#1940's literature

[thebarroomortheboy]

Speaking of fabulous characters, England has produced a bumper crop of them. But don't forget, over here in the colonies, we've managed to come up with a few of our own. How about Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Johnny Appleseed, Black Bart, Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone and, of course, the one and only Ichabod Crane. Old Ichy, if you recall, was the country schoolmaster dreamed up by Washington Irving. Oh, he had a way with the yarn, good Mr. Irving.

THE ADVENTURES OF ICHABOD CRANE (1949) | dir. James Alger, Clyde Geronimi and Jack Kinney

[ardent-reflections]

I have never surrendered myself entirely to anyone but you, and only recently. And to let my heart speak, when I am pressed against you, is an emotion and a peace that overflows all imagination.

Albert Camus to Maria Casares.

[loonylupin2]

So I made a 13 Chapter Fanfiction about Private Gripweed and Major McCartney!!!

I write in a style similar to older literature (my favorite books are the great Gatsby and Peter Pan) though I try to make my dialogue and realistic and gut wrenching as possible :) 

There are a lot of references to old actors and films as well as internalized homophobia and of course ✨TRUAMA✨

Be warned there is major character death

(The end of Chapter six has NSFW though it copies 1920′s erotica but still)

Everyone on my Twitter adored it so I though I’d share it with you

You don’t have to be a Beatles fan or familiar with these films to read 

It’s entirely a story on its own ❤️

AUF WIEDERSEH’N MY LOVES 

[theshatterednotes]

Annie Ernaux, 2022 Nobel Prize in Literature laureate

[hearts-hunger]

realizing that my book recommendations are all from the early 20th century sorry

[verysium]

blue lock boys as assassins (au i guess?), i hope you could include Oli, Yuki and Barou!

anon you have me at crossroads because the very idea of an assassin AU spawns an infinite glitch of possibilities....🤔 like mafia underground syndicate assassin? or like solitary mysterious hitman type of assassin? or even better could this be ninja/shinobi stealth warrior assassin? i'm going give a general description though:

oliver is the laid-back good guy. escorts you to the bar, drinks on him. claps every passerby on the back as if he personally knows them. you think he's alright. not too handsome and just the right amount of ruggedness. he offers you a good time, so you two hit off for the night. and that's where everything starts to go downhill. one shoot-out, intense knife fight, and grueling police chase later, you pant for dear life against the side of a brick wall in some torn up alley because it turns out your one-night stand was actually an assassin for japan's largest underground syndicate.

you grip your broken heel tightly in one hand, body collapsed against the brick cornerstone as you seethe, the condensation of your gasping breath forming tendrils in the cold night. you reach up a hand to wipe the sweat off your face. it comes back red, the meticulous hours of applying your makeup wasted when you see the damning smears of lipstick. this was not the type of fun you signed up for on a friday night.

"oliver, what the fuck was that?"

he laughs sheepishly, cocking his gun back with ease before he lights up a cigarette, palm cupping the flame. he turns, then walks over two bodies without blinking, suede shoes clicking against the cobblestone. you're angry at him, but he doesn't care, wrapping an arm around your waist, nose buried in your hair.

"just a side hustle, sweetheart. come on, let's get you home."

yukimiya is the sweet, unassuming literature student. he came home from university to help his grandmother out over the summer, manning the front counter of her antique oddities shop. you like him. he's awkwardly charming, a little too zealous for the job, but still endearingly kooky. you have him pinned down as the sad poet type. the kind of person who wears the same knitted cardigan every day, complete with horn-rimmed glasses and 1940's gingham elbow patches. he can handwrite a sonnet in less than a minute, gift-wrap your purchases in record time. you let him buzz around you while you make your daily visit to his shop, listening to him talk about the collections of radioactive glassware, the vintage phonograph in the corner, and the rare edition of Gutenberg bibles sitting silently in the old book section.

"you know, you really don't have to do that."

he peers up at you owlishly, dark brow furrowed before you point out the spool of twine in his hand, the way he's carefully folding the newspaper around the edges of the new vase you purchased. he laughs, shrugging off your concerns with a wave. you catch a brief whiff of his cologne, the subtle scent of mint and toluene. maybe a hint of vanillin too.

"don't worry about it miss! gift-wrapping is a free service. i'll even add two complimentary trinkets if you'd like. we have a clearance section that's been slow to sell. you could even take a few for free."

"i'm alright. thanks for the offer though." he nods, fingers delicately tying a bow before he places your vase in a bag, fluffing up the tissue paper on top. you smile to yourself when you see the intricate lettering of the card he snuck in. must've been another one of the love poems he wrote. you know how the saying goes.

roses are red. violets are blue.

by the time you step out the shop, the door chime twinkles in the distance, a peal of bells to signal your departure. from behind the windows and glass paneling, he watches your figure trail down the sidewalk, winter coat fluttering in the wind. his eyes darken beneath the tortoiseshell frame, finger moving down the yellowed pages of his accounting book before crossing off another name. he doesn't even look up when he hears the loud honking and screams, the sound of a body hitting the pavement.

one is dead, and so are you.

barou is probably the most obvious one. very upfront about the work he does. the only caveat is that you can never trace his work back to him. he cleans up way too well. always shoots his targets through the eye because it's less of a mess that way. leaves absolutely no evidence at the murder scene. i picture you as one of the unfortunate victims caught up in the fray. collateral damage, as he likes to call it.

"you know, i've never met someone so equally stubborn and stupid."

you glare at him, throat sore and aching as you scream through your gag, cursing him out in every language in existence. he merely stares down at you, arms crossed and eyebrow arched in amusement. you struggle for a good minute, flopping around like a fish as you try to free yourself from your bonds. how the hell do you go from taking an errand trip to the grocery store to getting kidnapped and tied up in a man's trunk?

"what's that? couldn't hear you from all the noise."

god, you want to strangle him. you heave a breath, swallowing the bitter taste of your own spit when he finally unties the gag, your lungs gasping for air.

"i said...you think i'm the stupid one? you're the one who tied me up!"

"because you wouldn't stop squealing like a pig."

