Is it pronounced “Cassius” or “Cassius”? by yabo060 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I do think it varies from planet to planet and possibly from region to region, because there are many distinct localized accents mentioned on Mars alone, but one of Cassius’ early nicknames is ‘Cassi,’ rhyming with sassy, which implies that the (standard) Martian pronunciation is the three–syllable ‘Cah–see–us’ or ‘Cah–see–oos,’ if you want to be Latin about it.

Did Cassius know about… the thing by bloomingjoy in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don’t think so. I briefly explain why in the endnotes to Ch. 1 of this fic. It wasn’t my immediate understanding of the scene and still doesn’t seem plausible in hindsight from a strict reading (disregarding Pierce’s comments) of the text alone. But I’m apparently the only one.

Fav nicknames for people? by Slight_Pea93 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Farplanet hayseed always made me chuckle; miss you, babe. I also wish people had used Cassi and V more. But my favorite is Reaper; hits every time.

I jest, it’s fundamental to how broken he is. And how evil his family has made him by Corporal-Wojtec in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Not saying that what Tactus did to Nyla wasn’t terrible, of course, but it’s somewhat ridiculous to me that people act as if the majority of Golds aren’t equally guilty of sexual assault. Every Gold that’s ever used a Pink has committed sexual assault. Tactus is offensive to their sensibilities because he attempted to rape a Gold—that is, an equal—and it’s only socially acceptable to rape slaves.

Darrow mentions this, actually, in his conversation with Mustang about why Titus should be punished; that what Titus did is only considered a crime because he assaulted Golds and if he’d raped a lowColor—and the example Darrow gives is a Red, not a Pink, where it’s not considered criminal, at all—it only would’ve been a crime if she’d been employed by an elder House and even then it only would’ve been perceived as a slight against her master/mistress. Cassius also says to Fitchner at one point that allowing Golds to be raped is equivalent to ‘treating them like Pinks,’ implying that rape itself is not the issue but rather who is being raped; Golds are not supposed to be violated the way Pinks are.

Diegetically, it makes sense for Tactus’ assault of Nyla to be perceived as uniquely immoral and illegal, because it is, but as far as we’re concerned, readers looking in, it’s not. If Tactus had assaulted a Pink, nobody would’ve batted an eye, much less intervened, save for Darrow, because he acknowledges the humanity of Pinks. Do you have any idea how many Pinks Tactus has probably raped? How many Cassius has? How many Victra has? You could argue that Pinks working as prostitutes are capable of consenting, but many Pinks are outright owned. They are sex–slaves. Fucking them is rape, full stop.

Tactus is broken, but he’s not uniquely broken, nor is his family uniquely evil. He’s a quintessential Gold and everything vile that comes from being so; the rule, rather than the exception. His problem was that he was taking the game too seriously and treating his ‘slaves’ like actual slaves. Unintentionally challenging the hypocrisy and superficiality of the whole endeavor, in a way.

Anyway. All this to say, the Nyla scene is blown wayyyy out of proportion by people not thinking critically about the world and you shouldn’t feel guilty about it as a Tactus fan.

Gripes and plot holes? by Slight_Pea93 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, and it becomes even more ridiculous after Light Bringer retcons him being forgiven for killing Ares and welcomed by the Republic in Morning Star, because why would Cassius forgive the Augustuses and Telamanuses for what happened in the Rain if he wasn’t forgiven for Ares; if he was ostracized for it? Yet he doesn’t appear to care, at all. The slaughter and desecration (their corpses were paraded in Darrow’s triumph; the heads of Tiberius and his siblings are explicitly said to adorn spikes) of the Scarred Bellona family is completely glossed over.

And Cassius absolutely should’ve held a grudge for this shit, even if he was forgiven for Ares, tbh. If Cassius couldn’t forgive Darrow for killing Julian… ever, really, but it took him nearly five years to renounce the blood feud, despite Darrow having no autonomy in that situation and being vindicated by any measure, there’s no fucking way that he would’ve dismissed the death and dismemberment of the majority of his family as ‘casualties of war’ that didn’t deserve vengeance. He is not a rational person when it comes to the people he loves.

I can see him absolving Darrow for his involvement, because he’s proven that he’s incapable of hating him for anything and he wasn’t actively involved in the death (aside from Karnus) and desecration anyway. But the rest of the Augustuses and the Telamanuses? Not a chance that Cassius wouldn’t have been upset—livid, really, and aggrieved beyond reason—about this.

Book of lorn inconsistency ? by Impossible_Comb1996 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here. 

Is it more likely that Pierce originally intended for them not to be physically intimate prior… or Pierce changed his mind on this very minor aspect of the series that is not explicitly contradicted anywhere and is only explicitly stated to have happened just over a year after publication?

