Beren: Myths, Masculinity and Metaphors

Beren Erchamion is one of the heroes in The Silmarillion. He is a failure.  He fails at every task that is put before him.  Sure, he survived the valley of giant spiders called Nan Dungortheb (the name means Fear-Shadow Valley): although obviously not through any skill of his own because he doesn't have any. Certainly, he cannot claim to rival the likes of Maedhros or Fingon. Yet he earns the love and respect of people of far greater social status and accomplishments. Surely Luthien, Princess of Doriath, has better options than this loser right?

When Beren asks for Luthien's hand in marriage, we get a pretty typical fairy-tale response: her father, Thingol, sets Beren a seemingly impossible task (in this case, obtaining a really shiny gem called a Silmaril). But Tolkien then immediately upends our expectations, by having Beren openly mock Thingol's greed. Now, quick background for those who haven't read my other posts on the Silmarillion: Thingol is the King of the Sindar elves, and the most powerful elven ruler in Middle Earth. Thingol would have been within his rights to chop off Beren's head right there. Fortunately for Beren, he's not that kind of guy. Still, mocking the guy you hope will agree to be your father-in-law in front of his whole court is maybe not the best life decision there Beren.

Or is it? Why is he saying this? is it just because he thinks Thingol is shortsighted and greedy? is it because he thinks Thingol is overrated? is he trying to get himself killed? No, he's saying this for Luthien. She presumably isn't all that happy that her father has decided to sell her off for a fancy gemstone, or that he's trying to get rid of her boyfriend. Now, JRR Tolkien put the name "Beren" on his tombstone, and the name "Luthien" on his wife's.  So, this is clearly Tolkien dunking on ancient myths like the story of Jason and Medea, and on the real-life fathers who actually did do this. He's pointing out how misogynistic this setup is, because it implies that the woman's value is the same as that of the object. The value of a Silmaril can be quantified: an expert in gemstones could assess it, and assign a price to it. A really high price, but a price nonetheless. Thingol is therefore setting a price on Luthien: which is tantamount to slavery. A person's life has no price, it can't be assigned a value.  Sure, you can assign a price to a person's labor: tally up all the hours of work and assess how dangerous or strenuous it was. However, that is not equivalent to the value of their life. A person's life is, in the most literal sense of the word: priceless. Luthien is a woman, not a rock. Beren is demonstrating here that her will is more important to him than Thingol's approval.

How does Beren fare? well, he does manage to wrest a Silmaril away from the big bad Morgoth: but for his trouble he gets his hand bitten off by a giant wolf. The hand that was carrying the Silmaril. Now, if Beren was a hero in a Greek myth he would either try to trick Thingol, or try to slay the wolf and retrieve the jewel. But Beren is not the hero of a Greek myth. He comes back to Doriath empty-handed. Now again, this doesn't seem particularly smart.

Why come back, if he hasn't succeeded? Because all along, he wanted Luthien to be the agent of her own fate. Luthien is very talented, and extremely capable: and Beren knows this. He saw it in her as she was dancing and singing. She does not know her strength yet however. She does not think she is capable: she calls herself a nightingale. A small and timid bird. But the elvish word for nightingale literally means "daughter of twilight", and the word Luthien means "enchantress".  Twilight in elven culture has a special significance: as it is the time when the sky resembles the one the elves first awoke under, before the sun and moon existed. Indeed, the sun and moon were created within Luthien's lifetime (although before Beren's time).  Her nickname therefore means more than she realizes. This feeling of hers is understandable, she's comparing herself to her mother: a perfectly normal thing for a girl to do. But Beren isn't comparing her to her mother, or to her father, or to anyone else. None of us can see ourselves accurately. Looking from the outside, Beren sees her as she truly is: both her virtues and her flaws. He wants her to make all the important choices, he wants to follow her.

Beren gets the nickname Erchamion meaning "one-handed", presumably from Thingol's jeering courtiers. This is, for elves, a fairly vicious insult. It's a constant reminder of his failure, of how incapable he is. A constant reminder, that he is powerless to get what he wants: that in the eyes of the world, he is not worthy. But Beren is not the kind of man to pity himself. His mind isn't focused on their words as he kneels before the King, to him all that matters is Luthien. She is inspired by his fearlessness and humility, and angered by the way the others are treating him. She won't get the Silmaril to buy her freedom: but she will do it to teach her father a lesson. And so she does.

What lesson?  That compared to his daughter, the Silmaril is worthless. It only caused suffering for Beren and for her: and ultimately it will only cause suffering for Thingol himself. In trying to sell off his daughter, Thingol has put that price on himself. He will later be betrayed and killed by a group of dwarves, so they can have the Silmaril. By undervaluing his daughter, Thingol diminished himself. The slave owner, is only worth as much as he believes his slave is worth: but the slave is worth more.

Now Thingol is not a villain: like most of the characters in Tolkien's stories he is a well-intentioned person blinded to the harm his actions cause by a variety of factors. The most important in this case, is his social position: Thingol is a King. Of course he is tempted to view his daughter through the lens of how she can help him gain or maintain power. He probably wanted her to marry his faithful herald Mablung, or perhaps his cousin Thranduil (yes, Legolas' father), or perhaps a son of his brother Olwe.  Maybe he was open to her marrying a human, but Beren would not have been his choice. Although Beren is royal, his father Barahir is the King of the Bëorings, he's the second son. In addition, Barahir has lost his lands to orcs and most of his tribe has been killed. And they're too far away to be of any use to Thingol as allies. Beren is no hero, and won't inherit anything. To Thingol, he's not worth much.

But to Luthien, Beren is worth risking everything. Why? because he understands what is truly important in life. He is a true hero, not because he is capable of great deeds: but because he has the courage to face the truth, to show himself as he really is. She's a Princess, she's used to having people kiss up to her. But it says something about her that she prefers honest Beren to her father's courtiers: even the kindly and talented musician Daeron. He has the courage to allow her freedom: unlike her father who is trying to use her to advance his political goals. Beren doesn't just accept that she has a will of her own: he actively wants her to exercise it. To him, that is not an annoyance or an inconvenience: it is a good thing. He doesn't just recognize that she is capable of doing things he can't do: he actually wants her to do them.

He is surely aware that he will inevitably live in her shadow: the power imbalance in this relationship is legitimately hilarious. Not only could Luthien kill him before he knew what hit him, she also wouldn't have to. I mentioned earlier how she defeated the Big Bad of the story: Morgoth. How did she do it? she did a magical dance and he fell asleep. Luthien has supernatural powers of seduction and persuasion inherited from her mother, Melian: who is an actual angel. Charming Beren would be ridiculously easy in comparison. But, she doesn't need to do that even because this man will treat her right without being told to or threatened or charmed or anything. He will love her because she is more capable than him in every way, not despite that fact. She would never need to violate his autonomy, because he would never even think of violating hers. Because he will humiliate anyone who tries to negate her will without her needing to ask: no matter who they are or what the consequences of that action might be. Because he has no trouble showing the world how vulnerable he is, and indeed how incapable he is. 

Why? because Beren knows a secret, a secret that many people never learn. A secret that isn't really a secret, just something that most people never realize because they are often told the opposite. Your value as a person does not depend on what you accomplish. You are valuable, too valuable to be assigned a price, simply because you are human. There is a corollary to this: the only thing necessary for you to be worthy of love, is to be loving. You do not need to be impressive, invulnerable, or fit some vision of perfection. You simply need to care about others, and some of those others will care about you. Beren knows that his value does not depend on him obtaining a shiny jewel from the devil. He knows that he is valuable simply because he exists. He knows that the only thing he needs to do to be worthy of Luthien's love, is to love her and show her that in everything he says and does. He may be a loser, but that is irrelevant.

So he embraces the insulting nickname he was given: and it loses it's sting over the years. It becomes a name associated with a loving husband and father, a gentle, passionate, humble man. He becomes a hero, not because he accomplished anything: but simply because of who he is. In a world of men who take what they want by force: Beren dares to admit that he cannot take what he wants, to instead be open to what others are willing to give him. In a world of men who will coldly take advantage of your weakness: Beren dares to show everyone how easy he is to hurt, and to not take advantage of others.  In a world of men who take away others' freedom for their own gain, Beren dares to defend other peoples' ability to make their own choices at the cost of his life. This inherent heroism heavily influences Beren's son Dior. Dior who will give his life so that his daughter Elwing can escape the siege of Doriath with the Silmaril, ensuring that it does not fall into the hands of Feanor's sons (who want it for bad reasons). He's one of the only characters in the entire mythos who has direct contact with the jewel, but does not become obsessed with possessing it (the others being Luthien herself, Eärendil and Elwing).  This can only be the influence of Beren.

Luthien's nickname isn't the only one with multiple meanings. See, "Eru" is a title for God: meaning "The One".  Erchamion therefore could mean "Hand of God".  This fits in the end. Beren disrupted the complacency of Doriath, questioning the way that the people there thought and acted. Beren's actions had cosmic significance. Thousands of years later, Frodo's life would be saved and the Ring prevented from falling into the hands of Sauron: thanks to the power of Melian the Maia, flowing in Beren's great-grandson Elrond. In Tolkien's narrative, it is women who bestow power on men: and it must be through their own free will. While this is a motif taken from Celtic mythology: Tolkien uses it in a unique way. Luthien is not bestowing power on Beren, but on her son Dior. It is not taken from her during the act of sex or some analog to it (see: Nissa Nissa in A Song of Ice and Fire).  Rather, she gives it through the act of childbirth, the act of creation. This seems to come about as the result of mixing this motif from pagan literature with the idea of the Immaculate Conception. Tolkien's religious beliefs seemed to center around the idea of creation: he chiefly expressed his love of God through love of nature and through the creation of Middle Earth (or "sub-creation" as he called it). The creative process was something he thought and wrote a lot about.  It was something which he felt the modern world was forgetting: like it was forgetting all sacred things. The ultimate act of creation is of course the creation of life. 

