I'd call those things love.

You make the crew a little bit uncomfortable sometimes, they think you're crazy!

Ok, I love this scene. It says a lot about what this crew has been thinking. Ed's been overworking them with constant raids for months. He's drinking. He's doing drugs. He's taking more of Izzy's toes. He shot Izzy in the leg. They had mutinied on Izzy in like a day.

And yet with Ed they've just sort of been... waiting, hoping that he'll get better. Because they know Ed. Fang's known him for a long time. And they know he's not usually like this. Know that he's not doing ok. But maybe if they give him more time he'll get better?

Hi Twitter peeps here's a drawing you've already seen but it doesn't matter cause Tumblr should see it too

I know its fun to be like omg twitter is dying lets goooo

but its really sad that we're losing yet another form of human communication and years of information because of another ceo baby manchild. I'm going to lose contact with a bunch of friends i've made because of this and it sucks

I have been writing this post for a few days because I cannot stop thinking about the particular way that Depp v. Heard has been playing out in fandom not just over the course of this trial in Virginia but over the course of the past few years. One of my friends commented recently about the way in which fandom can train people to see things which are not there by taking fragments of media out of context and scrutinising them for small ‘tells’ which hint to the ‘real’ story often in support of a shipping narrative similar to the way that fragments of this trial are decontextualised and recontextualised, pored over in minute detail, and tea leaves read to support the idea that Amber Heard is lying, that Amber Heard is an abuser.

Much of what is circulating on social media about this case are outright lies at worst — the idea that Amber Heard quoted The Talented Mr. Ripley on the stand, which Snopes had to debunk — and pernicious victim-blaming nonsense and abuse myths at best. Milani Cosmetics’ decision to wade into the trial by suggesting Heard claimed she had used their specific concealer before it was released (she didn’t, the palette was used as an example of colour correcting concealer palettes) and insinuate that she must therefore be lying about having been abused falls into the latter category. The idea that if someone misremembers what brand of concealer they used over half a decade ago they are lying about being abused is appalling, it’s laughable. And it’s everywhere. This should be disturbing to anyone watching this case who truly cares about victim advocacy regardless of where you fall on the question of who abused who because the mainstreaming of abuse myths hurts all victims. There is no such thing as using an abuse myth to defend a victim or expose an abuser; if Heard is an abuser the logic underpinning that conclusion cannot be abuser logic without causing incredible social harm to victim advocacy.

And I have seen in fandom the way that people engage in wilful misreadings of all sorts of things to support an idea which is contrary to all reality. The prime example of this for me is Loki. Last summer I became unhealthily obsessed with the way that Loki fans who were opposed to his relationship with Sylvie concocted all sorts of wilful misreadings not just of the show itself but of interviews from the cast, writers, director, and even the composer — which would then go viral, racking up thousands and in some cases tens of thousands of likes.

There was a post on here and on twitter which took out-of-context quotes from several people involved with the show to frame them as contradictory and made some joke about people in a group project not agreeing on what it was about. This post got tens of thousands of likes and shares but if you read the quotes in their full context it was plain that all of the people speaking were in fact in total agreement on what the show was about. There was a cohesive behind-the-scenes agenda but it didn’t matter. Natalie Holt, the composer, mentioned in several subsequent interviews that her words had been taken out of context and twisted to imply something she emphatically was not saying. Other quotes were taken out of context and had bad faith readings applied to try to frame Kate Herron and Sophia Di Martino, both bisexual women who have expressed support and allyship with the trans community, as transphobic in order to justify online abuse and harassment of them. The same people doing this were simultaneously perpetuating harmful transmisogynistic rhetoric about ‘autogynephilia’ in order to frame the relationship as problematic and twisting Julia Serano’s academic work on the topic to support this even after she had expressly disagreed with this and called it out.

The primary driver of all of this is of course misogyny but if anyone pointed that out the deflection was to gesture towards Sophia Di Martino/Sylvie and Kate Herron being white women, particularly in contexts where the people doing this were challenged on why they didn’t hold Tom Hiddleston and Owen Wilson to the same standard. The exact same deflection is used to dispel any notion that misogyny might be a factor in the virulence of people’s anti-Heard sentiment: that defending her is “white feminism” and that she is exploiting “white woman’s tears”. This really illustrates the way that people in fandom have — in the words of one of my friends who I was speaking to about this the other day — learned a particular vocabulary but not an analytical toolkit.

“White feminism” and associated terms like “white woman’s tears” were coined to describe the unique tools which white women have at their disposal to (a) oppress racialised people and especially Black people, and (b) recruit others — particularly white men — to do the same. These terms do not apply to dynamics between white women and white men because white women cannot be racist towards white men. Depending on whether the white men in question belong to other marginalised classes white women can be ableist, transphobic, homophobic, or enact other forms of oppression against them but they cannot specifically be racist, so gesturing to their race in order to deflect from questions about double standards applied to a white woman versus a white man is a total non-starter and yet it happens all the time in these discussions. In fact the reason it happens is because (Depp’s struggles with addiction notwithstanding) the white men in question don’t have any other known marginalisations along which the white women might be oppressing them. So we have to make something up.

