Ms Red O
LUPITA FOR LIFE ! True beauty !

LUPITA FOR LIFE ! True beauty !

Do you feel that there is racism in the ASOIAF books' representation of its PoC other than the general lack of them? (It seems like very many live in its WORLD but don't proportionally participate in the story). Which brings up another question I have: Have you ever written a post concerning the extent to which individual authors have a responsibility to represent PoC? If you have, I would very much be interested in reading it.

artsychica2012:

medievalpoc:

Absolutely.

If you want to talk about “responsibility” on the part of individual authors, you can go ahead and read it from the horse’s mouth.

He really believes he is basing this story on history, and that is his response to lack of and poor representation of people of color in his stories:

So let’s talk about the internet controversy about Oberyn Martell. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I commented on my blog. You can find a more studied response there. I made a couple of comments as to what people said about that. I always pictured Oberyn Martell in my head as a — what I call a Mediterranean type. I know people attacked me for that by saying “He’s ignorant, he doesn’t know that Africa is on the Mediterranean.” No, I know Africa is on the Mediterranean. But in common parlance, when you say Mediterranean you are thinking Greek, Italian, Spanish. When you are thinking Moroccan or Tunisian that’s North African. That’s the way people talk about that.

I always pictured the Martells and the salty Dornishman as Mediterraneans, so the casting I think is perfectly appropriate with what I wrote in the books. I do sympathize. I mean, I understand.

Some people have written me some very heartfelt letters, and I’ve tried to respond to them about how they wanted to see someone who looked like them in the books, and how they were [disappointed]. They had pictures of the Martells looking like them, and they were disappointed.

I understand that, but it still wasn’t my intent to make… Even the terminology here is such a land mine. I don’t even know what words to use here “black” or “African.” I used African at one point, sort of like African American. [But] if you use “African” you are guilty for saying all Africans are the same.

I don’t know. I am drawing from history, even though its fantasy. I’ve read a lot of history, The War of the Roses, The Hundred Years War. The World back then was very diverse. Culturally it was perhaps more diverse then our world, but travel was very difficult back then. So even though there might have been many different races and ethnicities and peoples, they didn’t necessarily mix a great deal. I’m drawing largely on medieval England, medieval Scotland, to some extent medieval France. There was an occasional person of color, but certainly not in any great numbers.

^ I consider this to be a cop out. Added on to the fact that he seems more concerned about getting criticized for using the wrong word than massive disappointment on the part of his own fan base. It more or less reeks of “everyone’s so P.C. these days! Ugh!”

I mean, there is plenty of historical precedent for even large numbers of various people of color in all of those nations. You can read articles about forensic archeology and recent discoveries that have challenged these notions to the breaking point. Like, as in 20% people of color. Take 4th Century York, England. According to Dr. Hella Eckhardt:

It helps paint a picture of a Roman York that was hugely diverse and which included among its population, men, women and children of high status from Romanised North Africa and elsewhere in the Mediterranean.

Eboracum (York) was both a legionary fortress and civilian settlement, and ultimately became the capital of Britannia Inferior. York was also visited by two Emperors, the North-African-born Emperor Septimius Severus, and later Constantius I (both of whom died in York). All these factors provide potential circumstances for immigration to York, and for the foundation of a multicultural and diverse community.

I can tell you the same things about Scotland, France, Central Europe…all these regions had seen large influxes of immigrants in the late Roman and early Medieval Eras. After all, these people didn’t just disappear hundreds of years later when historians decided a new “period” of history had begun! There’s plenty of primary sources and documentation that many specifically Black people lived and worked in various Medieval European cities and towns.

Also, speaking of Empires, there was also a rather important Mongolian Empire that happened firmly within an time frame that is pretty universally recognized as “Medieval”. Which, very unfortunately, brings us to the Dothraki.

Here’s GRRM, from the same interview, on the Dothraki:

People complain that the Dothraki are this one-dimensional barbarian society.

I haven’t had a Dothraki viewpoint character though.

