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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
he’s like yeah your dad was amazing and cool and he was killed by my former student *wink wink*. oh look at this message I received from this young woman who’s definitely not your sister delivered by this droid I’ve definitely never met.
oh your uncle died? that’s too bad it’s not like I just said a bunch of passive aggressive stuff about him. anyway I guess you’re coming with me now? and then he chops someone’s arm off immediately
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
reading a historical romance novel and reflecting on the way these stories often present woke nobility for the contemporary reader. a big thing is servants. you can’t not have servants in those times but many modern readers think “but I would never have servants. it would be so weird to have servants” and in order to make the protagonists of the story more relatable they are actually friends with the servants. but flip your perspective and think of it from the side of the servants. wouldn’t it be so awful if your boss was always trying to be friends with you. a really common thing you’ll see is the woke baronet having tea in the kitchen with the servants bc he’s not like other baronets. but what if your boss wanted to hang out and talk during your lunch break every day. not so charming when you think about it that way
#okay but now what is the optimal way to be a good boss in this situation i genuinely wanna know#its easy to guess what makes a bad boss or a mid boss. but what is a good boss#specifically in such a highly structured hierarchal situation (via @rainbowroach)
HELLO you are asking questions that literature and poetry THROUGHOUT the middle ages has asked, and it is from this questioning that we derive things like the Codes of Chivalry (which is not "how to treat a noble lady really nice" but is actually "how to be an ethical person when you're rich and you own a horse" and includes such things as "don't run people over with your horse")
In fact I daresay you already know instinctively just from cultural osmosis what a good boss -- a good liege lord -- is and does based on the tropes that have survived to the current day and the kinds of things that get Hugely Praised in things like legends of King Arthur.
A good boss (liege lord) is:
Merciful. He is not having his peasants killed for things like poaching rabbits during a famine. In fact, he is working to mitigate famine. During times of individual hardship, he might negotiate with a peasant for a payment plan on their annual rent.
Patient. He is not impulsive, he does not lose his temper.
Prudent. He makes choices that are thoughtful, considered, conservative (in the sense of not needlessly risky--he's not investing his entire fortune in having everyone plant an unproven crop). He is making sure local infrastructure like roads and public buildings are maintained and kept in good nick.
Gentle. He doesn't haul off and slap a servant or a tenant for breaking a dish or making a mistake. He doesn't abuse animals, his wife or children, or his employees. He doesn't rape the servants.
Generous (both in money and in spirit). He is not extorting the peasants for an amount of rent that is beyond their means, he is not raising taxes every year to cover his own lavish lifestyle. He is paying his servants a living wage (or, if wages are low, he's giving them room/board/clothing to make up the difference). If someone in a tenant's family dies, the lord is sending a gift of condolence, or helping to pay for the funeral, or possibly even ATTENDING the funeral and speaking a few kind words about the deceased, ESPECIALLY if they were a really upstanding and important member of the community. If one of his tenants is gravely sick, the lord is sending a basket of food or paying for a doctor. He is giving charitably (generally this will be, like, a bequest to the church so that they can run a hospital or an orphanage or a school for the local village children).
Pious. This classically means "goes to church, submits with humility to God" but to me this quality is subtextually standing in for "maintaining an ongoing sense of Perspective that HE'S not god, that there are higher powers he is Accountable to, that he too can be Judged, etc, so that he doesn't end up going on a weird fucked up power trip"
Humble. One of the most admiring things you hear about a lord doing in literature and epic poetry is, "He ate off of wooden plates while his followers ate off of gold and silver." Humility isn't about being meek, it's just about not thinking so much of yourself that you turn your nose up and sneer at what "lesser" people do. In other words: Don't be a fucking diva. If your carriage gets stuck in the mud, climb out and help everybody else push, you're not gonna die from getting mud on your shoes.
