#Thomas Chatterton

[burningvelvet]

being a romantic era poet: a quick how-to guide

walk around in nature contemplating Things. start hiking, swimming, sailing, rowing, shooting, riding, etc. for inspiration

be obsessed with the french revolution and related enlightenment-era figures like rousseau, voltaire, mary wollstonecraft, and madame de staël. be more disappointed by napoleon bonaparte than you are by your own father. 

speaking of fathers, your parents and most of your other relatives are all either dying or dead or emotionally abusive. if you have any siblings (full, half, step, or adopted) who DIDN'T die tragically already, then you may choose to be close to them. you also may end up being much TOO close to them. various circumstances may also ban you from seeing them. 

be at least slightly touched by madness and/or some other severe illness(es) including but not limited to: consumption, horrors, syphilis, deformities, lameness, terrors, piles, boils, pox, allergies, coughing, sleep abnormalities, gonorrhea, etc. — for which you must take frequent bed rest and copious amounts of Laudanum (opium derivation)

consider foregoing meat and adopting a vegetable diet instead to purify the spirits. you may also abstain from alcohol for the same reasons. alternatively, you may attempt the veggie diet, end up rejecting it, and becoming a rampant alcoholic instead. in romanticism there is no healthy medium between abstinence and excess.

reject, or at least heavily criticize, christianity. refuse to get married in a church and consider becoming a fervent champion of atheism. alternatively, you may embrace catholicism, but only on an aesthetic basis. eastern religions and minority religions are also acceptable, only because they piss off the christians. 

if you’re not a self-hating member of the aristocracy and instead have to work for a living, do something that allows you to benefit society, be creative, and/or contemplate life. viable options include, but are not limited to: apothecarist, doctor, teacher, preacher, lawyer, farmer, printmaker, publisher, editor. there is also the possibility of earning a few coins from your art. if you were cursed to be born a She, no worries. we believe in equality. you may choose from these occupations: wife, nanny, housekeeper, spinster, amanuensis (copy writer for a man), lady’s companion, divorced wife, singer/actress/escort, widow, regular escort, tutor, or housewife. 

speaking of sexist institutions, try rejecting marriage entirely. Declare your eternal devotion to your lover by having sex with them on your mother’s grave instead.

if you do get married — elope, and only let it be for necessary financial reasons, or to try and save a teenage girl from her controlling family, or out of true love with someone you view as your intellectual equal, or because your life is so racked with scandals and debt that you can only clear your name by matrimony to a wealthy religious woman as your last resort before fleeing the country.

After marriage, quickly assert your belief in the powers of free love and bisexuality by taking extramarital lovers and suggesting your spouse follow suit. If they cannot keep up with your intellectual escapades then consider leaving them. Later on, propose a platonic friendship with them following the separation, or beg them for reconciliation.

If your marriage is happy, try moving in with another bohemian couple to shake things up. Alternatively, you may die before the wedding for dramatic effect.

If you beget children (whether in or out of marriage, makes no matter), do society a favor by choosing to raise them with your beliefs. Consider adopting orphan children, or even non-orphan children. If their parents are poor enough they probably won’t mind. Try kidnapp— I mean adopting — children off the side of the road if you can. 

DIE but do it creatively. ideally young. ideas: prophecy your own death, lead an army into war and then die right before your first battle and on your deathbed curse everyone and demand to see a witch, write a will leaving money to your mistresses or some random young man you have an unrequited romantic obsession with, carry a copy of your dead friend's poetry and read it right before you drown so that your washed up corpse can only be identified by his book in your pocket, die while staring at your lover's shriveled up heart that you keep wrapped up in a copy of his own poetry and then be buried with it, die of the poet's illness (consumption) while your artist friend draws you and then be buried with your lover's writing, get mysteriously poisoned (by yourself) after a series of scandals and accidents and then have your family announce that you were killed by god, die from romanticizing poverty or receiving bad reviews from literary critics, die from walking or horseback riding in the cold and the rain while poeticizing, etc.