But here's the real kicker. In venerating the ability of women to create life: Tolkien also respects them as human beings. Tolkien's women are active agents of their own fate: indeed they and they alone have the power to change a person's fate. This is directly stated in the Silmarillion in the story of the Fall of Nargothrond. Orodreth, who has the gift of foresight, states that his daughter Finduilas can save Turin from his fate. This is an interesting motif to introduce because it goes against the normal characterization of fate in both Greek and Germanic mythology. In Germanic myth, the gods themselves cannot avoid their fate: and the same is true in Greek mythology. The idea that anyone can change a person's fate or save them from it is a very Christian one: but this salvific power is usually given to a male Christ. Galadriel's foresight saves Frodo and Sam in Cirith Ungol. For love of Arwen, Aragorn refuses the Ring and chooses to embrace his heritage: saving Middle Earth from quite a pretty pickle. Eowyn changes Faramir's fate: in order to marry a Princess, the Steward's son must become a Prince. Aragorn creates the title Prince of Ithilien for him.  Quite a modern notion, which reminds us that these are not ancient legends. 

It is of course understandable that feminists would blame the focus on reproduction for women's woes. However, that's just straight up wrong. There is no inherent reason why an individual or a society which venerated a woman's ability to reproduce would not also value women as human beings. Those two ideas are far from mutually exclusive: either logically or emotionally. When we give a person an award for military service, we do not assume that is all that person is good for. The same is true of giving women praise for reproducing. Likewise, when we award a soldier for military service we do not intend to say that all men should be soldiers. What, after all, is the point of soldiers if there are no farmers? Likewise, when a woman is praised for having children: that need not be the same as saying that all women must have children. It takes a village to raise a child after all: everyone should be contributing to the raising of the community's children, whether they decide to produce any themselves is irrelevant. Quit ragging on women for having kids, and quit ragging on writers who point out the obvious: that creativity is a feminine thing. They are not the problem.   

The conceptual link between sex and conquest is the foundation of women's oppression, not the focus on reproduction. We speak of the male sex organ as a weapon, and of penetrative sex as akin to killing. We've gotten hung up on those metaphors, repeating them over and over and over again: until we find it very hard to think in any other terms. No wonder then that men rape women solely to prove that they are men. No wonder then that media portrays women as sex objects: prizes to be won. Even media made for and by women: like "If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it". Note that Beyonce speaks of her body as "it", not "me".  No wonder that any trait deemed feminine is demonized. To be feminine is to be marked for slaughter: and to be a victim is to be emasculated. 

We do not however have to keep using those metaphors. Our language has a fantastic (indeed, mind-boggling) capacity for metaphor creation. We could speak of the vagina as embracing the penis: a metaphor both kinder and more accurate. Vaginas are not just holes after all, they are active organs. Explicit language need not be unkind language. 

We all have the ability to make new metaphors for ourselves, simply by speaking or writing. And many of us do this all the time. Our language even has a simple word for this process of creating new metaphors, a word with no really good translation in any other language as far as I'm aware: kenning. It's a present participle of the archaic verb "to know" which still has the same form in modern German: kan/ken. This is also, by the by, the reason we maintain a distinction between "able to" and "can".  If you can do something, then you know how to do it (but might not be physically capable): if you are able to do it, you are physically capable (but might not know how).   To make a metaphor for something, is to demonstrate that you know it. Or, as Einstein put it, "if you cannot explain it simply, you do not really understand".  As Einstein was a native German speaker, it should be assumed this was in fact exactly what he meant. Science is how we come to know things: but art is how we know that we know things. 

Creating new metaphors is how culture shifts and changes over time. Myths are the way that we encode and teach metaphors. Nietsche said that myths were useless because the metaphors they encoded were no longer applicable to modern people. Tolkien said: no, we simply need new myths. Yes, the metaphors encoded in the myths of olden days are well...strange and distasteful to us now. But we still need things in that style, of that kind: myths encoding new metaphors. Children still need heroes to look up to. Teenagers still fall in love with heroes and heroines. Adults still need models for how to deal with the situations they encounter in their lives.  The failure of our society to recognize the value of Tolkien's women shows only how deeply entrenched these old ideas encoded in old myths still are. But the true heroes in Tolkien's stories do not fail to recognize the value of these women: this is what sets them apart from the other characters in these stories. Furthermore, their brand of masculinity is precisely the antidote to the toxicity that permeates our society. Beren is a modern man, make no mistake: for Beren is Tolkien himself.

The Conclusion of Game of Thrones: No Mere Man can be King

People are scratching their heads over the twist ending of Game of Thrones. Jon choosing duty over love, wasn't a huge surprise (if a little trite imo). Neither was Queen Sansa. We all saw that coming a hundred miles away. But then we get [spoiler alert!!!!] King Bran? what? 

True, he is perhaps the ultimate representation of all the people who were marginalized under the previous system. But, Bran is also already ridiculously powerful. Not only can he see the entire past, he has probably influenced it. His abilities as a warg mean he can be anywhere at a moment's notice. His abilities as a greenseer mean that he knows everything that happens. There's no possibility of a misunderstanding like what caused Robert's Rebellion, not with Bran around.  This much, Tyrion knows when he chooses Bran. What he doesn't know, is that he has made the best possible choice. Bran is functionally immortal (he can prevent himself from dying by warging, and if he hooks himself up to the weirwood network he will definitely be immortal). He is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, and immortal. Sound familiar?

Bran may once have been a boy pushed from a tower: but he has become much more than that. He left that behind when he took the weirwood paste, and began to train as a greenseer. Bran is not chosen because he represents the marginalized, nor is he chosen because he 'has the best story'.  Bran is chosen because he is not a man. The gods of Westeros are just as mysterious and about as physical as the gods that people believe in in the real world. Except, for Bran. He has gone beyond humanity: he knows things that no human could know, and he has done things which no human could do.  He is indeed the ultimate cheat. He has transcended humanity and become a god.

This move is a recognition of the inherent problem in monarchy: and a solution to it that follows logically from that recognition. The inherent problem with monarchy is the problem of succession. Not simply the problem of multiple claimants to the throne, since that can be dealt with just by clearly codifying the rules of succession. Rather, the problem is that succession needs to take place at all. A monarch who earns their title through whatever means obviously deserves it in the eyes of the common people. Otherwise, they wouldn't give him or her the title. But the very power which is the just reward for the deeds of the founding monarch, will almost guarantee that his or her successor is not worthy. At the very least, this person will have to look for a way to prove him or herself. Most likely, they will be completely blinded by their privilege and emotionally immature. The best solution is therefore a monarch who will live forever, who will never need a successor. That necessarily means, it cannot be a human. The squabbling nobles of Westeros need some authority to rule over them: otherwise they will simply fight to annihilation. Bran is perfectly capable of keeping the peace among them: indeed is probably even more capable than any of the previous kings of doing this.  He can intervene directly, at a moment's notice: no matter what the situation is. He does not need a court, so court intrigue cannot happen.  He can be everywhere at once, know everything that is happening, and act on it. 

He is ideal in another way as well: he has no agenda of his own. The very trait that the author of our article complains about, is exactly what makes Bran the perfect choice. He is indeed a boring character. But that is perhaps what makes this the most daring subversion of all in terms of literature. Yet, it isn't so much a subversion of a fantasy trope as it is a subversion of expectations. The original fantasy story after all ends with a man who has no personal agenda being crowned King. And in the case of Aragorn, that is indeed the reason why he is worthy. All of Aragorn's actions until this point have been at the behest of Elrond: who was essentially blackmailing him by withholding the privilege of marrying Arwen.  Aragorn effectively has no agency even in the moment when he refuses the Ring. This too is a consequence of Elrond's emotional blackmail, and indeed is probably the reason why Elrond resorts to this. If he takes the Ring,  Elrond will keep Arwen from him. Elrond can't afford to have Aragorn do what Isildur did: so he makes the hard choice to blackmail his adoptive son.

But wait, you say, Aragorn is an interesting character. True. Much of that has to do with perspective. We see him through the eyes of Frodo, his companion. The Game of Thrones TV show however uses a 3rd Person Omniscient perspective. Which, if you think about it, can only be the perspective of one person: Bran himself. It's a good twist, because if you actually thought about it: you would have seen it coming. This can only be Bran's story, because he is the only person who could know about all of the events which take place in it. Of course it's going to end with Bran on top. He does kind of meander through the story, relating to us all the things which other people did but which had only an indirect impact on him. Yet, each action taken by any of the characters in the story pushed Bran further and further towards the center. 

Bran is ideal for this position because he cares solely about the long-term welfare of the realm. Although Varys is the one who was always saying "I serve the Realm": it is Bran who has been doing that. Varys was self-evidently serving the Targaryens, probably because he is a Targaryen (see an interesting thing about castration is that it stops you from going bald: so why does Varys shave his head? obvious answer: his hair is white, it would give him away as a Targaryen).  How has Bran been serving the Realm? largely by giving people important information. Yes, he has served mostly as a plot reveal device. That makes him a counterpoint to Varys, the ultimate keeper of secrets. Bran has been notably free with information, unlike Brynden Rivers aka the previous Three-Eyed Raven: who was probably in league with Varys this whole time (as he is also a Targaryen, albeit a bastard one).  