What’s really disturbing in the case of Depp v. Heard is that gesturing to “white woman’s tears” implies that white women are in fact the oppressors of white men and that they are more likeable and sympathetic figures to the general public. This posits either that misogyny is not real or that it does not apply to white women and is not a factor in the way that the general public assesses alleged abuse, which is not just untrue but actually dangerous. At a certain point the truth of what happened between Depp and Heard becomes immaterial when people are talking about the way the pro-Depp side is presenting and mainstreaming arguments which are extraordinarily harmful to victims of abuse. In fact, the victim-blaming rhetoric which is being pushed under the guise of “advocacy for male victims” is an uncanny echo of the transphobic rhetoric which was perpetuated in Loki fandom under the guise of “calling out transphobia”. What is happening here is that people are removing terms from their original political context where they were used to criticise oppressive power structures in order to support and uphold the paradigms they were coined to critique.

The disconnection of these terms and ideas from the power analysis they’re a product of also means that even when people are able to recognise that particular arguments are harmful they’re not able to see them in their full context as Depp and his team wielding systemic power and privilege to oppress and marginalise not just Heard but anyone identified as sharing a class with her. There are all sorts of posts and threads about the fact that it’s important not to allow Heard’s ‘diagnosis’ of borderline personality disorder to add to stigma that people diagnosed with BPD face with no recognition of the fact that this stigma is the exact reason Depp’s team wanted her characterised as having BPD at all. The argument from them is that she is a bad person and she is an abuser because she allegedly has BPD: they are stigmatising people diagnosed with this disorder in order to character assassinate her. Yet none of the people writing these threads about the importance of not letting this colour your perception of people with BPD have stopped to question why his team even considers whether she has it or not of any relevance and how this relates to the way he could be trying to exercise power and privilege in order to silence her. It’s insane to me that I even have to point this out.

What is absolutely fucked about all of this to me too is the proliferation of “amber heard supporters dni” in people’s bios. A lot of ink has been spilled in fandom on the overwhelmingly performative, virtue-signalling nature of a lot of dni criteria and this is what sticks in my throat when I think about this. People who put this in their bios are largely following the crowd and have done no actual research into the case beyond whatever distortions of the truth that have been leaked by his legal team cross their dashboards and timelines, if that. There is no curiosity about her allegations or her evidence or any desire to understand why people might support her when seemingly the entire internet has decided she is a monster, and what it comes down to is that people are virtue signalling by showing that as a matter of principle they do not stand by a woman who has made allegations of serious physical, psychological, and sexual abuse. What is considered virtuous in fandom is close-minded reactionary hatred of a woman who accused a powerful man of domestic violence. It is considered virtuous not to investigate her allegations. It is considered virtuous to declare that you hate her because everyone else does.

This hatred is so completely outsized in response to her perceived crime it absolutely dwarfs any outpouring of vitriol around someone like Harvey Weinstein because it’s not actually coming from any moral outrage about abuse itself. What is fuelling this outrage against Amber Heard is misogyny and victim-blaming, and that’s the fatal irony of all of this. Even though people are mired in cognitive dissonance about “who abused who” many of them show that underneath it all, even if they can’t admit it to themselves, they really do know she is a victim and that he is an abuser or else they would not apply victim-blaming tropes to her nor abuse apologist talking points to him. It’s the fact that we all know, really, instinctively, who is abuser and who is victim, that Depp supporters have to protect themselves so fiercely from this uncomfortable truth by making not just Heard herself but anyone who speaks in her defence or to the facts of the case personae non grata and acceptable targets for harassment and bullying themselves. It’s because we all know, really, in our hearts, that the power differential favours him that it’s necessary for him and his supporters to indulge in pernicious victim-blaming abuse myths to paint her as the villain. It’s because we know this that his supporters have to accuse everyone who questions his obvious DARVO tactics of “not thinking men can be abused”.

Actually, men can be and are abused, including in some cases by women, but abuse is about power and control. This is why the majority of male victims of abuse are marginalised in some way or otherwise vulnerable (young actors getting started in their careers, for example). It is also unbelievable historical revisionism to pretend that #MeToo has only ever been about female victims of abuse. It’s important for a number of reasons to recognise that abuse is a function of power and control and a tool for enforcing power and control but in particular it’s necessary to acknowledge this because otherwise the only explanation left for why there is such a gender disparity statistically between who perpetrates abuse and who is a victim of abuse is the TERF explanation that men are innately more violent, which is not true.

