#I fear I might be the only person in the intersection of this Venn diagram

[sleepingintheflowers]

I was listening to Blink 182's self-titled album in the shower this morning and thinking about the creative fallout between Mark and Tom that occurred after this album came out. I also thought about how the band broke up after it, only to come back together later, only for Tom to leave again and be replaced with Matt Skiba for a number of years, and now following Mark's bought with cancer and Travis's plane accident, the band is reunited again.

Through all of this it occurred me that Mark and Tom's relationship is actually very, very similar to that of Ian Grimm and Poppy Li.

Tom is Ian. He's very creative. He's a little out there. He wants to be experimental.

Mark is Poppy. He has a clear vision and just wants it to work, man. Why do you need to noodle on this? Let's just get the song DONE. I don't want to make Tom's weird music! I want to make MY music. Etc, etc.

And in both cases, even though they can drive each other crazy they do love each other and are both at their best when they're together even if it gets frustrating to deal with an opposite personality sometimes.

Honestly go listen to "One More Time" by Blink 182 and go ahead and disconnect their real lives from the examples given and treat them just as that - examples, and I do think it sums up Ian and Poppy's dynamic very, very well.

[writingwithcolor]

Jewish author writing about antisemitism; should I include racism too?

anonymous asked:

Hi! I'm a white Jewish person who's writing a story set in a fantasy world with a Jewish-coded culture. It's important to me to explore antisemitism in this distanced setting, and explore what the Jewish diaspora means to me. I have a lot of people of color in my story as well. I don't know whether I, as a white person, should include racism in a story if it isn't necessary, but I also don't want to erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism, and I also don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism, which is obviously not the case. I was thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based rather than ethnically or racially based, but again, I'm not sure how or whether to write about bigotry against cultures + groups based on cultures + groups that I'm not a part of, and people of color in the story would obviously have their own cultural elements. Is acknowledging bigotry necessary?

It's okay to focus on antisemitism

Other mods have important advice on what exactly might be helpful or applicable to include in your story and how. I want to take a moment with the anxiety you express that focusing on antisemitism and not talking about other types of xenophobia will imply to your readers that you think antisemitism is “more serious” than other forms of bigotry. I hear and honor that anxiety, especially since “Jews only care about Jews” is a stereotype that never seems to go away, so I’m going to say something revolutionary:

It’s okay to center Jews in a story about antisemitism.

There, I said it. But I’m not making the case that you shouldn’t include references to or depictions of other types of bigotry in your story. There are a lot of great reasons why you should, because of what it can do for the complexity of your characters, the depth of your worldbuilding, or the strength of your message about the nature of xenophobia, diaspora, etc.

- How your non-Jewish-coded characters react to the things they experience can affect whether they sympathize over or contribute to the antisemitism at the heart of your story.

- How other types of xenophobia do and don’t manifest in your world can help explain why your world has antisemitism in the first place, and what antisemitism consists of in a world that also contains other minorities outside of the fantasy mainstream culture.

- Including other real-world xenophobia can help you set your antisemitism in context and contrast to help explain what you want to say about it.

Both your story and your message might be strengthened by adding these details. But if you feel the structure of your story doesn’t have room for you to show other characters’ experiences and you’re only considering doing it because you’re afraid you’ll be upholding a negative stereotype of yourself if you don’t, then it might help to realize that if someone is already thinking that, nothing you do is going to change their mind. You can explore antisemitism in your story, but you don’t have the power to solve it, and since you don’t have that power you also don’t have that responsibility. I think adding more facets to your story has the potential to make it great, but leaving it out doesn’t make you evil.

- Meir

Portraying xenophobia

As someone living in Korea and therefore usually on the outside looking in, I feel that a lot of people in Western countries tend to conflate racism and xenophobia. Which does make sense since bigots tend to not exactly care about differences between the two but simply act prejudiced against the “other”. Sci also makes a point below about racialized xenophobia. I feel these are factors contributing to your confusion regarding issues of bigotry in your story.

Xenophobia, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers”. You mention “thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based”, and this description fits xenophobia better than most other forms of bigotry. Xenophobia can be seen as an umbrella term including antisemitism, so you are technically including one form of xenophobia through your exploration of antisemitism.

I understand your wariness of writing racism when it doesn’t add to the plot, especially as a white writer. Your concerns that you might “erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism” is valid and in fact accurate, since exclusion of racism will of course lead to lack of portrayals of the intersections between racism and xenophobia. I want to reassure you that this is not a bad thing, just a choice you can make. No one story (or at least, no story that can fit into one book) can include all the different forms of oppression in the world. Focusing on one particular form of oppression, particularly one you have personal experience with, is a valid and important form of representation.

