Avatar

One night

@inventorofwonderfulthings

Things I like

Imagine being Corlys though.

The family is over for your daughter’s funeral, her creepy husband says she was immolated. You look over and your son’s wife is making out with her uncle who is your daughter’s creepy husband on the beach as though all 800 people here can’t see them. Your brother keeps stopping the funeral speech to ask why the grandsons are white. Your daughter’s creepy husband audibly giggles at the eulogy. Your decrepit cousin is sundowning and thinks this is a birthday party. Your wife tells you the grandsons ARE white. One of the kids almost kills himself stealing a dragon, your granddaughters jump him and they all get into a knife fight. It’s 3am. Your decrepit cousin’s wife backhands one of the kids and shanks your son’s wife. Where is your son? Kneeling in the beach trying not to puke. You ask your son’s side piece to give him some water and you all go to bed. You wake up to the news your son somehow also got immolated. Your wife is screaming, the grandkids are gone, the sitting room is on fire, someone left a note for the wedding registry of your son’s wife and your daughter’s creepy husband and circled “coffee maker”. It is now 3:25am

I realized I never posted these here on tumblr! 2020 did unspeakable things to my mind and body…I staggered away from lockdown with a whole pitch of how I would make an animated Cats adaptation. I got the whole thing up here *taps skull*—it would be Very Good. I can’t think about it too much lest I awaken my sleeping obsession…still want to finish Old Deut and Macavity one of these days.

Fun fact: The term "Jellicle Cat" is actually the cats’ mishearing of the term "Dear Little Cat" (this gives me much joy)

@thedrawingduke on Instagram

I get variations on this comment on my post about history misinformation all the time: "why does it matter?" Why does it matter that people believe falsehoods about history? Why does it matter if people spread history misinformation? Why does it matter if people on tumblr believe that those bronze dodecahedra were used for knitting, or that Persephone had a daughter named Mespyrian? It's not the kind of misinformation that actually hurts people, like anti-vaxx propaganda or climate change denial. It doesn't hurt anyone to believe something false about the past.

Which, one, thanks for letting me know on my post that you think my job doesn't matter and what I do is pointless, if it doesn't really matter if we know the truth or make up lies about history because lies don't hurt anyone. But two, there are lots of reasons that it matters.

