I’ll make my heaven in a lady’s lap

Kate, butch lesbian, she/her. I interact from @peachesandlesbians.

[ladystoneboobs]

so, one aspect of catelyn which i think is underrated (certainly the biggest adaptation loss which nobody talks about) is her, let's say superstitiousness, or better yet, let's call it genre-savviness, being one of the few adult characters open to magic and the supernatural in this fantasy world. we first meet her in the godswood, home of gods which are not truly hers, yet she is still very aware of their power. when she and ned talk of the deserter he killed, he hopes he won't have to go with the nw to deal with mance rayder, but she has even more fear of that idea bc there are worse things beyond the wall than just wildlings. ned scoffs and says she's been listening to old nan too much, but she's right. we already know from the prologue that she's right! and here she is, understanding the genre of their world better than her husband, who was actually born and spent his earliest years in this northern land of deep magic, listening to old nan's stories. same with the direwolves, where she was uncomfortable with them at first, but later believed in them as guardians from the old gods even after robb had lost his own faith. and once again, we know she's right even if she doesn't know the evidence to back up her instincts, bc summer and shaggydog did not fail bran and rickon and robb was almost certainly a warg like his brothers. (perhaps making it more fitting that she's the one brought back as a fantasy vengeance monster, not ned and robb, the most unbelieving dead starks.) and in her 2nd agot chapter, everyone focuses on her ambition in wanting ned to agree to the hand job (pun intended) and sansa's betrothal, and while she does recognize the value of their daughter being a future queen more than ned does, that's only her stated argument bc she thinks it's rational enough for ned to listen to. (if ambitious matchmaking were as important to her as to her father she never would have made those frey betrothals fandom loves to blame her for.) in her own head there's a deeper urge driving her. she keeps thinking of the dead direwolf with antlers in its throat, an omen which filled her with dread from the first she heard of it, before robert's arrival, and thinking of it again is what makes her desperate to convince ned not to refuse robert. she had to make him see. and really, she's not wrong, as jon snow would say. the dead direwolf was an omen of ned and robert getting each other killed. it's just one of those misread portents, with no way of knowing the danger to ned was in his loyalty to robert, not conflict with him. BUT the next time she's dealing with baratheons, she knows exactly what she's talking about. it's catelyn, not brienne, who sees the shadow slaying renly, and explains that it was stannis who did that through some dark magic. with no way of knowing how it was achieved and no prior expectation that such a thing were ever possible, she realizes with no hestitation that stannis was guilty and that his red witch was capable of pulling this off somehow. really, the only instinct of the supernatural she's wholly wrong about is her insistence that varys gathered his knowledge through some dark enchantment. however, though that might offend varys, given his own personal experience with a sorcerer, i'd say it's a reasonable assumption without knowing the dude had children moving through walls everywhere like oversized rodents. and imo it just shows she had a healthy respect and awe for varys's power which most other characters lack.

oh, oh, and let's not forget that she also believed in the curse of harrenhal, from her own childhood and the stories old nan told her kids. "and every house that held Harrenhal since had come to misfortune. Strong it might be, but it was a dark place, and cursed. 'I would not have Robb fight a battle in the shadow of that keep,' Catelyn admitted." sure, that wasn't enough to save robb, but he did not die from the curse of harrenhal. that doom was meant for his enemies from tywin lannister to roose bolton.

[branwinged]

one thing about asoiaf is that it frequently invites you to have sympathy for characters who've carried out varying degrees of morally repulsive acts (most apparent with pov characters such as theon, cersei, tyrion, and jaime but also sandor, joffrey, and even viserys). and most of these characters have received some equivalent of, what may look like 'narrative comeuppance' : theon flayed by ramsay, cersei made to perform her walk of atonement, tyrion sold as a slave, jaime losing his hand, joffrey's painful, drawn out death etc. except the scenes really aren't framed like that since the series doesn't seem to buy into that idea. all these incidents are not just deserts but moments of horrible injustice against these characters. and that's a little series thesis statement in itself, no neat category of monsters whose misdeeds can be addressed by a single moment of karmic justice but people like you and me who hurt others and have been hurt and continue on living. it's saying, here's this person who is capable of great cruelty influenced and motivated by their experiences with the world, but will you also hold understanding and sympathy in your heart for when the world is cruel to them in return? given what most fandom discourse looks like... the answer to that question is unfortunately a resounding no for a lot of readers.