You also comment that you “don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism”, but I honestly feel that doesn’t need too much concern. Much like how queerness and disability are two separate issues with intersections, racism and xenophobia form a Venn diagram, with large intersections but neither completely including the other. A story focusing on autistic characters that doesn’t also have queer rep doesn’t imply queer issues are less serious. Likewise, a story focusing on antisemitism doesn’t imply racism is less serious.

I am slightly more concerned that there might be an accidental implication of antisemitism being a more serious issue compared to other forms of xenophobia. Of course, exploring antisemitism alone is completely valid representation, and there’s no need to go out of your way to try and portray other forms of xenophobia. A microaggression or two, or maybe a mutual bitch out session with a gentile but marginalized friend should be enough to show that antisemitism isn’t more (or less) serious compared to other forms of xenophobia.

-Rune

Avoiding racialized xenophobia

I think one thing you have to be careful with here is racialized xenophobia. Are your characters of color getting disproportionately more xenophobia than your white characters? You might be falling into the trap of racialized xenophobia, which falls under racism, which you want to avoid. An example would be “all Chinese scientists are untrustworthy, but not you, you’re one of the ‘good ones.’” Although this is technically xenophobia, it is also racism.

--Mod Sci

In the case you choose to include even small snippets of other forms of xenophobia in your story, attempting to portray xenophobia without the complications of racism can be a difficult process when they often go hand in hand (especially to a Western audience). So here are a couple of suggestions I have of portraying xenophobia without racism.

First and the simplest method is portraying xenophobia between people of the same race. For example, there is definitely xenophobia against Chinese and Japanese people in Korea, but it would be difficult to claim there is a racial component when all of us are East Asian. (Something you might want to be aware of here is intersections with colorism, where even within the same race, lighter skin and other more westernized features are considered more desirable. I suggest looking through our colorism tag for more details)

Another idea is to include microaggressions for specific cultures rather than something more broad. For example, calling Korean food stinky because kimchi has a strong scent is specifically xenophobic against Koreans, while commenting on small eyes can be directed against Asians in general.

Finally, while antisemitism is a form of ethnicity-based xenophobia, it is also a form of religion-based xenophobia. Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus can absolutely be xenophobic against each other with no racism involved. Should you choose this method, particularly if religious xenophobia is only shown in a shorter scene, I suggest you try and avoid portraying any of the above religions as the Bad or Oppressive ones. As a Christian I will unironically tell you that Christianity is a safe choice for a religiously xenophobic character, as we’re far less likely to face backlash compared to any other religion, and inspiration should unfortunately be overflowing in real life.

-Rune

Other forms of ethno-religious oppression

Here is my TCK perspective as someone brought up in diverse environments where there are often other axes of oppression including religion, ethnicity and class:

Racism and xenophobia can definitely be apples to oranges, so creating a universe where racism no longer exists or has never existed seems doable to me. Perhaps in your fantasy world, structures that buttress racism, such as colonization, slavery and imperialism, are not issues. That still won’t stop people from creating “Us versus Them” divisions, and you can certainly make anti-semitism one of the many forms of xenophobia that exists in this your story. Meir has hinted that your reluctance to declaratively show the harm of anti-semitism indicates a level of anxiety around the topic, and, as someone non-Jewish but also not Christian or Muslim, my perspective is as follows: I’ve always viewed anti-semitism as a particularly virulent form of ethno-religious xenophobia, and while it is a unique experience, it is not the only unique experience when it comes to ethno-religious xenophobia. I think because the 3-way interaction between the Abrahamic religions dominates much of Western geopolitics, that can be how it looks, but the world is a big place (See Rune’s comments for specific examples).

To that effect, I recommend prioritizing anti-semitism alongside other non-racialized forms of xenophobia along ideological, cultural and class-based lines for both POC and non-POC characters. Show how these differences can drive those in power to treat other groups poorly. I conclude by encouraging you to slowly trace your logic when depicting xenophobia towards POC characters in particular. Emphasize bigotry along axes of class and ideology, rather than traits linked to assumed biologically intrinsic features. Ultimately, I think recognizing commonalities between forms of ethno-religious oppression as a whole will help make you more comfortable in depicting anti-semitism with the seriousness it deserves without feeling as though you are trivializing the experiences of other groups.

- Marika

Worldbuilding ethnically and racially diverse cultures

As has been mentioned by other mods, I think it’s completely fine to focus your story on antisemitism and not portray other forms of bigotry if that’s the focus and scope of the story you want to tell. My fellow mods have also offered several valuable suggestions for writing about “culture-based bigotry” in general if that’s what you want to do, while making sure it’s not coming off as racially based. One element I can add is that from a worldbuilding standpoint, it will also help to have your fantasy cultural groups be ethnically and racially diverse. After all, this was common historically in several parts of the world, and depending on which cultures you’re basing your coding on, you could absolutely have fantasy cultures in your world that include characters we would read (according to our modern-day standards) as white, and others that we would read as people of color, within the same fantasy culture. All these characters would face the same culture-based bigotry (such as xenophobia or religious oppression), even though they are read by a modern audience as different races.

