On further reflection, I have decided that my name is not something I particularly want to publicise. Use whatever pronouns you please. And since I have no means of enforcing a DNI list and frankly don't understand most of them, please just settle for not being a dickhead in my inbox.
straight white people making a romance movie: haha what if it was illegal to have sex? wait what's lawrence v texas. wait what's mclaughlin v florida. wait what's loving v virginia
As preposterous and stupid as this fucking movie's premise sounded (for a light-hearted rom-com, and not The Handmaid's Tale) I didn't want to think about it too much until the movie actually came out, and then I could see if it was somehow more intelligent and subversive than the trailer let on, but guess what, it's even worse!
If this is what it takes to get a rom-com greenlit these days, maybe we should just let them die.
Sex workers are thrown under the bus, shown only as thieves who fleece men in the woods at night, while queer sexuality is relegated to a few scenes with Allieâs roommate (a woefully underused Quintessa Swindell) and a handful of pans past blurry same-sex extras making out in the background. âThis night is for the straights,â Swindellâs character says to Allie, before saying that queer people have worked around straight laws for centuries.Â
This is supposed to be a nod to queer resilience, but largely comes off as straightwashing the history of anti-LGBTQ legislation in this country that led towards raids of queer clubs and incarceration of queer people in the not-too-distant past (let alone the current barrage of anti-Trans and LGBTQ legislation currently in the works and on the books). Itâs also ignorant of the long and fraught fight for the normalization of age-of-consent laws, which, by the way, did not happen in all states in this very country until 2003. Yes, thatâs not even thirty years ago.Â
By the end, our intrepid protagonists have not had sex with anyone, because this is a film about Romance with a Capital R (and I guess sex is not part of romance!) and for that very same reason they ultimately embrace the fascist state of things. They arenât the only ones who refuse to fight back. No one in this cursed film is protesting this mandate beyond ârepealâ signs in various windows and some creative graffiti (...)
(...) If we are supposed to believe that the film is making some subversive statement about the state of sex and bodily autonomy in this country, it cannot end with its leads embracing their chains. Thatâs just warmed-over conservatism running around in sheepâs clothing.
yeah i wrote this post having only seen the trailer, but jesus christ. was this movie a psyop LMAO??
also, for the unaware: mclaughlin v. florida was a 1964 supreme court case that struck down a florida anti-miscegenation law that criminalized cohabitation (and thus, as implied, sex) between white people and people of color of opposite genders. anti-miscegenation laws made marriage and sexual relationships between white people and people of color, most often specifically black people, a FELONY in several states in the united states up until the 1950s and 1960s. though it was already struck down by the supreme court, the state of alabama didn't repeal their law until 2000! there were THREE ATTEMPTS at codifying anti-miscegenation into the us constitution!
like yes, the issue here is partially straight white people's ignorance on the united states's history of homophobic policy, but it's also really important to recognize that arguably the majority of the issue here is straight white people's ignorance of the united states's history of codifying eugenics and antiblack racism.
the premise could have been interesting as a serious dystopian story, especially taking that history into account, but it wasn't written that way at all. this movie should never have been a fucking romcom making light of the violence the united states (and many other countries) has enacted on any kinds of sexual relationships it deems undesirable.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
So, hereâs the thing: I wouldnât expect someone who never studied ancient Greek language or culture to understand the concept of xenia (ΞξνΚι). But itâs one of if not the biggest theme of the entire Odyssey. Fundamentally, itâs an epic about what happens when this Greek law and value was broken, when was that expected or justified or necessary versus when that was an atrocity.
And I think the filmâŚoversimplified and understated the functions and importance of xenia. At best.
Please see below the cut for a very detailed explanation of what the film gets wrong about xenia, what the practice actually was, why it doesnât work for Nolanâs ultimate thesis to the film, and the role xenia played in the original Odyssey.
âZeusâs Lawâ
Firstly, xenia is called âZeusâs lawâ throughout the movie, which isâŚperhaps not entirely wrong, but certainly an oversimplification. Itâs true that hospitality and how you treated foreigners and the obligation to welcome them was technically under Zeusâs purview, since as King of the Gods everything was.
Propriety and courtesy and kindness is not what Zeus was known for, however â frankly, if Nolan wanted to credit xenia to an individual divinity in concept, either Hestia (as goddess of hearth and home) or Hermes (as god of travelers and journeys) would be more fitting.
And really, it wasnât just about one god; just as hubris is about mortals overstepping or thinking themselves equal to anything divine, xenia is at least in part about mortals being courteous to any fellow man in the name of any god that might have put that person on their path. The only reason to call it Zeusâs law is when thinking about divine retribution, which the Odyssey movie intentionally muddies the waters on by erasing the godsâ consistent direct involvement.
Zeusâs role is in setting the standard kings and leaders must follow, yes. But his connection to xenia is more about punishing those who misunderstand it, andâŚOdysseus doesnât actually suffer from that. Or rather, he never suffers undeservedly, and he does benefit from it in the end. He underwent his struggles in getting home due to other people violating xenia, but when he does get home? Odysseus benefits from the fact that those who break xenia are punished.
