the funny thing is that I never heard about him or any of this when I was actually in LOTR fandom in the early 2000s (didn’t care about hobbits), and only discovered him via his terrible HP fic, but yeah, that was him
I don’t know where to start, ummm - the older stuff is here, but there’s plenty that’s happened since then
to summarize, Thanfiction is the username of Andy Blake, an extremely notorious con artist/cult leader/abuser/general wreaker of mayhem who was at one time prominent in LOTR (hobbit-centric) fandom, and has among other things fucked over LOTR stars, other fans, his girlfriend, been tangentially involved in a murder-suicide, it just… goes on and on.
these days he hangs out in SPN fandom on Tumblr and, somehow, continues to have defenders.
how do we decide who to woobify? like, i see a lot of people woobifying various questionable ASOIAF characters and then they turn right around to harry potter and say SNAPE YOU’RE A PIECE OF TRASH. i have a feeling it has to do with how many “good guys” are in the HP series vs in ASOIAF.
i also don’t really care i’m just curious
I think some of this has to do with the fact that Harry, one of Snape’s victims, who is supposed to be our eyepiece for the entire series, basically tried to canonize the guy after he died instead of saying “Thanks for that single thing you did, but that doesn’t erase all the awful shit you did.” And ASOIAF doesn’t have someone act the asswipe and then become a hero in the eyes of their victims in the same way.
Basically there are a lot of unkind people iN ASOIAF, but they do have people who will constantly remind you that they are in fact jerks. In HP, it ended with a whole “you are supposed to love Snape because he was brave" and to that it’s very easy to shout BULLSHIT
It’s definitely a factor, though I do think the moral spectrum of the narrative plays heavily into it. We apply different moral standards to the characters of Pride and Prejudice (Wickham’s various seductions are the height of villainy and most of the attention is given to faults like “leaping to conclusions about people who were mean to you one time” and “being unfriendly at parties and giving bad relationship advice”) than we do to the Harry Potter books or Star Wars or w/e, and those get different ones than ASOIAF and the like.
It’s actually a credit to fans, I think, that we without necessarily thinking about it, we automatically evaluate the ethos of a given work, consider context, and so on; in a grey-and-white morality setting, we can denounce someone for being unpleasant to a guest, then instantly switch to melting over someone with terrible crimes to their name—there’s a near effortless mental flexibility here.
I’ve also heard that Rodrigo ordered the destruction of any paintings of a darker Jesus? Is that wrong too?
That’s bullshit IMO. At least, I’ve never run across any reference to it, even in the most virulently anti-Borgia source. Rodrigo was certainly not known for destroying art.
Sounds like Protestant propaganda tbh—it’s been a convention since pretty much the get-go to attribute every kind of evil to the Borgias (see why we need/needed a reformation? THOSE PEOPLE LOOK AT THOSE PEOPLE THAT’S EVERYTHING WRONG WITH CATHOLICISM). Frankly they seem to have been rather less racist than usual.
(ngl the current trend towards I BET RACISM WAS THEIR FAULT TOO is kind of gross, all things considered.)
Also how the hell is there not even consensus on his hair color,Aside that it’s not black? I’ve seen people say auburn too.
I’ve seen pretty much everything, haha. But without reliable contemporary images, it’s difficult to be sure—I’ve even seen Lucrezia described as auburn-haired.
In all fairness, ‘blond’ covers a wider range than it would in northern Europe or the US (thanks, tulinlina!), as it’s so much rarer. And a lot of the golden-haired Renaissance paintings are more of a strawberry blond. Given that Cesare and Lucrezia seem to have resembled their mother, I think it’s likely that they both had red-gold hair and his darkened to auburn (Lucrezia’s probably would have too, but we know she was proud of the colour and treated it to maintain it).
