Right, while I'm on the subject, fandom please learn the difference between an anti-hero, an anti-villain, and a sympathetic villain.

Anti-hero: A protagonist who lacks traditional heroic qualities and nobility, but ultimately works towards good or better ends within the world of their narrative. Can be pretty reprehensible as an individual depending on the cynicism of the story and world they inhabit (i.e. The Punisher, The Bride from Kill Bill, Batman in certain incarnations), but often develops more into a hero classic in more idealistic works (see: Han Solo, Wolverine, also Batman again depending on writer/incarnation).

Anti-villain: An antagonist who, while nominally opposing the goals of the protagonist, has a core of nobility and traditional heroic qualities, or understandable sympathetic motivations. Is a "bad actions, good motives" character but approaches the issue from the opposite end of the spectrum as an anti-hero. Again depending on the cynicism/idealism of the work and the character's actions may complete a Heel Face Turn and ultimately become more like a protagonist or hero classic (Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender) or make a slide into full-on villany (Thrawn, several incarnations of Magneto). Many Well-Intentioned Extremists fall under this umbrella, along with a lot of Lawful Evil characters, but whether the label applies to them or not depends on how heinous the actions they take within the story are. Generally there is an in-narrative "line" these characters cannot cross before their evil actions outweigh their noble or sympathetic motives.

Sympathetic villain: A villain who has sad, tragic, affable, understandable or sympathetic qualities which makes them pitiable and/or likeable. While similar to an anti-villain, and they may start out as one, the major difference is that this character has already chosen, or repeatedly chooses, to cross the aforementioned narrative "line" within the story. They are a villain who "has a sad", basically. (Examples include Darth Vader, Mr. Freeze, and Megamind--who as a bonus is operating as a Villain Protagonist.)

There is obviously some gray area and as I've mentioned some characters slide up and down the whole range and gamut depending on how they're written but I promise they are in fact separate categories.

*3 cranberry rums in* anyway i think the reading of the popularity of villain and anti hero characters being contributed to the "bad boy" archetype is not untrue but perhaps resists nuance to the point of being functionally untrue. i believe the anti hero exists as, yes, a wish fulfilment for the audience as they shrew all societal roles forced upon them and works as a single, individualized unit who does not encroach on their ethicities unless they CHOOSE to, and as a sort of easy-to-spot icon, as that individuality allows their characterization to stay similar outside of environment, which is very useful for fanfiction writers (both external and internal) but ALSO as a safe zone for the reader. as characters/people who have exemplified terrible attributes are therefore in no place to moral high ground the reader regardless of their past actions. this cannot be similarly said for the average protagonist who, at least in popular contemporary western works, is usually emblematic of some status quo - either of their universe, of the author, or a combination of both

POV Character =/= Main Character =/= Protagonist =/= Hero

We, me included, have a nasty habit of conflating these and using them interchangeably. Because they often do overlap. There are many many stories where the Venn diagram of these is a perfect circle. But that’s just a possible arrangement, not a necessary arrangement. They all do mean different things.

POV Character =

Think of movies. To make a movie you have a camera and you move it around to construct the scene. Written stories don’t have cameras, we have Point of View. The Point of View can be behind the POV Character’s eyes, seeing what they see. 1st person. It can be on the POV Character, watching them directly. 2nd person. It can be near them, recording the scene but favoring them near the center of frame. 3rd person close. It can hover with a macro view seeing everything like a god but aiming so that all eyes slide back toward the POV Character eventually. 3rd person omniscient limited. It can even have the divine power to see all secrets, including thoughts. 3rd person omniscient. Basically unless it’s behind the eyes or aiming right at YOU, it’s some kind of 3rd person. But it’s always doing the equivalent of the camera, it’s saying where we, the audience, “see” the story from. It’s the individual who acts as the center for narrating, they anchor the frame of the story. The more it diverges from a character in scene, the more it becomes a narrator who functions as their own type of character.

