took the one less traveled by

There are two great problems with what happened to Margaret (and that her parents are trying to do to Juliet). One is easy for modern people to spot (but was also a common response back in her own day). And that’s the moral implications of what was done to her. She was too young to be married, and it was horrifying that she was forced into it so young. Every one of the adults around her either acted immorally or failed to protect her. They were wrong. This is what modern people see, and it’s important to remember that people back in her day mostly agreed with it. You’re supposed to think it’s fucked up! When girls were married that young (and it didn’t happen often!) it was a formality 99% of the time. It was for dynastic or financial reasons (the girl has lots of money and/or land and/or a title that her husband wants), but the “couple” don’t consummate their marriage for years. And it’s not just that they would have separate bedrooms. They might not even live in the same country until the girl was in her late teens and physically and mentally mature enough to bear and raise kids. Hell, a lot of times they didn’t even meet until the girl was older! They had this thing called “proxy marriage” where you would have two separate ceremonies, in two separate places, with each party saying their vows separately, one in one city and the other in a different one. So, yeah, sure, the girl was technically married at 12, but she didn’t actually meet her “husband” in person until she was 17 and they didn’t start sleeping together until she was 20. That was a thing they did.

The other problem, the one that modern people don’t notice, is dynastic. See, marriage wasn’t generally because you loved someone. It was because you had the resources to support a family, and you or your family wanted to pool those resources with someone. It’s about “our family has these resources, and we want that to continue.” It’s about continuity across generations. It’s about making sure that your children and grandchildren have the best possible resources to survive and thrive, whether those resources are land or a trade or a title or money or whatever. In order for this to work, you have to have kids! The family and the family’s resources depend on the married couple having children. If the couple doesn’t have children, the marriage is a failure. And that failure affects not only the couple, but both families. This is a really big problem. And you can’t have just one kid to pass on the family name, because half of all kids die in early childhood. If you want to be safe, you need several kids, to be sure at least one will survive to adulthood (when they can marry and pass on the family name and resources.

You know what happens when a girl has her first pregnancy too young? She is very likely to either die in childbirth, or have complications that destroy her future fertility. Just like Margaret Beaufort. Just like Juliet’s mother. In other words, the marriage is a failure, not just for her, but also for her family, and her husband (who can’t divorce her, it’s not allowed except in extremely rare circumstances), and her husband’s family. So even the people who didn’t have a moral problem with adult men having sex with pubescent girls had a practical problem with girls married too young because you are very likely to destroy the entire purpose of the marriage by doing it. As Shakespeare reminds us in the play through Juliet’s mother having been married too young and only having one child.

another thing i noticed, the year my local community shakespeare theater did r&j, and i made the costumes so i got to watch the show every night: part of why capulet is telling paris, take your time, get to know each other, no rush, is that he still has his nephew tybalt as his heir. as long as tybalt is in the picture, there is no pressure on juliet to go further with paris, than get acquainted. once tybalt is killed, then suddenly capulet needs an heir, he needs a husband for juliet, now, this week. (the role of capulet is best given to the actor in the company that can do over the top apoplexy, you need to believe his urgency comes at least in part by how clearly he could drop dead any moment from giving himself a stroke)

i feel like this play is often taught in middle schools as if it was somehow relevant to, or about, teen hormone storms. really it's got more to do with the social structures around family and inheritance. leaving that context out makes it confusing, why is capulet suddenly flipping from nice dad to evil dad?

Nigerian Pride 🏳️‍🌈🇳🇬

Originally, I went in worried the opposite would happen. Growing up, I've been taught that Nigeria, the country, is homophobic. (I was born in America.) But over time, I learned that there's tons of other queer Nigerians; some are out, and some are in the closet 😭.

I'm also not used to this much attention, lol

Suspended Animation

Visual Massage 244/300

kyoshi: sometimes some murder is OK

kuruk: just punch people that disagree with you

Roku regretted not killing Sozin specifically because it gave him the opportunity to come back and kill him, then the Air Nomads. His lack of decisive action led to a lot of tragedy, and so his advice was to make sure whatever he did, make sure it was permanent, or Ozai would come back.

Kyoshi regretted not moving sooner on the threat of Shin the Conqueror and waiting until he was at the very edge of Kyoshi Peninsula before actually doing anything. She allowed a lot of destruction on the continent because she didn't move fast enough. Her advice is to move swiftly instead of allowing Ozai more time to act.

Kuruk basically did nothing as Avatar by his own admission and basically just said that Aang had to do something, and not to back off of his responsibilities because it was hard.

Yangchen is complicated because, well, she isn't talking about one of her own regrets. She's the one trying to give the 'Violence is sometimes necessary' talk to Aang, because she's the best person to tell him his duties as Avatar have to outweigh his duties as an Airbender. Arguably she is the one telling him to murder Ozai, but personally I read that as more 'you need to do what's right for the world, and I am giving you permission to break our cultural rules to do that. Because I am the only person you can ask for absolution.'

he did not disregard any of the advice he got. in the end, Aang met the challenge head on instead of avoiding it, he acted with confidence and resolve instead of hedging his bets or being wishy washy, and he succeeded in finding a way to defeat Ozai that safeguarded the world and its peoples, gave them all the best possible chance for peace moving forward, AND did not compromise his own morals or the ethical teachings of the culture that he is the last remaining practitioner of.

because that's the part a lot of people, the other avatars included tbh, don't take into consideration enough. that Aang is not just an airbender and a monk, but the last airbender, the last monk, the last person alive who practices the culture that he was raised in. the culture that Ozai and his line intentionally wiped out, the one that Ozai continues to malign throughout their fight. Ozai says that Aang's beliefs make him weak and that weakness like that doesn't deserve to exist. to have betrayed those beliefs by killing Ozai would have served to finish Ozai's work for him.

Aang had an extra responsibility, as the survivor of a genocide and the carrier of his people's memory and legacy, that the other avatars never had. that was an experience about which that they could never advise him. they gave him advice from their own perspectives, and Aang heard that advice, took it into consideration, synthesized it with the reality of his own unique experience and position, and came to a conclusion that respected all of them at once.