#Christian Literature for children and young adults

[comicgeekscomicgeek]

This makes me incredibly angry.

[ID: Screenshots of a Facebook post from user Advocatus Peregrini, which reads:

I was conversing with a fully-grown adult a few days ago, born and educated in the USA, who let this little gem drop:

"Well, it's like Shakespeare said, "Love conquers all!""

I pointed out that Shakespeare never said that, Virgil did, (Eclogues X) and Chaucer after him (Canterbury Tales.)

She said, "Oh I'm sure Shakespeare said that. In Romeo and Juliet!"

I sighed. I've been in that play several times, in different roles, and even directed it. That text does not occur in it.

But the real grind-my-teeth moment here was that if Romeo and Juliet can be said to have a message, it is most certainly not "Love conquers all," seeing as the lovers die by their own hands with a trail of their friends and relations' corpses in their wake.

Neither this fact, nor the fact that I knew the play, nor my explanation that Virgil and Chaucer used the phrase long before Shakespeare's birth dented her determination that "Love conquers all" came from Shakespeare.

"You don't know ALL the versions!" she protested.

All the versions?

Alternative Bard?

With every instinct screaming at me to let the matter drop, warning me that some horror that will not soon be absent from my nightmares waited around the next corner of this conversation. I pressed on.

It was a decision I was soon to regret.

I asked when she had first read "Romeo and Juliet." She said she had only read it once, when she was in Junior High. In the version she was taught, Romeo and Juliet survive, are reconciled with their parents, and are married in the church with their friends Mercutio and Tybalt arm in arm in the wedding party.

"Help me into some house, Benvolio, or I shall faint."

It turned out that her school had their own "version" of Romeo and Juliet, with an "uplifting" ending. This was printed and distributed by a religious education publisher. And it was the only version of the story that she had ever read. Of course she had HEARD other people say that the story was a tragedy, but she just assumed they were wrong.

And she did not see why MY version of Shakespeare should be considered better than HER Shakespeare, which, after all, had a much more wholesome ending.

I explained, in vain, that "my" version is definitive because Shakespeare actually wrote it (quiet, you Oxfordians. Don't make me stop this car) and the message of the play - that when adult stubbornness meets youthful impulsiveness tragedy ensues - is lost in the ersatz, happy-clappy ending.

She said the ending that had been Frankensteined onto Shakespeare's play by the "Christian Education" publisher was better than the original ending, "if the ending is as sad as you say it is."

At this point, I concluded that this was a person who deserved to go through the rest of her life "...safest in shame! being fool'd, by foolery thrive!" I bid her adieu.

After the conversation, I wondered, darkly, if that was to be the fate of Shakespeare, and all other literature if the happy-clappy people get their way - as harmless and "uplifiting" as a cheerleader's chant.

I wondered what these bowdlerizers would do with "Hamlet?" or worse, "Titus Andronicus" or "MacB-" Nothing wholesome, I'm sure. Oh, that's right, what they can't appropriate, they ban. Or burn.

In trying to protect children, we leave them undefended from "...the slings and arrows" that life will no doubt throw their way. Shakespeare raises the issues of tragedy - the fatal flaw, the last turning, the role of fate, as well or better than any author before or since. He is a gentle tutor, much to be preferred over that stern and dangerous teacher, Experientia Inopinatum.

But, as ever, it really isn't about the children. It's about the adults, and their desire to avoid answering difficult questions from agile young minds, who know no fear and swarm like eager flies around questions that have been boggling our best minds for millenia. To answer the questions that literature raises, you have to have thought deeply about them yourself. And that is something that few dare to do.]  end id

[whencyclopedia]

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

In the 2nd century CE, as Christianity was in the process of becoming an independent religion, a body of literature emerged that scholars classify as apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. Apocrypha (Greek: apokryptein, "to hide away") are those books considered outside the canon, meaning that they were not included when the New Testament became official after Constantine’s conversion to Christianity.

Pseudepigrapha ("false writing") were bluntly forgeries. They were written or pretended to be written in the name of a past famous person to provide credibility. Jews utilized this literary device, in their apocalyptic texts that pretend to be written by Enoch, Moses, and Abraham. Because they were in heaven, they were sources of both traditional and hidden secrets.

Christian religious expression encompassed ecstatic behavior, such as "speaking in tongues," spirit possession resulting in prophecy, and developed rules and regulations on uses of the body. Christian behavior was framed with the concepts of celibacy (no marriage contract) and chastity (no sexual intercourse) as ideal behavior. Charis ("gifts") were understood as gifts from the spirit of God. Scholars describe this literature as a particular point of view known as 'charismatic Christianity.' In these stories, the concept of charismatic gifts provided the background for the performance of miracles, healings, and conversions. All of the Christian characters remain chaste and celibate.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

People wanted to know more details about the movement. Only Matthew and Luke provided the birth story of Jesus of Nazareth, but then they moved directly to the ministry. What was Jesus like as a child? Did he know from the beginning that he was the messiah? The Infancy Gospel of Thomas answered those questions. The writer of this text remains unknown, but it was assigned to an early missionary named Thomas. For many modern Christians, the child Jesus is not what they expect; this is a portrait of what we would now deem a super-brat.

In the ancient world as well as the modern, people believed that great men must have had an unusual birth and childhood, where they showed early signs of being a prodigy. This was the case with the young Jesus. The text opens with Jesus playing in the mud (like all children). He fashioned the mud into birds which flew, but when Jesus played with the other boys on the street, he got mad and struck one dead. The parents came to Mary and Joseph with a plea to control their child, and so they tried to find him a tutor, but of course, Jesus was smarter than all of them.

One day a neighbor boy fell off a roof and died. Everyone blamed Jesus, so he then resurrected the boy from the dead (a preview of his later activity as an adult). This text does have a happy ending; Jesus went back and resurrected the first boy he struck down. The overall purpose of the text is to show the young Jesus (who has great power) learning eventually to control his gifts to be used for the salvation of humankind only and not his own interests.

Continue reading...

[chungledown-bimothy]

it’s wild to me that people are conflating the issues with jkr herself and issues they may have with the story that is hp, and couching it purely in rhetoric regarding transphobia and transmisogyny. hp is not a transphobic book/movie series. the author is the problem here

hp was written by jkr and going back to it as an adult and also with the context of the type of person jkr and the hate she spews means you can see some things definitely stand out as Not Great. but there are two things to that: one is that it’s mostly racist and antisemitic tropes or lazy stereotypes—not great but abundant in fiction, and in particular the context of these books being written in the late 90s/mid 00s by a white christian british woman means it’s entirely unsurprising in the context of when it was written. the attitudes shown in the books were typical of the time. we’ve come extremely far since 1997 and not everyone remembers that

and, more importantly, two: the books themselves are not overtly transphobic, and i’d argue that perhaps with the exception of certain interpretations of chamber of secrets, aren’t transphobic at all, and at the very least are unintentionally insensitive

jkr is the one who’s transphobic. and again, going back in time, she was actually considered quite progressive at the height of this franchise. she’s been radicalized over time, especially online, as many people have been in the last decade or so. it’s unfortunate that she’s a high profile enough person for that to be a really big problem, and it’s no excuse. she’s a vile person, and she spews vile filth, and many people listen to her because she’s jkr, and that hurts many people, and there’s unfortunately little to be done to stop her

but we also can’t pretend that hp wasn’t a cultural touchstone for an entire generation, and dominated media significantly for a decade. most people who were kids, teens, and young adults in the 00s- early 10s have core memories attached to the series. that’s not going to just drop from memory. but she doesn’t actually own an entire genre of children’s literature (even though she may have revolutionized its expansion). unless she dies tomorrow, it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to divorce the author from the work completely for a good few decades

so what’s left? we do what aabria did with the story. we pull the parts that were good, flip it and change it into something else. make new stories in the magic school genre. if hp is the only recent thing in that genre because people don’t want to go near it, it’ll only ever remain that way. if it makes you personally uncomfortable that’s fine, no one’s making you watch it

but it’s insane to act like watching a show that’s not actually hp on a platform unrelated to wb made by people entirely unrelated to jkr and her team is actively funding jkr’s crusade and giving it visibility and a platform. it’s really really not

while i largely agree with you, i do need to push back on a couple of things.

first: your claim that there isn't transphobia in the books.

rita skeeter, whose whole thing is disguising herself to spy on people- specifically children in the books- is described as physically "mannish" a lot, specifically her hands, shoulders, and face. and, iirc, her hair, nails, and other denotations of femininity are described as Very Obviously Fake.

while it's not the most explicit transphobia jk's written, that very much is a Fucking Problem.

second: while i get that the horrible take that sparked this is mostly about transphobia, some of your phrasing comes across as dismissive of the other bigotry.

the racism and antisemitism absolutely go above and beyond what could possibly be excused by "product of the times" shit. that cannot be ignored.