I guess it’s too late to introduce one now.

I could introduce a Dothraki viewpoint character, but I already have like sixteen viewpoint characters. I could kill some of my viewpoint characters, to get down to the seven or eight I started with, or some numerical equivalent. The Dothraki are partially based on the Huns and the Mongols, some extent the steppe tribes like the Alvars and Magyars. I put in a few elements of the Amerindian plains tribes and those peoples, and then I threw in some purely fantasy elements. It’s fantasy.

Are they barbaric? Yeah, but the Mongols were, too. Genghis Khan — I just saw an interesting movie about Ghengis Khan, recently. I’ve read books about Genghis Khan, and he’s one of history’s more fascinating, charismatic characters. The Mongols became very sophisticated at certain points, but they were certainly not sophisticated when they started out, and even at the height of their sophistication they were fond of doing things like giant piles of heads. “Surrender your city to me, or we will come in and kill all the men, rape all the women and make a giant pile of heads." They did that a few times, and other cities said, "Surrender is good. We’ll surrender. We’ll pay the taxes. No pile of heads, please.”

*puts hands over face*

*groans*

Okay, let’s talk about how and why a guy who “reads a lot of history” gets this kind of idea about Mongol people, and apparently friggin Plains NDNs people as well (TW for murder gore, rape at link and f*ck you very much Mr. Martin, jeeeeebus.)

There is no equivalent for the Dothraki in history. What people point to most often is the Mongol invasions in Asia and Europe, but these generalizations are originally extrapolated mostly from the accounts from invaded nations written by someone who had heard this or that about what had happened. I’m not saying like, “such and such never happened” I’m saying it didn’t always happen, and also that there’s a lot more to the story, and also that this narrative dominates for a reason.

We’ll do an example. Here you have something like this from UWGB, which heads up their “Mongol Values” section with a supposed quote from Genghis Khan. Here’s what the claim is, right? We have this translation of something he supposedly said here:

The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him. To ride their horses and take away their possessions. To see the faces of those who were dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms.

Okay, so basically, Conan the Barbarian. The article, which, might I remind you, is on a college site, goes on from this to say:

Or to paraphrase it in the bluntest possible modern terms: “To kill people, take their property, see and enjoy the pain you have caused their families, and rape their women as a final gesture of power.”

Okay, well that’s is a pretty big “I decided this means exactly what I already expected someone I think Genghis Khan was like would say.”Even if you did decide to take this at face value…that’s still not the casual attitude toward sexual violence the Dothraki demonstrate, it’s the opposite.

I could go into how women in Mongol culture had a great deal of power (which doesn’t necessarily translate into conquered women being perceived as equivalent, but might I remind you that Dothraki women in ASOIAF appear to be chattel with zero bodily autonomy evidence of sentience, for the most part), or how women having sociopolitical power does not equal a lessening of sexual violence by necessity….but.

I could mention that the way in which Genghis Khan was able to stabilize and actually rule such a vast empire was by giving conquered MEN to his DAUGHTERS in marriage, but then took these husbands out on campaign with him, and replaced them as needed when they died. Or that his empire was actually inherited by his daughters.

And then this article goes on to make statements about we know from Genghis Khan’s attitudes and sadistic enjoyments (more or less) that hope for humanity’s goodness will always be futile, because there will always be Hitlers and Stalins.

^^^That is their section on “Mongol Values”. D:

Soooooo……yeah.

People who claim that GRRM’s Dothraki are realistically based on Mongolian or Plains NDN culture are pretty much in “Einstein and Hammurabi Disco Dance in a Hot-Air Balloon" territory.

Thanks to Historians like the above and GRRM, people think “Mongolian=pile of heads, nonstop rape” . There’s no Khutulun, Wrestler Princess, among the Dothraki. There is no Queen Manduhui, no Lady Hö’elün, no Empress Chabi, no Sorghatani Beki, no mention of The Great Khanum and eight princesses Ruy González de Clavijo saw and marveled at in 1403.