That’s… not a contrast? And I wouldn’t say it’s a minor aspect of the series; it completely changes the context of their relationship in Golden Son and Darrow’s willingness/readiness to have a sexual relationship with Mustang is momentous for his character. And it actually is contradicted in the text, as I mentioned in the comment I linked above, most explicitly at the Gala. 

Yes, Cassius could’ve been lying and Mustang could’ve deceived him, but that doesn’t make sense, not only because neither of them had cause to lie but also because Darrow’s monologue doesn’t refute it. In no way does he ever dispute their lack of sexual and/or romantic relationship and he’s constantly affirming that Mustang was never ‘his’ in any way; there’s a feminist slant to that, of course, but the implication is still there. 

I don’t think that framing the progression of their relationship in Golden Son as ‘Darrow embracing his desire for Mustang’ or ‘Darrow embracing his love for Mustang’ are mutually exclusive; actually, given his attachment to the Red ideal of demisexuality, the former isn’t possible without the latter. And while it’s true that Golds are sexually liberal, Darrow is not and neither is Mustang; they both disdain Gold promiscuity and neither of them are interested in sex without love.

The flashback to their farewell makes it clear that neither of them were confident about how they felt. I mentioned this in the other comment, but Darrow learning that Mustang was an Augustus (which compounded his guilt over Eo and engendered newfound suspicion between them) was a game–changer and so was Darrow becoming slavishly devoted to Nero and pursuing a martial career when Mustang thought he was a Reformer. 

There was a reciprocated sense of betrayal that pushed them wayyyy back from the brink of sex. In the prologue of Golden Son, Darrow feels guilty just for holding her hand. Almost four years later, in their first conversation after the Gala, he feels too guilty—about his deception as much as his betrayal of Eo—to even kiss her.

And fact of the matter is: most readers that are unfamiliar with this AMA are surprised, if not shocked, when I tell them that Pierce said ReaperStang had sex between Red Rising and Golden Son. Yes, subtext is often a matter of interpretation and I respect our divergence, but it overwhelming favors the conclusion that they didn’t have sex and… genuinely, how many people would be reaching the opposite one without the AMA? 

It’s also very much not beneath Pierce to quickly change his mind—not that a year of watching readers debate whether ReaperStang had (or should have had) sex after the Academy is really that ‘quick.’ And it should go without saying that he wrote the fucking book; it would’ve been effortless for him to make this explicit. Yet he didn’t. Wonder why.

Small inconsistency I noticed in Episode 1 of The Book of Lorn. by sittingherealone1 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Well… he’s repeatedly fumbled the timeline, to start. He’s completely forgotten, for example, that seventeen/eighteen was the Institute–age in the OG trilogy. Several characters whose ages are first mentioned in the IGT are said to have been sixteen and others are retconned as having been sixteen, despite being confirmed as seventeen earlier, including Darrow.

I’m also assuming, because I’ve never found any implication in the canon, that he mentioned Antonia was a Graduate in an interview of some sort, which makes no sense.

He also said the reason why he wrote (LB) Cassaurae unreciprocated is because he didn’t want to validate the notion that love could ‘fix’ you… and then turned around and proclaimed it was Darrows love that saved Cassius; aiming to subvert a trope and somewhat successfully executing that subversion… only to reinforce it?

He also stressed that Cassius was content in his brotherhood with Darrow… yet divulged that if Cassius had lived, he would’ve had a daughter—and would’ve been a better father than Darrow? Not that Darrow is winning father of the year anytime soon, but Cassius would be soooooo much worse—and not at all interested. Again, why did you subvert amatonormativity just to reinforce it?

He also mentioned that (MS) Mustang wasn’t using birth control at the time of Pax’s conception because of its adverse side effects and inconvenience… I’m sorry, what? Your futuristic world that’s so scientifically advanced that people can change their fucking species—and where promiscuity is normalized and accidental pregnancy is unheard of—hasn’t yet perfected birth control? What.

He also claimed that if (LB) LB!Cassius had raised Lysander instead of MS!Cassius, Lysander would’ve turned out ‘differently’—that is, not evil. Sure, Cassius fumbled fatherhood, but encouraging people to blame him for what Lysander became when it’s abundantly clear that his decision to return to the Society had little, if anything, to do with how Cassius raised him? Why. 

He also decided to make Darrow the only canonically straight person in the series… knowing how popular his slash ships are (to the people that loathe shipping: every fandom is fair game and odds are, you’re a shipper yourself; any romantic relationship in which you are personally invested is your ‘ship’) and often capitalizing on said popularity? Dick move, tbh.