Do I think that this is also how GRRM is going to end the series? actually, yes. Bran's full name is Brandon Stark: a name with an enormous amount of in-universe historical weight behind it. GRRM goes out of his way to build up the legend that surrounds this name in the very first chapter of the book. A name like this must obey Chekov's famous rule: "if there is a gun shown in the first act, it must have gone off before the third act is finished".  Here the "gun" is a name, but the same principles apply. Even moreso, because the name isn't only significant inside the fictional world. It's incredibly significant in the real world as well. In the Mabinogion, there is High-King Bran the Blessed of "The Isle of the Mighty" (a translation of "Prydain": the old Welsh name for Britain). This figure is further identified with the Fisher King of the Arthurian legends. 

Two significant things identify Bran of ASOIAF with this figure from Celtic legends: his handicap, and his powers. Bran the Blessed gets shot in the foot, and the Fisher King is wounded in the leg. Our Bran similarly suffers from nonfunctional legs. In this era, "leg" and "foot" were often euphemisms for another part of the male anatomy that lies adjacent: and our Bran also has this problem (medical realism in fantasy ftw!) Bran the Blessed is the original owner of a magic cauldron capable of resurrecting the dead, and the Fisher King owns the Holy Grail.  Our Bran may or may not have the power to resurrect the dead (some people speculate that he played a role in Jon's resurrection, although neither the books nor the show confirms this): but he certainly knows the secrets of life and death. Like most figures in the Mabinogion: Bran the Blessed was originally an ancestor-deity, demoted to the status of hero by Christian missionaries. 

Furthermore, our Bran does indeed fit the archetype of the Fisher King: a King whose health is intimately tied to that of the land and vice versa. Bran is quite literally connected to the land through magic, just as the Arthurian Fisher King is. While this was a common trope in Celtic mythology generally, it became particularly associated with the Fisher King in the Middle Ages. And, like Bran the Blessed in the Mabinogion, our Bran is a guardian of the land: calling on it's strength to combat those who would conquer it and destroy it. His status as a cripple, also both foreshadows and reflects the brokenness of Westeros itself. Like Bran, Westeros will always be a broken land: after the ravages of Aegon's conquest, the Long Night, Robert's Rebellion and finally Danaerys' Conquest. After so much war on such a grand scale, the land cannot go back to being the same as it always was: just as Sansa cannot go back to being a "Little Bird".  But it will live again.

The Westerosi legends about Brandon Stark, or Bran the Builder, are similarly larger-than-life. If Bran the Builder was indeed real, and did indeed do the things he is credited with doing, then he wasn't a normal human. Supposedly he built the Wall, and Winterfell. The first task alone would take well more than a human lifetime, and the second likely would as well: especially given the technology they have. A complex of buildings the size of Winterfell with it's extensive fortifications could take up to a century to build, easily. Granted that ice is easier to work with than stone, but building the Wall would still have been the work of at least a century given the size of the thing. Even assuming crews of thousands working on the castle and the Wall at the same time, this is still a feat of several human lifetimes, and making that assumption would be ludicrous. There's no way the Starks had enough manpower, even factoring in Giants, to do that given the available technology. But, that's not to say that Bran the Builder didn't do this. It is instead to say that Bran the Builder never truly died.   

Basically, anyone with a good knowledge of fairy tales should have seen this ending coming a hundred miles away. But that is exactly why it is a good twist. It isn't what we expect, yet after it has been revealed: it's obvious. Of course, how many people are even passingly familiar with Celtic mythology? not many. That is probably exactly why George R. R. Martin chose it. Just like Tolkien before him: he's taking little-known tales and weaving them into his narrative. Given that Martin chose to style himself after Tolkien, it's not unreasonable to think he may have the same intentions. It is also not unreasonable to say that Martin is less trying to tear down fantasy as he is trying to tackle the problematic misunderstandings or misuses of fantasy tropes that have occurred in the half-century between Tolkien and the present day. Indeed, just from the map of Westeros: we can see that Martin's project is explicitly the same as Tolkien's. 

Tolkien's goal was, according to himself, to construct a coherent mythology for England.  The Mabinogion and Celtic legends are necessarily a part of that: and Tolkien did use them. He also used a wide variety of other Germanic sources, as well as the Bible. In a way though, he failed spectacularly. He did indeed succeed in creating mythology, but not specifically for England. It's a mythology that ends up being applicable to anyone of European or Semitic heritage: rather than English people specifically. Martin however lifts plots directly from English history, and situates his narrative in a facsimile of England. In it's beginning A Song of Ice and Fire even seems like alternate history rather than fantasy. One can even go so far as to say how a situation like the one that we see at the beginning of Game of Thrones would occur: if Charlemagne's daughter Clothilde had married Emperor Constantine of the Eastern Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire had never been established. That's how we would end up with a place name like "Westeros" as well as spellings for names like "Margaery" and "Aeron" for familiar names Margery and Aaron: if there had been more Greek influence from the Byzantines as languages like Frankish and Anglo-Saxon were first being recorded. As the story goes on Martin leave history behind and turns more towards mythology: but the narrative always straddles that line. 

Thus, this ending works especially well: because it brings us back to something that is recognizable to the England of the present day. The form of government that Westeros ends up with is precisely that which the actual country of England has. Parliamentary democracy is an English invention, perhaps the single greatest invention to ever come out of England (which is saying a lot because a fair few number of cool things have been invented in England).  But, there is a unique twist to England's government. England is one of the few countries in the world which actually has a state religion. This often goes unrecognized, because they don't force everyone to follow said religion: but nevertheless, it is true. The monarch is the head of the church, and the monarch is also the source of legitimacy for the English government. Thus, the source of the English government's legitimacy is ultimately God. In electing Bran as King, this is also precisely what the Westerosi have set up. In some ways in fact, it's even better: since no faith or institution to spread that faith among the people is required. Why is this a great thing? it offers Westeros the one thing it needs more badly than anything else: stability.

The common people of Westeros suffer when the lords fight, no matter how just the cause might be. What they need more than anything else, is peace and stability. That is what a King offers the common people of Westeros: he keeps the lords from fighting amongst themselves, while his dynasty lasts. Bran offers the guarantee that there will never be a civil war in Westeros again. Furthermore, in the event of an invasion: Bran does not need to call upon the strength of the peasantry to fight it off. He can weaponize the land itself. Under Bran's protection, Westeros can go about it's business safe from both internal and external threats. 

This may sound like an apology for monarchy. But it's actually not. It's actually the opposite. It is a recognition of the fact that an ideal monarch is inhuman. Bran does not feel the human emotions and desires which drive most of us. He himself says at one point "I don't want much of anything now".  Like most everything Bran says, that's a massively loaded statement. Even his most admirable trait, his ability to forgive those who wronged him, is also a sign of his inhumanity. His limitless capacity to forgive others mirrors that of God in the New Testament. A normal person, like Sansa, doesn't forgive people her abusers: she sics his dogs on him. Bran openly empathizes with Jamie Lannister by saying "the things we do for love": the very statement that Jamie made right before pushing him from the tower, but now changed to include himself. It could not get more godlike than that: and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau's double-take was spot on, in case you missed the meaning. Bran isn't referencing anything in his story here: he hasn't personally done terrible things for love of someone (the worst thing he's done was warg into Hodor, which wasn't nice but is hardly comparable to what Jamie did). Jamie does terrible things for the people he loves, but nobody else at that table does: being willing to set aside his morals to please others is Jamie's unique flaw.  But Bran says "we", speaking as if he and Jamie are not different individuals. This demonstrates his inhuman universal consciousness: i.e. that he thinks like a god, not a human. When Jon greets him by saying "you're a man now!"; Bran replies "almost".  He isn't saying that he's almost grown up (he's what, eighteen at this point? older than Jon was when he took his vows with the Night's Watch anyhow): he's saying that he is human on the outside, but not on the inside.

Theon was never an excellent fighter, and was an even worse strategist: until the Battle of Winterfell that is. Here, he fights to defend Bran: employing a strategy Sun Tzu would have been proud of, and with superhuman skill. He's shooting with about 90% accuracy, in a snowstorm, in the dark, with a flaming arrow: a feat that should not be possible. Since we have Arya shooting at about 60% accuracy (much more realistic, given that they have to use unaerodynamic arrows) in the same episode we can't chalk this up to the directors not knowing how bows work. This is clearly a tool of characterization. This change in him can only have one cause: religious zealotry. Especially since the show was kind enough to include a comparison character in the same episode (Berric Dondarrian), there really can be no argument here. Theon and Berric both show a total disregard for their personal safety as they fight (there's a reason R'hollor has had to bring Berric back 19 times), and fight at full strength with injuries that should incapacitate them. This goes well beyond the zeal someone would display for a lover or family member. Again, the show was kind enough to offer a comparison in the form of Jorah Mormont. He visibly fails as he takes more and more blows to protect Danaerys, to the point where she is actually half-carrying him and all he can do is let her use his body as a shield. Berric however, is throwing wights in a frenzy until the moment when Sandor pulls him into the safe room, at which point he dies. Theon, after hours of nonstop pitched battle, charges full-tilt at the Night King with barely a pause for breath. The reason for Theon's zeal? Bran forgave him for his ill-fated attempt at capturing Winterfell. Theon's zeal too demonstrates Bran's inhumanity, i.e. his divinity.