"you were trying to kill me!" he snorts derisively at your comment, his red eyes piercing and haughty. the loud thump of the trunk door closing reverberates throughout the parking garage before you find yourself face first on the pavement, body dumped unceremoniously on the ground. he looks down at you dismissively, wiping the dust off his hands.

"nah, i'd save myself the hassle."

your eyebrow twitches in irritation, jaw dropping at that violation. oh, it was personal now. he deserved capital punishment. strangling would be too merciful. you try to get back on your feet, a task that proves all the more difficult with your legs bound and arms twisted behind your back. he merely waits, as if knowing when you'd finally give up, sinking at his feet in defeat.

"you done?" you nod your head, slumping down into the concrete. your voice becomes small and sheepish by the time you raise your face to look at him.

"can't you just...let me go? i promise i won't say anything." he rolls his eyes, swinging you over his shoulder in one fell swoop, locking the car with a resounding beep. you start to panic when you feel him carrying you to the garage exit, vision swirling with nothing but concrete and the solid sound of his combat boots.

"wait....wait! i swear to god! please just let me go. i won't tell a soul."

"nope. can't have any witnesses." you feel a handkerchief come up at engulf your nose and mouth, the sweet smell cloying and sharp. you start to squirm in his arms.

"wait! no...please! if you touch me again, i'll scream." his grin is the last thing you see in the darkness, sharp canines brushing against the shell of your ear.

"oh, you'll do so much more than scream, darling."

[scoobydoodean]

so i’ve always been annoyed by the belief that “sam and dean are toxically co-dependent, especially dean!” like it just baffles me once i remember all the times they’ve been apart without one of them being dead (and actually including post swan song to an extent), but i’ve never been able to properly articulate why i think dean at least isn’t really co-dependent on sam. like there’s a difference between being (co)dependent on somebody and dean’s parentification right? thanks!

I'll preface this by saying I am not a medical professional nor have I studied academic literature on codependency in great detail. That said, "codependency" is usually just a buzzword used colloquially to describe people who are obsessed with each other anyway. I address the colloquial use and how Sam is much more unhinged here. I'm guessing the colloquial use is really more what you mean, but if you're looking for something different or a little more specific than that, I can probably write or point you to some other things I've written if you give me something more specific to go on.

That said, there is something about the way fandom talks about "codependency" between Sam and Dean that bothers me, and I think by reading around about codependency today after I got this ask, and finding out that this term is controversial among mental health professionals as well... I finally figured out why.

I think to a lot of people, "codependent" has become synonymous with words like "needy" and "suffocating". However, the WebMD type articles I started with, suggest that the partner of the codependent party is the one whose needs seem to constantly overshadow and outweigh the needs of the codependent partner in the relationship. While the codependent partner can exhibit negative behaviors, the primary problem of the codependent party is that in being a caretaker, they can lose all sense of their identity and boundaries, and don't know who they are outside of being a caretaker for others. However, this is a more modern take on the term. Because these articles I started with mentioned academic controversy, I then found a few academic papers to skim, and this proved to be even more helpful in understanding why I... don't like this term very much.

First, the historical origins of it are... off-putting. The term "codependency" first emerged in academic literature in the 1940s to describe wives with alcoholic husbands who behave as "enablers" [1, 2]. I probably don't have to point out how different things were for women back then, and how rampantly sexist that context makes this first wave of literature sound, but it's discussed extensively in this article. Second, there is more stigma associated with the term partly because Alcoholics Anonymous (shocking /s) latched onto it starting in the 60s and 70s:

The influence of the AA culture in shaping the concept of codependency as an illness offered the idea that people who were close to the substance user were themselves suffering from an illness (O’Briean and Gaborit 1992). These people were viewed as enablers and coalcoholics (Cotton 1979). [ 1 ]

I... think I am probably not the only one who finds that utterly rancid to read (some academics writing on the subject certainly seem to):

According to Gus Napier, a noted family therapist, it is "ridiculous" to label codependency as a disease, because it is a culturally conditioned response of an overfunctioning person in relationship with an underfunctioning person (Meacham, 1990-1991). [2]

Some researchers who have pushed the term "codependency" as a diagnosis have actually suggested that literally anyone who is living with someone with an addiction should be called co-dependent by definition, regardless of any behavior they may exhibit, which tells you a lot about the lack of consensus and how meaningless the term can be [2]. The term (especially within the disease model where codependency itself is a from of addiction) has been criticized by many researchers for the misogyny through which the term originated, for unproductive negative labeling and pathologizing of people (especially women) dealing with incredibly difficult situations with their loved ones, for victim-blaming people (especially women stuck in abusive relationships) for the actions of their partners, for tangentially—negative stereotyping about people with serious addictions, and for conflating addiction with interpersonal problems, and in the extreme case—for suggesting separation from ones family is the solution to addiction and supporting someone with an addiction somehow always enables them [1, 2].

Since the original stream of literature related to addiction, codependency has rebranded and expanded into literature on family experiences with abuse and mental and physical illness. Which is where we get articles like this one I already linked. The codependent party is still a caretaker in these settings, caring for the needs of a loved one who is ill. Still, "codependency" is not an official medical diagnosis (i.e. not in the DSM-5). It's a term that has been used in academic literature by mental health professionals, when trying to describe a range of behaviors within dysfunctional families. These researchers do not agree on the term's meaning or on whether it even is or should be a diagnosis. Many are interested in it only from an interpersonal or personality perspective, which is also where we should stick.

Taking all of this into account though, I think the very first thing we have to ask ourselves is what exactly we get out of using the term "co-dependency" to describe Sam and/or Dean when the term doesn't even really have an agreed-upon meaning. Is the intention to write interesting character analysis, or is the intention to glorify or criticize using a term that has historically stigmatized understandable human reactions to troubled family situations? I think the goal has perhaps too often been the latter.

That said, I've already been referencing it, but I think this article does a good job of summarizing much of the literature, and then actually focusing on people who do choose, of their own accord, to identify with the term "codependent" because it is helpful for them in understanding their own lived experience and their patterns within relationships. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to explore this as it relates to Sam and Dean with the right motivations. If you read the accounts of the respondents who choose to identify with the term, you'll see shades of Sam and Dean I think (I have written something pretty close to the chameleon-self about season 1 Dean, and I can apply that one to Sam too through his attempts to fit in at Stanford). When it comes to my experience with these characters however, I just don't find that I personally see any value in analyzing Sam and Dean through the word "codependent" given it's lack of agreed-upon meaning professionally and colloquially.