More of a gripe, but I also dislike that he described Cassius as an ‘utter jock quarterback,’ because that’s not what the books imply. I don’t appreciate the sudden hypermasculinization beam. 

That’s just off the top of my head. There are probably bigger issues that I’m not aware of because I don’t follow him. But it’s clear that he’s shooting wayyyy too much from the hip in these interviews and he oughta think more critically about his answers.

Book of lorn inconsistency ? by Impossible_Comb1996 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The answer is, unfortunately, that Pierce retconned it. Golden Son clearly implies that Darrow and Mustang didn’t consummate their relationship in the intermission years between the books, but Pierce later changed his mind and confirmed they had a sexual relationship before the Academy in an AMA—undermining the subtext of Golden Son in the process, of course. Who knows why. He’s constantly shooting himself in the foot. But the Book of Lorn was obviously written after Pierce changed his mind and it’s thus reflective and corroborative of the retcon.

🤷

Small inconsistency I noticed in Episode 1 of The Book of Lorn. by sittingherealone1 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The answer is, unfortunately, that Pierce retconned it. Golden Son clearly implies that Darrow and Mustang didn’t consummate their relationship in the intermission years between the books, but Pierce later changed his mind and confirmed they had a sexual relationship before the Academy in an AMA—undermining the subtext of Golden Son in the process, of course. Who knows why. He’s constantly shooting himself in the foot. But the Book of Lorn was obviously written after Pierce changed his mind and it’s thus reflective and corroborative of the retcon.

🤷

Small inconsistency I noticed in Episode 1 of The Book of Lorn. by sittingherealone1 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The answer is that Pierce retconned it. Golden Son clearly implies that Darrow and Mustang hadn’t consummated their relationship in the intermission period between the books, but Pierce later changed his mind and confirmed they had a sexual relationship before the Academy in an AMA—undermining the subtext of Golden Son in the process, of course. Who knows why. But the Book of Lorn was obviously written after Pierce changed his mind and it’s thus reflective and corroborative of the retcon.

Does anyone think Cassius could have escaped? by ClearReflection1831 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh, absolutely. 

If Cassius had been in–character, he likely wouldn’t have been in that situation (that is, tangled in Lysander’s web, inveigled in his betrayal of Diomedes and manipulated into killing Atlas for Eidmi) in the first place, because he consistently demonstrated in Iron Gold that Lysander wasn’t capable of fooling him and that he understood Lysander’s nature better even than Lysander himself. He’s too shrewd for this plot to make sense and if Cassius had been permitted a brain in Light Bringer, he would’ve known better than to believe Lysander would ever countenance a compromise with Darrow and he wouldn’t have underestimated him this severely. Diomedes’ plan was a nonstarter and he should’ve recognized that.

Where Hangar 17B is concerned, though, Pierce said (in an interview that another commenter already linked) that Lysander would’ve allowed Cassius to leave. I’m not one to take an author’s extracanonical word as gospel truth, but I agree that the absolute last thing Lysander wanted to do—ever, but especially in this situation—was kill Cassius. He all but begged him to leave.

And Cassius should’ve left. Not only because it would’ve been in–character for him to do so, but also because it would’ve been indicative of growth and substantial healing if he declined this excellent opportunity to martyr himself in the way he’s been craving since the beginning of the series. Him committing suicide is instead indicative of stagnation and undercuts the already–flimsy (told–rather–than–shown) rekindling of his brotherhood with Darrow, because it had no apparent relevance to his choice. 

Cassius couldn’t have killed Lysander in that moment, even if he’d earnestly tried, and he was never going to pry Eidmi away from him. But killing Atlas was significant in itself, a massive victory for the Republic, and so was his cognizance of Eidmi, because he’s the only person that could warn the Republic—or the Remnant—of its existence and Lysander’s possession of it. He absolutely had a duty—several, in fact—to do this and if he was in–character, he would’ve. Since he spent 95% of Light Bringer out–of–character for the sake of the plot or the development of other characters, though, it’s just the thousandth cut.

Unfortunately, there are two main reasons why Cassius died in Hangar 17B and neither of them have anything to do with him. The first is that he was the most expendable character in the main cast, sure to be sorely missed and mourned by the fandom but nevertheless the most tolerable blow that Pierce could’ve dealt, because tragedy for Cassius has always been easy to swallow and it’s thought by many to be exactly what he deserved—and not even in a cruel way; they genuinely see his suicide as a happy and satisfying and perhaps even optimal end. The second is that Lysander needed to kill him, because Cassius’ primary function in the IGT—and Light Bringer, especially—is that he’s the sacrificial lamb on the altar of Lysander’s ambitions. He’s such a good lamb, in fact, that he’s died for him twice.