BUT all of that is secondary to the topic at hand, which is summed up very well in your last two paragraphs, i think.

[cloverandcrossbones]

Who TF decided that the His Dark Materials (Golden Compass) books were for kids/young adults?

I attempted to read them when I was the "target" age for them and it was the first time I ever remember tapping out on a book because it was above my reading comprehension (I regularly read books that were 2-3 years ahead of my "reading level" and was generally up for a challenge so that should tell you how much of I struggled). I gave up partway through the second book, The Subtle Knife, and didn't touch them again until this year.

And, boy, am I glad I waited! There is so much to this series that would have just been totally lost on me as a kid. The way it explores theology and morality would have gone right over my head. Even now with a bachelor's degree in English literature under my belt the depth to these books astounds me.

Every chapter of the Amber Spyglass opens with a quote from Milton's Paradise Lost, or one of William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience, or some other theologian or philosopher or outright Bible verses. Every chapter. In a series that was regularly promoted to 10 year olds. Yes, kids can be pretty smart and I hate when adult authors talk down to them, but what 10 year old is reading Paradise Lost?

I'm not saying you need a degree to understand this stuff, but you would have to have read a lot of foundational texts to get the full depths of the references. I also ended up leaning a lot on the religious study courses I've taken (and theological education from growing up Catholic) to identify specific religious theories/schools of thought which was just fascinating. Religious groups HATE these books! They're extremely critical of organized religion and Christian beliefs especially as they are canonized by the Catholic and Anglican churches. It's a three-book fiction trilogy exploring and arguing against Milton's interpretation of original sin.

So why was this series labelled as YA? Simple, the protagonists are kids; they're 12 years old.

Why did Pullman write about 12 year olds if the series wasn't meant for them? Because the biggest theme of the story is sin and children are considered innocent. Lyra and Will are coming of age and transitioning from childhood innocence to adulthood and its accompanying consciousness/self awareness that allows us to be held responsible for sinning.

Anyway here's an entry to the literal Wikipedia page for the series that I think sums it up:

Although His Dark Materials has been marketed as young adult fiction, and the central characters are children, Pullman wrote with no target audience in mind.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Cory Clark

Published: Apr 28, 2021

Key points

In a 2019 study, 59% of women said protecting free speech was less important than promoting an inclusive society, while 71% of men felt opposite.

Two recent studies of online adults revealed that women were more censorious than men.

This gender gap appears smaller among young adults, with both young men and young women having censorship preferences similar to adult women.

Across decades, topics, and studies, women are more censorious than men. Compared to men, women support more censorship of various kinds of sexual and violent content and content perceived as hateful or otherwise offensive to minorities.

Women are more supportive of illegalizing insults of immigrants, homosexual individuals, transgender individuals, the police, African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, Jewish people, and Christians, and are more supportive of banning sexually explicit public statements and flag burning. In contrast, men evaluate free speech as more important than do women.

One likely reason for this pattern is that women are more averse to interpersonal harm and have a relatively stronger concern for protecting others. Indeed, women believe sexual media content has more harmful effects on the self and others, and women view hate speech as more harmful and violent than do men.

Although support for censorship is often associated with authoritarianism, it likely is motivated—at least in part—by desires to protect others from harm. In the communications literature, the third-person effect refers to a tendency for people to view others (compared to the self) as particularly vulnerable to media content, especially for negative or potentially harmful media. And those with larger self-other vulnerability gaps tend to be more supportive of censorship.

The higher sensitivity to harm among women likely influences how women weigh the tradeoffs regarding freedom of expression vs. the protection of vulnerable others.

For example, in a 2019 report by the Knight Foundation, 59% of women said that promoting an inclusive society is more important than protecting free speech, whereas 71% of men said that protecting free speech is the more important value. Moreover, 58% of college men said it is never acceptable to shout down a speaker, whereas only 41% of women agreed that it is never acceptable to do so.

Significance to Academic Freedom

Of greater consequence for the pursuit of truth and rigorous scholarship, this higher sensitivity to harm among women likely influences how women weigh the tradeoffs regarding academic freedom vs. the protection of vulnerable others.

For example, a majority of men believe that colleges should not protect their students from offensive ideas, whereas a majority of women believe colleges should. Male students rated advancing knowledge and academic rigor as higher in value and social justice and emotional well-being as lower in value relative to female students. And in a 2021 report by Eric Kaufmann, female scholars in the US and Canada were more likely than men to support firing a scholar for controversial research.

I have observed similar patterns in some of my own work. For example, in a very recent study I conducted with 440 online adults (I will add a preprint link when it is available), participants rated the offensiveness of excerpts from the discussion sections of five published (and potentially or demonstrably controversial) scientific papers.

These papers included findings that (1) female protégés benefit more when they have male than female mentors; (2) there is no evidence of racial discrimination against ethnic minorities in police shootings; (3) activating Christian concepts increases racial prejudice; (4) children with same-sex parents are no worse off than children with opposite-sex parents; and (5) experiencing child sexual abuse does not cause severe and long-lasting psychological harm. Note all these studies were published in high-impact scientific journals, but two of them have since been retracted and one was officially condemned by Congress.

Women found all scientific findings more offensive than men, except for the same-sex marriage findings (which both men and women rated as not at all offensive). And broadly, women reported stronger agreement with the statement that some scientific findings should be censored because they are too dangerous.

In an ongoing project, I have found that this gender gap in censorship support might be smaller among young adults, with both young men and young women having censorship preferences similar to adult women.

In one study with 559 online adults, participants read five passages from books (that were made up for purposes of this study) and reported their desires to censor those books by indicating their agreement with statements like, “They should remove the book from the library” and “A professor should not be allowed to require the book for class.” The passages included one containing swear words, one containing a gory description, one arguing that there are evolved sex differences in leadership ability, one arguing that certain religions inspire violence, and one arguing that there are race differences in intelligence test scores. Across all five statements, women were more censorious than men.

A follow-up study replicated these exact methods with 1,057 young adults (a mix of undergraduates and online young adults). In this study, women were more censorious of the swearing and gore passages, but there were no gender differences in support for censorship for the passages regarding gender differences, race differences, or religion and violence. Young adults were more censorious than older adults overall, but this difference was larger among men, such that young men support censorship at levels similar to women.

It is unclear whether this is an age effect (i.e., whether men come to support censorship less as they age), or whether this is a cohort effect (i.e., whether younger generations hold censorship views more similar to women’s).

Balancing support for academic freedom with support for an inclusive and protective environment is an old and persistent challenge. In an ideal world, the two would never come into conflict and we could fearlessly pursue truth without ever stumbling upon information that offends others or makes them feel unwelcome.

Given ongoing conflicts and concerns about academic freedom, it seems we do not inhabit this ideal world, and thus people must weigh this complicated tradeoff and make decisions in borderline cases. In such cases, women may be more likely than men to favor protective and inclusive environments, whereas men may be more likely to favor protecting academic freedom.

--

==

Anecdotally, I've been harangued about the imaginary crime of "Islamophobia" almost exclusively by females. Particularly ridiculous given Islam's treatment of women. But intersectional math is like dividing by zero.

It's an absolute indictment on the education system that people are so ignorant or misinformed about what the US Constitution actually says or is even for, not to mention the value of the First Amendment.

The US Constitution defines the limits on the government, not on the people.

As soon as you make it okay to squash speech you don't like, you open the door for someone else to squash your speech that they don't like.

[grandhotelabyss]

The substack on "seperating the art from the artist" was interesting. But one detail lead me to a question - childrens books.

I know it was mostly used to mock people who don't want to engadge with anything "icky" as the demographic probably likes to say, but still.

So the question is, should books for kids be squeaky clean, be these gardens of eden were no evil shows its head, till they grow into the maturity which will let them confront the barbarity of literature vis a vis reality?

One could already use this as a segway to argue the opposite - that with the amount of adults not being able to deal with literature going against their provincal pseudo-morals, children should be "trained" from young age to not be like that - the point of childhood is paradoxically to grow out of it, even if many dont want to.