It seems to me that the term itself leads to more confusing conversations instead of less confusing ones because of the lack of clear definition, and the potential for negative stereotyping instead of actual edifying analysis is extremely off-putting to me. It just doesn't do anything for me personally. The issues to which it relates I think are interesting (especially parentification which is a term I do find useful), and I think criticisms leveled against the term are also useful to read in understanding ones own struggles with how fandom tends to frame Dean as a caretaker who they believe is actually somehow responsible for everyone else's decisions. But I think that perhaps I prefer words and concepts that are better defined than the muddiness of the term "codependent".

Lastly: Even if I'm not a particular fan of the term, the fact is that the actual show uses the term twice—in season 5 (shoutout to butch--dean's transcript search engine). Once in 5.11 "Sam, Interrupted" (to Dean):

DR. FULLER Well, to be frank, uh, the relationship that you have with your brother seems dangerously codependent. I think a little time apart will do you both good.

First, this dude doesn't really know what's going on and thinks Sam and Dean are having delusions. However, in season 5, Sam's experience with demon blood is repeatedly paralleled with drug or alcohol addiction, and Sam is someone for whom Dean has been made to feel responsible for most of his life. This episode addresses Dean's overly burdensome responsibilities in other ways and it's also come up in the past in 1.12, 2.09, 2.10, and 4.05. I prefer to discuss this theme with much more specific terms. In this case, I would say Dean has an "overactive sense of responsibility to others", originating first with his childhood experiences with parentification. Sam also has a tendency to try and make Dean shoulder responsibility for his decisions when they backfire, and does so multiple times related to the demon blood (4.04, 4.21, 5.05). Cas and Zachariah also both blame Dean for Sam breaking the last seal because he didn't stop him in time (5.01, 5.02) and Bobby criticizes how Dean responds to Sam's addiction (4.22).

And then again in 5.18 "Point of No Return", specifically when Zachariah (my favorite manipulative angel) tries to get Adam to be on his side by basically calling Sam and Dean creepy incestuous weirdos:

ZACHARIAH So you know you can’t trust them, right? You know Sam and Dean Winchester are psychotically, irrationally, erotically codependent on each other, right?

This one honestly to me is just Zachariah doing Zachariah things. I'll reach these episodes on my rewatch fairly soon though, so we'll see if I end up talking about it more then.

Bacon, I., McKay, E., Reynolds, F. et al. The Lived Experience of Codependency: an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Int J Ment Health Addiction 18, 754–771 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9983-8

Anderson, S. C. (1994). A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Codependency. Social Work, 39(6), 677–685. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23717128

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

While I agree with most of your posts

I think bringing up grammar in song writing is just kinda weird

Like as long as a song isn't as egregiously grammatically incorrect as 'I'll do what I should have did' (thank you deacon blue) it just isn't a relevant criticism?

Even the song writer you respect most probably doesn't write their songs like an essay they can lose marks for. And that's a good thing! Songs would be a lot worse if writers were worrying about these things

It's just such a bizarre thing to bring up- and unfortunately it kinda makes your other points look less valid because it comes across as weird and petty and like you'll drag Swift for anything (Plus obsessions with 'correct' grammar is just rooted in abliesm, classism and racism- so yeah not a good look)

Plus bringing up your literature degree... like you never studied poetry? Which famously plays with grammar and sentence structure? Like that's inherent to the genre and while very little of TTPD is poetic, lyrics are still most similar to poems then they are to essays or journal articles

Sorry you just really hit a nerve here cos it's just such a ridiculous thing to bring up.

Okay, yes people don't write songs like essay's. However, they often still use determinable grammar rules in art.  

You are keying into the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar rules. 

The prescriptive rules are ones that you are most likely to find first listed in dictionaries or textbooks. Descriptive grammar rules contend with the dialectal differences and slang. In either case, rules and stipulations or exceptions are noted in various linguistic analysis of the demographic's dialect. Both subgroups of grammar are consistently evolving as the use of the English language changes over time.  

Before I move on, I just want to say that I am well-aware of the deep history surrounding the debates on proper grammar. These debates, of course stem, from sociohistorical issues surrounding class, race, and ableist attitudes. You are correct. However, the academic conversation on grammar and linguistics has advanced dramatically into the subdivision of grammar-practices with respect to dialectal and cultural differences. I judge Taylor Swift's grammar as similar to my own, since she claims to be from my “neck of the woods.” Thus, I feel it is entirely appropriate for me to throw metaphorical tomatoes at her.  

 In the juncture of this difference on prescriptive and descriptive, I want to make that point that people who utilize the difference well often take prescriptive rules and bend them to fit their specific thematic point, thus the lyric forms to its set of descriptive grammar rules. These artists do it with such finesse and precision, unlike Taylor Swift, that it’s nearly awe-inspiring.  

For instance, Kendrick Lamar uses many AAVE typical syntactical structures to make his music personalized art. He won a Pulitzer for it. Take, as an example, the intro to his song “Humble” in which he writes, “Nobody pray for me / It been that day for me” (2017). This is not grammatically correct according to the prescriptive grammar rules laid out in the 1940’s. However, linguistic scholars do not operate on so strict a pendulum anymore. Notice, too, that Lamar is not actually breaking any grammatical rules, only playing with the purpose and form of his syntax, when we take into account the dialectical intention with which he uses “it been” as a poignant use of the past participle form of the verb “to be.” Thus, the simple sentence of “it is” changes into the “it been” as a subjective call first to his cultural dialect and to the thematic gesture of the song. As the phrase “it been” leaves out the helping verb “have” which would put the phrase into present progressive tense should it be present; however, it’s noticeable absence as a stiff detraction from prescriptive grammar rules, focuses Lamar’s thematic point on moving the audience to mediate on the past as it intrudes on the present time. His use of language discrepancy between prescriptive and descriptive rules focuses recognition on his dialectal culture and on his main thematic point as it hinges on making sure to notice where you’ve been in life in order to stay humble and live with authenticity. He is a masterclass on descriptive grammar being used in such a beautifully artistic way that I am damn near in tears for his music.  

