#angelo bronte

[abovesn4kes]

Sadie and some bad folk

[dustandthought]

Abigail from RDR2

She gives me such mixed feelings. Judgment. Respect. Hatred. Admiration.

Probably the most controversial and complex character for me.

Let’s start with the cons:

A terrible mother.

2. A completely unremarkable person.

1. ⚘️ Mother.🤱

Let’s start with this: when you bring a person into this world, give them life — you carry responsibility. (Many might judge me for criticizing a beloved character, but I speak as a mother .)

I won’t criticize Abigail for her early “job,” where she serviced men. That’s her business. But the fact that she willingly slept with anyone — knowing it could lead to pregnancy — and still got pregnant and gave birth… There’s no excuse for that. Not her age. Not life circumstances. It was completely her responsibility, her choice. (I’m not talking about John here — this post isn’t about him. But yes, I have no fewer complaints about him either — and no excuses.)

It’s terrifying to think that with the number of men she was with, literally anyone could’ve been the father.

And then, when she realizes she’s pregnant, she’s already in the gang, and she tells the potential father — and he refuses to take responsibility.

Okay. So what does Abigail do next? She stays in a gang full of criminals and killers with a child. She raises her son in that environment.

The first thing that surprised me when I played Chapter 1 and got to camp was: “What’s a kid doing here?” I thought maybe he was an orphan they took in or something like that. Because he stayed on the sidelines, didn’t hang around anyone, was always on his own through so many chapters…

And then I realized — this child has a mother. And a father. A father who doesn’t even acknowledge him.

And in my head, I immediately thought: What are you even doing here, woman???

Why would you drag a 4-year-old, dressed in rags and light clothing (while you’re dressed warmly), into the mountains, into snow and a blizzard, where all of you could’ve starved to death if not for Arthur and Charles?

Are you a wanted criminal? No. Do you need to hide? No. Is your child a wanted criminal? No!

Then why the hell are you dragging him into this?

Because of a man who’s ignored you and your child for four years? Because of some fake sense of family with people you used to partially service?

So what’s more important… Your own child, who didn’t ask to be born and was your decision? Or a group of murderers you hang around with, who put your child at risk?

HE DIDN’T ASK TO BE BORN!!! HE DIDN’T ASK TO BE PART OF THIS LIFE!!! HE DIDN’T ASK TO SEE DEATH, STARVATION, THREATS, CRIME, SHOOTOUTS, OR THE ITALIAN MOB!!! HE JUST WANTED TO BE A CHILD — WITH A MOM, A HOME, AND BOOKS!!! 🤬🤬🤬

GIVE HIM A LIFE, NOT JUST SURVIVAL!!!

I was furious at the moment when Abigail told Jack he was wearing rags — then asked Arthur for $5 to buy him clothes…

But then she talks with Grimshaw. Susan says they need money, hints that Abigail should go back to her old job.

And what does Abigail say?

“I don’t do that anymore.”

She refuses. Wants to be better.

Okay… WHAT??? 🤨

Woman, your personal values — that’s admirable. But you have little Jack. He’s hungry. He needs clothes. Not torn boots. BOOKS!

You used to sell yourself when you were hungry — But when your child says, “Mommy, I’m hungry,” you suddenly become moral and above all that?!

Any mother should be willing to do anything for her child — You should go above and beyond, but he shouldn’t have to cry from hunger!!!

And then this moment…

When Jack says he’ll grow up to be a gunslinger — and she tells him he’ll be a lawyer…

…Oh sure, growing up in a gang hideout, of course he’ll be a lawyer…

The only truly selfless, right decision she could’ve made then — Was to leave the gang. Cut ties. Escape. Try — at any cost — to give Jack a better life.

No matter what people say about how hard life was for women back then, about how “there were no jobs” — There WERE jobs. !!! Yes, they were few. Yes, hard. But they existed.

Take Tilly as an example — she got a job as a governess with rich people. You could work in the fields, on a farm, or even still be a prostitute, for all I care — But it would be safer than handing your child over to a mob boss like Angelo Bronte, And after getting him back — doing NOTHING. Not even saying, “That’s it! We’re done here!” No, you go on — keeping him in that nightmare.