But on the other hand, and this may reveal myself to be the object of the previous high-nosed snot shower:

I kinda do feel "icky" when I think about all these kids books that try to be "hehe, I'm gonna show kids the real world!"

Like that Matilda author, forgot his name, I remember a year ago there was some fake drama about censorship which ofcourse was stupid but still

I do feel some kind of spite, that irony, that want to be subversive that goes against the idealised view of childhood.

Or maybe my realistic view - with all the cruelty and unavoidable misery - but that wants me to say, "why expose them to more of it?"

Because intuition tells me that those "edgy" childrens book have a simmilar ethos as a teenaged kid trying to teach a todler swear words, or to do a roman salute or whatever, this corrupting of the innocent for the sake of it.

But maybe this whole ramble is just the result of a Lacanian wish to crawl back into the vomb, my lile of Preussler's books just a want to become the little ghost who just can fly around in his eternal castle never growing up.

Still ofcourse I get that it is absurd to rant against Matilda with all the childrens media going way further in many ways and the fact that even I as a young child easily acceseed stuff I wasnt supossed to.

So maybe I answerred my own question - maybe there shouldnt even be childrens books in the first place, just books that are more and less apropriate for younger and yet younger kids.

(Also they should burn all those obviously on porpuse braindead picture books, you know the type lol)

Yes, as I discussed here, I didn't really read children's books unless made to and don't find it to be all that appealing a category. People thought comic books were like children's books, so I was happily reading Grant Morrison's occult phantasmagoria, Frank Miller's post-apocalyptic reactionary satire, and Alan Moore's Freudian traumatology of the archetypes at the age of five and six—and I wouldn't have it any other way. Anyway, the writers who shifted children's books out of their moralizing paradigm and into neo-modernist aesthetic integrity in the late 19th century tended to be either quasi-pedophiles like Carroll and Barrie or figures like Potter rather deliberately trying to expose children to the tooth-and-claw realities polite society otherwise evaded. Children's primordial innocence was a useful historical construct, the slowly evolving joint work of Christianity and the Enlightenment, and we are rightly suspicious of those who would tamper too much with it today; but it was a historical construct, it has produced its own return-of-the-repressed shadow (it's likely generated as much pedophilia as it's ever discouraged by inventing the taboo to be profaned), and it has been carried to unconscionable extremes of life-aversion and anti-intellectualism in our time (e.g., the "brain" doesn't "finish" till age 25 or whatever other ridiculous scientific myth of permanent incapacity we're supposed to believe based on the latest spate of fake "studies" these days). People are probably just people at any age from the onset of consciousness forward—I am aware of no great shift in the core of my identity since about the age of five and never thought of myself as a child—and, because there is alas no protecting everyone from everything in the end, they should at least be armed with knowledge and cultivation at the earliest possible moment.

[theblurbwitchproject]

Kiki's Delivery Service by Eiko Kadono

Published: June 1, 2021 Publisher: Sourcebooks Fire

The Author

Eiko Kadono is a Japanese author and has published nearly two hundred original works, most of which are books for children. In 1985, she published the children's novel Majo no Takkyūbin, which was later adapted into the Hayao Miyazaki animated film with the same title. Both the novel and the film are known by the English title Kiki's Delivery Service. The book was awarded the Hans Christian Andersen Award, among others, and she followed on this success with four sequels in the same series. She lives in the Kanagawa prefecture of Japan.

˗ˏˋ ´ˎ˗

The Story

Half-witch Kiki never runs from a challenge. So when her thirteenth birthday arrives, she's eager to follow a witch's tradition: choose a new town to call home for one year. Brimming with confidence, Kiki flies to the seaside village of Koriko and expects that her powers will easily bring happiness to the townspeople. But gaining the trust of the locals is trickier than she expected. With her faithful, wise-cracking black cat, Jiji, by her side, Kiki forges new friendships and builds her inner strength, ultimately realizing that magic can be found in even the most ordinary places.

˗ˏˋ ´ˎ˗

The Vibe: coming of age, whimsical, cosy, episodic adventures, wholesome, quirky, comfort read

The Style: japanese translation, children's literature, middle grade, chapter book, cute illustrations

Trigger Warnings: none

˗ˏˋ ´ˎ˗

The Review

Writing this review in 2024, I'd be surprised if you hadn't already seen, or at the very least heard of, Studio Ghibli's 1989 film Kiki's Delivery Service. As with all Ghibli movies, it is a lovingly animated piece with quirky characters and a wonderful soundtrack. Less people may be aware that, rather than being an original screenplay, the movie was based off the 1985 children’s novel of the same name.

According to Kadono, the story itself was inspired by a drawing her daughter drew of a witch flying through the sky with a radio, musical notes dancing around her. When creating Kiki, Kadono framed the character around her own daughter, who was also 12-years-old at the time. Drawing inspiration from her own daughter definitely brought life to Kiki, who experiences thoughts and feelings that all young girls go through in a considered and realistic way. I feel that this is the true heart of the story, and is why it touched so many people when it hit the big screen. The book itself is written for Middle Grade readers, and is a very simple story that adult readers could knock out in a day.

“I want everything to be brand-new - my clothes, my shoes, my broom, too. I want to be reborn. I’m sure Mom’ll say, ‘You’re from a long line of witches, so you need to value the old.” But I’m me. I’m a new witch.”

As with the film adaptation, the novel starts with Kiki preparing to leave home for her “Coming-of-Age” day, an event which kick-starts the year of mandatory independence that every 13 year-old witch is required to undertake. (It gives me a Pokémon vibe; how such young characters are encouraged to leave home to undertake some huge adventure on their own.) Kiki is confident in herself in the way only a child could be. She’s ready to start her life on her terms, but over the course of the story she begins to grow and experience cute developmental moments that show that she is moving on from childhood and becoming more knowledgeable about the world around her. These moments really show Kadono’s understanding of young girls like her daughter. Kiki begins to have doubts and questions about how things work as she settles in her new town, but still manages to make herself a little home above a shop owned by the lovely Osono, a friendly and heavily pregnant baker. If more people were like Osono, maybe kids could actually have more wholesome adventures out in the world??

How can I discuss Kiki without talking about her familiar, the black cat, Jiji? Within the lore of the book, a new-born witches’ mother searches for a black kitten born around the same time as her daughter, so that they can be raised together (super cute!). As they grow, they develop a special relationship and learn to communicate in their own language that no one else can understand. It turns out that Jiji is particularly sassy and can be a little cranky, but always comes through for Kiki when she needs help. While he can talk, Jiji is very much a cat, “Jiji shot her a reproachful glance and then made up his mind to ignore her altogether.” If you liked Jiji in the movie, you won’t be disappointed in his book counterpart; he’s just the best, and a good companion for Kiki as she sets off into the world on her Coming-of-Age day.

“Gradually, everyone’s waving hands below grew harder to see, and all the lights of the town twinkled like a starry night turned upside down. The full moon hung in the sky, watching over Kiki. Eventually even the lights of the town faded, and all she could see below were mountains shaped like the dark backs of animals.”

Kiki chooses to settle in a seaside town called Koriko, and most of the novel focuses around her living in Osono’s spare room and running “Kiki’s Delivery Service”, her own small business. She meets a whole bunch of unusual characters, some of whom would fit perfectly into a Roald Dahl story. Her slow ingratiation into the hearts of the town is well done, considering the episodic nature of each chapter and the simplistic narration. In the witchy tradition of Kadono’s universe, Kiki doesn’t accept payments for her deliveries; she takes small things in return like food or being taught a new skill. In this way, she grows as a person and becomes more self-sufficient, while still experiencing typical tween-girl issues like dealing with crushes, “Mysterious? Is that how I’m supposed to act? Maybe there’s something wrong with me?” The book walks the fine line between simple writing and slightly deeper exploration of Kiki’s character extremely well.

While the film is very faithful to the core characters, especially Kiki, Jiji and Osono, there are a number of plot differences in the book. The young painter who lives in the woods is there, although she doesn’t play as large of a role in the novel. Tombo is also a side character, and while he is still a friend of Kiki’s there are a few major differences in his storyline, although they still have a cute, innocent courtship. The novel gives more emphasis to the various jobs that Kiki completes in her career as a flying courier, and no major crisis of confidence occurs that causes Kiki to forget how to fly her broom or talk to Jiji. Like I said, this is a children’s book, and even small amounts of movie melancholy aren’t present; it’s sweet and heart-warming rather than inserting drama for the narrative’s sake.