But to believe that Depp is Heard’s victim despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is to completely eschew this power analysis of their relationship. It is to believe that there is power parity between a twenty-two year-old just getting started in her career and an A-list global celebrity with multi-million dollar mansions all over the world and his own private island. It is to ignore the reality that throughout their relationship she was surrounded by his staff and his security, that even the nurses who saw her after his beatings were on his payroll. To believe that he is her victim even after it was ruled in the UK to a civil standard that he abused her is to posit the MRA belief that women are always immediately believed when they allege abuse and that this imbues them with massive social power to ruin men’s lives “for no reason”. The fact that people seriously argue that the UK legal system favours women is absolutely astonishing. But not only is it not true that women are not believed in general, it is also not true that Amber Heard was believed! The rewriting of history around this is fucking breathtaking. She was getting called a lying gold-digger from the start. The only person who has ever been hurt by these allegations is her.

But at this point the need for it to be true that Depp is Heard’s victim is compounded not just by a desire to keep loving Johnny Depp but also by years of participation in a movement against Heard which, if she is a victim, is morally indefensible. These are people who cannot accept the guilt and shame of having participated in a harassment campaign which is fundamentally victim-blaming and misogynistic in nature and targeted not just against her but other victims speaking out in her defence. They cannot accept this truth so they choose to look away. The furthest you will get one of these people if they do listen to facts about the case is “well they’re both bad”, which itself is a victim-blaming cop out and dangerous rhetoric which prevents victims from recognising that they are being abused and seeking or receiving help.

The other day, I saw some old tweets between Depp supporters talking about how disturbed they were by the behaviour of other Depp supporters in the wake of his replacement by Mads Mikkelson in Fantastic Beasts 3. This was fascinating to me because in this conversation these two people confidently proclaimed that Depp himself, being a kind and gentle soul, would never condone the harassment of Mikkelson or Mikkelson’s fans. But this is ridiculous and totally disconnected from reality since it’s a documented fact that Johnny Depp’s legal team has been purchasing bots in order to provoke harassment of people speaking out in defence of Amber Heard — many of whom are abuse victims themselves — and it would not remotely surprise me if they had also directed this abuse at Mikkelson and his fans.

You can see this bot activity for yourself in any one of the hashtags his supporters are pushing. This “sweet and gentle man” is haunted by his misogynistic rants in texts to friends in which he describes lurid fantasies about burning Amber and desecrating her corpse, the texts in which he called the mother of his children a ‘cunt’, the property damage he committed in the past. The cognitive dissonance it requires to describe this man as ‘gentle’ irrespective of whether you believe he is a victim must be immense. But it’s also required in order to keep believing that Johnny Depp is who people want him to be, and part of shoring up his image as a gentle man means demonising a woman who was twenty-two and just starting out in her career as an actress when she met him and trying to convince yourself she somehow had the balance of power in their relationship.

If you look at any of the hashtags his supporters are pushing you will also see something even more disturbing, which is the way that supporters of Johnny Depp are also extending the abuse apologist logic and absurd conspiracy theories they spin in defence of him to other abusers. It’s worth pointing out that Marilyn Manson, a close friend of Johnny Depp’s, is now suing Evan Rachel Wood for defamation and many of Depp’s supporters are raking her over the coals in the exact same way as Amber Heard and I’m left wondering what is the limit of what people will believe? In five years will I see “evan rachel wood supporters dni” in people’s profiles?

What is amazing to me too is that there are people discussing the ‘fandomisation’ of this trial — the fancams, the memes, etc. — who are speaking about how disrespectful it all is to Johnny Depp as if it’s not precisely the response he and his legal team want. The more people make fancams of him being ‘savage’ on the stand (an odd choice of words given the furore over his racist Dior Sauvage ad campaign, not to mention the fact that he is the subject of horrific abuse allegations) and TikTok videos drawing attention to the disparity in crowd size between his and Heard’s fans the more people are encouraged to respond to this case emotionally rather than logically. People are manipulated into thinking supporting Depp is the popular stance and shown that they will be socially ostracised if they criticise him; people are encouraged to lean into nostalgia around his movies and remember how good he used to make them feel (and feel anger at Heard for “taking Jack Sparrow away”, never mind the fact that Depp had already left the franchise before Heard’s Washington Post op-ed was published); people are guided down a path well-worn with misogynistic tropes about lying, gold-digging, perfidious women out to ruin good men’s lives.

The repeated assertion that “she shit in his bed” (proven false, but nobody cares) and associated scatological puns on her name are intended to associate her with disgust. The posting over and over of his severed finger without censorship or content warnings is intended to shock and upset people in order to make the associated accusation that “she cut off his finger” (also proven false but again, nobody cares) stick in people’s minds. These things are fed by his team to the media in order to discredit and undermine her so that nobody is listening when she describes the horrific abuse she suffered at his hands during the fight in which he lost his finger or if they are they don’t believe her. The fancams of Johnny Depp “being savage” and the videos making fun of her sobbing so hard she can’t breathe and reenacting her allegations to mock her for them are two sides of the same coin both of which benefit him and his narrative. He is being lionised and she is being demonised, exactly as he wants. And it is exactly as he wants. This is a man who texted one of his friends that he would give her “total global humiliation”. The man stated in black and white exactly what he wanted so I’m not sure why anyone would think he would be appalled by any of this.

