#ME WHEN WOMEN. ME WHEN FEMALE AUTHOR. ME WHEN GROUNDBREAKING FEMALE AUTHOR WRITING ABOUT FEMALE CHARACTERS.

[whatkindofnameisella]

"the child stared at her or at nothing, trying to breathe, and trying again to breathe, and trying again to breathe."

[trulymedievalstuff]

Book Review:

I'm on a book buying ban for the next month, so I went to the library to find stuff to read. I picked up "A Sword for His Lady" by Mary Wine for some shits & giggles. It's...meh. It's not anything special but it's not the worst either. The characters are pretty tolerable. I do like the main female character, Lady Isabel of Camoys for the most part, though I wish the author didn't make her horny on main just at seeing the male lead. At least it wasn't love at first sight. Lust at first sight is acceptable in my view, so at least the book has that going for it.

What I don't like is the cover art and some the 'historical' details. I know, I know. It's a romance book that's worth less than $10. It's not supposed to be groundbreaking or historically accurate, however I'm allowed to be bothered by the inaccuracies if I feel like they're too much of a distraction for me.

Book Cover (some of these have nothing to do with historicity and are just personal peeves of mine)

I hate that the female model is wearing a Medieval-inspired dress with no smock or chemise underneath. Even if it's not accurate to the period, at least let her wear something so it doesn't chafe

I hate the cut of the gown and the slit up the leg. For a romance novel directed to a female audience, I don't understand why the female model is the on showing a tremendous amount of skin. Not that women can't be sexy, I just think it's an odd choice for a romance novel cover to have the female model showing the most skin

I don't like the mid-2010's hair style of her. The character in the book is described wearing her hair in a braid. Does that look like a braid to you?

Speaking of which, I dislike modern-looking shirt he's wearing. He's mostly hidden anyway. Why bother tugging the shirt off his shoulder if he's mostly covered by the other model? At least put him in armor if you're going to use a male model on your cover

What kind of sword is that? That looks like a cutlass. Why not grab a longsword? Like they used in 12th century

Book Content (things I noticed that distracted me from the story)

The story supposedly takes place in 1189. We even have King Richard Lionheart. Why is the author describing plate armor which doesn't come about until the 15th century in Europe. During the Third Crusade, European soldiers likely wore padded armor and chainmail.

There are some French names, but the nobility seems stereotypically English in language and culture. Meanwhile, in history, the first king whose native tongue was English was Henry IV, 210 years later

Why is the author afraid to write shifts and gowns? She describes clothes as under robes and outer robes instead of what they are. When I think of robes, I think of robes, not 12th century gowns

Why is the male lead, Ramon de Segrave, insulted by the fact that Isabel knows how to use a falcon to hunt for mice? Women didn't do the majority of hunting, but we do know that elite women did do some hunting and falconry for sport. It wouldn't be so out of the ordinary

Why are the only women who wear head coverings the servants and old women? It would have been considered unseemly for a married woman or a widow to go bareheaded. Wimples were worn by this time but by nuns and older women. Isabel should be wearing a barbette with her hair in a net.

Why is the other confusing a wimple for a barbette? Why does she describe the wimple as a cap? A wimple was just a piece of starched cloth folded to cover the neck and the head. To my knowledge, it does not involve a cap as described in the book

Other Annoying Things

I don't like how long the chapters are. The first "chapter" was 50 pages long, the equivalent of 5 chapters. The long chapters just makes everything slog through. I've found myself daydreaming while trying to read this book because I found the chapters too long

As much as I like the main character, I don't agree that Isabel has to change her views on men but little is shown for Ramon to change his views on women. We're told through the narrative that Isabel can't hold a grudge against men because he first husband was an ass, but Ramon is free to keep his beliefs about women. That makes him a hypocritical ass.

Isabel doesn't lick his boots, and he finds that hot, but not enough to rethink his values. He's more sexually attracted to her because he likes the chase but it has nothing to do with Isabel's intelligence, business acumen, and prudence. Qualities, I'm sure, would still be valued even in the Middle Ages.

Am I enjoying the book? Yeah, I guess. Would I recommend this book? Probably not. It's not terribly written, but my grievances with so many details makes it difficult for me to think about rereading it later or recommending it. It's a cheap "historical" romance with some pretty run of the mill steaminess. I've certainly read worse. If you just want to read something to pass the time, I guess this is okay.

[tbcanary]

ah, well!! in that case, welcome! i have a few i can solidly recommend to get you started. a lot of these are going to be bats, because that’s where i have done the most reading, but i’ll try to mix in some variety:

honestly, pretty much anything by greg rucka. he’s an excellent writer. specific recommendations include “batwoman: elegy,” “huntress: cry for blood,” and his time with Wonder Woman during her 1987 title run. it’s not all perfect, but none of his stuff has really turned me off in any way. (also, his indie comic “the forged” is full of a really great cast of women!)

continuing the indie comic thread, kieron gillen’s “die” comic from 2019. he’s also got the wicked + the divine, which has a few stellar female characters in a broader cast.

more bats: batgirl (2000) for cassandra cain, and batgirl (2009) for stephanie brown. (also, i love how Steph is written during jon lewis’ time writing robin 1993. that’s mostly tim’s run, but she’s A Part Of It and she’s important to me.)

hawkeye (2016) by kelly thompson, the run about kate bishop running a private eye business in Los Angeles. it’s a different vibe from like, every other comic i’ve recommended? but i love it so so dearly.

supergirl: woman of tomorrow (2021) by… sigh. tom king. mr. king is… controversial, to put it lightly. but this run is literally required reading (lighthearted). it’s so, so good.

huntress (1989) is also fantastic and a good look at vintage comics and how they give women agency and explore feminism during the time. mind the content warnings, though.

black canary (1991) is a little 4-issue run that i enjoy just because the art is cool, dinah is the light of my life, and you get to see her doing cool detective stuff. not groundbreaking, but a good place to start if you want to learn about her.

Wonder Woman: Historia. this one, i’m not going to explain to you, because I think anything I say will do the run itself a disservice. it’s stunning, it’s well written, and it’s almost entirely women. what more could you want!

poison ivy (2022) is so… so good. particularly the first six issues, when it was meant to be a limited run with a concise ending. it’s still fun after that period ends, but the vibes of an ongoing run with an indefinite ending are a little less pointed and deliberate, so. yknow. give it a shot if you want, it’s a low stakes thing after the initial arc is done.

i’ll also say, while i haven’t read them, i know people care a great deal about young justice 1998 and the new teen titans, in part because they have such strong and compelling ladies on their lineups. those are good places to look if you want women on a team rather than a solo female comic. i’ve also heard excellent things about supergirl’s 1996 run, although i haven’t gotten around to reading it yet.

as for what to avoid… my god. that is a complicated question. a lot of the authors in comics have a tendency to write a really good run one or two times and then completely fucking beef it later. generally, though, the standard rules i’ve seen are not to listen to anything said by ge//off jo//hns or gra//nt morri//son. (i am not putting this in their tags. i refuse.)

otherwise, when to ignore or engage with a writer is frequently dependent on things like who they’re writing, what run it is, the political climate of the U.S. at the time, the message editorial wants to send, the era the comics are in, and indeterminable things like the positions of the planets and the direction of the wind.

welcome to comics! i hope this helps you find a few ladies to tuck in your pocket and run.

being a liker of women in comics is the hardest thing in the world. you read one spectacular run about her that rewrites your entire brain and then after that it's like. do you want the run where she's a sexy lamp. the one where she's a generic love interest. the one where she's needlessly infantilized. or the one where her entire backstory is erased in order to make her a surprise villain and evil temptress.

[mimicofmodes]

“The Ladies Waldegrave” by Joshua Reynolds, 1780 (NGS NG2171)

I’ve complained before about two very big pet peeves of mine - corset stuff and Regency women being dressed in 1770s-1780s clothes - but one that may dwarf them because of how frequently it comes up in historical and fantasy fiction is the oppression of embroidery.

That’s probably putting it a bit too strongly. It’s more like ... the annoyance of embroidery. Every character worth reading about knows instinctively that sewing is a) boring, b) difficult, c) mindless, and d) pointless. The author doesn’t have to say anything more than “Belinda threw down her needlework and looked out the window, sighing,” to signal that this is an independent woman whose values align with the modern reader, who’s probably not really understood by her mother or mother figure, and who probably will find an extraordinary man to “match” her rather than settling for someone ordinary. To look at an example from fantasy, GRRM uses embroidery in the very beginning of A Game of Thrones to show that the Stark sister who dislikes it is sympathetic and interesting, while the Stark sister who is competent at it is boring and conventional and obviously not deserving of a PoV (until later books, when her attention gets turned to higher matters); further into the book, of course, the pro-needlework sister proves to be weak-willed and naïve.

Rozsika Parker, in the groundbreaking 1996 work The Subversive Stitch, noted that “embroidery has become indelibly associated with stereotypes of femininity,” which is the core of the issue. "Instead embroidery and a stereotype of femininity have become collapsed into one another, characterised as mindless, decorative and delicate; like the icing on the cake, good to look at, adding taste and status, but devoid of significant content.” 

Parker also points out that the stereotype isn’t just one that was invented in the present day by feminists who hated the idea of being forced to do a certain craft. “The association between women and embroidery, craft and femininity, has meant that writers concerned with the status of women have often turned their attention towards this tangled, puzzling relationship. Feminists who have scorned embroidery tend to blame it for whatever constraint on women's lives they are committed to combat. Thus, for example, eighteenth-century critical commentators held embroidery responsible for the ill health which was claimed as evidence of women's natural weakness and inferiority.”

There are two basic problems I have with the trope, beyond the issue of it being incredibly cliché:

First: needlework was not just busywork

A big part of what drives the stereotype is the impression that what women were embroidering was either a sampler:

sampler embroidered by Jane Wilson, 14, in 1791 (MMA 2010.47)

or a picture:

unfinished embroidery of David and Abigail, British, 1640s-50s (MMA 64.101.1325)

That is, something meant to hang on the wall for no real purpose.

These are forms of schoolwork, basically. Samplers were made by young girls up to their early teens, and needlework pictures were usually something done while at school or under a governess as a showpiece of what was being learned - not just the stitching itself, but also often watercolors (which could be worked into the design), artistic sensibility, and the literature, history, or art that might be alluded to. And many needlework pictures made in schools were also done as mourning pieces, sometimes blank, for future use, and sometimes to commemorate a recent death in the family. A lot of them are awkward, clearly just done to pass the class, but others are really artwork.

Many schools for middle- and upper-class girls taught the making of these objects (and other “ornamental” subjects) alongside a more rigorous curriculum - geography, Latin, chemistry, etc. At some, sewing was also always accompanied by serious reading and discussion. (And it would often be done while someone read aloud or made conversation later in life, too.)

Once done with their education, women generally didn’t bother with purely decorative work. Some things that fabric could be embroidered for included:

Jackets 

Bed coverings and bedcurtains

Collars and undersleeves 

Pelerines 

Neck handkerchiefs and sleeve ruffles 

Screens

Upholstery

Handkerchiefs

Purses, wallets, and reticules

Boxes

Book covers

Plus other articles of clothing like waistcoats, caps, slippers, gown hems, chemises, etc. Women’s magazines of the nineteenth century often gave patterns and alphabets for personal use.

(Not to mention late nineteenth century female artists who worked in embroidery, but that’s something else.)

You could purchase all of these pre-embroidered, but many, many women chose to do it themselves. There are a number of reasons why: maybe they wanted something to do, maybe they felt like they should be doing needlework for moral/gender reasons, maybe they couldn’t afford to buy anything - and maybe they enjoyed it or wanted to give something they made to a person they loved. That firescreen above was embroidered by Marie Antoinette, someone who had any number of other activities to choose from. It’s no different than people today who like to knit their own hats and gloves or bake their own bread, except that it was way more mainstream.

embroidery patterns from Ackermann’s Repository in 1827 - they could be used on dresses, collars, handkerchiefs, etc.

Second: needlework wasn’t the only “useless” thing women were expected to do

Ignoring the bulk of point one for now and the value of embroidery - I mentioned “ornamental subjects” above. As many people know, young women of the upper and middle classes were expected to be “accomplished” in order to be seen as marriageable. This could include skills like embroidery, drawing, painting, singing, playing the piano (as well as other instruments, like the harp or the mandolin), speaking French (if not also Italian and/or German), as well as broader knowledge and abilities like being well-versed in music, literature, and poetry, dancing and walking gracefully, writing good letters in an elegant hand, and being able to read out loud expressively and smoothly.

This wasn’t a checklist. As the famous discussion in Pride and Prejudice shows, individuals could have different views on what actually made a woman accomplished:

“How I long to see her again! I never met with anybody who delighted me so much. Such a countenance, such manners! And so extremely accomplished for her age! Her performance on the pianoforte is exquisite.”

“It is amazing to me,” said Bingley, “how young ladies can have patience to be so very accomplished as they all are.”

“All young ladies accomplished! My dear Charles, what do you mean?”

“Yes, all of them, I think. They all paint tables, cover screens, and net purses. I scarcely know anyone who cannot do all this, and I am sure I never heard a young lady spoken of for the first time, without being informed that she was very accomplished.”

“Your list of the common extent of accomplishments,” said Darcy, “has too much truth. The word is applied to many a woman who deserves it no otherwise than by netting a purse or covering a screen. But I am very far from agreeing with you in your estimation of ladies in general. I cannot boast of knowing more than half-a-dozen, in the whole range of my acquaintance, that are really accomplished.”

“Nor I, I am sure,” said Miss Bingley.

“Then,” observed Elizabeth, “you must comprehend a great deal in your idea of an accomplished woman.”

“Yes, I do comprehend a great deal in it.”

“Oh! certainly,” cried his faithful assistant, “no one can be really esteemed accomplished who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half-deserved.”

“All this she must possess,” added Darcy, “and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading.”

Mr. Bingley feels that a woman is accomplished if she has the ability to do a number of different arts and crafts. Miss Bingley feels (or says she feels) that it goes beyond specific skills and into branches of artistic attainment, plus broader personal qualities that could be imparted by well-bred governesses or mothers. And Mr. Darcy, of course, agrees with that but adds an academic angle as well.

