5 months ago with 2,735 notes    via / root





how is it not abundantly clear to all of humanity that margo was in control in that sex scene it was also margot and margots wants and needs and margot has zero fucks to give about puppy faced will and used his fear and hatred and instability to use him as a sperm donor to create and control a male heir so she can murder her brother and it in no way erases her sexuality, makes her a “weak woman”, or was an example of a dude being able to magically seduce a lesbian or makes her an unfeminist female character. MARGOT VERGER IS AN ANGRY QUEER VICTIM TAKING BACK EVERY OUNCE OF POWER EVER RIPPED FROM HER AND USING EVERY DUDE IN THE ROOM TO DO IT.

Reproductive coercion is female and queer empowerment? What the living fuck is wrong with you? How does someone with no choice but to produce an heir by sleeping with a man have power?

You know what erases her sexuality? Not showing her with any women whatsoever, not having her in relationships with women, not being able to say the word ‘lesbian’ and using stupid problematic euphemisms, having her sleep with a man (she doesn’t want to sleep with) when there are other ways to get pregnant.

Stop acting like this show is doing service to queer characters because its only mocking them. It honestly offends and hurts me as a queer person to see people say that this is actually helpful and that my feelings are worth nothing about how queer people are used in media.


I mean but reading comprehension????

The point isn’t that Margot has power. The point is that Margot is a powerless woman who is is using her body (something that has never been fully hers as long as Mason has had anything to say about it) as a way to fight back against the men in her life that have robbed her of personal autonomy/a legacy. This isn’t a story about a cool queer chick who has her shit together and has control over her life, this is the story of a queer woman whose been in the position as a victim her entire life manipulating the patriarchal values of her family and twisting them in her favor.

You know what erases her sexuality? Not showing her with any women whatsoever, not having her in relationships with women

As opposed to what? All of the sex scenes accorded to characters who aren’t Will and Hannibal or people they have slept with? Im not going to oppose a Margot sex scene, but it’s not exactly unique for her not to have anything given that she’s probably had 15 solid minutes of screen time, has been in 3 episodes, and doesn’t even register as a side character yet. Not only is this a show structured around Will and Hannibal’s POVs, but she’s hardly out of the gate yet regardless. I don’t know why some folks are expecting so much explicitly gay centric screen time from a character who is still being introduced and has a lot more going on in her life than just being gay.

 not being able to say the word ‘lesbian’ and using stupid problematic euphemisms, 

Let’s just throw Hannibal’s abuse of subtlety out the window then. They can’t even straight up verbalize that Hannibal Lector eats people even though it’s basically the most obvious and well known faCT about his character. 3-4 references of Margot’s sexuality most certainly isn’t enough! We need more! She’s gatta scream that she fucks women from rooftops! She’s gatta wear nothing but rainbows! 

Im not here for Dumbledore “word of god” shit where a queer character’s sexuality is completely ignored and brought up out of the narrative for brownie points or something, but the demand for aggressive bells and whistles and noise about a character’s sexuality always bothered me as well, because it ultimately feels like reduction. Look here! Look at this big gay character! Look how GAY they are! We gatta remind people. 

Fuller had Margot flat out say that part of her family’s scorn was that she was attracted to women in a way that wove into the script of the series and reflected the architecture of expression used by EVERY CHARACTER ON THE SHOW. He had Mason bring it up a few times more vaguely; and whether or not her sexuality is going to take a larger role in her story is yet to be seen. But that’s good for me. A queer woman with a brilliant narrative whose sexuality has affected her daily life, but who isn’t defined by her queerness.  

And listen, I am also a queer girl, and Margot’s story affects me in the exact opposite way that it seems to affect you. It feels validating and empowering and it overjoys me to see a story like this (an angry scorned female product of the patriarchy pushing back with all of her might and using the female attributes and her body that men have used and scorned her for as a weapon to destroy them) and given to a queer woman when it’s already a celebrated trope given to straight women in countless television dramas.

Your experiences and feelings here most certainly don’t invalidate mine, and vice versa I suppose. But for me, this is the kind of character I want representing me; that being a character who is very dark and off the beaten path and doesn’t play into the typical role of “likable token gay person”. Hannibal ain’t Orange is the New Black. It certainly isn’t the sort of show i’d point out an say “this is the kind of show that I would absolutely recommend for a+ representation”, but in the case of Margot Verger, I stand firm that both her character and her arc are absolutely perfect, and i’m fully prepared to defend her both as a person and as a character.  

If you don’t like Margot or don’t think that she’s enough for you that’s fine, but she matters to other people who (shocker) are just as entitled to their feelings as you are. This woman’s story matters. She isn’t a central figure in Hannibal, nor is she a character with a POV like Will, Hannibal, and maybe to an extend Alana. She’s a side character whose time in the show remains to be seen, but for the time we get with her, her arc remains valuable. If you wanna talk about Fuller and feminism or Fuller and queer representation, that’s a completely different issue and the validity of some of those issues rings true, but in the case of Margot, all of his interviews regarding her have been nothing but positive. He took an absolutely problematic, sloppy, offensive character, took note of what about her was questionable, and turned her into a fully fleshed out, brilliant character who is so much more than her womanhood, her queerness, or her victimhood, and THAT is important. There are some things about Hannibal that I think are objectively questionable, but Margot is not one of them for me. 

5 months ago with 1,670 notes    via / root

6 months ago with 19,721 notes    via / root

Source: spaceslayer Via: thetuxedos
Meta: Hannibal 2.05, “Mukozuke” 


HANNIBAL: Will Graham is not what you think. He’s not a murderer.

BROWN: He is now. By proxy. 

HANNIBAL: He asked you to do this?

In which the game changes. 

[N.B. Spoilers for all episodes; blood & gore, strangulation, torture, reference to suicide.]

Read More

6 months ago with 672 notes    via / root

Via: elucipher
"Let’s talk about it with civility and dignity. I don’t see how attacking anyone to the point where nobody wants to listen to any possibly valid points you’re making is going to lead to any solutions. And at least for me, I just end up feeling even worse."
-  Hettienne Park on the storm of vitriol toward Bryan Fuller. (x)
6 months ago with 139 notes    via / root


My standards for boys:

  • tall
  • dark hair
  • stubble
  • cute smile
  • love horseback riding
  • unusually long life span
  • speak elvish
  • secretly be the heir to the throne of Gondor
  • Aragorn
  • be Aragorn
6 months ago with 61,702 notes    via / root

I’d rather focus on the positive stuff. [X]

6 months ago with 26,521 notes    via / root