[kaleb-is-definitely-sane]

"You're 17, what are you going to do with your life?" I'm gonna write poetry in my room, try to get published, kill myself with arsenic, and be worshipped like some kind of Romantic Messiah a hundred years later when a bunch of high and alcoholic teenagers start a cult around me.

[yetersiz-bakiye]

"Şairler insanlara hayrandırlar ve kollarını onları kucaklamak üzere açarlar, fakat karşılığında çarmıha gerilip taşlanırlar. Züppelerse insanları küçük görüp aşağılarlar, fakat insanlar onlara defne dalından taç giydirirler."

(Thomas Chatterton, Mektuplar)

Resim: Chatterton'ın Ölümü - Henry Wallais (1856)

[virgoantendencies7]

“Before I ſawe the lyghtſome ſunne,

“Thys was appointed mee;

“Shall mortal manne repyne or grudge

“Whatt Godde ordeynes to bee?

“Howe oft ynne battaile have I ſtoode,

“Whan thouſands dy’d arounde;

“Whan ſmokynge ſtreemes of crimſon bloode

“Imbrew’d the fatten’d grounde:

“Howe dydd I knowe thatt ev’ry darte,

“Thatt cutte the airie waie,

“Myghte nott fynde paſſage toe my harte,

“And cloſe myne eyes for aie?….”

—from “Bristowe Tragedie: or the Dethe of Syr Charles Badwin,” by Thomas Chatterton, Chatterton’s Miscellanies (1777)

[thatwritererinoriordan]

"He dies at 17" is a mild way of saying he unalived himself by drinking arsenic after Horace Walpole uncovered his forgery.

Literary history that happened on 20 November

[hamletthedane]

A/N by john_keats: This fic was originally planned to be just as long as my other one, but the haters in the comments discouraged me from finishing it, so don’t expect any updates.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Thomas Chatterton Williams

Published: May 19, 2024

We’d gathered that day at the cafeteria’s “Black” table, cracking jokes and philosophizing during the free period that was our perk as upperclassmen. We came in different shades: bone white, tan and brownish, dark as a silhouette. One of my classmates, who fancied himself a lyricist, was insisting that Redman, a witty emcee from nearby Newark, New Jersey, was the greatest rapper ever. This was the late ’90s, and for my money, no one could compete with Jay-Z. I said so, and the debate, good-natured at first, soon escalated in intensity, touching on feelings and resentments that ran far deeper than diverging claims about artistic merit.

“How can you even weigh in?” I still remember the kid fuming. “You ain’t even the pure breed!”

With that, there was nothing left to say. Friends separated us, the bell rang, and I headed home. A short time later, I went off to college, where I would meet a wider assortment of Americans than I had realized existed. But over the years, I have been reminded of that boy’s slicing racism, the lazy habit of mind that required no white people to be present but would nonetheless please the most virulent white supremacist.

Recently, two public controversies spirited me back to the suspicion and confusion of my high-school cafeteria. All spring long, an unusually nasty feud between the rappers Drake and Kendrick Lamar has been captivating audiences, both for the quality of the music it has engendered and for the personal and malicious dimensions of the attacks it has countenanced. Much has been written about the fight, in particular about the two men’s treatment of women, which I won’t rehash here except to point out that it’s a little funny that they both portray themselves as enlightened allies while also acting as if the ultimate disparagement is to call another man feminine. Less has been said about the potency of the racial dimension, which feels like a throwback to a time before Drake’s pop-culture dominance—indeed, to a time before the historic hybridity of the Obama era—and like a distillation of the skin-deep racialism of the current social-justice movement.

Drake, who grew up in Toronto, is the son of a white Jewish mother from Canada and a Black father from Memphis. Since the release of his 2009 mixtape, So Far Gone, he has been not only the most successful visibly mixed-race rapper—and arguably pop star—but also the most visible Black male musician for some time now. Anyone at the top will attract criticism. But not even a white rapper like Eminem has been subject to the kind of racial derogation that has been hurled at Drake.