Xenia among Greeks
Now, letâs get into the actual meaning and consequences of xenia. Because it wasnât actually about threat of divine retribution â it was about cultural mediation and exchange. Something that gets lost in the filmâs treatment of Greek culture as a monolith (it very much wasnât at the time), and oversimplification of wartime vs. peacetime negotiations.
ΞξνΚι was a social code relating to how hosts should welcome any visitors to their home, and how guests should act when welcomed. The expectation is that the host provides good food and drink (to the absolute best of their ability â you donât just feed them, you give them delicious food and your purest wine and nicest clothes and linens and bed). The guest, after enjoying the hostâs hospitality, will reveal their name and identity and lifeâs story and purpose for their journey. And thatâs where it got political.
Crucial to xenia was mutual peacefulness â if someone comes to you as a peaceful traveler, it doesnât matter that theyâre foreign. You have to treat them courteously. The movie made it seem like the entire reason you had to welcome travelers was in case they were gods in disguise, but thatâs just not true. Implicit threat of offending a god did mean it was considered smart to treat everyone who hadnât outright wronged you courteously, but the real point was peace between peoples from different lands, especially different Greek city-states. Because once you or anyone in your family line offered or received xenia to/from anyone in that personâs family line? You could not hurt each other. It was forbidden.
Thereâs a whole scene in the Iliad where a Trojan and Greek soldier both exchange lineages before they fight, to make sure theyâre not breaking xenia, and discover one of their dads played host to another. They then go âok, we canât fight, letâs trade armor as a friendly peaceful gesture, good luck going to war!â Because xenia established outside war had a different standard.
ÎžÎľÎ˝ÎżĎ means foreigner or stranger. It also means friend and guest. Xenophobia is literally the Greek words for foreigner and fear mashed together, and it wasnât a good term in their eyes. Because at least among those who would understand and respect your customs, you had to treat the foreigner/stranger as a guest/friend. Thatâs xenophilia, love of strangers, or the act of being a good host.
The point of xenia is that it forges a peace compact. Critically, it only did so among different Greek civilizations â one polis going to war against another was what xenia sought to combat. Enough people traveling would ensure two city-states didnât and couldnât raise arms against each other.
The Exception
I do think this is the part people donât get, because the movie clearly didnât understand it either â xenia does not apply between people at war.
Yes, the Iliad has a bit with Glaukos and the armor and the peaceful exchange between people who had ancestral xenia. But the reason they canât fight is because their families had contact during a time of peace.
If your first time meeting someone is while you try to kill them and pillage their land â or rather, if youâre the âhostâ and theyâre trying to kill you and pillage your land and rape your women â you do not owe them xenia, because there is no peaceful compact to be made. Preexisting relationships must be respectedâŚ
âŚbut crucially, the entire Trojan War started because Paris, a Trojan Prince, broke xenia after Sparta welcomed him as a guest.
Nolanâs Odyssey makes it seem like perhaps the whole saga is punishing the Greek heroes and Odysseus especially for violating Zeusâs Law/xenia through the Trojan Horse trick. But likeâŚthey didnât? The Greeks didnât come to Troy in good faith as guests, they came as armed conquers determined to see Ilion burn. And the concept of soldiers disguising themselves as civilians (or hiding inside a horse) being likeâŚa war crime or violation of ethics? Was not a thing by Greek standards.
Very notably, one of the (cut) scenes with Helen in the Telemachy sees her recount how she helped Odysseus when he snuck into Troy before the horse trick â she helped him disguise himself as a local/refugee and gather intel before sneaking back to the Greek ships. And thatâs never treated as morally questionable â helping Odysseus sneak around and deceive the Trojans is unambiguously a good thing that Helen did, in fact.
TL:DR, the point is â people trying to burn your city do not count as guests, conquerers do not think of the people they plan to rob rape and kill as hosts. Xenia does not apply to people at war, and the idea Odysseus should feel guilt for his trick with the horse because it was a violation of âZeusâs lawâ is laughable. The Greeks wouldnât have cared! Thatâs not ever a source of angst or guilt in the source text, despite xenia being such a central theme.
Utility of xenia in the Odyssey
The biggest purpose of xenia was that observing it ensured peace. Neither guest nor host poisons or hurts anyone else, not directly or by proxy through hurting their family and friends. When the guest leaves, in exchange for their story, the host also should them off with valuables, ideally gold. Xenia was a way to encourage non-violent contact between different people, and stimulate exchange of information and valuables between different settlements.
Notably, where xenia is practiced, the standard for violating it is high. There are many myths about people who did things that were weird or unpleasant but not an outright violation, and therefore had to still be treated with courtesy and respect as guests.
