#<- frankenstein enjoyer. that book also does this

[mayonneise]

oh i forgot that this book gets proper epistolary novel with it

[lakesbian]

twig faq to answer all of the asks i got regarding my liveblog

Q: holy shit twig turned out bad huh A: yeah

Q: should i read twig? A: no. it's bad

Q: what about the parts of twig that were good though? i noticed that there were parts of twig that seemed awesome before everything suddenly exploded A: okay let me elaborate. the first ~13 arcs of twig are really really endearing when they're focusing on the lambs. when they're being about the lambs, they range anywhere from "cute" to "extremely fun" to "genuinely super compelling" to "shit that made me cry (positive)." we have high points such as:

12yo sylvester lambsbridge fumbles 3 people with crushes on him harder than anyone's ever fumbled in their life in the span of like 7 hours maximum

sylvester lambsbridge does transhet biopunk brokeback mountain

wildbow writes rose thorburn but if she were a hardass trans girl (she's the one doing transhet biopunk brokeback mountain with sy)

gordon dies and lillian copes by taking some of sy's drug that gives him turbo-adhd

helen is there

sylvester lambsbridge experiences what i earnestly believe to be one of the cruelest things wildbow has ever done to any of his protagonists

lots of other stuff, i'm abbreviating here

but the reason i say the first ~13 arcs of twig are good when they're focusing on the lambs is that twig is prone to slogging, strikingly mediocre fight scenes--sy can't fight for Shit, but wildbow still insists on describing, like, sylvester trying & failing to hit someone with a wooden plank with the same gratuitous, lengthy detail as taylor inventing a spider-based saw trap for someone. and unlike the spider-based saw trap, it's not interesting to read about. the arcs take an episodic format, and what this means is that virtually every arc goes on way too long, contains at minimum 40% more tediously detailed fight scenes than are actually necessary, and then leaves you feeling jarred when wildbow inevitably timeskips to the next arc just as the prior one was really getting into the emotional swing of things. i also have a (quite possibly subjective?) sense that twig wasn't as well-developed and thought-out as, e.g., pact, and oftentimes the setting conceit (1900s biopunk frankenstein-y british empire) doesn't feel like it's hitting quite as hard as it should.

for all of these reasons, i wouldn't have rated the first ~13 arcs of twig any more generously than in the 3.5-4 star range while i was reading them, but that's still an overall rating of good. i wouldn't still be thinking about some of the things from the first ~13 arcs of twig if they weren't overall good. if all of twig was the same quality as the first ~13 arcs, i would recommend it to people who i feel like could tolerate the pacing issues & would feel reading about the lambs was worth it.

but. BUT. BUT-

Q: so, twig turns out really bad, huh? what went wrong? A:

it is not all the same quality as the first 13 arcs. it turns out really bad the last 7 arcs are actually atrocious

the first thing that comes to mind if you ask me "what went wrong with twig" is that wildbow tries to write a trans woman as one of the main characters, and he does it badly. miss jessie ewesmont, my new favorite girl whom we need to get the fuck out of a wildbow novel. i think she was written extremely well--and in fact one of the top 2 characters in the book--prior to wildbow trying to handle her coming out. i'd even say the foreshadowing for it was perfectly well done and enjoyable. but after she comes out, during the last 7 arcs of the book?

you know how trans women are often victims of being treated as undervalued, disposable girlfriends, who are expected to coddle & cater to their partner's every whim while receiving effectively nothing in return? and you know how trans women are often treated as if they should be grateful for receiving (what is often less than) the literal bare minimum? and you know how trans women are frequently treated as if it's completely implausible for anyone to find them genuinely attracted or desirable, let alone worth pursuing or putting effort into?

yeah, the last 7 arcs of twig contain untold tens of thousands of words of wildbow reinventing all of that from first principles. this is a subjective experience, but it genuinely felt worse to read than amy dallon. at one point, the Disposable Trans Girlfriend in question literally says "i appreciate you not killing me" after she gets stabbed in her sleep by her boyfriend, sylvester. it's beyond parody. i've never said "WE HAVE TO HIT WILDBOW WITH HAMMERS" more in my goddamned life than while reading the last 7 arcs of twig. Transmisogyny Fucking City. it's a completely unforgivable and miserable reading experience.

and speaking of unforgivable and miserable reading experiences involving bigoted handling of a main character...onto Item No. 2 on the list of writing decisions that ruin twig! the ableism.

wildbow wants all of the lambs to--due to being ill-fated human experiments--have set expiration dates. one of the Main Points hanging over the entire narrative of twig is that every single lamb is, in all likelihood, going to die of complications from the way they've been experimented on before they're even twenty. two of them do die from those complications before the story is even halfway over: jamie's entire mind & sense of being is regularly taken out of his body, and one day, the doctors can't get it back in. gordon is a ~15yo with the heart problems of an elderly man, and they kill him while he's still young enough to make one of his last acts begging to see his dog one last time. it's good. it's tragic, it's interesting.

the problem is that wildbow's decision for how to depict sylvester starting to experience end-stage complications is to...turn sy into an ableist horror movie trope villain. sy hears The Devil telling him to kill his friends, and he just fuckin' blacks out and then comes to like "oh no...what's all this blood on my hands." i'm talking "mental illness is a Demon that can Possess You and make you an Evil Serial Killer" levels of ableist writing. like wildbow straight up turns sy into the joker from the movie joker. it's like that one "insaaaaynenene....assyyylum..... cray-ay-zeee...Insaayne" tiktok, you know the one. it's why he stabs his disposable trans girlfriend.

and it's baffling because: 1. wildbow wrote worm. you'd expect better from him when it comes to writing mental illness. but his skills apparently stop short of being able to depict a character with psychosis without making it cartoonishly ableist. but also, 2., sy doesn't only start becoming mentally ill at the end of arc 13! the previous arcs do very clearly establish that he's extremely codependent with the other lambs and needs continuous support to avoid experiencing life-threatening mental health episodes. he experiences dissociation, he struggles with severe memory loss, he acts erratically, he has self-injurious tendencies, he hallucinates, he talks to himself in public. prior to the start of arc 14, all of that is written with perfectly amenable levels of nuance and empathy towards sy. i wouldn't describe it as glowing representation, or anything, but it's by no means egregious.

but after arc 13? change of plans. now he's the joker from the movie joker, and we have to watch while his friends chain him to an armchair so he doesn't go around randomly cutting peoples hands off in a murderous fugue state.

it's bad. it's extremely bad to read.

the third item regarding how/why twig becomes terrible is a lot more simple to summarize: it becomes almost entirely about the previously mentioned sloggy fight scenes as opposed to about the lambs. and when it is about the lambs, it's often terrible to read anyway, due to the aforementioned issues with the handling of protagonist sylvester lambsbridge and his disposable trans gf. the plot becomes incoherent and uninteresting to the point where it's not even worth the effort of attempting to summarize how or why. everything that made twig good more or less entirely disappears from the story, and things that make it fucking awful are added.