  • It encourages us to distrust historians when they talk about other aspects of history. You might think it's harmless to believe that Pharaoh Hatshepsut was trans. It's less harmless when you're espousing that the Holocaust wasn't really about Jews because the Nazis "came for trans people first." You might think it's harmless to believe that the French royalty of Versailles pooped and urinated on the floor of the palace all the time, because they were asshole rich people anyway, who cares, we hate the rich here; it's rather less harmless when you decide that the USSR was the communist ideal and Good, Actually, and that reports of its genocidal oppression are actually lies.
  • It encourages anti-intellectualism in other areas of scholarship. Deciding based on your own gut that the experts don't know what they're talking about and are either too stupid to realize the truth, or maliciously hiding the truth, is how you get to anti-vaxxers and climate change denial. It is also how you come to discount housing-first solutions for homelessness or the idea that long-term sustained weight loss is both biologically unlikely and health-wise unnecessary for the majority of fat people - because they conflict with what you feel should be true. Believing what you want to be true about history, because you want to believe it, and discounting fact-based corrections because you don't want them to be true, can then bleed over into how you approach other sociological and scientific topics.
  • How we think about history informs how we think about the present. A lot of people want certain things to be true - this famous person from history was gay or trans, this sexist story was actually feminist in its origin - because we want proof that gay people, trans people, and women deserve to be respected, and this gives evidence to prove we once were and deserve to be. But let me tell you a different story: on Thanksgiving of 2016, I was at a family friend's house and listening to their drunk conservative relative rant, and he told me, confidently, that the Roman Empire fell because they instituted universal healthcare, which was proof that Obama was destroying America. Of course that's nonsense. But projecting what we think is true about the world back onto history, and then using that as recursive proof that that is how the world is... is shoddy scholarship, and gets used for topics you don't agree with just as much as the ones you do. We should not be encouraging this, because our politics should be informed by the truth and material reality, not how we wish the past proved us right.
  • It frequently reinforces "Good vs. Bad" dichotomies that are at best unhelpful and at worst victim-blaming. A very common thread of historical misinformation on tumblr is about the innocence or benevolence of oppressed groups, slandered by oppressors who were far worse. This very frequently has truth to it - but makes the lies hard to separate out. It often simplifies the narrative, and implies that the reason that colonialism and oppression were bad was because the victims were Good and didn't deserve it... not because colonialism and oppression are bad. You see this sometimes with radical feminist mother goddess Neolithic feminist utopia stuff, but you also see it a lot regarding Native American and African history. I have seen people earnestly argue that Aztecs did not practice human sacrifice, that that was a lie made up by the Spanish to slander them. That is not true. Human sacrifice was part of Aztec, Maya, and many Central American war/religious practices. They are significantly more complex than often presented, and came from a captive-based system of warfare that significantly reduced the number of people who got killed in war compared to European styles of war that primarily killed people on the battlefield rather than taking them captive for sacrifice... but the human sacrifice was real and did happen. This can often come off with the implications of a 'noble savage' or an 'innocent victim' that implies that the bad things the Spanish conquistadors did were bad because the victims were innocent or good. This is a very easy trap to fall into; if the victims were good, they didn't deserve it. Right? This logic is dangerous when you are presented with a person or group who did something bad... you're caught in a bind. Did they deserve their injustice or oppression because they did something bad? This kind of logic drives a lot of transphobia, homophobia, racism, and defenses of Kyle Rittenhouse today. The answer to a colonialist logic of "The Aztecs deserved to be conquered because they did human sacrifice and that's bad" is not "The Aztecs didn't do human sacrifice actually, that's just Spanish propaganda" (which is a lie) it should be "We Americans do human sacrifice all the god damn time with our forever wars in the Middle East, we just don't call it that. We use bullets and bombs rather than obsidian knives but we kill way, way more people in the name of our country. What does that make us? Maybe genocide is not okay regardless of if you think the people are weird and scary." It becomes hard to square your ethics of the Innocent Victim and Lying Perpetrator when you see real, complicated, individual-level and group-level interactions, where no group is made up of members who are all completely pure and good, and they don't deserve to be oppressed anyway.
  • It makes you an unwitting tool of the oppressor. The favorite, favorite allegation transphobes level at trans people, and conservatives at queer people, is that we're lying to push the Gay Agenda. We're liars or deluded fools. If you say something about queer or trans history that's easy to debunk as false, you have permanently hurt your credibility - and the cause of queer history. It makes you easy to write off as a liar or a deluded fool who needs misinformation to make your case. If you say Louisa May Alcott was trans, that's easy to counter with "there is literally no evidence of that, and lots of evidence that she was fine being a woman," and instantly tanks your credibility going forward, so when you then say James Barry was trans and push back against a novel or biopic that treats James Barry as a woman, you get "you don't know what you're talking about, didn't you say Louisa May Alcott was trans too?" TERFs love to call trans people liars - do not hand them ammunition, not even a single bullet. Make sure you can back up what you say with facts and evidence. This is true of homophobes, of racists, of sexists. Be confident of your facts, and have facts to give to the hopeful and questioning learners who you are relating this story to, or the bigots who you are telling off, because misinformation can only hurt you and your cause.
  • It makes the queer, female, POC, or other marginalized listeners hurt, sad, and betrayed when something they thought was a reflection of their own experiences turns out not to be real. This is a good response to a performance art piece purporting to tell a real story of gay WWI soldiers, until the author revealed it as fiction. Why would you want to set yourself up for disappointment like that? Why would you want to risk inflicting that disappointment and betrayal on anyone else?
  • It makes it harder to learn the actual truth.

Historical misinformation has consequences, and those consequences are best avoided - by checking your facts, citing your sources, and taking the time and effort to make sure you are actually telling the truth.

Thurinus

I When you’re four years old, your father dies. You don’t recall his face. You are nearly crushed By the crowds, stricken with the stench Of burning flesh and flowers On the bonfire that is Rome.

Your mother remarries. Her new husband Has a son of his own. He needs no scion of moneychangers Polluting his dinner parties Or drawing whispers When you cannot stop wheezing.

II You go with Grandma Julia; Mother murmurs that she will write. Grandma soothes you with stories Of her little brother, who defied a dictator While the Senate’s “best men” shivered, Owning nothing but his name.

Little brother isn’t so little now And flatterers pay you false praise. You flout your stepfather by flouting them For common Marcus Agrippa. His name means nothing; yours, too much. But he sees you, and not a Caesar.

Anonymous asked:

Would you mind talking about each of the Targaryen crowns, their meanings and why each of the kings wore them?

Sure.

Aegon the Conqueror’s crown was a circle of Valyrian steel set with square-cut rubies. The use of Valyrian steel accomplished a few goals. For one, it served as a reminder of the Targaryens’ Valyrian, dragonlord origins, of the race “above the common run of men”. For another, it recalled the power of Valyrian steel in weaponry, a fact any Westerosi House with a cherished family blade would know well; Aegon the Conqueror was a warrior, and his crown would be made of the same material as his fearsome sword Blackfyre. Setting the dark Valyrian steel with red rubies also nicely echoed the new red-on-black royal sigil, a uniform approach to the imagery of the new regime. Altogether, Aegon’s crown was Valyrian and martial in nature, the crown of a dragonlord who ruled by right of conquest rather than right of birth. 

