in an enchanted forest somewhere

But that isn't quite right, is it? "Targaryen fans" are discussing Targaryen nuance all the time. "Targaryen haters" are talking about their flaws all the time. 50 posts a day. A critical post about, say, Ned Stark, appears every few month, and people get mad.

I answered a post going "Jon Arryn is a nice, neat guy :)" post with his actual messed up actions and got pushed back on just a while back.

This phrasing is also distorting the actual argument brought against Rebellion defenders: which is that the Rebellion being seen as an improvement to some evil regime, and Targaryens being the one flaw in this world that once removed is the biggest of deals. (Also the use of "corrupt" is quite distorting in itself. Robert's regime is more "corrupt" than Aerys'. Aerys was mentally ill, unfit to rule, and there is no safeguard within their government in this kind of situation).

Not only does nothing in the regime/government changes with the Rebellion (hence the problem with the argument that the Rebellion puts an end to any "corruption"), but it gets worse in all significant ways, but people act like it's better because the King does not act in some cartoonish cruel way as Aerys was written to (though, once more, Aerys, yes, should have been made to step down in some way or other, as he was unfit to rule; him making these clearly chaotic, cruel decisions shouldn't have been allowed).

Economically, Robert manages to get a full treasury from a mentally ill Aerys in command, and throughout 15 years of fruity years, turn it into being owned by a foreign bank.

Dynastic-wise, he takes it from the Aerys situation where you (AGAIN) have the main problem being that the guy who causes family/vassal conflicts is literally too ill to act better. That results in a 3-way conflict (if you include Rhaegar vs Aerys). Somehow, the Rebels men with no such excuse whatsoever, have such a catastrophic fragmented legacy that they leave behind a 5-way conflict only to start with, and more claimant Kings keep stacking up.

It's almost embarrassing. We are, again, comparing them to the legacy of a man straight up INEPT.

But the fandom talks of them like Ned patting Robert gently on his dead bed: "It's OK. At least you weren't as bad as Aerys" (coughtheguyliterallytooilltodobettercough). Seriously?

Point remade: the Rebellion "support" in fandom almost always lacks nuance in the interest of the Rebels' defense in particular, all while the idea that the Targaryens were this unique problem is almost always promoted.

This kind of nuance isn't even only applicable to the Rebels. One could also address the faulty "Jaehaerys was a good king but a bad father" given that his decision AS father and grandfather are what created huge dynastic conflicts for their "government" down the line. Or "Aegon V was a good father but a bad King" in spite of the fact that the conflicts with his Lords had to do with gains they couldn't get by marrying into royalty BUT also even more from Aegon trying to take care of the commoners which is actually what a good King should do (but protecting the commoners means he was stepping on his Lords' "rights" to do whatever the Hell to whoever).

1. "He is just another cynical portrayal of how knights are not actually good because he's only given good knight acts but he (by no text proof but supposition) stood at Aerys' door while he raped Rhaella like the others :/".

This guy was Rhaegar's closest friend (whom Aerys didn't trust) and a Dornishman (whom Aerys didn't trust on behalf of being on Rhaegar's side and Arthur moreso) so he would never be fucking trusted to keep guard at Aerys' very own door, and he would have been sent off to Dragonstone with the Prince and Princess, too. Dude didn't see shit of Aerys' chambers.

2. "He attacked Ned (and his companions) because he is (again) a cynical portrayal of the manipulated dumbass of a knight following orders blindly from his royal bosses :/."