Okay, moving onto to your point about poetry not being grammatically correct. You are quite wrong here, because poetry "plays" with syntax but it does not throw the rules out. Much like the example I laid out above, poetry does the same thing wherein it plays with prescriptive grammar in a thoughtful way that often ties into the moral or theme of the work. Poetry centers on a different form of syntactical methodology... yes, you are right. However, the emphasis is still on the necessity of understanding grammar structures like poetic feet, meter, rhyme scheme (etc). It's not a free-for-all. The best poets of the last 6 centuries have been some with the most linguistically precise sentence structure that I've ever read. I can give you examples, but if I do that this answer will become a million words long.  

I am, however, sorry to have struck a nerve or come-off like a know-it-all. I was only expressing my frustration that Taylor Swift is apparently one of the biggest artists in the world and she doesn't even bother to ask a friend if the meaning of her phrases gets lost in excessively languishing grammatical structures. For instance, in her song “Chloe or Sam or Marcus or Whatever” she is stacking so many phrases hinging on coordinating conjunctions that the meaning of the phrase itself loses any poignant message. She writes:

Named Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus And I just watched it happen As the decade would play us for fools And you saw my bones out with somebody new Who seemed like he would've bullied you in school And you just watched it happen (Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus).

In this stanza alone there are 6 coordinating conjunctions stacked together, interspersed with additional prepositional phrases and 2 extra relative clauses. It is the most egregious run-on sentence I have ever seen published before. I've seen better, cleaner prose in the work I've graded from High School freshmen. Not only could she have said it in less words, but the way she is writing it makes it drag on and on. The meaning gets lost, and any emotional impact is shut down because people get lost in the wordiness.

It’s a failure on her part, and it’s clear how just writing a run on sentence with no meaning is so much different than the way that someone like Lamar is masterfully arranging language to fit his purpose.  It's offensive that she gets to make a million-billion dollars off so little effort. 

Sorry, I wrote you an essay, but I am so incredibly passionate about writing. Also, I’ve been listening to Lamar a lot today because of his recent diss track, and it just reminded about how much of a lyrical genius he is. Sorry, I detoured into a rant about how cool he is too. And I need people to understand that I am not critiquing Swift because I need to dunk on someone in order to bolster my own sense of self-worth. I just want better mainstream art, and I want people to have better, stronger art with which to engage.  

I did not mean to hurt your feelings.  You are quite right that obsession with "proper" grammar is bullshit; however, I am not looking for some old fashioned "proper" nonsense. I want people to write like Lamar, with intelligence and passion while he bends the notions of grammar, not like Taylor Swift with obvious run-on obfuscated and stupid phrases.

edit: Also, good writers do actually worry about grammar. It has to do with illocutionary forces behind the phrases. The best among us knows the language inside and out, and that is why they are the best writers.

Edit 2: Also, I've been thinking about this, but what do you think literary and poetry critics do? You say it's bizarre to critique Taylor Swift’s poor grasp of the English language? Of course, I'm critiquing that... she's the one who calls herself a writer. I don't go around checking everyone's grammar, but if you call yourself a "good" writer and a poet, obviously expect people to analyze the words on the page.

[foxsoulcourt]

Queer is the Spotlight Gala film @ NYFF62

Written in the early 1950s yet not published until 1985, William S. Burroughs’s Queer has come to be considered a canonical work in the career of the Beat Generation author and a cornerstone of transgressive gay literature. In his wildly ambitious adaptation, Luca Guadagnino (Call Me by Your Name, NYFF55) expertly evokes the book’s post–World War II time period and cinematically translates Burroughs’s iconoclasm with panache.

In a transformative role, Daniel Craig immerses himself into Burroughs’s alter ego William Lee, a habitual heroin user luxuriating in freedom and desiccation among a disconnected group of gay American expatriates in Mexico City in the late 1940s. When enigmatic, preppy ex-military kid Eugene Allerton (Drew Starkey) catches Lee’s eye, he swoons into a headlong love affair, commencing an odyssey that will take them all the way to the Ecuadorian jungle in pursuit of the ultimate high.

Buoyed by go-for-broke performances from Craig and Starkey, and rollicking, unexpected supporting turns from Lesley Manville and Jason Schwartzman, Queer is a dazzling showcase for many in Guadagnino’s stable of collaborators, including Challengers screenwriter Justin Kuritzkes, cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom, and music composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. 

It’s a film that finds Guadagnino in his most formidable, gutsiest mode yet, a universal love story featuring expressionistic flights of fancy, gratifying moments of psychedelic surrealism, and surprising tenderness. 

[snaggletoothedbastard]

So I'm having thoughts about LOTR. Specifically the ending. And the fanfiction that rewrites the ending. Bear with me.

So we all know that LOTR ends with Frodo leaving Middle Earth and going to the Undying Lands, right. And we all know that he does this because all the events of the story have had such an impact on him that they've left him quite traumatised and not really able to live life the way he used to. And we can probably all guess that this is a reflection of how Tolkien may have thought about his trauma after fighting in the First World War.

The ending makes sense considering the time the book was written, because in the 1940's and 50's, people didn't know as much about mental health and disability as they do now, and there weren't as many ways to help people manage disabilities other than institutionalising them or like. Giving them cocaine or something idk. So it's reasonable to assume that because Tolkien didn't see many ways that people could live with disabilities and be happy, he couldn't write them into LOTR and instead basically just put Frodo in Middle Earth's equivalent of Heaven and said "there you go, you're all better now".

I like this as a sort of tragic ending. I mean, you can't deny that someone being so drastically changed by an experience means they can't enjoy the things they grew up with is pretty tragic. The ending does make sense. But I kind of hate it.

I don't think it was written badly or anything, and I'm not trying to dismiss Tolkien's experiences that influenced this ending. My issue with it is that, when you look at it through a modern lens, it has vaguely ableist connotations. Specifically the idea that disabled people (Frodo) can't live full lives and be happy in the real world (Middle Earth) and can therefore only be happy when they're "cured" or when they die and go to Heaven (the Undying Lands).