“Kiki, make sure you come back, all right? We’re so happy to have a witch as our neighbor. Everyone says that if they go three days without seeing you flying through the sky, they feel like something is missing.”

If you’re a big fan of the Studio Ghibli film, this book is worth checking out, if only to spend a little bit more time seeing Jiji being the sass master that he is, but remember that it is very much a children’s book and therefore a super simple read. I would definitely recommend it for younger readers, particularly if they enjoy stories like The Worst Witch by Jill Murphy. Kiki’s Delivery Service is very cosy and wholesome; if you feel like reading the book equivalent of a hot chocolate on a cold day, it’s one for you.

Rating: 🌕🌕🌕🌑🌑

[Goodreads]

[raayllum]

not really appreciating or understanding still the whole purity culture accusation for pointing out that people are well in their right to find a unhealthy power dynamic ship between Aaravos and a 19 yr old more uncomfortable than Aaravos and a middle aged guy well into adulthood - this isn't purity culture, this is, like, a really normal perspective and perfectly fine for the fanbase of primarily young people (if not children) to have, I don't understand what's worth getting upset about, is this just rehashed proship discourse or what

and I don't think you're really in the mindset to be having this discussion, considering I've said your main point of contention - that it is understandable and ofc absolutely allowed for the age gap to be what people find off putting about Claudia and Aaravos - over and over again:

like to be clear whatever makes you uncomfortable makes you uncomfortable, nothing wrong with that, block tags/people and curate your experience all you want

and I'm gonna be honest with you, on tumblr? TDP is an extremely adult heavy fandom. To the point that when I first joined the fandom back in 2018, I was one of the youngest, and still am, even in my early 20s now. And tumblr is a 17+ age site anyway, so young children shouldn't even be on here (and if they are, they had to sign a button saying they were older, and it's on them and their parents to figure out how to curate their online experience, soo).

So let me reiterate:

People are allowed to be squicked out by Claudia and Aaravos' age gap. But to act like there's a moral slant to it - Viren/Aaravos being better/fine/less morally problematic - is a facet of purity culture and culturally Christian attitudes towards sex. The issue isn't the discomfort, that's something that's often very personal and subjective, the issue is the moralization of that discomfort. Which, as a queer person, is very very similar to how discomfort and morality are utilized and weaponized against queer people and 'taboo' literature in general. Which again, as someone with a degree in English who also teaches the humanities for a living, is something I'm acutely familiar with.

"We have to be careful about what we portray in art because impressionable people may get confused between art and reality" is not a new take. It's the backbone of Plato's The Republic. It's what essays were written in opposition of in the 1600s. It's what 19th century British grammarians were concerned with when codifying 'proper' English down into the first real dictionaries. It's the same mindset curbing portrayals of LGBTQ+ people in media today, because when you moralize certain things, you put up emotional barriers than get in the way of actually dismantling the thing you're talking about in the first place. It's all the same shit. It's all the same moralized thought crime. And to say you should never question WHY something is uncomfortable is a surefire way to never question any bias you may or may not have - because biases aren't always bad, but they should absolutely always be examined so you can see where it's coming from. Yours and others personal discomfort is not a Standard, the same way what I'm personally comfortable with or discomforted by is not a Standard, but I'm not acting like mine is, and you are

'Rehashed proship discourse' is what helped cultivate the environment that led to a massive wave of harassment of the aro and ace communities online from 2013ish to 2017ish (which I saw first hand). It's also what led to me, a 16 year old, being harassed by grown adults and called a pedophile somewhat regularly for what cartoon characters I wanted to kiss, because I had the same opinions on not moralizing what people do in fandom as I did at thirteen, and as I do now.

If you look at any ship or dynamic with a large age gap and write it off solely because of the age gap, you're not engaging in critical thinking. It's a "you don't need to know why this thing is bad, you just need to know it has a label of Bad". It's as simple as that, and that's precisely the problem.

If you want to do more reading and to expand your horizons on the subjects I'm talking about (literary analysis, societal purity culture, upacking biases, etc.) I suggest this tag on my main blog, and feel free to come back and discuss. If not, have a good day, but I don't feel like continuing this conversation any further, simply because unsurprisingly, it seems that critical thinking is something you are struggling to apply, and I don't think we're going to get very far without it.

[literaticat]

Which book awards are widely recognized in the industry? How are books nominated? Thanks!

ThE iNdUsTrY is a big place. There are a lot of awards! All with different criteria. Most (all?) of them are decided on by a committee of judges, and that panel looks at all books that fit the specific criteria; publishers send them the books.

Big Huge Awards, Mostly for Grownups

Nobel Prize in Literature (given to an author for their whole body of work, winners get a LOT of $$$)

Pulitzer Prize in Fiction (for a distinguished book of adult fiction by an American author on an American topic published in the past year, chosen by a panel of judges, there's no kids category, winners get $$)

Booker Prize (best work of adult fiction published in the past year in the UK/Ireland, there is no kids category, chosen by a panel of judges, winners get $$$)

Kirkus Prize (all books that get a Kirkus star are automatically nominated, the finalists and winners are chosen by a panel, there's a fiction, nonfiction and young readers prize, they get $$$)

National Book Award (fiction, nonfiction, poetry, and young people's literature - must be published in the US in the past year, authors must be US citizens or residents, they get $)

You'll note that of these Big Awards, ONLY the Kirkus Prize and NBA have children's/YA categories.

There are also "smaller" (but still very meaningful!) awards in different genres -- for example the Nebula and Hugo awards for SF/F, and the Edgar awards for Mystery, all of which I believe have a young people's category.

Big Huge KIDS Awards, mostly for kids books

The biggest kids book awards in the US are given by librarian organizations (YALSA/ALSC) under the umbrella of the ALA Youth Media Awards, all of which are chosen by committees who look at all eligible books; each award has different criteria, and publishers send the appropriate books to those committees, any eligible book is technically 'nominated' just by dint of being eligible.

Those ALA awards include (but are not limited to) the Caldecott Medal, Newbery Medal, Printz, Pura Belpre, etc. You can find out more about all these awards here. There's really only one of these given to grownup books - that's the Alex Award, which is for grownup books that have high kids/YA interest.

All ALA awards are great to get, of course, and can be a nice boost to a book that wins -- but only the Newbery and Caldecott really make a huge impact on sales (and even those are less impactful than they used to be, sadly).

The biggest international kids awards are the Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award, "This global award is given annually to a person or organisation for their outstanding contribution to children’s and young adult literature" -- and the Hans Christian Andersen Awards, which "recognize lifelong achievement and are given to an author and an illustrator whose complete works have made an important, lasting contribution to children's literature."

There are lots and lots of "smaller" awards too of course -- different states and regions have awards, lots of organizations have awards -- any of which are, naturally, an honor to get. But they probably would not have a huge impact on sales or anything like that.

[sanguinifex]

Y’know the “classic children’s literature” canon is largely pretty fucked up.

C.S. Lewis was racist and homophobic and sexist, not to mention Extremely Christian and trying to convert you (seriously, there are exactly 2 books where the bad guys aren’t women or Muslims by another name, and one of those 2 doesn’t even have an antagonist once Eustace gets un-dragoned)

Roald Dahl was notoriously antisemitic and just kind of misogynistic in general. Keeps trying to sell the idea that ugly people are inherently evil and pretty people are inherently good. Also like the Oompa Loompas are a) canonically black in the books and b) slave labor, and this is promoted as positive? Charlie’s dad would’ve had a job if Wonka hadn’t been literally stealing people to avoid paying workers. Also, like, the nerve of leaving a chocolate factory to a random kid who knows nothing about chocolate except it tastes good, when probably at least a dozen of the Oompa Loompas are qualified to run the place. Like, Dahl is great at giving people nightmares, but the inherent assumptions begin the worlds he builds are not something I want to give to a 10-year-old and tell them it’s Great Literature and something to emulate, the way I was. (Also, I was actually 8, come to think of it.)