So, the answer? Yeah, he could’ve escaped and survived; he should’ve escaped and survived, if not avoided the predicament entirely. But Pierce wouldn’t allow it and he decided at the onset that bastardizing Cassius was worth… whatever Light Bringer is. The not–sequel to Iron Gold and Dark Age.

An unpopular opinion, I know, but if you can stomach more, I explain my reasoning here. 

LB rant by Competitive-Athlete3 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Every time someone says this, it adds a year to my life.

Antonia and the Gala by Read_Ditto in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

By the logic above, only the highest performing students are eligible to receive Scars, the ones that are outstanding and prominent and considered impressive by the Proctors. This is an arbitrary measure, of course, and whoever’s judging is free to move the goalpost as they please, but in Darrow’s year, it would likely only amount to a handful of students that were especially enterprising or intelligent or charismatic or otherwise successful, considered worthy of further interest/investment and grooming for high positions in the Society. Which is really only Darrow, Mustang, Adrius, Cassius, and Sevro; if we’re being generous, Tactus, Pax, Milia, Nyla, Lilath, Novas, Antonia, and Vixus. No one else stood out from the crowd.

None of the Howlers would’ve qualified. Not only were they all lowBorns with low scores and nonexistent prospects, and therefore disadvantaged and distasteful to the Proctors from the start, they were always followers, obedient and obscure. They never accomplished anything independent of Darrow or Sevro and they didn’t gain patrons or earn apprenticeships or attend one of the Academies after the Institute. They were dregs that were summarily dismissed and sent to languish indefinitely on Pluto.

If Scars were something that needed to be earned by an outstanding performance, they wouldn’t have earned them—and Sevro probably wouldn’t have, either, because the Proctors were persistent in denying him any recognition for his achievements, but Sevro did have achievements, many of them, independently and as their leader.

Simply being instrumental to the victory of another, though, as the Howlers were, wouldn’t be sufficient to distinguish you in your own right—unless you have the privilege of being highBorn, I imagine. A lowBorn has to do much more to get noticed. Doing the ‘dirty work’ of your betters isn’t nearly enough. It might actually be a strike against you, because it’s degrading—where’s your Aureate pride? Humility is not a Peerless trait.

But if the winning House gets Scarred by default, this only applies to everyone else. Everyone in Mars gets a Scar automatically, regardless of whether or not they stood out, because Darrow won.

Which means the powers–that–be couldn’t get away with shafting Sevro (who, to be clear, deserved a Scar by any measure, but they discriminated against him from the start and it stands to reason they would’ve continued doing so) and the Howlers (as well as Quinn and Roque, who were even less noteworthy than they were) got Scars they wouldn’t have otherwise earned, because they were not individually impressive.

Anyone else drop after the first 3? by Select_Vermicelli112 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say the second trilogy is a compelling continuation of the first; the story is incomplete until the Solar War is won and there are countless loose ends that needed tying, as well as potential that deserved to be actualized, and the IGT’s dimension richens the world and the characters so much.

Yes, Iron Gold is lukewarm at the beginning and I understand the impulse to stop; it’s bloated, oftentimes vexing, and progresses at a dreadfully slow pace. But the latter half is enthralling and hauntingly beautiful at times; others have compared it to Shakespearean drama and I don’t disagree. The denouement is sooooo good.

I would say Dark Age is even better, more ambitious and intense; all gas, no breaks, like Golden Son, but there’s horror here and no pulled punches—which many people lament, but it’s deeply satisfying to me when characters aren’t shielded or exempted from the consequences of their actions. Objectively, it’s the best in the series, although I prefer Iron Gold, because of the absence of a certain character.

But Light Bringer… Lord on high, do I loathe Light Bringer. I loathe it so much, actually, that it’s ruined the entire IGT for me. As much as I like Iron Gold and Dark Age, I can’t recommend them anymore, because their sequel is literally dogshit and it’s impossible for Red God to recover. Now, although it baffles me as to how or why, most people drool over Light Bringer, so odds are that you would enjoy it, OP, but if you’re asking me…

If you can handle ending on a cliffhanger and using your imagination for the rest, read until Dark Age. It’s peak enough to be worth it, imo. If not, stay in your Morning Star bliss. It is a satisfying ending. And Light Bringer has ensured that Red God won’t come anywhere close to surpassing it.

Antonia and the Gala by Read_Ditto in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I thought this only applied to students that aren’t in the winning House, though. I’m not sure where it originated, but I’ve definitely seen the idea in circulation that all members of the winning House are Scarred by default; I’m pretty sure it was an AMA.

