This kind of concept is one I tend to find really interesting as an idea.

I like fiction where even sincerely decent people with good intentions have to grapple with their impulse and desire to do the right thing. But that doing so isn't always easy. The child of royalty born to a life of riches who is part of an entrenched aristocracy whose entire standing in society depends inherently upon the subordination of the lower class is already extremely far-removed from the realities of the rural or urban poor. Even nobles who are actually sympathetic to lower class people don't understand their situation, don't understand the lived realities of powerlessness and marginalisation.

The question of how to address this and deal with such revelations would, in and of itself, make for extremely interesting fiction. Because do you choose to promote what is effectively a kinder version of an unequal system, or do you attempt to tear it down and replace it with something completely different?



As fascinating as such stories can sometimes be, I do also WANT to move away from stories that are endlessly about wealthy elites and their power politics. Because, frankly, they are tired, and there's only so many times I can see Henry VIII, Mary Tudor, or Elizabeth I depicted in this way or that. These stories are just overexposed, let's hear different stories.

I want to hear the story of the mediaeval merchant trying to make ends meet or the Ancient Roman artisan who is just starting to gain prominence and prestige in their work...
The issue there is when a journalist was asked why they endlessly cover the same tired stories of Royals that may not have actually happened was that everytime there is even the slightest royal connection sales doubled. People want this this shit basically and will read or watch it.

So that's why the glut is there, we can all want to see more working class heroes and there is a rich history of such but when all is said and done the Tudor Abbey Halls of the world will just always make back the investment so will be the mainstay of period pieces. People don't give a crap about merchants they just want to see sexier versions of premodern royalty.


I'm guilty of this too in that the even the classes of 'ordinary' people in history I want to see are probably the top 5% of the population given just how bloody poor and tied to a limited plot of land most people were?
 
One thing I really dislike is the Catholic Church being the evil ignorant bad guys.


Like in Castlevenia during the rough time period of the series Catholics far from being in a postion to damn the entire world were a persecuted minority. I get people forget orthodox exist but like in proto Romania you were either pagan, orthodox or Muslim in later years with actual laws against being catholic yet somehow yet again we are the ones burning intellectual women (despite the Church holding the view that it was those accusing people of witchcraft who were the heretics because magic doesn't exist) it would be fine if literally any other strand of Christianity got hit by this but they never do.
 
The issue there is when a journalist was asked why they endlessly cover the same tired stories of Royals that may not have actually happened was that everytime there is even the slightest royal connection sales doubled. People want this this shit basically and will read or watch it.

So that's why the glut is there, we can all want to see more working class heroes and there is a rich history of such but when all is said and done the Tudor Abbey Halls of the world will just always make back the investment so will be the mainstay of period pieces. People don't give a crap about merchants they just want to see sexier versions of premodern royalty.

Admittedly, I tend to go by the old advertising maxim that people don't always know what they want until they get it. We don't know that a show about say, a traveling merchant in Ancient Rome would not be interesting or financially successful.

The challenge, of course, lies in persuading some big-money producer or studio to fund such a project. I don't really work in such media, so I couldn't really say as to whether the opportunity is there or not.

I'm guilty of this too in that the even the classes of 'ordinary' people in history I want to see are probably the top 5% of the population given just how bloody poor and tied to a limited plot of land most people were?

This does actually touch on the very practical issue that shows about historical nobility and royalty just have a lot more things going on. There's a lot of possibility for all kinds of important plot developments and events: major battles, civil wars, noble intrigues, etc. Which you just wouldn't get if you told a story about say, a cobbler in 13th-century Canterbury.

It would have to be something with a gimmick or detailing people in a time or place where their status and situation is fairly fluid. A traveling merchant whose job requires frequent travel, a mediaeval pilgrim visiting different churches, etc.

Like there are ways to do it, historical societies were very interconnected and those interconnections relied upon a vast number of people to maintain them. There's stories to be told here.

One thing I really dislike is the Catholic Church being the evil ignorant bad guys.