Bran's unique capabilities make him ideally suited to leading Westeros into it's new order.  By definition, he cannot do as previous leaders have done. He is incapable of the swaggering grandiosity that Robert used to drum up popularity among the common folk: nor can be play the Game of Thrones like Cersei did. But he does not need to. The Game of Thrones is over. Bran does not need a Hand to enforce his will for his only desire is to protect life. Bran does not need a Spider to bring him whispers, for he is the literal and figurative spider who knows all secrets. The Westerosi call their Kings "your grace", but Bran can be truly gracious to them in a way no one else could: as he was to Theon and to Jaime. He is not a King to love like Jon, nor a King to fear like Aerys. He is a King you can forget even exists, but who is always with you. You cannot serve him or betray him: for there is no separation between you and him. To serve him is to serve yourself: to betray him would be to betray yourself. Yet, he knows you as a being separate from himself, more deeply than you know yourself: and knowing you perfectly, he loves you. He will remember you perfectly, and so through him you will have eternal life. Those who were at the Dragonpit did not know this consciously about Bran: but deep down they did know. They chose him unanimously, without discussion, on the suggestion of a prisoner whom none of them had any reason to trust. As Bran himself knew they would before he came to that meeting. 

What can we learn? After all, we do not have kings. Or do we? More often than we think, people try to set themselves up as Kings: often because that is how we choose to see them. We crave the stability which an absolute ruler can bring. But, we should remember that no human can truly handle absolute power. It is not that power corrupts: rather it is that power magnifies all things. Yes, you can do a lot of good if you have power. Your flaws are also magnified and cause a lot of evil. Very often, when we see passionately loving people like Jon, we want to give them absolute power. But, that impulse is a mistake. They are not more capable of being a good ruler just because they are good people. Only a god can have absolute power, because only a god truly has the capacity to wield it responsibly.

Teaching Racism: PC Culture and Interpreting Shakespeare's Othello

Othello has often been a difficult play for English-speaking audiences, from the day it was written. It's difficult for several reasons, but the chief one among them is the villain's racism. Linguistic changes have recently rendered Iago's racism difficult to interpret for the untrained, and thus have made the play more palatable to contemporary society. But, the play is still unavoidably about race. It's hero is a black man, and it's heroine is a white woman. The fact that their marriage is interracial is central to the play.

However, that is not what you will hear if you attend a high school class where the play is interpreted. This holds true whether you are in a public elementary school, or in a private school. Probably even in a charter school. You will hear this play being erroneously held up as an example of Aristotelian Tragedy. Shakespeare did write an excellent example of that type: Macbeth.  Though even here he mixed it up by having not one, but two, tragic heroes: Macbeth and his wife. Both are undone by their increasing paranoia: led down a path of tyranny and bloodshed, which alienates even their once loyal vassals, giving Malcolm the power he needs to take them down. But Othello is not an example of this type. It is not his flaw which is his undoing, for he is not truly undone in the usual sense.

Othello does have a flaw: jealousy. He is indeed very possessive of his wife, Desdemona. Is his jealousy unreasonable though? let us remember our setting: it's a military camp. The men here are bored out of their skulls waiting for the Ottomans to show up, and Desdemona is the only high-status woman around.  Othello also knows that many of the men resent him being in command, since he is a foreigner and black. Messing with his wife would be a way of shaming him, to discredit him and make him lose his position. Especially because their marriage was secret, Othello's worry is understandable and totally warranted. His jealousy does blind him to Iago's machinations, but it isn't unreasonable or unwarranted. It is a flaw, but it is not what leads to his death.

It is true that Othello kills Desdemona believing that she has slept with another man. But we, the audience, know that isn't true. We know that this is Iago's plan, because we overheard him making the plan with Brabantio in the first scene of the play. While this scene is often removed when the play is performed, it is always in the versions that kids read at school. But, nevertheless, teachers insist on saying that Othello is undone by his jealousy.  What Iago didn't count on however, was that Othello would kill himself after killing Desdemona. He did not count on Othello loving her that much, or having that much honor. Desdemona is the victim of an honor killing: Iago simply got Othello to do the actual dirty work for him so that he wouldn't get in trouble. Her crime however was not adultery, but rather anti-racism. Iago uses the accusation of adultery to kill Desdemona: but Shakespeare is very careful to make sure that the audience knows this accusation is false. Othello kills himself because it is the only way he can retain his honor. It's not really out of guilt, but rather because he realizes Brabantio will use his killing of Desdemona to discredit him.

Othello is not just a foreigner, he's a defector. He left the Ottoman Empire voluntarily, and Brabantio at one point protected him. But, Brabantio is only fine with Othello being around if he stays the hell away from Desdemona. Both race and class are factors here: Othello may be a general, but in the world of Renaissance Italy (when the play is set) that doesn't get you much in the way of status. Brabantio is a wealthy merchant, and he wants his daughter to marry into royalty. Othello would not have been a good match if he were white: but Brabantio might very well have let it be if Othello were not also a black foreigner. Remember Lord Capulet's reaction in Romeo and Juliet when Juliet is forced to spill the beans? He kicks her out of the house, but he doesn't have her killed: and that would be the expected reaction to a disobedient daughter. While the plan to kill Desdemona is Iago's, the fact that Brabantio agrees with it damns him as well. Othello likely knows exactly what would wait for him if he were turned over to the Ottomans: castration and slavery. Othello would rather die like a general, like the Roman and Greek and Egyptian generals of old: by his own sword.  Shakespeare does not treat Othello's suicide as ignoble or as an undoing: just like he doesn't treat Juliet's suicide as ignoble. Whatever Shakespeare the Catholic might have thought of suicide, he knows he's writing for an audience that is in love with all things Greco-Roman: and that in Greece and Rome, suicide was considered an honorable death. The plays he uses as inspiration are written through that framework. So that is how suicide usually appears in Shakespeare.

Claiming that Othello was undone by jealousy is teaching racism. It exonerates Iago and Brabantio: absolving them from guilt in causing Othello's death. Othello was not undone, he died with honor.  Iago and Brabantio are to blame for his death, and for Desdemona's. Othello's jealousy prevented him from seeing them for what they were, dirty cowards and scumbags: but it did not bring him down. He did what he believed to be right based on the evidence he was presented with. Confronted with the fact that he had believed a lie and done something horrible as a result: Othello prefers death by his own hand rather than deportation and bondage. Iago and Brabantio are responsible for the lie that Othello believed causing Desdemona's death: a lie which they knew he would believe because of his flaw, jealousy. They conspired to cause Desdemona's death at Othello's hands, and then Othello's death by his own hand: for it is Iago who ultimately reveals what he did to Othello. Iago and Brabantio and their racism are responsible for what happened here. Students should be told that in school. This is a play about race, and indeed it is a play about racism. It is about an interracial marriage, and it is about a racist society. It is about how poisonous and destructive racism is. Shakespeare is writing a play slamming racists.

This should not be a surprise. Shakespeare was a Catholic, as I mentioned before.  Here's the thing about Catholics in England: they're not very big on Empire and Colonialism. It has to do with that whole being a minority religion in a theocracy thing. Those who benefited from England's various imperial adventures were largely Protestant, the descendants of the traditional gentry rather than aristocracy. Catholic kings might have been perfectly happy to conquer various French towns, but they had no particular desire to set up plantations worked by slaves in far-flung locales. Their claims to these French towns were based on heritage, not economics. Shakespeare lived at the time when the British Empire was just getting started: and he likely had very little love for any of the political machinations of Empire-building that were happening around him. The Queen wasn't terribly keen on it either, she had more pressing concerns like Mary Queen of Scots and her bothersome Spanish cousin Philip. She was all for building up trade and a strong navy, but not for using it to get slaves or force out Indian princes. It was the House of Commons who had the Imperial ambitions: as it was full of gentlemen looking to make a quick buck wherever they could. Unlike most at his time however, Shakespeare must have seen the connection between Empire-building and racism. That shouldn't surprise us either: he was a man highly attuned to the literal word on the street. His plays were so wildly successful in part because his characters talked like ordinary people would, using all the newfangled words and expressions that were a part of everyday life. Shakespeare likely didn't make up most or any of the vast number of words that he was the first to use in print: but he likely did overhear them in the street. He would have noticed the uptick in casual racism before anyone else did: and he would have seen it's connection to Empire-building easily, simply by observing who was racist and who wasn't.

Othello is an anti-racist text. If there's one thing Shakespeare knows how to do, it's how to make us empathize with a character. He pulls out all the stops for Othello, because he knows that there are racists in his audience. Hearing people from the 18th and 19th centuries talk about Othello, it's clear that they also sympathized with him. But, they were racists, and needed to preserve a racist system. So they invented this explanation that he was "undone" by his jealousy. Yet deep down, they know. They know that Othello was not undone at all, much less by his jealousy. They know that Othello was in fact killed by racism. Iago is such a despicable person in nearly every way that it's hard not to feel wrong exonerating him. Likewise, Brabantio is agreeing to a plan to kill his daughter: a crime against nature. High school students are rarely satisfied with the explanation that they get from their teachers that Othello is undone by his jealousy. However, they are teenagers, they chalk it up to teachers being idiots. Later on, they have the same motivations as the people in the 18th and 19th centuries: to preserve a racist system, they must preserve the racist explanation of Othello's death.

This is deliberate. Kids are not encouraged to question this interpretation and they are not given the tools to do so. Even the very analytical minds in your classroom are unlikely to work out the truth because they don't have any knowledge of the play's historical context (due to the deliberate failure of your colleague the World History teacher).  If the student goes on to study the 17th Century, they're likely not going to think much about Shakespeare or Othello. But just in case one of your students does bring up the historical context: postmodernism can save you. Postmodernist literary theory takes the principle of Death of the Author to it's logical extreme: saying that not only do the author's intentions not matter, but the historical context of the work do not matter. This however misses the point. Death of the Author is indeed true: but not because the Author's identity doesn't matter. Rather it is because the Author's intentions don't matter: that is, what the Author consciously believed he or she was doing.