GRRM took a society of women who could own property, divorce at will, hold political office and positions of military command, and replaced them with visibly dirty, grunting animals being raped publicly in the dirt [tw link for an image of what i just described].

Because “historical accuracy”.

Because oh, well it’s already done and it’s too late to change it now.

Actually, all of it sounds incredibly familiar:

image

"We cannot simply change it"

"I could introduce a Dothraki viewpoint character, but I already have like sixteen viewpoint characters"

"I guess it’s too late to introduce one now."

It’s always too little, too late, try again, make your own, better luck next time.

So, when do we get to stop being force-fed vile stereotypes with our fantasy? When do we get wish-fulfillment and escapism?

The bottom line is, I don’t know because the this is the industry right now:

image

How are supposed to break the vicious cycle of whiteness in publishing, whiteness of SF/F authors, whiteness of characters, othering, misogyny, degradation, stereotypes, and a history of a Black-White Good-Evil dichotomy?

Why does it matter? Because people think this is real, people think this is accurate, people think this is acceptable, people think this is historical, including, apparently, the people who are writing these stories.

We must change the narrative to change our stories, because lies about the past are in danger of dictating our futures.

preach it!

I guess if we want to see it changed, we have to be the change.

And yes, I’m working on a fantasy series that does.

That’s pretty much what prevented me from enjoying GoT and the ASOIAF series. Not only that, but also Martin’s weak ass excuse : “historical accuracy” my arse ! This is not a PHD thesis, this is “heroic freaking fantasy ! Ugh ! AndI used to LOVE this genre so much.LOVED IT. But now I just can’t truly enjoy any work of fiction due to that. It’s like now I can NOT unsee how POC like me are systematically erased from everything. Fuck them !

gladiatoringoldglitter:

Inspired by (x)

life lessons for one olivia pope…

WORD !

It’s just so.. UGH ! See : how come we can be watching for 4 seasons now all those crazy, fucked up, strong, cold hearted, abused, power hungry, compelling, weak, complex, powerful, loving, fascinating WHITE female supporting characters in the fictional heroic fantasy land of Westeros…But we can’t have just ONE great black lead character Olivia Pope for more than 2 seasons and a half. SMDH…

Scandal Season 3 Episode 18 : girl, bye !

Ridiculous and un-suspenseful. Pretty much everything in that episode was either ridiculous (and not in a good funny crazy way, quite the opposite) or boringly un-suspenseful.

With 1 hour left to go for the bomb to blow last episode, pretty much anybody who has been regularly watching tv for more than 4 year knew Sally nor Andrew would die. And when people start to celebrate a win not even 10 min into the episode, that’s pretty much a given they are going to loose. So much for the suspense. Did they even try and make it look or sound suspenseful? I doubt it.

Just like the death of FG4 aka little Jerry aka the non product of a disgusting incestuous rape aka walking boring plot device. That kid wasn’t even a real character, his sole purpose was to come and die and, added with the so anticlimactic reveal of that rape as another plot device, create yet another stupid reason why there couldn’t be a presidential divorce and no Vermont and no jam, bla bla bla. So much for the “emotion”. 

Or like that stupid Huck storyline: how am I supposed to root for Huck finding his family again after having him choking Liv and torturing Quinn ? Is it suppose to be ok ‘cause Liv doesn’t mind being choked left and right, and Quinn is so much in love with him and now they are sort of together having quickies at OPA and aha ah ah that was so awkward and funny…NOT! Like The Fuck ?

As for the supposed big twisty reveal about Big Bad Rowan playing everybody and their favourite terrorist momma, it hardly made me raise an eyebrow : seeing how ridiculous that all B613/terrorist Momma Pope storyline was, I don’t really understand how those writers thought we were supposed to react to this. But seeing how un self aware they have proven to be for the past season and half (Joke as a VP, really?), I don’t think they expected it to be such a yawn inducing mega snoozefest.