Q: okay but lets say i have something unfixably wrong with me and i want to read twig anyway. wheres the best stopping point? arc 13? A: yeah it's arc 13. it's not a satisfying stopping point at all though. nor is the rest of twig prior to it really worth it. just don't waste your time. go read a good book, like pact, instead

Q: what the fuck is up with helen? A: :)

[sleepy-vix]

hi !!! so i know you've read classics and i have a few questions for you. lmk if i'm being annoying btw

uh first i was wondering what classics i own that you've read and your thoughts on them (i've been accumulating a collection for a while but haven't read them)

little women

great expectations

the picture of dorian gray

alice in wonderland

frankenstein

emma

pride and prejudice

great expectations

the secret history

the great gatsby

i was also wondering your favourite subgenres of classical books? i've been specifically interested in the russian classic subgenre

um where you would recommend me to start? out of the books i have preferably

and just any other general tips for reading would be helpful yeah

(i'm finally getting back into it after four years and i'm kinda lost idk)

NO YOURE NOT ANNOYING !! i saw your video on tiktok and was like shxbsjd i want to talk abt your books with you so bad but i didnt want to be annoying 😭

sigh im such a nerd

ok sooo lets get into it :D

get ready for alot of text

the books ive read will be in blue (purple is i'm going to read them soon)

• little women -> i loved ittt. i have yet to read the other books in the series though (theres little women, good wives, little men, jo's boys). the movie (by greta gerwig) is one of my favourite movies ever so i have an attachment to the story. i recommend watching the movie first if you haven't already bc i honestly preferred it more, but the book is also incredible and sweet and the writing is great and it made me cry and learn to be a better person

• great expectations

• the picture of dorian gray -> ooh this one was one of my first ever classics, i think after children's classics and the catcher in the rye. i loved it alot. the descriptions are so beautiful and the premise is so interesting and agsbj i'm just so obsessed with the way oscar wilde writes !! actually i've heard people say that this is a good place to start for classics, but i'm not really so sure about that. i think this definitely is a staple in classic literature, but i recommend saving this as your 2nd or 3rd classic read so you're more used to the eloquent writing style of classics and you can fully appreciate the picture of dorian gray in all its glory :)

•alice in wonderland -> oh i loved this sm. i love alice in wonderland in general, more specifically the tim burton version. i think this is a good place to start, since i know you like alice in wonderland so you're already attached to the story and therefore will most likely enjoy it alot. the sarcasm and wit in this book is really enjoyable and fun, i finished this one really fast back in primary school :)

• frankenstein -> i finished this recently ! it's so great, i love frankenstein so much. though, it did seem like nothing much was happening so just beware that even tho its labelled as horror, it's more... thoughtful? it's really nothing like frankenstein in popular media, though i think that's part of its charn actually

• emma -> i've read 2 chapters of this. i'm planning on actually sitting down and finishing this next week or so! i recommend the movie with anya taylor joy if you're hesitant about reading it, bc the movie was really good :)

• pride and prejudice -> if you want to get into jane austen, this is probably the place to start. she's a really amazing writer and the way she creates characters and character relationships is so amazing i was really impressed by this book ! tho i gotta say i dont feel any particular attachment to it and im not exactly in a hurry to pick up her other books. like her writing is really good but im just not really into high society and period romance drama. i still recommend this though since it is a good classic and a staple to the genre.

• the secret history -> ooh this one isnt exactly a classic but definitely does deserve to be. I LOVE THE SECRET HISTORY SO SO MUCHHHH. i've reread this book like nearly 3 times. donna tartt's writing is so phenomenal and the characters are all so interesting, i can't wait for you to read this! though, one con is that it is reallyyy long and ik that its not uncommon for people to get sick of how the story drags on :( so i recommend making sure that you're fully hyped to read this cus i'd hate for you to drop it half way since its so brilliant i promise. pay attention to the way she writes scenes and characters and just anything ever because its just so well doneee.

• the great gatsby -> i have this and i'm thinking of reading it next actually !! im just letting myself process frankenstein and go back to read the frankenstein introduction before moving onto this :) i've heard that it's grand and gives old money but thats all i can say

ok looks like thats all !

i recommend starting with alice in wonderland and then going to the picture of dorian gray or pride and prejudice :)

ah also my favourite subgenre in classic literature is horror (they tend to not be scary at all and more thoughtsy) or japanese (osamu dazai is all ive read but im really interested in reading more japanese authors)

russian literature is also cool, though ive only read crime and punishment by dostoyevsky. i really want to read notes from underground or white nights or dead souls by nikolai gogol next agsbdj

if you're looking to get into it then probably white nights is the best since many people say its the best and also its really short compared to c&p. im not an expert tho so honestly you do you

also if you enjoy frankenstein and the picture of dorian gray then i REALLY reccomend the case of dr jelyll and mr hyde because its so short but sooo good

as for reading tips, i reccomend taking breaks and not pushing yourself cus then you'll find the experience tedious. also dont be intimidated because reading classics is like reading any other book except the writing style is super eloquent. read whatever subgenre of classic you enjoy and dont force yourself to read others if you arent interested :)

THATS ALL FROM ME. tysmmmm for the ask i had so much fun answering this

sorry for yapping so much i cant help it when it comes to books so your fault for asking 😔 /lh

i hope you have fun and feel free to slide into my askbox if you have thoughts to share or anything else to askk

oh wait actually im curious, whats your experience with classics so far? what books have you read? did you enjoy them?

[rjalker]

You've heard of fans lying about what happens in the books, now get ready for: the author also flat out lying about what happens in the books.

LOFL.

Archived link in case this one gets deleted too

Interstellar Flight Press: Stories of machines attempting to become human (Hephaestus’ automatons, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Star Trek’s Data) fill Western Literature. We love reading, writing, telling, and consuming these stories. In your opinion, what itch does the story of a machine becoming human scratch? Why does this type of story repeatedly manifest?