As a note, the reason I say “read as” and “according to our modern-day standards” is that the entire concept of whiteness as we know it is very specific to our current cultural context. Who is and isn’t considered white has changed quite a lot over time, and is still the subject of debate today in some cases. Your work will be read by a modern audience, so of course, you need to take into account our current understanding of race and the dynamics surrounding it. However, it’s also helpful to remember that our modern racial categories are fairly new in the context of the many millennia of history of humankind, and that they are certainly not inevitable. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking a fantasy culture has to align itself entirely with modern-day racial categories.

- Niki

[artemis-entreri]

[[ This post contains Part 7 of my review/analysis of the Forgotten Realms/Drizzt novel, Boundless, by R. A. Salvatore. As such, the entirety of this post’s content is OOC. ]]

Genre: Fantasy

Series: Generations: Book 2 | Legend of Drizzt #35 (#32 if not counting The Sellswords)

Publisher: Harper Collins (September 10, 2019)

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

Additional Information: Artwork for the cover of Boundless and used above is originally done by Aleks Melnik. This post CONTAINS SPOILERS. Furthermore, this discussion concerns topics that I am very passionate about, and as such, at times I do use strong language. Read and expand the cut at your own discretion.

Contents:

Introduction

I. Positives I.1 Pure Positives I.2 Muddled Positives

II. Mediocre Writing Style II.1 Bad Descriptions II.2 Salvatorisms II.3 Laborious “Action”

III. Poor Characterization III.1 “Maestro” III.2 Lieutenant III.3 Barbarian III.4 “Hero” III.5 Mother

IV. World Breaks IV.1 Blinders Against the Greater World IV.2 Befuddlement of Earth and Toril IV.3 Self-Inconsistency IV.4 Dungeon Amateur IV.5 Utter Nonsense

V. Ego Stroking V.1 The Ineffable Companions of the Hall V.2 Me, Myself, and I

VI. Problematic Themes VI.1 No Homo VI.2 Disrespect of Women VI.3 Social-normalization VI.4 Eugenics

VII. What’s Next (you are here) VII.1 Drizzt Ascends to Godhood VII.2 Profane Redemption VII.3 Passing the Torch VII.4 Don’t Notice Me Senpai

Note: This was written before the unveiling of the final book’s title. As such, the predictions are outdated.

What’s Next

While Timeless inspired confidence I haven't had in Salvatore for a long while and made me hopeful for the future, overall, Boundless hammered my heart back down into my stomach. Whereas Timeless felt like Salvatore actually had some degree of emotional attachment to what he was writing rather than making a bid to have his characters stick out in Forgotten Realms lore, Boundless backpedaled from this quite a bit. He has some solid turns of phrases in Boundless, but unlike the ones in Timeless, I wouldn't have remembered them if I hadn't specifically noted them down during my reading. In Timeless, we explored more than the constantly-revisited areas of Menzoberranzan, Gauntylgrym, Luskan and others, delving into Ched Nasad. In Boundless, we're back to Menzoberranzan, and furthermore, with most of the action happening in the same area of Menzoberranzan, specifically, in and around The Oozing Myconid tavern. This is reminiscent of how basically all of the action in the city of Helioglabalus during The Sellswords trilogy is condensed to one area, around the cul-de-sac Wall Way. The small but interesting bits of detail that we were treated to in Timeless about characters that we're so familiar with already, such as Jarlaxle, Malice, and the rest of the Do'Urden family, did not continue in Boundless. Gone too is the Realmsian feel that Timeless achieved, for Boundless feels very much like a standard Salvatore insular and tweaked Forgotten Realms. Boundless hammers the lore-rich and location-rich Waterdeep into something with fewer dimensions than Salvatore's current timeline Luskan. While the scenes from the past are still more interesting than the ones set in the present in Boundless, they don't hold a candle to their counterparts in Timeless. There was heart in Jarlaxle and Zaknafein's past in Timeless, and it felt as though it was something that Salvatore had thought about for a long time. By contrast, in Boundless, those scenes feel rote and rehashed, cobbled together from half-formed ideas. Those scenes only manage to not be sleep-inducing because they don't focus on the Companions of the Hall. While Timeless seemed to take a break from the disagreeable conclusions made in the novel preceding it, Boundless is right back on that track again.

