#snowbottom

[argumento-ad-nauseam]

Top 10 funniest revelations. Ur dad was gay and date the dean.

[becauseimamastermind]

coriolANUS and sejANUS

crASSus and highBOTTOM

suzanne, you're lying to yourself if you're saying they weren't gay men

[argumento-ad-nauseam]

Other day of me trying to convince the people of the Snows and Casca in a toxic bisexual polycule, from which he was kicked out. I add a thing to the concept, we found out of this under Coriolanus Pov, who is himself in a toxic bisexual polycule with Lucy Gray and Sejanus, and its scared of them kicking him out.

[argumento-ad-nauseam]

No to give me many flowers but we got a big brain moment when we declared Crassus Snow most repressed gay on all Panem years ago.

Explain how u are described as more relaxed, comfortable in your uni years going to the gay nightclub all nights with your bestie, to then be described as serious and kind of angry all the time while having a nightmare of marriage were it seems your wife was deeply unhappy because you couldnt give her love nor freedom, and how curious u were a general in the army into toxic masculinity. Almost as if you were trying to compensate something.

And yeah lets talk of your ex bestie whos very reasonable holding bitter resent at you years after you are death and kinda found unbearable see your son that you get with your wife and look like you.

[argumento-ad-nauseam]

This is an old idea, but I think I can present it better now, so my argument is that the drama between Coriolanus and Clemensia is comparable to the drama between Crassus and Casca.

Look, I like to compare the drama of Snowbottom and the drama of Snowjanus? Absolutely, and in fact, I think there’s a certain intentionality within the narrative, considering the point at which Crassus’s betrayal of Casca is revealed to us in detail, since it occurs in the Epilogue after Sejanus’s death triggers the ending we all know. There’s this angle of betrayal of trust in the situation that led to Sejanus’s execution, however, I think there are several elements within Snowjanus that, in my view, make both relationships more incompatible (or rather, incomparable) since Snowjanus is riddled with conflicts that would never be present in Snowbottom and, for me, are defining of Snowjanus. For example, the simple fact that Sejanus is from the districts already establishes unique and particular feelings and dynamics, such as Coriolanus’s resentment at seeing Sejanus as a usurper of his life, power, and status, the prejudiced views Snow holds against District people and projects onto Sejanus and his family through contempt and judgment, or simply the fact that Sejanus’s “New Money” condition coupled with the discrimination he faces, prevent him from navigating the Capitol in the same way Coriolanus does.

In this regard, Clemensia Dovecote and Casca Highbottom have more similarities (I emphasize the word “similar” because it doesn’t mean equal, certaintly the vulnerable teengirl and the bitter mean grown up man aren't) and I must say there are some amusing parallels when you compare the dramas both of them have had with the Snows, but let’s get started.

As I said, the positions are similar because Clemensia is a Dovecote, a wealthy, elite family, possibly part of the Capitol’s old guard and she has known Coriolanus for quite a few years now. We don’t really know anything about Casca’s family, but I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to say he comes from a similar background; it seems Casca has enough money that after the war he shows up with a new suit and haircut; I think the way he might have access to the morphling could be another detail to consider regarding the apparent fact that his family name is one that, like other Capitol names, has a vast wealth accumulated. Adding to my speculations, the consideration of certain attitudes and ideas expressed by certain members of the Snow family, such as the Grandmother Snow, makes it possible that, under the assumption that Crassus shared such perspectives (as seems undoubtedly to be the case and he may even be worst), it would not be surprising that his best friend was a white man of some standing, born and raised in the Capitol.

This final clarification is made because Clemensia, being a woman and, moreover, described as having brown skin, are factors that (in addition to the obvious fact that we are discussing fundamentally different circumstances) further distinguish the positions of these characters even if we argue they are similar because both were born and raised in the Capitol.

Let’s now look at their relationships with their respective Snows. It seems that in both cases they are close friends who have known each other for many years, and are really closer. The situation that will inevitably spark feelings of hostility and tension is a project they must work on together, commissioned by none other than Volumnia Gaul.

Examining the circumstances surrounding them, there are striking similarities regarding these projects or assignments. We’ve already mentioned that Volumnia Gaul commissioned both, but they are also both final projects of some significance. Generally, the mentorship project is part of the students’ graduation projects at the Academy, although the defining test is how each mentor performs alongside their tribute in the Games, the drafting of the proposal commissioned from Clemensia, Coriolanus, and Arachne is no small matter, as it remains tied to the competition they are in and would surely carry weight in their performance.