A good example here is JK Rowling. She may very have had it in mind that Dumbledore was gay all along. She failed to drop anything resembling a good hint: except for one line in the Prisoner of Azkaban, maybe. So, when she revealed it at a press conference, people called queerbaiting. Conversely, she may not have intended to write Sirius Black and Remus Lupin as lovers: but she kinda did. That's really the only way that McGonagall's behavior towards Lupin and her comments about James Potter make any sense (keeping in mind the politics of the 70s).  She may have originally envisioned Hermione as black or mixed-race (probably the latter), but then she didn't tell the casting director that for the movie.  It was a detail that should have been in the book if it had been intended because knowing that detail would cast Malfoy's behavior towards her in a strikingly more sinister light. If she's white, then he's just a normal bully. If she's black or mixed then he's a racist. In the end, it's probably good that Hermione is white though, because then there's no mistaking the Death Eaters' ideology for what it is: evil. Because there is no physical difference between the people they are preying on and themselves, they are clearly abusive and evil. If physical differences were introduced, then this would be made less obvious.

Rowling's intentions do not matter since they can only be speculated on, they would have no relevance for me if I were critiquing her work. Her identity however is something anyone can find out. When she started writing her books she was a white, lower-middle class single mom, and a neophyte writer. This helps to explain why although she might have envisioned characters in a certain way she might have forgotten to put those details in: she didn't really know what she was doing when she sat down to write the first book. Fair enough. Understanding that she was a neophyte writer IS immensely important for me as a critic.  She has said plenty about what her inspirations were behind various characters, and that is all important and valuable information for a critic. Her class background is also important: her text is very much about class struggle. She is none-too-subtly pointing out the crypto-fascism of the British elite. So is the political atmosphere of the 1990s. One has to analyze the books in the context of a good economy, relative global stability, and a zeitgeist of hope superimposed over the reality of a socially restrictive society.  She could hardly include sympathetically portrayed openly gay characters in a kid's book in 1995: so it's understandable that she ended up queerbaiting by accident. If she were writing this book today, neither Dumbledore nor Lupin would not have felt the need to keep their sexuality secret from Harry or anyone else. Coming off the heels of the Satanic Panic in the 1980s, a book portraying wizardry in a sympathetic light was pretty dangerous already. Her political beliefs can also be read from the book, and anybody can check up on what they are pretty easily since voting registrations are public record. She definitely seems to align with Labour, given her overall message of working-class solidarity, and her portrayal of Viktor Krum. Realizing this is important because it explains a lot of the backlash in certain places to her book.

We certainly cannot know on Shakespeare's intentions. But, if we teach his plays without their historical context then we are perpetuating the biases handed down to us by older generations. To understand Othello we must know both Shakespeare's historical context, and Othello's.  While it's great to set Othello in different time periods and see what happens: one must first understand the setting of Renaissance Italy. And one must understand the setting in which the playwright worked. Furthermore, we do not just need to know the politics of the 17th Century, we need to know our playwright's place within them. What group does he align with? why? Shakespeare is with Queen Elizabeth, but in opposition to the House of Commons. Although a commoner, he aligns more closely with the traditional aristocracy due to his Catholic faith. Remember Kaidu? Well, Shakespeare is kind of in the same boat: a revolutionary conservative. His vision of a good society is partly a romanticized picture of the Medieval past: but with some modern elements like better social status for women. This we can easily glean from the work he left behind. His intentions are irrelevant to us, because we cannot know them. But we do not need to know his intentions in order to say that Othello is an anti-racist text: we only need to know his identity.

When he wrote the text during his career or what he might have been responding to, we can't know for sure. But we can know that Shakespeare was a man from the lower-middle class, a Catholic, and against Empire-building. We can know that racism is intrinsically connected to imperialism: because the reason why people bother to be racist is to justify economic exploitation. Thus it follows logically that Shakespeare would be against racism, for no other reason than that the people who were his political enemies were racists. By situating his story in 14th Century Venice he is softening the ego blow, but without dulling his message. Othello was a historical figure that people would have known about. While this story is probably entirely invented, the hero at it's center is not. This means that the audience has no way of getting around the fact that Shakespeare's message is applicable to real life. There is no supernatural element here. The focus is entirely on the human evil of racism, and the human flaws of the characters. Racism leads you and those around you into sin. That's the message of The Tragedy of Othello.

Sansa's Little Bird Speech: Survivors, not Victims.

*Alert: I'm going to talk about my own experience here, because this hit really close to home and trying to pretend I don't have skin in the game would be disingenuous.*

The misplaced self-righteousness here is appalling.

Everything that we experience and what we do with those experience is in fact what makes up our identity. Anyone who has been raped can never get away from that fact. We cannot forget, and we cannot ever act like it never happened. I will never be able to go into a romantic or sexual relationship with anyone without discussing boundaries first: because I was hurt, and because I hurt someone else. I can't just "fall for" someone like I did back when I was sixteen. But that does not mean I can't have a satisfying sexual and romantic life. I have a wonderful girlfriend, and I have had and will have other partners. I have found a new system for protecting myself while allowing for fun. I have had amazing experiences in romantic and sexual relationships because I decided to ditch the rom-com model of romance.

Sansa in this scene is not forgiving her abusers: and she is certainly not saying that she or Sandor are defined by their abuse. Her abusers are dead for the most part, or they are far away and unable to touch her. The same is true of Sandor. Rather she is saying that it is now time for Sandor to become his own person and see himself in that light. Sandor is just like Sansa: an idealistic person who believes that his dreams were crushed by his abuse. For so long, Sandor has believed in nothing and indeed been suspicious of people who believe in something. But, Sansa is saying that this attitude is wrong. After all, she achieved her dream of being a Lady: not despite, but because, of those who tried to abuse her. If Joffrey had been nice to her she would have been killed with him at the Purple Wedding. Instead, she saw that no bully stands forever. That gave her the courage to kill Ramsay Bolton herself. She has destroyed her abusers and stepped on their metaphorical broken bodies to become Lady of Winterfell. Her abusers are pathetic idiots, not people to be afraid of, or even angry at. Certainly, they are not people who can control her or define her: they are dead. So is Gregor Clegane (although his corpse has been animated, he is functionally gone) and Tywin, Littlefinger, and Joffrey: all of whom used to mock Sandor. The only person who hurt both Sansa and Sandor and is still alive is Cersei: who is definitely doomed in the last episode.

Remember Maggy the Frog's prophecy? most theorists have assumed that the "younger brother" referred to as the person who will kill Cersei will be one of her younger brothers: Tyrion or Jaime. Well, it won't be Jaime: however much he might have changed, Jaime will never hurt Cersei. His love may be immoral, but it is sincere. It won't be Tyrion either, although Cersei thinks it will be. He demonstrated that last season after the Dragonpit Meeting. He is unwilling to hurt Cersei even though he doesn't like what she's doing. Cersei is using the corpse of Gregor Clegane as her bodyguard. It won't be her younger brother who kills her but his younger brother: Sandor. And it will be Sansa, the other person whom Cersei has most deeply hurt, who will set up the prophesied moment. What she is trying to do is get Sandor to an emotional and mental place where he can confront Cersei, and defeat her. Normally he runs away from abuse, unwilling to face it.

Dealing with abuse requires going through the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, and finding meaning. Sansa has successfully done this: and this is what her statement indicates. She has found meaning in what happened to her. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, that she has created meaning: and I think this is perhaps what David Kessler, author of "The Sixth Stage of Grief", really meant. The idea of meaning as something that lies around waiting to be found is a little bit silly. Sandor however is hung up on depression. But, in order to understand why our article writer is wrong, and why the people who have objected to this scene are wrong, we need to discuss the fifth stage of grief: acceptance. Here is what Kessler's website says about acceptance:

"Acceptance is often confused with the notion of being 'all right' or 'ok' with what happened. This is not the case. Most people don't ever feel 'ok' about losing a loved one. [gah, why does this need to be said?] This stage is about accepting the reality that our loved one is gone, and recognizing that this is new reality is the permanent reality.  We will never like this reality, or be OK with it, but we can learn to accept it. We must try to live in a world where our loved one is missing." Someone who suffers rape, or indeed any trauma, cannot ever go back to living as if they never suffered. Suffering permanently changes a person. Accepting our trauma means accepting that change in ourselves. It means learning to live as a changed person.  Remember the end of Lord of the Rings? Frodo cannot stay in the Shire or indeed anywhere in Middle Earth. What he suffered was too great. He must pass into the West: only there can the new Frodo find a life. The new Frodo who speaks elvish and has more in common with the elves than he does with other hobbits. Frodo journeys into the West because he accepts this reality. Likewise, we must metaphorically journey into the West.

What Sansa is saying here is that the proper way to deal with abuse is to change the system which allowed the abuse. In order to do that though, you need to have dealt with and found meaning in your own suffering. Sansa has not simply killed those who abused her. She, with Jon's help, has changed the system. Theon doesn't change his behavior because of what Ramsay did to him. Theon changes his behavior because of what Jon and Sansa did. While it is true that Ramsay held a mirror up to Theon, showing him who he would become if he continued to act in an abusive manner: that is not enough to change anyone's behavior. What will change someone's behavior, is seeing another way to get what they want.

