Let's Be Honest: Criston's Offense’s More Than Justified And Well-reasoned. Another Question Is How

Listen.

EVERYBODY knows (or should) that you DO. NOT. STOP. in Vidor, Texas. 

It’s best to just run out of gas elsewhere. Whatever you do, black folks, DO NOT STOP IN VIDOR, TEXAS. 

There’s a good chance you’ll get lynched or just come up missing - and I’m not joking.

also do NOT stop in Harrison, Arkansas!!!! (relatively close to OK and MI) a nazi town with a BIG KKK organization.

Reblog To Save Life

The thing is, there is room for a great deal of that and it could be utterly amazing if - if you gave it to an excellent writing team.

As an example the Roman Emperor Domitianus is often regarded as one of Rome’s bad tyrannical emperors. Tacitus in particular paints him as an incompetent man, jealous of his servants great successes. He is accused of fabricating triumphs and wasting roman lives in unsuccessful wars. Thing is, he was extremely popular with the army and when Trajan began his Dacian Wars a lot of the necessary infrastructure was in place, put there in large part by Domitianus who also campaigned in the area, even though less successfully. Regarding his tyrannicsl nature, none of his reforms that were seen as tyrannical were ever reversed by his successors but only Domitianus ever caught any flac for it. Pliny remarks on his the ascension of Trajan to the imperial throne that he is so happy too never again have a princeps that he has to call dominus. Guess what he called Trajan in all his letters.

You could absolutely make a show about how Maegor and Jaehaerys ultimately shared many of the same ideas and values but one was very good at making them palatable to the Westeros-edition of the patriarchy and the other was murdered and labeled the worst Tyrant in history.

But again, you‘d need goid writers and the track record thus far does not inspire much confidence

HOTD and the future shows

Wanna know what I am fearing, in light of how the second season of HOTD have proved to be?

The future series based on the Tales of Dunk and Egg... if a show based on the Dance of Dragons-era/generations in Fire and Blood, can become so changed from the source material, how will things go for Egg aka future Aegon V in his boyhood, and Dunk, the future Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, in how their plotline will be handed?

In fact, one worry of mine, when thinking about all of this, is how a TV show based on the reign of Maegor the Cruel would end like, based on what HOTD have done as "supposed" changes to the plot and characters.

I know that Classical Disney Movies may sound odd as a way to describe Maglor the Cruel, but I am thinking of the hand-drawn Original Disney Classics and the ongoing trend of making them into Live-Action versions:

Say that Maegor the Cruel as he is written in Fire and Blood, as well the other published books so far, is akin to a such Classic Disney movie, and how not all the Live-Action movies based on the Classics have proved to be....let's say well received, by fans.

If the second season of HOTD have proved to not be well received by fans for various reasons, then how well would a TV show based on Maegor do? Would the tv team try and paint his cruelity as "propaganda written by the Maesters/his enemies" to make Jaehaerys come off as a much better King? Would they rewrite his personality to 180 degrees, akin to how Season 2-Alicent is NOTHING compared to her book self? Would they try and make up something "tragic" about his relationships to his six wives, going for the far too common "All girls want bad boys" idea and that Maegor only "need" someone to see his "supposed real" self akin to Beauty and the Beast?

I am sorry for babbling, but if this mess of a second season is the result of trying to make a tv show out of Fire and Blood so far....

Then I am in honest doubt that the 2025 tv show about Dunk and Egg is not gonna live up to the original written tales of them.

And I can see Maegor's character in a possible TV show be haunted by cries from fans in style of "he is not like that in Fire and Blood!" "When did someone called the "Cruel" in-story suddenly become a "misunderstood" character like this?" "He is called the Cruel, not the "poor, second son" of Aegon the Conqueror!"

HEY GUYS!!

GUYS!!!

FRANCE HAS REACHED THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SIGNATURES ON THE CITIZEN'S INITIATIVE AGAINST CONVERSION THERAPY IN THE EU!!

ONE COUNTRY DOWN, SIX TO GO!!

We also need still quite a few signatures in order to reach the one million required.

As to date, the six other countries with the most signatures are:

Spain - 38.72%

Finland - 30.31%

Ireland - 24.86%

Netherlands - 24.15%

Germany - 23.54%

Belgium - 23.09%

So yeah, still a long way to go, but we ARE slowly getting closer. Don't stop now! Don't let this stay within the community, either, if you have any friends or family who are open to queer rights, get them to sign, too!