In the case of Crassus and Casca, the situation is more serious; we’re told it was a final project for their upcoming college graduation. Pluribus Bell points out that, following the events of the story, both of them graduated and started working, so Gaul’s assignment and the grade they received on it, as we can see, was a significant milestone for both of them. There is also extra pressure in Casca’s case, as he mentions that he was struggling with the course due to conflicts he had with Gaul (in his words, “He loathed her so much” that he didn’t want to participate; thus, it seems that getting a good grade in his case was more difficult and necessary to achieve).

Another common thread is the humor and cruelty; what do I mean by that? Well, the writing assignment given to Clemensia and Coriolanus, along with Arachne, was about how betting could be incorporated into the Hunger Games. The origin of this idea is a tasteless joke Coriolanus makes, saying they should bet on the tributes after his friend Festus Creed asserts that one of the problems with the Hunger Games is that they’re boring, that his fondness for dogfights, where he could place bets made that spectacle far more entertaining by comparison. Although the idea is weighed by everyone present, the only person to challenge it and show any kind of displeasure, disbelief, and horror is Clemensia, who questions Coriolanus by asking if he was serious, if he truly believed they should bet on the tributes, to which Coriolanus replies that he wasn’t serious, but if it were implemented, and it worked / was successful, then yes, he wanted to go down in history as the one who introduced betting on the Hunger Games.

(Just a quick note: here, Collins’s concept for The Hunger Games has been defended by me, but not its execution. A common complaint is why Crassus was included at all? Because, you see, the parallels between Worm and Casca, known as the creator of the Hunger Games, could have been so compelling, I mean Coriolanus goes around saying he’d like to be known as the one responsible for the betting. Missed opportunities in the thematics).

And the truth is that, given how Coriolanus and Casca’s perspectives complement each other thematically, I could say more about their egos and self focused personas because curious enough, Casca reproaches Coriolanus for going too far to get a good grade, which is quite amusing considering that in his admission about the night of the creating of the games, he speaks of his own vanity as a cause of the mess but that already goes too far in my interpretations of the canon, and while my argument has certainly been built on my speculations, my specific readings, and understandings, there is a limit, so by sticking to what the text establishes, namely, that Casca constantly projects Crassus onto Coriolanus I want to highlight how he chooses to denounce these traits in Coriolanus during their interaction prior to the incident involving Clemensia.

I must also say that the reason I place Casca and Clemensia in similar positions has more to do with the way the events involving the Snows unfolded, which harmed them something we will see below.

One might say the whole betting it’s a harmless joke except that it isn’t, because Coriolanus ends up drafting the proposal, and the bets become a reality in the 10th Edition of the Games. I’ve argued something similar in my previously mentioned defense of the concept that the Hunger Games originated from “private” jokes that crossed the line of humor to become realities within the fictional universe of Panem, with devastating consequences for the most oppressed group (the people of the districts, the tributes). Because that’s more or less what happens with the Hunger Games: it was a cruel, insensitive joke with a certain sinister genius that Casca toyed with, and it becomes a reality that makes him responsible, years later, for the deaths of roughly 230 children from the districts.

The writing in both works is permeated by a distortion of consciousness as well as actions that lend credence to that famous saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is strange from me, considering that I don’t like either of the Snows, but one must be fair, and I can say that neither Coriolanus nor Crassus had malicious intentions behind their actions; the similarities lie in how neither could have predicted the catastrophic consequences of their actions, and how those actions ended up causing harm to a character they considered a close friend, who naturally becomes upset and frustrated with them due to their inability to admit that they were, even if only indirectly, part of something that affected or negatively impacted them.

I assume my readers are my mutuals so they are already familiar with the fact that ignoring the movie is kind of my thing but if anyone reading is new here and hasn’t noticed yet (which is understandable, since I haven’t explicitly mentioned it until now) I’m ignoring the movie in this post and talking only about the text; I’m bringing this up because if you’re thinking about the movie, what I’m about to say will seem very strange and that’s because the movie changed the whole Coriolanus and Clemensia storyline so abruptly that the situations aren’t even remotely similar, though the same events supposedly take place. Forget everything about the movie, and you might understand my point.

Well. As for Coriolanus, and despite all the jokes I’ve made about him being born an evil worm, he wasn’t born evil, even if he was certainly raised to be intolerant (which clearly has its implications). As we know, Arachne dies, which means the burden of the redaction falls solely on him and Clemensia; yet both end up separated, each in their own homes dealing with their grief. And in Coriolanus’s case, to face his overwhelming grief and simply try to process the strong traumatic impact of what happened, he decides that the best thing he can do, not only for himself but for Clemensia to a certain extent, is to write the essay or redaction. Such a clear moment that reminds us that he is only 18, for him even amidst all the horrors the possibility of teacher scold him for not turning in his homework is a source of intense distress.