[unicornofthemidwest]

something about shakespeare's missing mothers. something about love in the Tempest with Prospero's little remembrances of his wife, along the absence of Ferdinand's mother. something about fathers and fathers and fathers in King Lear, fathers without mothers, fathers alone like Lear or fathers glibly dismissing mothers like Gloucester. something about unaddressed grief rotting the cores of the tragedies without mothers, something about a touch of sadness and missing mothers in comedies. Something about Beatrice saying her mother cried when she was born, Beatrice talking about her mother in a show without mothers. something about Helena's biological mother never being mentioned but the Countess calling her her own child, something about the widow helping her without questions, all's well creating mothers and daughters out of nothing. something about mothers.

[chamerionwrites]

What she says: I’m fine

What she means: It’s truly amazing to me how many people’s hot take on Macbeth is that Lady M is the true villain of the piece for badgering her husband into committing murder when in reality the far more nuanced and interesting reading is that their character arcs form mirror images (ruthless > remorseful vs. reluctant > remorseless), and to be honest I’m pretty sure it has everything to do with our subconscious belief that villainous women are in some fundamental way worse than villainous men because in addition to doing bad things they violate our expectations about femininity (come you spirits unsex me here and fill me from the crown to toe topfull of direst cruelty) as soft and nurturing and non-violent and it is!! absolutely incredible!!! that this many people manage to read a play thematically concerned with the horrific results of conceptualizing violence as a defining trait of masculinity and come away doing the adam-and-eve thing (it’s the woman’s fault she told me to eat the fruit!) where Macbeth is the once-noble man tragically fallen and Lady Macbeth is his one-dimensionally evil nagging wife!!!!!!

[precalamity]

can someone who knows about you/thou divide in shakespeare help me out bc I just skimmed through all of horatio and hamlet’s interactions to find that hamlet consistently refers to horatio as “you” in act one, but starting with his very heartfelt speech in act 3 scene 2 praising horatio, he consistently uses “thou” until the end of the play (which does, sadly, imply that “o, I could tell you— but let it be.” is not actually directed at horatio…) more interesting to me is that horatio only ever uses “you” to refer to hamlet until after hamlet has died, when we get “goodnight sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.” does this have to do hamlet with hamlet being dead? or?? what are the general connotations of you/thou at this time (bc I know it has changed over time). why did the changes happen as they did or does literally none of this matter ?

[darkcomedies]

there a lot of great, detailed replies in the notes of this explaining the connotations of You/Thou in Shakespeare’s time, but very few analyze the significance of Hamlet + Horatio’s changing use of the pronouns throughout the play beyond “gay” (which, yeah. same. very that.)

my interpretation: it’s to chart their relationship throughout the play (among other stuff)

so. the first, often ignored cut line that Hamlet says to Horatio is: “Horatio— or do I forget myself?” and Horatio responds: “The same, my lord, and your poor servant ever.” (1.3)

my bold claim here is that Hamlet uses “you” to refer to Horatio at first for two reasons. Reason 1: he doesn’t know Horatio that well.

as a gay Hamlet truther myself i know this is extremely controversial. i personally think they might be, at most, the equivalent of work/school friends— sharing a lot of the same spaces, being around each other for years, but not really having deep conversations. we don’t have much evidence beyond how immediately comfortable Hamlet seems around him to suggest otherwise…

…here’s what we know from the text: they’ve definitely known each other in some capacity for a long time. (Something… I don’t know what… tells me Horatio potentially knows Hamlet more than Hamlet knows Horatio) they canonically attend the same university. they’re friendly with each other, they even joke a bit. Horatio traveled to Denmark from Wittenberg to attend King Hamlet’s funeral, so he either knows that the King passed away through the news/gossip mill, or heard that Hamlet’s father died through their friendship. (Horatio states that his reason for attending is “I came to see your father’s funeral.” which feels slightly more personal.) Horatio states that he thinks he’s seen the King once before, but this is very likely just him revving up to tell Hamlet that the one time he did see the King was the previous night. as a ghost.

so, Hamlet maybe uses “you” for Horatio because he just isn’t comfortable enough using “thou.”

“but hamlet still calls other lower class characters they he doesn’t know ‘thou—” Yes! He does! which brings me to Reason 2: Hamlet respects Horatio.

Horatio is definitely not of royal blood and potentially isn’t even that upper class (his cohort group, at this point, has essentially been guards/servants, he even calls himself one.) YET. Horatio is incredibly intelligent and well spoken (he speaks in verse!). He’s a fucking scholar of philosophy. He’s respectful, he’s calm, and he’s logical— Hamlet is in a fuckin tornado of emotions right now, of course he respects those traits. Enough so to use language that would let Horatio know that Hamlet views him as an equal.