Like in Castlevenia during the rough time period of the series Catholics far from being in a postion to damn the entire world were a persecuted minority. I get people forget orthodox exist but like in proto Romania you were either pagan, orthodox or Muslim in later years with actual laws against being catholic yet somehow yet again we are the ones burning intellectual women (despite the Church holding the view that it was those accusing people of witchcraft who were the heretics because magic doesn't exist) it would be fine if literally any other strand of Christianity got hit by this but they never do.

I'm not sure I've ever seen any kind of mediaeval or Renaissance-era fiction that acknowledges the existence of Orthodox Christianity, let alone correctly depicts a country which would have been firmly Orthodox by this point in history (15th-century IIRC). Not to mention that a vampire lord waging a genocidal war in Wallachia would almost certainly have drawn the interest if not the outright intervention of the Ottoman Empire.

It's kind of boring and two-dimensional tbh. I wish we could see a series that presented the actually sincerely intellectual side of the Catholic Church (because the insane witch-burning, science-hating church depicted in Castlevania probably wouldn't have liked the Jesuits either). There's a scene where some goon from the Church looks at a centrifuge and is shocked to the point of terror by the fact that it can spin. Like it seems to treat people in a very weird and infantile sort of way: in the same way that covering your face in front of a baby will make it think you've disappeared. People in 15th-century Wallachia were not complete ignoramuses, they understood such shocking newfound scientific concepts such as motion and rotation.

My feeling about this sort of thing is there should be a show which presents both sides: depicting both the more fanatical and repressive elements of the Church while also depicting the very real scholarship and learning that it actively promoted. At which point you leave it to the viewer to decide how to assess both the good and the bad elements.

One thing I will say in Castlevania's defense: the actions of the Church are never, ever shown as actually being a justification for Dracula's genocidal reprisals against all of humanity, the majority of whom had nothing to do with his wife's death. The show repeatedly points this out and and even the other vampires on his war council are happy to call Dracula out on his disproportionate retribution. Even if their interest in humanity is fundamentally a purely selfish one (i.e. if someone kills all the humans, who will we feed on?) the fact remains that very nearly everyone of sound mind recognises that Dracula is horribly wrong and not in his right mind.

Edit: One other thing about the Church in Castlevania is it's not made entirely clear that the Church is... entirely what it claims to be. The Bishop's various goon squads are occasionally spoken of as former criminals and murderers. One of the monks at a local priory in Season 3 is explicitly described as being a former assassin. The show repeatedly drops hints that the Church actively invested criminals to serve as an effective secret police, which strikes me as being basically some local church official using it to his own corrupt ends.

Then again, at the same time as I say this, I also feel the need to point out that Castlevania seems to have, at times, a borderline-misanthropic view of humanity. And while many characters who espouse this view, such as Isaac, are depicted as clearly flawed and disturbed individuals, at the same time, the show doesn't really do a lot to explicitly call them out on how wrong they are. And if anything goes out of its way at times to have such characters come across extremely horrible and unsympathetic individuals who seem to exist to basically validate all of their worst feelings about humanity and reinforce their belief in the justification of exterminating humanity.

And it seems to clash weirdly with the show's theme of local heroism: the idea that all you need to make the world a better place is a few good people who go around righting wrongs and defending the innocent.
 
Last edited:
So that's why the glut is there, we can all want to see more working class heroes and there is a rich history of such but when all is said and done the Tudor Abbey Halls of the world will just always make back the investment so will be the mainstay of period pieces. People don't give a crap about merchants they just want to see sexier versions of premodern royalty.
Also, even when the story is about them, lower/working class are used more as victims than heroes.
 
Er, pretty sure that's not what the original Little Mermaid was about. It was more a metaphor for being LGBT+ in the 19th century (pretty sure Andersen was bi or gay) as well as how the upper class treats social climbers (Andersen being born into poverty), it wasn't supposed to teach children a 'lesson'.
It is worth remembering that H. C. Andersen was -like most Danish artists of his time- a devout Christian, so the whole "your salvation and immortal soul is predicated on you being loved by an outside party" thing is probably not a coincidence. It also straight up ends with "luftens døtre" telling the audience that the Mermaid will get into heaven if she finds enough good children who makes their parents happy and 'deserves their love'. So I'd say it was pretty clearly trying to teach a lesson to children here, even if it wasn't Andersen's best aged one.