Main Character =

Pretty close to a POV character but rather than being the determiner of where the camera is, the Main Character is the center of attention for the story as a whole. The POV can shift fairly easily, the Main Character generally does not because they are who the story is about. So, the famous example is the Sherlock Holmes stories. Watson is the POV Character, he determines the camera and the framing. His perceptions are at the center. But the narrative focus, the character who the story is about, is Sherlock Holmes. Same arrangement with The Great Gatsby. The POV Character controls perception. The Main Character IS the focus. The narrative revolves around the Main Character.

Protagonist =

The person who suffers. The Protagonist is the character who bears the brunt of misfortune that the story deals out. If the POV Character is the center of perception and the MC is the center of narrative, then the Protagonist is the center of emotion. They’re the ones faced with character arcs because they’re the ones who have to change in order for the story to result in a success.

Hero =

Hero is a tough one because its definition changes the most over time. But at its base you have to remember that HERO is a bit like ROBOT. The Hero is a servant or a slave. They are the person that the narrative tasks with solving its core problem. Their job isn’t so much to change themselves as it is to change the world around them. And it’s less for their own benefit than it is for the benefit of the society of others in a narrative. The Hero saves the day for the people.

There is the special case of the ANTIhero. The Antihero is, or can be, like the Hero in all respects but one. The Antihero saves the day for the Antihero. Society of any kind is besides the point. They are Anti because they remove the definition of servant or slave from themselves and simply focus on the solving of the narrative problem. This can be done honorably and gently OR be done in such a way to make them indistinguishable from a villain. It doesn’t matter. The fundamental difference is that a Hero acts primarily for the benefit of others while an Antihero acts primarily for their own benefit.

Hero is primarily a term for the character changing the outside world while Protagonist is primarily a term for someone who changes internally but they’re not mutually exclusive. A protagonist usually does act on the external and a hero usually does undergo internal change. Because of term drift, they are particularly conflated. But you want to think of it as All Heroes Are Protagonists because they are suffering the narrative but not all Protagonists are Heroes because a Hero requires that external, societally based focus which a general Protagonist does not. Heroes are a specific subset. And even Antiheroes focus on societal transgressions, they tend to focus on violently maintaining the social order, or exercising ABSOLUTEL MORAL AUTHORITY, at the expense of law that has already failed by the time they go to work. They are capital R Right and so allowed to do anything to meet their goals because their enemies are capital W Wrong. The world conforms to a Hero’s and Antihero’s moral compass. A hero will most often these days need a compass realignment to do their heroics, while an Antihero will need to smack the world’s compass a little to make it aim Right.

Bonus:

Antagonist =/= Villain

Antagonist=

An antagonist is merely the person whose goals are incompatible with the success definition of the narrative. So the Protagonist and Antagonist cannot possibly both get what they want the way they both want it. That’s it. An Antagonist can be the love of the Protagonist’s life and love them equally in return. So long as they have a mutually exclusive goal for most of the story. Or the two can hate each other and be willing to kill each other over a petty argument. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that the antagonistic force cannot simply be gotten along with as is. Something in the dynamic must change in order for the Protagonist to succeed. And the Antagonistic Force wants to succeed with equal or greater need. They cannot come to an accord without something changing. That’s the antagonist’s purpose: to force a change by their incompatible goal.

Villain =

The opposite of the Hero, all Villains are Antagonists but not all Antagonists are Villains. Villains are a subset. Villains are the polar opposites of Heroes. They tend to be externally, physically focused. They are defined by their relationship to society. A Villain acts against the better interests of society for their own benefit. Though interestingly, Villain comes from the same root as Village, it originally meant Villager, probably more accurately Serf. So they too are servants of a kind. But they’re s baser servant, a servant of themselves, and their own needs. It’s one of those things where you have to remember that “good” and “bad” have switched. A lowborn villager would have been seen as bad by default because of their lack of blessings. While a prince, son of a slaughtered royal family, raised as a brother to that villager would be good because of the blessings of his blood and because he was now OF the people by the blessings of their care instead of being literally a villager himself. Yeah, we’re a little nuts. But it is why the Villain and Hero look so much alike. Their differences are where it is hard to see. So a Villain often needs a kind of unmasking to show their baseness.

