My biggest sin will always be gluttony for my fave characters and franchises. I truly don’t know what I would do just to have more time with them.

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
AnasAbdin
noise dept.
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
No title available
trying on a metaphor
TVSTRANGERTHINGS

Product Placement
occasionally subtle

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
YOU ARE THE REASON
almost home

No title available
NASA

roma★
taylor price
RMH
Peter Solarz
i don't do bad sauce passes
d e v o n
seen from Australia

seen from Algeria

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Malaysia

seen from Italy
seen from Hungary
seen from Finland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Canada

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from United States

seen from Brazil

seen from Belgium

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Uzbekistan
@justblaterando
My biggest sin will always be gluttony for my fave characters and franchises. I truly don’t know what I would do just to have more time with them.
zerocalcare ti odio (non è vero sei lo specchio della mia vita continui a trovare le parole esatte per dirlo mi vedi l'anima ti vedo l'anima è tutto crudamente reale fa un male cane ma va bene così grazie zerocalcare)
Alicent Hightower pushing for her sons isn’t selfish.
Alicent pushing for her sons isn’t selfish act it’s pretty consistent with how inheritance works. Most mothers “widows” in that world would absolutely prioritize their children’s claims, especially in a system where a rival claimant is also a potential threat to your kids’ lives. Disinheriting a son in a male-preference system isn’t a small thing, it’s a massive slight with real consequences for status and safety. People downplay that way too much.
A) It’s not unusual for women in history to go against their husbands wishes for their sons.
What even counts as “selfish” in a world where survival and family protection are all entangled with political violence and succession crisis?
William the conqueror publicly mocked his eldest son Robert by calling him “Curthose” (“short-stockings”) He favored his younger children. William didn’t trust him, didn’t respect him, and never gave him real authority. And his mother Matilda secretly funded her son’s rebellion against her husband William, risking her marriage, status, and safety. By defying the most powerful man in Western Europe to protect her child, William publicly accused her of using his money to “arm and succour and strengthen [the rebels] to my grave peril.”
Isabella of France fled to France. she returned with an army and an alliance with her lover, Roger Mortimer. She successfully deposed her husband king Edward II and had him imprisoned (and likely murdered) and helped place her son, Edward III, on the throne.
Eleanor of Aquitaine went against her husband, Henry II, and backed her sons' revolt against him. The rebellion failed, and Henry imprisoned Eleanor for 15 years. However, upon Henry II's death, her son Richard I took the crown, freed her, and she wielded power acting as regent during his crusades. When Richard died, she successfully campaigned for her younger son, John, to succeed him as King.
Margaret Beaufort spent years maneuvering politically to secure her son’s claim. was deeply threatened by the Yorkist kings. She went against them, turning to political intrigue and plotting rebellions against Richard III. She successfully united support for her son, Henry Tudor.
God forbid GRRM writes a historically accurate woman who fights for her son’s position instead of quietly obeying and dying tragically after fulfilling her reproductive function. Queens, queen mothers, regents, noblewomen defending their children’s inheritance is not impossible feminist anomaly invented for fantasy drama. history is FULL of women scheming, ruling, rebelling, or outright going against husbands, councils, and political expectations for their children’s survival or claims but somehow a woman acting politically for her son in a succession crisis becomes “evil ambition” while passive suffering gets instantly romanticized as the more acceptable form of femininity.
If every major house do the same thing advancing their own bloodline and protecting heirs then calling one woman “selfish” for doing it is less about ethics and more about selectively feminism by punishing a female ambition inside a system everyone else is already playing.
The point of the story: This tale isn’t about “one woman the main character being denied power.” No it’s the tale of the princess (rhaenyra) and the queen (Alicent), the Blacks and the Greens. You can see from the title of the story. I can also flip the argument and reduce the whole tale to a second wife who risked her life in childbirth and was denied power through her children, simply bc she was treated as an exception. But It isn’t just a ONE woman denied. It’s TWO women the princess and the queen. It’s not simply “ambitious greedy entitled woman vs. wronged woman.”One woman is treated as an exception to male preference, the other is treated as an exception to the usual power afforded a queen mother. Exceptions are unstable. That’s why the story isn’t just about personal bitterness. It’s about a political order that tried to hold two contradictory ideas at once: A daughter can inherit like a son. A queen consort has no independent claim through her children if it contradicts the king’s will.