No such thing has ever been in question for Celegorm & Curufin, as princes who have always been backed by systemic power or only temporarily disadvantaged yet still construed as within the right in their framework of power; the Exile is a schism, Maedhros' abdication is unprecedented, Nargothrond is seized by rhetoric and populism, Doriath - as later Sirion - are assaulted by means of military power. And what examples has Fëanor given them? That subterfuge and infiltration are the tools of Morgoth (theft; disguise; lie) and the way that Fëanor himself had been wronged (infiltration of the family structure by Indis), not something a king or prince is liable or allowed to use. Fëanor himself utilises rhetoric and takes advantage of the legal framework, and if no other thing will avail, uses military power and force to achieve his objectives, and decries cowardice, where a line can be drawn to assume that direct, open conflict is thus assumed to be the morally correct path to attain what you want. Celegorm and Curufin, the two most likened to Fëanor, exemplify his lack of willingness to treat with anyone considered a traitor to the cause or compromise on their objectives perhaps best of all. To them, guile is both humiliating and morally suspect in this ideological framework; the sons of Fëanor in Beleriand utilise force, organise military operations, send intimidating letters and use political posturing, but nothing akin to guile even such as Fingon uses to rescue Maedhros from Thangorodrim. That brings me to the second reason: guile missions in the Silmarillion require a certain amount of faith and hope in things turning out the right way, and a certain amount of divine providence. Fingon would not have succeeded without prayer just as Lúthien would not have enjoyed the fruits of their success without convincing Mandos. But hope in divine favour is not something that people famously eschewing the authority of the Valar and undertaking a blasphemous oath not once, but twice, would champion; clinging to hope for aid from the same people considered to have betrayed the cause & good of the Eldar is not to be expected. In light of that, relying on goodwill clearly seems like a suicide mission, especially in the aftermath of the Dagor Bragollach which has revealed that all of the military might the Noldor have been amassing is still insufficient to move any closer to their goal. The only possible way forwards is more power, more resources, more bodies. There is no hope to talk of.

ooooooooh, pondering this + looping back to OP's post. I fully 100% agree that this is the ideological underpinning of C&C's actions in Nargothrond - and this is intuitively what we're meant to understand by their actions, in addition to their desire to seize material power back to revive the fortunes of the sons of Feanor specifically - and I also think it could be very interesting to read this specifically in relation to two quotes from the Silm:

specifically this section:

But because the land was fair and their kingdoms wide, most of the Noldor were content with things as they were, trusting them to last, and slow to begin an assault in which many must surely perish were it in victory or in defeat. Therefore they were little disposed to hearken to Fingolfin, and the sons of Fëanor at that time least of all. -- Of the ruin of Beleriand & the fall of Fingolfin, The Silmarillion

And this one, from Finrod's response to Beren's request re. the Silmaril quest:

For the Silmarils are cursed with an oath of hatred, and he that even names them in desire moves a great power from slumber; and the sons of Fëanor would lay all the Elf-kingdoms in ruin rather than suffer any other than themselves to win or possess a Silmaril, for the Oath drives them.

To me, the first quote amply demonstrates that there was an opportunity for them to have undertaken a straightforward, honourable military assault and to have done so repeatedly until Morgoth eventually weakened. However, the Sons of Feanor in particular are singled out for having refused that possibility (I think the absence of Fingon and Finrod on either side of this argument is very interesting but that's another post in itself lol). If they genuinely believed the only righteous way to get a Silmaril was to have staged an attack on Angband, why not prepare for a Noldor-wide assault under Fingolfin?