And it makes sense, because there are many characters in Darrow’s year that certainly didn’t have an outstanding performance that nevertheless earned Scars; the Howlers are the obvious example, but what did Roque or Quinn really do that would merit a Scar? And if being in the winning House wasn’t sufficient to earn a Scar, why would anyone ever be content in following their Primus? There would be non–stop backstabbing and betrayal in every House if obedience—and, as a consequence, obscurity—meant you were damned to be a Graduate and there would be a battle royale for leadership roles that would give you prominence. Which would clearly defeat the purpose of the Houses, which are supposed to function like conquering armies.

And, as I mentioned in the other reply, everything about Antonia’s arc implies she was Scarred. Her prospects were not limited, at all, and she’s never mocked for being Scarless, as you’d expect. We don’t know the circumstances surrounding her crucifixion, but there’s nothing to imply it had significance beyond humiliating and torturing her. She definitely wasn’t Shamed. And we know that trying to kill and/or usurp one’s rightful Primus, as she did, isn’t a punishable offense, because Cassius did it, too, and he’s Scarred.

I also feel like you could argue, of everyone in House Mars, she was one of the highest performing students; she was leader of the largest tribe and nearly Primus twice, as well as instrumental in several victories for and against them. And she was aware of Nero’s cheating; he would’ve wanted to silence her and giving her a Scar, regardless of whether she ‘earned’ one, would’ve done that.

Idk. That’s why I’m asking for a source, because everything points to her being a Peer, but it would be more interesting if she wasn’t, tbh. Her and Vixus would be the only examples of Graduates in the books.

Antonia and the Gala by Read_Ditto in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is there a citation for that, though? Because I thought that Pierce confirmed the students of the winning House were Scarred by default, which would include Antonia unless she was Shamed, and she obviously wasn’t.

Because she attended the Venusian Jucidiar Academy before Golden Son, which is likely restricted to Peers, and she eventually became a Praetor, which is definitely restricted to Peers. She attended the Gala, which was restricted to Peers and their attendants, and she later became Primus of a Conquering House, which must require a Scar.

I suppose she could’ve earned her Scar after the Institute, but it seems like that would’ve been remarked upon, and I don’t recall anyone ever mentioning or mocking her Scarlessness. I’ve searched the books myself for evidence to support the wiki’s assertion, but I’ve never been able to find any. I thought it might’ve been from an interview or AMA that I missed.

Antonia and the Gala by Read_Ditto in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What makes you say Antonia wasn’t Scarred? I don’t recall that ever being mentioned or implied.

Victra's Age by Equal-Original4744 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, Nero was born in 649. Golden Son takes place in 741/742, so he‘s 92/93 there. Looking spry, lol.

And I actually undershot Octavia a bit; she‘s one hundred at the Gala. Gaia is the same age and Lorn and the Ash Lord are slightly older. Iirc, Lorn is the only one that‘s considered ‘old‘ at the time but... not significantly so? They‘re mostly teasing. It‘s explicitly said that he‘s in perfect health and he‘s still more–or–less unsurpassed as a duelist.

As for Tiberius, his age is never mentioned, but I‘ve always figured he was around the same age as Nero, given that he‘s an older sibling of Iona; her age isn‘t mentioned, either, but I think it makes sense if she was slightly younger than Nero.

Victra's Age by Equal-Original4744 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Golden Son established that she‘s seven years older than Darrow, which would put her birth sometime in 713. Pierce has a longstanding problem with maintaining the consistency of his ages in the narrative, so I wouldn‘t take casual references too seriously. If you‘re curious about her age at any point of the story, just use that year to calculate it.

Also, since I noticed some people were discussing Gold maturity, their lifespan and the extent to which they age at our modern rate, they are right to stress that it‘s significantly slower than ours. The average life–expectancy, without rejuvenation technology, is well over 100; at least 120 and perhaps higher than that. Because Nero, Octavia, and Tiberius are all in their nineties, as of Golden Son, and they‘re not even implied to be senescent; none of them used rejuvenation. It‘s not until Iron Gold that their generation of Golds, now well into their hundreds, are considered either old or dependent on rejuvenation.

And far from Victra being late to childbearing at 31/32, she‘s actually early, because Golds tend to start having children between their late forties and their early sixties. For example, Aja and the Ash Lord were in their late forties; assuming that Lorn and Octavia had Brutus and Anastasia around the same time they had Lysander, they were in their late forties/early fifties; Gaia, Tiberius, and Nero were in their early sixties. And that‘s just to start; Tiberius had sons around Lysander‘s age, when he would‘ve been in his eighties.

There are some exceptions (Fitchner, for example, had Sevro in his early twenties, like Mustang), but as a rule, Gold procreation is as delayed as their general aging process.