Back in 2018, the rapper Pusha T released a diss track about him for which the cover art was an old photograph of Drake performing in a cartoonish blackface. The image makes you cringe, but—as Drake explained—that was the point. Drake began his career as an actor, and he wrote that the photograph was part of a “project that was about young black actors struggling to get roles, being stereotyped and typecast … The photos represented how African Americans were once wrongfully portrayed in entertainment.” But presented without context, it appeared to be a self-evident statement of inauthenticity.

Another rapper, Rick Ross, calls Drake “white boy” again and again in his song “Champagne Moments,” released in April. In an op-ed for The Grio, the music journalist Touré explains why the insult is so effective: “We know Drake is biracial. He’s never hidden that, but many of us think of him as Black or at least as a part of the culture … On this record, Ross is out to change that.” Touré calls this “hyperproblematic,” but his tone is approving—he admires the track. “We shouldn’t be excluding biracial people from the Black community, but in a rap beef where all is fair as a way of attacking someone and undermining their credibility and their identity, it’s a powerful message.”

In a series of more high-profile records, Lamar has built on Ross’s theme, both implying and stating directly that racial categories are real, that behaviors and circumstances (like Drake’s suburban upbringing) correlate with race, and that the very mixedness of Drake’s background renders him suspect. It is an anachronistic line of ad hominem attack that is depressing to encounter a quarter of the way into the 21st century.

Lamar’s most recent Drake diss is called “Not Like Us,” and reached No. 1 on Billboard Hot 100. It goes after Drake’s cultural affiliations with the American South. “No, you not a colleague,” Lamar taunts. “You a fucking colonizer!”

It’s hard to hear that and not remember that Drake’s mother is Jewish, and that this is the same invective used to undermine Jews’ sense of belonging in Israel. Such racist habits of thought have become potent rhetorical weapons in the progressive arsenal.

The second (if smaller) controversy followed an essay on language and protest published in The New Yorker earlier this month. The novelist Zadie Smith, who is of European and African descent, argued—carefully—that it is too simplistic to regard the world as sortable into categories of oppressor and oppressed. “Practicing our ethics in the real world involves a constant testing of them,” she writes, “a recognition that our zones of ethical interest have no fixed boundaries and may need to widen and shrink moment by moment as the situation demands.” This was an attempt to take seriously the tangible fate of Hamas’s victims on October 7, the broader implications of anti-Semitism that can at times be found in criticism of Israel’s response, and the ongoing tragic loss of Palestinian life.

Despite praising the protests that have engulfed college campuses and describing a cease-fire in Gaza as “an ethical necessity,” Smith was derided on more than intellectual grounds. One widely shared tweet, accompanied by a photo of Smith, stated the criticism plainly: “I feel like Zadie Smith uses black aesthetics to conceal her deeply pedestrian white middle-class politics. People see the head wrap and the earrings made of kente cloth and confuse that for something more substantive.”

This was not the first time Smith had been regarded as a racial interloper. The author Morgan Jerkins once wrote of the emotional “hurt” she felt reading another thoughtful essay Smith published in Harper’s asking “Who owns black pain?” Smith’s transgression here, according to Jerkins, was “intellectualizing blackness” from a distance instead of feeling it. “Do not be surprised,” Jerkins warned, “if a chunk of that essay is used in discussions as to why biracial people need to take a backseat in the movement.”

The retrograde notion that thought and action necessarily flow from racial identities whose borders are definable and whose authority is heritable is both fictitious and counterproductive. “Something is afoot that is the business of every citizen who thought that the racist concepts of a century ago were gone­—and good riddance!” Barbara and Karen Fields write in their 2012 masterpiece, Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life. “The continued vitality of those concepts stands as a reminder that, however important a historical watershed the election of an African-American president may be, America’s post-racial era has not been born.”