JKR. Well. Besides the TERFery and racism/antisemitism. There’s just a complete disregard for bodily autonomy that’s so present in her work that it becomes obvious it’s part of how she views the world? Like, it’s supposed to be a funny joke to slip someone a potion that turns them into a canary. Admittedly the delivery of that line was 109% but like. What if he’d got stuck like that? You can’t just transmogrify people like that without asking them. You also shouldn’t do the “muggle” equivalent like putting Nair in someone’s shampoo. That’s assault, Joanie. I think this also feeds into her transphobia, because she just doesn’t seem to have anything that would hold her back from swapping someone’s gender for giggles if she were able to. It’s not just the HP series, either, it’s her works aimed at adults as well. Like, she’d be the type to barge into the bathroom while you’re peeing and then get offended when you’re upset by this because “We’re all girls here.” But oh it’s a modern classic and you have to read it to understand nerd culture…well, you could make that argument 10 years ago but it’s a bit less solid in 2023. I wouldn’t ban a kid from reading it, but I wouldn’t give them a box set. If they brought it home from the library I’d give a quick talk that I’m not mad at them for reading it but they should be aware that the author is a jerk.

Stephanie Meyer: Completely inescapable if you were a tween girl anywhere between 2005 and 2010. You had to plough through 4 doorstoppers of toxic Mormon heterosexuality just to understand what anyone was talking about. Like, I think it should be shelved with a pamphlet about healthy vs unhealthy relationships in it. Also, like, Meyer profited off the names of Native people and didn’t give them a cent. Also Bella you need a vampire like a fish needs a bicycle, just take some vitamin D supplements and you’ll get over him

Again, I’m not saying “don’t read these books.” Many of them are well-written and have historic and sociological and literary value. This post is about how we tell children that these demonstrably bigoted authors, whose bigotry shines through in their writing because they’re too unaware of it to file it down, that these are Great Writers and suitable to emulate. It’s not just that bigotry could be absored by young readers, it’s also that ir build a false foundation that will crumble under literary analysis, creating a life of doubting one’s own word choices, among other problems!

[biblioflyer]

Being a red shirt on the info literacy and empathy front lines.

This is a bit of a meta post and by "going there" I'm really just trying to generate more of the sort of "you are seen" genre for whomever it has meaning. If it has a whiff of "look at me, I'm an ally, I'm helping by yelling into the void" then I don't know really know what to tell you, maybe it is and if it is, feel free to keep on scrolling, I am not consciously demanding your affirmation, just rambling about the role of sci-fi in my life in getting me to this point ethically and professionally.

I am a red state millennial librarian. Don't feel as sorry for me as you might reflexively think I want you to. I'm not a public librarian or a public school librarian, I'm an academic librarian. Moms for Liberty hasn't directed its Eye of Sauron at us (yet.) Thus we're able to keep stocking LGBTQ literature without too much worry of people screaming at us. For now at least.

Why does this matter?

Well through a little loophole we are officially an academic library that provides services to young adults and the public in addition to formal college students without being a public or school library. I'm reluctant to share too many biographical details, but suffice to say you might be surprised at what is part of your nearest academic library collection and it may be easier than you think to access that collection.

Individual institutions are going to have their own policies, however because we are part of a broader consortium that all shares resources, we offer reciprocal services to every member of that consortium and their patrons if those patrons come to us with a valid library card from one of the member counties or a peer institution.

So if your public library has been gutted, take a peak at local colleges. They are more likely than you think to have queer literature, including queer and diverse literature in the YA genre, as well as inclusive children's books even picture books. College libraries know many of their students are either parents or are intending to go into public education (god help them) and thus have some very infrequently utilized special collections that they would love to see circulate so they can justify buying more.

This being a nerd blog, let me just speak briefly of the role of sci-fi and fantasy allegories in my development. I could very easily have been one of the people that I fear may come for my job. The people we have done workshops rehearsing how to respond professionally, empathetically, but also forcefully to formal challenges to what's on our shelves and informal challenges - i.e. people intent on making spectacles.

I don't say that I "fear" these people lightly, our head of DEI initiatives was sacked after the program was expected (and ultimately) was defunded. This person was not offered a job in a different department. I'm not super in touch with what goes on outside my department but I'm told that this person was broadly respected and other than their job title, was never involved in anything controversial or had any interpersonal disputes.

So we who are heteronormative don't get the luxury of putting our heads down and assuming this will blow over. We can't actually know with any certainty how many degrees of separation are between us and the ire of the Christian Nationalist fever that has swept the nation.

Anywho, Handmaid's Tale isn't exactly the sci-fi I meant to talk about (although boy howdy did it scare the bejeezus out of me the first time I listened to it and that was - I think - pre-2016.)

I grew up in a very rural area with minimal diversity. My exposure to diversity and later queer representation was almost entirely through media. Star Trek was a big one, but also Roseanne which ironically makes the comedian's red pilling more heart breaking than JK Rowling - its a xenniel thing, I was in my edgy ironic full of myself no time for childish things teenage years when Harry Potter came out.

I'm sitting here in 2023, and I can see the absurd falseness of the rhetoric of grooming discourse. Riker's fling with an androgynous alien or Jadzia Dax's open pansexuality didn't make me queer. It de-stigmatized being queer and left me open to taking seriously the self expressed experiences of people who I was open to befriending. As an adult, while I've found Discovery to be frustrating in many ways, one of the things that keeps me coming back is Culber and Stamets. Their performances and arcs have been a consistently solid part of an otherwise very messy production.

Much as Culber and Stamets are simply decent human beings just trying to get by and overcome crisis after crisis, so too are the queer people I've befriend. Their sinister agenda is to walk in public with their partner without people walking between them not thinking they're actually together or being harassed. Some of them are parents of developmentally well adjusted children.

I'm not looking for ally virtue signal points by praising these storylines, I'm just recognizing them for what they are: pieces of my development as a person. Which makes me happy to be in a place in my life where if nothing else, for now I get to make available a wide variety of experiences and perspectives for people to be exposed to. Its not my job to force anything on anyone and I order plenty of straight forward murder mysteries, romances, and swashbuckling epics that don't require a lot of critical thinking, but I like knowing that something I placed on the shelf might make someone accept themselves or accept someone else.

[yonicfemcel]

Anunnaki Paedophilia Syndrome

by Amitakh Stanford

3rd February 2006

Paedophilia is on the increase - it is a very lucrative, huge, international industry. The Anunnaki push detrimental behavioural disorders upon the unsuspecting public. This has been done with alcohol, gambling, prostitution, pornography, drugs, slavery, cannibalism, human and animal sacrifices, wars, religions etc. The recent revival of paedophilia is also the brainchild of the ruling elite.

One might wonder why religions would be clumped into the category above. The Christian Bible is said to be the most widely distributed book in the world. Only the ruling elite has the ability to push such mass circulation of any literature.

The ruling elite often play a double game by being both the punisher and the promoter of certain acts for monetary gain, control and other purposes. That is, they sponsor and promote certain activities until there is a significant social demand for that activity. When the activity gets out of control and causes social problems, then the ruling elite steps in with legislation, enforcement and punishment to appear to be the good guys who are attempting to correct a wrong that just cropped up. All the while, the ruling elite were the culprits. This is akin to corrupt police investigating corruption.

Understanding paedophilia is difficult because many think that paedophiles chase after children only for sexual gratification, but that is not always the case. There are esoteric reasons that drive paedophiles, although very few of the perpetrators would be conscious of these.

Paedophilia is not a modern phenomenon - it has been around for thousands and thousands of years. In fact, in some cultures, it is quietly acknowledged as an acceptable practice even though it raises some eyebrows. This sickening behaviour flows through royal and common classes alike. Despite the differences in cultural and socio-economic situations, there is a common thread underlying such practices - paedophiles "rob" energy from young, vibrant children. All paedophiles are, in this sense, energy "vampires". Nearly all of the paedophiles are Anunnaki Remnants or they have succumbed to Anunnaki programming. In rare cases, the tendency towards paedophilia could be due to possession of the physical body by an Anunnaki consciousness.

Some ancient cultures believe that the "pure" energy from young children, especially virgins, can heal their maladies such as: tuberculosis, impotency, leprosy, ageing, and especially the sexually transmitted diseases of syphilis and gonorrhoea.

Often, children from poor families are sold or hired out to rich people to pay off debts. The pathetic children are then abused by wealthy paedophiles or sick and elderly ones that seek cures. Imagine what an impact this has on the victims! The Anunnaki do not care what impact their horrific, demonic, repulsive behaviour has upon their victims and their families.