B) Competition for power happens with other women too.
We will see Stark widows women push for their sons’ inheritance. Widows and noble mothers act as political protectors for their children, bc their own status is tied directly to whether their sons inherit. If the line of succession is unclear or threatened, it makes sense that different Stark women would try to secure advantages for their own children behind the scenes.
“The She-Wolves” story and “The Princess & the Queen” being included in an anthology called Dangerous Women already frames them in a specific way.
The anthology introduction emphasizes women with actual political influence and disruptive power inside their societies. Not passive little NPC wives standing prettily in the background. These women matter bc they can alter succession and redirect history itself.
And notice how women become “dangerous” the second they wield power in ways that aren’t purely decorative. Men scheming, conquering, manipulating succession and starting wars, is treated as standard political behavior. But women doing the exact same thing become threatening, manipulative, hysterical, evil, etc. The double standard is baked right into the language.
So…
when Stark widows or Alicent are described as “dangerous,” it’s more about women acting as players in succession struggles and women using limited tools available to them to protect their children’s claims.
They’re not “dangerous” bc they’re uniquely power-hungry. They’re “dangerous” bc they work in spaces usually dominated by MEN, they assert claims (their sons’ & their own position) and they refuse to stay passive when inheritance is at stake. The Stark widows fighting behind the scenes or Alicent another widow pushing for her sons isn’t unusual it’s what happens when women in a restrictive system finally have leverage.
These women aren’t just reacting emotionally they’re engaging in the same logic as everyone else. The only difference is that when women do it, it gets written as something more threatening or “dangerous”, bc it disrupts expectations of what they’re “supposed” to be. There’s a gendered double standard in how agency is interpreted.
And since house like the Starks that has multiple marriages across generations. If Beron Stark is dying, it makes sense that different Stark women would be active behind the scenes, each trying to protect their own children’s position in the line of succession. Women like Serena & Sansa being left out of clear inheritance paths would logically contribute to those underlying disputes, since their children’s status would depend on how that succession gets decided.
Widows in Asoiaf are politically weaker overall, bc their authority is tied to their husband’s status or their sons’ inheritance. If their sons don’t inherit, that weakness can increase even more:
they lose the main source of their long-term influence (their line continuing power)
their position at court becomes more dependent on others’ favor
rival branches of the family may push them aside
they can be politically sidelined if their faction loses the succession struggle
A widow’s stability is closely connected to whether her children secure inheritance. If they don’t, her influence usually declines, bc she no longer has a direct stake being recognized in the power structure.
I am not talking about widows in the sense of whether they are “deserving” of power in a moral or governmental evaluation of what rulers should do for the public. I am talking specifically about widows as political actors inside succession systems, and what kinds of conditions determine whether a highborn widow can actually secure her position or her children’s inheritance without being challenged.
Check this post about marriage contracts.
If Viserys had made it absolutely clear before marrying Alicent that Rhaenyra would not be replaced as heir, then the political situation around that marriage could have been very different. Otto’s decision to push Alicent forward is tied directly to uncertainty about succession, not just personal ambition. It’s common for men without sons to remarry specifically to produce a male heir, and that expectation shapes how other lords interpret a king’s choices. That’s why Corlys offering Laena to Viserys makes sense politically it’s another attempt to secure influence through a potential male line and strengthen alliances at the same time.
Fire&Blood:
The rough prince:
And it wasn’t just Otto and Alicent others in the realm also questioned it, pointing back to the ruling of the Great Council in 101. Viserys’ response, though, is essentially to shut the conversation down instead of clearly reinforcing or revising that precedent in a way everyone can accept. So instead of resolving the uncertainty, he leaves it hanging.