Martha Wells: I don’t know, except for the fact that while it can be an enjoyable story, it’s also a tendency to see a machine intelligence (MI) as trapped in its body, whether that body is a human-shaped robot or a starship, and as profoundly alone except for human company. Viewed in that way, it seems natural to think the MI would want to be human-like its only companions. I think in some ways it’s the other side of the coin of the evil machine intelligence, which is out to kill or dominate humans. (About which Ann Leckie says “basically the ‘AI takes over’ is essentially a slave revolt story that casts slaves defending their lives and/or seeking to be treated as sentient beings as super-powerful, super-strong villains who must be prevented from destroying humanity.”) Murderbot occupies a space between those opposites, an MI that wants to stay an MI, that has relationships with other MIs.

[ID: A black and white illustration of Pinocchio and a fish floating upwards in a vortex, with Pinocchio jerking a thumb over his shoulder as he looks at the fish, saying, "Get a load of this, fish!". End ID.]

A)The fact that she thinks Murderbot having friends who are other robots means there's no need for a slave revolt even though 99% of the robots in this story are still enslaved.

But we're not supposed to care about them, we're supposed to just keep believing the racist myth that you can't free slaves unless you want them to get violent revenge on the people who oppressed them. Which she's spent years repeating and has still not done anything in 7 whole books now to meaningfully refute.

And in the seventh book she literally has Murderbot's one (1) other robot friend tear an enslaved robot to peices while they're still alive, and we're supposed to cheer and think this is badass heroics instead of horrific murder of a slave who had no choice but to be there in the first place.

B) the fact that she's claiming Murderbot has other robots for friends and wants to prioritize relationships with robots despite having only 1 robot friend (ART), with 99% of the characters in this series, including its friends, being humans, and then it treats literally every other named robot it ever meets with absolute disdain and condescension.

Like. There are literally too many named human characters in this series for me to list off the top of my head (I know, because I was literally going to sit here and get to an exact ratio of the number of named important humans vs the named and important robots before I remembered I'm not getting paid for this), and then there's only a handful of named robots excluding Murderbot itself. And of those handful only one of them ever reappears after their first short introduction. And the series has characters insist out loud that Murderbot needs to have human friends otherwise its life will have no meaning.

I thought it was bad when fans lied about books to get people to read them. It's even worse when the actual author starts doing it too, lofl.....

Edit: also the fact that she's claiming she's not demonizing the idea of slave revolts or demonizng them when she's done nothing but that since she started writing The Murderbot Diaries. Literally insisting at every opportunity that they can't free the robots because they'll want to kill all the humans and then no one would make new TV shows.

[nitrateglow]

Spooky Season 2024: 2-5

Mystery of the Wax Museum (dir. Michael Curtiz, 1933)

Bodies are disappearing from the morgue and it's up to lady reporter Florence Dempsey (Glenda Farrell) to crack the case! Her investigation leads her to a new wax exhibit, opened by artist Ivan Igor (Lionel Atwill). She notices that some of the figures on display resemble the missing corpses. And soon, Igor is eyeing up Florence's beautiful roommate Charlotte (Fay Wray), who happens to resemble a wax Marie Antoinette he lost in a fire long ago...

Mystery of the Wax Museum is overshadowed by its '50s remake, House of Wax, but the two films are distinct enough to be enjoyed on their own terms, even if I do think the later version is stronger. Mystery is set in the (then) present and has a pulpy detective feel to it. The characters make wisecracks and dirty jokes-- very typical of the pre-code era. There are even allusions to other horror movies of the time, like Frankenstein.

What strikes most viewers about the film today is its use of two-strip Technicolor, a color process that captured images with green and red dyes. The result is a muted but not unpleasant color range. I often associate this process with late-era silent films like The Black Pirate, which have a watercolor illustration look to them. Here, the colors are somehow both muted and a touch garish, suiting the pulpy tone of the story well.

House of Wax (dir. Andre de Toth, 1953)

It's the Gay Nineties in New York City, but nastiness is running amok. Wax sculptor Henry Jarrod (Vincent Price) is hoping to secure lucrative patronage for his beautiful but failing museum, but his impatient business partner burns the place down with Jarrod inside, intent on collecting the insurance money. However, Jarrod survives, reappearing injured but alive over a year later. He opens a new exhibit, this one focused on the cruelty of humanity rather than its beauty. At the same time, corpses start disappearing from the city morgue... and many of the wax exhibits resemble the deceased!

What an enjoyable movie! House of Wax is great, unpretentious old-school horror at its most crowdpleasing. The story is packed with skillful suspense and just the right amount of campy humor-- enough to keep things fun, but not enough to deflate the threat of the villains.

This is a rare remake that improves upon its predecessor. As entertaining as Mystery is, it lacks the remake's tighter, more focused script and more memorable characters of this version. And of course, this movie has Vincent Price in the role that made him the horror icon he remains today.

I forgot how great a villain Jarrod is, a disturbed but poignant figure. He's so charming that part of you kind of wants him to get away with his nefarious deeds. That first sequence where he speaks to the figures like old friends does such a great job making your sympathy for him linger on just a bit, even after he starts killing people.

I don't want to forget Phyllis Kirk as the heroine Sue Allen though. Kirk's character is smart and persevering. While not the wisecracker Glenda Farrell's reporter was in the original, she has her own sweet charm and quiet resolve that make her very endearing.

Frankenstein (dir. J. Searle Dawley, 1910)

This twelve-minute silent film is the earliest cinematic adaptation of Mary Shelley's classic novel. Like all the other movie Frankensteins, it has little to do with the book whatsoever.

The film has a lot of interesting elements to it despite the limitations of the one-reeler format. The director plays up the psychological duality of Frankenstein and his creation, and the use of mirrors throughout is clever, both in extending the stagey spaces we see onscreen and highlighting the aforementioned duality.

Also the creation scene is AWESOME. If I remember correctly, they set a dummy on fire, then played the footage in reverse, making it appear as though the creature were emerging from the Promethean fire. A super old-school effect, but a cool one!

Cape Fear (dir. J. Lee Thompson, 1962)

Attorney Sam Bowden (Gregory Peck) is stalked by Max Cady (Robert Mitchum), a rapist he helped put away eight years ago. Now free, Cady is set on avenging himself by targeting Bowden's wife and teenage daughter. Cady initially wages psychological warfare, the kind that cannot get him charged for any crime. Terrified for his family, Bowden and his wife conspire to set a trap for the ex-con, but will Cady bite? And if he does, will they survive?