Aenys wore a “different” crown from his father’s, “all gold, much larger and more elaborate”. It was typical of Aenys’ love of courtly pageantry and the arts that he would favor an elaborate, showy crown. He was distancing himself from his warrior father; this was the crown of a peace king, a courtly king, a king to be seen in his splendor rather than in a suit of mail. 

Maegor wore the Conqueror’s crown, a move I would think was partially if not entirely Visenya’s idea. With Maegor being far more a warrior than his brother Aenys - the youngest-made knight in Westeros in his day, the bearer of Blackfyre, the rider of terrifying Balerion, a man who relished in bloodshed - a crown with war-like overtones would be far more fitting for Maegor. Too, and this I think would have appealed to clever Visenya, by wearing the Conqueror’s crown Maegor emphasized the point that he, and not Aenys or his sons, was the true heir of his father Aegon. He carried his father’s sword, and wore his father’s crown; he was the true successor to Aegon, not weak Aenys.

Jaehaerys I was crowned with his father’s crown, a neat move which stressed his claim as coming from his father, skipping over usurping Maegor. However, the crown Jaehaerys wore as king was one of his own design, a simple gold band set with seven gemstones of different colors. The rainbow of gems was an obvious reference to the Faith of the Seven, which is fond of using rainbows in its imagery, and indicative of the Conciliator’s famed peace with the Faith. Jaehaerys’ crown was an advertisement of his reign’s central policy: he was a peacemaking king, but an active peacemaker (unlike Aenys), one who would work so that the realm would not bleed again.

Viserys I also wore his grandfather’s crown, probably to emphasize that he was the true successor of Jaehaerys the Wise. With the succession problems that had plagued the dynasty in the closing years of Jaehaerys’ reign, and Viserys succeeding to the throne only two years after the Great Council of 101 AC had confirmed him as the heir, loyalties might still have been divided over who was the rightful heir to the great Jaehaerys. Wearing the Conciliator’s crown implied a continuity of succession, reminding onlookers that Jaehaerys had chosen Prince Baelon, that the Great Council had named Baelon’s son, and that that son now sat the Iron Throne in that right. 

Aegon II, as noted by Gyldayn, wore the crown of the Conqueror. Being that he had been named explicitly in homage to Aegon I, wearing the Conqueror’s crown further served to underline the connection between the first Aegon and the second. He was the successor to Aegon the Conqueror, another warrior-king wed to his sister-queen who would fly out on dragonback to meet any threat against his dynasty. 

Aegon III wore his own crown, “a slender gold band, no ornament”. As with the crowns of Aenys I and Jaehaerys I, the Dragonbane’s crown perfectly matched the personality of its ruler. Somber, withdrawn Aegon III desired no grandiose ornament for his crown. Westeros had bled under his mother and uncle, and he himself was deeply scarred by the horrors he had witnessed during the Dance. His rule would be a simpler time of healing and reunification, and he would set the example with his simple, sober crown. 

Daeron I was the last of the Targaryen kings to wear the Conqueror’s crown (it was lost when he was slain in the Red Mountains). A precociously talented warrior and commander, Daeron I saw himself as a new Conqueror, the one Targaryen who could “complete the Conquest” and finish the work of his great-great-great-great grandfather. He was the Young Dragon, the heir in talent and vision to Aegon I, a new warrior-king who would give the kingdom the martial glory it had not seen since the days of the Conqueror. 

Baelor I wore a “crown of flowers and vines”. Less a formal king than any Targaryen before or after him, Baelor believed himself to be a septon as much as a king, whose weapons were prayers and whose rule would be used to further the tenets of the Faith of the Seven. The wealth of the crown, as he saw it, was to be used for charity toward the poor, not toward the adornment of his own person. His floral crown would remind his subjects that there was as much beauty to be found in nature, crafted by the Seven, as there was in a crown of gold. 

Viserys II wore his brother Aegon III’s simple crown. Having served admirably as Hand for three kings, Viserys was ready by the time he inherited the crown to put all his administrative and bureaucratic talents and ideas to work. An ostentatious crown would have been simply a distraction; he was a king who wanted to work, and a simple crown conveyed his preference for work over display. 