But what ties all of these accomplishments together is their lack of value on the labor market. A woman could earn a living with any one accomplishment, if she worked hard enough at it to become a professional, but young ladies weren’t supposed to be professional-level good because they by definition weren’t going to earn a living. All together, they trained a woman for the social and domestic role of a married woman of the upper middle or upper class, or, if she couldn’t get married, a governess or teacher who would share her accomplishments with the next generation.

(To be fair, almost none of the trappings of an upper-middle/upper class male education had anything to do with the kind of career training that college frequently is today, either. Men were educated to know the cultural touchpoints of their class and fit in with their peers.)

There are reasons that an individual person/character might specifically object to embroidery, but it was far from the only “useless” thing that an unconventional heroine would be required to do against her inclination by her conventional mother/grandmother/aunt/chaperone. Embroidery stands out to modern audiences because most of the other accomplishments are now valued as gender-neutral arts and skills.

“The Embroidery Frame”, by Mathilde Weil, ca. 1900 (LOC 98501309)

So, some thoughts for writers of historical fiction (or fantasy that’s supposed to be just like the 19th/18th/17th/etc century):

- If your heroine doesn’t like embroidery, she probably doesn’t like a number of other things she’s expected to do. Don’t pull out embroidery as either more expected or more onerous than them. Does she hate to sit still? I’d imagine she also dislikes drawing and practicing the piano. Would she prefer to do academic subjects? She probably also resents learning French instead of Latin, and music and dancing. Does she hate enforced femininity? Then she’d most likely have a problem with all of the accomplishments.

- If your heroine just and specifically doesn’t like embroidery, try to show in the narrative that that’s not because it’s objectively bad, and only able to be liked by the boring. Have another sympathetic character do it while talking to the heroine. Note that the hero carries a flame-stitched wallet that’s his sister’s work. Emphasize the heroine’s emotional connection to her deceased or absent mother through her affection for clothing or upholstery that her mother embroidered - or through a mourning picture commemorating her. There are all kinds of things you can do to show that it’s a personal preference rather than a stupid craft that doesn’t take talent and skill!

mourning picture for Daniel Goodman, probably embroidered by a Miss Goodman, 1803 (MMA 56.66)

[drcalmreid]

pretend - s.r.

pairing: spencer x female!reader

summary: angst/fluff - you and spencer are forced to go undercover together as a couple...weeks after you broke up

content warning: female unsub with female and male victims (tw: female unsub, female and male victims, drugging, murder, relationship issues/breakup, arguing) please feel free to let me know if I missed any others :)

word count: 2.7k

authors notes: “—” indicates a flashback; also this is my entry for @railmereid​’s 2.0k writing challenge! (congrats!!) I hope you all like it and good luck to anyone else who enters! xx

gif credit: @prettyboyspence​

YOUR POV

“You guys sure you’re okay with this?” Preteniss asks, while securing my microphone wire. I nod hesitantly, and give her a weak smile. She glances up at Reid who stands to my right, Rossi attaching his wire to his undershirt. Spencer smiles his classic tight-lipped grin and nods too. Four female victims have been found near Washington D.C., three of them being in relationships with wealthy men. All of the women’s boyfriends are also missing and have not been heard from since the women disappeared weeks before. All four of the victims were last seen at a local restaurant with their partners in the days prior. Rossi suggested Reid and I go undercover to see if we could find any new leads or even catch the unsub in the act. As partners, we have gone undercover a handful of times. As boyfriend-girlfriend, we were practically forced to go for any case that required it (Prentiss insisted it was only because we were the most natural ones to play a couple...but, I don’t buy it, I think the team liked the idea of forcing Reid out of his comfort zone). As exes, this would be a first…

“Alright,” Rossi pats Reid’s chest. “You guys look good, now let’s go get this son of a bitch”.

—

“Spencer, you’re being ridiculous.” I say dropping my go-bag on his leather couch. I turn on my heels and watch Spencer close his apartment door behind him.

“I’m ridiculous? y/n, you could have been shot!” Spencer says, grabbing his face.

“Yeah, Spencer. That's our job. You can’t expect me to not do my job because it makes you uncomfortable.”

Spencer laughs ironically and leaves his satchel on his desk, knocking over a stack of books in the process. He says nothing and disappears into his bedroom. “Spencer, c’mon,” I say following him towards the bedroom and he shuts the door before I even get there. “Spencer!” I yell, pounding my fist on the wooden door, but there’s no answer.

—

Spencer and I step out of the SUV into the cold Virginia night and instinctively I loop my arm with his. Spencer stiffens under my touch and I glance up at him through my lashes. He nods gently and I rest my head on his shoulder...just to sell it, even though I truly just missed his warmth. The cold wind bites at my legs exposed under my dress, I shudder against the cold and Spencer readjusts his arm and wraps my shoulders in his embrace. I blush and my heart begins to race. Our steps continue down the sidewalk, towards the restaurant in question.

Spencer places his free hand over my torso and muffles my wire, I glance up at him raising an eyebrow. “Do you think they know?” He whispers.

“I didn’t tell anyone,” I mumble back. “You didn’t want to, remember?”

Spencer coughs slightly and releases his grip on my microphone.

“Nice one Reid, next time you want to flirt with your girlfriend you don’t have to mute yourselves,” Prentiss chirps in our earpieces.

“Right, sorry,” Reid says, flustered.

“Baby, where are we going?” I ask and Spencer smiles. He used to love when I used this pet name for him, but now it hurts me too much to even think about.

“It’s a surprise.”

—

I wake up to the smell of fresh coffee and my back is pressed up against the wall. I had fallen asleep propped up against the wall next to the bedroom door, hoping Spencer would open it. Typically one of us ends up sleeping in the living room before giving in and crawling into bed with the other. Apologizes are mumbled between us and we fall asleep to the sound of each other's heartbeats. Usually when we argue it’s like a tornado: fast, centered around one thing, and usually caused by one of us spinning out of control….but this fight, I could sense it would be more like an Earthquake: seemingly from nowhere, groundbreaking, and dividing the land that was once so stable.

“You’re up,” Spencer says standing in the entryway of the kitchen.

“Yeah,” I say while standing from the floor, cracking all my joints in the process.

“I made coffee.” Spencer says as if it is more of a comment than an offer.

“I smelt.”

“So we’re really gonna do this?” Spencer asks, even though we both know it’s not a question. He sits down at the kitchen table and rests his mug down. I follow him inside the small kitchen nook and lean against the counter.

“Looks like it.”

—

Spencer and I sit down across from one another at a circular table with a booth curving around one side. The restaurant is dimly lit, candles flickering on the tables, red silk table cloths covering the tables, and well-dressed waiters and waitresses attend to each of the guests. It reminds me of the restaurant that we went to for our first anniversary, and I know it reminds Spencer too. He keeps his eyes down, glued to the table and barely looks up at me as I try to make conversation.

“This restaurant is beautiful,” I say, flashing my best smile. “I’m glad I dressed up. You remember this dress? I haven’t worn it in forever.”

Spencer clears his throat and finally looks up, “of course I do, baby.” My heart practically jumps to my throat. “You wore it on our first date.”

“Yeah, I did” I look down at the simple, black lace dress I have on and play with the seam. Our waitress approaches the table just as Spencer is about to speak up again.

“Good evening, I’m Lydia and I will be your waitress tonight, can I get you started with our wine-”

“No,” Spencer cuts off the waitress in the middle of her rehearsed speech.

“Spence,” I shoot him a look across the table. I smile at the waitress, “We’ll both just have water, thank you.”

“Okay,” Prentiss speaks to both of us through our earpieces. “If we are right, the unsub should approach your table and try to initiate a fight between the two of you. Think you can manage that?”

“Oh, we can manage.” I say glancing up at Spencer, who’s already staring at me from the other end of the dining table.

—

“No, y/n you don’t get it, do you? God, you’re so stubborn. I can’t watch you get hurt! It will kill me, don’t you understand that?” Spencer yells, pacing around the small kitchen.

“Spencer,” I reach out for him, but he brushes past me. “Of course I get it…but it’s my job. I don’t know what you want me to do. You, of all people, know what this job requires. I can’t just not go on missions because my boyfriend doesn’t want me hurt. How do you think I feel when you go on cases without me?”

“That’s not the point,” Spencer yells, running his hands through his hair. “You went into the unsub’s house, alone-”

“You were there,” I suggest, leaning towards him.

“Outside y/n,” Spencer spits, his word laced with venom. “You were unharmed, unprotected, and out of reach! What if something happened?”

“Well,” I say rubbing the sides of my arms. “Nothing did.”

“I can’t keep doing this,” Spencer says sitting down again at the kitchen table. “I can’t, y/n.”

“What- what are you saying?”

“We can’t be together if all we do is worry about each other,” Spencer looks up from his empty mug to meet my eyeline. “It isn’t healthy.”

“So, you’re breaking up with me? This is really happening?” I ask, tears welling in my eyes.

“This isn’t healthy anymore, and you know it just as much as I do.” Spencer says, pain stinging more and more with each word.

I scoff at his words and actually feel myself begin to laugh at the obscurity of the situation. Dr. Spencer Reid, the only who willingly gives himself up to unsubs countless times, can’t handle it when his girlfriend does it once. A chuckle escapes me and I swing my hand across my mouth trying to muffle the sound. “Are you laughing?”

“I’m sorry, Spencer,” I say as the laughter intensifies. “But this is fucking ridiclous. I always thought if we ever broke up it’d be because one of us got murdered, not because we arrested one.”

—

“Excuse me,” a blonde woman interrupts, standing near our table. “Sorry to interrupt, I just love your tie. It really brings out your eyes.”

“Thank you,” Spencer smirks and glances at me. “She hates it, always thinks it makes me look like a stock broker.”

“Accountant,” I correct, taking a sip of my water.

“Sorry, an accountant,” Spencer says and smiles at the blonde.

“Seems like I brought up a sore subject, sorry- uh, have a nice night.”

“Morgan,” Prentiss whispers through our headsets. “Keep eyes on her.” Morgan and Tara sit just across the restaurant at the bar, with eyes on the entrance and exit points.

“She's sitting back down at the bar, I’ve got her.”

“We’re going to need more guys, we gotta get her moving,” Prentiss orders and I nod while setting my glass down.

“You know,” I say leaning forward, chest pressing to the table. “You only ever take me out when there’s something you need to talk to me about...so talk.”

“I- I just,” Spencer mumbles. “I know we haven’t talked much since,” he looks up at me and lets out a big sigh.

“What? Since you belittled me? Made me feel like I couldn’t do my job? Then?” I ask, running my fingers across the table, letting them rest just a few centimeters from his.

“y/n,” Spencer says, dragging out my name. He sits back in the booth and presses his back to the leather seat. “I never belittled you.”

“Sure felt like it,” I raise my eyebrows at him.

“You are so stubborn, you know that?”

“So I’ve been told,” I roll my eyes at him. My mind starts to wander back to the night that sunk our ship. The same points being repeated over and over, neither one of us backing down or admitting fault.

“I just wanted to protect you, I can’t see you get hurt.” Spencer says, his eyes glossed over and lip quivering.

“When you said you couldn’t do this anymore, was that to protect me, or you? Because based on what we’re doing tonight...seems like it didn’t work out for either of us.” I say standing up from the table.

“y/n-” Spencer starts.

“She’s on the move,” Morgan cuts into our earpieces.

“This was never about me was it? It was all just to protect you, and I fucking believed it.” I say, as the realization hits me. Tears sting my eyes and I choke the words out, “You never cared about losing me, all you cared about was how you would feel if you lost me.”

“y/n, please.” Spencer stands from the table and reaches for me. I shake my head at him and step back.

“Don’t touch me,” I say backing away from his touch, even though I want nothing more than to fall into it. I turn quickly and walk right into the blonde again. “Excuse me.”

The next moments run through my mind like a blur.

The blonde sat down with Spencer, ever so elegantly slipping a pill into his drink before Morgan and Tara were onto her, cuffs snuggly placed around her wrists. She didn’t resist, didn’t ask for a lawyer, she just smiled and asked if her ex-boyfriend would know she was arrested. Even though I tried my best to stop crying, my tears kept streaming down my face and neck. I gave up on wiping my cheeks, just letting the mascara stain my skin. The car ride with Reid, Morgan, Lewis, and myself is eerily quiet, no one wanting to say the first word… or address the sobbing undercover agent in the passenger seat.

“Good job you two, if you keep bringing in unsubs like this, we’re going to have to put you in the field more often. And that fight? Felt like you two we’re really in it,” Emily says and I flash her a quick smile. Spencer and I are at our respective desks, shoving case files into our suitcases in silence. We haven’t spoken since the restaurant and honestly I don’t know if I’m even ready to yet. “Anyway, have a nice night.” She smiles back at us while passing through the bullpen before heading out the doors.

“Thanks, Em. Goodnight,” I smile again as she exits, leaving just Spencer and I in the empty BAU office. I quietly grab my things and walk around my desk, heels in my hand, focused on the door.

“Y/n,” Spencer calls after me, just as I pass his desk, “please, wait.” I stop in my tracks, just a few feet away from his desk. I turn to face him and shrug my shoulders, indicating for him to keep talking. “I missed you.”

“Spencer,” I huff and set my bag and shoes down on JJ’s empty desk. “We’re always together. How could you miss me?”

“I meant, I missed us. Going out to dinner, laughing, just being us.” Spencer says, scratching the back of his neck. My lips curve into a weak smile and I nod. “Do you think we could pretend?” He weakly asks.

“Spence,” I half-heartedly laugh. “We just had a whole night of pretend…apparently an Oscar’s worthy night of pretend.”

“No no, I mean...do you think we could pretend that you don’t hate me?” He asks and his eyes are glazed over again. He blinks quickly to clear away his tears, but one escapes before he can hide it. “I never wanted things to end, I just- I was scared. I can’t lose you…” He says and I stand there silently, contemplating his words. “...and maybe that’s selfish...and I know that now, but I want to talk about this.”

I tug my lip between my teeth and take a deep breath. Silence settles between us for a few minutes as I keep my eyes to the ground, too nervous to look at Spencer.

“I could never hate you,” I finally say, stepping towards him. “Even if I forced all my attention to it and focused on everything that went wrong. I could never find it in myself to hate you.”

