A single wish

[oneiriad]

I'll be the first to admit that the whole time-skip thing that they're talking about for season 2 in Vikings is not something I'm a fan of - mostly because I suspect they'll leap straight across a bunch of stuff I'd very much like to actually watch play out.

That said, if time skips are going to be customary, I really hope that means we'll get to see Ivar the Boneless. Specifically, Ivar the Boneless as he appears in Ragnarssona þáttr, where - well, let me quote you something: Ivar the Boneless was king in England for a long time. He had no children, because of the way he was: with no lust or love—but he wasn’t short of cunning and cruelty. And he died of old-age in England and was buried there.

Because yeah, Vikings has its flaws, but something I've been enjoying so far is what calvinahobbes has been referring to as 'consent vikings' as well as the many warrior women we get to see over the course of the season. Is it so wrong for me to hope that the show will go on to include a kickass asexual character?*

*Especially since I'm planning on getting my hands on Hammer of the Gods as soon as I can, but I'm kind of steeling myself, considering wikipedia describes the Ivar the Boneless in that as: an exiled and overweight sexual predator with an appetite for pederasty. Come on, I just want awesome ace!Ivar, is that so much to ask?

Comments

[calvinahobbes]

Asexual vikings for the win! A++ would watch forever. But would also be afraid if how severely the writers woukd fuck that up.

[oneiriad]

Well, aren't we always afraid of that? But what I like about the Ivar in Ragnarssona þáttr is that those lines is literally the only place where his sexuality comes up, and it's in a segment where the various Ragnarsons are being summarized with "he married her, they had those kids and went on to father..." The rest of the story it just doesn't come up, it isn't relevant, and if you're portraying an aromantic asexual, I'd suspect that might be true as well. I mean, there could be a scene or two with him turning someone down or maybe someone commenting on how he doesn't run after the wenches or something, but really, considering you'd be portraying a thing they aren't, well, less is more, you know?

[calvinahobbes]

Oh yes, I justeant that there's still a lot of space for them to fuck up and include him but not actually manage to make him ace. Gosh, I'm so cheerful, aren't I?

[oneiriad]

You're talking about a show that has put Ragnar Lothbrok - a Danish king of the Scylding line associated with Lejre - as a farmer in Norway. They've raided Lindisfarne in 793, has historical kings making appearances who reigned in the mid-9th century, Rollo is supposedly the Rollo who became Duke of Normandy in 912. It's not like the show seems to be bothering with being historically accurate or true to any given source, so...

Of course, it doesn't help that apparently a bunch of historians seem to think Ivar the Boneless was identical to a fellow called Imar, who was a Norse king in Ireland and founder of a dynasty there. There doesn't actually seem to be a lot in the way of proof of this aside from their names being similar, but you know historians...

[kabal42]

How long a time jump are they talking? In general, I don't like those either. They kept doing them on Merlin and it annoyed the heck out of me.

[oneiriad]

Four years I think? Sometime mid-season, though details are rather sparse (and I actually prefer it - I like surprises when I watch, you know?). Mostly we know because they're bringing in Alexander Ludwig to replace Nathan O'Toole as Bjorn (which is just as well - the first season spanned something like two years and the kid never grew an inch - I guess he's about to hit a growth spurt).

[kabal42]

Ok. I get you with the sparse info :) Surprises are nice!