Of course, the first African American president was, like our nation and culture, himself both Black and white. One of the most disappointing—and, I have come to realize—enduring reasons the “post-racial era” continues to elude us is that it is not only the avowed racists who would hold that biographical fact against him.

==

This is why we call it neoracism, not "antiracism."

[litinart]

the death of chatterton by henry wallis (1856)

[snifekinner]

exhausted from work, lying on the sofa sipping beer as if it were tonic wine and i a sickening victorian poet dying in a garrett

[larrywilmore]

New ep is up!

[grandhotelabyss]

One must wonder indeed- verbosity aside (which we are in agreement on) would pronoun maximalism (in other words, taking all of em) qualify as bien-pensant as you’ve stated you find they/them? In any case I was relistening to the Beloved episode of the pod the other day, some of your finest work, one the best podcast episodes I’ve ever had the privilege of listening to- I mourn that we didn’t get that episode on Mason & Dixon. I do see what you mean when you’ve judged the pod not entirely successful at what it set out to be- for the most part I found the aesthetics sensible (or acceptably beyond the pale) and the politics within the threshold of acceptable (old) liberalism regarding/excitement over disreputable ideas (the only thing I remember thinking could be read as objectionable outside of humanitiesworld was the very brief intimation in one of the shock jocks episodes that you thought the left needed to return to center on gender issues) and if you’re going to go for the Red Scare crowd you probably do need to take off the gloves and say some stuff that’s genuinely offensive to regular people. That said I do miss it-there are so very few literary podcasts worth a damn out there.

Thank you! Yes, the Beloved episode is almost certainly the best, along, I think, with the aurally pyrotechnic one on Eliot. I was at times dancing around some perhaps unacceptable views, but, given the time of recording, these were more of the old-fashioned anti-war left variety. I don't regularly listen to Chapo, but I checked out their Norman Finkelstein interview out of curiosity and had to laugh at their nervous silence after he gave the full-throated Marxist anti-imperialist perspective on Putin and Ukraine. I don't go nearly as far as that, or maybe my views aren't that systematic, but still, my mission in life is not to lend my talents to the defense of NATO, especially since the CIA doesn't even pay writers for those services anymore. (Admittedly, on foreign policy the left and the right may have switched sides since my youth, as they have before.) I wouldn't have said any of the Steve Sailer stuff Anna and Dasha eventually fell for, not because I was hiding it, but because I don't believe it or don't care about it. Even Anna and Dasha seem to have ended their Sailer arc with the recent Thomas Chatterton Williams episode where he genially upbraided them for it. Surely it's "problematic" enough in this atmosphere to agree with Thomas Chatterton Williams's racial politics!—which, for the most part, I do.

Re: the pronoun question, partially Major Arcana is an attempt to find out. I have they/them characters later on and am finding it basically impossible to avoid referential confusion, so I'm just leaning into it for a delirious effect. (When Joyce Carol Oates objected to they/them on strictly linguistic rather than gender grounds—as we've seen lately, on gender per se, she's with the left—it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that she did so from the perspective of someone who wants to write 800-page novels as quickly as possible.) On the other hand, the constant repetition of "Simon Magnus," not to mention that I've elected to call every character by first and last name, has an almost Steinian avant-garde abrasiveness I both love and hate, or in any case wouldn't have thought myself capable of. I'm not usually warm to mere verbal hijinks in a novel, but it seems to me that this experimental fiction is running a large-scale social experiment on these linguistic interventions and their underlying logic and effect rather than just for the sake of toying with the signifier or whatever.

[kaleb-is-definitely-sane]

Being a teenage writer is like: I can either invent a literary genre or kill myself with arsenic.

[lesamis]

1810s dashboard but it's niche drama

💛 heartofanna Following

imagine cancelling someone for saying war is bad

🧵 sharethewoe Follow

#didn't expect better from w*rdsworth but some people i rly thought i could count on…… #anyway we will live to see this empire fall. can't stop history lol (via @heartofanna)

speaking as someone who was press ganged at the age of 17 to serve in his majesty's royal navy i couldn't be more grateful for your poem. young men like me are cannon fodder and you spoke for so many of us. fuck napoleon but fuck parliament even more.