Is there an Antivillain? I would argue yes but it’s undefined because no one feels like they need it. An Antihero rejects society as is for the self - absolute moral authority. So an Antivillain, based in selfishness against society would be a selfless villain, a true believer who thinks honesty and utterly that they are acting for something beyond both the self and society as is. So it’s a zealot practicing absolute moral authority because they have seen the better world to come. They’re not going to be unmasked as a faker because they aren’t faking. They truly believe. They’re doing their best. And their best is utterly destructive to the current world. Which they’ll never question because they also weild absolute moral authority. Which means, except for a couple of obligatory scenes, most readers will never spot the difference.

Disney+ What To Watch: My Top 10 Favourite Modern-Day Disney Classics

#1. The Emperor’s New Groove

I absolutely and completely fell in love with this movie the first time I saw it. Not only is the movie’s comedy on point but the animation styling, the story and the emotion that develops throughout this movie, for me, is exceptional.

Now it is fair to say that my #1 and #2 favourites involve the main protagonists being indirectly turned into into animals by the movie’s main villains and the story that follows is a buddy movie about self-discovery. But while The Princess and the Frog is a developing love story, The Emperor’s New Groove is a cautionary tale about the pitfalls about power, how it can corrupt and to appreciate the little and simple things about life.

In a way, The Princess and the Frog and Lilo & Stitch are also about that as the former sees the the main protagonists learn to open themselves up emotionally and the latter is about the meaning of family but this movie combines with it a fun family adventure, some rather high-intense sequences, brilliant comedic scenes, one or two fantastic meta-reference moments and every main and supporting character fills their roles perfectly.

Not only are the characters fantastic, but this movie makes me enjoy both David Spade and Patrick Warburton, I don’t really dislike Warburton but I really dislike David Spade unless his voice is coming out of an animated llama.

The plot, despite being slightly derivative of a standard buddy adventure comedy, somehow makes itself quite unique in the sense of not only the prince cursed to be a llama learning to be human but also the very hands on interference from the villains.

Speaking of the villains, despite being a movie about Emperor Kuzco learning a sense of humanity while he is effectively exiled from his throne, this movie’s two main best features are Yzma and her minion Kronk.

There are very few actors that I say are born for roles and certainly fewer that I say are born for multiple roles, but Eartha Kitt was born to be Yzma just as she was born to be Catwoman. It’s no surprise that these are her two most recognisable roles.in mainstream fandom.

I cannot say enough great things about this character, she is, for me, the best Disney Villain since Cruella De Vil because she is unapologetically ambitious, knows what she wants and will stop at nothing to to achieve it.

Her design is cartoon enough to not seem real but at the same time you want to meet this woman in real life, if that makes sense. She is such an interesting character that you want to meet her, you want to interview her, you want to find out about her history and what got her to this point in her life.

But she is also hilarious and fearsome at the same time. She is a fully-realised three-dimensional character and not just this movie’s typical baddie. This is captured not only in the character design but particularly in Eartha Kitt’s performance. I love her almost as much as I love Cruella and her becoming a cat at the end was the icing on the cake of a fabulous performance for me.

Kronk meanwhile is what I deem to be a villain by circumstance, to the point where I actually believe he is slightly oblivious to exactly what side he has found himself on working for Yzma. This is because, maybe save for Pacha, he is the gentlest and most naive character in the village. That’s not necessarily a bad thing and it is a great moment when he finds his place in the world separate to Yzma and isn’t persecuted for his past because officially he hasn’t actually done anything villainous save for attempted regicide.

However, the great thing about this movie, and Kuzco being something of an anti-hero, is I don’t believe anyone in the kingdom would prosecute 

As for Kuzco, he definitely showed some growth throughout this movie. He may not be the nicest individual but he does learn a lesson in humility and also friendship through his friendship with Pacha and the karma he receives through his actions reverberating on the giant target Yzma paints on his back.

This movie is also very quotable, this may not be the most well-known movie but chances are you will recognise a quote or two that were coined in the playgrounds if you attended school in the early 2000s. From Kuzco’s catchphrases such as “No touchy”, “Llama Face” and his “a-ha” victory chant, it’s fair to say that non-fans are at least familiar with one of them.