Me at the function (House of the Dragon watch party) sharing what I learned from this open access book chapter about authority in Game of Thrones

It's always really interesting seeing someone say they don’t like Otto and Alicent inserting themselves into the royal family and "stealing" power from the Targaryens. That's literally why I love them.

"I thought I wanted it. But the burden is a heavy one. It's too heavy. If you wish me to bear it then defend me. And my children."

I wonder what burden she feels she's holding at this moment. We know that she isn't speaking of the burden of ruling and managing the realm for the last several years while her father was sick, because while she was on Dragonstone, those duties fell to the Hand and the Queen. As far as the show tells us, Rhaenyra has no specific duties she's fulfilling as heir, nor has she been doing anything in particular to prepare to rule. We're not shown that she's doing anything with her time beyond anything beyond managing Dragonstone with Daemon and growing her family. So what exactly in her life at this moment is she seeing as this massive burden that she bears because she's heir to the throne?

I think the burden she's speaking of here is actually the pressure she's feeling as she's finally being faced with the idea that her father won't always be around to help her avoid the consequences of her actions. So even though it's obvious that he's on the edge of death, in immense pain, barely hanging on, and despite the fact that she hasn't visited him at this point in literal years despite knowing about his ailing health and she's done nothing to support him in ruling in his last years, she still feels entitled enough to demand that he do another massive favor for her. At this point, Rhaenyra has been enabled by her father for so many years that she doesn't know how to solve a problem without him. So she plays the heir card on Viserys to get him to defend her one more time: if you want me to be queen, and you don't want me to be held accountable and face consequences, help me get away with it one more time.

Rhaenyra is upset not because of any real burden she has as heir but because she feels like the walls are closing in and she's under attack. I would feel some sympathy for her if it weren't for the fact that she wouldn't be in this situation if she'd made better choices. If literally anyone else in the realm had obvious bastards they were using to usurp a seat of power, there would be huge consequences. Rhaenyra knows this and is doing it anyway because she thinks her position as heir to the throne gives her the power to be able to do it and get away with it. Her birthright as a Targaryen says she deserves absolute power because she's better than other people, so she can do no wrong and nobody can say otherwise to her. She believes she's clever enough to pass the deception, and otherwise her father can punish anyone who speaks up... until Vaemond goes to court, and her father is not there to blankly support her no matter what. Now, she's faced with people who intend to uphold the law of the land and she's upset that she might actually be confronted with her problems head on and not have someone to shield her this time.

I would be very interested in hearing the museum design rant

by popular demand: Guy That Took One (1) Museum Studies Class Focused On Science Museums Rants About Art Museums. thank u for coming please have a seat

so. background. the concept of the "science museum" grew out of 1) the wunderkammer (cabinet of curiosities), also known as "hey check out all this weird cool shit i have", and 2) academic collections of natural history specimens (usually taxidermied) -- pre-photography these were super important for biological research (see also). early science museums usually grew out of university collections or bequests of some guy's Weird Shit Collection or both, and were focused on utility to researchers rather than educational value to the layperson (picture a room just, full of taxidermy birds with little labels on them and not a lot of curation outside that). eventually i guess they figured they could make more on admission by aiming for a mass audience? or maybe it was the cultural influence of all the world's fairs and shit (many of which also caused science museums to exist), which were aimed at a mass audience. or maybe it was because the research function became much more divorced from the museum function over time. i dunno. ANYWAY, science and technology museums nowadays have basically zero research function; the exhibits are designed more or less solely for educating the layperson (and very frequently the layperson is assumed to be a child, which does honestly irritate me, as an adult who likes to go to science museums). the collections are still there in case someone does need some DNA from one of the preserved bird skins, but items from the collections that are exhibited typically exist in service of the exhibit's conceptual message, rather than the other way around.