On a final note, I wonder how many people have actually read the op-ed that she is currently being sued over? I think people should and bear in mind that this is the speech Depp and his team is trying to silence. It barely even alludes to him and the bulk of it is about the need to expand protection for victims of abuse in general. Remember that.

An Interracial Reading of Ed & Stede

After writing about how the racial dynamics of Ed's character in the show affect his choices, it got me thinking about the interracial romance dynamics set up between Ed and Stede. (This is a little more Stede focused than Ed since I already wrote about Ed at length)

Unlike some shows OFMD recognizes systems of privilege and oppression in its world. Colonialism, racism, and homophobia all exist-but no marginalized person in the show is forced to have an arch revolving only around these oppressive forces. The sea within the show, is especially used as a metaphor-and transgressive space where some of these oppressive forces lessen in power, or are more easily resisted. (I.E. Calico Jack's comment "Anything goes at sea" in reference to homosexuality). The show has deliberately set up piracy to be an anarchistic, and rebellious force to traditional society's colonialism and heteronormativity-which is a key element to how Ed and Stede come together.

Stede clearly comes from a place of white, male, and wealthy privilege. It lends itself to a lot of arrogance that he charges into situations with, and a very valid reason much of the crew and other characters are frustrated with him. He isn't afraid to invade spaces which often belong to marginalized people, the poor, POC, and women (Like Spanish Jackie's).

He underestimates piracy is often a forced profession (as told to him by Olu in episode 1) to those in the most marginalized positions. He can be dismissive of the crew's frustrations or worries often (fails to notice when they are in danger like Lucius going missing)-and doesn't often comprehend how racial violence works. When the English Officers are making microaggressive comments against his crew in episode 1 he does appear uncomfortable, but also fails to entirely understand the weight of those insults to his crew or stand up against them (even if it would've been dangerous). The indigenous group are right to be wary of him in episode 2 and address his internalized bias and racist reaction when he assumes they are cannibals which ate the hostages. He is a self-focused white man, even if he is capable of emotional intelligence and empathy with others.

Rightfully so, the Revenge crew has plenty of reasons to want to mutiny and kill him-as a privileged outsider who's impulsive decisions, and invasion of space for the marginalized, is going to put all their lives in danger (as he does in episode 3 on the Spanish Ship).

Despite his very expected of-the-time-period (And unfortunately still persist in modern times) ignorance, privilege, and microaggressions Stede still appears to be an outlier of the elite white men of his society. Unlike the English, or French aristocrats he does not showcase any overt prejudice to members of his crew-and even seeks out their advise and council (when his own excitement hasn't gotten him to make an impulsive decision). In fact by coming to sea-Stede surrenders a degree of his privilege, since it is the pirates like Spanish Jackie, Blackbeard, Calico Jack, and even Izzy who through experience and physical force have earned the most power and respect on the high seas. Being a white, wealthy, man doesn't carry the same immediate access to power as it does in Barbados-and Stede is seemingly willing to make to make that sacrifice to learn along the way. While part of this must be a-credited to the excellent writing on the show more focused on creating a modern, inclusive, experience-credit must also be given to the writing for showcasing historical subtext which demonstrates why Stede would have more progressive viewpoints.

Throughout history, there are multiple instances where marginalized groups end up bonding together-because they're all pushed to the outskirts of society. It makes sense a lot of the most staunch abolitionists of the 19th century (amongst white people-since there were plenty of POC who did the majority of the work) were women. Enduring discrimination is painful, but can have the affect of building empathy-which seems to have been one of the effects in Stede's case. Episode 1 establishes what a menace Stede is to his more marginalized crew-but it also importantly showcases how intensely marginalized Stede was in his own society. Stede experienced abuse in his own house AND from his own peers due to his overt lack of traditional colonial masculinity.

We're told he cries easily and picks flowers (Stede confirms he did), which make him the ire of the more traditionally masculine boys in his school, and provokes their physical and mental abuse. Stede's queerness has ostracized him from his society and some elements of his privilege ever since he was a boy.

While his marriage does not continue his overt abuse-it's a further situation of Stede trying to exist in a colonial role that is just miserable for him as a queer man. What's interesting to how Stede responds to his marginalization though-is he chooses to walk away from the abusive heteronormative, colonial, society-rather than become embittered (and lashing out-which he does do once he tries to return in episode 10) trying to exist in it. It's part of the reason he feels a kinship to the other pirates (even if it isn't alway reciprocated or over-assumed on his part), and finds life more comfortable amongst others who have also been outcasted from colonial traditional society. He finally has a space he can be openly queer (Not in the immediately seducing men sense-but in ignoring the demands of traditional masculinity sense)-because it is a transgressive space in and of itself. I would argue one of the most important pieces of Stede's arch in the show-is realizing resisting the colonial, violent society he was told is normal-is not something to feel guilty about-but needed for justice and happiness.