But also, let’s be honest, the best moment of this movie is Yzma’s iconic “Pull the lever Kront, wrong lever!”. Not only was this instant comedy gold but continued to be a staple in the franchise as the spin-off series The Emperor’s New School utilised many versions of this scene throughout the series.

Kuzco is also a fourth wall joke away from be the Disney Animated version of Deadpool, not only does he break the fourth wall numerous times in the first half of the movie, but also you can tell that if the movie was higher than a family friendly rating, he would not be so family friendly which is fantastic with the potential being there but not needing to be exposed.

Also, the movie is set in Peru. I think Up  and The Three Caballeros are the only other movies in Disney history to actually feature any South American locales and not just the design in architecture but the fact that Pacha’s village is authentic to South American culture being a llama herding and produce village is very productive for an animated movie. It creates teachable moments without jamming it down your throats.

That being said, it would have been nice to have some Peruvian or South American representation in the voice casting, because despite the talents of Eartha Kitt and Wendie Malick, the rest is principally a white in a strictly Peruvian setting.

Musically there are just three words...Tom freakin Jones. Not only is his music the theme song for this movie but he is the only “theme song guy” to become animated as the theme song guy. He is in this movie less than Bucky the Squirrel yet I love him just as much.

Also there is a fantastic song that was left on the cutting room floor sang by Eartha Kitt “Snuff Out the Light”. Not only do I feel that if this song were included it may have made it a slightly different movie but also I would say that non-canonically it is one of the better Disney Villain songs if nothing else but for Eartha’s powerhouse performance.

This movie, like One Hundred and One Dalmatians is a movie where I can honestly say that, for me, there is not a bad moment in this movie, there are no slow parts, there aren’t any unnecessary parts, the slightly wacky or convoluted moments add to the genius that this movie encapsulates.

I can remember seeing this movie with my mum and sister and loving it, I remember playing the PlayStation game and loving it, Outside of Disney compilation soundtracks, this was also the movie soundtrack I ever owned and it is because of Tom Jones and Eartha Kitt’s performances...there’s just nothing bad I can say about this movie.

So what do you guys think? Post your comments and check out more Disney+ What to Watch Top 10s as well as more Top 10 Lists and other posts.

In regards to Kwami Buster

Soo...

I have opinions. Shocker. And this episode of Miraculous actually made me want to take about them on tumblr (risky) Disclaimer. I completely understand that Miraculous is made for far younger audience’s and that this is primarily a show for young girls. As such the writer will probably never be what I hope it is as a quarter of a century person. I also understand that Thomas Austruc and the writers constantly get crap from people about various of small nitpicks. I also don’t know the episode order so I do not know what should is being addressed later on or it is mainly spotted around randomly I really like this show and while it not what I expected for what it is. I enjoy. There are limits for what can be told within a 23-minute episode. I also know that regardless of what the Show’s Creator wants to make, things can get into the way in order to make it... ‘marketable’. Mainly. Producers. So I can understand why the concept art days are different  So any complaints I have aren’t really in anger... but in contemplation. There is a bit of frustration. (Also if I see or hear of anyone using this to harass/blame/spread hate to any fan or the show’s creative team, I will tear you a new one. This is never supposed to be used against the writers or ANYONE WHO HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN YOU. DO NOT BE A JERK ABOUT IT!) Season 3 has been pretty darn great. Has a lot potential and lore and all that good stuff. But while watching it, I get been noticing something lacking most episodes.

Something that I originally that made me interested in this show ALL the way back to the Concept Art days. The partnership. The Yin and Yang. 

