please stop saying Gale is Anders 2.0

as someone who romanced both, you are incorrect. Both are deeply traumatized mages, both are cat lovers. But that's it.

Anders is a member of an underground resistance against a religious order, rebelling against their inhumane treatment of mages, who voluntarily fused with a spirit of justice and made a bomb without consent of participating parties. A bomb which he explodes in a church without evacuating it first, killing civillians.

Gale just wanted to get his gf a nice present in the hopes she'd see him worthy of using the magic she showed him and told him was out of his reach, only to wind up with a bomb unwillingly in his chest that she (very clearly) could have subdued or removed at any time. A bomb which he tells Tav about before it negatively impacts others.

Just because two mages each have a connection to bombs does not mean they are different versions of themselves.

Based on the incredibly funny comments on my one Sebastian Vael post, the data is thus.

Thomas Barrow | Downton Abbey: A New Era

THOMAS BARROW | DOWNTON ABBEY: A NEW ERA

spoiler alert: he’s very fortunate.

Carver: Anders saved my life in the deep roads. If he hadn’t been there and known what to do, I would’ve died of the darkspawnitis I caught down there. Still hate the guy, he’s super annoying

Blackwall: *furiously taking notes*

Later…

Blackwall: Best be careful fighting these darkspawn. Don’t want anyone to catch darkspawnitis. You can die from it.

The others: ???

Blackwall: What? It’s an official Grey Warden term.

I’m a big fan of the dialogue option in Inquisition where you talk about Orsino with Varric.

Inquisitor:  “In the book, you say that First Enchanter Orsino turned himself into a giant monster made of corpses.  How?  Why?”

Varric:  “Do I look like an expert on magical weirdness to you?”

VARRIC SLIGHTLY DISAPROVES.

Now, this could be read in a few ways by Varric himself, but I don’t see it like that at all.  It’s always felt like the writers tilting their head toward the camera and staring directly into the lens.  At the time people were entirely confused by Orsino’s actions, forcing a confrontation with the guy you’re siding with for what can be amounted to as no reason.  

Now, granted, there is in fact an in-game letter that can be found during your chase after your Mother that infer’s Orsino is dabbling in more than he lets on.  

My dear friend, I have obtained the books you requested. I'll leave them at our usual hiding spot. Please collect them as soon as possible. I would hate to see them in the wrong hands! Your last letter was fascinating! You have proven me wrong, once again, by doing the impossible. I shouldn't have doubted your resolve, and I hope you will keep me apprised of further progress. Your friend and colleague, O

This is a Codex found just before the confrontation with Quinton in Act 2, one that’s overshadowed by the horror Hawke goes through in that quest.  I, personally, feel like it was an afterthought put into the game in order to explain why the seemingly straight arrow First Enchanter is suddenly using necromancy to make a person meat shield.

The biggest thing that makes me think this is the Inquisition writing team acknowledging this, however, is Mark Darrah’s wrap-up video on his memories and the lessons he learned leading the project.  

Mark Darrah:  “We’ve talked about the level reuse, which I think is probably one of the weakest things in Dragon Age 2.  The thing that actually makes me feel the most regret for Dragon Age 2 is the way that the endings go.  So, I guess spoilers... but you get to the end of Dragon Age 2, and you have to deal with the mages and the Templars, there’s the whole question of the mages and the Templars.  But regardless of the choice that you make there, you end up fighting both Orsino and Meredith and the mages end up going all crazy regardless.  You’ve made a different choice, you’ve come down on this decision in a very different way... and yet the game has you play through basically the same content, in a slightly different order, but it’s basically the same content.  I think that’s a mistake... I mean, I’m pretty sure that was my decision, but I think that’s a mistake because it undercut the mage/templar question quite a bit.”

Mark Darrah:  “Now the reason why it is that way in Dragon Age II is that the games under incredibly tight constraints.  Orsino isn’t worthy of being an end boss all on his own, so the decision is that you gotta fight Meredith no matter what.  Okay.  So... that’s actually, I think, defensible, you could say.  Meredith has been corrupted by red lyrium, you gotta fight her no matter what.  You can still make the choice.  I think the place where Dragon Age 2 crosses the line is that we also make you fight Orsino no matter what, and I think that’s the mistake.  And the reason we do that is, it’s content, we want players to consume as much of our content as we can, because it feels like waste if we have content that isn’t seen by a player.  And I think that is a mistake, and I think that’s a lesson that maybe video game studios are just waking up to now, that actually it’s NOT waste, content that isn’t consumed by the player ISN’T a problem, that actually you should WANT that.”

Now, that summarization to me covers a lot of DA2, and I’m glad he’s had that reflection, even as the man that pulled the trigger.  DA2 deserves a bit of grace considering they had to take an idea for an Origins DLC and make it a full game because EA demanded it, and I’ve certainly been far more forgiving of the game as time has passed.  But that’s STILL a decision that drives me bonkers.

Now, that leaves us back at where we began.  It’s a FASCINATING moment with the writers, when we get that disapproval at the question.  It almost feels defensive.  Had they learned the lesson Mark Darrah later learned at that point, or where they still a bit upset by how badly that fight was received by folks who sided with the mages?  I’m really not sure, but I love it just because it has such sass attached to it.  It’s a moment in Inquisition where Varric once again becomes the voice of the writers, telling the plot of their previous game in a really defensive manner.  It’s a unique little moment that stands out so much to me.