Even Olitz felt so lacklustre to me : you know when there is so sweet moment it is going to turn sour by the end of the episode. So Vermont turned into sympathy for raped Mellie, breaking Olitz for the millionth times, quitting OPA and standing into that bullshit light with “good regular guy” Joke. All I could think during that unnecessarily long and un-suspenseful goodbye Liv plot was just : go away, just  GO. AWAY. And please, please, never, never come back. But given that season 4 is pretty much already on the works or something, I couldn’t even find solace in the idea that the long horrible character assassination of the once great Olivia Pope and the destruction of Olitz had come to an end. At least we’ll have some sort of reprieve for the next 3 or 4 months.  Thanks Beysus for small favours !

sale-aholic:

marsofbrooklyn:

danifran16:

gladiatorinrags:

What is happening on ‘Scandal?’

 

By ALEC STERN, Senior Arts Editor
Published April 14, 2014

I’ve never written about “Scandal.” I’ve especially never called into question its realism or legitimacy as a political drama. For the past three years, I’ve enjoyed the series for exactly what it is — a guilty pleasure. Sure, at times the Shonda Rhimes series can be more poignant or more significant than typical ABC fare (like “Revenge” or “Killer Women”). But even at its best, “Scandal” is simply a good primetime soap — crazy, crass and shocking. Season three, however, has pushed the boundaries of what’s acceptable. Even in “Scandal” ’s soapy, hyper-fictionalized world, what the hell is going on? White hat’s off, crazy hat’s on.

After its blink-and-miss-it 7-episode first season, “Scandal” grew into a massive hit for ABC midway through its second season when its ratings steadily climbed until hitting a series high in the 2013 finale. Recently though, it would seem “Scandal” ’s flame burned bright but quick. Given its never-ending twists and turns, it’s no surprise that a little “Scandal” fatigue has begun to set in. There’s a limit to how far and how fast you can push the boundaries, and I think Cyrus Beene potentially allowing a bomb to go off at a state senator’s funeral, or a teenager bargaining her virginity for a college acceptance might just be that limit.

The back half of season three’s 18-episode order has seen the rails come off — throwing any caution or common sense to the wind. In turn, the series’ heightened drama, sexual antics and topsy-turvy narrative has become a parody of itself. Concurrently, Olivia Pope — this supposedly groundbreaking female character — has continued to regress from the season opener.

Whereas Olivia was once a capable and strong professional woman — the anti-Ally McBeal or even Meredith Grey — season three has seen her become a fragile, bumbling mess. Even worse, her greatest flaw is the man she is so devoted to. Olivia Pope continues to allow herself to be marginalized by Fitz, subservient to his every whim. And despite announcing in the series premiere that “she doesn’t do crying,” Olivia has shed tears in nearly every episode because of her relationship with Fitz.

“Scandal” ’s story has also faltered this season. In case anyone had forgotten, the first and second seasons — for the most part — featured a mix of procedural and serialized elements, a combination that grounded “Scandal” ’s oftentimes frantic narrative. Its case-of-the-week format separated Pope and Associates from the White House, allowing for much-needed breaks between each of the series’ defining entities. But Fitz’s reelection campaign has brought the two closer than ever, effectively changing the series’ DNA. Even more, its over-the-top storylines come closer and closer to eclipsing the brink of comprehension with each passing week.

I’m not making any claims about “Scandal” ’s believability. It’s unfair to criticize a soap opera’s realism, unlike other political dramas. Conversely, “Homeland” ’s misguided third season was flawed precisely because its believability was sacrificed in favor of action. The difference is “Homeland” operates under the assumption of realism — when its plausibility suffers, so does its worth. “Scandal” never promised realism, which is not to discount any of its success. But even “Grey’s Anatomy” — a show that has featured a male pregnancy and more natural disasters than I’d care to count — respects its own confines more strictly than the Kerry Washington series. “Scandal” ’s universe has no rules, which doesn’t make it exciting; It makes it sloppy.