All of the above is pretty bad, but things may even get worse. There are in fact many indicators that suggest some of my darkest fears concerning this franchise will come to pass, and  I sincerely hope that's not the case. That said, much of what I say in this section about what might come in the future are speculatory. They are extrapolations based on what I've learned from reading almost all of the over three hundred novels published for the Forgotten Realms, D&D sourcebooks through the editions, and talking with Ed Greenwood and other creatives who have officially worked on the setting. 

Drizzt Ascends to Godhood

Boundless still doesn't tell us where Zaknafein's soul had been. It isn't specifically stated, but I think it's fair to say that it definitely wasn't with Lolth, otherwise, she wouldn't send one of the two souped-up version of the Retriever after him. One could argue that Lolth might've done so because she is fickle and chaotic, but there's fickle, and then there's impractical. Bringing something as powerful as Salvatore's Retriever is supposed to be would tax her no small amount, and even a goddess of chaos, especially one whose resources are already spread thin warring with other demon lords, would not do something that's simply foolish. So, Lolth didn't return Zaknafein, and Yvonnel knows that she isn't getting spells from Lolth but she doesn't know who is granting them to her. If Salvatore weren't obsessed with erasing Eilistraee, the obvious answer would be that the Dark Maiden is looking after Yvonnel. That would be the most logical in-universe explanation, but as far as Salvatore is concerned, Eilistraee doesn't exist unless using her as the subject of ridicule and denigration. Eilistraee's brother Vhaeraun is similarly ignored, but at least is spared the dismissal that Salvatore places upon Eilistraee. It's possible that Yvonnel is getting her spells from someone in the elven pantheon, for aside from Eilistraee and Vhaeraun, the drow pantheon doesn't have any other non-evil members. While some of the Dark Seldarine might want to help Yvonnel simply out of spite for Lolth, that's also unlikely, because it's been clearly stated that Zaknafein was in a good place, and in the realm of one of those evil deities would not constitute a good place. But, it seems unlikely to me that someone from the elven pantheon is granting Yvonnel spells, for while Salvatore doesn't erase their existence, he doesn't acknowledge them either. A person who only reads the Drizzt books wouldn't know the existence of even Corellon Larethian, the patron god of all elves, including at one point the dark elves who were turned into drow. 

So who, then, is granting Yvonnel cleric spells? It might very well be left as a mystery forever, but what I suspect and fear is a rather convoluted scenario. Specifically: Drizzt, the god of goodly drow in the future, is granting the spells to Yvonnel in the present. Sounds crazy, right? I totally agree, but sadly, despite how many D&D creators warn about how bad of an idea time travel is in D&D, it's not implausible, and in fact, many things hint at the possibility, especially in Boundless. First, there's Drizzt's strange disappearing act at the end of novel that I discussed earlier. This could very well be him ascending to godhood. Second, it's been building up throughout the novels that Drizzt has become a beacon to all male drow, including a maverick like Jarlaxle. In the Realms, the power of belief is what grants gods power, and it is so strong such that races like the kuo-toa have believed gods into existence without there even being an individual to elevate with that belief. Drizzt, as represented by Salvatore, certainly would have enough "followers" to elevate him into demi-god status at the very least. Furthermore, Salvatore has demonstrated an eagerness to do everything possible to his golden boy, and while Drizzt himself, if he were true to his character, wouldn't want to be a god, making him into an actual god is getting pretty near the only good thing that Salvatore hasn't done to Drizzt yet. 

What has me the most suspicious that this is where Salvatore is going is the talk between Quenthel and Sos'Umptu about a "spark", one that "resided in Zaknafein before Drizzt". The word "spark" is often used in Realms material when referencing godly essence, for instance, Chosens are imbued with the sparks of their gods, mortals ascend to godhood when a divine spark is passed onto them, etc. The mention of the spark that father passed to son happens amidst a discussion between two very powerful priestesses of what was pre-fated and the intervention of higher powers. It feels very much like the Child of Prophecy scenario in the Naruto franchise, with Zaknafein being the parallel of Nagato and Minato in that his superiority marked him as a potential candidate to fulfill a great prophecy, but ultimately he failed to do so and the responsibility is passed onto the next worthy candidate, in this case, Drizzt. I'm not fond of this possibility because it's completely unnecessary and uncharacteristic. The only reason for Salvatore to elevate Drizzt to godhood is to further erase Eilistraee, to write his own name over the tapestry some more, and I suppose to garner more money from unthinking sycophantic fans who lack the ability to critically examine anything. Drizzt as a god would also be superfluous, for what he'd stand for is already covered by Eilistraee, with what she doesn't cover instead handled by Vhaeraun's portfolio. It isn't uncommon for gods' portfolios to overlap, but those overlaps are more like the intersection between circles of a venn diagram rather than a nigh-total eclipse. I suppose Drizzt could be the patron god of sanctimony, melodrama, preachiness and self-congratulation, but those traits hardly deserve a patron god. Realistically, if Drizzt is to be wedged into the drow pantheon, what would happen is that he would weaken the already goodly forces there. People of the Realms are polytheistic, but many have a main god that they worship, and with that taken away from existent gods, so, too, is the power they get from their followers' belief. At least it's consistent with how Drizzt is written, if not how he is supposed to be, for him to, yet again, be a damaging force to true good.