Condescending. This word has changed wildly in meaning/tone over the last couple centuries -- it's now a rude thing to do (because we've done away with legal social hierarchies, so someone acting like they're lowering themselves to your level IS insulting), but in older times, a high-ranking person "condescending" to a servant was worthy of praise and admiration: it means they were setting aside rank and privilege to speak to them with the easygoing, friendly respect and compassion they'd give a peer. This is things like... Treats those beneath him with courtesy and respect (ie: listens soberly and attentively when one of his servants or tenants comes to complain about a problem). Having a sense of humor and kindness about it when the lord and a servant both come around a corner at the same time and run into each other and the servant gets knocked to the ground and starts babbling apologies--the condescending (positive) lord helps them to their feet with his own hands and cracks a joke to show them that it's ok (as opposed to just walking off without a word or insulting/scolding them). This is also things like trusting a farmer, woodcutter, or artisan to speak with expertise about their own livelihood and taking their advice into consideration if they tell the lord that one of his ideas won't work.
Good boundaries. The ethical liege lord knows that it's normal for the staff to probably be softly bitching about him in private (even with a really good boss, we all grumble from time to time). He's not eavesdropping on them, he's not going into the staff areas where they should reasonably expect to have a degree of privacy, etc.
Righteous and protective of "the weak". The "weak" here doesn't necessarily mean physically weak, this is often used in the sense of someone politically or socially weak, aka The Marginalized -- the poor, the disabled, women, children, the elderly, etc. If a lord sees someone like this being mistreated or abused, he's supposed to step in and put a stop to that.
Committed to reciprocity. In a highly hierarchical system like feudalism, every person (from the lowest peasant all the way up to the crown prince) legally OWES their liege lord certain things (taxes, labor, service, loyalty, etc). A good liege remembers and takes very seriously the idea that this should be a balanced and reciprocal relationship -- in other words, he owes something BACK. Feudalism is modeled very strongly on the family system: If children owe their parents obedience and service, then parents owe their children care and protection. This still applies when the "child" is a farmer and the "parent" is a local baron. Or when the "child" is a duke and the "parent" is the king.
Basically, we get so caught up in the aesthetics of nobility that we forget that it literally is a managerial position that comes with responsibilities that were... very similar back in the day to the same ones we have now. Humans have not changed all that much. At the end of the day, a really good boss in the 1400s versus in one from the 2020s displays most of the same qualities of personality, even if the details of execution are different.
The next question is, of course, "well, but this theoretical liege lord is HIGHLY idealized -- how often did that actually HAPPEN? Wasn't it more likely that everyone was exploited all the time?" and to that I say: Well, maybe. But again, I don't think humans have changed all that much. Just like the bosses of today, there's a SPECTRUM: A really really good boss is rare and precious and one that you tell stories about for years after you've left that job, but a truly, genuinely, homicidally nightmarish boss is also pretty rare. Most bosses are sort of meh -- they have their good moments, they have their shitty moments, but they're tolerable and you can get along with them well enough to do your job, and then you roll your eyes at them behind their back. Generally, humans don't take outright exploitation lying down. Being a bad boss in the historical period is how you get peasant uprisings and revolts, and you know that to be true because your parents raised you with that knowledge, so unless you are very stupid or inbred or an egomaniac, there is literal personal incentive to at minimum be a Tolerable liege lord. And that means hitting at least SOME of the above bullet points.
TL;DR: In the words of Honore de Balzac, "Everything I have just told you can be summarized by an old word: noblesse oblige!"
(for more discussions of the ethics of fealty and what it means to be a good boss when you are an exquisitely beautiful twink of a prince with a hot beefy bodyguard.... [fingerguns] read A Taste of Gold and Iron)
Incredibly violent take of mine but I actually don’t think you need to relate to a story in any way to enjoy it. You can enjoy a story even if you can’t point at a character and insert some aspect of your personality or identity into them. In fact I would argue the need for a character like that to be present in every single story you experience is a sign of stunted growth.
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
So, back when Dracula first released in 1931, it came with an epilogue where Edward Van Sloan (who played Van Helsing) basically reassured the audience that vampires exist. They apparently removed it out of fear it’d anger religious groups. After almost a century, it’s now available
happy new year, wibbly! sorry this has taken so long, i had surprise family matters to take care of jadkfljasldf but here you go <333
“If they hadn’t wanted help negotiating the peace treaty anyway, why did they even request Jedi?” Obi-Wan grumbled, sitting down on their own couch with a pointed whumph sound. “They had their own security.”
Anakin was quiet for a brief moment as he watched his old Master. It was extremely cute, seeing Obi-Wan so grumpy—before Anakin had graduated to Knight, usually Obi-Wan’s grouchiness was directed at him. It was much better this way.
