I‘d Say That‘s Generally The Green Experience These Days.

Here is your mission.

This image shocks me immensely because of:

a) the horror and determination engraved on Alicent’s face

b) Heleana watching her mother defending (and holding onto) Aemond in the background.

I think that the incident at Driftmark had a different potency on each of Alicent’s kids, but especially upon Heleana it must have impressed the idea that “a mother fights for her child no matter what” and that she doesn’t stay silent.

I can only imagine how Heleana feels after B&C, but the sense of being unable to protect and stand up for her son must be devastating.

And further than that, Heleana must be repelled by the idea of being coerced and finally having chosen to sacrifice one of her own kids. She probably feels that she has failed as a mother. That unlike Alicent, she has no right to demand justice for Jaehaerys’ murder because she herself chose him over Maelor. Maybe she blames herself for not doing enough to save him (even if she offered up her own life instead of her children’s), and possibly compares her efforts to defend her children with Alicent’s defense of Aemond. In essence, she probably tragically feels that she offered up one of her children herself instead.

In any case, this is such a heartbreaking and unsettling position to be in and it makes the emotional and psychological toll she consequently suffered all the more unbearable, because even if she drew courage and strength from and tried to imitate her mother’s actions, nothing could have ever prepared her for this.

I really liked your analysis on Rhaenyra and Laenor's dynamic for ep 6. Do you think that you could do one for ep 7? c:

Oh boy, you are trying to give me an aneurysm lol. Listen, I have a lot to say about this. So get some tea and have a seat, anon.

Let's start with the funeral.

Rhaenyra was looking for Laenor when she pulled Jacaerys aside, that much is certain, and I am painfully aware that they were both mourning their losses, as Jacaerys so tactfully put it /s

In response to Baela and Rhaena losing their mother:

[Jacaerys:] I have an equal claim to sympathy. We should be at Harrenhal, mourning Lord Lyonel and Ser Harwin.

Little fucking bastard.

If Rhaenyra and Laena were truly as close as some show watchers believe, do we truly think that Jacaerys would be so comfortable saying that openly? I think not.

Not to mention, that whole conversation between Rhaenyra and Jacaerys earns some iconic questionable looks from Alicent and Criston.

Moving on before I get off topic.

A few minutes later in the episode, you can actually hear Seasmoke crying out, which kind of alerts Daemon and Aemond that something is amiss, then the camera cuts to this.

A very distraught Laenor standing in the water (likely where his sister was buried) which brings up the question: If Rhaenyra was intent on keeping up appearances, why did she spend the last few minutes openly eye-fucking Daemon? Why didn't she continue her search for her husband who was prone to drinking? If they had such a close friendship as some of the fandom believes, her first thought would have been to ensure that he was all right. But... she didn't.

And it doesn't help the situation that Corlys has an outburst towards Ser Qarl to retrieve Laenor, but even when that does draw in attention, Rhaenyra doesn't even bother asking what happened. Instead, she continues eye-fucking Daemon while he's talking to Viserys.

And after Daemon leaves the balcony, she walks straight towards her children to send them to bed, and proceeds to follow Daemon. She didn't even bother waiting for Laenor to come back up and ask if he was okay or even offer him an ounce of comfort, which earns this look from Otto.

She... is a horrible and selfish friend.

Moving on, let's break down the conversation she had with Daemon about Laenor.

It begins with this:

[Rhaenyra]: Laenor has been restless for years, but now, he will be useless. Or worse. I know better than anyone that our marriage is a farce. But I at least make the effort to maintain appearances.

Did she? Clearly not, if Otto, Criston, and Alicent were all giving her the bombastic side eye. And that's not even mentioning the visible bastards she brought to Laena's funeral. Her lack of empathy towards Laenor was blatant during that entire funeral, and believe me, everyone fucking noticed.

[Rhaenyra:] We did try to conceive a child. We performed our duty as best we could. But to no avail.

Again, clearly not. Especially if we take into account the canonical age of Jacaerys and compare it to the date they wed. (Yes I am referencing book canon, but it still drives my point)

Rhaenyra and Laenor wed in 114 AC, and Jacaerys was born the same year.

I could understand if the boy was born like two, maybe three years after the wedding, but nope. In my opinion, I would have assumed that "performing your duty" would have meant being monogamous for at least a year to get it over with, but I digress. What's done is done.