As much as Stede questions what he's done or who he is becoming upon killing Nigel, when he actually pauses to consider his death-he finds he doesn't feel guilty at all about it. He recognizes what an abusive and horrible colonial force Nigel was. What he really feels guilty over is the harm he could've caused to leaving his family vulnerable without him-or I would argue-the overall guilt he feels each time he transgresses against the traditional societal role he was told he should respect. It's here, he begins to let go of his privilege that was apart of that abusive colonial system, which also abused him.

Enter Ed. After hearing stories of his success and adventures, and freedom of anarchy Stede is instantly starstuck by the idea of Blackbeard before even meeting him. Ed is equally intrigued by Stede before they meet-someone who doesn't seem to be overwhelmed by his reputation-and also an apparent 'gentleman' at sea-a persona difficult to exist in a hyper-violent power structure of pirates. I would argue Ed's initial interest in Stede is split between that intrigue-and as we learn at the end of episode 4-his plan to kill him and steal his wealth & assets. And why wouldn't he? As far as he knows Stede is just another wealthy white man who would put him down the moment he gets a chance.

That is until Stede wakes up. As others have pointed out, immediately, without even knowing he is a Captain Stede treats Ed with respect as though they are equals. Ed is clearly perplexed by that, and it extends his fascination toward Stede even though he is still heavily invested in his long-con. However it's when Ed shows interest in the untraditionally hyper-masculine fabric-and Stede responds not only with equal adoration, but invites Ed into his secret cabinet of more, his perception of Stede begins to shift. Stede is not the same as the previous condescending white aristocrats Ed has come across previously who would've never invited him to touch their things-none the less wear them in the next scene. Their clothes swapping also gives us the visual cue of the equal playing ground Ed and Stede meet at on the sea. Stede still carrying some of the power of his wealth and whiteness, and Ed carrying the power earned from being Blackbeard for years, and the biracial influence able to earn loyalty from pirates of different identities across the board. Not at all how it would have been if they met in Barbados.

From there, relieved to find someone who has an appreciation for the same untraditionally masculine interest they share-the pair open up further. Sharing their mutual exasperation with the role they've been forced into by society, due to their marginalization.

By the end of the episode-bonding on their mutual eccentricities they've developed in response to learning to cope and make life interesting for themselves-Ed is already beginning to doubt his plan. It's obvious on his face when he turns from Izzy after sharing his plan to murder Stede. This long-con of playing hyper-violent, hyper-masculine, to survive has become draining.

The following episode we get an instance of Ed learning high class manners from Stede for said con, when a French Officer racially insults him referring to him as "Donkey". While Stede recognizes Ed is upset-he does not seem to understand entirely why it's so deeply harmful to him. Clearly having an old wound reopened Ed is especially eager to go to the fancy French aristocrat party to prove to himself, and perhaps even Stede, he can be more than those insults. That he could even pull off the con if he suceeds.

Initially, Ed is proud he's somehow outdid Stede at the party, a white man in his own element, by being more 'liked' at the party. Stede however, knowing society well, is most likely familiar enough to be wary of the overt or passive aggressive racism that exists in these spaces. He warns Ed they can be fickle. We know first-hand he's been mistreated for his own version of masculinity, so he's more aware of what discrimination looks like in this setting, as opposed to the previous microaggressions he underestimated from the officers He's not at all surprised when Ed leaves the party distraught-and his desire to get revenge on the French aristocrats is an extremely huge shift for him and Ed.

While the comedy of the scene is overt-many have pointed out Stede is shockingly unfazed with the obvious destruction and clearly loss of life on the French ship. It's burning behind them as people jump into the sea and Stede smiles proudly. It's a massive change from Stede's panicked response to 'accidentally' killing Nigel. He's quite content-proud of himself! Just like Nigel, the aristocrats represent and showcase colonial violence, their deaths are all played for comedy and without sorrow (unlike Karl or Lucius) because the show is so anti-colonialist-and has no sympathy for those who represent it. While Stede struggles to feel righteous anger for himself in terms of responding to Nigel's oppressive force-he is plenty able to on Ed's behalf.

For Ed, this act completely changes how he sees Stede. In this scene, Stede has not only demonstrated he is willing to be rough and fight back when needed (not just a simple tender rich man), but he willing to betray his own class and race for Ed. "Cut loose" is a significant line-cut loose as in-have fun, be unhinged, but also cut ties from his own people. It's only BECAUSE Stede does this we can even have the moonlight "you wear fine things well" scene. Ed no longer sees Stede as a rich target he won't feel bad taking out-he sees someone who cares about his feelings and willing to resist the forces colonialism with him and more importantly FOR him.

