#rasselas

[hoaxghost]

Two art pieces I did for some school assignments, first one is Mary Robinson for a podcast project we had to do and second was a part of a piece based around Rasselas that combined traditional art elements.

[spiderliliez]

Our highwaywoman being a little too cocky now. 😅 RENEGADE NELL (2024)

[+] LOUISA HARLAND 😎 [+] ..more on “Renegade Nell” 🎬

[lasaraconor]

[kitkatclubcopia]

My renegade Nell posts seem to be gaining a little more traction this is my formal prayer for a season 2 reblog if you agree

[issa-wasteland]

I thought this moment between Nell and Polly was cute especially after Nell close to dying from a press cause she didn’t want to fight a lady. She’s so nice because she’s practically saying the ass whoopings are for the bad men 🤷‍♀️. Then, Polly gets a job as the new editor because of her writing of Nell’s eyes being a guide for lost souls. Small wins for everyone ✨

[anghraine]

Incidentally, I knew that TOS returning over and over to Kirk's anxiety around loneliness/being left alone reminded me of something, and finally dug it up from, of all things, a journal entry required in one of my grad school classes. Everything is about early modern literature if you have the vision!

Anyway, the journal entry:

-> The inclusion of Samuel Johnson is something of a cheat. Montaigne has always reminded me of him, but the most starkly in “On idleness,” where he talks about the chimeras and “fantastic monstrosities” that fill his mind in quiet solitude.

In Johnson’s much later fable Rasselas (1759), one of the unhappy people met by the eponymous prince is a wise and virtuous astronomer who has gone mad through nothing worse than the quiet solitude of his studies. The mentor figure scolds the protagonist and his sister for their contempt for him:

To mock the heaviest of human afflictions is neither charitable nor wise. Few can attain this man’s knowledge, and few practice his virtues; but all may suffer his calamity. Of the uncertainties of our present state, the most dreadful and alarming is the uncertain continuance of reason.

As the astronomer begins to associate with other people and gradually recover, he describes "insanity" this way:

I am like a man habitually afraid of spectres, who is set at ease by a lamp, and wonders at the dread which harassed him in the dark, yet, if his lamp be extinguished, feels again the terrors which he knows that when it is light he shall feel no more.

Johnson persistently argues that solitude, especially idle solitude, is dangerous to mental stability:

he whose gout compels him to hear from his chamber the rattle of chariots transporting happier beings to plays and assemblies, will be forced to seek in books a refuge from himself.

The life of a solitary man will be certainly miserable, but not certainly devout.

He who has nothing external that can divert him must find pleasure in his own thoughts, and must conceive himself what he is not; for who is pleased with what he is?

believe me, prince, there was not one who did not dread the moment when solitude should deliver him to the tyranny of reflection. 

Johnson's horror (in multiple works) at the prospect of solitude and madness also meandered about my mind when reading Lear, so his particular quote seemed to bind together Montaigne’s fantasies and Lear’s dread for my own ideas—conceptually if not chronologically. <-

Actually, now that I think about it, J and I have also talked more about Montaigne and TOS, because a question we've discussed on and off throughout the years is whether it's more "virtuous" to be fundamentally incapable of certain wrong actions by the sheer fiber of your character, or to have the inclination to do X wrong thing but make the choice of exerting yourself to overcome it. Does what's revealed when you lose the ability to fully exert that kind of self-control (esp involuntarily) say more about your fundamental character, or how you choose to control yourself and restrain your worst impulses and act when you're able to do so?

Montaigne and TOS also have opinions on this question of goodness as fundamental character vs goodness as moral exertion!

Montaigne wobbles on this point, mainly for Catholic reasons, but argues in "On cruelty" that good conduct that follows instinctively from a mild good nature like his own is praiseworthy enough, but not comparable to the true path of virtue that lies in moral exercise. The “measured steps of a good natural disposition” are sufficient for a life well-lived, but not for the more admirable work towards virtue.

He doesn't like the idea of virtue being dependent on having vices, so he re-conceptualizes virtue as not only persistent, continued exertion of will, but the point where the exertion becomes so habitual and so fundamental that it sinks into a person's nature. For him, that must be distinguished from nature which simply has no inclination to a given vice to begin with; in Montaigne’s view, nature can become virtuous, but cannot begin that way.