And here is where we get to the root of the issue, and where she tells on herself a little bit.

[Rhaenyra:] There was no joy in it. I found that elsewhere. It felt good to be desired.

Well of course there wouldn't be any joy in it, he's a gay man, and you knew this when you agreed to marry him (mind you, when she had the full pick of the litter - a privilege that nobody else was granted.) However, there were several fucking ways that they could have attempted to conceive a child - hell, even Margaery had solutions to the situation with Renly. But clearly Rhaenyra wasn't as intelligent as she thought she was.

Now, glossing over the blatant disrespect towards her grieving husband and his dead sister by sleeping with Laena's widower, let's get to the aftermath of the shitshow between her and Alicent.

After she sends the children out to have a private word with Laenor the conversation goes like this:

[Laenor:] I should have been there. [Rhaenyra, begrudgingly:] Those should be our house words.

If you pay attention to Laenor's face after she says that, he looks like he doesn't want to deal with this, yet he stays, and proceeds to provide an explanation.

[Laenor:] I have fought dreadful enemies, but I could not defend my dear sister, far from home and in agony. I could not defend you... [Rhaenyra:] Sit down.

To me, this feels like he's attempting to gauge a semblance of understanding from Rhaenyra as to why he wasn't present during the climax of this episode. And believe it or not, it is VALID. As I have said in the previous analysis of episode 6, those children were NOT his obligation, and he was grieving his own flesh and blood.

However, Rhaenyra continued to act indifferent and dismissive to his loss, and proceeded to bring up her bastards as if that was the bigger problem. Not once did she ask how he was feeling this entire episode, which again, made me believe that they were never truly friends. (I'd wager IF they were, that friendship quickly crumbled after Joffrey Lonmouth was murdered, and I think it's safe to assume that Rhaenyra has behaved similarly to how she is behaving now.)

[Laenor:] I have failed you, Rhaenyra. Our marriage... I tried. Our boys... I do love them. Deeply. But I have not, mayhaps... loved them enough.

Now as Laenor is speaking, you can see the apathy she has so plainly displayed on her face while he is quite literally pleading with her yet again, so much that he has resorted to self-deprecating language in spite of the fact that he stayed by her side for ten straight years, playing his part as a loving husband and father, possibly being berated by other lords and ladies at court. He is not afforded the same protections that Rhaenyra has, and mind you, he was alone.

Laenor's entire family had been away from King's Landing, so he had to navigate this by himself, all while getting comments against his ability to sire children, and against his sexuality as so wonderfully displayed by Alicent. /s

[Alicent, Episode 6:] Do keep trying, Ser Laenor. Soon or late you'll have one that looks like you. [Alicent, Episode 7:] Where is Ser Laenor, I wonder? The boys' father? Perhaps he will have something to say in the matter... Entertaining his squires, I'll wager.

I fully believe if the Queen was comfortable saying this so openly, everyone else was more than comfortable with saying things like this to his face, too.

Now, back to the point, Rhaenyra continues the conversation with this:

[Rhaenyra:] I had hoped to bear your children. The few times we lay together. Things might've been different. [Laenor:] I hate the gods for making me as they did. [Rhaenyra:] I do not.

Hm. Are you sure about that, Rhaenyra? Because your dialogue with him in the previous episode had quite a few microaggressions against his homosexuality. But I digress.

[Rhaenyra:] You are an honourable man with a good heart. It's a rare thing.

Yet, she called him useless behind his back about twenty minutes ago, which tells me that she's being disingenuous, and Laenor seemed to catch it, too because he makes this face right after she says it.

[Laenor:] We made an arrangement all those years ago to do our duty, and yet explore happiness. [Rhaenyra:] *chuckles* [Laenor:] But there are times I think when these things cannot mutually exist.

Now I found that a bit interesting. She starts laughing at the little contract they drew up ten years ago. Now sure, this can be taken as a bit of levity, or it can be taken as her actually laughing at him in a condescending way. Pick your poison. However, given everything I've presented above, my opinion leans towards the latter.

Sure we can argue that he did smile with her, but is that a genuine smile, or is that a "I hope she's taking me seriously," smile? I'll let you decide.

Now to address his next statement, he was absolutely correct, and I'll wager that he probably had been thinking about this for a very long time. Maybe I'm reading into it, but his expression grows serious after he says it.