Andersen was most likely what we would've called bi in modern times. He wrote multiple romantic and/or sexual letters to people of all genders, and his history with Riborg Voigt is so stereotypical a tragic lovestory that I'm honestly surprised Disney hasn't tried adapting it yet. Like seriously, he died cradling a letter from her and she kept a bouquet from him alongside his poems and a picture of him hidden away in a secret drawer.
 
.that's wrong... Like the monster is only after a single target and the only way to get it to leave temporarily is to have sex with someone, and its only temporarily since once its done with the person you basically condemned, it goes back to hunting you as well


And in "the Cabin in the woods" the "sexually active girl" only gets to be like that because of the facility drugging everyone in order to fit the tropes, heck the main girl is not even a virgin, the director of the facility even shrugs and says "We work with what we have"

I know but those any of the two pieces of media exams why The "final girl" is virginal compared to the sinful friemds
 
I want to hear the story of the mediaeval merchant trying to make ends meet or the Ancient Roman artisan who is just starting to gain prominence and prestige in their work...

Please read The Dragon, the Hero and the Courier. Like, imagine if someone was really into historical stuff, and made a fantasy manga out of it. That's what TDTHTC is.

It's just a very delightful manga.
 
Then again, at the same time as I say this, I also feel the need to point out that Castlevania seems to have, at times, a borderline-misanthropic view of humanity. And while many characters who espouse this view, such as Isaac, are depicted as clearly flawed and disturbed individuals, at the same time, the show doesn't really do a lot to explicitly call them out on how wrong they are. And if anything goes out of its way at times to have such characters come across extremely horrible and unsympathetic individuals who seem to exist to basically validate all of their worst feelings about humanity and reinforce their belief in the justification of exterminating humanity.
It's written by Warren Ellis what to you expect?

and the church in the games was portrayed much more positively. Even in most church bad JRPGs, they atleast establish the Church as seeming nice and good, and having low level priests and worshippers being nice. See Final Fantasy 10. Plus the Catholic Church which shouldn't even be in Walachia in the period did not have a policy of "Witch burning"
 
It's written by Warren Ellis what to you expect?

and the church in the games was portrayed much more positively. Even in most church bad JRPGs, they atleast establish the Church as seeming nice and good, and having low level priests and worshippers being nice. See Final Fantasy 10. Plus the Catholic Church which shouldn't even be in Walachia in the period did not have a policy of "Witch burning"
I'd say it was the specific priest's (later bishop) idea entirely. It was made very clear that he knew it was science, and that he wanted science out to keep the people as sheep.
 
and the church in the games was portrayed much more positively. Even in most church bad JRPGs, they atleast establish the Church as seeming nice and good, and having low level priests and worshippers being nice. See Final Fantasy 10. Plus the Catholic Church which shouldn't even be in Walachia in the period did not have a policy of "Witch burning"

Admittedly there were Catholics in medieval Transylvania going back to the 11th century owing to the rule of Hungry and Walachia and Moldavia apparently had local Dioceses before and after those areas became established states but Catholics were always a religious minority in Walachia and Moldavia as the eastern Orthodox were ready well established and powerful there.
 
That's not at all what the Church thought
That's why I said it was him personally. The real Church in 1455 would call you a heretic and/or blasphemer if you called someone a witch, generally. The execution of supposed witches had been banned by the church in 1080, and all prosecutions of witchcraft banned in the 1200s. The pope at that time had just ordered the creation of the University of Greifswald, and in general the story takes place during a time when the church was very pro-science. They didn't backtrack on that until after 1517, when they began using witchhunts as a means of combatting protestant takeovers. (And the protestants did it a lot more than the Catholics anyway).
 
That's why I said it was him personally. The real Church in 1455 would call you a heretic and/or blasphemer if you called someone a witch, generally. The execution of supposed witches had been banned by the church in 1080, and all prosecutions of witchcraft banned in the 1200s. The pope at that time had just ordered the creation of the University of Greifswald, and in general the story takes place during a time when the church was very pro-science. They didn't backtrack on that until after 1517, when they began using witchhunts as a means of combatting protestant takeovers. (And the protestants did it a lot more than the Catholics anyway).
My point why did the Castlevaina show of all things get caught in the Athestic hate boner which shows how little they know about relgion, like The Orthodox Church should be the ones in Wallcha! Where they anti-science or witch burning? I don't think so

Most early Eastern theologians didn't believe in witches (technically, neither did Western theologians, as is evidenced by Canon Episcopi), but most common folk did. Without getting into the confounded history of witch-burning, it is generally held that theologians prior to the 10th century did not believe in witches. The 9th century Canon Episcopi that I mentioned is interpreted by modern historians to be a renunciation of the existence of witches, not of witchcraft itself (the bible sufficiently denounces witchcraft). For various reasons, medieval Western society changed their tune and began burning witches.