I hadn't seen this film in a while, so I forgot how intense it is! You can definitely tell this was influenced by Hitchcock's brand of thriller filmmaking, though it does lack Hitch's dark humor. Still, there is a lot going on here beyond mere suspense. Gregory Peck isn't just playing yet another noble father figure-- he's increasingly willing to play dirty to protect his loved ones. The ending even has him echoing Cady's desire for sadistic revenge.

Mitchum is certainly best in show here. Cady is one of the great movie villains, boasting a potent blend of intelligence and savagery that makes him feel genuinely threatening. That scene with him attacking Polly Bergen on the boat never fails to give me chills. It goes to show you don't need explicit violence to keep an audience suspended in dread.

As enjoyable as the Scorsese remake is, this one is far more sinister to me. The setting feels more grounded and the stark black-and-white cinematography gives the story a southern gothic vibe. It would make a great double feature with another gothic Mitchum movie, The Night of the Hunter.

[the-goya-jerker]

What are your favorite movies? Any recommendations?

ALWAYS.

I love film. I love TV shows. I love to watch things.

I'll try to group these up. But they're below a cut because this will get long.

Oh, also, I recommend checking out the Does the Dog Die and/or Unconsenting Media page for movies on here. These check for common triggers for the first, and specific sexual content in the second. Both are quite thorough, and Unconsenting Media always needs more contributers.

Please, if you have triggers of any kind, curate your experiences, advocate for yourself. These sites can really help you.

If you like straight up horror:

The VVitch is an absolute favorite, I'm an absolute sucker for historical accuracy.

The Sudbury Devil is of a similar vein. It's weird! Don't get me wrong! The quality isn't the best, but I did like it!

St. Maud is another one, very religious and very creative.

I like the original Wickerman, but I don't really see it as horror... That guy was a dick and a cop.

The Wind is fun, I didn't like the ending much, but I'm really into atmospheric horror. There's a fun game based on it. (Even if I find the creator's other works a little... suspicious, ideologically.)

Bride of Reanimator has a special place in my heart.

V/H/S '94 is a recent watch of mine. Not every piece in it is good, and the framing device is weak, but I liked it for what it was nevertheless. Big youtube short films/ARG vibes.

Go watch Portrait of God on youtube. It's scary, eerie, and it made my stomach churn a bit.

Crimson Peak is also very very good. Very gothic, but I'm grouping it here for how violence is presented.

If you like things with horror elements that are more gothic than straight up horror:

Interview with the Vampire is a big favorite of mine. I love the books, the show, and especially the movie.

Donnie Darko is fun, very philosophical, a little weird, but I've loved it since I was young.

Ex Machina is interesting to me, I find it enjoyable, even though I have criticisms of how it handles some things.

The Tragedy of Macbeth is lovely. It captures the feeling of a stage play while also using the unique capabilities of film to propel itself into something uniquely good.

The Green Knight on the other hand is not a faithful adaptation. But it has something new to say and do, and I love what it does.

Poor Things deserves every big of hype it gets. If you haven't seen it, it's Frankenstein but with delightfully surreal worldbuilding. The world feels like a painting. Also it's very good as a feminist piece, in my opinion. If a bit singular.

The Love Witch is beautiful, and fascinating to me. I have a special fascination with wicca and neo-pagan movements though, as well as witchcraft and folk-magic.

For things entirely unrelated to horror:

Hedwig and the Angry Inch restructured my brain.

Technically HBO's Angels in America is a mini-series. Watch it like a movie if you can though. I watched it that way for a film class and it's closer to the original play that way.

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is a very fun spy romp. Listen, just watch it and turn off your brain.

The John Wick movies, while "basic" are a beautiful ballet of violence and action. I do like the mythological elements as well.

The Harder They Fall fucks severely. It's a western centered on an entirely black main cast.

Mama Mia, need I say more.

I do not consider Renfield horror, but god if it isn't fun.

Dungeons and Dragons, sometimes you need a good, well made, movie that's kinda a little stupid.

Barbie Princess and the Pauper isn't good, but I like it.

Spider-verse. Like the whole series. I have a special attachment to these. They're utterly beautiful.

Cats. Is it good? NO!! But you should watch it anyway. Let the awful CGI melt into your brain, let it consume you and just watch. (Someone wants me to say you should watch the movie of the stage production instead)

Watch The Invitation. Go in blind. I'm begging you. Just give it a shot. Don't look up anything.

[katewibberlystan]

TBOB characters plus reading habits!

Kate: enjoys reading, though she doesn’t always have the free time to do so. Goes through cycles where she’ll read 4 books in 2 weeks and then not read anything else for a month and a half - it’s a depression thing. Her favorite genres are historical fiction and magical realism, and she enjoys books that delve into serious topics. Stuff along the lines of The Once And Future Witches by Alix E Harrow or The Reformatory by Tananarive Due. She’s also read a lot of children’s literature like The Last Unicorn or Beezus and Ramona to her siblings when they were little and she likes them.

Michael: absolutely loves reading and does it constantly. Obviously obsessed with the classic high fantasy, though he is picky about it too. He’s a huge Tolkien fan. He also reads a lot of nonfiction science books and a lot of mythology. Tried to read Game of Thrones once and didn’t like it one bit.

Emma: not a big reader. Doesn’t have much patience for long books. Prefers graphic novels and comic books, enjoys superheroes and some horror adjacent stuff like Anya’s Ghost or the werewolf graphic novel Squad. Also likes mythology. Makes fun of Michael’s taste in literature.

Gabriel: doesn’t mind reading but does not do it often due to lack of free time and an inability to sit still for too long. Primarily reads for work, which leads to consuming many books on magical creatures or on the natural world. When he reads for pleasure he enjoys survival novels like Hatchet or memoirs like Tara Westover’s Educated. He’ll also read things that Emma likes so that he can discuss them with her.

Wilamena: likes to read for pleasure, primarily reads romcoms or classic romance. A huge Jane Austen enjoyer. Also really likes goofy entertainment in the form of silly modern romcoms. Reads some kids graphic novels like the Phoebe and her Unicorn books. Has read Tolkien even though she’s not too big on him (she prefers Narnia for classic fantasy purposes) solely for Michael’s sake.

Rafe: lukewarm on reading, it’s not his favorite thing in the world but he does enjoy it sometimes. Primarily reads gothic horror, along the lines of Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde. Also reads a lot about music for the sake of playing the violin, and magic because duh.