Many people have disdained this behaviour for centuries, yet they have been powerless to stop it because the Anunnaki masters are active participants in it. Also, the topic is so shameful, unpleasant and painful that discussion of it is avoided if possible, especially by the families involved. Many children have been abducted or sold to cater to paedophiles.

Today, especially in third-world countries, child prostitution is on the increase. The internet is loaded with child pornography and sites that solicit child-adult sexual encounters. A lot of spam email deals with this topic and is deliberately forced upon people who use the internet. Some people are so addicted to pornography that even their work computers are loaded with it and it is freely circulated in some offices. In some cases, those who object to the circulation of pornography are being harassed by those who participate in it.

Paedophilia occurs in many settings where youths congregate, such as: schools, youth centres, churches and Sunday schools, scout groups, sports, camps, child nurseries etc. It also occurs very close to home, with incest being rampant in some cultures. In extreme cases, old men choose pre-teenage, virgin females for wives, using the façade of legality and custom to support their energy "vampirism".

Paedophilia is an important tool used by the Anunnaki in their conquests of various races, planets and solar systems. The Anunnaki are "instinctively" inclined towards paedophilia, that is to say, they are genetically programmed towards that behaviour. Anunnaki military forces are motivated to conquer new worlds because of the incentive of being rewarded with free access to young virgins that they conquer. Anunnaki are notorious for boasting amongst themselves about the number of young children they have molested or raped.

Most paedophiles are male due to Anunnaki male chauvinism. However, there are exceptions. Some paedophiles are females, and females are often used to solicit and cover up for male paedophiles. Generally, paedophiles prefer to prey upon victims of the same sex. That is, they prefer either young boys or young girls. However, there are also some indiscriminate predators.

Some police forces actively use young children who have previously been molested to act as bait to snare other paedophiles. After the children are abused by those they solicited, the police make arrests and the prosecutors obtain convictions. These children are almost invariably from very poor families and are often willing participants in exchange for food, alcohol and drugs.

Not surprisingly, paedophilia is present amongst the leaders of religions. Eastern gurus have been known to be involved. Some of these have consciously been aware that they are stealing energy from the victims. These know they are energy "vampires". Islam, Judaism, Christianity and other religions have the same problem amongst some of their religious leaders and representatives. However, due to the nature of their religious influence, they are less likely to be consciously aware that they are energy "vampires". To outsiders, these religious leaders and representatives are seen as people with deviant sexual behaviour, which suits the ruling elite.

Many times, when religious figures are found out as paedophiles, their superiors hush up the crimes and allow further attacks on unsuspecting victims in the same location or elsewhere. This is predictable because all the major religions are sponsored by the Anunnaki.

Esoterically, the life force is usually at its fullest and "purest" state in children. Young children, especially in their growing stages, carry with them certain aspects of energy that can strengthen sexual and mental powers. This makes young children the ideal targets of the criminals, who are "instinctively" drawn to their victims.

Paedophilia is not confined to the physical world. It also occurs in the astral world, which is also controlled by the Anunnaki. In the astral world, paedophilia usually occurs as thought forms. These thought forms are also projected into the physical world to influence the unsuspecting inhabitants of the world. In the astral world, the "vampiric" paedophiles derive pleasure in watching the acts of paedophilia in the physical. In this sense, they are truly voyeurs. Apart from the vicarious pleasure they derive from watching other paedophiles' activities in the physical, they also steal some of the energy directly from the victims in the physical. So, energy is being stolen from the victims by physical "vampires" and astral "vampires" simultaneously. Further, the excitement from the experience also releases abundant energy from the physical paedophile, which is picked up by the astral paedophile. Thus, the astral paedophile gets a larger share of the energy from the acts.

The paedophile culprits from the astral world are usually from the lower astral realms. With the breakdown of the astral world, these lower beings now have more ready access to the physical world.

When an astral paedophile cannot use thought forms to produce an actual, physical encounter, they can use the thought forms to directly influence people in the physical world to be drawn towards the behaviour in more passive ways, such as viewing pornography, which gives gratification to the astral paedophile as well as providing them with extra energy.

In the physical world, people can go through most of their lives until the tendency towards paedophilia suddenly blossoms. This is usually due to the influence from the astral or programming by unseen Anunnaki forces. It can also be due to possession or subtle programming by physical agents in the world.

Paedophiles derive a "kick" from their episodes. This is somewhat analogous to taking drugs for a high.

There are many legends about vampires who drink physical, human blood. Some people have proudly declared themselves to be vampires. Paedophiles "drink" the etheric blood of their victims. In severe cases, paedophiles can develop a thirst for physical blood. There are many cultures that believe in drinking blood to keep them warm in winter and to boost their strength, power and longevity. This is just one step away from eating human flesh, which is another demonic Anunnaki trait.

Aliens in their alien bodies have been consuming human flesh and blood for a long, long time. It is no wonder that the Eucharist ritual in holy communion symbolically requires the participants to drink the blood of Jesus and to eat his flesh. Jesus NEVER said this is my body or that this is my blood and to consume them in remembrance of him. This is an Anunnaki invention to programme the mindsets of believers and to make a mockery of Jesus.

In this world of exploitations within exploitations, young children are subjected to exploitation by paedophiles, who can often be family members or friends. Ironically, sometimes children who have NOT been abused exploit others by falsely accusing them of paedophilia. Sometimes the false accusations come from the children and other times the children are coached by their parents or others into making false accusations for monetary gain, revenge or other reasons.

Nowadays, the public is quick to respond to accusations of paedophilia, whether the accusations are true or false. An example of this involved the Branch Davidians who were stormed and burned to death in Waco, Texas. Police and military forces had surrounded the Branch Davidians and laid siege to their compound for many weeks. To speed matters up, the police and military were bombarded with programming to drive them into a frenzy for the blood of the Branch Davidians. In order to draw the public into the frenzy to support the storming of the compound by the authorities, stories were broadcast about how children were being molested in the compound. This caused the public to panic and absurdly condone the murders of the children in order to "protect" them from supposed molestation.

There are many who claim that they would have loved to have walked with Jesus. The programming directed at the mobs in the time of Jesus was far more intense than the programming used at Waco, Texas. Even with the lessened programming at Waco, the vast majority of the people condoned the murders of the men, women and children in the compound.

In the case of the murder of Jesus, first the rabbis were programmed to hate him. Next, the rabbis were programmed to stir the Romans into action. Finally, the programming was used on the "rent-a-crowd", which called for Jesus' blood. For those who claim they would love to have walked with Jesus, would they have been able to resist the programming, or would they have stained their hands with his blood? Sadly, most would have joined the frenzy and become a part of the murder of Jesus.

Jesus is claimed to have said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," while he was dying on the cross. This is a false insertion into the Bible by the Anunnaki-sponsored church to suit its own nefarious purposes.

Programming in this world is no joke. Nobody is free from it. Even the food eaten and the air breathed are loaded with "natural" programming that adversely affects people physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. That is why this Virtual Reality that is loaded with apparent and non-apparent programming has to be dismantled.

[andiatas]

In this article I demonstrate how in the post-Thaw period—the period of “soft” socialist realism—the northern indigenous minorities began to (re)invent literary writing and manifest their own version of the canon. Due to the lack of a pre-Soviet written literary tradition, “young” literatures were born as a symbiosis of folklore, beliefs, indigenous-Christian customs and the surrogate literary tradition of the Russian-European center: the Soviet “master plot.” Having graduated from universities in Moscow or Leningrad, the first generations of writers “(re)invented” a view of themselves as simultaneously native and Other. A consequence of the fact that the authors internalized the role of the youngest “brother” was, among others, the amalgamation of children's and adults' narrative and pedagogical zeal, which combined folklore ethics with socialist realist moralism. The study is of a transitional time: before the local authors had experienced a cardinal reevaluation of their values during perestroika and afterwards.