Between Guy and Thomas’s cautious navigation and the film director asking Mary if he could kiss her and then not being pushy when she says no I feel like someone finally taught Julian Fellowes how consent works and I’m so grateful to that person.

Julian Fellowes on Thomas Barrow’s Storyline in Downton Abbey: A New Era

Giving Barrow a happy, but honest, ending was important for Fellowes. “Despite the difficulties that were placed in front of gays, some people managed to work out compromises, and that meant they could live their life. And I wanted that to be Thomas’s story,” said Fellowes. “In the end, he found a way of living his life that was compatible with the society he found himself in. And I think that was the truth. Representing the truths of the time was important for me. It was a very sad time. Displays of homosexual affection were punishable by life imprisonment.”

Source: Vanity Fair 5/2022

Not sure that “waiting around till you win the [supposed] lottery” is the same as “working out a compromise”, which to me implies a level of activity and agency that I don’t see Thomas exhibit in DA2 at all…

But I’m really here to say that “Displays of homosexual affection were punishable by life imprisonment” is actually factually incorrect for Thomas’ era.

I don’t want to downplay that two years (often with hard labour) for “gross indecency” (= any display of homosexual affection, introduced in the Labouchere Amendment of 1885) were absolute horror and literally did shorten men’s lives.

But is it too much to ask the man who appoints himself to be the one who brings us “the truth” about queer life in the UK at the time to at least get his facts right, and not blow them out of proportion or be off by several decades to suit his “all queer people did nothing but SUFFER” agenda?

It was only “buggery/sodomy” (= proven penetrative sex, according to the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 as amended by the Penal Servitude Act of 1891) that carried a life sentence; according to some sources, convictions didn't exceed 10 years at the time.

Have some of my random crack theories about Dragon Age that may or may not have actual information to back them up. I haven't looked into it heavily at all, but I believe them too much to consider them just headcanons.

Feynriel is a reincarnation/connected to one of the Evanuris and that's why he's both a Dreamer, and looks like an elf despite being human.

The Golden City was most likely Arlathan.

Elves have some sort of resistance (not immunity, just like... less severe symptoms) to Red Lyrium.

Solas lost his "immorality" when he woke up from Uthenra. Until he got the energy from Flemythal in the post-credits scene he was no different than most other elves (in terms of mortality. He was generally healthier and more in tune with his abilities due to his past, and due to not having gone through the oppression)

Solas is dying (in the sense that he's like terminally ill) because of the power he took from Flemythal.

Thedas is in the southern hemisphere of its planet BUT its planet has a reversed rotation (when compared to earth) as it still has the same seasonal patterns as our real-world northern hemisphere does

Solas's love and admiration for Mythal is a trauma response.

Sandal is something similar to OldGodBaby!Kieran, but like, for the Titans.

Solas was to the Evanuris as Sera is to Solas and his disdain for her is like an adult being embarrassed by their younger self.

Hawke, regardless of Here Lies the Abyss's conclusion, has a chance of returning in Dreadwolf. But the Grey Warden, regardless of the result of that quest, does not.

finished da2 again, u will never catch me w my brothers in christ

Out of context but the context doesn’t help actually

defeated the arishok, finished act II, and helped fenris kill danarius…. glad that dragon age 2 ends right here and nothing else happens! :)

I have read many pieces of mainstream criticism about DA2 being "a fairytale for grown-ups where everything is predictable, nothing truly bad happens to anyone and everyone gets exactly what they want", and from the bottom of my heart, especially as a Thomas Barrow fan: Good. I am very happy that a nice man instantly liked him and decided that he wants to give him a great opportunity to live this exciting new life, and I love that he gets to have a fancy job and live with the said man who just happens to be a rich, famous Hollywood star. I love that he didn't have to face any conflict about it and that his (now former) employer was super understanding of the situation and quickly got the time to say "gay rights". I love that he got to wear silly fucking sideburns and flirt with the movie star in the dining room and no one batted an eye. I am so glad that this whole movie had zero edge and Thomas got everything he's wanted since the day one.

Thomas Barrow | Downton Abbey: A New Era | Behind the scenes

THOMAS BARROW | DOWNTON ABBEY: A NEW ERA

You don’t need to explain, Barrow. I wish you well. And I hope you’ll be as happy as our cruel world allows.

So can I just ask - for all the people speculating that Thomas and Guy wouldn’t have a stable future in Hollywood because of the Wall Street Crash/the Great Depression, and that by that logic, he should have stayed with Richard...  Wouldn’t Richard have been in an equally tenuous position only a few years later in 1936 where George V dies, and then there’s the Abdication Crisis? Like surely wouldn’t Edward VIII have brought in entirely new valeting staff for his time as King, and then they would have been replaced AGAIN when George VI took over and brought HIS valeting staff? I don’t know much about Buckingham Palace staff, but surely valets would change with each king, even if most of the domestic servants don’t?  Also if Guy was affected by the Great Depression, isn’t he also more likely than Richard to have a substantial nest egg that could see him (and Thomas) through a few years of financial hardship? Like wouldn’t Guy be more likely to own non-monetary assets (like property or cars) that he could sell in times of desperation, as opposed to Richard would probably lives at the Palace and depends on his working wage to survive?  I’m not trying to start any conflict - I’m just genuinely curious and I haven’t seen this addressed before.