“but if he respects Horatio so much, why did he switch to thou?”

okay so i’ve got a heartwarming interpretation of this, and an upsetting interpretation. i genuinely believe the “””””true””””” (⚠️THERE IS NO SUCH THING⚠️) interpretation lies somewhere in the middle depending on the production/my mood when i read it.

let’s start with the upsetting one: emotional manipulation.

yeah:( if you’ll notice, Hamlet starts using “thou” after his big long “Horatio you are fucking awesome” speech. which is followed by him asking Horatio for an insane favor. after that, Horatio does become something of an errand boy (with a hint of treason!) to Hamlet in a way, so “thou” would naturally slip in if Hamlet starts viewing him as another servant. if your read of Hamlet is particularly conniving, using “thou” is definitely going remind Horatio of his place in their relationship. (what are you gonna do, say no to a prince? the future king, if we play our cards right? if you do this ooooone thing for me…)

moving to heartwarming: Hamlet realizes how much he likes and trusts Horatio.

if they don’t know each other well, the two have immediate chemistry— a lot of shared lines and fun banter. Horatio is the only other person who’s “equal” to him who believes that Hamlet’s dad was murdered. Hamlet lowkey doesn’t really have anyone else beyond Horatio— he is alone. Hamlet loves to talk to himself, and Horatio doesn’t seem to mind being talked at, so he’s a great troubleshooter who swore not to tell anyone anything Hamlet says regarding treason stuff. Horatio is deeply loyal to Hamlet in a time where it feels like everyone he loves is betraying him. he’s loyal to Hamlet BEFORE being loyal to Claudius, the current king. (you get the idea that Horatio is really into feudalism by how he acts, so this is huge.) if your read of Hamlet is more gentle, perhaps Hamlet switching to “thou” is his way of indicating that Horatio can be more comfortable around him.

so here’s where i get… mid. i don’t know if i have an original, detailed thought regarding Horatio’s switch to “thou” post Hamlet’s death. very popular, very common interpretation is… gay. which, yes. “sweet prince” is very personal. “thou” is very personal. suicides for love are very common in Shakespeare’s work. yes. who among us has not been in AP Lit while gay?

for the sake of the sake of it: consider the philosophical, mortal concerns Hamlet (the play and person) have. when Hamlet dies, he isn’t a prince. he isn’t a king. he isn’t a person. He is the “quintessence of dust.” he’s the same as Horatio would be if he got to drink from the cup— dead. as cliche as it is, death is the great equalizer. he’s “thou,” now, because he’s dead.

so, long tdlr; Hamlet uses ‘you’ for Horatio, because he doesn’t know him well, but respects him. he starts using ‘thou’ because he starts to view Horatio as less than him, or because he realizes he close he feels to him. Horatio uses ‘thou’ because he’s gay, or because death is what finally made Hamlet his equal.

thanks for letting me pretend to be a professor on your tumblr post. or sorry. ah.

[afterthefeast-deactivated202604]

kevan pov is soo crazy bc it’s like. he’s the best and kindest lannister he loves his wife and family and gives cold messenger boys pennies. but he also made his niece whom he loves walk naked and bald through king’s landing to be abused by everyone in the city and he thought that was the right thing to do for her. and in his pov you can see how all of this cognitive dissonance is creaking at the seams because he has to reassure himself every three paragraphs that it was the right thing to do, and that cersei will be okay because he’s so obviously worried that he’s irreparably hurt her (which he has). by all accounts kevan is a good man - by westerosi patriarchal standards he’s a saint - but that doesn’t matter because his own moral standards are so irreparably warped by that patriarchy. because he is, ultimately, a good man, i think he can tell this but to truly realise that what he did visited horrific and unjustifiable trauma upon his niece would bring with it unbearable guilt, so he just lives in this insane prison of cognitive dissonance.

and at the centre of it all is tywin lannister winner of the worst man in westeros award 50th year running even after his death

[snack-size-shakespeare]

“What's in a name?”

In 16th century Italy? A lot!!!!

Romeo’s family.

His friends

His home

His money

(Some of) his reputation

His role in society

His inheritance (both material and intangible)

His identity (at least a big part of it)

You can’t reduce Juliet’s intense, impassioned speech here to “That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet” because Romeo is not a plant. She has to try hard, and use all her love and persuasion, to convince him that he will still be himself. That he can lost the first seven things without losing the 8th, that his ENTIRE identity is not bound up in “Montague” and that a big part of it is “Romeo,” and that part will remain. It’s also why she tells him he can “take all of [her]” in exchange. Because she’s asking him to give up so much. 

Like…the point of that whole speech is not “names don’t matter”. They do! Even today they do, and they CERTAINLY did for a nobleman back then! Names create social roles and bonds. Shakespeare knows that. Juliet knows that. But I think sometimes that people who bastardize the “What’s in a name?” speech don’t understand that at all. 

