merit as their own installments then that is a valid criticism to have. Rhysand turning out to be the villain would not be automatically good fix issues with the writing retroactively.

Then the second point, Sjm is a woman, ergo dismissing her competency is sexism. This is the one that annoys me the most. On one hand, yeah sure, a ton of people will hurl misogynistic language at any successful woman. BUT, that doesn't mean a woman can't still be incompetent. In fact, plenty of women suck. They are capable of sucking equally as much as men. (Especially white rich women)

Especially when there are a myriad of interviews out there where Sjm gives the most superficial and tone deaf takes on her characters and story (see, Rhysand is still learning he's allowed to make mistakes, Feysand's are true equals and feminists or Nessian are true mates)

Having said, that they are clearly going for a very different character than book!Gabrielle. And I still stand by everything I said about her character in my previous posts.

Gabrielle being an abusive mother, doesn't mean we can't at least catch glimpses of what circumstances turned her into this. It's also incredibly frustrating when half of her abusive actions in the show are explicit contradictions to her book character.

For example, her bringing Lestat to the witch burning; in the book, she is explicitly mad about it and calls it ignorant and barbaric. In the show she apparently thought it great entertainment? (Maybe that's just a jab by Lestat, but the fact that it lines up with her characterisation thus far doesn't help) Which is strange since society brutally punishing women (or female presenting people) for acting beyond their accepted social role should be a plight Gabrielle is deeply sympathetic to.

Then there is her relationship to Nicki. In the show she mocks Nicki's madness, calls him a cabbage directly comparing him to her abusive husband and sons. That's the exact opposite of her book character. There she literally starts taking care of him, teaching him to hunt and navigate the world as a vampire. She is arguably being more mothering to fledgling vampire Nicki than she ever was to Lestat. Which parallels the fact that while she was dying Nicki was the one who took care of her in Lestat's stead. Lestat actually gets jealous about how close they become.

Like what are they even doing with her rn?

They literally reduced her to vile abusive incest fiend. Any of the beautifully tragic doomed mother-son dynamic between her and Lestat GONE. But the worst are the people defending the changes saying that it is good to portray an abuser as irredeemably evil and bad.

Excuse me?!!

Portraying an abuser as nuanced and sympathetic is bad? Than what are you doing watching the Vampire Louis-didn't-want-me-so-I-dropped-him-from-the-fucking-sky Lestat??

How interesting that we can give the male characters the nuance to be both abusive and a sympathetic victim of abuse (Lestat, Louis. Armand) but the female characters have to be viewed as either innocent perfect victims (#Claudia did nothing wrong) or they are vile unsympathetic abusive monsters à la Gabriella.

Especially when you consider the fact that book!Gabrielle's greatest sin was being a bad mother. It makes me question why people view it as more appropriate to portray a woman (or afab) failing her motherly duties as irredeemably evil than a man being domestically abusive.

At this point I can only laugh. The extremes Condal & co are willing to go to avoid ever holding Rhaenyra even remotely accountable for the failures of her side are truly remarkable. Like they come up with ways to let her shirk any responsibility even for things that were never even her fault in the first place?