[crymeariveronceagain]

River's English Major Summer TBR list(to encourage you to read new things):

because holy heck, i'm done with school already??? Anyways these are in no particular order tbh.

Anna Karenina, by Leo Tolstoy. I've started it before but lost track halfway through. I've got my own copy now so it should be easier.

Persuasion, by Jane Austen. I'm already halfway through this, and ANNE MY BELOVED---

The Only Problem, by Muriel Spark. I ordered it while i was at college and never got around to it, and I LOVE the satire of this woman.

Wise Blood, by Flannery O'Connor. You all know how much I adore her. I haven't read this novel yet!!! I'm so excited!!!

Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. I've never actually read it. I only sort of know how it goes, so this should be really good. I love gothic literature.

Cursed, by Marissa Meyer. I got it for Christmas and still have not read it. Curses on a reading-intense degree.

Providence Blue, by David Pinault. I also got this for Christmas, and have been looking forward to it.

Plague Journal, by Michael O'Brien. Dystopia or something. It should be really good.

The rest of Paradise Lost by John Milton. I'm not one for poetry, so this might be a last ditch effort when I'm at the end of my rope. I studied the parts about Satan and his fall, but I don't really know what happens in the rest of the book, so I'm very curious.

And last, but not least, Before Austen Comes Aesop: The Children's Great Books and How to Experience Them, by Cheri Blomquist. Another Christmas Present that may not be something most people would enjoy, but I think I really will enjoy it. I'm a nerdy nerdy Lit major at heart, and like. These kind of commentaries are really enjoyable to me.

Anyways, I hope you all have fun watching me get repeatedly broken apart by various classics and newer novels, as I tend to walk a strange line between fangirling and critical analysis, I suppose as any good literature lover does. I know last summer I started re-reading the KOTLC Series, and I'm not going to lie when I say I honestly think I'm tired of Shannon Messenger's style for now. I read a ton of her work last summer, and now I kind of want to go everywhere with my reading. I hope y'all don't mind that I'm gonna randomly post quotes from all over the place. :P

Then again, you're still here. Perhaps this is the kind of thing you've signed up for.

Happy Summer to every College kid who's almost free, and everyone else who still thinks it's only spring!!!!

[elysiuminfra]

GOOD MORNING ANON thank u for this question :] i love talking about being a hater btw sorry not answering your ask directly i tried and tumblr wouldnt let me :( just kidding im not actually as big of a hater as i say i am. when i talk about the musical - im not talking about any recordings, im talking about the ORIGINAL album. because i havent actually been able to find good quality recordings of the musical. :( and. well. warlow's jekyll is my favorite jekyll hands down now onto thoughts. i think the musical is fine, i like to listen to it sometimes even. some of my favorite jekyll and hyde stuff people have made are musical animatics (which go hard.) and im fond of the actors who have played jekyll/hyde, i just think the've done excellent with casting for the musical over the years. HOWEVER. i have opinions. many of these are based on my own personal tastes, some of them are actual criticisms - all of them are subjective. dont let me dash any reader's enjoyment of it on the rocks. i dont think its a "good" adaptation of the original story. it sort of.... misses the point? of the. everything? it treats jekyll and hyde as separate, with hyde being "pure evil" and jekyll being. well. good. there's not a lot of nuance to it. it IS from jekyll's perspective, and jekyll is an unreliable narrator (one of the MOST unreliable) but i just dislike how it handles hyde's entire deal. because even with jekyll being an unreliable narrator, it still doesn't give any other nuance other than hyde is entirely separate and entirely evil and the source of all of jekyll's woes (not the point - its not OBVIOUS in the book, but it can be easily gleaned through jekyll's breakdown). not only that but the weird and unnecessary inclusion of violence against women and painting hyde (and by extension, jekyll) as a sexual predator. i don't think that's necessarily TERRIBLE WRITING, as. well i believe jekyll does have a lot of issues surrounding sex but i, personally, cannot see jekyll/hyde as a sex pest in the way the musical sees it. he's an effective villain for sure. i just wish it...... handled it better. i just can't see jekyll like that, not even in the original book. i also think the inclusion of not 1 but 2 female romantic interests kind of.... takes away from the original point, i think. what i liked about j&h proper is that it really is about jekyll's relationships with the other men in his life - particularly utterson and lanyon, and in the background poole and jekyll's unnamed father - and how his own issues and problems cause him to navigate those relationships (as well as him reinforcing toxic masculine standards) BUT THATS NOT THE STORY THEYRE TRYING TO TELL. which is fine!!! it's a story about jekyll, and how good his life was before he destroys it. i just don't like that they used misogynistic writing to tell that story. i wish the women in the musical were given far more depth than "jekyll's love interest" and "weary prostitute that hyde stalks", and that they had more.... substance. outside of jekyll/hyde. this isnt uncommon, and particularly not uncommon for musicals / media of this genre. women are just not given as much substance compared to the male leads. and its SAD :( another thing is the.... music. not the score itself - the orchestra is not particularly striking compared to some other musical soundtracks i listen to, however they do reuse motifs throughout the musical - and its exciting to pick that out! there are certain series of notes associated with jekyll/hyde. and i think thats cool because i love motifs. lyrically, i think it's lacking. i think it could have been far, far more interesting lyrics wise but im not sure why they didn't push for it? there's a lot of other musicals (frankenstein, for one) i can think of that are, musically, very stylistically similar but LYRICALLY far superior. i like that it takes a lot from the book, but the way it uses it... leaves something to be desired. the melodies are pretty good in some songs, though, ill give them that. i also dont like the idea of hyde as a crazed serial killer. the death of carew in the book was poignant. i think, it was jekyll's (hyde's, technically) first murder. i also dont think hyde (and by extension, jekyll) WOULD go on a crazed killing spree just for. whatever reason. i just don't really see it happening, but that's because the musical- once again- treats hyde as separate and fully evil and not part of jekyll. when i think of hyde - i think of, what would jekyll do if given the chance? serial killing is not one of those options for me. but the musical doesnt handle jekyll/hyde that way - all of it points towards jekyll not being in control, and not WANTING these things, but hyde, being SEPARATE, doing them anyway. because if.... if it didn't, it would paint jekyll as a very, very, very bad person. someone who 1. is willing to cheat on his fiance with a prostitute, 2. willing to HURT those he is sexually attracted to out of selfish desire when he's rejected 3. a potentially extremely abusive husband. i don't think this was the intention. i really don't. but if you put the musical through that lense, of jekyll/hyde being the same guy, well...... yeah i just dont think thats what they were going with. so i dont think, in the musical, they're portrayed as the same guy. which is not a kind of adaptation i like or prefer. to wind down, i think it's lacking. a bit... boring and somewhat tasteless. i think it couldve been much, much more. i think the lyrics could've been better, i think the writing could've been WAY better, i don't think, overall, it's a good "adaptation", or even a good retelling. i think it's misogynistic. i think it completely misses the point of the original book. i don't think it's even a "great" musical by musical standards. it's more.... just... lukewarm. i suppose. not "terrible" just not. good. BUT i do like some of the tracks, and i DO LOVE that UTTERSON is a big part of it! he's typically ignored in a lot of adaptations. i do love the dedication that theater groups bring to the musical (there's a recording of the russian version with an INSANE SET!!) - and i do love the actors that have portrayed these characters over the decades. i just wish the musical was..... i wish it understood the original message more. and wasn't obsessed with torturing women. and was actually good. and didnt suck. long story short. its not good. there's some qualities i like. but overall i think it sucks mad cheese. the end