The reason Penelope and Telemachus canât kick the suitors out isnât because sheâs a helpless woman and heâs a helpless child â their political positions are shaky, yes, but thatâs not the core issue. Rather, itâs because while the suitors have been rude, and wildly overstayed their welcome, they havenât actually broken xenia. Eating and drinking their food and wine for years instead of days, being mean to the slaves, having the bard tell stories that hurt Penelopeâs feelings, all of that is bad but not transgressions worthy of breaking xenia over. Legally, Telemachcus and Penelope have to let these assholes stay and treat them courteously, because the suitors are abusing the spirit of the law but not violating the letter of it.
The suitors donât actually break xenia until their attempt to kill Telemachus, and then when they try to refuse to welcome a poor traveller who should be entitled to all the same luxuries theyâve taken.
Thatâs a huge part of the motive for Odysseusâs disguise. He shows up as a beggar dressed in disgusting rags because he knows these immature assholes will abuse him over it, and he knows that once they do he can legally kill them and get away with it in the eyes of the gods. Thatâs the point of the first feasts and the challenge and almost everything Odysseus does upon arrival to Ithaca.
Fully half of the Odyssey is Odysseus already having returned home, but acting like a guest, so he can see who respects xenia (and is therefore loyal to him) vs. who breaks xenia (and is therefore deserving of death). And Odysseus actively works to slot the suitors and many of his own slaves into the latter category, so he can kill them and know that heâs not breaking custom, that he isnât incurring further divine wrath. And Athena helps him do it, so he can get his glorious revenge. ThatâsâŚpointed.
Conclusion
Odysseusâ attempts to exploit xenia for his own gain â implicitly in Books 5-12 and more explicitly and maliciously in Books 13-22 â are missing in the film adaptation. I think thatâs in part because Christopher NolanâŚisnât interested in that side of Odysseus. He wanted the story of a tough tortured war hero finally returning home and repenting for his wrongs at war. He didnât like or focus on Odysseus the witty schemer, the master of tricks and lies. And Nolan certainly didnât want Odysseusâ return home to center on a blatantly bitter and violent, arguably unnecessary revenge ploy, as it did in the epic poem.
But the fact of the matter is that the last half of the original poem is Odysseus struggling to find an excuse to break xenia. He doesnât want to send the suitors peacefully home â which he at least nominally could. Thereâs a threat that they physically overpower him, but that requires the suitors to openly break xenia. Which thus far those who did by conspiring to kill Telemachus have done only in discreet ways, and many have not done at all.
Like, crucially, the original epic poem does introduce suitors who were more decent in their conduct, even if they did still eat Odysseusâ food and try to court his wife. Theyâre not all evil people who have to be killed for his own safety. Some would just fucking leave if they knew the king was in fact alive. Some would accept that since Odysseus is back to be King again, the Ithacan suitors should return to their houses and the foreign suitors return to their city-states. Some of them would respect xenia and make up for their wrongdoing. Thereâs a dichotomy when the suitors die â some, like Antinous, go down fighting and cursing Odysseus and Telemachus, but others try to apologize. They promise to repay the guest-gifts and food and charity they abused and respect xenia and go in peace. Odysseus tells them ânope, too late, die.â
I get why instead of the brutal slaughter of many men who beg for mercy, Nolan frames the final battle against the suitors as a desperate, almost losing struggle for Odysseus. But in the epic poemâŚitâs just him taking advantage of the fact he finally tricked them all into really breaking xenia, and taking revenge.
The entire epic poem was about xenia â not in the context of war, either.
The Telemachy is the first four books of the Odyssey, focused on how Odysseusâs son sees xenia exploited in his own home, but benefits from it immensely when welcomed as a guest in someone elseâs.
The Apologoi or Wanderings are books 5-12 (Calypso, the Phaeacians, Aeolus, Polyphemus, the Lotus-Eaters, the Lasteygones, Circe, and the Underworld) and see Odysseus arrive at foreign islands where he tries to exert xenia over and over again. He meets good foreigners who do exactly as they should, dangerous foreigners who instead respond with sinister temptation or outright violence, and people who arenât foreigners at all but divinities, and therefore arenât bound to mortal customs like xenia.
The Mnesterophonia or Murder of the Suitors is Books 13-24 â fully half of the Odyssey is Odysseus having already reached Ithaca, but now using xenia both to test peopleâs loyalty and morals, and to contrive an excuse to kill them if they fail to uphold the custom.
Given all thatâŚI think Christopher Nolan owed it to the Odyssey to learn the true meaning of xenia, and to at least try to depict it with the nuance it deserves.
Ao3 version that lets you open the 'director's cut' where I, the author, explain every detail in excruciating detail to you and what it is in reference to.
People keep saying Viserys marrying Alicent was less awful in the books, was it?
Politically or interpersonally? The answer is subtly different depending on which you mean.