[Laenor:] Ser Qarl will return soon to the fighting in the Stepstones. But I recommit myself to you. And to strengthening our house as we prepare you for your ascension. I will raise our sons to be princes of the realm. You deserve better than what I have been. You deserve a husband. (emphasis mine)

And this is the final frame we have of Laenor before his death is staged. His entire expression is pleading.

This right here was a final cry for recognition in his longstanding efforts. His last words to her really drove the point home that he does want to try, despite the fact that he has been all along. Perhaps it's just me, but Laenor seems like he is actually on his last leg if he is going so far as to put himself down in an attempt to receive some semblance of acknowledgement from Rhaenyra in hopes that she wouldn't cast him aside like she has done these last few years.

Olivia Cooke thinks she only has one fan so…

REBLOG THIS POST IF YOU ARE A FAN OF OLIVIA COOKE!!!

She needs to know!!!!

When I was younger and more abled, I was so fucking on board with the fantasy genre’s subversion of traditional femininity. We weren’t just fainting maidens locked up in towers; we could do anything men could do, be as strong or as physical or as violent. I got into western martial arts and learned to fight with a rapier, fell in love with the longsword.

But since I’ve gotten too disabled to fight anymore, I… find myself coming back to that maiden in a tower. It’s that funny thing, where subverting femininity is powerful for the people who have always been forced into it… but for the people who have always been excluded, the powerful thing can be embracing it.

As I’m disabled, as I say to groups of friends, “I can’t walk that far,” as I’m in too much pain to keep partying, I find myself worrying: I’m boring, too quiet, too stationary, irrelevant. The message sent to the disabled is: You’re out of the narrative, you’re secondary, you’re a burden.

The remarkable thing about the maiden in her tower is not her immobility; it’s common for disabled people to be abandoned, set adrift, waiting at bus stops or watching out the windows, forgotten in institutions or stranded in our houses. The remarkable thing is that she’s like a beacon, turning her tower into a lighthouse; people want to come to her, she’s important, she inspires through her appearance and words and craftwork.  In medieval romances she gives gifts, write letters, sends messengers, and summons lovers; she plays chess, commissions ballads, composes music, commands knights. She is her household’s moral centre in a castle under siege. She is a castle unto herself, and the integrity of her body matters.

That can be so revolutionary to those of us stuck in our towers who fall prey to thinking: Nobody would want to visit; nobody would want to listen; nobody would want to stay.

Team Green as Pigeons just because…

if i see one more article, post, or news anchor talking about how joe biden is old, i'm putting my fist through a window. i feel like i've gone through the fucking looking glass.

this is project 2025, trump's plan for what he'll do if elected. whatever you think is in there, it's worse. watch a breakdown of the highlights here. this man wants to unravel the fabric of our democracy for good - this all aside from his vitriolic hatred of poc, his determination to start ww3, and the fact that he can't string a sentence together without telling outrageous and easily verifiable lies. his administration will start their crusade to exterminate trans people on day one, and they won't stop there.

do not talk to me about how joe biden is old, as if that could ever matter to me more than my life or the lives of my friends and family. my little sister is 14, she's trans, and i don't know what to tell her when we talk about politics, because one of these people wants her dead and the other one is old and some of you are still acting like those problems are equals.

i can't fucking stand this. i'm not hearing it this time, we are not repeating 2016. refusing to vote is not an act of protest, it is an act of complacency, and our most vulnerable will suffer for your negligence. vote like your life depends on it, because for some of us, it really fucking does.

i had a dream that time travel was invented and too many people choose to travel back in time to save the titanic from sinking (the question of whether unsinking of the titanic deserved so much attention in the face of human history was the subject of both heavy academic and online discourse), which caused a rift in the space-time-continuum that led to the titanic showing up indiscriminately all over the world’s oceans and sea in various states of sinking.

this caused a lot of issues both in terms of fixing said space-time-continuum and in terms of nautical navigation, and after a long and heavy battle in the international maritime organization it was decided that the bureaucratic burden of dealing with this was to be upon Ireland, much to their dismay. the Irish Government then released an app for all sailors and seafarers so they could report titanic sightings during their journeys, even though they heavily dissuaded you from reporting them given the paperwork it caused.

anyway i woke up with a clear image of the app in my head and needed to recreate it for all of you:

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!!!

TB and their selective feminism.