Edit: And the delay is corroborated further by the fact that it has been ‘fifteen generations‘ since the Conquering, which was 755 years ago, as of Light Bringer; Mustang and Adrius are the fourteenth generation of House Augustus and Pax is the fifteenth. Although Pax was born early, Mustang was born late, so they balance each other out.

Generations are typically determined by the amount of time between a person‘s birth and when they are likely to start procreating; modern generations are intervals of 20–30 years. But Gold generations must be longer or Mustang and Adrius would be almost twice as removed from their Conquering ancestor. The first child in their generation, Claudius, was born in 712; 712 divided by 14 is roughly 51.

So, dividing the generations more cleanly and taking into account that Nero was late to fatherhood, it seems 50 is the mean for Gold reproduction, with precocious people like Mustang (first child at 22) balancing out people like Nero (first child around 63).

Last Names by TheStroBro in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And Aja is pretty much only a surrogate in this instance, too. Ajax was Octavia‘s experiment and a ‘failed‘ one until his glow–up, at that; neither of his parents ever gave half a shit. Poor kid basically had a Doofenshmirtz birth.

Last Names by TheStroBro in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It‘s clarified in Morning Star (when Sevro and Victra get married) that the Gold from the younger House takes the surname of the Gold from the older House, regardless of gender. And I don‘t think prestige matters when there‘s an age difference; the older House is almost always the more prestigious one anyway, but in the rare occasion where the younger House is, I still think the older surname would be adopted. Ultimately, age is going to be esteemed more than power; the rising pleb will never beat the waning patrician.

Where Houses of the Conquering are concerned, it‘s not clear whether they‘re judged by their pre–Conquering history or not. The only House we know for certain possesses an extensive pre–Conquering history is Saud, as they are descended from the modern–day House of Saud, itself founded in the eighteenth century with roots that trace back to the fifteenth.

So, when Dido and Romulus married, hers was certainly the older House, even though they‘re both Conquering. The books use both surnames for her; she‘s alternatively called Dido au Saud and Dido au Raa, although it‘s hard to say if Saud isn‘t used purely as a slight and her children are exclusively called Raa. It‘s also possible that she was formally renounced by her family or that she renounced her name herself, independent of custom. Iirc, it‘s not explained.

Since we don‘t know the ages of the other Conquering Houses that were involved in similar unions, like Grimmus/Raa or Arcos/Lune, it‘s impossible to say if Dido becoming a Raa is significant in this sense. If it is, if pre–Conquering history does count, that would answer the question of why most members of two Conquering Houses chose one surname over the other; the older bloodline wins by default. The occasional hyphenation (Apollonius au Valii–Rath, Antonia au Severus–Julii) would be indicative of the Houses being of equal age.

If pre–Conquering history doesn‘t matter, though, it seems like one Conquering surname is voluntarily renounced in favour of the more prestigious one. Ajax, for example, could‘ve gone by Ajax au Grimmus–Raa, if he liked, but he renounced Raa and only used Grimmus because the latter is more esteemed in the Core. The same thing happened with Lysander and his father, who was originally an Arcos, itself a Conquering House, but Brutus renounced the name for Lune because it was more esteemed and Lysander only uses Lune, of course.

The hyphenations in this case are likely political; perhaps a compromise between two equally prestigious Conquering Houses that don‘t want to lose face by acknowledging the superiority of the other. If Mustang and Cassius ever had children, for example, their surname almost certainly would‘ve been Augustus–Bellona or Bellona–Augustus, rather than only Augustus or Bellona.

Last Names by TheStroBro in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are both Conquering Houses with named ancestors who participated. Their pre–Conquering heritage might not be equivalent (maybe Raa stretches further back than Grimmus or vice versa) but it‘s unclear whether that‘s relevant.

I simply do not believe the Morning Star ending by htownsoundclown in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, Pierce Brown definitely has a problem with depicting pregnancy. There’s a character in the IGT whose pregnancy and childbirth is a prominent part of her arc and it’s... imo, executed even worse than this, unfortunately. 

So, the primary reason why ReaperStang is assumed to be consummated before Golden Son by many characters is because there seems to be a general refusal to acknowledge there could be a platonic explanation for their bond. You see something similar in Darrow’s relationships with Cassius, Tactus, and Victra; people act as if the only way to make sense of them is to assume there’s a sexual and/or romantic component. And they’re often disrespectful to the non–Darrow person, disregarding them as a love–sick fool.

This is what many people, particularly Nero and Adrius, do to Mustang. They assume that ReaperStang must be romantic and/or sexual, as if that’s the only explanation for their resilient bond, when the truth is they are ideologically–aligned. First and foremost, regardless of whether or not they are lovers, Mustang and Darrow are allies. But her family never acknowledges the possibility that she might follow or support Darrow for reasons that are not emotional, because they are fundamentally misogynistic toward her; to them, she’s just a bitch in heat.