Interpersonally- I'd say it was less awful, yes. In the books, Viserys is 29 and Rhaenyra only 7 when he marries 18-year-old Alicent Hightower. So, you know, already a great improvement over an already-middle-aged Viserys marrying his daughter's best friend who is- presumably of a similar age to Rhaenyra, so 15-16. I'm still inclined to side-eye it - eighteen is still very young - but Alicent is at least a legal adult by both Westerosi and modern standards in this version of events. It's also- more forgivable for a young man, recently widowed, to decide to remarry a young woman rather than an older woman past her childbearing years who would be old enough to be his mother. Even if her being quite that young was still gross. And more forgivable to decide to remarry at all, with a daughter who was still a child and might be seen to be in need of a maternal figure in her life. (Viserys' relationship with Aemma, however...I mean, okay, in the books he didn't order an involuntary C-section that would undoubtedly kill her against her will, but she was 11 to his 16 when they married, and the marriage was consummated when she was 13 - the same age, I must note, at which King Jaehaerys, not generally known for his good treatment of women, said that his new wife Queen Alysanne was too young to consummate their own marriage when he was 15.)
Politically- politically, it's still a clusterfuck. Because Alicent is still a Hightower, with an ancient, wealthy, powerful family behind her. Because any son he has with her will be expected to inherit the Iron Throne ahead of Rhaenyra because of Andal succession laws and...just general patriarchy bullshit. (There is a rather good essay here discussing why the Great Council's decision doesn't actually have the force of law for any succession disputes after it, incidentally, and if one close-reads the details of earlier succession disputes in Fire and Blood, I'd argue you can see some hints that Targaryen women's claims are not automatically considered to come behind those of their brothers. Indeed, one of the reasons for dynastic incest seems to be nullifying women's claims to inheritance rights.)
What would be a better solution here? Uh- if you have to remarry, marry a woman from a small and unambitious house, ideally one in the Crownlands so there isn't even an ambitious liege lord in the picture, and, insofar as possible, try not to have any kind of sex with her that might result in children. My advice would be to choose a widow with children of her own who will have no claim to the throne, and who might be willing to trade mostly-nonsexual companionship and acting as a motherly figure to the future queen for places at court and preferments for her other children.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Okay, um. To the last three people who sent asks about some of my old fic, I do not talk about the boy wizard series anymore. I am currently having a minor moral crisis about whether it's ethical to reply to comments on those fics, so- thank you for the interest, may I direct you to some of my fic written in other fandoms, which I would love to be asked about instead?
Thank-you to all of my new Internet stranger friends for being so gracious about having my post shoved onto your dashboards. I loved reading all of your kind tags and comments! Both Martin and Bosco have been gone for several years now but for 24 hours, they felt very present in my life. I greatly appreciate this gift. â¤ď¸
So, what are the mechanics of your soulmate AU? It seems exclusively romantic, but what about ace/aro people?
Short answer: it isn't exclusively romantic, but the Faith of the Seven's dogma says it is, and given that both Baelor and Dunk were raised in that faith, or at least in a cultural environment that is steeped in its assumptions, that's what they both think is going on. I'm hoping to find a chance to explore other views and interpretations when I get to explore characters of other faiths - Kiera, for instance, follows one of the faiths of Tyrosh (she might actually be R'hllorite), whereas Bloodraven holds to the Old Gods, and both of these faiths have different views on the matter. (This contributed to some difficulties with the Starks when Myriame Manderley - a Seven-worshipper from a family that traditionally follows the Seven - found her soulmate in Jena Dondarrion and that marriage was dissolved. Baelor had to do a lot of tricky political work to smooth that one over. And yes, this does mean that Baelor was essentially his wife's new girlfriend's divorce lawyer.)
And, yeah, this is pretty bad for ace and aro people! I'm going to get into that a bit with Baelor's brother Aerys, who hates the whole idea of soulmates because he's aroace in a society that has no concept of what that even is. (His soulmate is a maester of the Citadel, and if they were ever to meet/form a bond, the ideal form for that to take for both of them would be them living on opposite sides of Westeros, corresponding regularly, but otherwise living their own separate lives. Which the Faith would not deem acceptable - those in celibate orders are supposed to renounce their soulmates entirely rather than remain in touch at a distance.) It's also pretty bad for people with platonic soulmate bonds with people they do not gel with at all romantically, or whose platonic soulmate bond is same-sex or opposite-sex when they are strongly heterosexual or homosexual! It's almost as though a one-size-fits-all model of relationships is bad for people or something!
âYou sound like Aegon,â he accused. âLike that business with the fucking cat all over again. All of you, just looking for excuses - itâs not my sonâs fucking fault that yours canât fucking joust!â
Baelor blinked. âCat-?â
âSome childish quarrel,â Maekar said dully. âI donât- it was after Dyanna.â
Baelorâs gaze flicked away, remembering, or trying not to remember. Losing Dyanna had- broken something in Maekar that Baelor hadnât known could break until she was gone. Afterwards, Maekar had been- it still chilled Baelor, remembering how hollowed-out his brother had been in the aftermath
I'm curious about what else Maekar might have missed or justified or if Dyanna was also a part of this given the "failure" of Daeron?