Profane Redemption

Salvatore seems to have this notion that Artemis Entreri needs to be "redeemed", and his definition of redemption is to become similar to Drizzt and the Companions of the Hall. It's as though he only knows how to write one character archetype, and seeing how he forces all of his characters down the same path, I honestly don't know if Salvatore simply can't write other archetypes, or doesn't feel like he should out of some sense that there is only one "correct" way for people to be. The idea that Entreri needs to be "redeemed" at all is questionable. What, exactly, does Entreri need to be redeemed for? For killing many people? Certainly, this is a sin, but Drizzt and the Companions of the Hall have killed many more, and yet they are celebrated heroes whose every action is unquestionably right. One could argue that Drizzt and the Companions only killed the "bad guys", but by whose definition are "bad guys"? Salvatore's definition of good versus evil is as inconsistent as his work is with itself, and comes from a position of privilege. We're told that Entreri never killed anyone unnecessarily, so really, is he deserving of the same fate as the old lecher, who at best was a child trafficker, and at worst, a child molester? Salvatore apparently believes so, with how the adjudicator "demon" possessing Sharon subjects the two to the same fate. I'm not arguing that Entreri did nothing wrong. He was absolutely a villain. Whatever his reasons might be, he did murder people. He did kill innocents for his personal gain, for instance stealing the life force from passed out drunks in alleyways to heal himself. He does have sins to atone for. However, what troubles me is Salvatore's stated reason for the need to redeem Entreri in an interview during the release of Timeless: 

Artemis Entreri surprised me quite a bit in the Sellswords trilogy, in Road of the Patriarch. That was supposed to be the end of Artemis Entreri. Road of the Patriarch was the perfect redemption, that redemptive moment where you could have hoped that Artemis Entreri ended on the right track. But after I wrote the book I got so many letters from people who had gone through similar traumas that Entreri had gone through when he was kid. They said, “You can’t end it here. We have to see him redeemed.” I got dozens of letters from people saying, “Please continue this character. This is personal to me.” And I was like, well, maybe I’ll learn something by continuing with this character. And I did. That’s a good thing.

What I came to realize about Artemis Entreri is that a driving force in him was why he couldn’t look at himself in the mirror without self-loathing: it was guilt. And it was guilt over things that had been done to him, not things that he had done. I don’t think I ever understood that until after I put him on the road of redemption.

I am honestly not sure what to think regarding Salvatore's claim that people who had gone through similar traumas as Entreri wants to see Entreri "redeemed". Young victims of physical abuse, sexual assault, parental neglect and betrayal have not done anything wrong, and while Salvatore is right about people that go through such horrors carrying guilt over what happened to them, I'm skeptical about whether Salvatore correctly understood his fans. My own background falls into that category, and I've interacted with others like me as we desperately tried to make sense of why the universe apparently deemed we deserved what happened to us. With the internet bringing greater connectivity between people, I found countless others like me, and have managed to arrive at a point in which I at least logically believe that what happened to me wasn't deserved. What I know from my own experiences and what I've learned from others differ so much and so consistently from Salvatore's recount that I can't help but wonder if some words got crossed with him. With people like me, "redemption" isn't what we fundamentally want. We want our scars to heal and we want to do it at our own pace, in our own way, to feel valid even though we have trouble fitting societal norms. Trauma victims are often misunderstood and dismissed because they are different, and really, all they want is for that to not happen. Salvatore's "redemption" of Entreri is to make him more like the very social-normative Drizzt, which is the opposite of what a trauma victim would want. In reality, a trauma victim who is being pressured to conform to another's perceived notions of normalcy, like what Drizzt does to Entreri, would react very badly to it. Furthermore, traumas, especially childhood ones, don't simply go away through the performance of some deeds, or even a great amount of deeds like helping others, which those privileged enough to have never experienced abuse at the hands of another seem to believe is the key to salvation. Traumas go away only with the passage of time, and the presence of people in one's life who understand the individual and accept them for who they are, who try to help them be the best version of themselves rather than the best societal model of a person. It's only normal for victims of trauma at the hands of others to resent and distrust people as a whole, and their traumas tend to be exacerbated by being told that they won't recover unless they help others, which often translates into, "I need to help those who will hurt me" in a trauma brain. Salvatore represents Entreri as having gotten past his childhood traumas because he received some degree of fulfillment from helping the people of Port Llast. Furthermore, Salvatore makes it appear that Drizzt's influence in Entreri's life is what led him down the path of "redemption", but realistically, what Drizzt has done is push Entreri to be like him. The reality of what should be happening is actually very damaging to Entreri. If Entreri isn't self-aware enough of what he truly wants, which is the case for a lot of trauma victims, he might be going along with Drizzt, even earnestly, because he's led to believe it'll help him feel better. The thing is, each person's recovery from trauma is unique, and has to come from within; following someone else's path more often than not leads to more damage, especially when it's the path that someone who doesn't bother to understand them lays out for them, as is the case for Drizzt with Entreri. If Entreri is self-aware enough, he should be resisting Drizzt, but he doesn't, which suggests it's the previous example, and that in turn has a lot of dark and problematic undertones, with one standing out in particular: Drizzt's behavior is abusive towards Entreri. 