2. ⚘️ Wife and Person. 🧘‍♀️

Let’s skip to the epilogue. Abigail, John, and Jack. No more gang. Years have passed.

If in the first half of this post I was completely judging her — Here I’m just… confused.

Why doesn’t she grow as a person? Why doesn’t she learn to read? Why doesn’t she learn to cook? Why is she still making Pearson’s stew eight years later, and still doing it badly?

She knew Pearson way less time than she’s been cooking his damn stew after the gang fell apart!

I never saw any ambition in her. No drive to grow in any area. To become better, to be a role model for her son… Even when she had the chance.

But now — the Pros. Admiration.

Yes, despite everything, Abigail has strong qualities, and I want to highlight them:

1. Even if it took eight years — she goes out and gets a job.

.......................................

And she works! It makes her happy, and it makes me, as a player, happy. Because I am proud of her choice. She starts small, but she earns an honest living, she tries to leave the past behind. She grew up. It’s like watching a messed-up kid finally decide to get their act together. And you think: “Now you’re doing it right. Now — good job.”

2. She chose her child over a man.

......................................

That was the moment I truly respected her. She leaves. She doesn’t want Jack to see death. She doesn’t want that fate for him. Yes, it’s late, but she realized it. She left John, clearly stating what she wants. She didn’t choose herself, or John — she chose Jack. And finally — she acted like a mother.

3. The Ranch.

...........................................

She set a goal. She realized she deserved more than to be a whore or a camp maid. She wanted stability. And she was ready to fight for it. She’s strong. She can do it.

100% respect.

4. She loved John.

..........................................

Madly loved him. This woman was ready to do anything for him. And she did everything she could. Loyalty. Courage. Patience. And the ability to look past flaws for the sake of love. It’s crazy. It’s foolish. But in our cruel world — it’s also precious.

5. The dialogue before “American Venom.”

..............................................

I wanted to punch John. Seriously. When he ignored his woman, when she was begging him through tears, and he still walked away to do his thing.

Revenge? Settling scores? The past? I understand John — the need for justice, closure to old pain…

BUT I UNDERSTAND HER TOO.

Anyone who judges Abigail for “throwing a fit” in that moment — Are you serious?! That was a tiny meltdown!

WOMAN, YOU SHOULD’VE KICKED HIM IN THE BALLS.

What kind of man hears his wife cry and still walks off for revenge, risking EVERYTHING? EVERYTHING they built together. Risking making her a widow, and Jack — an orphan.

MIKA COULD’VE WON!!!

Conclusion.

If you compare Abigail Roberts and Abigail Marston — they are two completely different people.

Yes, at the start she fills me with rage and horror. But by the end — I see growth. I see a woman who — late, but still — tried to give Jack the best she could.

She’s not perfect. She’s — just like the rest of us.

And that’s exactly why her character is — beautiful.

I love her. 🩷🩷🩷

(This analysis is only about RDR2, without considering RDR1 events.)

[byrpakh-sem]

For ask~

The question was: "Draw the character through all stages of 'growth' — from a little toddler to deep old age (even if they didn’t live to see it)"

[heavenlymorals]

Dutch Van Der Linde: An Outdated Progressive

(Warning: This post contains period typical attitudes such as racism and sexism as well as spoilers for RDR2. This retrospective is also pretty damn long too.)

I love Dutch Van Der Linde. Honestly, he is one of my favorite characters ever and just the whole concept of his character and the philosophy of his character as well is something that just sticks with you.

He is charming, intelligent, cultured, charismatic, a right Messiah, and a right bastard all the same time.

But the thing that I believe people most remember about Dutch Van Der Linde is his romantic image. What I mean by this is the things he stood for and the things he wanted to change.

This makes Dutch have a positive image pretty quickly from the very start. In the first scene with him, he's encouraging people, rallying them up, and giving them hope in such an awful situation. He saves Sadie from a terrible fate and asks Hosea to send someone to bury her husband. Arthur and Charles talk fondly of him. He makes it clear in the train robbery that he despises the systems that keep men rich whilst most people starve.