I- do suspect that Dyanna was a part of how things went wrong, yes. I tend to assume her death was relatively recent- not very recent, but a year or two ago. Far enough back that Egg can speak of it with apparent indifference at the inn, recent enough that it's still a raw wound for Maekar. Dyanna's memory is very much idealised by her family, but she made her share of mistakes too. She and Maekar were both fiercely ambitious for their sons. Not politically ambitious, necessarily, but they wanted their sons to achieve great things and be a credit to their house, which produced an uneasy mixture of putting pressure on their kids, but also refusing to acknowledge/notice when the kids started showing some cracks. Of the two, I suspect Dyanna was more the pressure side of things, and Maekar more given to denial. For Dyanna herself, there was also a certain amount of- she was very eager that her kids be seen as Targaryens. They were three-quarters Dornish, anti-Dornish sentiment was a major cause of the Blackfyre rebellions, Dyanna was very keen that their legitimacy not be questioned in any way. Which- uh- was another contributing factor to how Aerion turned out. Not helping any of this is how young they were when they became parents. Maekar was fifteen when Daeron was born, Dyanna not much older, and Aerion was born barely more than a year later. They had been given Summerhall for their seat when they were married, which was a generous gesture and a good start in life for them- but also meant that they were living most of the year in the Stormlands, well away from both their families and the support and advice that they could offer.
As for other things Maekar has missed- the thing is, a lot of the early signs of Aerion's personality disorder were missed for various reasons. Ignoring rules and showing no fear of punishment? He's just a bold, spirited boy! Manipulating adults to avoid punishment? Well, Maekar is extremely manipulable into believing that other people are the problem and his beloved son did nothing wrong/meant no harm. Bizarre fascination with fire? He's a Targaryen, they all have a bit of that! As for violence and antisocial behaviour? Well, sometimes he gets a bit carried away in the training yard, that's all, happens to the best, Maekar himself had some trouble controlling his own strength at that age! Aerion is very good at presenting the face his father wants to see. (Ironically, this is a talent he has in common with Baelor, who also learned how to mask and show only the face he wants people to see at an early age.) Maekar also- well, if that line about horses in the show is any indication, he's not a big animal person. Which means that he's not really paying enough attention to notice a pattern of animals disappearing around his son. I suspect Cataxes (Egg's cat) was just the first time Aerion went after a family pet rather than a kitchen mouser or stray animal. And once he knew he could get away with that, there were a few more such unfortunate 'accidents' involving hunting hounds and other pet animals. (Maekar has a habit of naming working animals after historical dragons that Egg has inherited and Aerion considers an affront to the dignity of dragons and thus the honour of House Targaryen. Aerion hasn't yet got bold or foolhardy enough to go after his father's horses, because even if Maekar isn't sentimentally attached to them, they're still valuable enough that injury/losing one will piss him off, but I think things were escalating in that direction.)
Again, it's all very plausibly deniable, so far. Aerion is vicious and suffers from delusions of dragon-hood, but he's also a coward at heart, and wants to avoid attention and punishment. The stories have filtered out, because some of those training-yard 'accidents' involved sons of reasonably prominent houses, and servants talk, but it's never risen to a point where anything could be proven until Tanselle. Not because he's never hurt anyone this badly, but rather, he's never done it this publicly and before this many witnesses before.
'not half the squire his cousin Daemon (still Baelorâs cousin, then, still his friend, in the days before his grandfather had recognised him) was showing himself to be' - for the backstory asks, please give me your ENTIRE implied backstory for this line.
Okay, so.
Daemon Blackfyre was recognised as Aegon IV's son at the age of twelve, in 182 or 183 AC. He also grew up at the Red Keep. Before this, while some people suspected Aegon was his father, nobody knew it, and I- honestly really doubt Aegon IV paid much attention to Daemon until Daemon won a squires' tourney and Aegon realised he could use Daemon to undermine his son then-Prince Daeron and his family. And Baelor and Daemon are the same age, born in the same year, and almost certainly trained together, under the same master-at-arms. If Baelor wasn't a participant in that squires' tourney, it would be because he wasn't at court at the time. It would be damn near impossible for them not to have known each other, and- before Daemon was known as Aegon IV's son, there- wasn't really much political reason for a rivalry/dislike to develop. He was just Cousin Daena's son. And while I suspect Daena the Defiant disliked the Myriah marriage on principle (we are told she idolised her big brother Daeron the Young Dragon, who was killed under a peace banner in Dorne, which would lend itself to having some anti-Dornish views, even moreso than the fact that she idolised the would-be conqueror of Dorne to begin with), I don't know if that was something that her son really understood before he was twelve years old. At that age, it was more important that Baelor was a kid his own age and one of the family, and didn't really have much in the way of anti-bastard prejudices...ironically mostly because of Myriah, as the Dornish view on bastards is less hostile than it is in the rest of the Seven Kingdoms. So they became friends. Neither of their parents really approved of this, but that wasn't really important at the time.