While many were unhappy with the way that Road of the Patriarch concluded, especially back when it seemed to be the last that we'd see of Entreri, it was, in so many ways, a much kinder treatment of him than what's being done in continuing his saga. Over seven decades of enslavement by the Netherese would've deepened his trauma and made them more difficult to dislodge, but Salvatore doesn't seem to understand this at all. It would be less cheap and contrived, not to mention less invalidating, if Salvatore had Entreri's issues cured via magic or psionics. By espousing the belief that anyone can be "fixed" through a set approach, or needs to be "fixed" at all, Salvatore damages more than his own character, he helps spread an idea that will further hurt and invalidate real trauma victims. Sadly, things don't seem like they will get better. The artificial "development" forced onto Entreri in Hero was so depressing to me that it made it hard for me to read anything for almost two years. Timeless was a break from that, and indeed seemed like Salvatore was abandoning that tack, but Boundless dashed those hopes thoroughly. Entreri gets caught as a result of putting others before himself, and while it's conceivable that he'd save Dahlia before trying to escape, him doing the same for Regis without a second thought is a Drizzt characteristic, not his. Furthermore, he'd saved Regis before saving Dahlia. Without intending it, the events that Salvatore creates are actually an accurate metaphor for what happens to a damaged individual who is made to believe that another's path is their own: they unsuccessfully see it to completion, and get themselves mired in greater suffering. 

What appears to await Entreri in the future, as suggested by Boundless, is pretty disheartening, to say the least. As we see in the case of the old lecher, "Sharon"'s cocoon, in addition to killing its victims, apparently ensnares the victims' soul and damns it to an eternity of suffering. Furthermore, that cocoon apparently also informs the victims the reason why they are thusly damned. I can't help but feel that the cocoon is more than an analogy, I suspect that Salvatore is employing it as yet another cheap and lazy character development device. By the end of Boundless, Entreri has realized that his agony will be an eternal one, and is due to his many victims. I suspect in the final book, Entreri will be saved from the cocoon, but he'll emerge as a redeemed butterfly, changing the last of his non-conforming ways and becoming another boring good guy Drizzt clone. His reasons for doing so might be due to his realization in the cocoon that he'd have suffered for eternity unless he changes, which Salvatore could pretend is more in line with Entreri's character. However, the entire thing is incredibly artificial. Whatever "demon" possessing Sharon is doesn't exist in FR lore and was made up solely to use as a cheap plot device. Furthermore, the "demon" just randomly finds Entreri and Dahlia. Its own affiliation with the Margaster plot is that it happens to possess a Margaster child, but otherwise, it wasn't an obstacle to a specific goal. It was just sort of there. If there was a situation in which the conflict of judging good versus evil was relevant, then the creature could've been a meaningful obstacle. For example, if Entreri or any other character on a path to "redemption" exposes how the kind of judgment the creature passes is flawed and arbitrary, and then manages to make a step towards overcoming that internal conflict, that would make Salvatore's definition of "redemption" more palatable. As it is, it's just really random and being shoved down our throats. The fact that Entreri doesn't casually toss about the word "friend" like he does in Timeless is little consolation if Salvatore is indeed using the cocoon how I suspect he is using it. Entreri the redeemed butterfly would be truly a tragic and terrible closure for his character, or any character for that matter.