Now obviously LOTR is an old book and it's important to consider the time it was created when analysing it, as you would do with any other piece of classic literature. A lot of old books have some outdated language and concepts in them, simply because that was normal back then. And until very recently, we probably wouldn't have thought the ending of LOTR was in any way problematic. And it might not have been, because it's not really the fact that Tolkien wrote that ending that's an issue; it's the fact that the way the world worked back then made it near impossible to even think about any other ending.

Since the book was written, though, there have been a lot of advancements in science and research into disabilities, and there are now much more effective ways to treat and manage them. There's medication and therapy for physical and mental issues, and there are lots of accommodations that we can and should put in place to make life easier for everyone. Back in the 1940's, Tolkien wouldn't have had these things, and therefore didn't consider them to be options when writing about what happens to Frodo at the end of the story. But now, we do have them, and it's this progress that has discredited the idea that disabled people can't be happy in the real world, and subsequently made LOTR's ending seem outdated by today's standards.

Now this is where the fanfiction comes in.

LOTR readers these days, who are aware of the progress we've made as a society and the new ways people view and treat minorities, often write fanfiction that puts things into Tolkien's universe that wouldn't have otherwise been there because of when the books were written, from openly queer characters to characters living good, happy lives with disabilities. And I think this is a good thing and it's really nice to see, especially in regards to Frodo's disability. I like seeing people work out how he might accommodate himself in the world of Middle Earth, and how the other characters would help him with that. I like that sometimes people have to get creative when figuring out how he would cope with trauma and chronic pain, because obviously Middle Earth doesn't have a lot of the things we have in the real world.

I like that we can finally give Frodo a chance to recover in a more realistic way than just sending him to the afterlife. I like that we can finally allow him to live.

A lot of Tolkien purists complain about new adaptations and fanfiction because "it's not what Tolkien wrote so he wouldn't like it". First of all, why do we still care about the opinions of a man who's been dead for over fifty years? What are you going to do, summon his ghost to haunt all the fanfic writers? Hold a seance to find out exactly what he thinks? Good luck with that.

Second of all, I honestly believe this is something he would approve of. He went on living after the First World War, but he didn't get to live with the disability accommodations we have today. And because he didn't, neither did Frodo. We can't give Tolkien the life many disabled people have now, but we can give it to his tragic hero. We can make his story a little less tragic. And if Tolkien was here now, of all the tropes we're using in LOTR fanfiction, it wouldn't surprise me if "Frodo stays in the Shire" is one he could get behind.

[therealslimshakespeare]

I know that I’m probably the only one, but I miss Maureen and Gale. I had a tough couple of weeks, do you have any crumbs of them 🥹

Aaah I answered this in depth then it crashed on me. I got so scared that it had lost your ask as well. Thank goodness it’s here. Ok redo-

First off, I am so sorry to hear that you are having a rough time of it, that’s so sad to hear and I am sending you all the love and best wishes for a change in fortune soon. You hang in there, I’m so grateful to have you here and I’m really touched that you would come on this space so that I could possibly have the chance to bring a little light into your day.

I AM SO HAPPY TO GET ASKED ABOUT THEM!! I miss my babies so much. I have a lot of material for them in wips, just none are finished or ready to be published in the grand continuum of the story, as yet. So in the meantime I’m just stewing in my love for them without outlet, hehe.

Most recently, I am obsessed with my procrastinating project of having created a Pinterest board for them. Well, really it is for Maureen, as I am making one for each of the girls, but it’s really for both because what is Maureen without her Gingerale? I tried to be conscientious about choosing quotes from female authors to tell the progression of her story. I wasn’t able to adhere to that strictly the whole way through, but it was important to me because there needs to be room for females in stories to grow, not just from acceptably, meek characters, but really to grow from somewhere that needs that growth, to be flawed and grasping, and having to fight for betterment. And there are so many incredible, brave, trailblazing women who have articulated that in literature. And typically not been accepted very well in their times. That’s just very dear to me.

I’ve been thinking so much about their life, and the tranquility that finally occurs after Gale gives his testimony, so much weight lifted off, even in the brutal light of censure and opened public opinion. They just don’t have to give a rip anymore, and they’re happy that way. And I like the way it ended up reflected in the mood board.

Link to la Pinterest Board:

[saintsenara]

What do you like about Voldemort/Tom Riddle as a character? What elements of the character do you find fascinating?

thank you so much for this ask, @sarafina-sincerity

i have received a flurry of asks about my main boy, lord voldemort, which form a neat triad, so this is part one of a three part meta on him:

1. what is interesting about voldemort's role in the series? 2. how do i write voldemort in my own work, and why? [here] 3. what does dumbledore get wrong about voldemort? [here]

so here we go!

what is interesting about voldemort's role in the series?

let's dive in under the cut:

my general principle as a reader, both in fanfiction and original fiction, is that villains are more interesting than heroes.

i prefer the complexity of characters the audience isn't supposed to root for, and i enjoy the confrontation of realising that people who are capable of astonishing brutality and evil are also simultaneously capable of beauty.

[one of the most heart-breaking passages in literature, in my opinion, is humbert humbert’s final encounter with lolita, in which the reader is forced to sit with the fact that a violent, sadistic, and dangerous paedophile is also a creature hollowed by grief and loss, and that they feel nauseatingly sorry for him.]

the canonical voldemort’s complexity in these aspects isn’t entirely drawn out in the narrative - although voldemort’s own struggle with anger, grief, and loss is discussed in detail in the third part of this series of meta - but thinking of him in these terms provides something that i think is of considerable value to me as an author.

as might be hinted at by the nabokov, my favourite subgenre of original fiction is undoubtedly the american literature of the mid-twentieth century, for its portrayal of the sinister ennui which lurks under the quaint picture-postcard of the american dream life. the authors i feel speak most profoundly to this apart from nabokov are shirley jackson and - and i recommend this enormously not as pulp fiction but as a sincerely raw look at the america of the 1940s and 1950s - jacqueline susann’s valley of the dolls. voldemort has a lot in common with jackson and susann’s famous anti-heroines - he has the jealous, isolated relationship with family and lineage of merricat blackwood; and the childhood trauma leading to obsession, manipulation, and greed of neely o’hara.