white Jesus predates the Borgias by a long long long long time
seriously people were painting golden-haired and otherwise whitewhitewhite pictures of Jesus, Mary, etc before Cèsar de Borja was a gleam in the cardinal’s eye
the famous “picture of Cesare” that’s on all the books and such is not actually verified, it’s just a tradition that it’s Cesare
there are no definitely contemporary, definitely him paintings that have survived (much of the Borgias’ art was deliberately destroyed after their downfall); we don’t know for sure what he looked like
but he was described as ‘il biondo e bello’, ‘blond and beautiful’ so black hair (as in the ‘traditional’ painting) is pretty low on the probability list
Like most of his family, Cesare was a) incredibly attractive, b) vain about it, and c) a total fashionista. Pretty much everything about his appearance came down to ‘how awesome does this make me look’ and ‘is this the very latest most expensive fashion’
Morally speaking, the Borgias were not much better than the people around them, but they weren’t worse, either; their uniquely bad reputation is a complicated result of xenophobia, anti-Catalanism and anti-Semitism, Protestant propaganda, their own indifference to public opinion, and many other things
Be a good friend. When your friend leaves an abusive relationship, delete/unfollow/unfriend their abuser. Don’t give them anymore activity. When they leave, leave with them. Be their support system. You cannot be neutral when someone was abused.
Whenever I write posts about autism, someone will reblog with a comment along the lines of “you have to remember that autism is a spectrum, ranging from extreme cases to mild Aspergers.” Here is a recent example.
It’s true that autism is a spectrum, but it’s not a spectrum of severity from low functioning to very mild. Autism is much more complicated than that.
There are a number of things that go into autism. It’s a combination of impairments in cognition, communication, sensory perception, and movement. These impairments combine in different ways. And “high functioning” and “low functioning” don’t accurately describe any of them.
All autistic people are disabled in significant ways, and it’s not always obvious how. There are a lot of stereotypes, and they’re misleading.
When Aspergers syndrome and autistic disorder where separate diagnoses, the primary difference was whether someone developed expressive language before or after the age of three. That doesn’t tell you anything important about their abilities. (Which is one reason they’ve been combined into Autism Spectrum Disorder into the DSM-V.)
One way stereotypes can be misleading: some nonspeaking autistic people have significantly better language comprehension than some autistic people who speak. (And you can’t tell from affect either: A student who spends all day rocking in a corner might be understanding significantly more than a student who spends all day sitting still at a desk.)
Autistic impairments can also change over time, or in times of stress.
Someone you think has “very mild Aspergers” may well have no ability to understand language when they’re upset. They may have severe auditory processing problems and be unable to watch TV without captions. They may be physically incapable of walking across a crowded room. They may have very little voluntary motion and be dependent on prompts in their environment. They might not be able to initiate interactions or independently tell you that they are injured or sick.
Not all autistic people do the thing I described in my post on noticing when repetition is communication. (And not all autistic repetition is for this reason). But it has nothing to do with severity. When an autistic person repeats the same thing over and over in a conversation with you, it’s very important to consider the possibility that they’re trying to communicate something but don’t currently have the words to get you to understand. This is true even if they live alone and five minutes ago they gave a complicated lecture on physics.
tl;dr Autism is a spectrum, but it’s not a simple severity spectrum.
This is a really excellent way of putting it—something I’ve noticed a lot. People virtually always class me as “high functioning” (or, as one person put it, “but you seem so normal!” - which tbh is what it means anyway), but many people who aren’t as, idk, unobtrusive as I am can do many things I can’t. And in my experience, the people who bring up the high/low severe/mild real problem/minor inconvenience thing generally mean the latter: if I don’t make other people uncomfortable, it doesn’t matter that I can’t drive, remember where I’ve been, or that eye contact and sunshine are physically painful. Autism is autism: complex and multi-dimensional, and high vs low functioning is reductionist to the point of misrepresentation.
you’re the best (similarly this summer I totally did not contemplate stealing a two-volume bio of Eisenhower from the cabin we rented just because I decided to make Ingwion a [very loose] expy of him >.>)
hehehe thanks, and I understand the impulse completely
/currently trying to research the traditional form of the Act of Contrition