In my head, Baelor was- not actually the most naturally gifted kid out there in terms of martial prowess. He wasn't bad at it, but- in terms of natural talent, Baelor was solidly middling. And he was sharing a training yard with Daemon, who was an obvious prodigy from an early age, and also had that classic Targaryen look. He was in a similar situation in terms of his charisma - Daemon was the attention-grabbing one, the charming one, the one who won friends and admirers easily. As an adult, Baelor is a charismatic figure and renowned as the greatest knight of his age- but that's because he worked at it. He was in his mid-teens before he started to catch up with Daemon. Seventeen, when he began to really surpass him with that victory at the joust at Princess Daenerys' wedding tourney. At twelve, though? At twelve, Baelor was a bookish, dreamy kid who loved tales of knights and heroes and wanted to be a knight just like in the tales, but was slowly being disillusioned about just how far short of that ideal real-world knighthood fell. He and Daemon were- pretty inseparable, although Baelor was increasingly spending time with eight-year-old Maekar as well since he'd started his own arms training. They were of an age, they were related, they had similar interests, it was a fairly natural friendship.
And then Daemon won that squires' tourney, and set the record for being the youngest person ever knighted in Westeros, was publicly acknowledged by Aegon IV as his son, was given Blackfyre, the sword of kings- and things changed. For a few reasons.
First of all- Daemon was a fatherless boy who suddenly had a father, and at least for the first while, Aegon IV was all about showering his newfound son in public shows of favour, gifts, spending time with him- it would be enough to turn any kid's head. From Aegon's perspective, this was a bit like having a new toy to play with, and also a great way of publicly undermining Daeron! Look at your little half-brother getting all the doting and attention I never gave you! Look at me giving him every possible sign of Targaryen legitimacy and organising him a marriage that will bring him an alliance with Tyrosh if he ever chooses to act against you! Which, from Baelor's perspective, meant that his best friend was suddenly spending all his time with/preening in the approval of/seeking to please the grandfather who had made no bones about despising Baelor...pretty much from the day he was born. Which- you know. Was deeply hurtful on a personal level, particularly now that Daemon was deeply emotionally invested in believing his father wasn't a terrible person and thus his treatment of Baelor and his siblings wasn't that bad. (Wanting to believe his father genuinely loved him and wanted him to be king because of that and wasn't just trying to give Daeron the middle finger...was a definite contributing factor to his eventual rebellion.)
Second of all- this made Daemon a political threat, and- okay. The contrast with Daeron (bookish, out of shape, not a warrior) was one thing, but- while Daemon was a kid, the contrast with Baelor (exactly his own age, more likely to be in the same place to provide a direct contrast due to the necessities of training/education) was going to be much more obvious. Which meant the amount of pressure Baelor was under ramped up considerably. Like- I think there was always pressure on him to be the best heir he could possibly be, because his being half-Dornish and taking after his mother counted against him in the eyes of the lords even before this, particularly given all the ill-feeling that followed the Dornish repulsing Daeron I's conquest and occupation. I think that didn't sharpen into pressure to be perfect until Daemon began emerging as an alternative claimant to the throne, and that all started when he was given Blackfyre.
From Daemon's perspective, he just got a father and knighthood and recognition despite being a bastard and now Baelor was being weird and resentful, probably because despite everything he'd ever said, he didn't think Daemon as a bastard deserved to have things like family and official recognition that Baelor had just from being born as a prince. From Baelor's, Daemon immediately decided that Aegon IV being nice to him meant that he didn't care that Aegon was terrible to Baelor, his brothers, his parents, or his grandmother, and, worse, Daemon was now a part of how horrible Aegon was to Baelor's family and to Baelor himself. Aegon's death when they were fourteen just made that worse, as Baelor was relieved that the tormentor of his childhood was gone, and Daemon was grieving the father he'd only briefly got to have a relationship with.
So, yeah, it's a messy, painful, fucked-up family dynamic, made worse by the fact that there was enough love between them for them both to regret the breakdown of their friendship, but mostly blame each other for it. It wasn't until Baelor was a grown man, Daemon was dead, and his own son (Valarr is, I suspect, markedly older than Matarys, just based on the language used to describe them in our sources - 'sweet and full of promise' is the sort of language Westeros tends to use about children, whereas 'sweet' applied to adult men is often coupled with a certain amount of infantilisation) was the age they were when they started falling apart that he started thinking about it in terms of them having been kids.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
ohhhh for your dunk/Baelor soulmate what motivated you to put Baelor and Maekar in such conflict over Dunk and how do see it impacting the plot long term?