all of which is to say, he's a character whose complexity can be used to challenge the reader, to force them to have to sit uncomfortably with their own views and biases [the fact that he’s a self-hating sectarian terrorist has always hit me like a body-blow, given that i live in northern ireland…], and to provide a window into the broader commentary on the world of the story [and the world of the author].

voldemort as a narrative tool

indeed, voldemort is the character who most interestingly straddles the harry potter series’ various different genres and their subtypes - no mean feat, given that the difficulty of reconciling these separate genres is what drives many fans’ complaints about plot-holes in the series.

after all, the series literally wouldn’t function as children’s literature without him - in the first two books, he provides that scooby-doo villain-turns-up-in-disguise-at-the-end flavour which drives the narrative and allows harry to conform to his own children’s lit archetype of the wise-cracking everyman hero who's constantly getting into wacky mysteries.

but voldemort is, of course, at his most interesting after the books undergo their tonal shift following the conclusion of prisoner of azkaban:

he's the series’ most significant and most complex character within the genre conventions it borrows from noir and political thrillers. in goblet of fire, we get the hint of him as a paramilitary kingpin, whose supporters wished to incite terror among any members of the wizarding population who didn't support blood-supremacy and who targeted state institutions and political figureheads who stood in their way. voldemort’s own hypocrisy - he's a supposed pureblood champion despite not being pureblood himself, although his anti-muggle views are undoubtedly sincere - serves as a concentrated metaphor for the ministry’s corruption, which harry uncovers throughout this book.

he's the series’ most interesting folkloric archetype - the fate-driven hunter-villain, whose belief in the mystical value of the prophecy [within a series in which all the other characters - except harry, who we’ll come to below - are surprisingly rational... for people who can do magic] drives the series towards its conclusion. it's impossible for harry to go on his hero’s journey without voldemort - and given that many of the other characters fit more obliquely into their folkloric archetypes [ron is very different from many folkloric sidekicks - the boy is no samwise gamgee - and hermione’s folkloric archetype is closest to the non-human gift given to the hero by a donor-figure], this aspect of the narrative depends on voldemort entirely.

he is, perhaps, one of the less interesting characters within the series’ purpose as christian allegory [the award for the character this applies to most interestingly, for me at least, is either dumbledore - the word of god revealed in a twist to be the john the baptist - or snape - the paul who thinks he’s a judas], since he's the satan allegory. the catholic-coded nature of many of his behaviours, however, does fascinate me, and contribute to my headcanon - discussed in the next meta - that he's raised in a church orphanage.

and voldemort's usefulness within these narrative confines changes many of the other characters, in ways which move them beyond genre archetypes which might otherwise not allow them to grow as the narrative tonally shifts [a fate which befalls hagrid, who cannot stand up to the nuancing of harry’s character as he goes on his hero’s journey]. dumbledore’s similarities to voldemort, for example, hint at the reversal of his omniscience and infallibility before deathly hallows hits; snape’s relationship with voldemort as a terrorist leader, and particularly what voldemort’s terror says about the social structure of the wizarding world, provides an explanation for his actions which is more complex than "tee hee, mudblood", and which gives the reader a space to think about how deprivation drives radicalisation in our own communities.

above all, voldemort’s narrative relationship with harry is fascinating - and not simply for shipping reasons - since, within a story which ends with harry in the guise of the resurrected christ and voldemort-as-satan dead and buried, they are never actually portrayed as black-and-white enemies. indeed, they're the only pair of narrative mirrors in the series whose relationship is portrayed not as diametric, but relational - the only two whose relationship is described as fraternal [something made explicit in their "brother" wand cores]; and the only two whose relationship is described - by a figure no less powerful than the prophecy itself - as equal.

that their shared backgrounds, their views of their own orphanhood, their relationship with their fathers, and their physical appearances are similar is lampshaded by several characters - not least both of them themselves. but the narrative actually goes deeper, drawing out ways in which their differences appear stark, but then loop back to become another similarity they share - their mothers come from opposing blood classes, but both form the key to understanding their characters; their wand woods are both associated with death and resurrection, albeit with different folkloric values of luck and purity attached to them; and voldemort is the series’ "true slytherin" and harry the series’ "true gryffindor", but they both have numerous personality traits connected to the other house.

in contrast, if we take the narrative mirrors of ron and draco malfoy, we find a pairing whose differences stem from similar attitudes and insecurities, but manifest themselves in ways which are polar - both serve the crucial narrative purpose of explaining the wizarding world to harry and, therefore, the reader, but ron exclusively shows its positive aspects and malfoy its more negative ones; their material circumstances are opposites; they both heavily physically resemble the rest of their family, but ron is one of many siblings and strains against that and malfoy is an only child and strains against that; and they are defined in the text by the diametrically opposed nature of their relationship with harry.

harry and voldemort, on the other hand, are defined by the divergence of their similarities - like their wands, they have the same core, but their choices affect them profoundly - and they are, therefore, the series’ clearest examples of the value of choice.

voldemort as a social mirror

i also think that voldemort’s childhood and background is one of the series’ most interesting looks at britain and its social dynamics, which i think many readers miss.

how i prefer to write voldemort’s childhood is discussed in the second part of this series of meta, but he provides - like hermione - a look at the profound irony of the class system [after all he's an aristocrat in both worlds - and an example of both types of aristocrat, the rich and snooty in their luxury manor and the impoverished clinging to a name and a lineage - who has no access to the social advantages this should bring because he was born in an orphanage in the muggle world and he has a muggle name and face in the wizarding one].