You see, for all that the Starks talked about honor their talk was always somewhat hypocritical. They could talk about honor, because they were too feared for anyone to challenge them. Why? because of the Boltons. The Boltons were the Starks' bannermen: and known for sadistic torture. Their castle, the Dreadfort, was supposedly impregnable. Because the Boltons who were feared bent the knee to the Starks, the Starks benefitted from their terrifying reputation. Jon, in a single afternoon, destroyed that legacy that had endured for centuries. Jon could do this, because he does not need fear to rule. Unlike the Starks of modern times, the ancient Starks were up against far greater forces: forces they could not defeat, only ward against. They also could not rule through fear. Jon understands this. This is Jon's reason for his altruism, for his self-sacrificing generosity. Jon knows that if he is to keep the people together in the coming Winter, he cannot do it with fear for his enemy is far more fearsome than he can ever be. He must rule through love, like the ancient Starks did. When Lyanna Mormont stands up and says "I know only one King, the King in the North, and his name is Stark": this is what she is telling Jon. The ancient Starks ruled because they were loved, not feared, and therefore the Boltons are disposable.

Jon has the courage to disbelieve the legends that say the Dreadfort is impregnable.  He realizes of course that it would be impossible to take with conventionally available siege weapons, but he also realizes that he has access to an unconventional siege weapon: Won-won the Giant. Won-won may not be a brilliant thinker, but he would never fear a human: he's a giant after all. He also surely understands two things: 1) that the assault on the Dreadfort will likely kill him and 2) reciprocity. Anyone can see the fort is extremely well defended: but Jon sacrificed himself for Won-won and his Wildling friends. Therefore, Won-won sacrifices himself for Jon. Because of that, Jon is able to completely expose the legend of the Dreadfort as a lie. It is not an impregnable fortress, and the people who live in it are not monsters. It is a castle, and with the right person's help it can be taken. The Boltons are men, who can be defeated. Sansa takes advantage of Jon's assault and his wounding of Ramsay to deal the final blow: setting Ramsay's dogs on him as she leaves with Theon. Not only is the Bolton family completely wiped out: but their legacy is totally destroyed too. This was possible because it was built on a lie: a lie about what strength means. Ramsay is not strong, for all his boasting and swaggering. He is weak, because he is fundamentally alone. Because he rules by scaring and abusing people, as soon as someone isn't scared of him, he can be taken down. Jon isn't scared of the Dreadfort or the Boltons the way other people are: because he has been at the Wall. He has see White Walkers and other things far scarier than Ramsay Bolton. That give Sansa the opportunity to take out Ramsay that she's been waiting for, and she strikes using Ramsay's own weapons against him: his hungry dogs. She has been abused by Ramsay, and she has watched him abuse others. Because she saw the swaggering and boastful Joffrey be taken down by the Tyrells, Sansa understands that she does not need to be afraid of Ramsay either. She puts on a show of obedience, but is actually plotting against him. As soon as he's vulnerable, she goes for it. Although Jon and Sansa had no way to communicate, they are still working together: such is the strength of their relationship.

Thus, Sansa inadvertently teaches Theon what true strength is. True strength is found in building relationships with others, not in swaggering and boasting, not in an aura of invicibility. The Dreadfort and the Bolton family's power were founded on a lie: the lie that the Boltons were not quite human. Like, legit, for a long-ass time I thought the Boltons were going to be revealed as descendants of White Walkers. Nope, they are just humans. The Bolton's are not invincible, nobody is. True strength does not come from being invincible, from being never hurt. True strength comes from perservering and surviving through suffering, and coming out on the other side of it. True strength comes from confronting one's abusers, and learning to live with the scars they've given you. Now that this belief has been revealed to be a lie, so the system which gave the Boltons and people like them power has been revealed as unjust. That is, it can no longer be justified to the common people: or indeed to the knights who directly serve the lords. Jon and Sansa together have taught the common people in the North that they should not give their allegiance to a leader who is simply scary: because there exist leaders that they can love. It is Brienne who puts this into words and action: after she saves Sansa and Theon from the Bolton's thugs. She swears allegiance to Sansa, and during this scene says "I've looked a long time for a lord I could believe in".  This confirms that Lyanna Mormont and the northerners aren't simply obsessed with the Starks for the sake of tradition: Brienne is originally a southerner.

Sansa and Jon are taking a wrecking ball to the abusive system that for centuries has held sway in Westeros: aided by the chaotic aftermath of the War of the Five Kings, Cersei's madness and the danger posed by the White Walkers. Jon is probably not conscious of this: but Sansa is. She is able to do this because she has herself suffered under the old abusive system. They are slowly but steadily building up a new society: with people like Brienne, Theon, Sandor, Bran and Thoros of Myr. People who were outcasts in the old system: people who have suffered under the old system. But let us remember the Sansa we met in Season 1 Episode 1. Could that Sansa have done what current Sansa is doing? Would she have been able to break the abusive system with a flick of her wrist? no. That Sansa did not even realize the system was abusive. Only because she suffered did Sansa become aware of how unjust the system is, and how to break it. This is an uncomfortable truth: suffering is not meaningless. Suffering does indeed make people stronger, braver and wiser. That does not justify it: just as the wealth generated by war does not justify war. Wealth is only desirable because it is a way to minimize the pain of an unjust world. Strength is only desirable because it is a way to minimize the pain of an unjust world as well. If the world was more just, we would not need to be as strong. This is the answer to our article-writer's objection. Sansa has found meaning in her suffering: that is a good thing. It does not mean that her suffering was justified or that she is unwilling to change the system which made her suffer. The meaning that she has found for her suffering is in fact to break the system. The same conclusion that Danaerys and Jon and others have come to. Now she is persuading Sandor to accept this view as well.

This author erroneously assumes that if women are not portrayed as helpless victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault then the problem will never be addressed. The author is assuming that what motivates people to help others is pity. That is simply not true, as any beggar would be able to tell you. Rather, pity largely prevents any significant action from being taken to bring justice or change. Think about cancer. When I was a little kid, people who got cancer were objects of pity even well after their cancer was in remission: they were victims. They were also outcasts, unacceptable in normal society. Now, we speak of cancer survivors: even though the people may not have actually "survived" but only be in remission. But this change in words was deliberate. Nobody likes a victim. They are a burden on others: worthy perhaps of gentle treatment, but not of respect. Certainly they are not acceptable in normal society. So, why are we encouraging the victimization of abused women? We should not be calling people victims of domestic abuse or rape. We should be calling them survivors: as we did with the hashtag #BelieveSurvivors. It wasn't #BelieveVictims because they aren't victims. Sansa is not a victim: so she shouldn't talk like one. I'm not a victim, my mom is not a victim, my girlfriend is not a victim, my brothers' girlfriend's mom Tamara Kincaid was not a victim. She was a firebrand of a lady, despite a degenerative illness, who went out fighting for all the abused of this world. We are not victims, we are survivors. We do not want pity, we want change: and we have the power to make it. Our suffering was not meaningless: and it will only be meaningless if we fail to make any change in the abusive system that has oppressed those like us for so long. We will start by changing how we define ourselves, and how we speak of ourselves. We will stop speaking of ourselves as victims, and start speaking of ourselves as survivors. We will stop concentrating on the downfall of individual abusers: and start concentrating on the system itself. We will expose the powerful abusers as the frauds they are, and take a wrecking ball to the abusive system as their illusions collapse around them. We will take power not despite what was done to us, but because we have survived it and learned from it. The system has produced the instrument of it's own destruction, as abusive systems always do. And we will dare to imagine a new type of society that no longer rewards this abusive behavior.

Oh, and the writer made a factual error. Danaerys Targaryen did not fall in love with her rapist. It was never implied that she objected to Khal Drogo having sex with her. This was made abundantly clear in the books because we saw the meeting of Dany and Drogo from her perspective. She is indeed terrified, until she actually sees Drogo and realizes he's pretty hot. As soon as he opens his mouth, she realizes he's actually nice even though he looks scary. She's basically like 'oh, ok, I can live with this' as Drogo leads her away. She is kind of weirded out by the Dothraki wedding, but not to the point that she wants to leave. As soon as Drogo takes out Viserys, Dany is 100% ok with being his wife (and that's before he does anything sexual with her). The book also makes it clear that she didn't find the particular sexual position he wanted to use painful or anything: she just realized it wasn't what she really liked. She wouldn't have eaten a horse heart if she wasn't fine with Khal Drogo (even though she didn't exactly love him yet).  The person who abused Danaerys from her own perspective was Viserys, not Drogo. The nature of the TV show means that perhaps wasn't quite as clear as it was in the books.

Maedhros: The Nontoxic Bad Boy.

It's a trope as old as stories: the bad boy. The handsome, mysterious, charming rogue. He appears in many genres: epics, romances, adventure stories, mysteries, even horror. Every culture has some version of him, but his characteristics vary wildly. He can be a villain, background character, anti-hero, or even the hero. Two things however define him no matter where he appears: physical beauty, and a dark past. Oh, and he is nearly always male. Only a few female examples exist, and most of them are very very modern. In Tolkien's stories, there are a few such characters: but the first and most important of them is Maedhros. One thing instantly stands out about Maedhros however: he has no romantic plot whatsoever. Usually when this character appears, one of the female characters in the story will at least start to fall for him. But Tolkien eschews this. Maedhros is famous for his beauty, and he's the High King of the Noldor. By conventional thinking, he should have women falling over him. But, the elven princesses he might have wooed, Idril and Luthien, chase human men instead. This is a level of realism we don't expect in fantasy stories, and in particular in fantasy stories from this early era. The darkness in Maedhros is real, he has committed atrocities and is permanently marked by them. He is hot-headed, dangerous, and greedy: almost draconic.