Remember when Chat sacrificed himself in Timerbreaker? Or in Stormy Weather how both heroes worked to protect each other? each having a shining moment? Remember in Gamer 2.0 Chat’s speech to ladybug about their trust and partnership? Well... doesn’t feel like much when we look at the episodes. I love Marinette/Ladybug. She is a wonderful figure for young girls and others to look up to and a good written female character. But recently that admiration is fading when... every episode she seems to overcome everything usually by herself or with her own ideas. And... I get it. The media is saturated with far too many male characters and I understand the desire to make a prominent female character... Yet... I keep getting that Ladybug solves so many of her problems... far too easily. Even her mistakes seem to pale. Only Lila has given her a problem and it is extremely one-sided and not... well... it just results in salt and that is not a good way to challenge our heroine. With the episode Kwami Buster, she did everything her self and got off with it no sweat. Same with Christmaster and more than a fair share of episodes of Ladybug hardly needing Chat’s actual help or protection or even a second opinion (as chat is always portrayed as wrong/dense) and I feel like he has been reduced to merely an object for the Ladybug Lucky Charm plans.  It Dismissing Chat Noir or Adrien as a viable character with his own development isn't the way to highlight Marinette/Ladybug as a strong role model. The show is Tale of ladybug AND chat Noir. I am fine with Adrien getting less development time in comparison to Marinette but he hasn't had any really except MAYBE puppeteer 2.0. Gabriel and Nathalie of all people have had loads of development time in their short limited screen time. And I get superhero show needs good villains for a good compliment to a hero. But the supposed secondary protagonist? The only real thing I remember Chat doing that didn’t involve him being a pun or  But I am noticing that Hawkmoth and Mayura have a lot better chemistry and teamwork than ladybug and chat noir.  I don’t know if that is an intentional thing on the creators' part or it is merely the comedy role chat has been reduced to. Again to say, I do love Marinette... but I fear at the rate she is going, her solving everything will make her a... Goku. And by Goku I mean, that the characters/plot/slight obstacle that the show presents cannot even be overcome by anyone else and that Marinette/Ladybug is the only one to save the day. The only episodes she really doesn’t is the episodes featuring the other heroes... or at least their introductions. But even then Marinette is the one who asks them in the first place.  

The fact that Fu and the miraculous box and all of that core lore of the story with Fu is only focused on Marinette shows an imbalance of character direction. You could argue that Chat has Hawkmoth as a father is part of that lore... but when was the last time that was actually a thing except for all the way back in season 2 with The Collector that has even been slightly addressed or experimented with? Marinette has done what Chat is supposed to do several times already. Using the power of destruction... and it saddened me or what cemented the imbalance for me was that one backscreen of the two Mouse Marinette's with both the ladybug and black cat miraculous and the two yin and yangs behind her. She has become her own balance, the fact she only needs to rely on herself to defeat a villain... just... kinda subsided Chat in one of his roles. I’m fine Ladybug getting shinning moments. But the fact that Chat has never really had one, never really was the cause for a brilliant idea or directly responsible for defeating the akuma (maybe there was one but for the life of me I cannot recall it despite recently re-watching the episodes). I don’t mind him taking a back row and being the support to ladybug but maybe a few episodes of where Chat is equal to Ladybug, like back in Stormy weather where each other were bailing their partner out in different situations would be nice. I wanted the Kwami Swap episode to be this, but instead, I had Adrien being Trademark Dense Boy and Marinette doing the work and her solving the problem while doing nearly everything Chat did perfectly. In essence... I am fine with Marinette succeeding. But I would like Chat to do so as well. I do not want a Kim Possible and Ron Stoppable dynamic. Not when Chat Noir is literally half of the show’s title. I want to seem them as partners, Ladybug Asking Chat what to do on certain situations and Chat being the support for Ladybug. Not just puns for Chat and Ladybug always knowing exactly what to do. Maybe this will be addressed later on, maybe the show writers will address this. Maybe I am being delusional and missing the whole point of the show. I honestly hope I am wrong with this. But from what I have seen, it is a regression of Adrien. A sheltered lad who has been emotionally abused by his father and people around him and is forced to wear a perfect mask every day while Chat Noir is his only way of freedom. In Stairtrain, I was happy to see a small development of him breaking the rules... but it is not much further than that. Note: I do not expect this show to be very angsty or dark or turbulent in the emotions and development. Something would be nice though. I would like Chat to be more rebellious against authority, including Ladybug when he thinks she is wrong (which sometimes she should be, it is good for characters to be wrong) And to extent Fu. Maybe I want Chat to start distrusting people and Adrien to grow more snappy and rueful at his situation. Maybe I want him to have a very deep talk to Ladybug as Chat about his lack of input on things, or a moment of her plans using him as one of the parts of her Luck Charm just doesn’t work out because it just doesn’t. I like both characters, but I do not like where only one character shines and the other gets regulated to mere standby unless needed. Already the fandom just regulates chat into dumb tropes and memes because that is all we see of him in the show. I like his playful side, but I know and have seen in the first season he is more than that. I hope Chat Blanc may address this. But I doubt it. Oh well, I’ll keep watching the show. I still like it. What do you guys think? I’m just seeing to much into the situation? Am I not being feminist enough to only want the girl to succeed and that the male deuteragonist should just be regulated for comedy and merely a character for several girls' affections? And once again, I do not hate any character in the show and this is not an Anti Miraculous team post either. I am merely throwing a few thoughts out (and a few frustrations) and this is in no way a ‘Meta’ post. If anyone has specific moments for or against this. Go ahead. I am interested to learn. Just keep it polite people And if you don’t like Miraculous and think I should drop the show... No.