above all, voldemort spends the first six books of the series as the best cipher for how state brutality and corruption only begets more violence. his unusual tolerance of non-human magical creatures is at odds with the ministry’s benign oppression. his rejection of the patronage networks which sustain wizarding society [he rejects slughorn’s offer to set him up in the ministry because he wants a job he got himself, and good for him] only serves to emphasise that these still exist [the fact that voldemort would not want to rely on patronage canonically never occurs to dumbledore] - while his use of patronage networks for his own ends shows how easily structures considered to be "right" or "normal" can turn malign. his brilliance, but the fact that his name and background would clearly constrain him in an ordinary career, underlines the fate which befalls many characters, from snape to the weasleys. he has a complex relationship with gender in a series which otherwise doesn’t. the ministry’s reaction to him - particularly the suspension of due process in the trials of death eaters [a reference to operation demetrius, one of the british government’s most degrading extra-judicial decisions during the troubles] - deepens anti-government resentment, which - since the wizarding world is clearly not a democracy - has nowhere else to go but revolution.

voldemort causes himself, obviously, but the ministry enables him to exist, and this provides so many avenues in fanfiction to explore.

why we need fanon voldemort

this said, there are things which frustrate me about the canonical voldemort - and this drives many of the traits in my own writing of him which i'm completely aware do deviate from canon [my preferred characterisation of voldemort is addressed in the second part of this series of meta].

i dislike the portrayal of the canonical voldemort - or, at least, the canonical adult voldemort, the canonical teenage voldemort is more layered - as a sociopath, largely because i think it’s quite lazy writing to have a villain whose evil is caused by a [very rare] disorder, which is widely considered to be untreatable. in particular, this absolves the reader from noticing our own similarities to voldemort and considering how that challenges our own views and biases - as the enormous amount of "the class system is good, actually" in death-eater-centric writing shows...

above all, i loathe the argument that voldemort can’t feel love [i'm hopelessly wedded to the idea that he does love bellatrix, in his own little way], not least because it's an extremely cruel interpretation of what is clearly enormous childhood trauma [although the series’ weaknesses in its approach to that topic go far beyond voldemort], and because it fails to open space for a critical look at dumbledore’s own idea of love - that is, not as something which can be luxurious, pampering, and restorative to the self, but as something which depends on sorrow and sacrifice. i detest the fanon - which, i think it’s important to note, is based in something jkr never actually said - that voldemort’s conception is the cause of his attitude to love. i also think the way the text treats both tom riddle sr. - who is never acknowledged as a rape victim - and merope - who, if we take dumbledore’s implication that she could have survived voldemort’s birth at face value, directly justifies voldemort’s view on death by not bothering to stay alive for him - is horrifying.

i think the voldemort of deathly hallows is the weakest, not least because the fact that he's never shown in the previous six books to have an interest in running a government [he spends most of the early books as a paramilitary leader, not a dictator in waiting] means that he has to be shunted off in other directions when he takes control of one. 

and, with the greatest of respect to the wonderful ralph fiennes, who i’ve just paid a huge amount of money to go see in macbeth, the film version of voldemort is terrible. indeed, film!voldemort is the source of so many of the worst fanon readings of the character - especially the idea that he only knows one spell, that he’s insane [the statement of canon is that the creation of the horcruxes does nothing to damage his mental capacity, since the soul exists independently of our free will and rational thought], that he loves to shriek, that he isn’t very scary, and that he doesn’t come spectacularly close to winning.

up next, then, how do i write voldemort?

[bitter69uk]

“Herbert Huncke was the Jean Genet of the Beat Generation. A homosexual poet-thief, he was once as familiar with Times Square dives and New York prisons as he was later to become with fashionable salons and literary landmarks.”

/ From The Independent’s obituary for Herbert Huncke by James Campbell, 1996 /

“His lifestyle was his art: the drugs, the prostitution, the homelessness, the years spent in jail - it all bled onto the page and created a new kind of poetry. He was the American Genet: a man with one foot firmly in the criminal underworld and one in literature.”

/ From “The man who set the Beats going” by Tony O’Neill, The Guardian, 2007 /

“I never met Huncke. Yet he speaks to me in a voice of gentle desperation and compassionate understanding on the complexity and fragility of the human condition, generously revealing the stamina of his tortured soul …”

/ From the book So Real It Hurts (2015) by Lydia Lunch /

Unlike Lydia Lunch, I did meet literary bad boy and proto-beatnik Herbert Huncke (9 January 1915 - 8 August 1996 – born on this day 109 years ago). Or at least I had a fleeting encounter with him. Like so many twenty-somethings, I went through a Beat literature phase. Huncke (who was on intimate terms with and a primary influence on the likes of William S Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac) gave several readings in London in the early nineties which I worshipfully attended. (I also managed to see Ginsberg). Huncke was a spellbinding raconteur with a worldly-wise WC Fields-style delivery, and so desiccated he suggested an unwrapped, upright ancient Egyptian mummy. After one reading, he autographed my copy of The Evening Sun Turned Crimson (1980). I can pinpoint exactly when because Huncke wrote the date [26 October 1994] above his signature in surprisingly pretty, swirling handwriting. Pictured: photo booth shot of Huncke, Times Square, circa 1940 via Ginsberg Collection.

[eyeoftheheart]

“When we see the beauty of the snow, when we see the beauty of the full moon, when we see the beauty of the cherries in bloom, when in short we brush against and are awakened by the beauty of the four seasons, it is then that we think most of those close to us, and want them to share the pleasure. The excitement of beauty calls forth strong fellow feelings, yearnings for companionship, and the word ‘comrade’ can be taken to mean ‘human being’.”

Yasunari Kawabata was awarded the 1968 Nobel Prize in Literature "for his narrative mastery, which with great sensibility expresses the essence of the Japanese mind".

Who will be the 2024 literature laureate(s)? Find out on 10 October.

Learn more: https://bit.ly/2WdUbUV

Picture: Yasunari Kawabata at work in his house in Kamakura, Japan, 1940s.