meanwhile at art museums they kind of haven't moved on from the "here is my pile of weird shit" paradigm, except it's "here is my pile of Fine Art". as far as i can tell, the thing that curators (and donors!) care about above all is The Collection. what artists are represented in The Collection? rich fucks derive personal prestige from donating their shit to The Collection. in big art museums usually something like 3-5% of the collection is ever on exhibit -- and sometimes they rotate stuff from the vault in and out, but let's be real, only a fraction of an art museum's square footage is temporary exhibits. they're not going to take the scream off display when it's like the only reason anyone who's not a giant nerd ever visits the norwegian national museum of art. most of the stuff in the vault just sits in the vault forever. like -- art museum curators, my dudes, do you think the general public gives a SINGLE FUCK what's in The Collection that isn't on display? no!! but i guarantee you it will never occur, ever, to an art museum curator that they could print-to-scale high-res images of artworks that are NOT in The Collection in order to contextualize the art in an exhibit, because items that are not in The Collection functionally do not exist to them. (and of course there's the deaccessioning discourse -- tumblr collectively has some level of awareness that repatriation is A Whole Kettle of Worms but even just garden-variety selling off parts of The Collection is a huge hairy fucking deal. check out deaccessioning and its discontents; it's a banger read if you're into This Kind Of Thing.)

with the contents of The Collection foregrounded like this, what you wind up with is art museum exhibits where the exhibit's message is kind of downstream of what shit you've got in the collection. often the message is just "here is some art from [century] [location]", or, if someone felt like doing a little exhibit design one fine morning, "here is some art from [century] [location] which is interesting for [reason]". the displays are SOOOOO bad by science museum standards -- if you're lucky you get a little explanatory placard in tiny font relating the art to an art movement or to its historical context or to the artist's career. if you're unlucky you get artist name, date, and medium. fucker most of the people who visit your museum know Jack Shit about art history why are you doing them dirty like this

(if you don't get it you're just not Cultured enough. fuck you, we're the art museum!)

i think i've talked about this before on this blog but the best-exhibited art exhibit i've ever been to was actually at the boston museum of science, in this traveling leonardo da vinci exhibit where they'd done a bunch of historical reconstructions of inventions out of his notebooks, and that was the main Thing, but also they had a whole little exhibit devoted to the mona lisa. obviously they didn't even have the real fucking mona lisa, but they went into a lot of detail on like -- here's some X-ray and UV photos of it, and here's how art experts interpret them. here's a (photo of a) contemporary study of the finished painting, which we've cleaned the yellowed varnish off of, so you can see what the colors looked like before the varnish yellowed. here's why we can't clean the varnish off the actual painting (da vinci used multiple varnish layers and thinned paints to translucency with varnish to create the illusion of depth, which means we now can't remove the yellowed varnish without stripping paint).

even if you don't go into that level of depth about every painting (and how could you? there absolutely wouldn't be space), you could at least talk a little about, like, pigment availability -- pigment availability is an INCREDIBLY useful lens for looking at historical paintings and, unbelievably, never once have i seen an art museum exhibit discuss it (and i've been to a lot of art museums). you know how medieval european religious paintings often have funky skin tones? THEY HADN'T INVENTED CADMIUM PIGMENTS YET. for red pigments you had like... red ochre (a muted earth-based pigment, like all ochres and umbers), vermilion (ESPENSIVE), alizarin crimson (aka madder -- this is one of my favorite reds, but it's cool-toned and NOT good for mixing most skintones), carmine/cochineal (ALSO ESPENSIVE, and purple-ish so you wouldn't want to use it for skintones anyway), red lead/minium (cheaper than vermilion), indian red/various other iron oxide reds, and apparently fucking realgar? sure. whatever. what the hell was i talking about.

oh yeah -- anyway, i'd kill for an art exhibit that's just, like, one or two oil paintings from each century for six centuries, with sample palettes of the pigments they used. but no! if an art museum curator has to put in any level of effort beyond writing up a little placard and maybe a room-level text block, they'll literally keel over and die. dude, every piece of art was made in a material context for a social purpose! it's completely deranged to divorce it from its material context and only mention the social purpose insofar as it matters to art history the field. for god's sake half the time the placard doesn't even tell you if the thing was a commission or not. there's a lot to be said about edo period woodblock prints and mass culture driven by the growing merchant class! the met has a fuckton of edo period prints; they could get a hell of an exhibit out of that!