Get to Know the Writer Tag!

And here we go again with another tag! This time I was tagged by @brandonmcmann n.n

1. Favourite fictional villain?

I can’t just choose one, I need to have a scope to work within! So I’m gonna say my favourite Disney villain, and pick Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, because that dude creeps me out and I love it <3

2. What do you think makes a good hero?

A good hero or a good protagonist? I mean, for a hero, I would assume that bravery would be a pretty valuable trait. To defeat the bad guys and overcome the obstacles and all that, yanno?

3. Do you prefer writing lit fic or genre fiction?

I’m actually not even sure what I’m writing. To some degree I would say genre fiction because there are genres I find super intriguing and want to explore (such as horror/mystery/other worlds), but I’d say my writing has an element of lit fic to it as well as it explores human nature and social issues quite a lot. I don’t even know, fam.

4. Favourite fictional hero?

Okay, this I seriously cannot answer lol. There are too many, TOO MANY I SAY.

5. What are your thoughts on fanfiction of your work?

Omg I love it!! Please give me all the fanfiction! The thought that people would be so invested in my characters that they’d want to spend time in their heads and imagine them in different scenarios makes me so happy and flattered <3 Besides, my project is literally fanfiction, so it would be hypocrisy if I was anti-fanfic lol!

Personally, I don’t understand the stigma around fanfiction. Fanfiction is basically just adaptations of existing stories and characters, whether that be fictional or something else; even creative fiction about real historical figures is fanfiction to some degree, it’s just fanfic about true events lol. Adaptations are made all the time anyway, especially in the film business, so why judge? Are the Jane Austen books published by contemporary authors any less fanfic than a 100k story posted on AO3?

I know there are people concerned with copyright too, but the moment your work is out there, peope are free to use it whatever way they want as long as it’s personal and not for monetary gain (unless you have a special arrangement and permission). Otherwise artists wouldn’t be able to make fanart, the talented editors here on Tumblr wouldn’t be able to make gifs and aeshetics and manipulations, and in general fan community would just be a lot less creative. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

6. Would a video game adaptation of your current WIP be possible?

Um.

I think the question is: would a novelization of my current favourite video game be possible?

The answer would be YES.

7. Which famous author/writer (dead or alive) would you like to meet?

Omg too many. Oscar Wilde, Edgar Allan Poe, HP Lovecraft, Jane Austen, JK Rowling, Laini Taylor, Stephen King, Charles Dickens, HC Andersen...

8. Who would play your MC if your work was turned into a movie/TV show?

Hmm Ben Barnes? He had the look in that Dorian Gray movie!

His face isn’t right tho. Hmmm. I don’t really know that any actor I’m familiar with would be the right fit for Daniel as of now!

9. Favourite satire novel?

I don’t read a lot of satire specifically, but I think I would say Pride and Prejudice. Or The Importance of Being Earnest, though I’m not sure if that counts? Probably not since you asked for my favourite satire novel, not play lol

10. Favourite word to use?

I do like to say indeed a lot in my prose lmao.