It was EXPECTED and NORMAL for noble women to want their children to inherit.
CATELYN STARK
Catelyn is highly sensitive to anything that threatens her children’s inheritance that’s a big part of why she resented Jon, since she saw him as a potential rival to her children. Within that same framework, it’s very hard to imagine she’d be fine with a stepdaughter inheriting over her own son. Her own blood!
“Precedent,” she said, her voice bitter. “Yes, Aegon the Fourth legitimized all his bastards on his deathbed. And look at all the misery, war, and death that followed. You may trust Jon now. But will you trust his sons? Or their sons after them? The Blackfyre pretenders kept coming back for five generations, until Barristan the Bold finally killed the last of them. If you make Jon legitimate, you can never unmake it. If he marries and has children, any sons you have by Jeyne will never be safe.”
“He is your son, not mine. I will not have him.” — Catelyn Stark, A Game of Thrones.
DAENERYS TARGARYEN
Daenerys herself was already imagining her son as king while Viserys was still alive. There doesn't seem to be much doubt there, and she sounds pretty certain that her son will sit on the iron throne.
“Yet they were bound to Drogo for life and death, so Daenerys had no choice but to accept them. And sometimes she found herself wishing her father had been protected by such men. In the songs, the white knights of the Kingsguard were ever noble, valiant, and true, and yet King Aerys had been murdered by one of them, the handsome boy they now called the Kingslayer, and a second, Ser Barristan the Bold, had gone over to the Usurper. She wondered if all men were as false in the Seven Kingdoms. When her son sat the Iron Throne, she would see that he had bloodriders of his own to protect him against treachery in his Kingsguard.”
VISENYA AND RHAENYS
Even GRRM did confirmed that Visenya and Rhaenys competed for Aegon influence, and authority. There was tension and rivalry in how they related to him and to their positions in the new order.
MARGERY AND OLENNA
Margaery and Olenna absolutely wouldn’t just accept their line being sidelined. Olenna is ruthless, she’s willing to have Joffrey killed when she sees him as an immediate existential problem. Y’all really think Olenna would just sit there and accept her granddaughter Margaery’s son getting passed over for Rhaenyra, the stepdaughter?
RHAENYRA & DRIFTMARK
Check this POST!
Rhaenyra herself acts violently when her children’s position is threatened, which shows she works under the same logic as Alicent. When her line is at risk, she doesn’t respond with restraint or principle she prioritizes her children’s survival above all else.
This isn’t Alicent being uniquely selfish. It’s a system where almost any mother in her position would push the same way. But I know a lot of team black stans being historically illiterate and it’s not shocking when parts of fandom discourse treat a quasi medieval succession crisis like a modern election cycle with HR policies and peaceful transitions of power. You can absolutely support Rhaenyra’s claim and still recognize that queens, queen mothers, noblewomen, and regents historically fought for their sons, feared rival claimants, and did not just politely sit down waiting to see what happened to their children. That’s not “evil woman behavior,” that’s fucking historically accurate woman, the problem is less “which team” and more when people flatten medieval / early modern succession logic into modern discourse and then act shocked that characters behave according to the brutal rules of their world.
And I blame hotd they made the story about “who is morally right in a modern sense” instead of “how does succession politics actually function in this quasi medieval system”
inspired by the recent ask about Margarery:
>"Your Grace laughs so prettily." Lady Margaery gave her a quizzical smile. "Might we share the jest?"
>"You will," the queen said. "I promise you, you will."
I always wondered what everyone said or did after this. You think there was just some awkward silence? Like I have no idea how Marge or anyone else really supposed to respond to this. Like I just imagine her being like "...anyways."
"Well, if Her Grace will not share her jest for the moment, I may share one of my own," Lady Margaery said. "Three men walk into a tavern -"
THE BOYS 1.06 / 5.07
I cannot be the only person who forgot this happened 😭
Nah
They live rent free in my head 🙏🩷
One thing I genuinely hate in the finale is the way they kicked Maeve for that Annie/random V-girl moment. “Never meet your heroes” when Maggie not only proved to Annie that she was the hero Annie had thought her to be (broken arm), but also stepped up and was, in her final moments as Queen Maeve, the bravest hero of ALL of them. She jumped to her death (to her knowledge) FOR Annie.