According to Stephen Hayes (the link is now dead but clicking here will take you to an online archive),

It is perhaps significant that the persecution of witches began in the West after the Great Schism of 1054. In parts of the Orthodox East, at least, witch hunts such as those experienced in other parts of Europe were unknown (Stewart 1991:38). The Orthodox Church is strongly critical of sorcerers (among whom it includes palmists, fortune tellers and astrologers), but has not generally seen the remedy in accusations, trials and secular penalties, but rather in confession and repentance, and exorcism if necessary (Stewart 1991:212f).
I have tried to show that the process of accusation, trial, sentencing and execution of alleged witches is not a typical Christian reaction to witchcraft. It was practically unknown in Christendom for the first ten centuries. It then gradually appeared in certain parts of the Christian world, but not in others. It lasted for about 600 years, though the last 200 years of this period were the worst, after which it suddenly disappeared. Such behaviour was fairly common in pre-Christian societies, but was altered when those societies became Christianised.
The article goes on to elaborate on Orthodoxy and its response to witches (hint: it didn't burn them). The source continually referenced by Hayes in the above quote is:
 
Last edited:
My point why did the Castlevaina show of all things get caught in the Athestic hate boner which shows how little they know about relgion, like The Orthodox Church should be the ones in Wallcha! Where they anti-science or witch burning?
They likely used the Catholic church because Vlad was himself Catholic. As to the Orthodox, no, as far as I can find there is no record at all of church sanctioned witchburning, although they did teach that sorcery (which included palm reading and other forms of divination) was sinful.
 
Castlevania is ridiculous enough that I basically just treat it as a fantasy setting that happens to have similar sounding proper nouns.
 
My point why did the Castlevaina show of all things get caught in the Athestic hate boner which shows how little they know about relgion, like The Orthodox Church should be the ones in Wallcha! Where they anti-science or witch burning?

Eh like I noted before there was actually a medieval catholic minority in Wallachia with a local diocese was established for them in 1381 which was headquartered in Curtea de Arges which was the capital of Wallachia, said diocese was apparently later suppressed by the Orthodox authorities in 1519 and then in 1590 the local Catholics in Wallachia came under the authority of the Diocese of Bacău in Moldavia.

So it is historally accurate to have Catholics and even a catholic bishop in Wallachia during the time depicted in the show but they were very much a religious minority not some powerful church that dominated the region.
 
Well honestly its kinda sus for an Tommy with an axe to grind against religion to do it against Catholicism and not his own wheelhouse. Atleast Garth Ennis is Irish so its more understandable.
Yep, Garth Ennis does have some flashes of insight when his Edgelord tendency get held in check, like a bit of Hitman and Preacher. I love the part where to keep a single line of Christ alive they have Massivly Inbred the Christ descents to be like purebred dogs
 
It was not invented by the Christians, the figure of Satan was well established long before Christianity. The Book of Enoch is heavily referenced in the New Testament, is preserved in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and all of it dates at least to 100BC. Said Book of Enoch explicitly references a rebellion among the angels and a fall.

While I don't doubt there were Satan-figured in early Judaism (though the figure of the Ha'Satan is explicitly a servant of God), I find it odd that you reference the Book of Enoch, specifically? My understanding of the story places the Watchers in nearly the opposite position of the traditional Satan in most ways - they are tempted by humans, rather than vice versa, and at the end they are imprisoned, and that imprisonment would last 70 generations, until the day of judgment (they're a bit late). There was no rebellion in the sense of a war in heaven; the Watchers simply went and did stuff with the humans that they weren't supposed to.