“You don’t hate me? You don’t hate me,” Spencer repeats almost like he’s solidifying it in his mind. He looks up at me through his curls as he sits down on the edge of his desk and collapses his head into his hands. I step even closer to him and place myself between his knees.

“Spencer, look at me.” I say and he blinks rapidly before glancing up to meet my eyeline. “I don’t hate you, the only thing I hate is how much I love you.” Spencer laughs lightly and a smile creeps across his face. “And for the record, I missed you too.”

Before I can say anything else, Spencer reaches forward and pulls me into his arms. His arms wrap around me tightly and hook together at my back. The shock wears off and I lower my hands to his head, pressing him to me. Luckily, he still sits on the edge of his desk, with me between his knees, otherwise I think we both would have collapsed into a puddle on the floor. I run my hands through his curls and I feel Spencer’s tears wet my dress. His grip only gets tighter and when I go to step back from him he mumbles a quick, “please”.

“Spence,” I whisper down at him. My fingers twisting in his chestnut curls, “we can’t stay here all night...we gotta go home.”

“I don't want to go home without you, I can’t- I-” He rambles, pulling away from my chest.

“So, don’t. Let’s go home.” I say and he smiles weakly up at me, I run my hand down from his hair and cup his cheeks. “You ready?”

He nods weakly and gives me a full-Spencer-smile, “let’s go home.”

—

OK YAY! I hope you guys liked this and it wasnt too confusing flashing back and forth, again congrats to @railmereid​ on 2.0k! :) xx

leave requests here! // masterlist

stay safe and wear a mask! -m

[takerfoxx]

In response to JK Rowling and Joss Whedon, my (former) idols

I really didn’t want to have to do this.

So in addition to…=gestures vaguely=…all of that, the last few months have been kind of sucky when it comes to learning some really unpleasant things about artists that I looked up to, admired, and was in fact inspired by. I’ve already spoken about the Speaking Out movement revealing a lot of ugly behavior from various wrestlers, some of which I was big fans of, and then later we got Chris Jericho being a full-on MAGA. Yeah, that all sucked. But those were just performers whose work I enjoyed watching. The one that really hurt were writers who I deeply admired, whose stories I love, and who I was heavily influenced by.

The first, of course, was finding out that JK Rowling, the author of perhaps the single biggest YA fantasy series of all time Harry Potter, is a TERF. This really sucked for a number of reasons. Firstly, I really like Harry Potter! I mean, I’m not a super fan or anything. I came into it when things were kind of dying down, like the whole book series had already been released and there were only a few movies left, but I still really enjoyed it, have all the books and movies and a fair amount of merchandise swag, including a nifty wand I got at Universal Studios. Shit, I got two replicas of the Sword of Griffyindor, thanks to them screwing up my order in my favor and sending me a duplicate! They’re on my wall right across from me as I type this!

But in addition to writing a book series I really liked, JK Rowling was supposed to be one the good guys. She’s been vocally progressive, often openly comes down on British right-wing nonsense, has supported various persecuted minorities, and is on record as being one of the few self-made billionaires to actually stop being a billionaire for a time because she donated so much money to charity. And while we mock it now, her revealing Dumbledore as gay was a huge deal at the time. Plus, she cultivated this reputation as Auntie Jo, that cool, supportive aunt we all wanted.

But for a while her stock has been dropping. Her preference for confirming “representation” via tweets instead of explicitly putting it in the text of her stories has raised the question of queer-baiting, especially with a whole-ass movie with a young Dumbledore and Grindelwald to make their relationship explicit but failing to do so. The whole Nagini thing from the latest Fantastic Beasts movie was pretty gross. And re-examination of various problematic elements from the original novels has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Now, none of these really looked to be intentionally malicious, of course. Just about everyone’s early work will have problematic elements; that’s just how people work. And the later stuff smacked more of ignorance than anything. But after all this time, it’s like, c’mon. You should know better by now.

But the biggie came when her transphobic views finally came to light. Now, this one had been brewing for a while, due to some questionable likes and statements on her twitter. But then she decided to just go public and published what essentially amounts to a TERF manifesto, one with a very “love the sinner, hate the sin” condescending attitude and had a real persecution complex air to it.

Now, I’m not going to go into detail about what the manifesto was about, what the circumstances surrounding it were, or how wrong it was. It’s already been raked over the coals, dissected, answered, and debunked in detail by people far more qualified than me, so odds are, you’re already well aware of its contents and the subsequent rebuttals. But the gist of it comes down to her basically believing that transwomen are actually cis men claiming to be trans so as to infiltrate and invade female-only spaces.

Yeah.

Okay, that’s gross, but…why? Why is someone so noted for being progressive and wanting to foster an inclusive environment making this the hill of exclusion that she wants to die on?

Well, that’s where things get tricky. She mentions that prior to Harry Potter, her first marriage was highly physically and sexually abusive, and when she escaped from that, she had no place to go, leading her to be homeless for a time.

Oh.

Well, that makes sense. Someone goes through a highly traumatic experience with a member of the opposite sex, has no support structure when she escapes it, is left to fend for herself, only to suddenly get rocketed into fame, fortune, and influence, which in turn leads to a Never Again mentality. She was hurt, no one was there to help her, and now she’s afraid of men invading women-only spaces to victimize others like she was victimized. So…literally transphobic. Literally a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

Guys, this is so fucked up. Like, how do you even approach something like this? She’s a victim in every sense of the word, so of course she’s going to have physiological damage and a warped view of things. I mean, if I found out that a close friend of mine went through the same thing and had the same prejudices, I would be nothing but sympathetic! I mean, I’d still do what I can to convince her to overcome those prejudices, but I’d still show sympathy and support for what she went through.

Abuse warps people. There’s a reason why so many abusers are abuse survivors themselves. It makes you terrified of being hurt again and often causes people to adopt toxic behaviors, beliefs, and reactions to protect themselves. I’ve already talked about it at length while discussing She-Ra and its own handling of the cycle of abuse, which included franks discussions of Catra’s horrible behavior, why she was the way she was, while never losing sympathy for her and rooting for her to overcome it. So if JK Rowling is an abuse survivor, is it really right to come down on her for having warped views because of that abuse?

But that’s the problem. See, she isn’t your troubled friend that you’re trying to help. She isn’t your cousin Leslie who’s a really sweet person but unfortunately adopted some bad ideals due to trauma suffered. She JK freakin’ ROWLING, one of the most famous, wealthy, and influential women in the world. She has a platform of millions, if not billions, which means her voice lends credibility to her bigoted beliefs. Alt-righters and other TERFs have already swooped upon this for giving validation to their awful beliefs, which puts trans people even more at risk. And as horrible as Rowling’s experiences might have been, the trans community is often the victim of far worse, and they don’t have a mountain of money and an army of defenders to protect them like she does. I’ve said it time and time again: just because you’re a victim, that doesn’t give you the right to victimize others! And bringing things back to Catra, as much as I loved her redemption in the final season, she was still a TERRIBLE PERSON for a huge chunk of the show, one that needed to be stood up to and stopped.

So yeah. That’s the messiness that is JK Rowling.

Now, let’s talk about the one that really hurts. Let’s talk about Joss Whedon.

I’ve made no secret of what a huge Whedon fan I am. Unlike Rowling, I was a HUUUUUGE superfan. Seeing Serenity for the first time in theaters was akin to a religious awakening to me as a storyteller, making it one of my top three movies of all time. Firefly is my favorite show ever. And I adored Buffy, Angel, and Dollhouse as well. I love Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers. The very first fanfic I ever wrote was a Firefly fanfic that disappeared along with my old laptop. I know his style isn’t for everyone, but I cannot understate how much of a personal inspiration he is to me as a writer.

And like Rowling, Joss was supposed to be one of the good guys! Buffy was monumental in pushing the needle when it came to female empowerment. Will and Tara were groundbreaking as a gay couple. He’s been outspoken for years about his feminist views and beliefs and was seen as one of the most prominent and influential feminist voices in Hollywood!

And then things started to go bad.

One day he was on top of the world, the mastermind behind the first two Avenger movies. And the next, it seemed like he was in freefall. It’s hard to really pinpoint exactly when the change took place. Some would say him being brought in as a last-minute substitute for Zack Snyder to take over on Justice League after Snyder had to leave due to family tragedy, and the subsequent awful critical reception to that film tarnishing his image, even if those were very unique circumstances that couldn’t really be blamed on him. Others might point to Age of Ultron’s less than stellar reception, as well as criticism of some questionable jokes and certain creative decisions regarding the character of Black Widow, which then led to a more critical examination of how Whedon continues to write female characters, as while his work might have been revolutionary in the 90’s, his failure to evolve with the times had meant that many of his portrayals are now woefully outdated and problematic, with his vision for a Batgirl movie getting hit with a lot of backlash as a result.

Again, I’m not going to go into too much detail, as this is all public knowledge and can be easily looked up, but overall it seemed that Whedon entered into a period where he was getting criticized more than he was celebrated, and his image of a guaranteed hit maker was now in doubt.

But all of this wasn’t the big problem. All creators go through rises and slumps, and everyone hits points where they get hit with a barrage of criticism; that’s just part of being a public creative figure, especially a progressive one. And had nothing happened after, it would have probably faded, got forgotten, and Whedon would have moved onto the next project with no fuss.

But as it turned out, it wasn’t just a minor slump in his career. Instead, it was the priming of the pump.

In 2016, Whedon divorced his wife of sixteen years, Kai Cole, and in an open letter, Kai Cole accused him of being a serial cheater, who would have affairs with a great many women, from co-workers, to actresses, to friends, to even his fans. And in addition to raising questions of him possibly abusing his position as showrunner to elicit sex from those working on his projects, there also is the ugly question of how could someone who speaks so highly of women then go and backstab the person who was supposed to be the most important woman in his life, as well as lying to her and denying her the autonomy of deciding whether or not she even wanted to continue to have a relationship with him?

Furthermore, Whedon himself has not explicitly denied these accusations, and comments made by him seem only to confirm them.

Now if you’ll recall, I reacted publicly to this news, and despite my admiration of Whedon’s work, I came down on Kai Cole’s side, and stated that while things like marriage issues and infidelity were no one’s business but that of the couple’s, it did raise a lot of uncomfortable questions about how Whedon treated the women in his life and he really needed to get his shit in order.

But hey, a messy private life and a guy falling into temptation isn’t that big of a deal, right? Plenty of creators also go through multiple marriages and have problems staying faithful and still continue making great art. We’re all human, it’s a stressful job, and this shit just happens, right? Sure, it’s gross and a shitty thing to do, but ain’t no business of ours, right?

In late 2020, actor Ray Fisher, who played the role of Cyborg in Justice League, openly accused Joss Whedon of fostering a hostile work environment, claiming that the director’s behavior was abusive and unprofessional, and that Whedon in turn was protected by DC executives.

DC and Warner Bros. came down against Fisher, claiming they had done an internal investigation that turned up no evidence of wrongdoing (yeah, sure they did), and soon Fisher was out as Cyborg, apparently for rocking the boat.

But then Charisma Carpenter, noted for her important role as Cordelia Chase in both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, then spoke up, claiming to be inspired by Fisher in doing so. She described Whedon did indeed foster a hostile work environment on his projects, that his often acted in a toxic manner, from asking incredibly invasive and inappropriate questions regarding her pregnancy to insulting her on set. She said that she made excuses for him for years, but after undergoing a lot of therapy and reading what Ray Fisher had to say, she felt compelled to speak out.

And this just open the floodgates. Other actors and actresses also came forward, some with stories of their own, others to offer support. Even Buffy herself, Sarah Michelle Gellar, confirmed Carpenter’s stories and said that she no longer wanted to be associated with Whedon. Michelle Trachtenberg, who played the character of Dawn, stated that she also experienced toxic treatment from Whedon despite her being a minor at the time, and says that the set had a rule that Whedon wasn’t allowed to be alone with her again, which really raises some sickening questions of what happened the first time. Even male stars have spoken out, from words of support and apologies for not speaking up earlier from Anthony Stewart Head and David Boreanaz, to an earlier interview with James Marsters, in which he described being terrified of Whedon, mainly due to an instance when Whedon was frustrated with the popularity of Marsters’s character of Spike messing with his plans and physically and verbally taking it out on the actor. There have been many corroborating stories of Whedon being casually cruel on set, on seemingly taking delight in making his fellow show writers cry, and even the man himself admitting to enjoying fostering a hostile work environment during his director commentary of the Avengers. We’ve joked about Whedon’s supposed sadism for years, but that was in regards to how he treated the characters in his stories, not the people helping him make them!

So yeah. That’s the problem with Joss Whedon.

So, do I think that Joss Whedon is somehow some kind of sociopath who lied about his feminist principles and deliberately put on a progressive façade specifically to get into a position of power so he could torment people? No, of course not. I think he was sincere about his beliefs, and I do think he didn’t realize the wrongness of his behavior. But that’s kind of the problem. See, it’s one thing to have kind of a trollishness to your nature, a sort of sadistic side. No one can help that. But when someone with that quality gets put into a position of power in which they are protected by both the higher-ups and their legions of fans, they are allowed to mistreat and continue to mistreat people. And by never suffering any consequences, that sort of toxic behavior becomes internalized, becomes a habit, becomes their moda operandi. And when you’re constantly getting praised as a creative genius and a wonderful feminist voice, any self-criticism just gets wiped away, and you think yourself above reproach, leading to what Joss Whedon became and went on being.

And you know what scares me the most about this particular issue? It’s not that I am a fan of his stories. It’s that I can so easily see myself turning out the same way.

Look, I’ll be upfront about it: I’m kind of a sadist myself. You’ve seen it in my stories, you’ve seen me gloating after a particularly dark plot twist makes my readers freak out. That sort of stuff is fun to me. There’s a reason why I have a much easier time in the dark and violent scenes, because I’m channeling something ugly within me. We all have a dark side, and this is mine.

But UNLIKE Whedon, that doesn’t carry over to how I treat people in real life (unless Monopoly or Mario Party are involved, then it’s fair game). Maybe it’s because I wasn’t given the sort of power and praise he did so early, and I was always taught to be considerate of other people’s feelings, but if I ever find out that I hurt another person or went too fair, I feel TERRIBLE, and it just throws me off all day until I apologize. Even if I don’t notice right away that what I said or did wasn’t cool (autistic, remember?), when it’s pointed out to me and I have some time to think on it, yeah, the guilt is on and I make a point to apologize to whoever I’ve hurt. I’ve even made a point to apologize to members of my family for inconsiderate stuff I said years ago as a little punk kid because it wouldn’t stop bugging me.