Passing the Torch

The title of the next book hasn't been revealed yet, but I've got a feeling that it will be "Endless". Thus far, "Timeless" and "Boundless" both suggest something without constraint, and "Endless" would fit this as well as following the -less format. I'd like the Drizzt books to end with the Generations trilogy, but it seems unlikely with the name of the trilogy, and even more so if the title of the last book is indeed "Endless". I do wonder if perhaps there's more truth to Salvatore's words that the legend of Drizzt is over and that a new era has begun. He might not have been successful with that in Timeless, nor was he with the endless amounts of tedious recaps in Boundless, but the allusions to the Stone of Tymora series, as well as "Generations" for the trilogy title, makes me wonder if he intends to pass his legacy to his son, Geno. Catti-brie is very pregnant and will give birth soon, so perhaps Salvatore means to pass the torch down to his next generation as his characters do the same. Geno's writing style as displayed in Stone of Tymora wasn't anything to brag about, but there was at least a refreshing quality to it. Furthermore, Geno has shown himself to be what his father isn't, a true ally to LGBT+ folks, through actions such as posting publicly in defense of fans who ship same-sex characters of the Drizzt series. While Entreri doesn't need to be redeemed, the Drizzt books certainly do, and perhaps Geno is the one who will bring that redemption. I certainly hope so, for as it is, I'm back to dreading a reality in which the Drizzt books are the only Forgotten Realms novels that we'll get forever.

Don't Notice Me Senpai

I've been very critical of Salvatore, but I don't hate him. What I'd really like is to respect him, but as his work currently is, I'm unable to do that. In my review of Timeless, I wrote, "I suppose it wouldn’t be fair to Salvatore to completely attribute all of Timeless’ writing improvements to his editor(s). He had to be willing to listen, to accept that what he’d written could be improved". Boundless did backpedal quite a bit, but perhaps he did listen. My significant other has long suspected that Salvatore reads my long ramblings that I doubt anyone reads, for there have been some really startling coincidences between how his writing changes and the stuff I point out in my reviews. I'm not exactly nice about Salvatore, so I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't read my criticisms of him, as he's always seemed really thin-skinned. Still, it is a bit scary how things line up, and really, he doesn't have to like me, he can even hate my guts, but if he did indeed decide to even read one of my articles about him and his work and took some of it to heart, I'd completely redo my evaluation of him. To give a few examples of the coincidences, in the past, I'd mock him quite a bit for how often he'd use "six hundred pounds of panther". This has wholly disappeared. I'd criticize him harshly for gratuitous lesbian sex scenes, which have also disappeared. I pointed out that he'd failed at making Timeless an appropriate starting or restarting point due to how much it ties into so many past events that aren't explained, and Boundless took explaining the past to a ridiculous level. I criticized Salvatore for how "magnificent" is used in Timeless, and it's greatly improved in Boundless. I'd chastised his weird use of "fashioned", and it doesn't appear at all in Boundless. These are just some of the many coincidences, and ultimately, I do think they are coincidences, even if the amount of them and how well they line up freak me out more than a little.     

On a final note, since I'd berated Timeless' cover art, I wanted to note that the cover art for Boundless is an improvement. The artist has changed, Aleksi Briclot did the covers for the Homecoming Trilogy as well as Timeless, but the artist credited with Boundless' cover is "Aleks Melnik/Shutterstock". I can't help but wonder what happened. Boundless' cover seems to have abandoned the attempt at Sumi-E, which I described as, "if you're going to appropriate my culture, at least do it justice". There's still a wispy and abstract feel to the cover of Boundless, but there's no longer that pseudo brushstroke work. I don't personally care for the art style, but I have no strong feelings about it either. I'm not too worried about my brutal honesty having had any affect on Briclot. While I felt the cover for Timeless was only slightly less of a travesty than the novel preceding it, I have a great deal of respect for Briclot as an artist. His technical skill is solid and his attention to detail is superb. Briclot's Artstation portfolio shows pieces from major franchises like Thor: Ragnarok after his work for Timeless, so most likely, he's too busy with higher visibility projects to bother with Drizzt anymore.

If you've made it to the end, congratulations and thank you for tuning in! As always, I'm happy to discuss your thoughts and feelings about these books, but fair warning: in case you haven't garnered from this piece, I'm far from an unconditional Salvatore fan. I care deeply about the world as a whole, and would love to share with you its beauty. I care deeply about doing justice to the characters, but am not above goofing off with them. My views are my own. I am not affiliated in any way with Wizards of the Coast or HarperCollins.

[jillmckenzie1]

The Atrocity Exhibition

When Rick* and his wife Lisa checked the voicemail, there was nothing, only silence. Rick thought nothing of it, until getting a phone call later from his father-in-law. He said to Lisa, “I want you to talk to your mother.” Her mother had slurred speech, and she had no idea what day it was.

They rushed over, and took Lisa’s mother to the ER. The tentative diagnosis was that she’d had a stroke. While she recovered, Rick and Lisa took it upon themselves to clean up their parents’ home. They found evidence of sizable hoarding. A couch covered with junkmail. Stacks of VHS tapes. Empty bottles, magazines dating back to the year 2000. There was a certain kind of crazy-quilt logic to the organization of the detritus. Rick was just happy that the stacks of junk only reached three-and-a-half feet high.

