Wait I dont get how acotar is considered better than throne of glass 💔
KIROKAZE
𓃗
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Misplaced Lens Cap

ellievsbear

if i look back, i am lost
hello vonnie
macklin celebrini has autism

titsay
ojovivo

Origami Around

#extradirty
taylor price

No title available
Keni
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
YOU ARE THE REASON
d e v o n

gracie abrams

@theartofmadeline
seen from Türkiye

seen from Netherlands
seen from Kenya
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Malaysia
seen from Brazil

seen from Malaysia
seen from China

seen from South Korea

seen from United States

seen from South Korea

seen from Malaysia
seen from Lebanon

seen from France
seen from Spain

seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from Ecuador

seen from France
seen from Venezuela
@tearsofarcadia
Wait I dont get how acotar is considered better than throne of glass 💔
A few weeks ago one of my historical pet peeves was activated when I heard about a new Robin Hood movie that takes the groundbreaking, unprecedented, bold and visionary step of suggesting that the Middle Ages were a time of brutality, cynicism, and lawlessness.
Sarcasm alert. Everything I've heard about this movie sounds like it was created specifically to annoy me, so I'm going to try to ignore it and just talk about my pet peeve, which is this pop culture myth that the medieval period was particularly filthy, brutal, misogynistic and lawless.
Which is simply not the truth, and here's a true story from 1348 that shows the real Middle Ages.
We know this story because it's a very important moment in the development of common law - that is, the facts and the conclusion of the story were written down and became the basis for how similar cases would be decided long into the future. This 1348 judicial decision (citation: I de S et Uxor v W de S (1348) yb 22 edw iii f 99) is still read by law students today when studying the tort (or wrong) of assault. That's nearly seven hundred years of judges and lawyers looking back at a medieval judicial decision and saying, "Yes! That was a good and just decision!"
To set the stage, it's the 1300s - a century famous for the Black Death, the Hundred Years' War, the Peasants' Revolt, and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church that saw the papacy moved to the French town of Avignon as puppets of the French monarchcy. But that's not the only thing that happens in the 1300s. This century also sees the publication of Dante's Divine Comedy; the Clockwork Revolution in which intricately designed clocks tracked everything from the hours of the day (which were measured in variable lengths) to the phases of the moon and the Sun's path through the zodiac; the creation of gorgeous books of hours and tapestries; the career of Christine de Pizan, the first woman known to have made a living from her pen; the writing of Geoffrey Chaucer and the radical social and religious reforms proposed by John Wyclif and his followers.
About the middle of this century a man known to history as W de S came in the night to the house of I de S and M, his wife, looking to buy some wine. The door to the taven was closed, so W pounded on the door with a hatchet, which he had in his hand. At this, M, the tavern-keeper's wife, put her head out the window and told him to stop. W responded by throwing the hatchet at M, narrowly missing her.
The tavern-keeper and his wife, contrary to what pop culture will tell you, responded exactly the way a couple of pub owners might respond today: they took the offender to court and argued that W had made an assault on M. W argued, in response, that he had committed no crime because the hatchet had not in fact struck M.
You might now be thinking that of course W would have won the case, since no actual physical harm was done to the woman he'd attacked. But you would be wrong! The judge in the case declared that the assault itself was harmful, and that W was liable to pay compensation for the fright he had caused M.
"Ever since then," states my old Torts textbook, "the tort of assault has extended protection to a person's right to be free of emotional disturbance brought about by intentional threats of physical violence."
Law did exist in the middle ages. Women, as well as men, could expect to be protected by the law from assault. And not only physical, but even emotional damages could be awarded for assault...all the way back in 1348.
It wasn't a perfect time, but it was far from the callous brutality depicted on our movie screens.
Someone in the comments made a reply of "But they had witch-burnings until the 1600s in some places".
And like... really? That's your take away from this very damn good and well cited post that basically set a precedent in law?
It would be like if there was a large post talking about the progress of science and freedom of religion in the modern period and someone brings up the Jonestown mass-suicide.
Oh Lord, I've been over this before, I can't believe we're doing this again.
Witch hunts were NOT a medieval phenomenon. They largely took place between the mid-1400s and the late 1600s, therefore falling squarely into the Renaissance. So a better analogy would be some smartalec trying to bring up, I don't know, the 1960s sexual revolution in a discussion of Victorian mores.
GUYS elia is Not a Victim. elia is a Girlboss Lesbian that's why she was totally Okay with almost Dying in painful childbirth Twice to birth her man's prophecy babies and still being humiliated in front of the world because she is Girlboss and Gay and Dornish she is Politically Savvy and Not a Helpless Victim so that's why she encourages her white husband to go have a white bastard with a white woman although she wants power for house martell and knows that westeros is very anti dornish & that the last time a half dornish dude sat the throne his claim was challenged by his white half-brother but guys she does not care about All That because she is Girlboss and Gay and Dornish and did i mention that she is Not an Eternal Victim? yeah very important she is Not an Eternal Victim We Wonnnn yayyyyy #feminism yayyy #girlpower yayyy #gaypocrep 🥳