"You wear fine things well" is an unwitting seduction on Stede's part-because to Ed it is reassuring him-he is just as fine, worthy, and precious as he hoped to be as a boy. Stede is showcasing he does not view Ed in the stereotypes of his race at all, which have marked many of Ed's interactions at sea for the majority of his life. By the end of this episode Ed is infatuated with Stede: they're similar in their eccentricities, Stede empathizes with his plights, and he's enchanted by his courage to defy convention. Not that he'll ever lay his heart bare to tell Stede at this point. Especially when he sees Stede doesn't go in for a kiss like he does. He's never had this kind of equal and relatable relationship with another person-and most likely never assumed it would be with a white man.

So he starts flirting.

Many have pointed out the "Stab me" scene is clearly Ed's attempt to flirt-to get Stede physically close to him, it's also demonstration of how in a hyper-masucline setting so much bonding is done via violence. We can imagine this may have been how the sexuality went between Calico Jack and Ed. But Stede's version of masculinity, romance, etc, is so different from this high seas violent courtships-the attempt goes over his head. That's why Ed is agonized with the push to kill him by Izzy in episode 6. He does his best to convince himself, like Izzy says, Stede is a pet, a passing infatuation/lust, but the reminder of his childhood trauma from the 'fuckery' is too much to bear. Stede is not like his Father, or other white men he's killed, he's Stede, he listens, he's already protected and defended Ed once-and joined Ed in his absurd behavior stepping outside of all masculine expectation with him, so he's willing to open up and tell Stede what happened-especially since Stede seeks him out after his panic attack.

Obviously this is an extremely intimate scene on its own, but the fact Stede is someone Ed can fall apart in front of, cry, express his distain for the tenants of his own power, brings Ed even closer to him. This kind of emotional showcase would've had the opposite effect with any other men Ed knew as Blackbeard. But unlike Jack, or Izzy, Stede makes so much space and empathy to comfort Ed's emotions. It's not often a man of color's vulnerable emotions are put on screen as a central important plot point to be given weight and tender time to.

It's worth noting how Ed being the seducee and attempting to anxiously win back Stede's affections is a departure from historically racist depictions of interracial romances on screen. Quite often in the past we saw the POC member of a pairing containing a white person, was often characterized as being more animalistic, rough, or aggressively sexual. While Ed is clearly more traditionally masculine and hardy as pirate-he's given the role of the infatuated one-the one pining tenderly (plus we see Stede commit more violence on screen than we do Ed!). Ed's given a beautifully rich emotional score of being romanced, in a setting on the sea where the pair have equal footing of privilege. They're pair of equals bonding over their odd (to everyone else) behavior.

While Ed refers to himself as a Kraken, a mythical monster-that imagery is part of the racialized violence he'd endured all his life. The fact in that scene Stede does not reinforce that imagry but instead tells Ed he's his 'friend' is so monumental for Ed. As someone who has been on a journey of learning violence is at times unavoidable to survive against oppressive forces, Stede answers Ed's murder plan with empathy and relief. It completly undercuts the racist idea that either one of them is more 'naturally violent' with Ed in tears over the fact he no longer wants to commit murders to survive. Ed's humanity and tender emotions are put at the forefront of the show multiple times-asking the audience not to stereotype him in a caricature-even if other white characters are willing to. (Which is why fan depictions that lean into making him a literal monster are regressive at least, and racist at worst)

Episode 7 and 8 really showcase how Ed has no idea what to expect of Stede. He spends most of episode 7 feeling rejected and far too vulnerable (after that bathtub confession), since Stede has not openly returned his flirtations (And perhaps rightfully wary from his previous experiences with white men) and it is only when Lucius spells out to Ed that the entire expedition is meant to be a gift to Ed from Stede, he relaxes. Once he knows Stede is somehow returning his affections, he reconsiders his plan of running away and agrees to co-captain with him.

When Calico Jack shows up in episode 8 he throws a wrench in everything-but also provides us interesting backstory for Ed and his relationships with white men. He tells Stede "You two have a lot in common", which can seem like a humorous throw away line since Jack and Stede couldn't be more different in their presentation of masculinity. I would argue what Ed sees and is referring to-is that Jack and Stede are two white men who seem extremely uninterested in prescribed colonial masculinity and that is what stands out to Ed. That isn't to say Jack's version of toxic, violent, frat-boy, immature, masculinity is healthy-but Ed can recognize they are both outliers from proper navy officers. (Ed's perspective is demonstrated in episode 9, when he tells Chauncey "you all look alike", a joke yes, but also how much these proper colonial white men blend together for Ed.)

Stede has made enough of an impression on Ed though-and shown him such a space of alternative masculinity-he is willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING for him by getting back on the ship instead of rowing away with Jack. Once again the English officers attempt to re-affirm their structure of colonization on the sea-such as when Chauncey tells Ed "He's from my world not yours" in regards to having the right to execute Stede. Ed however returns the previous gesture of Stede's- betraying his legacy as a pirate by taking "An Act of Grace".