So maybe Whedon got too big, too fast. Maybe putting people on these sorts of pedestals, especially progressive ones, is ultimately a bad thing.

So where does this leave us? How are we to treat JK Rowling and Joss Whedon, one who developed a lot of transphobia due to abuse suffered while the other became a toxic individual due to unchecked control and a lack of consequences? Can we still enjoy their stories despite them now being colored by their creators’ falls from grace? Can we separate the art from the artist, or do we have to do a clean split?

Honestly, I feel that has to come down to the individual. I can’t remove the influence Rowling and Whedon have had on me as a storyteller, and I still highly respect both of their talents despite taking major issue with their problems as people. And I’m not going go throw away all of my Harry Potter or Firefly stuff. Because that’s my stuff. It has value to me, it doesn’t represent the issues with their creators, and a lot of it was gifts from people who are dear to me. Though I do think it’ll be a long time before I return to either of their work, as I just don’t have the stomach for it now.

But I will be avoiding any projects they have in the future. I don’t want to put money in their pockets that might go on to support their toxic beliefs or behavior. And as for royalties for their past work that would also support the cast and crew of the Harry Potter films or those who worked on Whedon’s shows who do not deserve to lose money because we don’t want any of that money going to the creators? Er, that question is a little above my paygrade. I don’t know. You’ll have to all decide for yourselves. As for me, I still have a lot of thinking to do.

Regardless though, if I or anyone else is still able to enjoy their work, then it’s important to not divorce what these people said or did from the art they created, even if it makes enjoying that art less fun. It’s important to be critical about what we enjoy, to acknowledge the bad aspects along with the good, and open up discussion of those elements, because that’s what mature adults are supposed to do. 

And as for JK Rowling and Joss Whedon, whose stories I love, whose talent I admire, and whose past good work I’ll happily acknowledge, I do hope they both experience some sort of realization and enter into a period of self-examination that leads to them getting help for their issues, for Rowling to get help in coming to terms with her trauma and realizing that she’s wrong about the trans community and a full apology, and for Whedon to also come to terms with his toxic behavior and how he treats people, for him to make no excuse for what he did and sincerely apologize to those he hurt and work on bettering himself, as well as them both examining some of the more problematic tropes still present in their works. Because despite everything, I do feel that they can still be a creative force of good, and it would be a shame if they let themselves self-destruct.

But if not, then if it comes down to choosing between Rowling and the protecting the trans community, if it comes down between choosing between letting Whedon continue to make shows and protecting actors and writers from his abusive behavior, then I know who I’m siding with, and it ain’t the two individuals this whole essay is about. No story, no matter how good, no matter how creative, is worth letting sacrificing vulnerable people in order for it to be made.

[faireladypenumbra]

A Life Thoroughly Lived: Review of The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue (Spoilers Ahead)

(Cover, Titan Books UK). I have this distinct memory from when I was twelve: sitting in a McDonald’s after a morning in my homeschool e-learning program, eating french fries and reading the school’s library copy of Cornelia Funke’s Inkheart. This book was groundbreaking for me for a multitude of reasons, but one of its quotes became firmly stuck in my mind. Meggie’s father and secondary protagonist, Mo, reflects on books through this line: “Some books should be tasted, some devoured, but only few should be chewed and digested thoroughly.” This line becomes entangled with my 12-year-old psyche, and I never quite let it go. The idea fascinated me: not only the novel idea of comparing books to nourishment, but the point that some books are not made to be read quickly and once. Some books are chewed and digested thoroughly.

I read that quote in 2005, and even then, at the cusp of the digital tipping point and prior to the smartphone, you could feel the inglorious pressure to consume anything you read if you read for pleasure at all. Conversations with my peers about books were rare, and what bonds I did have about creative writing were made over the internet via fanfiction.net: that wouldn’t change again until Twilight hit it big a few years later. To enjoy a book was to binge it and consume its content only, and so this quote wasn’t entirely understandable until I entered college- and became a writer myself, when I discovered the merit of craft.

This feels like a long way of saying I enjoyed one book, but I cannot stress the rarity of true craft in fantasy fiction. Genre fiction in general has a history of shaving off literary merit and form in favor of YA-style writing and clipped, action-oriented narration. It is what’s popular and there’s nothing wrong with this style of writing, but it is a style of writing made to be devoured. I often hoped to encounter that one modern fantasy novel, made to by chewed and digested slowly.

This brings me to The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue.

If you exist on the internet’s writing/reading spaces, you probably know V.E. Schwab, whose prolific career now spans a decade. Her most popular works, including her Villains and Shades of Magic series, tower over the 2010s as important entries to the SFF world, alongside a young generation of female authors— Naomi Novik, Leigh Bardugo, Seanan McGuire, N.K Jemisen, to name a few, who have helped change the definitions of SFF and what it means for women to participate in male-dominated writing spaces.

This is perhaps what makes Addie LaRue so visibly important, because its role as a serious, literary work as well as a groundbreaking fantasy novel, fully cements Schwab’s role as an important author of the 2010s.

The story of Addie LaRue is simple enough: in a small French village in 1714, Adaline LaRue finds herself at odds with her world: her desire to travel, her attraction to the old gods, and her want to experience life are combated by a world that expects her to marry and have children, living and dying in the same plot of land. With an arranged marriage at her heels, Adaline only desires freedom, adventure, and more time in a dwindling, small life. Against the advice of her village’s wise woman, Estele, Adaline prays to any god that will offer her a means of escaping this cruel fate.

Her desperation attracts the wrong god, who agrees to take her soul in exchange for a life without limits. This grants Adaline immortality, neither aging nor dying. But at the cost of her presence: anyone who encounters Adaline LaRue forgets her, the moment she is out of view. Any mark that Adaline leaves is erased, any suggestion of her past life is smeared from existence. The god— or Devil, erases her being in hopes of making her give up her soul. Adaline spends the next 300 years in limbo, forgotten and invisible to the world, until a New York bookseller catches her stealing from his shop and remembers her face.

The story itself oscillates being Addie’s present: New York in 2014, and her past, reaching back to pertinent flashbacks about her life in rural France, out onto the wider world over 300 years of life. Rather than clashing, these two timelines compliment each other, allowing Addie’s past to compliment the unending road that is Addie’s future. And unlike some immortal characters, the weight of the 300 years can be felt in Addie’s character while she wanders the labyrinth of a modern New York.

While heavily populated with 300 years-worth of characters, the novel uses most of its time on Addie, her infernal deal broker, a supernatural being she calls Luc, and Henry Strauss, a bookseller in New York with his own set of secrets and heartbreak. One might argue that the relationships between Henry, Luc, and Addie constitute a love triangle label, but their dynamics are far more complicated given the “magic” and sexual identities involved.

One refreshing element about Addie LaRue is that both main characters, Addie and Henry, are explicitly bisexual in a way that feels humanistic and real. Addie’s view on relationships is complex, simply because she cannot maintain a relationship beyond first encounters. Her liaisons, modern and historical, become a conversation with her personal relationship with eternity. Her relationship with Luc is also complicated, evolving from lustful daydream about the “perfect stranger,” to willful tormenter across her deathless existence, and finally, a troubled companion in a lifetime where only Luc understands Addie’s painful existence.

Henry Strauss comes to Addie’s life as the first human to remember her in over 300 years: their romance is sweet, passionate, but forever marred by the fact that both parties are somehow cursed. Their existence together is fragile, and as presented by the novel, a tenuous moment in a long life. Henry changes Addie’s trajectory, simply because his existence feels so short in the scope of her eternity.

With all that said, The Invisible Life of Addie LaRueisn’t so much a love story about Henry Strauss or Luc, as it is about Addie LaRue understanding herself. It is a love letter to a young woman, forever trapped in her early 20s by a single, impulsive choice. 500 pages (at least, on my edition) and most of book is spent on Addie’s life: the evolution of her moral justifications for theft, prostitution, and overall survival. Her strained views on humanity as her lovers and acquaintances age and die around her.

A particularly interesting, recurring flashback is Addie’s annual trip to her childhood home, Villon-Sur-Sarthe, in which she returns to witness the passage of time in the village. Like Dorian Gray and his portrait, Addie’s home withers and folds into the extended woods before it is bulldozed into modern land, all while she remains the same. Her family is buried, her friends are gone. Addie attempts to leave signs of her ghostly existence in the village by planting a tree, only to discover it struck down in a storm during her final visit. When she blames Luc for the destruction, yet again, her reminds her: “I know I can be cruel, but nature can be crueler.”

Unlike Dorian Gray, this is no polite justice to strike down Addie LaRue, which complicates the morals of the novel. Addie LaRue’s narrator is not interested in moral judgements or rounded poeticism as we observe the long life of this immortal woman, instead exploring Addie’s personal, sexual, and internal changes as a matter of an existence beyond the shackles of normal humanity. The narrative choice of third person, present tense lends itself considerably to this fact, allowing the reader to experience Addie’s life in real time and alongside her present and past selves. One very interesting narrative choice, during flashbacks, is the occasional intrusion of the narrator by way of the word “will.” Moments of tragedy and difficulty will flash through past-Addie’s life, only for the narrator to gesture elsewhere and let us know what impact this choice “will” have on Addie’s life later.

It is a very clever slight of hand, since it keeps the audience moving between past and present without distracting away from the story overall. Rather than tipping its hand too heavily, the narrator offers breadcrumbs to the audience in an overfolding adventure, encouraging us to follow Addie from rural France, out to Paris, Venice, Berlin, over into the Americas, from Chicago to New Orleans. These locations and details would feel massive and glossed over, if not for the narrator’s active participation as a storyteller.

This narration also helps the reader comprehend the scope of Addie’s growth, offering a more mythical perspective on a woman who is human— but not quite. Addie is cursed, yes, but finds strength and power in weaponizing the curse against Luc. She plants herself in the minds of artists, musicians, and writers who find ways to pepper her presence along history, as delicate as the seven freckles that constantly appear in her portrayals. Addie LaRue is forgotten but reaches across history in a deep desire to be remembered and ageless.

The novel’s end, without spoilers, arguably accomplishes this goal. I’m not sure yet if the ending is supposed to be happy or not, which is perhaps why I enjoyed it so much. The book required more thought than the average fantasy piece: it was written with the idea that it should be read slowly and digested thoroughly. Every word, detail, and choice are made with reason, like a cog that helps move a clock’s gears. Nothing is wasted in this novel, both craftsmanship and good storytelling coming together for a truly enrapturing experience. I will try to revisit The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue in the near future, to draw more magic from its well. I hope you’ll consider exploring its pages too, and I have high hopes for the future career of V.E. Schwab.

[yukisohmasmokesweed]

Hi! I just wanted to say I really enjoy your analysis of the fb story and characters! I watched the original back in like 2006 when I was 13 and mostly just took it as a cute mystical show and I rewatched it recently and just finished season 1 of the remake and it’s crazy how as you get older and unpack your own baggage you see how complex these characters are. I haven’t watched season 2 yet but I’m excited to see more of yuki’s story and his interactions with new characters! I read your

analysis of the author and her being heteronormative and I was disappointed watching the show this time around how lgbt themes in the show are kind of made fun of as you said. I didn’t really notice it when I was younger but it’s definitely blatant, which makes it so interesting that she codes certain characters as lgbt maybe without realizing it? Or maybe she does realize but didn’t have the courage to write it that way at the time?

i’m glad you enjoyed! consuming fb as an adult for the first time is buck wild, i remember going back to the manga after 10 years and having my mind blown at how bonkers fb rly is and how much of the story went over my head because i was too young to understand, particularly yuki’s. 

i think when it comes to the queercoding of characters like ayame and haru she did it on purpose, but like i said, as a joke. however when it comes to the subtext with characters like yuki and tohru i definitely think it was an accident. the way tohru thinks about women, commenting on their looks when no other female character does and getting flustered and sweaty around particularly attractive women, scans to me like the thoughts of someone who doesn’t realize that they’re bisexual. i think this was purely accidental, though; it still tracks for tohru since she is highly complimentary and easily flustered, but because her reactions are pretty much the same to women as they are to men that she’s attracted to (think yuki early in the show where she explicitly states he’s attractive, and a lot of kyo moments as well), it reads as queer subtext to someone who is good at finding that sort of thing. however it doesn’t seem like something takaya thought about very hard, which is fine, tohru’s story is not one of someone figuring out their sexuality, but the way it’s not commented on outside of the moments they happen and the flippancy in how it’s handled in the moment makes me think it was an accident.

i also think that yuki’s storyline was accidental gay subtext as well. i don’t think that takaya knew that what she was writing when it came to yuki’s attraction to tohru was about compulsive heterosexuality because it’s a concept that came out of american queer scholarship, something i think i can assume takaya is not familiar with. the way that she wrote yuchi makes me think that it wasn’t that she was trying to get anything around censors, just that she wrote a character who happened to be very queercoded and had an arc where he had to ask himself some serious questions about his sexuality in a way that happened to really mirror the gay experience. 

authors do this all the time, like i don’t know how she wrote yuki’s arc and didn’t see how it is the arc of a person who was grappling with their sexuality in a way that straight people normally don’t, but homophobia and heteronormativity are very powerful things, especially if you’re in a time and place where it’s not mainstream discourse. i wish she had realized it because the framework is there and she could’ve written a really groundbreaking piece of queer literature if she had had more of an open mind, but i don’t think i can really expect a (presumably) straight person at the turn of the century in japan to have an open mind about different sexualities if it’s not something already on their mind.

[srattueba2b]

Ideas for the Main Character and ‘Ethical Issues’

When coming up with ideas for the main character’s design, I began just by doodling whatever came to mind- sometimes trying to emulate Nick Cross’s style. However, I then remembered watching the short ‘Hair Love’ recently and how endearing the main character’s design was in that film, so I tried drawing a character using one of the hairstyles.

I found that I really liked the design and thought it could be fun changing her hairstyle in each stage of her life, maybe getting progressively more intricate and creative the more she learns to embrace her fascination for art and animation. So, I presented it to the rest of my group and it was received quite well.

