Walden's Blog

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
rosegardeninwinter
softchouli

image

"Every table presents new temptations, and even on my restricted one-taste-per-dish regimen, I begin filling up quickly. I pick up a small roasted bird, bite into it, and my tongue floods with orange sauce. Delicious. But I make Peeta eat the remainder because I want to keep tasting things, and the idea of throwing away food, as I see so many people doing so casually, is abhorrent to me." (Catching Fire, chapter 6)

rosegardeninwinter

I was hoping you would quote the most #married section in all of CF and you did not disappoint. They still must do this post MJ. Just eating the bits the other doesn’t like. “Have my tomatoes I don't want them.” “Aight.” 

everlark catching fire panemverse
okmcintyre
the 100 bellarke i'll be watching
celadona123
theweeklydiscourse

One thing that bothers me about Baghra, is that she’s characterized as this wise old crank who is lovingly harsh in spite of her curmudgeon attitude as well as a strong woman trying her best to thwart her “evil and corrupted” son. This bothers me because I absolutely HATE to see the narrative glorifying a character who embodies the worst aspects of Shadow and Bone’s message and is just…plain awful.To me, Baghra is a prime example of the way this story glorifies passivity and vilifies seeking power as a means of liberation.

Baghra is positioned in opposition to Aleksander as a kind of“good darkling” who doesn’t seek power by means of her Grisha identity. Rather, she chooses to abstain from using her powers and grows frail and old. Because the narrative views power as an inherently corrupting influence, Baghra is contrasted with the implied evil and corruption of Aleksander who chose to pursue power and became strong, youthful and beautiful as a result. This dichotomy informs the reader of which traits they should idealize and which traits are to be considered as evil. Thus, Aleksander is vain, power hungry and Machiavellian for seeking power while Baghra is humble, virtuous and wise for abstaining from it (at the cost of her health and strength).

Her frail appearance makes it seem as though she couldn’t possibly stand against the strength of Aleksander, but do not forget that the two of them are deceptively close in age. Baghra could have plausibly maintained her strength and stayed active in challenging Aleksander’s supposedly catastrophic aspirations. When she tells Alina the truth about Aleksander in S&B, the story she tells implies that she had known about his villainous tendencies for decades or even centuries and did little to take preemptive measures against him.

The choice to be passive in spite of her claims that Aleksander is a danger to Ravka is posited as the virtuous option even though it is grossly negligent of her to not stand against evil (or at least a perceived evil). She chooses the maintenance of her own “righteousness” over actually doing a single thing to improve things, endlessly complaining and chiding, but never taking action. This is why her most affecting attack on her son was her suicide/sacrifice in R&R, it is the ultimate example of her resistance to action and the culmination of her seemingly virtuous repression and passivity.

In Alina’s conversations with her, Baghra will allude to the idea that Aleksander charmed and manipulated other girls in the past. But what happened to these girls? Did Baghra tell them the truth about Aleksander before he could “sink his claws” into them? If this was a problem, why didn’t she take measures to prevent it? Furthermore, Baghra reveals to Alina that she has known about Aleksander’s “evil” plans the entire time, that she had known about it for years, even decades. So why then, if he was such a danger, why did Baghra do NOTHING to stop him? Or briefly thwart him at least? She claims that she attempted to reason with him, but at the same time, she remained passive for centuries and for some reason didn’t make any attempt to arm herself against a future threat.

Baghra spent centuries doing nothing to strengthen herself and did absolutely nothing to stop Aleks from his supposedly evil aspirations. I mean, she was the ONLY other darkling for centuries and stood the best chance of defeating him even before a sun summoner came into existence. The narrative frames this passivity and negligence as a virtue for Baghra. This is repeated in Alina’s character with her denial of her agency and power leads to the ultimate loss and allows her to run away from responsibility and avoid making hard decisions.

Alina mirrors Baghra’s last “sacrifice” by symbolically killing a part of herself to harm her opposite half by extension. It is the ultimate refusal to act and cements Alina’s passivity and irresponsibility as a “right” choice for her character. Alina refuses to take responsibility for her destiny and aid her community in its time of need in favour of her desire to remain in a state of perpetual childhood.

It’s so strange that the Grisha are a persecuted group (a fact that is reiterated multiple times) and yet, their inherent traits for which they are targeted are framed as being inherently corrupting. Apparently when you’re being oppressed by an unjust system you should just…not do anything and get all up in arms when someone actually tries to improve the situation.

anti baghra grishaverse