Whether or not Dutch was always cracked, to the characters in the game, he was a great man because of his beliefs and because of his empathy/sympathy.

But what gets me is that a lot of people in this fandom misconstrue Dutch's character into being what we see today as a progressive. I see people saying things like "Bill shouldn't be racist, he's with Dutch's gang" or "why is Micah in the gang" and other similar things as to where people get confused as to why characters with immoral belief systems are respected and active heavy hitters in the gang.

This isn't saying that Dutch isn't progressive because he IS. For his time period, he was VERY progressive.

However, before I get into that, I want to establish some context in terms of the time period that we are talking about.

Theodore Roosevelt was the 26th president of the United States from 1901 to 1909. He once had dinner with African American leader Booker T. Washington. This one singular act of simply eating with one another as a white man and black man was so scandalous that it became an outrage to many politicians that the PRESIDENT, the literal face of America, was having dinner with a black American leader.

Teddy later put out this response: “The only wise and honorable and Christian thing to do is to treat each Black man and each white man strictly on his merits as a man, giving him no more and no less than he shows himself worthy to have."

A lot of people would take this event and try to say that Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive equivalent to our time when that is simply not true. Roosevelt was racist to many groups in his personal writings and he believed in the racial hierarchy, even though he had respect for any self made man.

Was Roosevelt a progressive? Yes. For his time, he was a progressive. He was pro union, anti monopoly, and created many government departments like the FDA. He also believed in the merits of a man. But the thing about historical progressives is that their standard of progression doesn't fit in with our criteria anymore.

Dutch is the same. Is he a progressive? Yeah, of course he is. But is he a true progressive in our standards? No. Not really.

This is why the gang allows racist gang members. That is also why the only repercussion to such racism is if the victim of it is willing to dish something out like Charles slamming Micah on the ground or Javier pulling a knife on Bill. It is also why the gang is pretty traditional and rigid in their gender roles. It's also why queer people (ie. Bill) are casually mocked within the gang too.

Another thing too- Dutch is a romantic. People misconstrue that with being a progressive when that really isn't the case. Romantacism is a philosophy that was a rejection of the realism of the Enlightment. It focused on Idealism. The thing with Romantacism, though, is that it was a super white-washed philosophy. It was made to mould into white cultures and belief systems specifically for white men. Dutch could say all men are equal and he may believe that, but it's clear that he doesn't see equality in the same way that we see equality today.

What I mean by this is that any man is equal but if told otherwise, that man is the one who has to prove them wrong. It's his business and he should be the one to deal with it. That's why other gang members don't back up Charles or Javier if they find themselves in a situation with another gang member who is racist. It's their responsibility to deal with their own beefs. It wouldn't be like today where we all publically shun racism.

Remember when Dutch, Arthur, and Micah come back from Sadie's cabin? Micah says something about not wanting to share a room with Bill and POC, to which Dutch can hear and doesn't say anything and Hosea only says "Get yourself to bed" instead of calling Micah on what he said. Same goes for Arthur too. He may condemn and do something about violent racism, like how when he helps the doctor in Rhodes get his wagon back, but he doesn't really say anything when Micah or Bill say racist things to Charles, Javier, or Lenny. That's their business, so to speak, and they should be the ones handling it.

Also note the poc's characters relationship with Dutch. Javier likes Dutch because of the revolutionary ideals that he believes in. Charles likes Dutch because he treats him fair. Lenny likes Dutch because Dutch is far more progressive than other white men, but he also calls out Dutch's romantic philosophy because it doesn't really include POC or their struggles. Dutch sympathizes with their struggles, but he cannot emphasize, which is the problem with his romantic philosophy. It's a culture that is a house to white people, but POC are only guests in it in terms of its European and American tradition. Yes, Dutch hates what the Europeans did to the natives, but given the context beforehand and the things he says, he hates less the violence and more the upheaval of the lifestyle that he wants, which is one that is connected to nature and earth. I also find it interesting how the only person Dutch kinda defends from racism is Lenny, the same boy who calls him out for reading too much into Miller and not into reality. It could very much be Dutch unconsciously trying to prove Lenny wrong.