However, Tiago brought up that they were concerned whether or not it would be ‘appropriate’ for our main character to be black, alluding to the fact that our group is predominantly white.

And this really surprised me. Whilst I understand that when creating characters who have a different culture or ethnicity to yourself, you won’t be able to share the same personal experience. But this is true of almost any character you create. Following this logic, am I limited only to creating white, female characters?

If this were a film specifically about black culture or what it means to be black then I would agree that that is not our film to make. But this is simply about a person who loves and is fascinated by animation. And I see no reason why that person can’t be black.

On another note, poc are severely underrepresented in TV animation as is, especially women. To quote Cree Summer (a voice actress who voices multiple black animated characters) from this 2018 interview:

‘I do the voices of all the brown girls... There still ain’t that many. Because there is this really crazy belief that black girls don’t watch cartoons, and that we don’t collect comics, and that we don’t like sci-fi, and that’s BS man. We love it’.

(Cree, paraphrasing her fans) “You don’t know what it meant to me to see myself in a cartoon, I got one little black girl that I get to see that looks like me. Thank you so much”

Tyler the Creator raises a similar argument in this 2017 conference:

Furthermore, I also recently watched this video analysis by ToonrificTariq of black characters in animation, and though it’s quite informally written and its sources often aren’t fully cited, it raises some valid points (and includes the above clips). 

‘there is no one black experience’ and ‘not every character with brown skin needs to be a political statement’. 

However, he also raises the point (at 13:00 in the video) that in the birth of animation, film & media, the way black people were portrayed was dictated by predominantly white people, and more often than not with harmful stereotypical caricatures. Only recently have we been able to move away from these depictions, even I remember watching Tom & Jerry cartoons growing up and seeing Jerry with a shoe-polish blackened face and big red lips. So it is imperative that black characters be portrayed respectfully and that we listen to a range of opinions from people of colour- to do our research.

A successful example of this would be Craig of the Creek, an animated series that began airing in 2018. It was created by Matt Burnett and Ben Levin, two white men. The series revolves around Craig, an African American boy growing up in the suburbs. With the series’ Emmy nomination, Common Sense Media award, and upcoming spin-off series, it’s clear that the show is well-loved. And this is because Burnett and Levin hired a diverse group to work on the show and help to shape it:

“We worked hard to put together the team that would help shape the show, a very diverse group of voices to add something that we needed that we couldn’t do on our own,” Burnett says. “That was always our goal when we decided to create the show, to work with a huge range of people and get their voices heard on TV.”

“We saw first-hand [working on Steven Universe] how much representation mattered to people and how important it is for people to feel seen. And so when we had the opportunity to create a show, we wanted to make something fun that the kids would love but would also have a positive impact,” Levin says. “In animation, you’re creating the world from the ground up. So every character is a decision in its own way. So as we’ve gone through the show, we talk about ways that we can provide representation as we create characters.”

(quotes from Fast Company, Inside Cartoon Network’s Racially Groundbreaking Show “Craig Of The Creek” (2018) Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/40551963/inside-cartoon-networks-racially-groundbreaking-show-craig-of-the-creek [Acessed 29/03/21])

White creators can make successful, relatable black characters, if they listen to black voices and take on their ideas and concerns.

One of the main things that I take away from these videos, is that what is more important than simply including a black character, is portraying them as a character- giving them a personality, a story, a life. ‘There is no one black experience’ (ToonrificTariq). According to author Leye Adenle: ‘I believe that you can write any character as long as you have empathy.’

Fascination is a human experience, I have experienced it, anyone who has fallen in love with animation has experienced it. And with this idea at our film’s core, I think we can make a successful, relatable character, regardless of race.

What I draw from all of this is, whilst it is extremely important to be respectful of other cultures and ethnicities, and to do your research to avoid any stereotypical or insensitive pitfalls, being overly-cautious to the point of seeing it as ‘inappropriate’ to portray any race other than your own seems to be holding us back from creating actual, needed change. 

So, learning and moving forward from this. I’d like to continue developing my take on the main character as a British black girl. Whether or not this becomes the final design for the film is up to the rest of my group. But, nevertheless I am going to look at sources from predominantly black artists such as Allen Fatimaharan, Vashti Harrison and Matthew A. Cherry as inspiration for my take on the main character’s design. And in the future, if we do decide to go forward with this design, I’d like to present our work to a diverse range of people to gather their opinions and make sure we are doing our due diligence. 

[radfem-moira]

Andrea Dworkin has lesbophobic takes? I thought she was a lesbian herself. I ask this in good faith, since I am beggining to read her works and I had not heard about this before.

Okay so I feel like I need to preface this long-winded explanation with the following: Andrea Dworkin changed my life. Right Wing Women was one of my first radical feminist books and it opened my eyes to so much, I cannot simply dismiss this author just because she said and did what I’m about to talk about. When I jokingly say “Andrea Dworkin is our prophet and She was right”, I’m usually talking about her takes on porn and prostitution, because that was overall pretty great and spot-on.

With that disclaimer out of the way, it shocks a lot of people to discover that Andrea Dworkin had some pretty lesbophobic takes throughout her life (although as far as I know, those were mostly prevalent in her older writings). Mind you, she also wrote some pretty insane shite on other topics, such as bestiality and incest in her book Woman Hating:

tw under the cut

and

Hmm… yeah. Also maybe I’m just excessively cynical but “pre-industrial” makes my racism sense tingle.

But I’d like to think that that was just the mood of the 1970s (which is when Woman Hating was written). Left-wing thinkers were really out there en-masse thinking sexual liberation meant morals were bad and children and animals were fair game. Also cringy metaphors and all that shit. Here’s someone attempting to explain and justify that last chapter from Woman Hating (which is what I quoted above). I still think it’s vile to talk about bestiality and incest like they’re in any way comparable to homosexuality. I also think the author of this article is more angry at the fact that people say Dworkin said all heterosexual intercourse was rape in her later writings than she is at the fact that her book literally put homosexuality side-by-side with eroticism involving power dynamics (incest) and beings who can’t consent (animals). But I digress.

So okay, let’s try to brush this off to some kind of 1970s psychosis, plus this is a very early book for Dworkin. I suppose we can also brush off this entire diatribe, in which Dworkin literally admits to not being a lesbian but still calling herself one, and claiming the right to be in lesbian spaces/at lesbian events, gets offended because lesbians call her out on her shit. That’s also where she compares us to Nazis, and where she conflated lesbian separatism with arguing for female biological supremacy.

Here, have some of my favourite quotes from this piece (emphases mine):

Hisses. Women shouting at me: slut, bisexual, she fucks men. And before I had spoken, I had been trembling, more afraid to speak than I had ever been. And, in a room of 200 sister lesbians, as angry as I have ever been. “Are you a bisexual?” some woman screamed over the pandemonium, the hisses and shouts merging into a raging noise. “I’m a Jew,” I answered;

??????

then, a pause, “and a lesbian, and a woman.” And a coward. Jew was enough. In that room, Jew was what mattered. In that room, to answer the question “Do you still fuck men?” with a No, as I did, was to betray my deepest convictions. 

whAT

All of my life, I have hated the proscribers, those who enforce sexual conformity. In answering, I had given in to the inquisitors, and I felt ashamed. It humiliated me to see myself then: one who resists the enforcers out there with militancy, but gives in without resistance to the enforcers among us.

What a woman ahead of her time, already sounding like a 2017 tumblrina, 40 years ago, bemoaning her plight at the hands of those evil dykes who gatekeep their communities from people who just hate it when words have meanings! 

She then goes on to quote fucking Himmler, of all people, when he compared the Jews - an oppressed minority in Germany - to a disease. She compared Himmler and his thoughts on Jews to lesbian separatists and their thoughts on men. 

Dworkin then proceeds to leave the lesbian event where she felt wrongfully interogated, feeling like a hero for “speaking up” against the tyranny of a bunch of grassroot activists who are just really fucking tired of their oppressors.

The rest of the text mostly complains about biological determinism, which I can honestly debate and agree to disagree about. Dworkin is, after all, a staunch reformist. She thinks men can change, “against all evidence”, and that requires not believing that behaviour is strongly informed/pre-determined by biology. But to me, the damage is done. It’s hard to read the rest of what she wrote on lesbians without remembering how disgusted, how revolted she was by our activism. She was so angry that she was being excluded from something that was rightfully not hers.

And beyond her lesbophobia, her absolute rage at the sight of women choosing to not involve themselves with men - her claims that those separatists-by-choice (they seemed to call that political lesbianism at the time I guess?) are “biological supremacists” - is extremely disturbing to me. I will never cease to be amazed when women get this angry about separatists, because separatists are harmless. Our entire ideology is pretty fucking pacifist. Even the ones among us who talk about gun ownership and self-defense and defending our spaces with lethal force if necessary never initiate violence. Yet we attract such intense animosity from other women, from feminist women, it’s incredible.

There are probably other instances of weird lesbophobic shenanigans from Dworkin out there, and again, nothing will make her groundbreaking writings on porn and prostitution any less valuable to me. Please don’t let this prevent you from reading her work, she was a great writer and I would recommend Right Wing Women as well as Pornography wholeheartedly. But the fact remains that she did write those things, and, as far as I’m aware, never went back on them.

[livingwithkami]

Shinto and LGBT+ culture: Connected from the ancient to modern era

Throughout the years and even now, I have often been asked the view Shinto holds in regard to LGBT+ people and culture. As someone who is both nonbinary feminine and pansexual, with most of my loved ones being apart of the LGBT+ community, and some who practice Shinto as well, this is a topic that is very close to home and personal for me. I wanted to write about this for a very long time, and talk about this in my last article about Shinto and sexuality, as they are related. However as this is such an important topic to me, I felt it deserved it's own article. There are so many things I want to express in regard to this topic so this won't be the only article about it!

Historically speaking in Japan, there are many examples of LGBT+ people and practices that were present, a prominent and most-cited example being that it was commonplace and even a part of samurai culture to be in gay relationships. It wasn't until the Meiji era in 1868, and the influence of Western culture, that it began to be viewed as uncivilized and wrong. As a result, a stigma began to rear it's ugly head, and many important LGBT+ rights began to be lost. Under pressure, openly gay and lesbian relationships; writings and art of them too - began to disappear. Trans and gender nonconforming people began to be pressured to conform to their assigned gender at birth, instead of being able to be who they are freely. In addition, stricter gender roles and heavier patriarchal ideals were enforced even further. While it wasn't absolutely perfect or progressive and there were still plenty of issues, with the advent of the Meiji reformations, any sort of openness and potentiality for progression was completely shattered.

However, much time has passed since 1868, and in the current era in Japan, thanks to the enduring influence of the past despite the Meiji reformations, and the present influences of Buddhism, and especially Shinto itself - the hostility towards LGBT+ people is not as severe when comparing with other countries. Despite the old Western influence remaining in that we still lack full legal equality in Japan, progressions and reforms are happening fast and in great number, despite the current political party's objections - and for that I am very grateful.

Thankfully, there are lots of excellent resources about the LGBT+ history as well as the present situation in Japan and Japanese culture in English, in published books and online - so I won't get too far into it for this article since I want to focus on the Shinto side in particular which isn't as often talked about.

The answer to the question on everyone's mind of this topic - "What is Shinto's view on LGBT+ people?" isn't an easy answer. Shinto is the farthest thing from a monolith. There is no dogma, and no unified organizational structure overseeing all of Shinto in itself. Jinja Honcho comes close to a sort of unifying organizational force, but there are still the 12 government registered sects of Shinto, hundreds of individual shrine faiths that while not officially registered as sects, are essentially as such in that they don't align with Jinja Shinto's common views - such as the focus on Amaterasu Omikami - for example. Shinto also encompasses the thousands of varied folk practices in rural areas; and holds a very long and complicated history.

In other words, to put it simply, there is no true existence of an authority to speak for all of Shinto in and of itself as a whole practice. There are authorities in each tradition, such as the Head Shrines where the faith and worship of a kami began, that maintain the general beliefs, history, myths, stories, and rituals. But as Shinto in it's very essence is not dogmatic - every tradition, shrine, and each individual priest can and will have differing views and opinions about the various different aspects. It can even be as split down to two priests working at the same shrine having completely different interpretations on beliefs.

While Shinto is a practice that has a lot of freedom in interpretation and encouraging individual thinking, I strongly feel, personally speaking, this is not a "free card" excuse to dishonor the core values that makes Shinto, well, Shinto - the Way of Kami. Respecting and honoring nature, supporting each other, caring for each other, respect to our ancestors, working to be good people, taking care of the community, and so forth. This is the common thread that unites all of Shinto - the different traditions, the shrines, and the practices.

That being said, while there isn't a simple and direct answer to Shinto's view on LGBT+ people as a whole - I can say one tradition at the moment has made a groundbreaking announcement on matters for the LGBT+ community. This year the Head Shrine of the tradition I follow, Konkokyo Shinto, openly, officially announced and confirmed support of the LGBT+ community. This makes it the first Shinto tradition to do so. The Head shrine is also supporting the Konkokyo LGBT Kai (Group), run by LGBT+ clergy, with other clergy and laypeople members who work to support the activities of our group - myself and my partner included.

Many of our Konkokyo shrines had been holding same-sex marriages for many years, but with this decision, we now are also actively supporting the community as a whole, with our shrines being safe spaces for LGBT+ folks. Having the official approval from the Head Shrine is so validating and I feel so proud and happy to be a priestess of Tenchi Kane no Kami and of Konkokyo. I wrote a full article about the announcement here: http://witchesandpagans.com/pagan-paths-blogs/living-with-kami/konkokyo-lgbt-kai.html

I can only hope other traditions follow suit, and have their support be clearly defined.

Informational pamphlet from the Konkokyo LGBT Kai, about clergy and laypeople, as well as terminology

While there may not be an official support from Jinja Honcho, other Head Shrines, or traditions (yet!). I still know of there being a lot of openness and acceptance. For example, Tsubaki Grand Shrine of America has also been holding same-sex marriages for over 20 years, and welcoming of LGBT+ parishioners and worshipers. In Japan, many other shrines have been holding marriage ceremonies for same-sex coupes too. Within the Jinja Shinto sphere, I know an ordained priestess who is a trans woman, and openly bi and gay priests too. Generally speaking in the Shinto community as a whole, it is very open and accepting. I have only encountered a few people who have not been accepting, but thankfully they are not the majority.