Above all, it’s the repetition that is killing “Scandal.” How many late-night Olivia-Jake phone calls — which end with Olivia declaring with finality, “Goodbye, Jake” — is too many? How many times must Olivia and Fitz have the same passionate argument in the Oval Office? “Scandal” ’s love triangle has reached an extreme level of saturation, diminishing the likability of all those involved.

These issues of character complicate “Scandal” ’s end game. How are we supposed to root for the series’ central pairing when it’s so obviously toxic for Olivia? How are we supposed to root for Olivia and Fitz when Olivia is not his only mistress? Lest we forget that Cyrus had a pregnant Amanda Tanner murdered to preserve Fitz’s reputation. And how are we supposed to root for Olivia and Fitz when with each passing episode, it’s Mellie who truly deserves our sympathy and attention. Bellamy Young’s nuanced, delectable performance is soap opera done right, though it demonizes not only Fitz, but also the Olivia-Fitz pairing.

With that being said, even Mellie’s arc has become significantly flawed. Her storyline is defined by her rape, perpetrated by her husband’s father, as revealed through flashbacks in an earlier season three episode. Sexual assault is a crutch Shonda Rhimes has turned to in all three of her series — though far more effectively in the 2010 episode of “Private Practice,” “Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?” In that series, a majority of the fourth season was dedicated to the episode’s titular character’s experience — “what happened” to Charlotte King was a crucial journey for every character, significantly elevating the quality of Rhimes’s lesser “Grey’s Anatomy” spinoff. “Scandal” can’t make any of these claims. The incident between Mellie and her father-in-law was as quickly addressed as it was turned into yet another contrived melodramatic mystery (Is Jerry really Fitz’s son?), not to mention the fact that Mellie uses her rape as leverage to ensure her father-in-law’s support in an upcoming election. In stark contrast to “Private Practice,” “Scandal” ’s rape undercuts a serious subject, neither giving it the sufficient attention nor respect as it serves as a B plot for a secondary character.

“Scandal” ’s frenetic third season — at times “24,” at times “Grey’s Anatomy” on steroids — comes to an early close this week (its episode order was cut from 22 to 18 to accommodate Washington’s pregnancy). And I’ll admit, I’m eager to see many of the plots come to fruition, if for no other reason than leaving this whole mess behind us. After Fitz’s first election, prior to the first season of “Scandal,” Olivia left the White House to pursue her own life, apart from her tumultuous affair and hectic lifestyle. Here’s hoping season four will have her make the same realization.

“Scandal” needs fixing, but it’s not up to Olivia Pope to solve every problem. Shonda Rhimes is going to have to handle this one.

I see no lies. No lies at all. People can say what they want about Shonda’s brilliance and her genius, but this season has sucked, and sucked hard. All the characters are caricatures, and the writers aren’t even trying to pretend that they’re doing anything meaningful with them. They’ve managed to destroy Olivia Pope so much that if this was season one, cancellation would beckon. Well done Shonda, talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Hmm, I see a lie about Mellie and BY. Her acting is the opposite of nuanced. And Mellie deserves no sympathy if a viewer is actually paying attention.

I also see that lie and another about the Olitz pairing. I see people really want to hold onto that #fitzisthedevil notion that Shonda and dem have perpetrated.

I blame Shonda.

So much truth, so much truth.

geejayeff:

scandalgladiators:

lynn-anise:

Lmfaooo Fitz was like wait what. #Scandal #funny #Olitz

Joke is a tool and a bitch at that. Only way he could think of getting even. I fault Olivia too, but such a spineless bitch move on his part which is right there with him telling anyone who will listen:
I AM COMMAND!
I AM COMMAND!
I AM COMMAND!
Say it louder sniveling bitch, you might believe it. She took you down. Face it. Rowan ran that shit for 2 decades no peep. You have it for 2 weeks and his kid took your sorry ass down. You can’t COMMAND SHIT.