[writinghypothesis]

The definition of literature has always been "any collection of written work characterized by excellence of style and expression and by themes of general or enduring interest". But to me, literature is so much more than that. It's about the enduring passion and empathy of the readers, the emotions and feelings of the characters, and the realistic maturity of the writers. People use literature as a medium to escape their daily lives and enter a world full of fantasy and fiction. Children usually enter the world of books through fairy tales, although at that time, it's because they are captivated by the colorful illustrations drawn in kids' books. The first book that I read was "The Little Mermaid" written by "Hans Christian Anderson," and it was so magical. My young childhood mind was overwhelmed with the thought of various different realms existing. My mother inculcated the culture of reading in me by buying me "Fables Collection" and "Fairy Tales," which tingled the curiosity inside the little me and made me obsessed with that idea. I not only fell in love with the characters and stories, but I also fell in love with the emotions of each and every character that different authors portrayed in their own unique style. There was a hidden classic intimacy in each and every relationship that was portrayed. Literature allows us to sit in silence and consume its beauty completely. Rain and a cup of hot coffee are the best mood setters while reading a book, especially one that tells us about a classic tragedy. As we study literature in depth, we come across different genres and eras, starting with the Elizabethan Era (considered to be the literary height of the English Renaissance). The greatest writer of all time, William Shakespeare, belongs to this era. He made us understand the beauty and intimacy of tragedies and how our human mind remembers those painful scars more than the happy moments because we talk about a tragic wounded ending more in order to get over that. Each and every character that he wrote has such meaningful implications. Macbeth and King Othello are similar yet so different. Shakespeare used the main characters in both plays as warriors who had constant outside voices seeping into their minds, manipulating them, which ultimately led to their tragic downfall. Macbeth represents a classic tragedy in which the protagonist travels down a dark path of violence and treachery, however King Othello represents a tragedy full of misery, insecurity, and jealousy. When it comes to the most sensational and popular play of Shakespeare among young adults and teens, the first name that strikes our mind is Romeo and Juliet, the epic love saga as many call it. The central protagonists, Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet, had an undeniable chemistry between them from the first sight itself. The play shows that love is a violent, ecstatic, overpowering force that supersedes all other values, loyalties, and emotions. Shakespeare beautifully portrayed the trope of two star crossed lovers who loved each other at the wrong time. This is the very beauty of literature - as much as it gives us contentment and satisfaction, it also causes immense heartbreak and pain; after all happiness and sadness are always interlinked with each other. One can't survive in the absence of the other. They are one thread, the same line viewed from different sides.

[thebookworm0001]

It’s past my bedtime and this is a mess

Here you go @ell-vellan

So I’ll be examining the dangerous fantasy lover trope specifically with regards to ya literature/media that is geared towards young girls.

I’ve chosen this specifically because of the way it reflects the developmental stages of both the characters and the intended audience and because adults (usually men) tend to misinterpret what’s going on inside the heads of both. I should also not that this is largely based off my own personal experiences but that includes a number of discussions with people who were also socialized as women who share very similar experiences to my own. This is also gonna be very cishet because despite some Later Realizations, that was very much my experience and very much where this particular trope stems from

So with that out of the way: why girls love the scary hot guys that are walking red flags

In order to set up some of this, we get to fall back to the age-old “Jesus Christ everything is the Victorian’s fault.” So, historically, in Western Christian culture, women were dangerous, sex-obsessed harlots who needed to be controlled by men. The idea of a wandering womb that needed to be satiated, or a ‘cold’ womb that sought heat (in the form of sperm), and a couple other ideas all kinda made men weird about women’s sex drives. Then (and I am simplifying greatly here) the Victorians come along and we get the idea of The Angel In the House. The Angel is the ideal of womanhood. She is meek, she is mild, she is caring, she is doting. She is also, above all, devoid of any actual desire for anything besides bearing/raising her husband and children. She does not want sex. In fact, she should be a little put off by it. The Angel is here to tame man’s baser nature - and a man is a sexed up beast who can’t so much as see a table leg without getting horned up. So The Angel must dutifully and lovingly put up with her husband’s advances to keep him from straying to one of those *gasp* fallen women identifiable by their clear use of makeup (side note: yes prostitutes would wear visible makeup and this is why the Look of the mid-1800s for rich women was being barefaced. Or close to it. There are still makeup recipes from the time that suggest it might’ve been more of a ‘my eyelashes are totally this dark naturally what do you mean’ situation). All that to say, the Victorians cemented the idea in Western culture that men were rampaging sex animals incapable of controlling themselves and it was the woman’s Sacred Duty to keep his attention and keep him from sinning. This is also the era of Freud so take that as you will.

So, fast forward a century or so. This idea is still going strong. People lost their minds when women wore skirts that bared their ankles when a few centuries ago bare boobs were the courtly fashion because necklines just got that damn low. Throw in a good dose of moral panic - especially around birth control being a Thing that allows people to fuck without risking pregnancy and childbirth (so naturally it was illegal to even discuss it for several years in the US) and Christian patriarchy, and you get this weird brand of projected sexualization of kids.

I can only speak for my own purity culture experience, but there’s something particularly fucked up about spending a few weeks telling a building full of pre-teens and teens that 1) they are going to be consumed by the desire to have sex and 2) satisfying this desire will send them to hell unless they get married first. Also weirder when followed up with a ceremony in which you sign a certificate promising your virginity to your future (cishet) spouse in front of those same peers and your parents. You may even get a ring to wear about it and feel compelled, for some damn reason, to share that the ring means you will not be having sex thank you very much (and later realize that the ease of keeping that promise was one hell of a queer flag that nobody noticed). Anyway the point was very much that not only did culture at large tell you that sex was a thing done to women by men rather than something enjoyed by both parties, but now you had your Trusted Adults telling you that whatever hormone-driven impulses you had were going to get you tortured for eternity. This had no adverse effects.

Yeah no so! Enter my first experience with Bad Boy Lover: David Bowie’s tight ass pants. Now, I was too young to care about the pants the first time I watched Labyrinth. I was mostly just desperate for anything magic related and David Bowie was fucking cool with the big hair and the mismatched eyes and the Being Magic. But the thing that’s attractive about David Bowie as Jareth is that he oozes danger but he never does anything Sarah doesn’t /want/ him to do. Sarah is at a crossroads in her life - specially the one from child to adult. She’s a teenager - crossing the line from having no agency (and no sexuality) to having ownership of herself and her desires. A key moment at the start of the movie is when she runs home late to babysit her younger brother. It’s not that she’s late, but rather than her stepmother makes it clear that aside from rarely asking her to babysit, she’d happily find a different sitter if Sarah ever told her about her plans. She also awkwardly makes the comment that she’d quite like it if Sarah had plans - especially if they were for a date. Sarah’s reality is that she is desperately clinging to childhood/innocence while she is rapidly growing out of it. In fact, she’s ready to move on herself. Hence the story about the Goblin King being in love with the girl that she recites. The girl is her. This movie is her self-insert fanfic come frighteningly and amazingly to life. In fact, that’s pretty explicit in the text of the movie - every aspect of the Labyrinth, Jareth included, can be found somewhere in her bedroom before the plot begins. Everyone plays a role - Jareth is the safe exploration into adulthood. And in this case, that means sexuality.

Hence the Bowie Balls. Both the crystal ones he’s constantly twirling and the ones they had to actually tone down for the movie because yes that bulge was entirely intentional. Jareth is the fantasy of a young girl who is not comfortable with her own sexuality - exactly what is expected of a girl raised in a white, Western, Christian culture. Sarah is expected to date, sure, but what part of her world has told her that action is safe? The movie released in 1986. After the 60s and 70s saw a sexual liberation, and, while it did continue into the 80s, there was a backlash. And, of course, there was the AIDS epidemic. The US Surgeon General’s report on AIDS was released the same year as this film. There’s also an interpretation of a prop newspaper clipping that holds that Sarah’s biological mother is an actress who left her family to be with someone who looks a lot like David Bowie so there is potentially a layer of influence w/ an older man ‘stealing’ her mother away. All that to say, even if Sarah didn’t have the fatal flaw of refusing agency in her own life, there’s a fair bit happening in her life that would tell her sex is not a safe thing for her.

And this is where the dangerous lover (DL) comes in. Because the dangerous lover give you an out. DL gives you a loophole for all the various pressures that tell a not-a-girl-not-yet-a-woman she is not allowed to want sex. DL ignores what you say - because you are not allowed to say you want him. DL gets in your space - because you are not allowed to get into his space. DL makes innuendo at you - because you cannot under any circumstance do the same. DL is uncomfortably attractive and sexualized - because then his hotness is just a statement rather than an expression of desire. DL needs to be controlling so that when someone asks why you were in a compromising position, you can say he forced you. Arousal looks a hell of a lot like fear. And when you’re taught to fear your own arousal? Well. That line gets fucking blurring real fast.