“Maybe they didn’t know if their security would be enough,” Anakin posited, though he didn’t believe it.
He was just glad that for once, they’d had a peaceful mission with no major incidents or explosions. It had been a while—since before the war.
“Then they should have said that.”
Obi-Wan took out his datapad and set it on the arm of the couch. He tapped across its surface with just a little more force than necessary as he started in on their mission report. He was still wearing his cloak, and his bag sat by his feet still packed up.
Anakin ducked forward and grabbed it, slinging it across his shoulder to rest alongside his own. It wouldn’t take him long to unpack both bags; Obi-Wan traveled light.
“I’ll make you some tea after I unpack our things, Master,” Anakin said. “You can work on the mission report.”
Anakin thought that maybe the answering huff was just a little less annoyed than before, and he smiled as he walked to the door of Obi-Wan’s room.
if you would like to read it on ao3, you can do so here <3
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
idk if i have the bandwidth for the kind of post this deserves and maybe i'll revisit it sometime, but i can't get over how the movie just– does not get into elizabeth as a character as well as it could've. the movie tries to make her character so many things that can branch in multiple directions. that she's meant to be victor's foil makes it even more interesting. sometimes i think "well, this isn't what the movie is about so that's why it couldn't execute the landing well with her," but tbqh it doesn't even have to be a full-fledged character story. i wouldn't even really expect one. but harlander has an entire arc, anderson has an entire arc; even the blind man doesn't have an arc on-screen but it's at least apparent that he is at the end of his arc, that it exists. (which is a whole other post on its own; i can get into how the blind man is both victor's foil and his future. i love how victor's narrative is reflected in so many other characters, not just the creature's. i love the theme that victor is one man in a world that shapes all of them – that he, like others, feels alone, yet they're all going through such similar beats. they're in a world of entropy and ouroborous and cycles and bettering themselves through the pain. victor is who we see this world and story through, the focus is on him, but he's not the only island in this ocean.)
ultimately, i think the writing wanted to do too many things with elizabeth's character that it ultimately couldn't really execute the landing with enough of them without taking something substantial away from her. i don't think this is an issue with an audience reading, or an intentional "unreliable narrator" issue, so much as the actual barebones writing/execution itself stumbling with her. the impression that she leaves a lot of fans with is being a pretty standard "good guy"; she's described in interviews as the "good mother" to victor's "bad father." but was that angle and those adjacent to it pursued too heavily? the impression of her that a lot of fans come away with tends to be idealized but impersonal; she is lofty, a pinnacle, an ideal, and almost an aesthetic. it is indeed the polar opposite of the extreme & less engaged interpretation of victor's character: a one-note raving villain with little depth or scope for the world around him. but both these extremes, both these ideals, can risk coming across as shallow takes on them.
i've tried conveying before that the tone of the movie insists on highlighting victor's transgressions; that is the story. but it insists upon this so heavily that it risks cutting from itself that broader theme of a world and a life wherein victor's shortcomings do not exist alone, in a vacuum; that harlander hurts people, anderson hurts people, the creature hurts people, the blind man & leopold did as well. and the movie insists so heavily on the tone it takes with elizabeth that it risks cutting from itself aspects that make her as much of a grounded character as the rest, instead of lofty and untouchable: that she reflects the same sentiments and struggles as everyone else and must, in her own way, confront them and become changed or otherwise affected. in other words: have her own arc.
and she does, but the tone that the film takes with her in its later part risks making her feel like an ideal of a character, a more literal mouthpiece for the narrative/messaging, than a substantial, grounded one like most of the others. but this isn't the case in the earlier part of the film! that part is why i can see her having an arc, but the movie risks it being an "only if you squint" or "only interpretive" kind of situation.
she's raised in conventionality. it is what she knows because it is what's been accessible to her. but she has an inclination to rise above that, or at least remove herself from it. she may not know how. she has lofty ideals, principles, but cannot or does not really apply them. she challenges victor but is also drawn to him. he is absolutely unconventional. elizabeth can come across as sanctimonious. victor is the most irreverent man in the continent.