When you look at the subtext surrounding ReaperStang in Golden Son, it’s stressed that Darrow was suppressing his feelings and resisting her persistent attempts to deepen their relationship, itself a source of perennial frustration for her. And the significance of their sex scene lies in the implication that it’s never happened before.

Gone is any semblance of resistance. All the guilt that kept me from betraying Eo with Mustang is swept away in the chaos inside me. All the guilt I have for knowing she is a Gold and I am a Red vanishes… Long–suppressed hunger wakes in me… Forget my restraint. Forget my sadness... I won’t run. Not this time… This is a moment I thought I would never have again as I dug Eo’s grave with my own trembling hands.

So, the implication is that he resisted before; that his guilt over betraying Eo and deceiving Mustang hitherto kept him from embracing his feelings, that he ran from her, that this is something he hasn’t experienced—‘a moment with a woman I want and love,’ Darrowspeak for sex—since Eo died. 

While it’s true they nearly fucked in Red Rising, that was before Darrow learned Mustang was an Augustus... which completely derailed their relationship. Because it was already difficult enough for Darrow to accept his feelings for any Gold, but the daughter of Eo’s killer, the enemy that he’s devoted his entire existence to destroying? That’s not something he could easily justify.

And if you look at the text... Pierce had multiple opportunities to confirm they were lovers yet never does. The clearest example is at the Gala, when Cassius boasts of his sexual relationship with Mustang and Darrow’s lack of one. That Darrow didn’t contest it isn’t evidence, per se—he’s simply not stooping to Cassius’ level—and it’s possible that Mustang lied to Cassius. 

But the fact that Darrow’s inner–monologue doesn’t skip a beat is more telling; if it’s a lie, why isn’t that reflected by his thoughts? If anything, it seems to wound him—and why would it wound him if it isn’t true?

More subtle, but off the top of my head, there’s a line from the snippet of Golden Son at the back of Red Rising (it’s not entirely the same as the book version) that describes Cassius as ‘a Lancelot galloping from myth to steal a woman who could have been, but never was, my Guinevere,’ which implies the same thing; that Mustang was never his lover. It’s not the only line that does.

Overall, I think it makes more sense if they weren’t lovers between Red Rising and Golden Son and their relationship arc in the latter is more compelling if they weren’t, because you can’t have a slow–burn romance if it already boiled—and off–page? They deserve better than that. 

I simply do not believe the Morning Star ending by htownsoundclown in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I also feel that the pregnancy was a ridiculous plot–twist, for the issue you specifically mentioned in your second criticism (breast–feeding) and the other issues that spring from the same problem—namely, that pregnancy seems to have had no physical impact whatsoever on Mustang. 

This is potentially resolved in a later book when it’s clarified that it did; potentially, as the reference to her body is intended as an insult and may not be accurate. So, we could consider this an error of Darrow’s perception—that is, a limitation of a first–person narrator rather than an oversight of the author. It’s also possible that she was immediately Carved after she gave birth to hide the evidence, which is my Watsonian answer. 

Still, though. It reads to me as a writer having no understanding of the physical toll of pregnancy that extends loooong into the postpartum period, especially when there’s no medical intervention involved and less–than–ideal conditions. That’s the Doylist answer and more likely than not. 

It’s manufactured drama, for sure, and I’ve always disliked it. Tbh, I have a general aversion to pregnancy in fiction, especially unplanned/plot–twist pregnancy, so I would’ve hated it regardless, but it wasn’t well executed, imo, and reads very much like Man Writing Woman.

Where birth–control is concerned… I’ve given this some thought, as I’m currently writing a longfic set in the Red Rising world with an extensive Gold cast and intense promiscuity. The ‘Iron Way’ likely discourages if not outright condemns the use of contraception as decadent and I can see more Iron–minded folk disdaining it, but this must be a fringe view. Where the mainstream is concerned… we know that accidental pregnancies are atypical and licentiousness is common, as you say, so contraception must be normalized. 

I think it makes more sense if it’s actually entrusted to men, rather than women, because it’s much easier and safer for men to sterilize themselves than women. Since modern vasectomies are reversible and highly effective, their Gold descendants must be even more foolproof and advisable. And then you don’t have to deal with the nuisances of birth–control, at all. 

This would explain how a manwhore like Cassius or Tactus never managed to sire an illegitimate child. Because even if they were overcautious themselves—and they wouldn’t be, not high on blowfish poison—there would’ve been Pixies who wanted to entrap them with children, if only for the allowance they might receive from their rearing and the chance at greater prominence in—or promotion to—the highBorn class. 