And the thing with Dutch is that he isn't squeaky clean when it comes to racism either. He's racist too, but he's racist to groups that we don't see as marginalized anymore and this goes for Hosea as well. The biggest example of this is with Italians, who weren't considered white at the time, same with the Irish.

We have this conversation between him and Hosea:

"Have you ever met an Italian strongman before?"

"Not outside the circus."

I shouldn't have to explain that.

And there is also when Bronte set them up.

"That greasy son of a bitch, he set us up!"

It doesn't sound strange at first but context matters a lot. Though 'greaser' is a slur that we see thrown at Javier for being a Mexican multiple times in the gang, that slur was also used against Italians. So Dutch saying that is him still purposing that slur but in a different way.

Another thing that I noticed is that whenever Dutch wants to speak with someone who isn't white or wasn't deemed white at the time, he would dumb down or slow down his speech first before the person he's speaking to shows that they know English, in which then he talks normally. He doesn't automatically consider that hey, these are people who are intelligent and understand English.

Here are two examples:

This is Dutch to Bronte.

"Why do you take his son?"

"Excuse me?"

"I said why DID you take his son."

He fixes the way he talks as soon as he realizes that Bronte speaks english.

And then to Eagle Flies.

"How do you DO?" (In the game, he slows down his speech and emphasizes the do.)

"Not well, sir."

"I can see that."

This is such a subtle detail but it shows that even subconsciously, Dutch isn't as admirable as we sometimes like to make him out to be in terms of OUR time period and that we shouldn't be surprised when other gang members or Dutch himself do or say things that aren't cool.

And of course, there is the sexism of the gang and that Dutch is shown to be sexist multiple times in the game.

"There are two theories about arguing with women and neither of them work."

"Good Lord, a few more like her and we can take over the whole world." (This was a sarcastic dig at Sadie)

And given the rigidness of the gender roles in camp and that the girls are barely in any missions and are mostly just doing house work, Dutch supports this system because just like how political Romantacism wasn't really for POC, it wasn't really for women either.

He can also be religiously prejudiced as well, though this shows up only once in the game. When you get into Saint Denis, Dutch says this:

"Here we are in this strange land of Papists and rapists."

Papists is another word for Catholic and given how he connects them with rapists, it makes it quite clear that he doesn't like them all that much, which makes sense given that Dutch is some form of Protestant and the general disgust regarding Catholics at the time. There is also the fact that a lot of reasons why Italians, Irish, and Hispanic people dealt with discrimination is because of the Catholic background in many of their cultures.

Again, it's a small detail, but when you look at the time period he says that in, it opens up many doors to many other social issues that were there at the time and how Dutch, despite being better than many, is also still a man of his time and this idea that the gang is this beacon of prosperity and progression is generally overemphasized to something that it is not.

Again, I love Dutch's character and he was a progressive but it isn't surprising to see these negative equalities come out from him and from the gang as an extension. They all have their flaws, even if those flaws are especially jarring at points.

Historical people almost always have historical attitudes, guys. It's just the unfortunate truth.

In any case, this is already way too damn long and I hate proof reading so bye 😃

[red-dead-simp]

[millies-artblog]

More of Jack’s drawings

[timberwolf01]

I had a lot of fun with this one. There is such a diverse array of characters in this universe and they all fit this song perfectly. A lot were obvious, while others really took some thought.

If you guys have any ideas of others that you think might fit, please let me know! I love hearing everyone's feedback and thoughts. ^_^

Please do not reupload anywhere without credit.

[vandermorgans]

TALKING TO A FRIEND AND REMEMBERING THE STUPIDITY THAT WAS SAINT DENIS WHAT DO YOU MEAN A RENOWNED OUTLAW OF 20+ YEARS JUST SAW A SOCIALITE THAT KIDNAPPED ONE OF HIS KID AND HE REMARKS ON HIM BEING A SNAKE BUT THE SECOND THAT SOCIALITE MOCKS HIM INFRONT OF HIS FRIENDS HE FORGETS HIMSELF SO BAD AND JUST TRUSTS THIS SOCIALITE HE CALLED A SNAKE SAINT DENIS MAKES NO SENSE SAINT DENIS IS A FEVER DREAM A PLOT HOLE