neither of them have much in the way of friends or companionship. interviews for this movie describe all the characters as lonely and illiterate on how to give or receive love. her and victor become friends. neither of them know how to really be a friend. what neither of them can communicate or resolve is that they want the same things from life, but they approach this from opposite paths. generally, most of the time, victor is honest; outside of the one grand lie regarding harlander's death, victor may be considered, in practical terms, the most honest character in the story: he is outspoken and open about who he is, what he thinks, what he wants, what he's willing to do to pursue it. with anderson, he paints himself the villain in his own telling: i made him, i hurt him, the one to kill (even if indirectly by the crew) is me.
this is consistent with elizabeth; he is open about his attraction and willingness to pursue something with her. there is a reason why elizabeth, who never has an issue condemning or challenging victor's shortcomings and misdeeds, does not do that with him here in this scene. honesty isn't something to condemn, only to reject if she so chooses, and she does. but notably, she does not stand her ground as she does in every other scene with him. she responds to his honesty here by running.
again: they want the same thing, whether a viewer "ships" these characters or not, ie. interprets them or her tie with william or the creature as romantic or platonic – elizabeth also wants to step out of the norm, away from convention, to be honest about what she wants, to figure out what she'd be willing to do to pursue it. it is why she is drawn to the creature, who is so far out of scope from the world she's known and had access to that he comes across, to her, as "other" – as other to her world as she feels she is because of all she yearns for. when she rejects victor, she is still at a point where, when confronted with contending paths, she chooses the conventional choice. she is already engaged. this should be important to her, for whatever reason a viewer may choose. the consideration over whether she's really happy where she is and what her choice is isn't the basis of her decision. but it's the conventional one, the one she knows; she doesn't know how to pursue the things she wants. both her and victor do not know how to communicate these sorts of things, and mutually, in different points of the story, they do not ask the harder but more effective questions or share their feelings in ways they'd know how to receive and understand. they have both been lonely, alone, for a long time.
when the night of the wedding comes, she doesn't care about it. she has little regard for the wedding, for the groom, for anyone in the building. the creature exemplifies the "otherness" she feels and understands, admires and yearns for. she has until this point tried to commit to the decision she made when she rejected victor, because it was not solely a rejection of a romantic pursuit. the decision was as much, if not more, to remain conventional, familiar, to remain in an accessible role to her rather than risk pursuing some other route that is more strange and unknown and risky. but as the commitment draws near, her consideration and value for it deflates. she does not ask after william or anything or anyone, only that she be removed from all of them and the situation entirely as her final request. she wants to be with something, someone, she feels a kinship with, that she finds some "understanding" in, as she says in the tower. her arc is that she felt like the butterfly that she herself chose to keep in a glass case, but when the night to fully & completely commit to that decision comes, she changes her mind. her priorities shift. in a real way, she becomes more honest.
and i see it, i see all of that, it's on the screen, but my hangup is that so much of it risks getting lost regardless. and in this case, i really don't think it's because of an inattentive audience. i think it's the execution of it, how the movie itself lands with her. elizabeth can be sanctimonious. her perceptions, her words, her actions, oftentimes contradict. and there are playful directions one can go from that. is she aware of all this? or that in an extreme, it can come across as hypocrisy? like the others, she contains both external limitations and her own faults, both of which hurt her and have an effect on the world/characters around her as much as her influence and virtues do. she can be, is, a substantial character with weight, fully-fledged and grounded and messy who can be played with.
but i don't know if most audiences see all that. because the way her character lands: it's so much the opposite of the things i just listed – she's lofty, she's untouchable, she's right all the time, she has no arc because she's not messy or grounded enough to have one, she doesn't have anything she needs to work on, she's an ideal and a mouthpiece for certain messages the movie tries at times really too hard to hammer in. i don't think i can blame anyone for coming away from this movie with that interpretation of her because of the way the movie itself resolves her, and i just find myself feeling some type of way about it. i see her tie to victor and the narrative and how she fits with the rest of this world and characters, how she can stand on par with the captain and the creature and her uncle etc.. i see this interesting, contradictory, fun character who genuinely offers something more than, better than, a pinnacle. but i don't see that in how such a large part of the fanbase perceives her.
pixelskylines
andulkaphoto
vaporwave
gracieabrams
snowghoul