This makes sense as well, as historically Shinto has generally had LGBT+ friendly views - being LGBT+ was not seen as tsumi, or a "wrong deed that went against nature - a crime". There are records of ancient miko of the Izu Islands, who were said to be "men who lived and thought of themselves as women", but it was very clear in the ancient era only women had the power to be miko - female mediums, spiritworkers, and priestesses in the ancient era - so the miko of the Izu Islands were truthfully trans women. There are other examples of miko not from the islands who fell in the same definition in ancient times. In addition, even some of the nature-spirit and ancestral kami themselves were viewed and are still viewed as being gay. For example, an excerpt from "Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan" by Gary Leupp writes,

"During the Tokugawa period, some of the Shinto gods, especially Hachiman, Myoshin, Shinmei and Tenjin, "came to be seen as guardian deities of nanshoku" (male–male love). Tokugawa-era writer Ihara Saikaku joked that since there are no women for the first three generations in the genealogy of the gods found in the Nihon Shoki, the gods must have enjoyed homosexual relationships"

In addition, one could understand quite a few nature-spirit kami as transgender, genderfluid, nonbinary, and agender too. For example, the first three kami, Ame no Minakanushi no Kami, Takamimusubi no Kami, and Kamimusubi no Kami could be interpreted as agender, as they are said to be genderless in their myth. The next example would be Tenchi Kane no Kami, who is said to be a kami who is encompassing of all genders, but also genderless too. One could interpret them as nonbinary or genderfluid.

Then we have Amaterasu Omikami herself as well. In one myth, she dressed in masculine warrior clothing and hairstyle when she confronted her brother, Susanoo no Mikoto. One could interpret this in many ways in regard to how she expresses her gender as a kami that is not always fully feminine. In addition with regard to her sexuality, depending on one's interpretation of the cave myth and Ame no Uzume no Mikoto's exposure of her breasts, one could see her as having either lesbian, bisexual, or pansexual attraction. This interpretation can be further supported in the ancient practices of the miko priestesses of Amaterasu Omikami. In some of these practices, the priestesses would ritually be wed to Amaterasu Omikami, and also share of an intimate bond with her in sacred ceremonies.

This practice was not only limited to Amaterasu Omikami, but many other female kami as well, such as Ame no Uzume no Mikoto herself, and Konohanasakuya Hime no Mikoto. Since both Ame no Uzume no Mikoto and Konohanasakuya Hime no Mikoto also have husbands, Sarutahiko Okami and Ninigi no Mikoto respectively, this also can be interpreted in a lot of different ways that is not particularly heteronormative.

Inari Okami is one of the most prominent examples, and often seen as a LGBT+ icon - sometimes they are a man, sometimes they are a beautiful woman, and sometimes they are androgynous, sometimes they are no gender at all, and sometimes they encompass many or all genders. One can interpret this as Inari Okami being known as a shapeshifter, or some may see Inari Okami being multiple kami as one - I feel the interpretation of Inari Okami as genderfluid, or nonbinary, or any other expression, is also just as valid.

People may not agree with these interpretations or even see the concept of kami having gender like people is incorrect, or foolish to believe. However, if the kami mythologicaly and traditionally are said to have genders, have sex, attractions, and marriage - I believe it is not out of place as an interpretation. Someone personally seeing some kami as a part of the LGBT+ community for their own personal belief harms no one. On the contrary, it can help to develop a deeper bond, trust, and understanding between us and the kami. Which that sincerity is key and most important.

Now, I say this in regard to nature-spirit kami in particular, but in Shinto, once-living humans are also worshiped and respected as ancestral kami, often referred to as "mitama-no-kami". Someone who is a part of the LGBT+ community and has passed away is worshiped and enshrined as a mitama-no-kami just the same as anyone else, and to be properly respectful, they would still be honored as who they were when they still had a physical body - that does not change.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, samurai had various romantic gay relationships. They too are enshrined as mitama no kami. One may know famously about Oda Nobunaga, who is enshrined as a mitama no kami, and Ranmaru's romantic relationship. As well, there is one such famous example of a mitama no kami who was most likely a trans man - Uesugi Kenshin. Many have said he could have been a woman in disguise - but - he had various medical checks and observations of his body by professionals at the time, and was still referred to as a man and could act as leader of the Uesugi clan without falter.

It is even recorded he experienced illnesses pertaining to his abdominal area every month around the same time of the week, but this did not change any existing records in regard to his gender. It is also extremely odd that for a daimyo (samurai warlord) at that era, where it was common to have multiple concubines to secure a successor, he did not have any biological children and even faced a succession crisis that led to adoption. Of course, there is no way we can confirm historically of whether he was a woman in disguise or a trans man, but there is a lot of evidence historically pointing to him being trans. He is now enshrined as a mitama no kami at Uesugi Jinja in Yamagata Prefecture.

While there is still so much I want to talk about on this topic, and I could most likely write a book! I want to mention something perhaps not directly related as much but a fun mention: the rainbow's colours are sacred in Shinto, as seen in the 5 sacred colours used for many different sacred items in Shinto. Red, Yellow, Green, White, Violet. The colours are said to represent the 4 directions around the world, and our own soul.

I hope then, that in all 4 directions around the world, people can come to realize that LGBT+ rights are also human rights, and we aren't odd, strange, nor dangerous. We are all apart of nature, all apart of this universe together. Let's respect the various colours of everyone's own souls, and work to uphold and support each other as a whole, unified community with love.

[violet-bookmark]

The temple at Landfall, by Jane Fletcher

"Lynn is an imprinter, one chosen by the Goddess to receive her greatest gift, that of creating new life. So why does she feel like a prisoner in the Temple?

When Lynn learns that she is to be relocated to the temple at Landfall, the arduous journey seems more like a gift--her last chance to see something of the outside world. She does not anticipate the dangers and temptations she will encounter along the way, nor does she expect Lieutenant Kim Ramon, an officer in the squadron of Rangers assigned to protect her. Despite all prohibitions forbidding it, attraction grows between the two women.

Against them stand the powerful religious Sisterhood and their holy warriors--the Temple Guards. In a world ruled by the Church, what chance is there that Lynn can escape?"

Actually this world is female-only and everybody is a lesbian, so it's not as if it is ruled by the Catholic church or something, as the blurb seems to imply. And I don't think that catholicism could be so closely replicated in a society where only one sex exists, but I digress.

The romance between the protagonists was fine, I liked it even when I think they fell for each other rather quickly. I believe it from Lynn's perspective because she had been secluded in a temple since she was like 10, only surrounded by elderly women or priestess that were covered up to their eyes and rarely spoke to her, but from Kim's side... No. Maybe seeing more of the journey to Landfall from her perspective would have helped matters. Some of Lynn's quotes were very relatable and good (I believe I have posted some here) and her pain at thinking that she would not ever be able to be with Kim was almost palpable. The romantic and steamy scenes were sexy and well-written, and they felt organic given the circumstances.

I loved how the priestesess constantly jeopardised each other's ascent to power, it was very realistic and a nice detail to the story. It is one of the strongest parts of the worldbuilding to be honest, since it demonstrated that powerful religious women were a force to be reckoned with in-world (at least until a certain point in the story that made me want to slam my head against a table).

The writing was similar to that of Shadow of the knife, but lacked a depth and maturity that SOTK had and that made it such a punch in the face memorable story to me.

Lynn was a good protagonist, very defined by her nostalgic memories of life outside the temple. Which was fine, but she didn't seem to care a lot about anything except nature. I found it very unbelievable that she wasn't more weirded out by the journey given how she was leading a life of reclusion and suddenly she was on a trip with guards and people all around her. She focused a lot on how good it felt to be out of the temple, but what about the people? Isn't being surrounded by people weird after you spent your life in the temple? She never cared about anyone on there so it's pretty safe to say she never had any friends, which brings me to my next point: for someone who had lived such a poor social life she was very stable, not socially starved to the point of being easily manipulable, full of panic towards social interactions or other things that social isolation tends to cause. She mentions wanting to have sex desperately, but that's about it. I'm not buying that. She was nice and I liked how she took responsibility for her actions, but I wish we knew more about her. After reading the book, I still don't feel like I know her that much.

Kim was alright, but her past was boring. Very typical. Seriously, authors, stop killing families. There are other ways to give lifelong trauma to the protagonists. I hated how her character lived through so much and managed to stay so static during all the story. Like hell all this happens to somebody and they stay completely unmoved throughout the whole thing. I don't believe the whole "This is because Kim is very mature, also her past is already solved bc she killed the bandits that killed her fam in the past" that the book tries to sell me. Why would you play up this conflict if it was already solved? I don't care that this is a romance book, it is just lazy to just have all the character development outside of the story. And then of course Kim has solved everything but the part about her trauma that makes her afraid to have a girlfriend, because you know, we needed something to spicy up their relationship. I won't go into detail but they had better ways of having a conflict between the two that didn't rely on getting past traumas that were already solved. One of them being that the foundation of everything they believed in was a lie. It would have been so much more interesting to have that as the main conflict of their relationship!

The action scenes were very well-written, but they lacked something that would have made them truly epic. And that would have been to have a real sense of danger; the problem with the story is that we know the Rangers are amazing and could kick everyone's ass in seconds because they are just that tough, so we don't worry about them dying at all, really. That made the action scenes really lackluster sometimes, almost as if they were only stage decoration for the romance. Which is fine, but the book was so focused on them and they were such an important part of the story that it didn't feel right. It is a shame, because some scenes were really well-written and had a lot of potential to be intense and memorable, and to define the characters or give them some good development. All of the elements necessary were there but then it simply didn't happen. It was beyond frustrating; the characters learned a lot of new stuff and faced loads of dangerous situations but they didn't change at all, which I found unrealistic taking into account they just found out the foundation of everything they believed in was a lie. They all just go like "Oh well that makes sense, I don't believe in this thing anymore despite still having some sensibilities that come from this thing", there might be people who act like this, no doubt, but twelve or more different women? No way.

The plot had a lot of things going on that never reached their full potential, and I think it would have benefited from being kept simpler, especially when this was the author's first book. I just went to check goodreads in order to paste the blurb in the book to the begging of my review, and somebody said "I felt like we should have spent more time in Petersmine watching the characters fall in love, and definitely more time in the temple at Landfall! It's what the book is named after" and I agree. As I said, this book wanted to tackle too many things. If the author really felt like she had to tackle all those topics at once she should have prioritized and spent more time in the central conflicts, while playing the others out in a more subtle manner.

This was her first book so I feel like I should be more forgiving, but I still have to vent about it. I will always be eternally grateful to Jane Fletcher for giving us the Celaeno Series, because it is amazing. How many fantasy/sci-fi series where all the characters are exclusively female and lesbian do we have? What she did was incredible and groundbreaking, but the first book was obviously her first one. I hear there are great things coming in the next one, and I have noticed that the author has gotten way better at writing/worldbuilding since this book was published, so I believe in her.

The explanation the author gave about why the sisters "hide" the true history to the public was not good nor believable. "Nobody reads those books anymore, so they don't know what really happened" really? What the hell? Are you telling me that not even one woman from the temple has taken the time to read one of the books from their library? This doesn't make the Temple look sympathetic, it makes them look beyond stupid. Humans are curious by nature, like hell nobody has even skim-read one of their books. This is something I disliked and that got me tired from this book: every woman that had any ties to religion (temple guards, sisters, etc.) was mortally stupid and ended up either dead or in a bad place. This lack of nuance bothered me: I dislike religion as much as the next person, but this was just too sloppy. Religious people are not stupid; some are stupid, yes, and some do/say stupid things because of religion or because they are plain bigots, but come on, the majority of them don't expect their god/goddess to do things for them that are within their control (like packing their suitcases). Also, does the author think that religious people can't conspire to hide shady things? Lol.

And I don't believe that this world has only one religion. Somebody could interpret the texts of the Elder-Ones way differently and come up with another religion. The author only made one because she wanted it to parallel christianity (the religion she wanted to criticize) and fair enough, but it makes for poor lore. Even christianity has several branches that interpret the bible differently or practice their faith in a different way, and I just don't believe that 1) nobody bothered to read the Elder-Ones texts ever and 2) nobody had a different interpretation and started a different faith, or at least a civil war.

Another thing that disappointed me was how incompetent the guards were. I liked it in the first bit, because the guards that escorted Lynn were from a provincial city and only used to face people, not mountain beasts. That was pretty nice and realistic, but in the second arc there was no excuse for the seasoned temple guards in Landfall to be as incompetent as they were. How the hell has the Temple survived for that long and gained so much power when everybody within its walls is either mortally stupid or terrible at her job?

In the other books both the Rangers and the Militia have their fair share of competent and incompetent women in them, but when it comes to the Temple everyone is just useless, stupid or evil. I'm not having it.

If you have read the book, you will remember that scene with a nice, truly devoted, grandma-like sister that the author wrote to prove that "there are also nice people within the church", which is basically the cliché that pull all books that poorly criticize religion. To any writer reading this: stop using this cliché, I beg you. Do a nuanced criticism of religion instead.

I did like how the sisters reacted to Lynn's and Kim's relationship, that was very well done. Especially the part where they tried so hard to distort Kim's feelings and character to make her look like a bad person on Lynn's eyes. I also loved the little details about Gina's village, the culture that was starting to form around it and the militia/rangers/temple guards dynamic and rivalries, they were very believable and good at rounding up the worldbuilding.

I can't believe what the author pulled at the end of the book. Really, more than 70 pages in the PDF version from Peter McKay's diary, a character that had minimal involvement in the story. I was very uninterested, even if his diary was kind of interesting. Couldn't she have put parts of his diary in little chunks at the begging of every chapter? It would have made the info dump much more bearable. I might comment on it in another post because there is a lot of lore/things I would like to discuss and I still haven't finished it yet.

I recommend this book if you like stories like Romeo and Juliet but set in a lesbian sci-fi universe, and where the characters fight against society.

[marshmallowgoop]

Ryuko: Senketsu, if I go too far, I’ll need you to stop me.

Senketsu: I cannot promise that. It is you who is wearing me.

Ryuko: Sheesh, you’re an outfit that doesn’t have much give, you know that?