But is he evil? this is Tolkien, things aren't that simple. He is genuinely modest and kind as a friend, brother, and ruler. Maedhros is a ferocious opponent of the big bad Morgoth: so much so that Morgoth considers him threat #1. Fingolfin actually wasn't the first elf to give Morgoth a huge amount of trouble: and Maedhros actually lives to tell the tale. Furthermore, Maedhros is philosophical and empathetic: fully understanding and demonstrating remorse for his atrocities. Maedhros has killed his own kin. He did it out of loyalty to his father Fëanor, and Fëanor can be assigned blame for forcing this choice on his son, but nevertheless Maedhros made the choice to draw his sword on a Telerin elf.  He participated in burning the swan ships, beautiful works of Telerin art that are now lost forever: even if new ones have been created in their memory. Maedhros demonstrates his remorse for doing this. Yet, he also swears an unbreakable oath to recover the Silmarils, in memory of his father. But perhaps we can think Maedhros is simply overly devoted to his deeply flawed father right? well, nope.

Maedhros goes and draws his sword on elves once again: on the citizens of Doriath this time. He is driven by the oath that he made to recover the Silmaril: but this is a greater atrocity than the one before. The First Kinslaying was an act of desperation, the Valar's servants were coming to arrest Fëanor.  While Fëanor should have submitted to and gone with them, Manwë's blind dogmatism makes Fëanor's actions understandable if not justifiable. Maedhros' role in it was also significantly more justified: he was being asked to choose between his father and his cousins, of course he chose to follow his father. The second time, he is not only attacking without any prompting for the sole purpose of recovering an item: he is also attacking a kingdom that is already in turmoil, coldly taking advantage of it's weakness. But here, Maedhros is a reluctant participant. His brothers Celegorm and Curufin are the instigators, and they strong-arm him into going since he is the best military commander among the Noldor. They use his empathetic nature to convince him to lead the armies: pointing out that with him in command, fewer of their soldiers will die. While he knows that his brothers are cruel and don't actually give a damn about their soldiers: he also knows that they are right. Maedhros is disgusted by the carnage of the battle, and in particular by the actions of Celegorm's servants: who took the princes of Doriath, Elured and Elurin, to starve in the woods. Maedhros goes to try to find them, breaking off the search for the Silmaril, but fails to find them. So, that was the end of it right? Maedhros, disgusted by the deeds he was being coerced into committing swore off trying to find the Silmarils right? Wrong.

Maedhros once again drew his sword against elves: and this time was by far the worst morally speaking. This time, he drew his sword on Noldor. Maedhros is not just one of Fëanor's sons, he is the eldest. He was the High King of the Noldor, before being captured by Morgoth and giving up that title to his uncle Fingolfin voluntarily. Although it has been centuries since he had that role, that fact makes his assault on the Havens of Sirion particularly atrocious. You see, the Havens of Sirion are so called because this is a refugee camp. And among those refugees, are survivors from the fall of Gondolin: the city founded by Turgon, son of Fingolfin. While Maedhros comes seeking Elwing, a member of the Sindar: he kills Noldor and Sindar indiscriminately.  He was not strong-armed into this, Celegorm and Curufin were dead. While it's true that the people of the Havens would never give Maedhros the Silmaril: he could have been content that it had passed into the hands of Idril's son Eärendil, with his wedding to Elwing. He could have considered the oath fulfilled, for Eärendil was of the Noldor. Or at the very least he could have been patient, for Eärendil felt a kinship with his father's human ancestors.  He could have waited until the Silmaril passed into the hands of Elrond, Eärendil's son: and bargained with him.

Elves in Tolkien's stories do not truly die. If their bodies are not destroyed, they continue to exist forever. If they are "killed" their souls go to Mandos, where they wait to be reincarnated. Despite all the fighting Maedhros does, he has no particular need to fear this outcome. After Fëanor's demise, Maedhros managed to scare Morgoth so much that Morgoth felt the need to capture him through trickery. He withstood all of the torture which the evil Vala could dream up, and then survived an amputation without anaesthesia. He goes on to so ably defend the settlement at Himring, that it is one of the few elven strongholds to survive the terrible Battle of Sudden Flame. Both Curufin and Celegorm, his brothers, lose their homes in that battle. All this time I've been talking about him fighting, he's been fighting with his off hand. He's a skilled warrior with centuries of practice behind him. What Maedhros can't defeat with his sword, he can defeat with his mind. What Maedhros can't defeat, he can survive. He has no reason to believe that he would not live to see Eärendil's children grow up.  

This is the darkness which permanently marked Maedhros, and makes him the ultimate bad boy of Tolkien's mythos. He is not evil, but he is dangerous. The name I've been calling him by, comes from his two Quenya names: Maitimo Russandol. The first is the name his mother gave him, and it means "well-shaped one". The Silmarillion specifically defines this word, and says "as he was noted for his comeliness". 'Comely' is an old and very British word, and this is the only time in all of Tolkien's stories that this word appears. When applied to a child it means 'cute',  but when applied to an adult it means 'sexy'.  The second is a nickname which means roughly 'carrot-top', for his red hair. As among humans, this was an unusual and remarkable trait: though particularly common in the lineage of Finwë. Maedhros is a dangerous exotic beauty. People who are dangerous are attractive for a good reason: we all face attacks, physical, mental or emotional every day. Someone who has shown that they are capable of killing can protect you from those attacks. He is a perfect example of this bad boy trope that I started this post talking about.

But, he has none of the characteristics that we so often see in these characters in fiction of today. In particular, I'm going to call out Twilight and it's fanfic turned bestseller 50 Shades of Grey. Christian Grey and Edward Cullen are also excellent examples of this bad boy trope: and on it's surface there's nothing particularly wrong with that. The problem is that in addition to being dangerous, they are abusive. Indeed, both books go out of their way to make men who question these male leads look bad. In particular, Twilight presents Jacob as a viable alternative to Edward for Bella. Bella's logic for choosing Edward over Jacob is...well...mind-boggling even from the perspective of a girl her age (I was 16 when I read Twilight, I kinda almost barfed when I read that bit). As leaders both Grey and Cullen are tyrannical: enforcing their will with brutality or the threat of it.

When Maedhros saw that his brothers were starting feuds with his uncle's followers: he gently used this authority as the eldest of Fëanor's sons, to separate the two groups. This shows wisdom and sensitivity to the needs of others. His brothers knew that he would ensure that few of their soldiers would die: they know he cares deeply for others, and does everything in his power to protect them. He is self-aware, and because of his self-awareness he doesn't judge others. It's hard to be friends with someone who has authority over you: but it can be done if that person is conscientious in how they use their authority. Fingon is Maedhros' vassal, and his close friend: who cares so deeply about him, that he's willing to risk imprisonment and torture by Morgoth. This, of course, mirrors Sam and Frodo in Lord of the Rings. Fingon, like Sam, would not care for someone who used his power in an abusive way.

Grey and Cullen, isolate themselves and the women they love from others: and they are generally regarded with hostility or even fear by others. Maedhros could not be more different. He was a consummate diplomat. After Morgoth destroyed many of the elven lands, including the strongholds of Curufin and Celegorm, it was Maedhros who gathered the survivors to lead a counterattack. This, in a time when most elves did not treat with either humans or dwarves: and indeed spoke of them with barely disguised contempt. This speaks to his empathetic nature, as empathy is the only possible way to bridge such a species divide. It was also despite the hatred which King Thingol of the Sindar had for him and his brothers due to their actions during the First Kinslaying.  Still, Maedhros received assistance from Thingol's own herald Mablung.  This speaks to both his charm and his genuine repentance for his actions. Maedhros never sought power, he never had to. Power was given to him because he deserved to have it: and when he felt he did not, he gave it up. 

Maedhros' flaws were the same as his father's: greed, and stubbornness. But, in many ways he was different. He was smarter, a master tactician and tactful diplomat. He was more self-aware: and because of his self-awareness, non-judgemental. Fëanor was purposely blind to his flaws, and used violence against people who had the temerity to point them out. Maedhros could be passionately angry, but never directed his anger at people who criticized his character or his ideas. It's this last characteristic that especially makes him stand out from other examples of the archetype. Very often, the reason why these "bad boy" types are loners, is because they are abusive. They are toxic, tyrannical, enforcing their will through brutality. Their lack of adherence to social codes is attractive, but it hides an abusive personality. Maedhros is none of these things. If he were, Thorondor the Lord of the Eagles, would not have helped Fingon to save him. If he were, Mablung would not have shown up ready to take his orders. No, Maedhros isn't a loner because he is abusive. He's a loner because he refuses to taint anyone else with his sins.

Maedhros represents, I think, Tolkien meditating on the idea of guilt: and ultimately his rejection of guilt as useless. Maedhros feels guilty, yet keeps committing the same sin over and over again. His guilt is totally useless in modifying his behavior. Changing your behavior requires revising your understanding of who you are. Maedhros refuses to define himself as anything other than Fëanor's son, and so he continues to pursue Fëanor's ridiculous quest for the Silmaril. A surprising message coming from a devout Catholic such as Tolkien. But, perhaps not so surprising. While there was always a slightly unhealthy amount of guilt-tripping in the Catholic tradition: it has increased since the time when Tolkien was a child (back in the Edwardian era!) As the Catholic church has lost power, it has been tempting for many in it to double-down on this guilt-tripping.  Tolkien must have noticed this trend, and I think he is perhaps warning against it. Like most of his warnings, it went unheeded.