First rule of Command is don’t fucking talk about Command. Rowan still saying he works at the Smithsonian. That’s how you do it - compartmentalization, discretion and sticking to the lie.
I don’t mind that he’s simple as fuck. I just wish the show would let other people (Olivia!) acknowledge that fact about Captain Ctrl+P

LOL! Joke is such a weak ass whiny punk…Man boy much…And here they are all, calling Fitz a brat and all those child names…Sure, he is a lot of unsavoury things at times, but at least he owns his shit. And no matter how many times they have Joke shirtless on our screen, I’ll take Fitz’s “baaad boy” sexy flirty teasing over that pasty chicken chest ANY. TIME. Ok, sorry for turning this into Fitz versus Joke, thing. Beysus knows Fitz annoys me some right now, but I just couldn’t help it…;)

geejayeff:

scandalgladiators:

lynn-anise:

Lmfaooo Fitz was like wait what. #Scandal #funny #Olitz

Joke is a tool and a bitch at that. Only way he could think of getting even. I fault Olivia too, but such a spineless bitch move on his part which is right there with him telling anyone who will listen:

I AM COMMAND!

I AM COMMAND!

I AM COMMAND!

Say it louder sniveling bitch, you might believe it. She took you down. Face it. Rowan ran that shit for 2 decades no peep. You have it for 2 weeks and his kid took your sorry ass down. You can’t COMMAND SHIT.

First rule of Command is don’t fucking talk about Command. Rowan still saying he works at the Smithsonian. That’s how you do it - compartmentalization, discretion and sticking to the lie.

I don’t mind that he’s simple as fuck. I just wish the show would let other people (Olivia!) acknowledge that fact about Captain Ctrl+P

LOL! Joke is such a weak ass whiny punk…Man boy much…And here they are all, calling Fitz a brat and all those child names…Sure, he is a lot of unsavoury things at times, but at least he owns his shit. And no matter how many times they have Joke shirtless on our screen, I’ll take Fitz’s “baaad boy” sexy flirty teasing over that pasty chicken chest ANY. TIME. Ok, sorry for turning this into Fitz versus Joke, thing. Beysus knows Fitz annoys me some right now, but I just couldn’t help it…;)

screengeniuz:

corinnestark:

baronessvondengler:

miltonsong:

corinnestark:

plot twist: Big Gerry is alive and hired Adnan and Maya for the bombing. 

You know it is crazy enough to happen.  lol

Season ends with Fitz (and Jerry) going “Dad?” Lol.

plot twist: Big Jerry and Maya were also lovers. Olivia turns to Fitz, “Brother!?!”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

ESCANDALO !

If only Scandal would go all the way good bat shit soap opera and be THAT fun…That would be truly genius!

gladiatoringoldglitter:

hall70:

raytwin:

geejayeff:

lennybaby2:

geejayeff:

lennybaby2:

miltonsong:

lennybaby2:

miltonsong:

whose business is interfering into other affairs on behalf of her client, should just accept that if that client is going against B6-13 interests or against Jake’s interest, that he is allowed to choke her?

That’s what we as an audience are agreeing to? That is what ABC Scandal is promoting as an…

Ayayaye, here we go again. This horse has been beaten to death. Seriously, it’s not getting back up again. Seabiscuit is dead. I repeat: Seabiscuit is dead.

You can scroll  if you don’t want to hear it anymore.  That is your option.  But I’m asking you not to get on my thread if you aren’t going to either contribute a rebuttal to what I said or a different idea.  

Read my timeline…read countless other timelines. We’ve been discussing it to death. “WE ALL DO TERRIBLE THINGS”. This is a recurring theme in every episode. There is no character on the show who hasn’t done something that is, at the very least, a little shady…except maybe Lauren the secretary. So if people are gonna keep griping about Jake, gripe about everyone. Fitz killed someone and is an asshole to everyone but the same people who want Jake dead are the same ones who want Olitz together. I don’t care if Verna was a bitch or Fitz only killed one person. The point is that he did. He’s capable. And he’s a drunk. But he can recite sonnets so everyone’s cool with him basically screwing Olivia in front of everyone. I’m sick as hell of people posting negativity about every single episode each week like it’s supposed to be some after school special or beacon of African American television. Every show on primetime is heavily laced with sex and violence. So if people can’t handle it, why watch? Why torture yourselves and annoy the shit out of people who are actually enjoying the show? What good does that do? Write your own maybe. That’s a start.