or, tying back to an earlier thread -- the detroit institute of arts has got a solid like eight picasso paintings. when i went, they were kind of just... hanging out in a room. fuck it, let's make this an exhibit! picasso's an artist who pretty famously had Periods, right? why don't you group the paintings by period, and if you've only got one or two (or even zero!) from a particular period, pad it out with some decent life-size prints so i can compare them and get a better sense for the overarching similarities? and then arrange them all in a timeline, with little summaries of what each Period was ~about~? that'd teach me a hell of a lot more about picasso -- but you'd have to admit you don't have Every Cool Painting Ever in The Collection, which is illegalé.

also thinking about the mit museum temporary exhibit i saw briefly (sorry, i was only there for like 10 minutes because i arrived early for a meeting and didn't get a chance to go through it super thoroughly) of a bunch of ship technical drawings from the Hart nautical collection. if you handed this shit to an art museum curator they'd just stick it on the wall and tell you to stand around and look at it until you Understood. so anyway the mit museum had this enormous room-sized diorama of various hull shapes and how they sat in the water and their benefits and drawbacks, placed below the relevant technical drawings.

tbh i think the main problem is that art museum people and science museum people are completely different sets of people, trained in completely different curatorial traditions. it would not occur to an art museum curator to do anything like this because they're probably from the ~art world~ -- maybe they have experience working at an art gallery, or working as an art buyer for a rich collector, neither of which is in any way pedagogical. nobody thinks an exhibit of historical clothing should work like a clothing store but it's fine when it's art, i guess?

also the experience of going to an art museum is pretty user-hostile, i have to say. there's never enough benches, and if you want a backrest, fuck you. fuck you if going up stairs is painful; use our shitty elevator in the corner that we begrudgingly have for wheelchair accessibility, if you can find it. fuck you if you can't see very well, and need to be closer to the art. fuck you if you need to hydrate or eat food regularly; go to our stupid little overpriced cafeteria, and fuck you if we don't actually sell any food you can eat. (obviously you don't want someone accidentally spilling a smoothie on the art, but there's no reason you couldn't provide little Safe For Eating Rooms where people could just duck in and monch a protein bar, except that then you couldn't sell them a $30 salad at the cafe.) fuck you if you're overwhelmed by noise in echoing rooms with hard surfaces and a lot of people in them. fuck you if you are TOO SHORT and so our overhead illumination generates BRIGHT REFLECTIONS ON THE SHINY VARNISH. we're the art museum! we don't give a shit!!!

Rhaenyra and Aemma

I think it's interesting we see this exchange from Alicent and Rhaenyra:

ALICENT: You're worried your father is about to overshadow you with a son. RHAENYRA: I only worry for my mother. I hope for my father that he gets a son. As long as I can recall, it's all he's wanted.

And then in the next scene we hear from Aemma:

AEMMA: Rhaenyra has already declared that she is to have a sister. VISERYS: Really? AEMMA: She even named her. VISERYS: Dare I ask? AEMMA: Visenya. She chose a dragon's egg for the cradle that she said reminded her of Vhagar.

At first I thought that Rhaenyra was hiding her true desire from Alicent for us to hear the truth from her mother. And if it were just that- no shade AT ALL. I mean, why not have ambition? Why not want to be heir? Why not want to rule?

But I do think that Rhaenyra's emotions about being heir are more related to being loved and being valued by her parents. Her entire life she has not been enough- she has seen her mother go through all of these tragic stillbirths as a child and of course she would come to the conclusion that her mother's pain and her father's insistence on a son means that she is not enough. So there is already some resentment about the idea of a brother. But I don't think it's so much that, as Alicent says, she is frightened of the son overshadowing her. It is more that she is hurt that the pursuit of a male heir has been overshadowing her for her entire life.

I do believe her when she said that she hopes her father gets a son though- even though it hurts her, she would be happy for him I think. And it would be a relief that this painful pursuit of a male heir would be over for her mother. But then why does she declare that she is to have a sister?

I think that maybe it is to make Aemma feel less stressed honestly. We see how upset Aemma is when she talks to Viserys about the pressure she is under to produce a male heir:

AEMMA: The tourney to celebrate the firstborn son that we presently do not have. You do understand nothing will cause the babe to grow a cock if it does not already possess one?