[jakemorph]

hmmm okay i went into nimona fresh off reading the graphic novel and expecting to be very disappointed and i think that possibly hampered my enjoyment of the movie. maybe i could have enjoyed it more if i had gone in completely blind but also family animated movies are just not usually what i care about so it's also likely it would not have made a difference

the changes made to the first half of the story seemingly in "service" of the lead gay couple sucked. nimona's new backstory and the subsequent final act i think actually worked quite well and all the fun little details of the setting were quite visually spectacular, but i think both of these successes come at the expense of what the original comic was supposed to be, which was a satire of the traditional fairy tale hero and villain narrative... like the "what if knights had tv" background of the comic book was to poke fun at traditional medieval settings. but by taking that really seriously what comes out is basically the same kind of "what if monster was really person" movie that has been made a million times already. like shrek. the movie is just shrek except it took out all the funny shrek esque elements that were in the original comic in favour of laser beams and flying chariots etc. which i think must be why it feels the need to justify the existence of knights in the setting within the first 30 seconds? cus i was definitely wondering what the point of all those genre trappings were if the city was also defended by drones and giant lasers.

does that make me like cinemasins. i dont know. i also noticed the existence of comic book technology in the setting also seemingly served to replace ballister having been a scientist in the original comic book, which was weird. and makes ballister kind of not able to do anything. like if you wanted to make a frankenstein movie where victor frankenstein wasnt actually a scientist so instead they just put reanimated corpses in everybody's houses in the background so it could still be a reanimated corpse movie. it's not actually much like that but i keep thinking about that comparison

i didn't like many of the design choices. i dont understand why you would make a movie of a 2010s nd stevenson comic book without adapting the original comic's themes OR the iconic art style. i dont want to say "why was this a nimona movie at all" but i kind of do wonder that. why did everything have to be so pretty

[quillheel]

ALIAS / NAME: Captain! I used to be called Honey, Lovely, and Nyx in the past, though that was LONG before Tumblr. Twas my amino days, baby. ( I also semi-recently tried out 'King' but the vibes don't quite fit yknow! prefer the vibe of that as a term of referral - ex: my liege - rather than a name weirdly enough BHGKTRB )

BIRTHDAY: july 7th!

ZODIAC: cancer! i forgot my exact stuff, like rising sign or the like, but i do know that! i got into zodiacs when i was like 13 i think so I know at least MY sign by heart lol

HEIGHT: 5'6! something like that, I think :] which is also 167 centimeters

HOBBIES: drawing, writing ( I have an ao3 I've been neglecting for so long ), dungeons & dragons / general ttrpgs which take up SO much of my week <3, video games, content analysis ( kinda? ), baking, penpal, learning ukulele, learning to sew, learning crochet!

FAV. COLOR: im terrible when it comes to this question because i love a lot of very specific colors because artist brain BUT... If I had to pick one. Probably a red-y brown-y color. I REALLY like warm and neutral colors ( though Quillheel's pallet probably wouldn't invoke that thought ) though i also like a lot of neutral and cooler colors. you can basically reference a rainbow for my preferred colors but even with blue at the bottom ( I'm a big purple-enjoyer ) i still enjoy what good usage of it can do <3

FAV. BOOK: the long walk by stephen king, inkheart by cornelia funke, or frankenstein by mary shelley <3 love different aspects of all of them, though inkheart was a big part of my childhood so i'm biased BHHGTR

LAST SONG: be nice to me by the front bottoms :] i've been listening to a lot of Hozier lately though

LAST MOVIE / SHOW: UHHH wolfwalkers! VERY good i really liked it <3 i wanna rewatch song of the sea eventually, too! that ones also a favorite. the last show would probably be season 3 of infinity train ( I still resist the temptation to add Simon sometimes. he is such a terrible yet interesting little man ) or finally finishing watching hisuian snow :]

RECENT READ: if fanfiction doesnt count ( if it Does then wander boy by poptod, which is surprising its not one of the HUGE amounts of disco elysium fanfiction i've been chewing on lately ) then probably i think frankenstein by mary shelley, which i picked up and began reading but didn't finish :( still the most recent though! I wanna actually finish that + reread the long walk + read a bunch of other books, like the song of achilles by madeline miller, circe by madeline miller, orange world and other stories by karen russle, memorial: a version of homers illiad by alice oswald, the haunting of hill house by shirley jackson, good omens by neil gaiman and terry pratchett, the city & the city by china mieville, etc etc etc! ( if you guys have any suggestions actually, feel free to send em my way! )

INSPIRATION: horror! especially slashers, psychological horror, and 'bloodbath' horror ( selectively! carrie's got the vibes, saw does NOT ), psychological writing in general, a bunch of the books i have or plan on reading, mythology & legends, fanfiction and composition, music ( especially the weakerthans, the narcissist cookbook, hozier, etc ), poetry, and just!! learning methods of how things Generally are made, ig! how people paint, how people make clothes and make fabric, how people grow plants. i take a lot of inspiration from unexpected places, but a lot of those places are the act of creation in of itself. my writing might only be writing, but i try to embody a sense of color to it, of an artstyle you can almost taste, yknow? the composition in shows where blues look almost green and its like the world is basked in paint and there's just a feeling, indescribable, contextual but potent in of itself, the feeling of small moments everywhere, all at once, all the time. THAT SOUNDS REALLY PRETENTIOUS BUT LIKE... its true, yknow!! i like to embody a feeling in my writing, and i go to a lot of places to find it.