"We all do terrible things" is no excuse to accept without reflection any situation presented. All violence is not equal. Violence to a person that hurt you is different from violence done to an innocent is different from violence done to an intimate sex partner. The context of the situation, the motivations going into it, the degree of violence and what kind of consequences resulted from it are all part of the calculation as to whether it’s justified, gratuitous, or problematic.

I watch a ton of violent, grisly shows, and Scandal handles violence atrociously! In particular, it handles the violence against the lead in a way that no other lead across the spectrum of shows, violent or otherwise, is subjected to. Whether it’s Breaking Bad, Dexter, The Following, The Walking Dead, when someone puts hands on the lead, a woman, hell let someone snatch a cat up too roughly, there are fucking consequences. There is a reaction from the lead, there is a change in the relationship, there is a reckoning. Because violence changes things.

I can’t defend Fitz because next season Shonda could turn him into a cannibal exchanging cooking tips with Hannibal. The writers are responsible for whatever good or evil the characters do. The writers are responsible for how the characters react to what is done to them. And the writers have fucked this situation with Olivia and Jake, Olivia and Huck and Quinn and Huck beyond all recognition. And I will drag the writers as long as they keep up this fuckery because this shit is not ok.

That’s how those shows handle it. This is Shonda’s show. She is under no obligation to follow some blueprint for how her characters should or should not react to things. You can drag all day, which seems pointless to me…or stop watching a show you clearly don’t enjoy. But as long as people are “dragging” there will be others who disagree and will voice their opinions too.

The characters on Scandal do react to things and their relationships DO change. The only person who buries things and keeps it moving for the most part is Olivia. She happens to be the lead. That’s just how she deals with situations where she feels she deserves it. It’s true to her character until Shonda develops or devolves her otherwise.

And we’re under no obligation to tailor our blog posts to suit you. If Shonda can do as she pleases, then I guess on our blogs, we can do as we please.

Yeah I see irony in arguing for people to not watch a show. When the same logic can be used to read or not read certain blogs. *shrugs*

just know that if mellie was getting the same physical treatment that olivia is getting, the critics, the mellie stans and any other person who identifies with her or likes her would be up in arms. let fitz put his hands on her neck and slam her again a door. let her and andrew get into a physical altercation and she falls and hit her head. let cyrus put his hands around her neck. then we are talking a whole different ball game.

And you know this… which is why their accusations of bias or whatever has no bearing on the discussion at hand. EVERYONE is biased, when viewing something subjectively, its a given.That doesn’t mean  a real discussion on unchecked violence against liv shouldnt happen. If that somehow sours or dampens your enjoyment of the show, there are plenty of tools to prevent seeing or interacting with the  topic.

Here, coming from a fascinating, violent, monstrous and brilliantly portrayed character, with no motivation whatsoever.

So many smart, astute, intelligent commentaries above… Sigh!

THIS ! THIS! THIS is why I still watch this show. This fandom, this side of the fandom. Thanks miltonsong, gladiatoringoldglitter, geejayeff & alii.

gladiatoringoldglitter:

I watched 208 again and it became super evident to me what made season 3 so different aside from the general tone/darker angle. From the very first episode when she was outed, Olivia has been stuck as the entire surrounding universe swirls evolves around her. Ironically, all the elements that…

Great analysis gladiatoringoldglitter. How come some fans understand and make me care for this character ten thousand time more than the actual writer ?

butterflybap:

wthscandal:

classicamericanvirgo:

wthscandal:

She is RESPONSIBLE for her OWN SITUATION in life. She made choices. She may regret them now, but they were HER choices. Mellie’s choices have NEVER been about Fitz, they were always taken with MANIPULATING Fitz…

READ!!!! Bravo wthscandal.