Fast forward a few decades to Stephanie Meyer, mother of modern YA. Not even joking - we don’t get YA as a market the way we have it without Twilight. Twilight has a ton of issues unrelated to the romance (donate to the Quileute Tribe here [https://mthg.org]) but it’s probably the most well-known of modern DL, and Edward Cullen was definitely my first conscious engagement with that. So yes Edward was dangerous and pushy and ignored everything you said. But this was when the other integral part of the DL clicked - the DL must be utterly and completely devoted to you.

Backing up to the Angel in the House, the woman in the relationship is expected to be everything for her family. Her sole purpose is to be whatever her husband and children need. Her life is devoted to their service. She should never expect the same from her family. Her children are, well, children (now being seen a a separate thing from Adults - and so we have the golden age of fairy tales) and her husband is little more than a slightly better dressed child insofar as emotional intelligence goes. His job is to make money and support his family and try not to fuck the sex workers down the street but if he does, well, not his fault. Christian purity culture similarly teaches that sex is not enjoyable for women. In fact, the earlier description was more egalitarian than most. Much of purity culture teaches that boys, being sex monsters, will pressure girls into sex they will not want and it is their solemn duty to resist so not as to 1) ruin their virtue and 2) not lead the boys astray. There is no conversation about how women might enjoy the act and the implication is that if you do, you’re dirty. Many people will outright compare a girl who has had sex to a used piece of tape, a crushed flower, or a chewed piece of gum. You are something to be used and discarded. Best not be thrown away before a Godly ManTM snaps you up. Should a boy be compared to an object, he is a skeleton key, a girl a lock. A girl should ‘fit’ for only one partner, and the boy has no such commitments. Your job as a woman is to devote yourself to a single man and stay ‘pure’ enough to hold his attention. If he strays, you should have expected it and it is your fault.

Now take that lesson - that you should never expect the level of affection and care you are expected to give in a relations and pair it with the fact that the single most important thing a teenager wants is acceptance. To belong. To be seen and loved and cared for deeply and without reservation.

Enter the obsessive nature of the DL. Because when you’re too young to realize that a dude secretly watching you while you sleep is creepy as fuck, what it reads as is devotion, protection, and being known. He sees you with your bed head, no makeup, drool on the pillow case and thinks you’re beautiful anyway. He knows that you face danger at night, even just in your own head, so he watches over you without being asked. And every time he watches you from the shadows, every time he pushes a boundary you don’t want to have, every time he makes a decision on your behalf to keep your safe - he is showing that the single most important thing in his life is you. That he sees you, wants you, and will put you above every other god damn thing in his life - including whatever power and/or immortality he has. And damn that is powerful. Because being a teenage girl sucks. You have no power. There is nothing you want more than the ability to do whatever you want whenever you want. You have been bombarded with the idea that you are in the prime of your life and the moment you graduate, everything is over - you will lose your youth and there is nothing worse than that (so says your mother, who frets over her fine lines and grey hairs. So says your grandmother, who praises the metabolism you’ll soon lose. So says your aunt, tell you to treasure these years because soon you’ll be a mother and your life won’t be your own anymore).

In Labyrinth, this manifests as Jareth’s constant changing of the game to fit what Sarah wants. Not what she verbalizes, but the story she wants to play out. She wants him to cheat. She wants the odds made more drastic. She wants to be seduced and frightened and kept from winning through dirty tricks. All of Jareth’s final scenes outline that he has, as both sexual partner and villainous bad guy, been working overtime to giver her the story she wants. He has ‘turned the world upside down…and done it all for [her]’ and he is fucking exhausted. The ‘fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave’ offer? It’s a promise that she will get everything she’s ever wanted if she just gives in. But Labyrinth is also about accepting your childhood and bringing it with you in a healthy way as you mature, so we are not going to fall into bed with the much older Goblin King. That’s what Adult Sarah fanfic is for. But the offer on the table is ‘I know the desire you have for intimacy - sexual and emotional - let me fulfill it’ but Sarah ain’t ready for that so we move to a bedroom dance party with muppets.

Edward Cullen, on the other hand, is in a an older journey to adulthood where sex is an age appropriate step, rather than a concept we are starting to accept. So we get bed-breaking, bone-bruising, can’t-believe-it-was-that-good sex. So he fits the bill and manages to fulfill the implied desire for sex itself that tends to be more implied when the story is written with an audience of women in mind.

So no fucking wonder Edward Cullen is attractive to teenage girls. Though Edward, funnily enough, is actually something of a poor example going by Jareth’s metrics for no other reason than he’s not particularly sexual. Bella finds him as such - as does the entire town - but when push comes to shove, Bella is the one pursuing him sexually. Though I believe this is due to Meyer’s Mormonism and her particular DL fantasy having the added factor of Will Wait For Marriage to Ravage Me. He’s absolutely down for it, he’s just gotta put a ring on it first. But again - it’s the loophole. The fantasy needs to give the reader permission to engage in sexual imaginings and clearly, Meyer needs that safety net of marriage to feel safe doing so.

Anyway I think I have exhausted my brain on this matter for the moment. Questions? Clarification? Something to add? Go for it.

Next up on essays I should take more time to write: the ‘I can fix him’ trope is actually a power fantasy and yes I will die on this hill

[profgandalf]

Raging at the Wind: Contemporary Censors of Texts Created by Others

In the second paragraph of Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” the narrator stops to play with the idea that although the phrase “dead as a doornail” is immediately and so broadly recognized that it borders on being cliché, and that he thinks “dead as a coffin nail” would be more fresh and accurate, he finishes by observing that “the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile, and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it” (Carol 1).

Well, this is the generation of those with “unhallowed hands.”  I have written before about my dismay concerning the decision to remove various books or illustrations by Dr. Seuss. Specifically “And to Think That I Saw it on Mulberry Street” which wonderfully portrays a child’s imagination let loose, and was told by some on this platform that it was all well and good. Now, however, I suppose most of you know that Roald Dahl’s children’s books "James and the Giant Peach," "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," "Witches," and "Charlie and the Glass Elevator" are being rewritten to remove language deemed offensive by the publisher Puffin. (Penguin, the parent company, has indicated they are going to publish uncensored versions as if that makes things better). 

Meanwhile, Alan Gribben a professor at Auburn University has an edition of Huck Finn in which he removes the N-word as well as Injun and replaced them with “slave” and “Indian.“  And now I understand that according to a new report in "The Sunday Telegraph," new editions of Ian Fleming’s original James Bond novels will omit offensive passages when released this spring by Ian Fleming Publications.  And like Dr. Seuss, it’s the people who control the text who are doing this so they can get away with it legally.  My comment to all of these second-rate unimaginative pariahs is "keep your lousy, “unhallowed hands” off other people’s art!" 

Would Dahl care?  Of course, he would!  Dahl was notorious for fighting editors over his word choices, but he’s gone now and the foundation can do what it likes.  My impotent fury on his behalf feels like raging at the wind.  Only in this age is the writer faced with the possibility that his actual text, never mind film interpretations of it, might be altered by people who no more understand the creative process nor have any ability to shape imaginative text than deep sea-lantern fish understand the nature of sunscreen. 

Publishers should NOT have the right to alter an author's intended words because they can.  Even if it is legal: It’s wrong, and if I ever become a published author I am going to include in my contract that NO such alterations can ever be made by my publishers or my offspring no matter how many generations pass.  Dickens didn’t think of this because he couldn’t imagine it.  Congrats you woke folk, you’ve created a whole new clause in contracts!

At least when the Victorians Charles and Mary Lamb rewrote the stories of Shakespeare they called it “Tales from Shakespeare: Designed for the Use of Young Persons” And perhaps one could claim that these Dahl, Twain, and Seuss books are intended to protect children who need protecting. I think that is an error and would suggest just finding an alternative author. However with the censoring of Ian Fleming’s adult spy novels, the pernicious nature of these so-called editors are revealed.  It’s almost amusing.  Rather than accept the fundamental fact that different ages have different ways of thinking (which is part of the benefit of reading literature) and that the artist’s vision is sacred, they now insist that everyone see things as they do, and if authors take is not 100% acceptable, then their works are just altered to do so.  It’s like putting a pair of briefs on Michelangelo’s “David.” 

Years ago Christians were accused of being closed-minded censors. A lot of parents got upset with the novel “The Catcher in the Rye” and a lot of liberals had a good laugh at their expense.  But no Christian parent suggested that the F word be removed from J.D. Salenger’s book while keeping his name on the cover!  Final thought: Write your own damn books and leaves those written by masters alone.  If you're so wise and clever, write your own books!