She’s not telling him “you’re not giving up anything real,” she’s telling him, “I promise you, when you give up all these real things, there will still be something left of you.”

[arisefairsun]

If Romeo and Juliet had taken it slow nothing at all would have changed. Juliet is aware that they are being too hasty (“Although I enjoy in thee, / I have no joy of this contract tonight. / It is too rash, to unadvised, too sudden. / Too like the lightning which doth cease to be / Ere one can say “it lightens!”) And yet she pops the question only a few lines later, and thank god she did.

If she had actually left Romeo “unsatisfied” in the balcony scene—if she had decided that they should wait before considering marriage, it wouldn’t have changed the fact that Tybalt would have looked for Romeo the next day. Romeo would have been banished anyway, because the tragedy isn’t caused by Romeo and Juliet’s precipitate love: it is caused by the violence, the hatred, and the prejudice of the feud.

A slower development of their relationship wouldn’t have saved Romeo from banishment. And a slower development of their relationship wouldn’t have changed the fact that Capulet sold Juliet to Paris. She would have had to marry him anyway. The only difference would have been that if she weren’t married to Romeo, but still in love with him, I doubt that Friar Laurence would have agreed to help her escape. Why bother breaking the rules, hurting Juliet’s parents by faking her death, just because Juliet didn’t feel like doing her duty? She would have had only two options left: either unwanted marriage or death. Looking at her words right after meeting Romeo, she seems determined to choose a husband on her own, or otherwise she will have none of it. (“If he be married, my grave is like to be my wedding bed.”)

And if they just hadn’t fallen in love at all, I believe it would have been the same: Romeo would have been banished and, without Juliet’s help, I doubt he would have survived long. He’s just not good at coping with pain and oppression—he needs affection. He needs people to take care of him. I think he would have ended up killing himself anyway, because he is terrified by the concept of isolation. (Or perhaps if he had never even attended Capulet’s party, he wouldn’t have had to fight Tybalt the day after. Perhaps he could have survived for a while—but how long? Look at Benvolio. He ended up unwillingly fighting Tybalt in the first scene. How long would it have taken for Romeo to take part in a fight? I think the point of the play is that they just can’t elude the feud, no matter how hard they try: it drags everyone down sooner or later.)

And if they hadn’t fallen in love at all, Juliet would have never become the powerful, intelligent, lively girl we know. She would have been this docile daughter who allows her parents to command her life: “I’ll look to like, if looking liking move, / But no more deep will I endart mine eye / Than your consent gives strength to make it fly.” Now compare those lines with the way she speaks in the balcony scene. (“Bondage is hoarse, and may not speak aloud, / Else would I tear the cave where Echo lies / And make her airy tongue more hoarse than mine / With repetition of ‘my Romeo!’”, “My bounty is as boundless as the sea, / My love as deep; the more I give to thee / The more I have, for both are infinite.”) She feels limitless. She feels free. But looking at Paris’ attitude in the friar’s cell, I think she would have been very miserable had she ended up marrying him. He just couldn’t care less about her feelings and opinions.

Yes, Romeo and Juliet behaved hastily, and I’m glad they did, because at least they could be happy and free for just a few days before the despotism of their society devoured them.

[sansalayned]

Catelyn Tully and Ellaria Sand + their stance on revenge (requested by sarellasand)

[ghostpunkrock]

disco elysium + sunsets

Bonus:

[melasshai]

20k+ likes on a Stannis tweet we’re so back

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

#in case you didnt know the album “red” is homage to r'hllor after taylor converted (via @sileneseagalstan)

[my-violet-road]

agamemnon is so asoiaf-coded. or mayhaps it’s the other way around

[my-violet-road]

because your life is already written out for you, when your father is cursed and your father’s father is already cursed, you have no other choice but to continue that curse. you have to live but you’re really just marching toward your own doom, but what else can you do except move forward? if you look back, you are lost.

so you keep walking forward, knowing that something is wrong but not sure what. and because you live in a Society™️, to live is to die in an inhumane way. your culture is built on systemic violence and blood—blood kin, blood feuds, bloodshed. a boy (and it is always a boy) will pick up a sword before he knows his mother, and it is good. it is good to fight, to die in battle, for kleos. for glory. for honor. for duty.

but you are civilized! you have justice: an eye for an eye. you will not forget the man who killed your father or your brothers, and neither will he when you kill his sons or brothers. and that is true justice: a life for a life, avenging your family because that is your duty. you love them.