Nobel Prize

[itsahotminuteinbetween]

okk so for my boys being from 1940s, anything related to music I have down but I have NO IDEA how life operated back then and since you mentioned it I haven't been the same since please talk to me all you want abt the '40s

imma be honest, most of my knowledge on the 40s is either about the war or the precursor to the war, so probably not the most helpful of info-remember to do your own research for extra information!

with that, some quick bullet points cuz I can’t sort thoughts concisely:

Okay so to get into the 40s we gotta go at least 10 years before that cuz that’s also important: the Great Depression hits in 1929-not just in America, but the rest of the world as well-the US supposedly suffers the worst (aside from Germany, which was in debt from the first world war and their crippled economy as a result of the treaty of Versailles). I’m assuming your story takes place in the US?-otherwise I’d probably have to do some digging to find you some facts. But yea, with the stock market crash in the 20’s, tons of people were placed out of jobs, banks closed, people started living out on the streets. Government started creating random corporations to give people jobs after 1932-FDR’s presidency.

Fun fact, the radio was around at this point, so if you wanna listen to tunes, there’s your ticket. TV was a thing, but it became more popular in the mid 40s because it was used to showcase propaganda-televised entertainment became a thing in the 50s.

Anyways, some laws were passed and stuff to give people jobs-not all of them would be considered important for you, I think, cuz most of them were environmental or economical-the Workers Progress Administration was a thing though, and it hired artists and actors and others for their talent, if that’s of any importance.

Corporations weren’t faring much better either, especially the entertainment industry. The 20s were their peak years, with film being introduced and festivals or carnivals brought in cities-but with the crash of the market and extreme poverty, not too many people wanted to spend money on amusement over food. So a lot of those industries lost money and laid off a lot of people before either shutting down or being extremely poor.

Nother fun fact-ovens and stoves existed at this time, similar to how they are today-just in case one of your guys needs to make their human pal some food on their possibly outdated technology. Telephones were also available to the public by the 20s, the landlines.

Games like Monopoly (kinda ironic that it was made during the Depression), Scrabble, Sorry, and the Game of Life (originally made in 1860) were popular at the time-plus actual sports. Yes, kick the can was a thing around this time, you can make that reference.

If you want literature, I'm told island adventure stories were pretty popular for kids at the time (you'd have to double check that one, though, cuz I'm not too sure)-Superman and other heroes were a thing in the late 30's early 40s-Donald Duck comic strips were early 30s. Comedies and dramas/romances were popular in both literature and theatre (Charlie Chaplin was pretty funny), though they had this trope of things magically working in their favor until sometime in the 20s (you're gonna need to check that one cuz again, this isn't really my strong suit).

The Depression really only evened out with the start of the war-the US needed to militarize and stock up on their artillery, which meant a ton of job openings in that department, and other ones related-car companies (yea cars were a thing-you'd have to check how accessible they are though, that's not really my strong suit in history-only thing I remember is Ford releasing a model in the 20s) started building tanks, film productions started making propaganda videos (donald duck was a common character in Disney's anti-nazi propaganda for some reason), toy companies sold toy soldiers and guns to kids to convince them to support the war effort. Propaganda had advanced after ww1, which meant bigger, more eye-catching headlines in the media and clever usage of poster layouts and formatting to persuade people. The US stayed neutral up until 1941, though it did provide resources for the Allies who were fighting Germany.

That's basically all I have about the 40s-again, most of it is about the war and the economy, so not sure how much that would help. Maybe FazCo went bankrupt during the Depression and prompted your carnival to shut down?-I can see it trying to start more locations in the MidWest or something (the Plex is in Utah, if I remember correctly, though I don't know how important that is to your plotline) and scrapped it after the Depression and the War? I dunno, take your story in whichever direction you'd like, it'd be interesting any way you make it! Thanks for the opportunity to ramble, by the way-I hardly ever get to talk history or philosophy on here, so it's pretty refreshing! Hope this helped, thanks for droppin by!

[daughterofhecata]

Hehe. Blackout on @macrolit's 2024 Reading Bingo with over a month to spare <3

Full list under the cut!

Graphic Novel: El Marto, Frederik Richter: Made in Germany: Ein Massaker im Kongo. Eine grafische Reise zwischen Afrika und Europa. [no english title]

Historical, Dystopian, or Science Fiction: Karel Čapek: Der Krieg mit den Molchen [org. title: Válka s mloky/engl. title: War with the Newts]

Harlem Renaissance: Countee Cullen: Color

Detective, Horror, or Suspense: Kōtarō Isaka: Bullet Train [org. title: マリアビートル]

Classic Author A/B/C/D: Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451

Published before 1940: Maurice Leblanc: Arsène Lupin gegen Herlock Sholmes [org. title: Arsène Lupin contre Herlock Sholmès/engl. title: Arsène Lupin vs. Herlock Sholmes (or: The Blonde Lady)]

Classic Author E/F/G/H: Neil Gaiman: Coraline

Children's Literature: [various Three Investigators books]

Novella or Short Stories: Arthur Schnitzler: Traumnovelle [engl. title: Rhapsody: A Dream Novel (or: Dream Story)]

Poetry or Play: Louise Glück: Averno

Classic Author I/J/K/L: Stephen King: Carrie

Young Adult: Cornelia Funke: Tintenwelt #2. Tintenblut. [engl. title: Inkspell]

Biography or Non-Fiction: Richard Breitman: The Architect of Genocide. Himmler and the Final Solution.

Philosophy or Literary Criticism: Jostein Gaarder: Sofies Welt [org. title: Sofies verden/engl. title: Sophie’s World]

LGBTQ Author: Chuck Palahnuik: Fight Club

Classic Author M/N/O/P: George Orwell: 1984

Published between 1940-1999: Christa Wolf: Nachdenken über Christa T. [engl. title: The Quest for Christa T.]

Classic Author Q/R/S/T: John Steinbeck: Of Mice and Men

Romance, Adventure, or Western: Akwaeke Emezi: You made a Fool of Death with your Beauty

Fan Fiction: [various works]

Essays or Satire: George Orwell: Warum ich schreibe. Die großen Essays. [essay collection, texts taken from “Essays” and “Fascism and Democracy”]

Classic Author U/V/W/X/Y/Z: Kurt Vonnegut: Slaughterhouse-Five or the Children's Crusade. A Duty Dance with Death.

Published between 2000-2024: Jo Nesbø: Macbeth. Blut wird mit Blut bezahlt. [org. title: Macbeth]

Gothic Fiction, Fantasy, or Magical Realism: James Oswald: The Hangman's Song. An Inspector McLean Novel.