Summing up her character with something like “she gave people too much and was hollow and bitter” does her a brutal disservice and making it sound like Annie would think that of her does Annie a disservice.
The writers treated Maeve as largely irrelevant in the last two seasons and it’s just horrific. We can assume that she was the first one to make Homelander bleed, and his first love. She knew his name.
She gave Annie hope, she protected her. In that sense, she was so important for both of them.
Funny how evidently none Italians do not actually know nel blu dipinto di blu.. like love it but there are other parts wich would lead to a satisfying conclusion but ok
Ashley's reaction in the finale when Homelander is about to kill her for some reason and Maeve shows up to save her 🙂↕️
ok but no one talks enough about severus and narcissa fanon bond
because you just know their conversations would be so layered. like on the surface it’s all polite, controlled, very pure-blood etiquette (courtesy of cissa), tea poured perfectly, every word chosen carefully, but underneath all that? like come on they're SO slytherin about it
like narcissa absolutely comes in with “updates” that are 50% concern, 50% strategic information, and sev just sits there pretending he’s above it all while very much listening to everything.
also i fully believe narcissa would drop the most cutting observations about people and snape would internally agree but give the driest responses ever.
“how unfortunate.” “indeed.”
Most of the things fandom makes up about characters and how they change them are unbearable, but if there’s one thing that really gets on my nerves, it’s how people just invent traumas out of nowhere, traumas the characters never experienced and for which there’s zero evidence. Lately I’ve seen people talk about the Black sisters, saying Bellatrix was deeply traumatized and that’s why she joined the Death Eaters, or that Narcissa was forced into her marriage and I’m just sitting there like… there are so many things wrong with that from every possible angle.
Leaving aside the fact that no, there’s nothing supporting that theory if anything, the opposite is true: Bellatrix is not only one of Voldemort’s most fervent followers, she genuinely believes in the cause and is basically a guerrilla soldier who enjoys what she does. Narcissa not only seems quite content in her marriage, she literally abandons her political stance and betrays her social circle to protect her family —both her son and her husband— even though her husband is partly responsible for the situation they’re in.
The thing is, stripping women of their agency to make morally questionable decisions is incredibly misogynistic. A woman doesn’t follow an unethical or questionable path, or hold questionable beliefs, just because she’s been brainwashed or traumatized. Thinking like that reduces women to passive roles, where they’re incapable of thinking for themselves, and the only way they can hold morally unacceptable views is if someone has traumatized them into it. The reality is that women have agency; we can make choices based on our own desires or interests. There are women with violent tendencies, and women who find certain conservative structures beneficial.
No, Bellatrix wasn’t abused at home, there’s nothing suggesting that. There’s nothing suggesting she was unhappy with her family; quite the opposite. Her role toward her younger sister is fairly dominant (which makes sense, since she’s not only the eldest of three sisters but also the eldest among five cousins), and she always showed complete alignment with pure-blood ideology. In fact, the fact that Narcissa isn’t part of the active fight shows that joining the Death Eaters wasn’t mandatory within their family, so Bellatrix joined because she wanted to. That means no one pressured, coerced, or traumatized her into it. She was simply someone raised with certain ideals who, unlike her younger sister, was willing to actively fight for her political goals. And not only that: she becomes one of the most important figures in that faction, basically the leader’s right hand, showing absolute devotion to him and his ideology.
So I don’t understand the need to completely rewrite her background just to… what, give her more drama? Does her story need more drama? And why does that drama have to come from ideological trauma? Why can’t a female character freely choose, with full agency, to do bad things? Can’t women be violent? Do women always have to be passive?
Similarly, it’s really frustrating how Narcissa is portrayed as someone pressured into marriage, or as an unhappy or abused wife, when the whole point of the Malfoys is that yes, they have terrible beliefs, but they are a family that genuinely loves each other and sticks together to the end. Their ideology is what leads to their downfall, but it’s their love as a nuclear family that ultimately saves them from ending up dead or in prison. Narcissa doesn’t risk her life just for her son: she does it for her whole family, for both her son and her husband. They’re consistently shown as a united couple, even at their lowest point.