Coriolanus writes his assignment and turns it in without any name on it as not to take credit solely for his own ideas. He and Clemensia are called in together to be evaluated, and when it is revealed that he wrote the paper and turned it in, Clemensia is outraged because she is stunned to discover that while she was crying all night, Coriolanus was writing the essay; their friend Arachne died, in fact, she died in Coriolanus’s arms. The idea that by choosing to write the homework instead of crying for her, he was treating her death with indifference upsets and horrifies her even more. Once he defends himself, Clemensia apologizes for judging the way he chose to deal with the pain; in fact, she asks him to explain what he wrote so she doesn’t get in trouble, not just for herself, but to avoid he gets in trouble too for having written the paper alone. That’s right, Clemensia didn’t try to take credit or anything like that; she was simply upset because her friend, behind her back, had put her in a difficult position, and even so, she decides to think of a way not to rat him out because they both believed that Gaul would get upset or made them fail if she found out that only one of them had done everything regarding the work. Coriolanus even downplays his own contribution, saying that those were ideas the whole team had already discussed prior to Arachne death, and Clemensia plays along.

But we know what happens when you try to lie to Gaul, however, this was a consequence Coriolanus had no way of predicting; as a student, he had never before experienced that a teacher attacked one of his friends with snakes for not help in the writing of a homework. So even though he’s clumsy and later will do a lot of things that make him look like a terrible friend, he was understandably lost in how to act toward Clemensia after the snakes, since she was clearly angry and hurt after what happened.

This I would venture to say yes. Something similar happened with Crassus. One detail that has always struck me is that we know the person who needed a good grade the most was Casca, not Crassus himself.

Maybe he was doing poorly in that class, or maybe he was doing well, who knows but it wasn’t a secret that Casca was struggling with the subject, yet he still decided to team up with him for the final project. It seems they were working together on the essay at the nightclub, but it’s implied or at least assumed that the one who turns in the work, and we could say is the one who finishes writing it, is Crassus.

What they’ve written just seems awful to Casca (much like how writing the redaction initially seemed awful to Clemensia, just as the very proposed of betting for the tributes), but not to Crassus. In fact, one might wonder if he even realized that the concept of the Hunger Games is something Gaul would undoubtedly like, at least enough to approve them. And the most curious point is that, according to Pluribus, in the argument Casca and Crassus have, which seems to be related to the final project, Crassus tells Casca that he thought he was just doing him a favor by delivering the final project. Coriolanus actually says the same thing to Clemensia when she confronts him about what he did: “I thought I was doing you a favor.”

There are the parallels: Coriolanus and Crassus did something questionable, yes, but not malicious, I believe without any real ill intent, thinking they were helping or doing something good for their friends secondary while prioritizing their own well first but that action had terrible consequences for their friends (Clemensia and Casca), and only benefit themselves. Yes as I said the consequences they could not have predicted and they came at the hands of Volumnia Gaul.

Also, a quick note before continuing: earlier I wrote that both situations occurred with the characters’ senses altered. By this I meant that, while it’s not exactly comparable, I think it’s worth noting that the drafting of the Snowbottom project takes place while Casca is drunk, whereas Coriolanus wasn’t thinking clearly because he was affected by Arachne’s death.

The consequences for their friends were quite serious and had a major impact. Clemensia’s ones were more immediate: she is attacked and disappears until Coriolanus is awakened by her at the hospital, where she appears in desperation, covered in scales, begging for his help. The aftermath of the bite doesn't stop there and continues with more days of isolation, until she returns deeply traumatized some days after the inauguration and once she's back, Clemensia is noticeably annoyed with Coriolanus. She doesn’t seem happy to see him, nor does she try to be kind; things escalate so much that one of her most questionable and, incidentally, cruel acts occurs because of her anger with him: starving Reaper. It is a petty and unfair (for Reaper) move on her part and yes I say this related to her anger to Coriolanus because we have this scene where she basically defends herself against the accusations of others for being too harsh with her tribute and says, staring intently at Coriolanus into his eyes, that at least she hasn’t left Reaper alone, hinting that he left her alone and abandoned her. What did happen, and as I’ve said before, is that Coriolanus though understandable given his ignorance and fear of how to handle the situation with Clemensia, acted the way he does, that does not erase that he indeed did act like a very bad friend for Clemensia: he didn’t try to visit her, to discover what happened to her, how was she and even so, once she's back he lied about trying to do it while avoided her, and in general acting in a shitty way when she's vulnerable and only him know the real why. He tries to fix it closer to the end of the games but he took quite a while to behave decently toward her which caused the conflict - misunderstanding between them to grow and put their friendship at risk.

