#essoftheay

you have to genderbend it, but otherwise it fits so well. the title is even a pun on a French phrase, no less: my cherry = ma chérie (my darling)

Verse 1 (Alastair)

Down the subway, you looked my way With your girl gaze, with your girl gaze That was the day everything changed Couldn't stay the same

Alastair unexpectedly meets Thomas again in Paris and is swept off his feet by his beauty.

Now it's Tuesday and I'm thinking 'Bout to tuck in, 'bout to tuck in Telling myself that it's cheating But it's something else

Alastair is in a relationship with Charles already, but his feelings for Thomas are more real and healthy than those for Charles.

Chorus

Even though I'm satisfied I lead my life within a lie Holding onto feelings I'm not used to feeling 'Cause, oh, they make me feel alive

Alastair appears to have a satisfactory life, but is actually deeply troubled (whether that be from the problems with Elias, being Charles's "secret", or being coerced into becoming a bully at the Academy). Alastair holds onto his relationship with Charles for comfort and validation (and he probably does actually love Charles some), even if it is far from ideal.

Thomas is mostly satisfied with life. He has good friends and a nice family, but he too must hide. He holds onto his experience with Alastair in Paris because there he was able to be his true self and speak freely, away from the expectations of his family and friends.

Verse 2 (Thomas)

When they tell you that you've got to stay the same Even though you're not yourself And you've got somebody else

Thomas wants to be with Alastair, but knows the Merry Thieves wouldn't approve.

When they tell you that you've got yourself to blame Even though it's not your fault But your heart just wants to know, know

(Bear with me on this part bc idk how to interpret this to match Thomas's internal conflict.) Thomas is apprehended for murder, even though he's innocent and was only at the crime scene because he feels the need to know the murderer so he can avenge Barbara.

Pre-Chorus

Down the subway, you looked my way With your girl gaze, with your girl gaze That was the day everything changed Now it's something else

Thomas is locked in the Sanctuary with Alastair and is reminded of Paris. What if it could be there, not at the Academy, that they met for the first time?

Post-Chorus

So won't you? Will you be my cherry? So come on, talk to me, talk to me Will you, will you be mine? I see you watching me, will you be mine, baby? Will I be your cherry? So come on, talk to me, talk to me Will you, will you be mine? I see you watching me, watching me

Thomas and Alastair have awkward conversation in the Sanctuary Thomas gradually builds up the confidence to confess his feelings to Alastair.

Bridge

With one look you take me back to everything I used to be When everyone was seventeen with no ID, no ID

At the end of Chain of Iron, Alastair tells Thomas he doesn't want to pretend Paris was the first time he met Thomas. He can't avoid the past forever since the Merry Thieves still view him as he was at the Academy. The Merry Thieves, save Thomas, still have no idea of Alastair's motivations to be cruel when he was younger.

Now I wanna love myself 'Cause nothing else is guaranteed 'Cause inside I'm still the same me with no ID, no ID Won't you be my cherry now?

Thomas realizes he may have to choose between his friends and Alastair, and he wants to be with Alastair. While he understands Alastair's side of the story, he still doesn't have any idea of Matthew's secret and why Matthew holds such a grudge against Alastair.

Despite (or maybe To spite?) what Cassandra Clare has said about how Anna can communicate her identity, I believe that Anna Lightwood can describe herself as lesbian or sapphic with out being anachronistic, and here's why.

Anna has a Shadowhunter's education. Therefore, she has read Classical literature. Anna proved her knowledge of Ancient Greek lit in EET where she compared her ideal sexual relationship to that between Zeus and Danae. She also alludes to Prometheus in respect to her gender presentation in EET. These allusions, combined with the fact that Sappho's poetry does hold academic value, even in the Victorian Era, make it reasonable to extrapolate that Anna has read Sappho and thus could refer to herself or her sexual relations in terms of Sappho. Even if Anna doesn't use specifically the terms "sapphic" or "lesbian", she could still make a metaphorical allusion to Sappho's poetry, similar to how she did in the aforementioned Zeus and Danae example.

If Sappho's poetry wasn't part of Anna's education, Anna could still have knowledge of it, since she interacts with mundane queer culture, of which Sappho was becoming a popular icon. In fact, the aesthetic associated with Sappho today began to be developed in the late Victorian and early Edwardian periods. The term "lesbian" was even in circulation in Europe, starting in the 1890s. Anna could have sought out Sappho's poetry after hearing of it at the Hell Ruelle or from her mundane lovers. Considering how Anna is not an avid reader, she could still have second hand knowledge of the poems from aforementioned sources of mundane culture.

CC might have been wary of flat out using the word "lesbian" in terms of Anna. "Lesbian" has taken a very modern connotation, and it might seem out of place for only Anna to have a word for her sexuality when her queer male counterparts don't. (Not that there weren't words for male homosexuality in the Edwardian age, but most are considered incredibly offensive now, so CC probably doesn't want to use them. Personally, I'd rather some of that language be used for the gay characters than just repeating "Bohemian Lifestyle," especially when they're to be "taken on the terms of [their] time") However, Anna was supposed to be, in CC's words, "a fun glimpse into the beauty and richness of a corner of queer history and specifically lesbian experience in the belle epoque." And yet Anna isn't granted the language to do so.

I see Charles and Matthew as mirror-images of each other. They're inverses, but have more in common than they think. Which makes Cassandra Clare's wildly different framing of them interesting, to say the absolute least.

Charles and Matthew are in similar positions. Both of them are at a crossroads where they can choose between being closeted, yet upstanding, members of Shadowhunter society or going the "bohemian" route. Charles has chosen the former, and Matthew the latter. Both of these paths can and should be explored in TLH as justifiable ways of life.

Except, CC isn't portraying both routes as such. Charles is vilified for wanting to pursue politics, whereas Matthew's "bohemian" ways are at the very least romanticized, if not glorified. CC is reducing characters down to a single dimension, in this case, Charles Bad, Matthew Good. In actuality, Charles is honestly better off than Matthew. While Matthew's lifestyle has let him be more self-expressive and independent than Charles, this unchecked individuality has led to a menacing drinking problem he refuses to acknowledge (at least until that god-awful ending of COI) and his infamous "murder".

On the other hand, Charles is experiencing social and political success. Furthermore, the actions he takes that cement him as a villain — marrying someone he doesn't love to protect his reputation, even though that prevents him from being with his long-time lover — are perfectly fine when done by other characters. James does exactly that by marrying Cordelia and breaking off his relationship with Grace, yet his actions are framed as A-OK. Interesting...

Although, that's not to say Charles Good Matthew Bad, because then we'd be back where we started and in 1-Dimensionality Land again. This is where a complex relationship between Charles and Matthew comes in. Charles needs to learn from Matthew how to come to terms with his identity (although that doesn't have to include coming out!), while Matthew needs to learn a bit of self-control from Charles. Charles and Matthew, as characters, are opposing extremes. However, they don't need to meet in the middle, and one definitely does not need to convert to the other's side. (We definitely don't need Charles, by the end of COT, starts spitting queer rights slogans from modern day à la the way some people write feminism in historical media.) Instead, Charles and Matthew (and CC) should realize there is value in both of their respective lifestyles.