Senketsu: But when you were out of control, you did stop. Using your own willpower. That is why I am not frightened in the least.

Ryuko: Gotcha. We’re all responsible for our own actions.

I’ve written pretty extensively on Ryuko and Senketsu’s relationship and why I think it’s so healthy, positive, and commendable (to put it mildly). But I don’t think I’ve focused enough attention on the above scene from episode 13, “Crazy For You,” which is a particularly strong example of the merits of Ryuko and Senketsu’s partnership.

On a surface level, the moment emphasizes and is utterly dedicated to the importance of good and proper communication---something especially noteworthy in a series that even describes itself as having a “lightning pace” (episode 16). By focusing so heavily on Ryuko and Senketsu’s conversation, there’s a considerable significance placed on talking to and being honest with a friend; the message is clearly and unambiguously that in any close relationship, it’s absolutely crucial to be open and truthful with one another. Otherwise, you’re not going to get along well. As Mako puts it earlier in the episode, you’ll just be “glarin’ at each other.”

Of course, a scene devoted to the positive effects of strong interpersonal skills probably doesn’t seem all that groundbreaking, but in an action-comedy anime, I love the inclusion of such a thing. It would have been so easy to gloss over emotions and provide viewers with over-the-top battles and little else, but Kill la Kill decided to breathe some real life and soul into Ryuko and Senketsu’s teamwork. The two of them have to endure hardships and struggles just like any real relationship, and just like in any real relationship, they have to work through those hardships and struggles to come back together.

More on that line, the moment is also remarkably humanizing---and sweet---for Ryuko. Throughout the episode, Ryuko hides her guilt and self-hatred behind flimsy assurances that she’s all right and explosive anger and rage. She smiles reassuringly at Mako’s mother, Sukuyo, and she yells fiercely at Shinjiro Nagita, but in the end, she finally, finally reveals everything on her mind to Senketsu. We’re then left with a character who is far more than an infallible hero or the “straight-up punk” that she describes herself as (episode 8); Ryuko is a flawed, complicated human being whom viewers can readily empathize with, and, as a result, it’s incredibly endearing to see her let down her walls and allow someone into her heart. 

Kill la Kill comes off as a strangely affecting and memorable series due to all this narrative weight placed on real-life emotions and feelings while the characters inhabit a world that’s one of the most ridiculous to ever be put on screen, and when it comes to the included scene at the top of this post, I think that’s a phenomenal thing. Because that scene? It’s also wonderful when you consider the history of how relationships have been portrayed in fiction.

While Ryuko and Senketsu are far from the “norm,” it’s not at all uncommon for a fictional story to imply that it’s essentially one person’s “responsibility” to keep another person in line. In the article “The Vulnerability of the Relational Self: The Implications of Ideals of Gender and Romance for Female Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence,” author Elizabeth McManaman Grosz discusses this topic at length, arguing that “the notion that a special woman can tame the beast” and “is thus, in a way, responsible for controlling his beastly nature” is one of the widespread cultural discourses that effectively “primes” women to accept and brush off instances of abuse (81, 88). 

Again, of course, I recognize that, in many ways, Ryuko and Senketsu really don’t have any place in Grosz’s argument. For one, Grosz exclusively utilizes the work of Western authors and philosophers to support her position, and entire other books have been written concerning Japan’s ideals of gender and romance and their implications and effects (believe me, I’m in the midst of reading through just some of said books). On top of that, the fact that Ryuko would be taking the place of the “man” in the situation I screenshotted for this post does question the applicability of Grosz’s article here.

But I find Grosz’s thesis compelling in regards to Kill la Kill because, in a lot of ways, Ryuko and Senketsu do rather embody typical positions of men and women in fictional stories both East and West... except, the roles are reversed. Ryuko is the unruly, aggressive, and hot-blooded protagonist just as a man often is, and Senketsu exhibits many traits that are traditionally associated with women; he’s sensitive, emotional, and a considerable worrywart. Further, while I find the term “love interest” both degrading and unfitting for Senketsu in a series that Word of God denies any romantic intention for, I have to admit that he fits many of the conventions. In an anime with a cast primarily composed of women, the fact that Senketsu is arguably coded as male makes him, just as the standard heteronormative “love interest,” the most narratively significant character of another gender in the show (for just a few other examples, see Ran from Detective Conan, Sam from Danny Phantom, Katara from Avatar: The Last Airbender, and Tuxedo Mask from Sailor Moon). Whether I’m watching an anime or an American cartoon, I don’t think I’d be too surprised to see a scenario like the one from the end of Kill la Kill’s thirteenth episode, where a man tells a woman that he’s afraid of losing control and needs her to be there for him so that he doesn’t.

What makes Kill la Kill different is more than the simple reversal of roles, though; Kill la Kill also reverses the harmful implications of this standard set-up. Instead of it being Senketsu’s “job” to “lead [Ryuko] to ‘moral decency,’” as philosopher Immanuel Kant noted a woman must do for a man in the late eighteenth century and of which Grosz argues is an ideal continued on even to this day (such as in sports culture, as elaborated upon in Susan Bordo’s The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and Private), Senketsu outright tells Ryuko that she must be in control of herself (qtd. in Grosz 87). It’s not Senketsu’s responsibility to keep Ryuko from abusing him, and the fact that both understand and acknowledge this is, well, good. Senketsu is not going to write off or blame himself for any mistreatment he receives from Ryuko because he feels he failed in “pleasing” her, and Ryuko’s ending sentiment that “[w]e’re all responsible for our own actions” indicates that she feels the same way towards him. Both Ryuko and Senketsu are cognizant of each other’s emotions and needs, and they will not allow abuse to continue without a word about it, as is sadly often the case in reality (Grosz 95).

It would still be nice to have an actual situation in which a man is in the standard “man” position, but I’m happy to see anything like this at all. Abuse and mistreatment are seriously discussed, the responsibility for poor behavior is placed solely on the actor rather than the receiver, and the fact that this kind of moment receives so much focus in the first place absolutely signifies the importance and power of proper communication with a loved one. Ryuko and Senketsu are my most favored relationship in all of fiction, and it’s scenes like this that really emphasize why.

Sources

Bordo, Susan. The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999.

Grosz, Elizabeth McManaman. “The Vulnerability of the Relational Self: The Implications of Ideals of Gender and Romance for Female Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence.” Women's Studies, vol. 47, no. 1, 2018, pp. 80-97. 

Kant, Immanuel. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Translated by Victor Lyle Dowdell. Southern Illinois UP, 1978.

Kant, Immanuel. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime and Other Writings. Edited by Patrick Frierson and Paul Guyer. Cambridge UP, 2011. 

[themyskira]

Wonder Woman: Earth One, Vol 2 - Part 1

I’m going to break this into a few parts, because it turned out I had a bit to say. I’ll start with my overall impressions, then dive into the spoilery recap.

General thoughts: Next verse, same as the first.

Grant Morrison purports to want to explore Marston’s ideas, but he’s more interested in the kooky, kinky trappings than the sentiment behind them.

Marston was radical and progressive in his time. Writing in the 1940s, he told his readers that women were men’s equals — and even superiors! — in every way. He told young girls there was no limit to what they could do. His stories promoted love over hatred, peace over violence, rehabilitation over retribution.

If Morrison had taken that bold sentiment and reimagined it through a lens of modern society and feminism in 2018, he might have had a compelling story to tell. Instead, he takes Marston��s ideas as he understands them and transplants them wholesale into a time in which they’re no longer radical and progressive, but rather backward and out-of-step with modern intersectional feminism, and then proceeds to ask such deep, incisive questions as “yes but realistically could we actually replace all world governments with a matriarchy?????”

He never truly deconstructs any of Marston’s ideas, just parrots phrases like “submission to loving authority” a lot and raises questions without ever making a decent attempt at answering them. To be fair, part of the problem is that he’s simply trying to do too much at once: juggling parallel stories in Themyscira and Man’s World, an interrogation of the Amazons’ philosophies and the introduction of three new antagonists and the tensions they cause, all within a limited page count, Morrison is unable to devote the necessary time to properly developing any of them. It’s no wonder the result is so half-baked.

But hey, just throw in a bunch of vagina planes and a dusting of kink and watch as everyone crows over how subversive he is.

Yannick Paquette’s artwork is still beautiful. His page layouts are still dynamic and expressive, and his character designs are still lovely. Diana in particular gets a variety of very cool outfits, including a beautiful modest costume for a trip to the Middle East.

But he still can’t shake his tendency towards drawing women’s bodies in weirdly-contorted poses with bizarre pornfaces. Wonder Woman shouldn’t look like she’s orgasming as she’s leaping into battle, ffs.

Oh, and the series is still being edited by noted serial sexual harasser Eddie Berganza. HASHTAG FEMINISM!

Let’s get into the recap.

Content warning for some skeevy mind control content and general discussion of the gender essentialist, body-shaming, TERFy attitudes of Morrison’s Amazons.

The story opens with a flashback to 1942, with Paula von Gunther leading a Nazi invasion of Themyscira, and god I’m already so tired.

idk, I mean, I get that Nazis were a major Golden Age antagonist, and Morrison is harking back to that. But there’s a broader historical and cultural context to consider. Cartoonish Nazi villains in patriotic WWII-era American comics carried very different associations than they do in 2018, in the midst of a presidency steeped in white supremacy and hate speech, on the eve of a midterm election in which a record number of neo-Nazis are standing for office, at a time when hate groups are surging, when migrant children are being separated from their families and held in detention camps— just. Not a time when I want to be reading about cartoonish super-Nazis, personally.

And I don’t really see why they necessarily need to be this story? The battle serves to illustrate how Amazons combat and… “rehabilitate”… their adversaries. Paula ultimately serves as a plot device. Couldn’t that maybe have been achieved without Nazis?

Anyway, Paula announces that she is claiming the island for the Third Reich, and Hippolyta is like “lol no”.

Okay, that part I like. Evil army storms the island, backed by guns and warships, surround a half-dozen barely-armed women… who all but roll their eyes. ‘Pfft, children. Fine, if you want to play this game…’ And the evil army can only gape in bewilderment as the women proceed to take them apart in minutes.

But this is where it gets weird.

The Amazons fire a purple ray at all of the Nazis, which… makes them all drop their weapons and start screaming “YES!” orgasmically?

Hippolyta tells Paula that the soldiers “will be taken to the Space Transformer. They will be transported to Aphrodite’s world where Queen Desira and her butterfly-winged Venus Girls wait to purge them of their need for conflict. They will be taught to submit to loving authority. They will learn to embrace peace and obedience. They will be as happy as men can be.”

Paula attacks Hippolyta, rips off her magic girdle and heaves a great boulder over her head— wait, were we supposed to know that Paula had superpowers? That seems like something that should have been flagged.

She effortlessly takes down the Amazons who rush to the queen’s defence and takes a moment to cackle villainously. “Behold the pride of Germany! The ultimate daughter of the thousand-year-empire of Adolf Hitler!” To which Hippolyta— okay, I like this part, too.

Hippolyta calmly gets to her feet and puts Paula in a stranglehold. “We are the Amazons of myth, my dear! I am Queen Hippolyta eternal.” She swiftly and efficiently brings Paula to her knees.

But, welp, never mind, it’s about to get fucking creepy again.

Hippolyta forces Paula into “the Venus Girdle”, a device that “charges every body cell with vitalising currents and harmonises the brain, encouraging obedience.”

Paula: Let me go! What is that? What are you doing? Hippolyta: The Venus Girdle? It charges every body cell with vitalising currents and harmonises the brain, encouraging obedience. A dainty thing, is it not? Paula: I won’t— I won’t— You can’t control me— you can’t— can’t make me— make me... oh… make me…

Paula: nmmuhhh… What’s happening? My Nazi ideals— slipping away— they— they don’t make any sense now… I— I thought— I thought— I was strong. What’s wrong with me? I’m so weak— I must be weak to wish to serve weak, cruel men— like— like Herr Hitler— I— I— Hippolyta: If you truly long to be a slave to the ideas of others, well… we can find a loving mistress to help you explore your desires in a healthier context. Paula: Yes. Yes! My queen— [sob] —how can you ever forgive me? How wise of you to know— to know this is all I ever wanted! Hippolyta: Devote yourself to me by following the Amazon Code. Go with out sweet Mala to Improvement Island. There you will come to know yourself until the Venus Girdle is no longer required.

Paula: But all I want is to serve you, my queen! I love you! Please don’t turn your back on me!

Basically, Hippolyta forcibly uses a mind-altering device on Paula that alters her brain chemistry to make her placid, compliant and suggestible, then immediately washes her hands of her.

So… let’s talk about this, because I think it strikes at the heart of the problems with Wonder Woman: Earth One.

Queen Desira, the Venus Girls, magnetic golden Venus Girdles that “harmonise the brain” — all these things are drawn from Golden Age Wondy comics cowritten by Marston and his collaborator Joye Kelly. Marston played with mind control a lot in his stories, and not all of it came from the bad guys.

Morrison’s bold, subversive approach to these story elements is to export them wholesale into the present day and force us to feel uncomfortable about them.

In other words, he’s taking some of the weirder and more fucked up story elements from a collection of comics that are widely agreed to be very weird, and then plonking it before your readers and asking, ‘hey guys, have you ever considered… that this might be weird and fucked up???’

There’s nothing clever or insightful about that. And there’s certainly nothing groundbreaking about a cis white male writer imagining a fictitious feminist dystopia where women strip away men’s free will.

Like, if you really want to be subversive with Marston’s Wonder Woman, how about you start by hiring a woman to write it? Why not see what this iconic feminist hero conceived by a cis white man in the 1940s and written almost exclusively by cis white men for over 75 years might look like if she were reimagined and reinterpreted by LGBTI women, by women of colour? By the women left out of those original comics?

That would be subversive. Morrison is just being a smartarse.

So yeah, Hippolyta turns her back on the helpless, brainwashed, lovesick Paula and walks over to Diana, who’s defied her mother’s orders and run down from the palace to get a glimpse of the action. She’s full of questions; Hippolyta brushes them off with the usual (for Morrison’s Amazons) ‘men are shit’ line.

There’s a moment where Paula and Diana meet eyes from across the beach, and each asks, “who is she?” Diana is simply curious; Paula is instantly lovestruck.