Casca’s ones take much longer to arrive, but we’re told that Snow’s father wasn’t exactly a good friend either; he brushes off Casca’s complaints with a simple “I did you a favor” and walks away without resolving their issue after a brief, seemingly fruitless argument. Bell tells us that he believed they resolved it later, which is striking if we consider a theory I proposed before in which I say that Crassus and Casca continued talking for longer after this conflict (my argument is based on Casca meeting and interacting with Mrs. Snow), they kinda fix it. This is striking because Coriolanus and Clemensia apparently make the peace right by the end of the 10th Games after Coriolanus apologizes but looking at the consequences, there was no way Crassus could have foreseen that there would be a war, and that by winning it, that project would be revived and turned into a reality that would claim the lives of 230 children from the district. The responsibility that Gaul places on Casca by presenting him as the creator of the Hunger Games (even though he only participated in their conception, as I’ve said, in practice Volumnia is the creator of the Hunger Games, yet she never claims the title of creator for herself, even though she is the one who nurtures, builds, and plans the project) is, in his own words and implied by text, what would ultimately lead to his addiction to morphling. A condition that seems to negatively affect him in various aspects of his life, and beyond the unflattering descriptions Coriolanus do of Casca (which serve more as a classic Collins’s excuse to make insulting depictions of people suffering from addiction because yes. She seems like do that just because) there at least seems to be a suggestion that this affects the respect or patience others have for him, in addition to the feelings of guilt and remorse he struggles with.

So, to conclude, as we can see, Casca and Clemensia both find themselves as victims of what they perceive as betrayals and of being used by friends they trusted (I say “perceive” because I believe that not only do the characters within the text seem to have differing understandings of what happened; it seems Crassus always believed he did nothing wrong, Coriolanus did seem to feel guilty even if he distanced himself and it affected his friendship, and Clemensia, though angry and hurt, does not seem to have held the grudge that Casca clearly still holds decades and a death later; but the readers may interpret these situations differently and whether or not they were betrayals -everybody can guess my position over this-). Both act with resentment, bitterness, and anger toward what was done to them (they also share a trait linked to their status as wealthy, socially conscious capitolines: a tendency toward a certain accidental cruelty or insensitivity toward the district people, alongside a sense of humanity and compassion/recognition toward them), even if, as we said, those directly or indirectly to blame did not intend to harm them nor could they have foreseen the consequences of their actions (actions that were primarily motivated by a desire for their own well-being, Coriolanus sought to avoid any consequences of no deliver the homework, while Crassus sought a good grade and being able to pass Gaul's class) yet this happened, affected their friends negatively and impacted the friendship to the point of nearly ending it or ending it definitively (considering it's implied too that Snowbottom could broke ties definitely).

[argumento-ad-nauseam]

mrs snow-casca-crassus if people werent afraid

[argumento-ad-nauseam]

snowbottom #3 for the romantic asks

3. In what ways are they good and bad for each other?

Saying in what they are bad for each other could take us all day; they bring out the worst in each other, although from what has already been said about Casca and his crimes, in my opinion, it is as if his worst side comes out when he is with Crassus because, in general bc Crassus has no scruples and is not the best role model for good morals or for not being insufferable.

I believe that, especially when he is young, Casca can easily be encouraged to be very, very unpleasant, and that is why, after the Academy, they basically become each other's only true friend because they have fed their cruelty towards others so much that people avoid them and do not approach them unless it is necessary and they have no other choice bc they have this tendency to be cynical and bullies.

(The why Pliny it's such a Casca hater because the reputation of be that IDIOT stick to Crassus as an evil twin can't be erased).

There's also the fact that they're very into their toxic masculinity, even if they show it in different ways, which makes them INCAPABLE of ever having an honest conversation about their feelings. They'll avoid it like the plague and instead do reasonable things like try to offend/dismiss the other in a rather pathetic attempt to prevent the other from doing what they don't like and hurts them, lol.

Also Crassus has a tendency to believe he knows what's best for others without ever questioning whether he actually does and without ever asking people anything because he believes he is never wrong, and Casca has a bad habit of changing his mind about things, tell no one about it and holding grudges that he quietly accumulates until it explodes on why it's so bitter and full of resentment.

On the not so bad side, they are the people who trust and understand each other the most, and strangely enough, they balance each other out at times. I think that yes both feed into each other issues but they also keep each other grounded. It is because they have totally different ways to approach problems and life, as a whole so at times these two complement each other, because I think Casca can give Crassus more structure and order where he lacks it, and vice versa, I think Crassus can make Casca more uninhibited and daring, etc. Regarding the trust and understanding, it is simply that they may be allergic to express feelings in healthy ways but the closer they may get to it, it's an effort they would just do for each other.

[argumento-ad-nauseam]

-Snowbottom.