And I think the second quote taken in conjunction with the first quote, provides an answer that extends beyond the question of honour and pride for why, perhaps, C&C (and the SoF more broadly) do nothing before the Bragollach, even when given the opportunity to do so. If the assumption is that Fingolfin being the one to lead (and therefore design and plan and bear the laurels for) such an assault might both a) consolidate Fingolfin's symbolic power and therefore further undermine the symbolic power the Feanorians hold as a federation of princes across Beleriand and b) weaken their claim over the Silmarils if retrieved, since Fingolfin might very well stake a reasonable claim to it as having been the key architect of the effort leading to its retrieval. This would, therefore, be yet another humiliation to the Sons of Feanor and one to be avoided at all costs, for as long as peace prevailed and power could be shored up through the strengthening of their realms through military might and trade. Its a pattern that plays out again at the beginning of the Nargothrond debacle, when Finrod asks for help specifically of his chieftains - implying a military assault of some kind - and both C&C intervene, the one to threaten revenge and the other to paint a picture of the devastations of war, to be avoided at all costs. There are ofc a lot of other ideological issues at play - Beren as Aftercomer literally represents the very thing that Feanor invoked in his speech to the Noldor - but its interesting that ultimately it leads to the same result as the SoF refusal to marshall against Morgoth before the Bragollach: there is a stasis and in the stasis, opportunities emerge for the Feanorians to seize more power, while refusing to be subordinated under the banner of any other Elf. Similarly, the later Union of Maedhros is architected by Maedhros and places Maedhros as the central figure - if they win under this particular banner, then the fates of the house of Feanor are revived, power accrues to them and the Silmarils, if retrieved, belong to them alone.

The wildness of that howling wind called to her, seemed to whisper in her ear, "No more! No more! You are a woman of desire." She listened to the voice and knew what she had to do, even if it meant risking everything. From now on, she would live like blazes.

The Archie x Caitlin ‘sex scene’ at the start of episode 6 is SO underrated I haven’t heard anybody talking about it.

In a show so driven by physical desire, it was so refreshing to see a more “realistic” scene showing two teenagers being silly and in love, instead of the heated passion of the other scenes. It was ALSO good because they’re significantly younger than the protagonists and I was worried about how they would handle that, but it reminded me of sex education in the way that it was romantic without being romanticised.

TV shows have got to be more realistic about sex because not only is it educational and relatable it also makes for good TV!!! people like to see themselves in media, and whats more universal than awkwardly being in love with someone. it’s awesome!!

Sidenote I LOVE Monica Baddingham she’s my absolute icon… more middle aged lesbianism NOW please

Yes, I think it's one of those moments where a kid is trying so hard to do the right thing but because he's so young he doesn't know the real life circumstances and rules around that - don't make it public, don't attract attention to the family etc, and tries to go straight for the moral high road

(hi fren)

Absolutely not, I don't think he feels any relief in that moment at all. I think he's had the rug swept out from under him (and his life, and his children's lives) and I think you see Tony struggle with understanding even what he's being told: "Monica, my wife Monica? Did you just say she's dead?"

I think that's such a real, visceral and realistic-feeling moment because huge terrible news like that can feel so overwhelmingly shocking and incomprehensible that I think it's impossible to take in all at once - and therefore impossible to see objectively enough to go "ah yes, my secret has been saved" (which is hasn't lol - Archie and Caitlin still know, Maud still feels guilty and is considering telling Declan) so Tony isn't safe anyway. I mean he himself TOLD Maud to tell Declan about the affair before Monica arrived so he can only assume she probably did, and people probably already know

So no, I think he's only thinking "oh my god the woman I love (awfully, but still) and literally my only trusted partner in this world is gone" he's burned all his bridges and now she's gone too, and because of his terrible actions driving her (literally) into a storm

I think it's also too simplistic to say that Tony doesn't feel guilt and sadness (and not just anger) for being threatened with divorce. Yes, he's upset bc of the social implications but I think you can tell in his reactions (tears, slanted brows, hanging his head, nervous fidgeting) and his conversation with Archie (raw, emotional, honest - although possibly selfish in intention) that he's really struggling with what this is going to mean for him. The man doesn't like to lose and he's being rejected by his own family "I fucking hate you dad!" and I personally think he's spiralling - emotionally, logistically, trying to find a foothold in this hectic moment

when i was a kid, i would have to tiptoe around his anger issues often, sometimes running quietly past his work table until he got his own place completely separate from our family, locked away for days. every so often he would start screaming in the car and trying to hit me or my brother for talking too loud while my mom attempted to calm him down as he swerved on the road. and now he, smiling, helps me with car insurance.