And then after he tells her his dream again:

AEMMA: Born wearing a crown? Gods spare me, birth is unpleasant enough as it is. This is the last time, Viserys. I've lost one babe in the cradle, had two stillbirths, and two pregnancies ended well before their term. That's five in twice as many years. I know it is my duty to provide you an heir, and I'm sorry if I have failed you in that. I am. But I've mourned all the dead children I can.

This is so heartbreaking. Aemma is under so much pressure and has dealt with so much grief- and feels as though she failed Viserys and the realm. And so I think that Rhaenyra is trying to boost her mother's spirits and telling her that it will be wonderful if the baby turns out to be a girl. It goes deeper, I think, than Rhaenyra not wanting a boy to overshadow her. As I mentioned before, the quest for a boy has already overshadowed he and it is not as though she will be heir (or so she believes) even if the baby is a girl. Daemon is currently heir and I am sure Rhaenyra doesn't think that will change. I think she is telling her mom she is hoping for a girl so that her mother does not feel like she failed if the baby is a girl. I think she is acting out excitement and anticipation for a girl because she feels like she didn't have that for her own birth. She probably thinks that her birth was a disappointment for her father and her mother. Should the baby happen to be a sister this time, she doesn't want the her to come into the world as a disappointment like she did. She wants her sister to come into the world wanted and valued.

I think it makes sense that Rhaenyra would do this because we can see Rhaenyra's concern for her mother in their first (and last!) exchange:

RHAENYRA: Did you sleep? AEMMA: I slept. RHAENYRA: How long? AEMMA: I don't need mothering, Rhaenyra. RHAENYRA: Well, here you are, surrounded by attendants, all focused on the babe. Someone has to attend to you. AEMMA: You will lie in this bed soon enough, Rhaenyra. This discomfort is how we serve the realm.

It's interesting that Aemma says "I don't need mothering," because her own mother, Daella Targaryen, died in childbirth (they don’t mention it in the show but it is in Fire and Blood.) So she would have grown up without mothering. It also struck me that while Aemma tries to mother Rhaenyra by giving her practical advice about “the order of things” for a woman in their world, Rhaenyra’s style of “mothering” Aemma is to point out how important she is and to ensure that she is being taken care of- and prioritizing her above the baby. It’s sad because Rhaenyra is essentially mothering her own mother in the way she wishes she was mothered. Rhaenyra wants to live in a world where, as Arya Stark said, “The woman is important too!” And it’s a glimpse of how she would have mothered her own stillborn daughter, Princess Visenya, or supported a sister if one had been born to her parents.

As a disabled person, I feel this so much. Yes, we‘re not lesser than anyone else, not any less deserving of happiness and recognition but sometimes we have to work harder for things, because people around us won‘t see it that way otherwise.

Also as an aside most people are disadvantaged in one way but might have some privilege compared to others and most people have to compensate for something they shouldn‘t have to compensate for.

Aemond had to compensate for not having a dragon and being seen as lesser for it, Jace had to compensate for not looking remotely Valyrian. In both instances they shouldn‘t have been bullied in the first place, but both lads worked to overcome their problems. Rhaenyra just doesn‘t.

I finally formulated why I don't like Rhaenyra. And it's not about misogyny, or even that I find her boring (although I do). If we look at this story the way TB fans do it, then we get something like "a woman fights the system in a patriarchal world." It sounds great, it sounds like a story that I might like. But does she fight? Because the problem is that she doesn't. She doesn't fight. And the whole rhetoric of TB fans usually boils down to "you demand from Rhaenyra what you wouldn't demand from a man in her place." But isn't that how it works? If you live in a place where women aren't considered equal to men, you should try to become ten times better than any of them in order to earn respect, and that's normal. Characters who understand the realities of their world and accept them to fight injustice command respect. At the same time, Rhaenyra didn't do anything - she just wanted the world around her to change itself for her convenience, so that the rules by which it worked before she was born would simply be forgotten at the snap of her fingers. She wasn't trying to prove that she was worthy of being a queen, she wanted to be respected just because her father ordered it, but it doesn't work that way. That's why I don't like her - she wanted the world to change on its own, instead of trying to change it with her own efforts.

I know it’s not hard to point out reactionaries hypocrisy when it comes to like safe spaces or hug boxes or whatever but genuinely how much of an echo chamber do you have to exist in for you to think this is a reasonable thing to say