the thing about mothers in fiction is that a lot of fandoms seem to be under the impression that the worst thing a woman can possibly do is be a bad mother. like they can forgive deadbeat dads easily but the moment a woman is a bad or even mediocre mother she's the devil incarnate to them. and then you're like "i like her and i think she's interesting" and they immediately go "oh so you think it's okay to be a bad mother (which is the most evil thing a woman can be)". and don't even get me started on how they react to female characters who are bad stepmothers
🪭🪞🏰🕯️🗡️🗝️
Everyone's all "ohhh 2026 bring back physical media" until I start talking illuminated manuscripts and then suddenly we're not on the same page anymore
Brutus by The Buttress is more a Julia the Elder-coded song than it is a Marcus Junius Brutus-coded song and I will die on that hill
🪭🪞🏰🕯️🗡️🗝️
Just finished Queen of Shadows and I have a question.
Why does everyone in the fandom hate Chaol???
I’ve been avoiding everything about the TOG series to stay spoiler-free (it’s already bad enough that I know Maeve is the big villain 😅).
But here’s the thing: I always saw people saying Tower of Dawn is his “redemption arc,” so I assumed by the end of QOS I’d understand what horrible thing he did… and yet, I still don’t see it?
That man literally sacrificed himself for his friends. He went into that fight fully believing he was going to die. He didn’t know he’d survive and when he did, he ended up paralyzed, unable to walk, and now needs a wheelchair to move.
So… why all the hate? What am I missing?
rip robb stark, you would’ve loved fenrys moonbeam
the queen of terrasen and her bloodsworn
sharing art bc i have no writing😩 but i think this slays (you can see more of my art on my insta @/j.sgrey )
What are your thoughts on Aelin and Manon?
Aelin’s arc is the most heroic in the traditional sense—chosen one, heir to the throne, savior of her people—but Maas does not shy away from imbuing that heroism with real cost, manipulation, and moral ambiguity.
She’s clever, prideful, charming, self-sacrificial to a fault—but also controlling, secretive, and at times deeply unfair to those who love her most.
Her tendency to shoulder everything alone is both her greatest strength and her most frustrating flaw. She builds these elaborate plans in secret, keeps people in the dark, and then expects them to understand when everything is revealed. While it’s often framed as necessary because “no one else could have endured it,” that justification wears thin when you consider the emotional fallout on her court.
The fact that Aelin planned to use Aedion—her cousin, her most loyal ally, the person who loved her most unconditionally—as a breeding tool to produce children with Lysandra disguised as Aelin is deeply disturbing. It’s not just manipulative. It’s dehumanizing.
Even if we understand the political logic—ensuring a lineage, protecting Terrasen, etc.—the coldness with which this plan was executed, without his knowledge, reframes Aelin in a way that’s hard to walk back from.
It doesn’t mean she’s a bad person. But it does suggest she’s a character who believes that the ends always justify the means, even if it means crossing sacred boundaries. And unlike other anti-heroes or gray characters, Aelin is still portrayed as the triumphant, admirable queen—and that cognitive dissonance can grate.
She saved the world. But she also hurt the people closest to her. Both can be true.
Manon’s arc is the most subtle but arguably the most emotionally satisfying. She begins as an agent of death—a creature molded by violence, rigid rules, and bloodline supremacy—and ends up choosing compassion, choosing to unmake the monstrous legacy she inherited.
Where Aelin’s journey is about reclaiming a throne and protecting a kingdom, Manon’s story is about reclaiming self. She starts with no name but “Manon Blackbeak,” no love in her life, no softness, no self-determination. But bit by bit, she builds a soul.
She doesn’t “fall into” goodness. She fights her way toward it.
Manon is cold steel and slow-burning evolution. And ironically, that makes her the more emotionally resonant for many readers. Her transformation feels earned. There are no shortcuts to her humanity. Every act of kindness costs her something. Every shift in loyalty is a battle against her own programming.
And perhaps most importantly: she listens. She learns. She changes based on how others are treated—Elide, Abraxos, even Dorian. She is not immutable like Aelin, who often doubles down. Manon bends—and in doing so, she becomes real.
I admire Aelin. I respect her cleverness, her perseverance, and her willingness to burn for the people she loves. But that moment with Aedion pulled the curtain back too far for me. It made me see how she sometimes views others as chess pieces—even the ones closest to her. It’s not that I hate her—but I mistrust her.
Manon, by contrast, is someone I grew to love. I didn’t expect to. But her story was about learning to feel, learning to choose.
Eos in a nutshell
Manon: Fuck you.
Dorian: go ahead ;)
Manon: Wait, no, that’s not what I-
Manon:
Manon: what the hell sure
Dana Herfurth as Anne of Cleves
Wolf Hall 2.05
y'all are not going to like the person i become when i see katherine howard in wolf hall
Katheryn Howard in Wolf Hall ౨ৎ
*** Spoilers?? ***
The scream I scrumpt when I saw her 🫶🏻
tags ౨ৎ