Paula: That girl… the image of my queen.

This looks like foreshadowing, but spoilers: it goes absolutely nowhere.

Sidenote: If the Amazons deal with invaders by brainwashing them, why did they want to kill Steve Trevor in Volume One?

Cut to present-day America, where a room of faceless men discuss the threat posed by the Amazons and their superior technology, which they assume extends to deadly weaponry. The only in they have with the Amazons is Wonder Woman, and to get through her defences they’ve called in “an expert in female psychology”, aka a misogynistic monster.

Doctor Psycho: Gentlemen. She may be strong and tough and smart and beautiful… but she’s just a woman. I never met one I couldn’t break.

Oh, goody.

Cut to a cute splash page of Diana playing baseball. She gets a lot of great outfits in this book.

She’s also clearly making an impact in Man’s World; her face is plastered across every magazine, and people flock to hear her speak.

A Q&A sessions serves as a thinly-veiled opportunity for Morrison to answer some of the criticisms of the first book. His response leaves something to be desired.

“Amazon training can make any of you into a Wonder Woman,” says Diana. We teach a system of physical and psychological health and vitality. The grace and beauty of Aphrodite, the skill and wisdom of Athena.”

Woman: What about Wonder trans women? Is there room for people like me in your utopia? Diana: There’s room for everyone. The Amazon Code was evolved by women over thousands of years and outlines a progressive, pacifist way of living and thinking that anyone can follow.

I’m sorry, but that’s a fucking bullshit answer. It’s a weak, superficial gesture towards inclusiveness that conspicuously fails to express any real support or solidarity.

And depressingly, this is 100% in-character for Earth One Diana, because Morrison’s Amazons? are absolutely TERFs. As with the mind control content, Morrison has exported Marston’s 1940s binaristic gender essentialism unchanged into the 21st century in order to ask searing questions like ‘hey but what if??? the idea that women are genetically more suited to ruling??? is simplistic and flawed?????’ But the most he’ll engage with the genuinely insidious implications around the exclusion of trans and nonbinary people is a smiling noncommittal, ‘Are trans people welcome? My friend, everyone is welcome! No further questions!’

Morrison’s Wonder Woman displays a profound disregard of context. He ignores not only the cultural, historical and individual contexts that shaped the original 1940s Wonder Woman, but also the contexts of the time in which he’s currently writing and the cultural space that Wondy has come to inhabit today as a feminist and LGBT icon.

Removed from context, Morrison is simply taking a hero who traditionally hails from an advanced utopian society, taking another look at the views that society actually espouses, and reframing her as a well-meaning but naive hero from an advanced but deeply flawed and unsettling society.

In context, he’s doing exactly what Brian Azzarello did in turning the Amazons into murderous man-hating monsters, just with more kink and vagina planes.

Woman 2: Umm, there’s a lot of stuff on social media about how you dress provocatively and promote an unrealistic body type, which is basically setting a bad example for women. I mean, the stuff you do is amazing and all, it’s just… does any of the criticism bother you? Diana: I don’t think there’s any such thing as an ‘unrealistic’ body shape. My own body is the result of diet, exercise and… um… sophisticated genetic engineering. Otherwise, I dress as I please.

Volume One made it clear that all Amazons have the physique of supermodels, and when they encounter the diverse body types of the women in our world, they are disgusted and respond with body-shaming insults. Here, Diana again avoids voicing any actual support (she doesn’t say that all women’s bodies are beautiful and valid, she suggests that her body type is not unrealistic), while also throwing out eugenics as a reason for the lack of body diversity among the Amazons. Oh good, I was hoping we’d get more Nazi parallels!

Finally, a militant white feminist stands up and observes that if the Amazons are capable of half of what Diana says they are, then they could dismantle the patriarchy overnight — so why is Diana wasting time giving philosophy lectures? “You can control people’s minds with that lasso of yours. Like you did with that dude on TV— so why can’t you put a lasso ‘round the whole world?”

Afterwards, talking to Beth Candy, Diana’s like, ‘gosh, Beth, I’ve never seriously thought about world domination before, but maybe it is time to consider stripping all mortals of their free will, dismantling all nations and compelling everybody on the planet to bow down before Amazonia.’

Then Diana gets on her mental radio and calls her mother, confessing her doubts about her mission.

It was around this point in the book that the Amazons’ dialogue began to grate on me. I couldn’t put my finger on what it was at first. Every line read like a ceremonious pronouncement. They used antiquated syntax and words, like “whole systems … must o’erturned be” and “she did, without due caution, this, her island home, depart!”. Even Diana would become infected with it whenever she was speaking to them. It felt like they weren’t so much conversing as they were reciting… 

...verse… 

oh my god, that motherfucker.

Surely he hadn’t.

I scanned the dialogue again. I double-checked it.

He had.

Grant Morrison, that obscenely pretentious wanker, wrote all of the Amazons’ dialogue in dactylic hexameter.

For fuck’s sake.

After finishing her call with Diana, Hippolyta learns that somebody has vandalised one of the temples with the symbol of “a backward-turning sun”, i.e. a swastika. Unseen by everybody, Paula breaks into Hippolyta’s palace.

[trickstarbrave]

no offense to the directors bc i know they never intended for this to happen but the disney adaptation of the little mermaid lead to a lot of mainstream feminist critique of the story of the little mermaid that is inherently flawed in that NONE of them do ANY research on the original story at all besides read it

its not about “women losing their agency and then dying and i guess the author thought that was ~romantic~ in the 1800′s therefore its bad”. thats only an interpretation you can get if you willfully ignore the entire context of the story

hans was a man who wrote fairy tales for kids, that was what he did. however he was also gay, in a time where that was unacceptable. but that doesnt mean that just bc homophobia is running rampant that your emotions suddenly dont exist. he had a man he loved, and that man likely due to society, married a woman and their (debated if it was official or not) relationship came crashing to a halt. 

the little mermaid was written at that time. and it wasnt about heterosexual romance at all. it had characters in a heterosexual romance bc that was all that was pretty much acceptable to write, especially for a man who wrote childrens stories. and its kind different from a lot of his other famous works. the little mermaid cant talk not because its ‘romantic’ or says something about the female gender, but because when youre attracted to someone of the same gender its impossible to voice those thoughts or emotions. the little mermaid literally lacks an ability to come out and tell him that she loves him because society doesnt let her. and she sort of knew this and gave it up in the attempt to chase after the love she knew realistically she could not have.

however in traditional narratives of non-straight romance, she is rewarded by having loved regardless. she is given an opportunity by her sisters to give it up, return to the sea, and forget this ever happened. all she has to do is destroy the object of her love. kill him. the options is metaphorical of course and open to interpretation on that end: either kill the object of your affections by learning to hate them and your attraction, swear off love, or pretend it doesnt exist (and probably others that never occurred to me). however, she cant bring herself to do so, to destroy someone she loves so much and return to a life where she continues to ignore it. 

and her reward is kind of a forced moral lesson but it still stands: she gets the opportunity to go to heaven. the love that society deems unspeakable and unthinkable is not wrong in the eyes of divine powers that ruled hans’ life. instead loving was an act of courage, something that was divinely rewarded, not punished. and i think for the time, thats a really groundbreaking message. that even though it hurt him so deeply to watch someone he loved marry someone else bc of society, he didnt think of that painful love as immoral. the little mermaid died in that she would rather ‘give herself up’ than hurt him. 

tl;dr: the little mermaid is actually a sad gay love story in which gay people are not demons or sinful and immoral and instead the message is ‘it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all’ and was written by a gay man venting abt the person he loved getting married for society. yet the mainstream narrative put forth by disney and the lack of proper research by mainstream feminist critics purposefully ignore this when its SO INTERESTING bc its just easy picking. and then they wonder why the snow queen has female characters w agency and start to argue if hans even wrote it and i wanna rip my fucking hair out every day over this

anyways thanks for coming to my ted talk 

[britneyshakespeare]

top 5 britney spears songs, top 5 female marvel characters, top 5 movies

i just did 5 britney songs here but since i love my mom i’ll do 5 more i definitely got it in me

don’t go knockin’ on my door GOD IF THIS SONG DOESNT MAKE ME WANNA PUNCH EVERY MAN IN THE FACE and that’s a quality i fuckin love in a song, that’s all i need to say on that

the hook up ANOTHER ONE FROM IN THE ZONE THAT EVERYONE FORGETS ABOUT but it’s so goddamn irresistible, it just jumps from line to line and britney’s voice fits it perfectly, she carries it w exactly the swagger it is due, people give britney shit for her singing voice (which considering she’s naturally an alto and sings in a soprano range most of the time, she really deserves more credit for if you ask me), but it is undeniable she knows how to deliver her lines like an actress, and that’s a damn important quality in a pop diva that gets overlooked in the pop discourse

the beat goes on okay another cover and i named two in the last one, but she does covers really damn well. the way it closes an otherwise quintessentially bubblegum pop album w an avant-garde electropop song is brilliant. it certainly hinted at things to come, pushing borders of contemporary pop music. and it suited baby brit SO well.

perfume i constantly think back on all the missed opportunities of britney jean era, i’m still not over it. it’s been 5 years i really should be but i’m not. but this song really could’ve used better promotion, it’s one of my favorite britney ballads, and one of the few songs in her own discography where she gets to sing in an alto range!!! she sounds GREAT and to her it’s a very personal song and i respect it deeply

coupureélectrique i have nothing to say about this entire album other than that in 2016, y’all were either with us (the loyal gays who supported glory) or against us. this album deserves so much more love like every britney fan cherished it immediately even the fans who were let down by britney jean and afraid to trust again but the rest of the population was just crickets. a shame too she worked w so many talented female songwriters and producers, bc mom understands the importance of uplifting women not just as starlets but behind the scene producing the music being marketed to women. bless. oh and she sings in french which is extremely welcomed.

top 5 female marvel characters:

jennifer walters/she-hulk, i love her so much. she’s so underrated i’m so upset that the mcu has yet to even touch the subject of her, her characterization is so strong and much more interesting than bruce’s if you ask me, she’s hardly the same creature as bruce banner but since she’s a female spin-off character people assume she’s this lame character w poor characterization when ever since john byrne took the action comedy spin on her book w the sensational she-hulk in the 80s, she became marvel’s wisecracking fourth-wall-breaker before deadpool even existed, not to mention she’s unapologetically feminine while wielding masculine powers for which she doesn’t suffer any consequences which is so different not just for female characters in all of fiction but especially in her genre and time of conception. actually. no. lemme use this video to illustrate my thesis bc it does it much more eloquently than i can at this moment blasting britney in my pajamas. but yes, jennifer walters is one of my absolute favorite characters in fiction.

oh i just realized i can do non-superheroes. this is kind of obvious coming from me but *clears throat* mary jane fucking watson. she works as a wonderful complex supporting character and i love how her relationship w peter parker isn’t just rewarded to him but they both go through so much character development alongside each other, but it’s not entirely dependent on each other. she’s such an important piece in just about all good spider-man stories that have come after her inception. i love mj. but i’ve gone off about it many times before.

kamala khan/ms. marvel. a newbie but such a good and relatable and important character, already, especially for someone who didn’t even exist 5 years ago. i love what she means for teenage girls in comics, for muslim/brown representation. i love the cultural references infused into her books, it makes it all feel so much more authentic. i love how human all her supporting characters are. i love g. willow wilson’s sense of humor. but i feel like she’s rightfully acknowledged for being the groundbreaking character she is so i don’t need to write any more on that right now, i don’t think.

jean grey. comics only, i haven’t seen any of the xmen movies, whoops. basically i used to live vicariously through her when i was younger bc she looks like me and telepathy has always been my dream power of all powers, and i love her character history, she’s so complicated for a female character who began as just a simple good girl of the team type of tropey character. i think she’s a prime example of how interesting and convoluted comic book continuity can be and how retcons and arcs seemingly out of nowhere can be done well and how they can add to the characterization of a formerly bland character and benefit the story, how to utilize the underutilized.

dazzler. i don’t think she’s actually one of my favorite female marvel characters but you gotta give major props to a character whose superpowers are literally to be a disco queen. yeah it was very much trend-hopping in the 70s on behalf of the marvel staff but they’ve made it work in some very interesting ways in the year, again i’ll redirect you to a youtube video about her and also this photo

top 5 movies

hmmm i always say the spider-man trilogy (2002-2007), but it’s true and i should say it

i’ve really loved rebel without a cause (1955) since i started my james dean obsession/non-phase when i was in eighth grade. and i really see why a lot about this movie and james dean as a character resonated w me at that age and continues to hit home, i mean, he’s sort of an embodiment of pent up teen angst and feeling misunderstood and out of touch w oneself at the same time, like a walking contradiction. i feel like james dean was one of my first paradoxical role models that i’d continue to build my identity around in my teen years. but i mumble. this really is a great movie w an interesting story to tell, it’s not just coming of age sleeze, it’s really damn well-written, well-acted, and well-directed.

the day gentlemen prefer blondes (1953) fails to make me smile is the day it all ends, man. i’m so attached to that movie, not just because it’s great (though it is), but it’s just one of my comfort movies. i’m always in the mood to watch it. it’s not even the best film marilyn’s in but how can one not love it, you know?

american psycho (2000) is really damn well remembered for a reason. it adapts a difficult and abstract novel with complicated themes and characterization in the best possible way it can, mary herron doesn’t get enough credit for that. bret easton ellis gets his recognition as the author of the book it’s based off of but i don’t think people talk enough about just how well herron pulled it off. the book has chapters spread throughout of just incomprehensible character building in the most skeptical ways, the way patrick always describes what he is wearing in exhausting detail, as well as the wardrobe of every single person around him at all times. the chapters where he just out-of-the-blue gives his reviews of contemporary popular music. his materialism fixation. his unintelligible babbling. patrick bateman’s a character that by all rules of film shouldn’t be able to be adapted to film as well as he is in this movie. i can honestly only think of one or two details from the book i wish weren’t cut, out of such a long and meandering character study of a novel. it’s really, really a gem.

a fool there was (1915) bc theda bara is my original goth gf and she really fucks it up in this film. i love silent horror films so much, especially ones where rich men are corrupted. oh yeah. that’s just a personal niche though. but it is a good film.

ask me for my top 5 anything