Piracy is once more a metaphor for colonial resistance since Chauncey attempts to argue Stede isn't a 'real pirate' and therefore can not have an "Act of Grace". But once again we see Stede's chaotic, more tender version of masculinity shine through, as his 'piracy' is proven from his simple abduction and nourishment of a plant-not any amount of bloodshed. Chauncey throws a fit, as it is another example of piracy and masculinity not playing by traditional colonial rules.

Despite being thrown back into a colonial setting at the reform school-Ed and Stede are now in position where both have been entirely stripped of their power. It is what lets them kiss on the beach without the imbalanced power dynamics of colonial society-and just themselves. It's truly touching moment because it's the pair of them wanting each other, even without all their fineries or power attached-which is why they're in the same outfit. It's a really remarkable way of doing an interracial relationship in media-Ed and Stede's power dynamics are communicated via their outfits throughout the show.

When Stede chooses to return to his family-it's only after he receives a scolding, for betraying the colonial role he was given (A Father, obeying naval officers, etc) he chooses to leave Ed feeling such immense guilt for straying from his designated role and privilege (plus the idea his tender form of masculinity as emasculated Blackbeard). There's even an element of white privilege Stede is able to return his comfortable life immediately, rather than being tracked down by the English for abandoning his post. But once home, the show demonstrates so well-and Stede can finally acutely see-he never belonged in this abusive colonial system. And the people who manage to find happiness within it-only do so by deviating (Mary having her affair, widows riding themselves of toxic husbands, etc) from that abusive system's demand. Stede leaves Barbados, free of guilt from Chauncey's death, and walking away from the abusive system this time recognizing it is the right thing to do. Most significantly, Stede relinquishes one of the sources of his colonial privilege-wealth.

It's a complete commitment to change, the world of piracy, and Ed. It's Stede finally recognizing violence against colonial forces (such as killing the Badminton twins) is needed, because they are so oppressive and violent in and of themself. It's Stede recognizing walking away from colonial forces (the heteronormativity of his previous life) is needed for happiness and freedom-and that includes sacrificing the comfort of wealth. Stede returns to the sea without the pomp and flash of his former privilege, ready to commit to a life of rebellion with Ed, against that world. It makes sense coming from this place of privilege, and choose to let it go (rather than having it revoked) Stede finds himself in a 'happy' ending at the end of Season 1.

Ed however, is ending the season feeling the brunt of colonial violence. Stede leaving him (which we can perceive is how he sees the interaction, since if he imagined Stede dead he probably wouldn't of thrown out all his things) is an example of Stede behaving how Ed feared an upper class white man would see him as. Disposable, which is what drove his anxiety in episode 8 to leave with Jack "You would always see what I am". Ed has been trying to avoid being hurt this entire relationship with Stede and he failed. Izzy's threat, another example of white violence, pushes Ed over the edge to make him shut down completely to protect himself all this white violence. It's a violent change for Ed because not only did he believe someone saw him past all the stereotypes he'd been pushed into in his life-he also must be furious at himself he dared to think Stede could be better than his previous interactions with white men.

Ed has every right to be furious and feel deeply betrayed. I would even argue he has every right to attack Izzy after Izzy spent so much time threatening him and berating his new-found more tender masculinity. It's worth noting if you watch Ivan and Fang in episode 6 they remark how nice it is to see Ed so 'open and available' and when Ed is singing in episode 10, Fang watches on with a tender sympathetic expression. The other men of color understood how monumental it was for Ed to have a chance to be seen as more than just a vehicle of violence. Unlike some people I don't think 'utterly heartbroken in a robe singing sad songs Ed' is 'true' Ed entirely. I think he still has plenty of chaos and anger against colonialism in him-but surviving via violence and constantly bearing his teeth has grown draining for him, and he would prefer to be softer and more expressive if he has the choice.

Stede completed his arch resisting colonialism-so I wouldn't be surprised if we DO get season 2 from Ed's POV. Stede's ignorance is part of the reason he did not pause to consider as much as he thought leaving Ed would help him-would also wound him. Stede returned to his privilege and power, and while it finally helped him see the light-it caused an immense amount of harm to Ed-and did not consider how deep his feelings were at all. It would be likely in a show that has done so well to set up a stage that an interracial relationship can flourish challenging previous structures of power, and putting two wildly different men on the same power level-it now shifts to the man who's at the crisis and crossroads of his identity like Stede was at the start of season 1. It's my hope season 2 would conclude with the pair of them standing firmly in their identities, knowing they can exist outside of the role colonialism attempted to press them into.

I dozed off with Tumblr open. Had a dream in which both David Tennant and Michael Sheen were now acting in Good Omens with ridiculous quantities of glowing Gold Leaf on their faces, and i was told that was their angel marks. I felt guilty for not having known when someone on Tumblr asked. Then I realized I'd added a sentence I had thought was being emailed to David Tennant about him looking like David Bowie with a golden forehead circle to a gigantic ongoing work of fanfic on Tumblr and I was about to get into trouble with Amazon for revealing what Crowley now looked like. Meanwhile Michael Sheen had seen a rough assembly of Good Omens 2 and was trying to tell me important things about it but was speaking so obliquely that I couldn't tell if he didn't like what we'd done or was just complaining about being all golden and less human. I woke up trying to work out how to Google an image of Bowie's golden forehead circle...