Aegon IV designed his own crown, “huge and heavy, red gold, each of its points a dragon’s head with gemstone eyes”. Aegon IV was a man of excess, someone whose quest in life was the constant pursuit of pleasure, and his court was a school of decadence and corruption. Doubtless Aegon IV loved the idea of an ostentatious crown, the biggest and most ornate of any Targaryen crown in the nearly two centuries of the dynasty, as it fit his desire for excess in all things. Additionally, as Aegon IV hated everything about his father and constantly rebelled against his father’s strictures, his crown would be the ultimate symbol of rejecting Viserys II: the huge and heavy crown was about as far away from the simple band of the Dragonbane as one could get.

Daeron II wore his father’s crown, but not for the reasons Aegon IV had designed it. Aegon had done his best to cast doubt on Daeron’s legitimacy, and had died undermining it; when he succeeded, Daeron II had to remind his subjects that he was truly Aegon’s son, the rightful heir of his father. 

Aerys I also wore the crown of Aegon IV, although GRRM described the crown as “atop a pile of books, as if [Aerys] has forgotten to put it on”. Given how little he cared about ruling - preferring arcane texts, refusing to consummate his marriage to his queen, and leaving the rule of the state to Bloodraven - Aerys I probably spent little time deciding on what crown he would use. His father and grandfather had worn it, and that was good enough for Aerys; choosing another or designing his own would have meant putting effort into his rule, and that was something Aerys I patently did not want to do.

Maekar designed his own crown, “a warlike crown with black iron points in a band of red gold”. That Yandel names it “warlike” is fitting for Maekar’s personality and the attitude he would take toward his reign. Maekar was a warrior, a prince who had made a name for himself leading royal forces in the First and Third Blackfyre Rebellions. His would be a reign reversing the absenteeism of Aerys I, reinvigorating the role of king as a strong leader in war as well as peace. Neither the ostentatious crown of Aegon IV nor the simple band of the Dragonbane would fit Maekar’s designs; he was a warrior, he would live and die as a warrior-king, and his crown would fit that policy. (It’s interesting how much this crown resembles the old crown of the Stark Kings of Winter, another circlet surmounted by iron spikes, though whether that was intentional is impossible to say.)

Aegon V wore the crown of the Dragonbane, the simple gold circlet. The Unlikely King spent his reign trying to help the common men of Westeros, undermining the powers of the great lords in order to better the lives of the smallfolk. His crown was the symbolic representation of his policy, deemphasizing the grandeur of the monarchy and focusing his energies on reform. 

Jaehaerys II wore the crown of grandfather Maekar. In part, this was probably a problem of choice: the only extant Targaryen crowns were those of Maekar, Aegon IV, and possibly Aenys, and the latter two were associated with very ill-remembered kings. Additionally, the War of the Ninepenny Kings began at the immediate outset of Jaehaerys II’s reign, so the martial crown of Maekar was a nice symbol that the monarchy intended to fight and win against the last of the Blackfyre pretenders as much as Maekar did against Daemon Blackfyre and Haegon Blackfyre. Plus, being personally sickly and frail, Jaehaerys II might have wanted a strong king’s crown to mask his lack of physical ability.

Aerys II wore the huge, ornate crown of Aegon IV. He came to the throne as a young man full of wildly grand (if woefully impractical) ideas for the monarchy, and I think he would have liked the Aegon IV crown for the power it conveyed. He was king now, and needed a grandiose symbol that would show everyone he was king and could do as he pleased; the crown of Aegon IV filled that need nicely for him. Given that he was also a king who loved pleasure and entertainment nigh as much as Aegon IV did, the crown of the Unworthy was a fitting mark of where his priorities lay.

Avatar

my bf: stop roleplaying as a lonely sailor from the 1600s 7 months into his voyage with me

me: all i'm saying is i could be yer lass tonight. . . if ye be wanting. . .

Avatar
sforzesco

Agrippa, Antony, and Octavian operate in a kind of love triangle where the object of desire is Rome. however. definitions of Rome vary. Rome is a place, Rome is home for Antony. For Octavian: Rome is a place, Rome is home, so he BECOMES Rome. Agrippa has only ever operated on a Rome Is Octavian framework, so as long as Rome stands, Octavian lives, immortality is achievable.

Everyone else suffers.

Roman citizen on Tumblr in 79 CE responding to a Celt mocking Roman culture: Ok Persian, don't you know that the Roman Empire has minorities living in it? You are literally oppressing Hebrews when you make fun of our grand republic. The SQPR has some problems, sure, and our culture has dominated the planet at the expense of other cultures, yes, but you can't lightly tease it, that's racist to all of the minorities we have conquered

Yes, my father was a Legionnaire, but he was poor and it was the only way out of poverty. He only had one house slave to his name when he joined the Legion. He also suffered from PTSD after the campaign in Germania and he regrets burning down all of those villages. Really, we citizens of the republic are the true victims of Roman imperialism