In the end, Narcissa represents a more traditional side of conservative ideology: a high-society woman married to a man of the same status, who is not only content with her life but proud of it, because she’s achieved what many women of her social standing aspire to; a socially prominent family that matches their status. We can like that worldview or not, but regardless, nothing about it suggests a coerced or unhappy marriage. I don’t understand the need to turn her into a victim forced into marriage when everything points to her choosing it willingly, Lucius and she moved in the same circles and likely knew each other from a young age.
I also don’t get portraying her as an abused woman when Lucius is never shown to be violent toward her or their son. In fact, when he falls from grace and becomes almost catatonic after realizing how disposable he is to Voldemort, she’s the one who steps up and pulls the family through.
It all feels completely unnecessary and, again, strips a female character of her individual agency just because some people in fandom can’t handle morally gray or immoral characters, or can’t write them without softening them. So they invent a narrative to feel more comfortable. But fans’ comfort shouldn’t come at the cost of mutilating characters, especially female characters, and especially morally complex ones. Women have historically been portrayed either as saintly or submissive, and forcing characters back into those molds does them no favors. It’s just pure internalized misogyny.
I hate my brother in law final boss
Draco: “Mom Help!”
Narcissa: “What! What happened!”
Lucius: “I just ate a handful of this rat poison!”
Narcissa: “Why?!”
Lucius: “I thought it was trial mix! Why do I keep them so close together!”
Draco: “I’ll call 911!”
Lucius: Here! Here! Read the box!”
Lucius “Tell me what it says to do! Hurry!”
Narcissa: *struggling to read”
Lucius: “I don’t have much time!”
Narcissa: *still struggling to read*
Lucius: “Andddddd I’m dead.”
Narcissa: “What?”
Lucius: “You’d rather kill your husband than just admit you need glasses.”
Draco: “Wow mom.”
Narcissa: “It’s not poison.”
Lucius: “Oh, there’s rat poison and I do keep it dangerously close to the trial mix, but this was to point out that your vanity could be fatal.”
Narcissa: “I knew this was all a trick. That’s why I acted like I couldn’t read the box!”
Lucius: “How many people have to pretend to die Narcissa.”
—————————-
lovebugs!!
@rustytyperwriter @withdevovotion @ineffablelyqueerwolfstarshipper @mothwingsmayy @marriedtonarcissablack @quillkillerblack @wolfstarwitch70 @arikakari @ellisamarox @catinthemoonlightwrites @whatonfuckingearthisgoingon @camisadoes @anlluizz @ethereallstarr @goingghostagain @favouriteforlonglongtime @princesswidget @t2rose @atrixtraa @istillwishforyouateleveneleven @knightmossy @darlingmylovethatsmurder @torn-btween-fandoms @luvieville @fictionalsimp09 @loonylara
God, going through anything Mai x Zuko related on Tumblr is so depressing now. It’s either the ubiquitous Zutarian trying to fabricate some BS about their incompatibility, or it’s some crazed pro-Maiko person who simultaneously has morphed both characters in their head to completely contradict anything canon. And the latter is honestly getting worse than the former at this point.
Like, we get it, you’re still pissed that your ship hasn’t officially reconciled in the comics. Boo fucking hoo. It’s not their fault you can’t see them gradually regaining trust and working towards a relationship again. You’re so lost in your own headcanon that even when it works to your advantage you hate it just because it’s being approached differently. Grow up.
And the “oh, Zuko would NEVER keep secrets from Mai after ATLA ended” is such a stupid and reductive take. It just paints an image of Zuko being totally perfect after he becomes Fire Lord and that a redemption arc for someone who has been indoctrinated for YEARS under a terrible regime and terrible parenting should be solved instantaneously. Even if it’s not an intentional oversimplification of his character, it’s done subconsciously just to comfort these people against the relationship not being perfect.
If you’re not willing to take your characters in canon struggling through relationship issues and developing on their own, then just ship for the aesthetic and don’t try to justify anything else. And for the Zutara shippers still flooding the Maiko tags, get a life. It’s been 18 years.
I need someone to write a moulin rouge long fic focusing on the diamond dogs with a lot of Santiago/nini in it. Like asap pls
Sophie Carmen-Jones as Nini
AAAAAAAAAAAH
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
COSA HA FATTO LA SYLLAAAAAAAA
HA PRESO TUTTOOOOO
EGONU CONCLUDEE DA DIOOOOO
FFUUUUUCK YEAAAAH
Orro had 1 ankle and a half but she was fucking everywhere I love heeeeer!!
My heart is not made for tie break
Girls I can't do this shit again
WE WON!!!!!!
Now I'm gonna go napping and crying now
This was just the semifinal my god