I HAVE LOKI THOUGHTS AND I NEED SOMEWHERE TO VENT THEM

I AM SO SICK OF GETTING EMAILS FROM FUCKING CHRISTIANBOOK.COM!!!!! you buy a playmobil figure of martin luther ONE TIME and they’re all over your dick for years telling you about their bible specials. it’s over! i don’t have feelings for you christianbook.com i just wanted a single night of pleasure! it was a one night stand with protestantism!! 

Why did you buy a play mobile Martin Luther

i thought he was funny your honor

OP I think I have a solution

Appearing on Tumblr once in a blue moon to appreciate niche content and also share the Playmobil Mozart I bought because I thought he was funny.

Maybe medieval people happened upon a T-Rex fossil and came to a relatively logical conclusion that dragons existed.

I’ve read a couple books on this actually, thats exactly what happened. Also cyclops are from looking at bones from a certain type of baby elephant. The giant note hole and tiny eyes made it look like a single eye.

Yep, can confirm! And what’s even funnier to me is that back in the dark ages, Greek people used to find a lot of prehistoric bear skeletons - and those look exactly like human skeletons, except they’re like eight feet tall or something - so they naturally assumed those were the heroes of legend, and made armour and clothes for them and reburied them with the most splendid and sacred religious ceremonies they could think of? Fast forward five centuries, Athens’ all modern and rational, philosophers and scientists aren’t taking any shit from anyone - but the problem is, people will randomly find graves containing giant-ass warriors, so that’s something that can’t be explained away and yeah, demigods were a thing and yeah, they used to be eight feet tall and sorry I don’t make the rules.

(source) 

Ancient people had no idea what the bones of ancient creatures would look like or a concept of extinction. So strange bones that looked unlike modern animals were imagined based on their similarity to modern animals. A beaked dinosaur was imagined to have the head of an eagle, it’s clawed feet looked like a lion. So many mythological creatures are an assortment of different animal features, head like an X, body like a y. This may be from finding fossils which didn’t resemble any one modern animal but sort of resembled different features from various sorts of animals. 

I never thought of this before!

Low key make sense especially when they say dinosaurs had feathers lol

sources i, ii

#i saw will graham with the devil

In a time when most men fear their isolation, yours has become understandable to you.

“This is Hannibal going in for the final push… It’s the only time that he risks himself and he puts himself out. Says something that he couldn’t really retract.”

—David Slade DVD Commentary

Tell me again Hannibal doesn’t care about him. TELL ME FUCKING AGAIN THAT WILL WAS JUST SOMEONE TO EASILY PIN THE MURDERS ON. 

He’s encouraging Will here. He directly states why Will is important to him. Hannibal sees Will capability of murder as something beautiful, as an inspiration. He knows Will spends a lot of his time repressing that capability, and how much that hurts him. And he says that being different comes with a loneliness, IE that they’re similar in their uniqueness, but equally lonely. 

Saying this was also what finally gave Hannibal away. He knew there was a chance of that, he knows Will is smart. But he was willing to risk that in order to obtain his companionship. 

No one will ever convince me that Hannibal doesn’t love the fuck out of Will Graham. 

yep yep yep yep yep yep

#just because it’s an unhealthy and selfish love that will SHOULD run away from doesn’t mean it ISNT love [x]

I get where all the people that are saing Hannibal can’t be in love with Will come from, I really do, because he probably isn’t capable of loving the way most people are. But that doesn’t mean that in his head what he feels isn’t love. He’s heard and read about love and I believe he genuinely thinks what he feels is love. The fact that he is willing to manipulate Will and mold him into something new in his image so that Will can accept him for who he is doesn’t delete the fact that it can be a form of sentiment. Hannibal has seen in Will someone that can complete him and fill his loneliness and he will work to have his companionship with all the means necessary. He enjoys his presence, accepts the fact that he’s different from other people, likes him, even, despite the fact that he isn’t the easiest person to like and finds Will liking him and his company back. In Hannibal’s eyes Will is interesting, different, entertaining, probably attractive, and, most importantly, utterly his; why shouldn’t he feel affection and possessiveness towards him? Is it the love we think of when we imagine a happy couple? No, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t love.

YE YE YE YE YE YE YE YE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, Hannibal loves him. It’s just that Hannibal’s ‘love’ is unlike anything most people would recognise as love and is something Will should be rescued the fuck away from. Love isn’t always somethinh nice, especially if you’re entire conception of morality, people and…most things is totally fucked.

Dear god I want to slather myself in your tags you are glorious

Fucking Mads Mikkelsen [x] (via leonerdmccoy)

Also this is the sort of thing I am apparently fine with doing in public.

Playing Hannibal