STORY BEHIND URL: once, a long time ago, my oc multimuse @cassiopiia was named orphic-ruin, and quillheel came second in my blogs list. i wanted them to match! so i thought of storytelling, which went to writing, then to pens, then to quills! and the 'heel' part comes from achilles heel, or the achilles tendon! as well as having ties to hermes' winged feet. in a way, its kinda saying 'vulnerable storyteller' or 'half-divine legend' or even kinda like a title or epithet vibe wise like you might find on a mythological figure ( ex: quill-heeled ) or something like that, which i think still fits the vibe p well to this day! if i did change the URL, idk what I'd make it now! i might eventually, but yeah!

tagged: @disassnbler ty ender!!!! <333

tagging: uhhhhhhhhhhhhh @littlelonesomestars @slaughterlocked @underworldslibrary @rebellionhearted aaaand anyone wearing blue, green or red <3

[bonniebird]

I'm going book shopping, do you have any recommendations? Could be old books or new I don't mind 📚🍂

Sure :D

The Inheritance Cycle (There's a new ne coming out in Nov v excited for it) The books are good. The movie is... ok for a dragon movie of it's time and the audio book is enjoyable as long as you overlook the weird girly voices for the female characters and that all the dragons are doing Batman impressions for some bizarre reason.

The first four TVD books (The other vampire diaries books are ghost written and there are also a bunch written to go with the show that don't fit with the OG books. They're all pretty good but the first fur are my fav)

The Hobbit and LOTR (obvs lol)

Dracula

Frankenstein

The complete wizard of OZ collection (I just finished this and it's SO long. It look like over 90 hours to finish.)

The game of thrones books are good

The Adrian Mole collection is good but it's a bit weird if you're not British it's a lot of British humour?

War of the worlds, The first men on the moon, The time machine, the invisible man, the island of dr moreau all by HG Wells. They're all good.

Homer Illiad & Odyssey are god if you're into mythology

Lovecraft's monsters (Specifically the one put together by Neil Gaiman (Or features him? I'm not 100% clear on that but is SO SO good. It's my go to audiobook. 100% recommend if you're into spooky horror/syfy) I can't find a picture that Tumblr will let me load in of the cover but there's a link to it on amazon here https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lovecrafts-Monsters-Neil-Gaiman/dp/161696121X

The once and future king is ok but the modern version of it has had science and historical events added into it which is majorly jarring

The Sandman by Neil Gaiman

Sherlock Holmes, any of the books (the collection is like a billion pounds tho)

Anne of Green Gables. I just finished this and it was really great I heard there was more books after it which i'm going to look into so I would recommend the first one for sure.

Good Omens was a good read. (I say read but I listened to the audiobook on a trek across my town to get to the dr office lol. Kept me distracted.)

Neil Gaiman's Norse mythology collection was good too I liked the way that they were compiled the book was very easy to read.

The Narnia books are good. I like the one about the chair, to be honest I did find them a bit boring last time I read them but the chair one was good. The one about the nephew was really confusing as far as I remember.

Grimm brother Fairytale collections. there are a few different ones But the ones that say they're by the brother's have loads of different versions of the tales which is so fascinating to me and some of the copies of the book break down and explain the differences which I like because I'm a fairytale nerd.

The Jeeves collection is pretty enjoyable though I would recommend the Stephen Fry audiobook more than the book because he makes it a lot less boring.

the Witcher is good (Do not get the audio book of amazon the man does accents for all the characters and by the end of the book they all have the exact same accent and you can't tell whose who.)

There are for sure more I could recommend but I've started packing to move house and also for some reason I've forgotten all the other books i've ever read.

[mymanyfandomramblings]

OCs favorite books!

NOTE: I have no wish to constantly clarify that I refer to the 'Gravity-Falls-verse' version of a book/series/author, so understand that every book/series/author referred to here exists to my OCs as the version that exists in Gravity Falls.

Maisie likes fantasy, but she's not a big reader, and doesn't love angst, so she likes lighter fiction in the fantasy genre, stuff like Harry Potter, Deltora Quest, and the Chronicles of Narnia, which are enjoyable, but not huge commitments, the way some of Violet's books are. Maisie enjoys romance, but gets immediately irritable if it takes over the plot. That being said, Maisie loves anything with a family feeling, and she has a great love for Anne of Green Gables for that reason.

Violet meanwhile is a BIG reader, liking high fantasy (the works of Tolkien, Sanderson and Feist are her kinda thing), but also classic literature, particular darker and more gothic stories, like Frankenstein or Jane Eyre (although, she would like it noted that she does not like Wuthering Heights). She's even less interested in romance than Maisie is, and has been known to DNF books if they get too romancey. The worthy exception to this is Pride and Prejudice.

Alexander isn't a hugely read-y kid, but he enjoys funny, fantastical books, like the works of Roald Dahl or David Walliams. He also likes the kind of books about kid detectives, since there's usually codes for him to investigate. Talking animal books also appeal to him.

Ariel, unlike the others, loves the romance genre (and Wuthering Heights, to Violet's chagrin), and loves a good romance, the more dramatic, the better. Unlike the twins, the more tropes that are in a book, the better for her, and the more dramatic, the better. She does however, draw the line at Twilight, unlike her mother who loves it, one glaring difference between the two (Mabel also doesn't like Wuthering Heights, but no-one expected her to).

There you go!

[spaceorphanssecondbreakfastclub]

SO's Bookclub: The Other Side of Dark

Title: The Other Side of Dark Author: Joan Lowery Nixon Genre: YA Mystery

Goodreads Summary:

Stacy wakes up in a room that's not hers, in a body she doesn't recognize, to discover she's been in a coma for four years. Her mother is dead ‒ murdered ‒ and Stacy, recovering from a gunshot wound, is the only eyewitness to her mother's murder. She can recall only a shadowy face, so far. But the killer is not about to let her reveal his identity...

Review:

Not going to lie, I was dreading getting to this one. This may have been the first one I read - I remember, as a kid, really finding the hook intriguing. I also remembered it being much more about the drama of Stacy not remembering who she was over the mystery. I was surprised to find that the mystery does talk up about half the book, but still, my tastes of changed, and the premise is no longer something that would interest me.