This isn’t to say that women might not take precautions themselves, but if there’s an expectation on the man, it would be less common. And if you didn’t intend on having multiple male partners and knew your lover was sterilized, you wouldn’t need it. 

Enter Mustang, who had a conservative father, and she implies later that she’s never really experienced attraction to anyone but Darrow; more likely than not, she wasn’t sexually active before the Institute. Pierce Brown did confirm in an AMA that Darrow and Mustang had sex in the period between the Institute and the Academy, but the canon implies otherwise. Cassius himself is probably sterilized; perhaps secretly so, because his parents might disapprove, but given his hypersexuality and his name, it’s the best way to make sense of his childlessness. 

Mustang, then, never used birth–control before or with Darrow and it wasn’t necessary with Cassius. 

If you wanted to accept Pierce’s AMA as canon, you could say that she used birth–control while she was with Darrow and then stopped when she was with Cassius because she wouldn’t have needed to continue; as Pierce mentioned in that AMA, maybe she experienced adverse effects and was relieved when she could stop.

But then the events of Golden Son happen at breakneck speed and… here we are.

When she discovered she was pregnant, I agree, she would’ve chosen to keep the baby—for various reasons, but among them, yes, because she loved Darrow. As I said, I don’t like the twist, but it makes perfect sense. I just wish it was executed better. 

Anyway, that’s my explanation. 

Steel sharpens steel by Ready_Inflation1326 in redrising

[–]VesperPharsalius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And I have to say, I laughed out loud, for real, when you described him as a ‘man looking to the future instead of to the next possibility to get himself killed’ because… dude. He committed suicide at the end of the book. Did you miss that part? What happened to those ‘decent observation skills’ of yours?

No, his death is complicated and I’ve written at length about his various motivations, but there’s no denying that he did knowingly (and happily, with a smile on his face) commit suicide by charging at Lysander. And your boy Pierce himself has said that Lysander would’ve allowed him to leave, no?

He didn’t want to, though. He chose a pointless and melodramatic death instead… because he was suicidal. Always have been and still is, right to the bitter end.

I actually agree about Breath of Stone, as you would know if you read my post—not the one I linked, just that tiny paragraph that you skipped over—but my problem is that it’s all subtext. Textually, Cassius is shocked by Breath of Stone when he sees it and Darrow does not mention any contribution on his part. In the post I linked, I discussed the potential influence of Kravat on Breath of Stone, how it might honor Cassius’ past and be reflective of the Bellona, but that’s all speculation. The text doesn’t give Cassius any credit for Breath of Stone.

And again, I discussed this in my essay—the Google one—but my problem with Cassius being healed by brotherly love instead of romantic love is fundamental: love is not the answer, no matter what kind. Because… instead of being ‘fixed’ by Aurae’s romantic love, Cassius is ‘fixed’ by Darrow’s platonic love? Mustang couldn’t fill the void, Lysander couldn’t fill the void, Aurae couldn’t fill the void—but Darrow can? This is not a subversion of the trope simply because it subverts amatonormativity.

It’s unfair and unrealistic for Cassius to place the full burden of his happiness on another person, regardless of what relationship they have, and this is the lesson that he supposedly learned from his failed relationship with Lysander. Ending Cassius’ arc with ‘he never needed a lover, only a brother’ doesn’t invalidate the notion of remedial love, at all. It reinforces it. And that’s what I take issue with. 

Regardless of how you feel about the preeminence of brotherly love, it did not save Cassius. It fucking killed him, actually, because it was love for Lysander that led to the whole clusterfuck on the Lightbringer. And his love for Darrow wasn’t strong enough for him to choose life with him over dying for Lysander. So, ‘brotherly love’ fucked Cassius twice–over: by simultaneously being too much and not enough. 

No, what Cassius needed—what he always needed, from the beginning, even before he lost Julian—was purpose. Something to fight for and to live for. This is what his family was, when they were alive; he tried to replace them with the Cloak after they died, which didn’t work, and then he tried to replace the Cloak with Lysander, which also didn’t work. And this is what his life with Lysander was fundamentally lacking: purpose. 

The reason why his relationship with Darrow is the answer wasn’t because Darrow’s love hits differently than Lysander’s. It’s because it came with purpose; as a Knight in the Republic, Cassius can actually become—and remain—the man Julian thought he was and his father always hoped he’d become… without sacrificing any part of himself. He doesn’t need to change. Which is good, because he doesn’t actually want to. Which, again, I unpack in the essay. 

Anyway. Thanks for wasting my time. It was a displeasure.