but what happens when those ideals conflict? what happens when your husband sacrifices your daughter to the gods, and she is tied up and strung like an animal? you are a mother; you must love your child, even when society deems you both as week. but you are a wide; nay, you are a queen who must love your husband and respect him in all things. so what is justice? violence is the only answer you know, so you kill him. of course you do, and in doing so, you fool yourself, as every action has an equal and opposite reaction. you kill him, you will be killed.

when does it end? when does this cycle of violence end? how can there be justice in an unjust world? how can you have peace when you worship violence? what do you do if peace equals submission which equals weakness? what can you do for justice, when it’s consequences are so unjust? or:

“‘Oberyn wanted vengeance for Elia. Now the three of you want vengeance for him. I have four daughters, I remind you. Your sisters. My Elia is fourteen, almost a woman. Obella is twelve, on the brink of maidenhood. They worship you, as Dorea and Loreza worship them. If you should die, must El and Obella seek vengeance for you, then Dorea and Loree for them? Is that how it goes, round and round forever? I ask again, where does it end?’ Ellaria Sand laid her hands on the Mountain's head. ‘I saw your father die. Here is his killer. Can I take a skull to bed with me, to give me comfort in the night? Will it make me laugh, write me songs, care for me when I am old and sick?’”

[my-violet-road]

agamemnon is so asoiaf-coded. or mayhaps it’s the other way around

[lycorim]

Half amused and half devastated at how differently Bran and Catelyn describe Robb growing a beard, like Bran’s semi-awed because Robb’s his big brother obviously and “omg he’s so old and mature wow he’s an adult now,,,” but then Catelyn comes into the war camp going all “look at you, growing a little beard!! :,) Mommy’s handsome boy is growing up so fast :,(” and you know Robb sees both as true, trapped in a liminal stage of youth he’ll never end up growing out of, despite how hard he tries to look it.

[papenathys]

Absolutely insane lines to just drop in the middle of an academic text btw. Feeling so normal about this.

[ A Critical History of English Literature, Vol. 1, Prof. David Daiches, first published in 1960 ]

[rustwood]

maebmads:

#THIS!!!!#FINALLY#SOME GOOD FUCKING HAMLET ANALYSIS#STFU ABOUT INDECISIVENESS THIS STORY IS ABOUT WHICH ACTIONS MATTER IF THEYRE ALL FUTILE#which steps do you take when none of them fix anything#do you kill claudius when hes praying? risking him going to heaven?#are you trying for justice or revenge? where is the line between them?#is it selfish and vindictive to want not want claudius to go to heaven when your fathers soul is allegedly damned#or would you just not be achieving justice in that case because it isnt fair#or is justice about the outcome in real life in which case it would be the same either way?#do you even know which one you want or how to achieve it?#not even taking into account your own soul#murder would also damn yourself#suicide would damn yourself#but how do you go on as a son as a prince as a person with the knowledge of what claudius might have done to your father and do nothing#would that be injust? even if it is best could you live with that?#god i love hamlet

[woobifiedvillain]

Big fan of characters realizing they don't get to die. They have to live. And grow. And be a person. And deal with shit they thought they'd never have to. And be fucked up about it. I would like more of this. Enough dying for honor or as redemption. It ain't. You're just a corpse. There is no moral value in dirt time.

[arosanorosa-deactivated20231113]

I’m just.

Elaborating on the idea that there is a POV trap involved in how people overstate the degree of the harm Theon has done, and how I think this is partially because he feels far more acutely guilty of it than the great majority of noble characters do in similar circumstances.

I think that a large part of why Theon’s A Clash Of Kings chapters feel more violent than most war scenes told through other points of view is also linked to this. While in most other characters descriptions, war scenes are described in vague strokes, with only a few exceptionally violent acts being called attention to, Theon is *constantly* calling attention to the violence of everything he or any of his men do. He frequently describes people’s reactions to it, he’s clearly hyperaware of the hurt and hatred directed at him, he’s having these nightmares that could have come directly from a horror movie… it all feels incredibly gruesome and uncomfortable- because it is! And he keeps asserting that he had no other choice and did what he had to, but it’s Very clear that he doesn’t truly believe it.

It’s just! It reminds me of the descriptions in chapters where people are in *vulnerable* positions- right now I’m thinking specifically of Arya’s chapters in Harrenhall, when she’s noticing everything that happens- every single act of violence, from the “smaller” to the most gruesome- to every prisoner or servant because she’s acutely aware of the fact that it could happen to her at any moment.

And it’s absurdly interesting to me that Theon is doing essentially the same movement in the chapters where *he* is the monster. It’s intense and it’s disturbing and it’s really effective, but a lot of it would just be described as “standard warfare” in most other POVs. Idk, I find this really interesting.