Thanks once again for tagging me, @brandonmcmann! I’m not gonna tag anyone, but if y’all wanna answer these questions, go ahead and consider yourself tagged! <3

Tor.com did a feature about costume design in SF/F and the symbolism of white clothing:

In a blood-soaked world where survival is dependent upon grit and determination, the woman in white is spotless. She is radiant. She is pure.

The woman in white is often used as a main character’s motivation. She is his comfort in times of trouble, the source of his courage, and the object of his protection. [...] She is pristine—an assigned value which means many things. She has never killed before. She is a virgin. She is wealthy, or at least well-kept. She is civilized. When a male protagonist sees the woman in white, he sees everything that, to a western colonialist narrative, is worth protecting: virtue, patience, stability, and purity. The woman in white reminds the hero of what he is fighting for. He is fighting for that white cloak—for its ability to remain unblemished, no matter what.

For her part, the woman in white must remain pure and radiant in order to continue motivating that hero. He will do whatever it takes to protect her and the things she stands for; thus, it is her solemn duty to remain unblemished. If she doesn’t (or so the logic goes)—if she lets him see a stain on her white gown—then the hero will stop fighting, and all will be lost.

Sometimes, the woman in white is used to reinforce an existing narrative. She is presented to a hero, and he is inspired, and he fights for her

Read More

My mind really does jump immediately to Lannisters when I read things and I was reminded of Cersei in her white gown in ASOS:

But when he stepped into his bedchamber, he found his sister waiting for him.

She stood beside the open window, looking over the curtain walls and out to sea. The bay wind swirled around her, flattening her gown against her body in a way that quickened Jaime's pulse. It was white, that gown, like the hangings on the wall and the draperies on his bed. Swirls of tiny emeralds brightened the ends of her wide sleeves and spiraled down her bodice. Larger emeralds were set in the golden spiderweb that bound her golden hair. The gown was cut low, to bare her shoulders and the tops of her breasts. She is so beautiful. He wanted nothing more than to take her in his arms.

Oh boy, do I love going off about Lannister clothing...

Cersei selected this white gown to make a bold statement in White Sword Tower: Give up your white cloak, in exchange for me in my white gown. Save me.*

It’s almost as if Cersei is conscious of, and trying to capitalize on, all of the white gowns that have ever existed in the fantasy genre**, to emphasize her purity, her wealth, her virtue -- her value -- for Jaime. (Lannisters are so very performative, but they perform for themselves the most.)  Cersei knows what Jaime wants (“innocence,” as Jaime states in ADWD) and she’s trying to play into Jaime’s fantasy.

The white dress immediately affects Jaime’s thinking:

She is so beautiful. He wanted nothing more than to take her in his arms.

Traditionally the woman in white has never killed before, and Jaime immediately feels regret that he wasn’t the one to kill Robert. Instead, Cersei ~stained~ herself with Robert’s death, which still does not sit easy with Jaime:

Robert’s death still left a bitter taste in Jaime’s mouth. It should have been me who killed him, not Cersei. “I only wished he’d died at my hands.”

It is the knight’s job to protect the woman in white and to do all her killing for her, something Jaime failed to do. 

Nevermind that the white dress was never Cersei; Melara Hetherspoon could testify to that. Jaime’s constructed his own fairytale surrounding his relationship with Cersei, and GRRM spends the series deconstructing this fantasy: “I thought that I was the Warrior and Cersei was the Maid, but all the time she was the Stranger, hiding her true face from my gaze.” 

But wait, that white dress insists. You have a second chance to save me!

His sister fought back tears. “Jaime, you’re my shining knight. You cannot abandon me when I need you most! He is stealing my son, sending me away... and unless you stop him, Father is going to force me to wed again!”

Jaime wants to save his sister, the tearful damsel in distress. He wants to wed her, as she does him, “but it can never be, Jaime.” Their relationship must remain secret, a thing of the shadows, when all Jaime wants is to bring it into the light:

“I’m not ashamed of loving you, only of the things I’ve done to hide it.”