The thing is, Maekar is pretty intractable on the problem of Aerion, unless extreme circumstances force him to acknowledge that something must be done about it. Given that 'extreme circumstances' in canon means being inadvertently responsible for the death of his beloved brother, and even then, Maekar's response is still a half-measure...I'd say that what it takes to get Maekar to acknowledge just how out of hand the Aerion situation has gotten is- kind of a lot. And there are sympathetic reasons for this. Maekar wants to believe his family can be all together and happy if everyone just does what they're fucking supposed to. But they can't, because Aerion is an active danger to his younger siblings (I really doubt Egg was the only one he tormented), and the longer he ignores that, the worse things get. If he were living in the modern world, I'd call it negligent that he isn't getting Aerion in for some kind of mental health treatment...but he isn't. He's in Westeros, and nobody knows what to do with someone like Aerion. There really are no good options here, and both Baelor and Maekar have failed to deal with this one until it got past the point of plausible deniability.
Another element is- I haven't actually read many fics where Maekar and Baelor end up seriously at odds for any significant length of time. And I thought it would be interesting to explore a situation where, for understandable reasons, they find themselves in a situation where they cannot be on the same side for the first time in their lives. The conflict isn't about Dunk, really, it's about Aerion and how to deal with the situation. Dunk is just a convenient scapegoat for Maekar to avoid dealing with the real problem here: his monstrous son, whose cruelty is no longer deniable. For Baelor and Maekar- this is the first time they have ever been seriously at odds. They've had disagreements, sure, but nothing where they've both been this entrenched, and it's going to hurt both of them pretty deeply. It's also a good way to explore a certain amount of misunderstanding between the two of them. Baelor and Maekar are, at minimum, four years apart in age, assuming their parents had four kids in pretty quick succession and then stopped. They love each other, they know each other well, but there's potential for a lot of things they don't quite understand about one another because they are so used to the idea that they know each other inside and out that they've just never talked about these things and have a lot of assumptions that they've just never unpacked.
As for the plot- if I'm honest, it's mostly just there so I can get Maekar offstage for a bit while I figure out the King's Landing cast. He will come back into the plot, because I have plans in mind for the way the Aerion issue is going to explode here, but I also want to get a sense across of what Baelor's life is like when his brother isn't around, and that- that is actually most of the time.
When will GRRM imagine a female historian in Westeros? Where are the rich widows with a passion for history? Where are the septas recording their own version of events? I just donât care about the maestersâ perspectives anymore!!
This is why Martinâs argument about historical accuracy falls flat. Women writers existed in medival times. Women historians, poets, authors, they were a thing. Martin keeps using historical accuracy to justify the staggering extent of sexual violence in his narrative, yet that accuracy is no where to be detected when it comes to reflecting the lives and roles of women in a medival setting. Many women are there to be exploited but god forbid we get a real sense of what they actually did with their time beyond very specific roles. And the real kick is that female authors do exist in Westeros, only they seem to be preoccupied writing erotica and detailing the sexual experiences of teenage girls. Martin had Gyldayn talk a whole bloody lot about A Caution For Young Girls but he somehow couldnât fathom having other non-sexual books by women cited in the narrative.
This is also why the argument that a maester in a patriarchal society has to be misogynistic to explain the staggering amount of undeconstructed misogyny in Fire and Blood falls flat. There is literally no reason for men like Gyldayn and Yandel to be our window to the lives of many historical women who are reduced to their sexuality and fertility, whose suffering and death is used as background decoration with the point only ever being âWesteros is bad and men are misogynisticâ. Yes, we know. Enough. We donât need a parade of broken female bodies to get a point thatâs been reiterated over and over and over again. We want to know about these women, not their sexual lives, how many children they had or how they were victimized. Them, the people that they are, not some asshole maesterâs musings on who they were.
It is infuriating honestly. The story sets up many openings that can be used to not only reflect the various roles women played in medival times but to encounter all the pointless misogyny that exists in the text. Queen Alysanne argues for women to be allowed into the Citadel but somehow that doesnât inspire a royal campaign to set up schools for women across Westeros. Maegells is clever and learned but the extent of her existence in the text is to reconcile her parents and advice them on her sisters. God forbid she writes something about the history of her house, the royal partnership of her parents or even information about the greyscale pandemic that ultimately claimed her life. Maybe we could have learned about Saera from the writing of Maegelle or Alysanne herself or even some septa. Fire and Blood has random maesters recording entire conversations word for word so why couldnât we have the same with septas and ladies in waiting? Why couldnât the letters of Alysanneâs ladies or Visenya and Rhaenysâ be preserved to offer some insight? This is the story that had a maester record that the guy who slept with assaulted Coryanne Wylde had a big dick ffs but the letters and records of noble ladies or septas being preserved and used as a resource is apparently beyond the pale. Where is the Sarella Sands of historical Westeros and why arenât they cited as sources of information?
It is genuinely tiring that historical accuracy only matters when itâs a way to justify sexual violence, and that womenâs authorship is only a thing when itâs erotica.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
This may be overly generous of me, but Julian Bashir avoiding treatment for mental illness like the plague makes perfect sense when you consider the incredible degree of pathologisation we see leveled at the only other augments we see in ds9 and how that is used to limit their freedom. Like the one to one connection and looming threat is right there but, because no one comes out and says it, it goes over everyone's head (probably because they've never had to face that kind of pathologisation before). Like of course he's keeping that shit locked down, anti-augment bias is explicitly written into law, god forbid what isnt written down. All it takes is one or two psychs with a little bit of bias and he could be institutionalised, maybe for life, just for being a little traumatised.