Semyaza, the leader of the Watchers, has few features in common with the traditional Satan and has no obvious etymological link, nor do the names of the other Watchers appear in association with the later Satan. They are more akin to the idea of Prometheus, if anything. Azazel in particular is a scapegoat. "To him ascribe all sin." He is bound in a deep pit in the desert and hardly capable of acting as a tempter-figure. I suppose you could link the Watchers teaching humanity about all kinds of technology and divination as equivalent to the concept of the serpent tempting Eve into eating the apple of knowledge, but it feels like a tentative link at best? Especially given the Apkallu in Sumerian myth who may have held a similar role, though minus the part about teaching humans being bad.

Like, at best guess, it represents a commentary on polytheism; an early example of explaining the apparent gods of other societies as being fallen angels, and demigods as being their children. It certainly shows up in the right time period to have plenty of Greek influences.
 
While I don't doubt there were Satan-figured in early Judaism (though the figure of the Ha'Satan is explicitly a servant of God), I find it odd that you reference the Book of Enoch, specifically? My understanding of the story places the Watchers in nearly the opposite position of the traditional Satan in most ways - they are tempted by humans, rather than vice versa, and at the end they are imprisoned, and that imprisonment would last 70 generations, until the day of judgment (they're a bit late). There was no rebellion in the sense of a war in heaven; the Watchers simply went and did stuff with the humans that they weren't supposed to.

Semyaza, the leader of the Watchers, has few features in common with the traditional Satan and has no obvious etymological link, nor do the names of the other Watchers appear in association with the later Satan. They are more akin to the idea of Prometheus, if anything. Azazel in particular is a scapegoat. "To him ascribe all sin." He is bound in a deep pit in the desert and hardly capable of acting as a tempter-figure. I suppose you could link the Watchers teaching humanity about all kinds of technology and divination as equivalent to the concept of the serpent tempting Eve into eating the apple of knowledge, but it feels like a tentative link at best? Especially given the Apkallu in Sumerian myth who may have held a similar role, though minus the part about teaching humans being bad.

Like, at best guess, it represents a commentary on polytheism; an early example of explaining the apparent gods of other societies as being fallen angels, and demigods as being their children. It certainly shows up in the right time period to have plenty of Greek influences.

Uhm, just to make sure my memory was right I flipped through the book of Enoch and...

The angels are not tempted by the humans as such. Rather they see the humans and lust for them.
They then, fully knowing that what they are doing is against the will of God, swear not to stray from their path but to do this thing. In this they are led by Semjaza (who changes name some way through the book).

Then explicitly we are told:

And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals 〈of the earth〉 and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. 2. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl, (taught) astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Ezêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, 〈Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun〉, and Sariêl the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven

I think this is fairly clear on human beings being taught wicked things and being led astray because of it. Note that the reason they are perishing (the humans) is that the children of humans and angels were horrible giants that were consuming them.

This is when the arch-angels appear to God and state:

Thou seest what Azâzêl hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which men were striving to learn: 7. And Semjâzâ, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. 8. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. 9. And the women have borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness.

So, you know, saying that they were seduced and tempted by humans, instead of deciding to come down and do stuff that really messed up the earth (and which was in utter rebellion against God) is what I find strange. Further later on it is clear that the evil spirits that plague the Earth arise precisely from these actions.

This all seem very devillish to me.
 
Isaac being a well written Muslim even with all the demon summoning was surprising, honestly.

Also the first time I've ever seen any reference to Sufism ever in fiction.

I have to admit though, some other elements of Isaac's depiction are kinda... regressive, specifically with regards to him being shown as homosexual while also being a villainous, self-flagellating misanthrope.

It kinda falls into the weird trope of LGBTQIA+ characters being dark and edgy figures. Much like how the overtly bisexual Zevran in Dragon Age who will openly flirt with player characters of either gender is... also a former assassin with a dark past.
 
It kinda falls into the weird trope of LGBTQIA+ characters being dark and edgy figures. Much like how the overtly bisexual Zevran in Dragon Age who will openly flirt with player characters of either gender is... also a former assassin with a dark past.

A tormented, but very hot bisexual who needs to be loved and protected? I am going to say that he falls into more than one annoying trope, not all of them LGBT related.
 
Back
Top