That question of "unnatural" turns to virtue shows up in other early modern literature, too—e.g., also in Shakespeare's King Lear, Edmund's villainy and his repentance both turn on this question of what his nature is and whether he can act against it. Late in the play, he cries, “I pant for life. Some good I mean to do, / Despite of mine own nature”—but his efforts fail (in fairness, so do many better people's efforts in Lear).

Anyway, J and I had a lot of fun (being the people we are) talking about that in the context of, say, "A Taste of Armageddon" in S1:

ANAN: There can be no peace. Don't you see? We've admitted it to ourselves. We're a killer species. It's instinctive. It's the same with you. Your General Order Twenty-Four. KIRK: All right. It's instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes.

And "Metamorphosis" in S2:

COMPANION: He does not age. He remains forever. KIRK: You speak of his body. I speak of his spirit ... You take away all obstacles. Without them to strengthen us, we will weaken and die.

And "Spectre of the Gun" in S3:

MELKOT: Captain Kirk. You did not kill. Is this the way of your kind? KIRK: It is. We fight only when there's no choice. We prefer the ways of peaceful contact.

SPOCK: Captain. May I ask a question? You needn't answer if it seems too personal. KIRK: I'm sure I'll be able to give you an answer, Mr. Spock. SPOCK: This afternoon, you wanted to kill, didn't you? MCCOY: But he didn't kill, Mr. Spock. SPOCK: But he wanted to, doctor. KIRK: Is that the way it seemed to you, Mr. Spock? SPOCK: Yes, captain. KIRK: Mr. Spock, you're absolutely right. That's exactly the way it was. SPOCK: Mankind, ready to kill. KIRK: That's the way it was in 1881. SPOCK: I wonder how humanity managed to survive. KIRK: We overcame our instinct for violence.

[girddlepatchilles]

Can we talk about the fact Renegade Nell had a scene where a formerly enslaved character (pretty sure he was freed) confronts one of his former oppressors about his treatment? Rasselas point blank saying "I was treated as a toy" to Sophia was quite powerful and a great bit of character work.

It really showed how Rasselas was pulling away from the people who has mistreated him and how entrenched in the system Sophia is.

[selkiewife]

So now that there is definitely no Harlots Season 4 happening (💔) and there is no chance to know what happened to Violet and Amelia, what do we think happened fam? Headcanons? Theories?

I’ve just finished a rewatch of all three seasons. When I originally saw the ending of Season 2, I thought that the plotline between Violet and Amelia had ended on a cliffhanger that would be carried over to Season 3.

To recap, the last scene between Violet and Hunt was him drinking in the tavern because he is having his Javert “the law is a lie and my whole life has been a lie” moment. And Violet is like, “dude, make me your eyes and ears.” And he’s like “I WOULD if I wasn’t just fired from being Chief Justice.”

And then Violet tells him that he gives up too easily. 

The next time we see Violet she is by Amelia and Amelia grabs her hand and asks her “am I still just a dalliance?”

But right at that moment, Hunt comes in and apologizes to Amelia for “being a prig” and calling off their engagement. And Violet leaves them together. We never hear Amelia’s response to his apology.

The last time we see Violet she is looking out at the city with an enigmatic smile on her face. 

I assumed that the story would be continued in some way. I felt like Violet and Amelia couldn’t just end like that. I also thought that there might be something to Violet and Hunt teaming up to fight for justice. And I also thought that Hunt was an interesting character who had a lot of room for more growth. Obviously, the situation they were in was disastrous and seemingly could only end in heartache. But I was interested in seeing how they were going to work that out.

Yet, now, after knowing that they were not in Season 3 at all, I guess this WAS the ending. It seems like when Violet told Hunt “You give up to easily.” She was giving up on him in that moment. And then when Hunt interrupted them, Violet figured it was better not to answer Amelia- but instead to let her think it had just been a dalliance so that she could go on and have a “better” life with Hunt. And perhaps her smiling and looking out at the end was her taking back her freedom. I feel unsatisfied with this ending- but at the same time, I suppose it realistic and does make sense. If Amelia thinks she is just a dalliance, she might marry Hunt and not pursue Violet. It makes me so sad though. 

What do you all think? Did Amelia end up marrying Hunt? Did she run after Violet instead? Did the three of them come up with some sort of arrangement that could benefit all of them? Did Amelia introduce Rasselas to Hunt and was he Hunt’s bisexual awakening? Did Hunt and Amelia marry for safety to cover their relationships with Rasselas and Violet? Did Violet and Hunt ever start their private investigation company? I need answers lmao.