Yet, Maedhros is also a send-up of the belief that empathy alone can create solidarity. The difficult truth of activism is that it cannot. Maedhros feels passionately, deeply, for the Sindar. Yet, he attacks them again and again. He feels for them, yet takes advantage of their suffering. Why? he does not question the forces that are larger than himself which push him into conflict with the Sindar again and again. He refuses to renege on the oath he made to recover the Silmarils, even though he is fully aware of how horrible the atrocities he has committed in the pursuit of this goal are. He has empathy for the Sindar, but does not feel solidarity with them. They stand in the way of his goals, and he is unwilling to give up or even question those goals because of his empathy. It takes something more than empathy to create solidarity. Solidarity is believing that working for someone else's cause benefits your own. As much as Maedhros feels bad for what he's doing to the Sindar, he cannot see how leaving them alone or even working with them could benefit his cause. Eärendil is wiser. When he learns that Elwing has the Silmaril, he cooks up a scheme with her to get it to Valinor. He understands that working with her is better than working against her.

BlackkKlansman: The Reason to Take Subversive Action

The movie BlackkKlansman is an incredibly nuanced look at how to accomplish liberation. On the surface, it's conclusion seems bleak: subversion is not enough. The System can and does either silence or absorb subversion. To make the system crack, one must attack it from the outside. But, is there a point to subversion? Yes. Ron Stahlworth and Flip Zimmerman were indeed silenced. Their investigation of the Ku Klux Klan went unknown and unrecognized for thirty years. Yet, that is not to say they accomplished nothing.

1. Ron Stahlworth did break the color barrier, and there are now black police officers in most jurisdictions. Indeed, many jurisdictions are mostly policed by black and brown officers. This did not, of course, eliminate racism in the criminal justice system. A racist system does not need racists to run it. It only needs people ignorant enough to not understand how their individual actions connect to the wider oppression of a community.
2.  The two police officers did manage to kill a Klan member, with the bomb he made himself: shedding light on the Klan's self-destructive nature, in a highly visible way. And, not incidentally, saving the lives of many many people who have gone on to have descendants and effected change on our society.
3. David Duke has not forgotten, even if everyone else did. His speech given at Charlottsville clearly demonstrated that (and really only makes sense if you know about this story).  Ron Stahlworth didn't just investigate the Klan, he also wormed his way into David Duke's heart. When Stahlworth revealed his identity, Duke was genuinely hurt. David Duke has a MASSIVE chip on his shoulder, and has been pushed to embrace ideas he once rejected as a result.
4. Society's view of the Klan has changed dramatically, in part because of the incident detailed in the movie (and because of many similar incidents, and other factors as well).  The Klan does not have the same supporters it once did: either in academia or religion. The forces of bigotry are indeed rising again, after thirty years of remaining relatively quiet. But, the battle lines have been redrawn. It isn't black people against white people anymore. It's racists against anti-racists: the ideological battle can no longer be hidden behind smokescreens.  Not after the death of Heather Heyer. The plot that seemed fantastical when the Black Panther comic was written, has now been made poignantly real. White people are now willing to die for black liberation, not out of self-loathing: but because they wholeheartedly believe that black liberation would be a good thing for them.

Patrice is indeed correct: you cannot bring down the system from within. The movie fully acknowledges that point: by showing us the ways in which the system is still in place. But it questions her assertion that it is therefore useless to participate in the system, useless to subvert the system from within: by showing us what has changed. Ron Stahlworth successfully used one part of the system as a weapon against another and struck a lasting blow: that's not something to be discounted, sneered at, or overlooked. Strategic use of the system to subvert it is not a bad thing, although such actions will not bring about liberation in the absence of attacks from the outside. Patrice's problem is that like most young people she sees things as either/or: either you are outside the system, or you are a puppet of the system. But Ron is older and smarter: realizing that if he can weaken the system from within, then it can be more easily attacked from without. Subversion is not useless if it is genuine subversion. Not the insincere edginess of a Banksy or a "grunge" band (a band not brave enough to be punk or funk): but honest and searing critique of the system. Although even this stuff is not bad per se. The presence of such edginess does give people permission to talk about their real disillusionment with the system and their desire to bring it down, even if the piece itself can't be used meaningfully to those ends. But a true subversion strikes a blow to some part of the system, even if it uses another part of the same system to do so.

This is ultimately Spike Lee explaining his own choices. He is a famous director, and a rich man now. He has chosen to work within Hollywood, even though he understands that black liberation cannot be accomplished wholly from within Hollywood (no matter how many mostly black cast movies get made, or how many awards they win).  He understands that there is a fundamental problem with the hashtag "OscarsSoWhite": which is that the Oscars can never be anything other than white, no matter how many black people win awards. Yet, he has chosen to work within this system and is telling others that they should too. Why? because the media can be used against other parts of the system that keep black people oppressed: like the criminal justice system or the government. Hollywood can, and often has been, weaponized against the government and the justice system. The man holding the weapon right now, is Jordan Peele: expertly using the horror genre to attack complacent liberal whites, and upend racist tropes. His movies are finely crafted with intelligence and finesse, like the classics of Hitchcock or the Expressionists: yet they come out at a rate that would tax large studios (every other year? does this man sleep?), even further increasing the sense of unease and creeping horror. How's that for genius eh?

Love it or hate it, Hollywood controls public perception to a large degree, although it is also influenced by public perception. Hollywood movies can influence what genres people like: as when Lord of the Rings suddenly made fantasy mainstream in the early 2000s. Hardly surprising, given that this was a movie adaptation of the book that literally invented the genre, but still a demonstration of Hollywood's ability to influence taste. Hollywood movies can influence how people see certain ideas: such as how movies have warped peoples' ideas of how science works, or how to sword-fight, or the nature of serial killers. Working within Hollywood gives you the power to change peoples' minds. Changing minds is a part of liberation, because as Hamlet said: 

"the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns, puzzles the will and makes us rather bear the ills we have than fly to others we know not of". 

He spoke of death, but the same is true of liberation: for liberation is a kind of death. It is a death of one's old habits, one's old ways. Those who imagine that liberation can be achieved within the confines of our current Constitution, and our current system of international politics, are deluding themselves. But that hardly means that working within the current system is useless.

The Dragon Prince Season 2: How to do Representation in Fantasy

The Kingdom of Durin had two Queens. When this is first mentioned, the viewer is led to imagine that it was something like Sparta: where two rulers from different families oversaw different aspects of life. King Leonidas was free to lead a suicide mission, because he had a partner holding down the fort.  Smart idea for a country likely to be surprise-attacked, as the kingdoms in this show are.

Nope, these women were a couple, and they had a daughter. It's not mentioned whether this is Durinese tradition, but nobody seems to think it's an unusual arrangement. Even the show's villain, the manipulative Virin, is accepting. Indeed, Queen Anya's mothers are considered heroes in the kingdom of Katolis as well as in their homeland for dying as part of a gambit to save both kingdoms from starvation. It would appear, that this is a world where homophobia doesn't exist. Even Soren the stereotypical jock doesn't ever make a homophobic comment. This makes sense, this world has it's own unique history behind it. A group of human realms constantly besieged by outside forces far more powerful than them would need to minimize internal divisions just to survive. Indeed, in the episodes where this story is told, Virin is (insincerely) arguing for the necessity of solidarity between the Kingdoms.

Why is this a good example of representation? after all the Queens of Durin are both dead by the time the main show starts. Because it treats their relationship as normal.  They are treated as if they were any other couple, any other family. This is a story that could have been written about a straight couple. This is not a story about a lesbian relationship: it is a story about heroism that happens to star lesbians. What frequently gets forgotten is that gay people just want to be normal. They want to be considered as people first. Often, the only time a homosexual character is included in a show is so that the show can make a point about homosexuality. This is a problem, because it does not question the white heterosexual default. Here we have a homosexual couple included in the show not to make a point about homosexuality, but simply because homosexuals exist. In a real-world setting you can't treat homosexuality as normal, except maybe in a far future setting. Even then, it would be more realistic for bigotry to still exist even if it wasn't socially rewarded. Fully normalizing homosexuality and homosexual family structures is almost exclusively the realm of fantasy or science fantasy.

We also have a character who is modeling how to be "one of the boys" and make "locker room talk" without being a bigot. Soren is clearly immature, but that's to be expected since he is a teenager. He does boast, and often insults others: but his insults are personalized. This indicates that he sees these people as individuals. Soren is a rebuttal to claims like the one President Trump made, that his misogynist and homophobic comments were just "locker room talk". Yet, it is also a rebuttal to people who say that all crude language is evil and hurtful. There is nothing wrong with crude language, and it exists for a good reason. Crude language exists to help people laugh, loosen up and de-stress.  It helps people bond, by making them feel safe enough to be vulnerable. Of course, this mission is undercut when bigotry and crudeness are made synonymous.  These kinds of claims should be alarming to anyone who cares about our language. The endless capacity that English has for constructing creative insults is not a flaw, it's a feature. It's something that we should celebrate. We should not celebrate the uncreative use of offensive words and phrases. If you mean to insult someone, do it with passion and creativity. Call them a "sniveling lemming", not a "fag".  Insults aren't a bad thing, but insults that denigrate an identity group are.  

Bourgeois liberal society likes to encourage this myth that all hatred is bigotry, that there is no difference. However, this is incredibly damaging: because this is the logic behind the myths of reverse racism/reverse sexism. See, a minority person understands that people can be cruel without being bigoted: that hating someone for something they did is fine, while hating them for who they are is not. But very often, people from the majority group confuse the two. They rationalize their own bigotry by pointing to stereotyped or nonexistent character flaws. Other times, they start to feel that if someone hates them, that person must be bigoted. Of course, what is this actually? it's an immature ego talking.  This simplistic narrative of kindness and hatred advanced by liberals really doesn't help matters. Humans are capable of cruelty, of hatred: without any ideology being behind it. We cannot create a world without cruelty of any kind, nor should we expect to. We can create a world in which cruelty isn't based on a person's identity. Or, as Dr. King put it: where people are judged by the content of their character.