The cleaning project was daunting, and not just from a physical perspective. Lisa recognized hoarding tendencies within the family. Was this her eventual fate? Due to a mysterious genetic alchemy, would she recede into her twilight years in a home jammed full of junk? Would she be found surrounded by mountains of trash as Fox News blared from a distant television somewhere in the house?

With the high-profile suicides this week of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain, there’s been renewed talk about mental health. Inside that conversation are questions about conditions passed down by genes. Sometimes, the Venn Diagram of reality and entertainment intersect, and a movie is released at a moment that’s simply uncanny. I’m not sure I’d say Hereditary is the “right” movie, as such, but it captures those particular anxieties with nightmarish power.

We’re introduced to Annie (Toni Collette), an artist who specializes in miniature dioramas that portray her past and her family. Her mother has just died. Their relationship was…well, let’s go with strained.

Strained seems to be the overriding theme within her family. Her husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) is a natural peacemaker, and almost completely ineffectual. He tries to comfort her. She lies, tells him she’s going to the movies, and instead heads to the basement of a church and a grief support group. This might be helpful if she wasn’t totally uncomfortable with displays of emotion, yet emotion seeps out of her like an awakening volcano.

The kids are not much better, I’m sorry to say. Their teenaged son Peter drifts through high school on a combination of sadness and weed. His younger sister Charlie? Hoo-boy. She wanders through the wooded area surrounding the house barefoot, constantly sleeps in a treehouse, and cuts the head off a dead bird in order to draw it. I’m all for artistic expression, but Charlie steamrollers over the line.

The family positively vibrates with tension. Do they love each other? Well, they seem to think so, but they’re a group of strong-willed people who can’t openly share and deal with their emotions, and they take passive-aggressive behavior to impressive heights. On top of all this psychodrama, there’s a feeling that something is watching them and waiting. From there…?

There are a few things for you to understand about Hereditary. It’s a horror movie, to be sure, but it’s an elevated and mature version of the genre. Think of it this way. Compare The Bourne Identity or Ronin to Rambo: First Blood Part II, where you have an action movie that is as careful with its themes as it is with its gunplay. Along similar lines, I’d compare Hereditary to Friday the 13th. There’s nothing wrong with a flick that has a bunch of jump scares and gnarly-looking critters. Understand, however, that this is not that movie.**

Second, there’s a few films in the horror genre that go beyond mere “BOOGA-BOOGA” and deliver an experience that’s genuinely disturbing and unpleasant. I’m talking about movies like The Exorcist or The Witch that effectively deliver feelings of almost existential dread. Director Ari Aster has been making shorts for the last few years, and I suspect he’s learned the lessons of boutique horror. This is his first feature, and his command of tone is astonishing. As things progress, we start to get the feeling that something awful could happen at any moment. When it does, it’s often a response to an emotional character beat. Composer Colin Stetson delivers an unsettling score that enhances the tension, and proves that natural sound can be just as frightening as a sting.***

Aster also wrote the screenplay, and he’s just as interested in delving into the cracked dynamic of the family as he is in cranking up the tension. He gives the movie lots of time to breathe so that we can get to know them. Even smarter, Aster knows how trauma can realistically seep into a person, and how it can cause people to lash out at each other, retreat to bed, or explode. This is one of the most violent films I’ve ever seen, and while it has its share of horrific imagery, it’s more due to intense emotional violence.

Since Aster knew exactly what kind of movie he was making, his cast did as well and delivered outstanding performances. Gabriel Byrne’s useless compassion is sad, and I hadn’t realized until now how much I missed seeing him in high profile movies. Character actor Ann Dowd is heartbreaking as Joan, Annie’s friend from the grief support group.

Toni Collette is the undisputed MVP here, and it’s no real surprise. She’s been acting for over two decades, and she’s so consistently good that I think people take her for granted. As Annie, her performance is astonishing. She whipsaws between brittle control, desperate love, and full hysteria. She goes through the cycle of grief believably, and when things start to get really bad, her responses are simultaneously huge and honest. This is one of the best performances of the year.

The last half hour of Hereditary is a nightmare, and some may think the ending comes out of nowhere. That’s not the case, as the impeccable craftsmanship of the film provides us with pieces that feel unrelated until we finally see the entire puzzle. As alarming as the movie’s supernatural aspects are, the real horror comes from the fear that no matter what you do, you can’t escape your genes.

  *My friend “Rick” agreed to let me write about this experience, with the understanding that I wouldn’t use real names. Fine, but he originally wanted to be referred to as an “unnamed source.” Not gonna happen, Rick!

**I saw this film in a theater mostly filled with teens and couples in their early 20’s, looking for some scary Friday night fun. They had no idea what they were walking into.

***You can read more about Stetson’s process here.

from Blog https://ondenver.com/the-atrocity-exhibition/