In fact - everything about this screams Lifetime Movie of the Week. And honestly, I should give Lifetime a break - their movies seem like Oscar winners compared to this... Btw - this book did win a ton of awards. I have no idea why - the 80s clearly had different standards for YA fiction.

Anyway, this book feels like a Frankenstein monster of all of her other books. The main character, Stacy, reminds me way too much of the littler girl (Julie) from The Specter - minus, maybe, some of the sociopathic behavior. She's rightfully traumatized by being in a coma for four years, but she acts not like 13 but instead 9 or 10. She's also really obsessed with her mother's murderer - which makes sense, but his hatred of him is reminiscent of how Julie from The Specter was infatuated to a fault of the guy.

There's also the fact that someone's watching her - and out to get her, much like The Stalker and The Ghosts of Now. And the first half of the book takes place in the hospital, again, much like The Specter. The premise would be somewhat interesting in a much better book. But JLN really stuck to everything she had done before instead of trying something new.

Also - this book has some bonkers issues with reality. First, there's the whole idea that someone could be walking around doing physical therapy for four years and still be in a coma. Why not just give her amnesia? Then - there's the fact that a girl who is now 17 is still functioning like 13yo. Where are all the therapists? Why are they leaving her at home alone without any kind of care? Especially when she's a witness for a murder? And then there's everything associated with finding her mother's murderer -- that's treated so flippantly. Like, what is even going on?

The most egregious thing going on is the fact that her bff from middle school doesn't seem to care at all about Stacy's mental issues -- and is obsessed with make up and parties and is shallowly forcing Stacy into all of these things. Like, dude, get a grip, your friend has been traumatized. Also, while I wish there were more f/f friendships in these books (the heroines always end up confiding in their love interest) the girl friends in these books always end up either dumb or shallow or ignored entirely. I wish JLN would be able to write a proper friendship. C'mon!

I should also mention (as usual) there is a love interest. It's a little weird since she feels like she's 13 and the guy is 23. There's a bit of a twist that prevents it from being utterly creepy, but it's still strange and there some what for obligatory purposes of having a romance.

There are a few suspenseful moments in the novel, and the mystery of who the murderer is makes it at least semi-interesting. This isn't the worst of the worst, but I can't say I had a very enjoyable time reading it either.

Rating: 2 Stars

[communistkenobi]

Sure thing! This will be all over the place in terms of topics and content, and I'll include a mix of articles, essays, and books

Articles/Essays:

Off the Map: On Violence and Cartography - This is an academic article. It goes through the history of mapping as a tool of state management/control, and more broadly talks about how the modern state comes into being through the lens of cartography. I appreciate this article for a bunch of reasons but one of them is because it talks about the construction of criminal subjects like bandits and pirates as a result of the modern state becoming more and more well-defined and borders become extremely precise (which is historically novel). It also has some discussion about the differences between nation and state, and the eventual marriage of the two into the term nation-state

The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception - This is on my reading list, it's a chapter from Dialectic of Enlightenment, which is one of Adorno & Horkheimer's big texts. This is about how culture has become "mass" culture, mass standardized and industrialized alongside capitalist factory production. I think there is Freudian psychology shit in here so just fair warning on that front

My Words to Victor Frankenstein above the Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage - Fantastic essay by Susan Stryker on trans identity that really resonated with me. It deals with some pretty heavy topics, including trans suicide, so just be prepared for that going in. If you like this essay, I also suggest checking out Transgender Marxism, which is a collection of essays from various authors about, well, transgender identity and marxism lol. I haven't read all the essays in it but I've really enjoyed the ones I've read. I think if you're looking for answers to questions like "why are we trans?" "how does trans lib fit into left wing politics?" and transfeminist work in general, I recommend both of these.

Discourse on Colonialism - I think this is required reading for anyone who is serious about developing anti-colonial politics. It's a good entry text into discussions about colonialism and capitalism and fascism. This is a polemical essay, meaning it's biting in tone and less structured than traditional academic writing. It's an extremely enjoyable read for that reason, on top of being interesting in content. (the link I'm using is to a collection of essays, so just scroll to DoC by Cesaire)

Critique of Violence - this is a canonical piece of critical writing by Walter Benjamin. I've read parts of it for some writing I've done but haven't finished it yet. It's probably the most dense of the texts I've listed on here, so depending on your level of comfort with jargon and theory this might be more or less helpful. This essay has helped inform my understanding of political violence quite a bit.

Books:

Anatomy of Fascism - this book is useful for providing a detailed historical account of where fascism originated in Europe. It's a good read if you want a broad overview of right wing political history in Europe post-WWI. it's also written by a white academic who doesn't engage with post-colonial scholarship at all and does the classic "'the world' and 'europe' are synonyms" thing, so just keep that in mind lol

Black Jacobins - history of the Haitian Revolution from a Marxist perspective. I have read about the Haitian Rev but not this book, it is also on my reading list. I think if you want to read about proletarian revolutions this is a good book for that. It also places it within the context of the French Revolution, which happened around the same time.

Wretched of the Earth - I've read a little bit of this book and need to come back to it. Fanon is a canonical post-colonial scholar. This work engages with psychiatry as a form of colonial control, as well as talk about how colonialism gets expressed psychologically in both colonized people and colonizers.

Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism - a classic lol. This is also on my reading list, though I've encountered some of the arguments in here before in other work. Does what it says on the tin.

Hopefully all those links work for you. These are all pretty easy to find online anyway, with the exception of the first one since it's a published academic article (which are often paywalled). I think if you're most interested in books like Orientalism, then Wretched of the Earth and Discourse on Colonialism are good places to start with this list. And obviously this list is not a wholesale endorsement of every argument or concept in these texts, but these are all on my radar right now for what I plan to read over the course of the next year or two

any book recommendations?

Like in general? Fiction, non-fiction? Topics, genres, etc?

[nedlittle]

lukewarm take that not only is there literary value to be found in The Classics and reading them can give us a better understanding of how history and humanity function AND teach us critical thinking skills, but a lot of classic books-yes, even the ones by straight white men are very good. part of the reason why a literary canon exists, no matter how contrived or narrow the idea is, is so that we can track the development and creation of literary genres and movements. these books are classics not simply because they're "good" by modern standards, but because they're enduring. if something has survived for thousands or even hundreds of years, that is not accidental. literature is a record of history, whether intended or not. but, sure, we should throw the epic of gilgamesh in the trash and let students analyse good omens coffeeshop aus from now on!