A Traveling Witch Realizing There Might Be A Hole In Her Bag

Every time I see a bunch of posts from Neil Gaiman on my feed I think, "Neil... you're procrastinating writing again, aren't you"

adult life is crazy because you can be going through the most devastating and heartbreaking things while still having to go to work and do the laundry and grocery shopping

Concerning Alicent's reaction to Rhaenyra's idea to marry Haelena to Jace, canon shows that Ned Stark and Stannis Baratheon (both male faves) would react no differently if someone suggested betrothing one of their kids to someone they know/believe is a bastard

It's why even if Joff was decent Ned rejected Littlefingers advice to keep the betrothal and to also betroth Arya to Tommen. It's why Stannis freaked out when whatshisname suggested marrying Tommen to Shireen. Because fair or not Westeros has certain views on inheritance.

Alicents reaction is very natural given their society

The double standards are something else

The issue of bastards is extremely hard to make modern audiences understand because most cultures, at least in the west, no longer have this stigma against them. (Although they suddenly don't have a problem with outdated historical values when it comes to excusing child brides or sexism hahahaha !)

Nyra may have actually had some good intentions there but it was still a slap in her face and she had to have known that to some degree. And Alicent was pretty chill about it next to the reactions of Stannis and Sybelle Spicer and the rest when offered a marriage alliance with a baseborn kid.

But even had she readily accepted, you know they would have found some way to spin it so she's a villain 🤦‍♀️"zomg look at Alicent trying to steal the throne by selling her OWN CHILDREN through marriage!!!1!1!?1"

as a finnish person, i hate everything that has something to do with sweden, but as a homosexual, young royals is one of the greatest shows i've ever seen

lots of people seem to forget strikes are SUPPOSED TO negatively impact the economy and inconvenience people. that's how you force the company to give into your demands. it's hitting them where it hurts hardest--their profit.

just because alicent isn't complex in your understanding of her doesn't mean she isn't complex. all the claims i see of missing her one note, evil stepmother characterization from fire & blood are so fascinating to me, especially when the showrunners, actors, writers and directors have been so clear about the choices they've made for her in order to better expand her depth and worldview. despite that, we still have people claiming that the lack of portrayal of alicent as a clear cut villain is one that removes her "agency". do you really mean agency, or just your ability to simply hate her as a knee jerk reaction to your own bias and favorite characters in the narrative?

i really do find it so interesting when people claim they can only understand a female character's layers if she makes choices with clear intentions: purely villainous or purely good choices which then conveniently force her into one of the archetype boxes of madonna, mother, whore, bitch, etc, which are not particularly "complex" and in fact a very outdated form of storytelling most female characters suffer from. its the same shallow interpretation of a complex narrative that causes people to reduce a deeply tragic civil war between a family that results in the end of the dragons, mass death and war crimes on both sides into a narrative as simple and boring as "team green" or "team black" - rather than a commentary on the flaws of monarchy, patriarchy, etc.

just because a female character isn't making the clean cut narrative choices you want her to make to support your personal interpretations of "good" and "bad", does not mean she has had her agency or personality surrendered - but rather that you can only understand and process her as a caricature that fits into the judgements you already made about her.

Still haven’t finished Blood, Sex and Royalty yet (planning on finishing it this Thursday) but one thing I do really enjoy about it is how the actors show moments of silliness/levity or just human moments of exasperation with their characters. Obviously this production has them act with modern mannerisms but there are ways of doing this more historically in character. I’m thinking Jeremy Irons as Robert Dudley groaning and resting his head on the table during a frustrating council meeting or his facial expression as he mocks the Duke of Anjou, or in The Virgin Queen when Elizabeth balls up a piece of parchment and playfully throws it at Robert’s head which triggers lightheared parchment fight between two old friends. It’s absolutely delightful.

I feel like sometimes period dramas get too caught up in making their characters super serious and in earnest all the time, especially if the characters are well known historical figures. But they were still humans too - they would have pulled faces, rolled their eyes, shared inside jokes with their friends and have moments of awkardness or bursts of emotions. They didn’t always have the perfect one-liner ready as a response. They were not cool and collected all the time, even if they were monarchs - and especially when they were not on display. I seriously doubt Elizabeth for example walked around in her private rooms, back straight and face impassive for example. Which is why when Cate Blanchett’s Elizabeth audibly sighs with relief and her shoulders slump forward after her heavy coronation mantle is taken off of her, or when she gets flustered and frustrated preparing for her first big speech to Parliament, it feels so wonderfully human.

Shows like Wolf Hall, The Tudors and even the Starz historical dramas I think sometimes lean too far into presenting themselves as “serious” historical dramas that they make their characters larger than life and forget the fact that they also were human beings.