So when Cersei comes to Jaime in her white dress in White Sword Tower and wants to have sex with him...

Jaime felt himself responding. “No,” he said, “not here.” They had never done it in White Sword Tower, much less in the Lord Commander’s chambers. “Cersei, this is not the place.” 

“You took me in the sept. This is no different.” She drew out his cock and bent her head over it. 

Jaime pushed her away with the stump of his right hand. “No. Not here, I said.” He forced himself to stand.

Oh, but it is different, Cersei. It is to Jaime. 

Altar sex was something brazen, dangerous, dangerously public. (“The septons...” “The Others can take the septons.” “murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her.”) Altar sex was like a lover returning from the war, like kissed greetings at railway stations turned up to 11, and then turned up to 111. Altar sex suited Jaime’s need to love his sister openly, without shame. (Oh gosh, don’t get me started on House Lannister and shame. To say that altar sex was shameless would only be the beginning of a very long discussion...)

But here in White Sword Tower... “A white book sat on a white table in a white room. The room was round, its walls of whitewashed stone hung with white woolen tapestries.” It’s an embodiment of the ideal of True Knighthood. It’s sacred for Jaime, in a way that the sept could never be. There is a residue of idealism that clings to Jaime in this Tower, mocking Cersei’s need for secrecy and insisting that Tyrion would never lie to him. 

To have sex in White Sword Tower would be imposing secrecy and shadow upon all that bright, spotless white. That’s why Jaime rejects Cersei in this moment in ASOS, imo. He still wants Cersei, else why grieve over his “lover” a few paragraphs later? “I’ve lost a hand, a father, a son, a sister, and a lover, and soon enough I will lose a brother. And yet they keep telling me House Lannister won this war.” 

But the problem is, Jaime cannot have both Cersei and White Sword Tower. 

“It was white, that gown, like the hangings on the wall and the draperies on his bed.”

There’s a deliberate juxtaposition here on GRRM’s part, the white gown vs the white tower, a foreshadowing of how Jaime is smack dab in the middle of his page in the White Book, torn between Lannister crimson and Kingsguard white, between glory and honor. 

(GRRM evokes Jaime’s internal conflict ALL THE TIME. Red or white, red or white, red or white? See Roose asking, “red or white?" [...] "White is for Starks. I'll drink red like a good Lannister.") 

Jaime spends AFFC/ADWD straddling the line between loyalty to the corrupt Lannister regime and loyalty to the ideals of True Knighthood, but the problem is these loyalties are incompatible. “We all must choose.” 

And ultimately I think GRRM does a magnificent job positioning Jaime as an anti-villain longing to play the hero.*** Brienne has reminded Jaime that True Knights are more than a mirage, but Jaime keeps doing horrible things and failing to live up to this very real standard of True Knighthood. Sure, he’s a slightly more ethical than a straight-up villain like Tywin, but Jaime still works to achieve Tywin’s desired objectives, even after Tywin’s death. 

And soon we’ll have the valonqar... These violent delights have violent ends. Jaime starts off wanting to protect Cersei and keep Cersei’s white gown spotless, but over the course of the series, he learns that Cersei’s gown is as soiled as his white cloak, and eventually he’ll murder her for it, a far darker Lancelot to Cersei’s dark!Guinevere. I find it all so exciting :)))))

Anyways, gosh, I love Cersei’s white dress. 

**In all of the works I’ve read by GRRM, he’s very conscious of all the science fiction/fantasy/horror stories that have preceded him, and it’s like he’s entering into a great dialogue with the genre itself through his own writing. His stories become a large commentary on what worked, what didn’t, and what can be done better, and he offers up praise to all of his favorites, like Beauty and the Beast and Robert Jordan and Stephen King and so many others. 

***I think this is, like, the most unpopular and wankiest thing to say in Lannister fandom, but I believe the prominent Lannister characters represent a spectrum of villainy. I’m not gonna say it outright, but I believe that age and level of villainy have a strong positive correlation. If you know what I mean.