Like this isnt your straight bf avoiding therapy because of toxic masculinity, this is a marginalised man in an extremely tenuous position surrounded by people who are constantly looking for An Excuse.
I mean, being in danger gives someone some pretty serious incentive to be in denial. Like if realising you need psychological help (already an incredibly difficult thing to do even if you haven't been forced to live in secrecy your entire life for your own safety) means you're at serious risk of losing all of your freedom, then that in itself is a barrier to that realisation.
Speaking purely from professional experience, ignoring barriers to accessing care by placing the onus purely on the patient are how medical neglect perpetuates itself and how bigotry silently manifests. Starfleet as an organisation had the duty of care to be protecting ALL of its workers from the psychological effects of the dominion war and, that it doesn't, is much more of an organisational failure than a personal one.
I wholly agree with you and I never once thought it was âoverly generousâ to have it written and thought about. Itâs a common topic for me in my thoughts about Julian and writing of him (you can read it in many of my fics). The fear of being exposed, found out, and the danger it is not only to Julian and his freedoms and reputation/credentials, but his autonomy and loved ones too, really feels like itâs obvious by the way he talks about his augmentations and the Jack Pack. Just in the way we see what happens to Augments throughout Star Trek because of Human societyâs fear of having another Khan, even IF the augment has no history or show of being anything like a powerful egomaniac â Una and LaâAn (who merely shares the same family name as Khan too).
His denial of getting treatment for any sort of mental illness he may have had before his augmentations and even now during his traumatizing time on DS9, itâs like you wrote: makes perfect sense. And I think itâs a topic that really kind of comes easily to mind in no time. Or perhaps thatâs just because I too have mental illness and disorders that were always put in negative light â that I saw and read being used to take away a personâs own power in life and given âsolutionsâ that did little and just makes life difficult. thus there can be many reasons from it all that keeps us neurodivergents from seeking assistance in learning and being given the tools to help us handle our mental health.
So I watch and read about Julian with my own experience and observations making me catch these things quickly and relating to characters like Julian and having Julian an outlet to express these things through.
You are so correct in this post and it should be part of discussions and fan arts of Julian more often // which I am happy to say I see a lot in drawn art here :)
I have AuDHD and would it shock you to hear that those same themes are often present in my writing? (lol)
I think a lot of this post is also expressing frustration with people who frequently tell me to "just go to therapy" as a trans person whose been forced into therapy to access transition care. Like therapy to me means masking both as neurotypical and gender conforming to the nth degree in order to get the care I need. Like some people will tell you to "just go to therapy" and have no idea how humiliating and traumatising therapy can be if you don't fit the mold.
Much like some imagine a subset of people having problems with transporters, I have a headcanon that the Federation have invented a PTSD prophylactic that can be easily given as a hypospray when people e.g. come back after bad away missions, so they can try to get back to normal without developing flashbacks and nightmares. And this works super well (because people rarely show signs of trauma in star trek), and still there are people who sometimes refuse to get this treatment because they're already in a maladaptive spiral.
They don't want to feel bad, but taking a hypospray that will stop the memories from becoming intrusive feels like making it less real. And sometimes you need to really know what's real - sometimes the trauma you went through forced you to wonder if you're actually losing your grip on reality. Sometimes holding on to the one thing you know, that your pain is real, is what got you through the traumatic event. So how can you accept a hypospray that will essentially make that meaningless? You didn't have to suffer but you *did* and now some medic is rolling their eyes at you for being *difficult* and it feels like you're still back there where no one cared. The suffering was the point but it's also what's real, and the alternative feels like giving in and you can't give in, you're stuck in fighting-for-your-life mode.
I mean, what we're talking about in this particular case is how pathogisation leads to involuntary treatment and risk your freedom and career. So it'd be more like, you accept the hypo but the doctor knew you took the hypo and now is side-eyeing you at every appointment being like... "How well do PTSD hypos work on augments? Are we sure the PTSD hypo worked? what if that freaks immune system just burned it up? How long until all that trauma just turns it into a killing machine? Should its just be locked up with the other freaks?"
And even though you know you're stable, they keep asking. They keep digging. They heavily scrutinise your every action. They invade your privacy by sharing your information with others, inviting more scrutiny. The eye of sauron is on you and your skin itches with the injustice and the violation of it all. And you know, if you let too much show then they will take all that to force you out, because "everyone knows Augments don't belong in medicine" - that's why YOU'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO GET A MEDICAL LICENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
It could last for months and then maybe something else happens and they offer you the hypo again. And you know if you take it, it starts all over again.
Idk if this is reading into what you've written but you seem to not understand that this post is about bigotry and its consequences being one of the biggest barriers to care. That even "well-meaning" care providers are subject to bias that could ruin someone's life.