86 notes

chatterpwned-deactivated78345629743

stable forgiving virtuous flourishing in my lane definitely not buying poison moisturized unbothered never been better

chatterpwned-deactivated78345629743

me when i lie

179302 notes

🏛 mynoseisfine Follow

Settling this once and for all. What does the public actually think about the Parthenon marbles debate:

🦉 realminerva Follow

lol i know it’s you lord elgin

🦉 realminerva Follow

like we joke and all but fully aside from the fact that removing the sculptures from greek soil was vulturine and opportunistic etc, it’s really just the tip of a frankly gigantic mountain of imperialist bullshit. let’s not pretend we haven’t been brutally killing hundreds who resisted oppression in india, LITERALLY BOMBED A NEUTRAL EUROPEAN CAPITAL, and embarrassed ourselves in the charge against napoleon for years now. pathetic ass empire & evil as hell to boot. @mynoseisfine the greeks who carved your marbles millennia ago would kick your tory ass so hard

3661 notes

🎀 emmawoodhousestan Follow

how do i still keep seeing thomas chatterton's final post being reblogged, wtf is wrong with you freaks??? he was seventeen it was tragic and horrible and happened ages ago. he was a kid just let him rest

294 notes

🍎 masque-off Following

callout post for @castleyeah @lordsidmouth @officialcoe @parliamentofficial: they oppress, murder and famish the british working people & also suck majorly

⛪ castleyeah Follow

sour cuz you’re unfit to have custody of your own kids huh

🍎 masque-off Following

proud to be the dad of a newborn who could already rend your pudding spine asunder with a mere glance

187 notes

🦆 mallardturner Following

finished this today 😊

44 notes

😎 chadeharold Follow

why is it always “you’re risking your life and legacy & will get yourself killed before the age of five and twenty” and never how was swimming the hellespont the hellespont looked fun was it fun

🎭 loved-joanna Mutuals

ohhh my god you swam the hellespont five years ago?? wooow should we tell everyone?? should we throw a party?? should we invite famous hero of greek myth leander who swam the hellespont

😎 chadeharold Follow

@loved-joanna look we never had any beef & don’t have to start this now. it’s cool that you’re sticking up for my ex, you guys were friends first, but just know that i’ve always trusted your opinion on my work & genuinely respect and admire you & would still be up for a collab whenever.

🎭 loved-joanna Mutuals

yea sure why don’t your lips collab with my ass

😎 chadeharold Follow

on it boss

1009 notes

#literally call me. down if you are

🍂 endymion Follow

sorry is it me or is the assassin who stabbed german bootleg wordsworth kinda…… 🥵

💄 biprincesscharlotte Mutuals

JOHN KEATS????????

2427 notes

#i'm p sure this is the author of lamia thirstposting on main??? help

🌾 huntsmanx Follow

romanticism this romanticism that why don’t you romanticise universal suffrage and rights for labouring people

🌾 huntsmanx Follow

anyone else in jail for seditious libel

🏹 axelaidtotheroot Mutuals

lmao i'm one of the “anyone else”s and i know you’re enjoying family visits and apparently some kind of cushy armchair situation, plus tons of books. try being in here as a spencean dude they won’t even let me learn how to write. worst of all some evangelical came by yesterday just to proselytize & put me “on the right path” fml

8341 notes

🗻 mounttambora Follow

y'all i don't feel so good :/

59 notes

[centuriespast]

Thomas Chatterton receiving a bowl of Poison from Despair, drawing

Thomas Flaxman

The British Museum

[mariacallous]

This Tuesday’s election saw the culmination of Republicans’ long-standing effort to attract people of color, with the party tapping into shared feelings of political disenfranchisement and abandonment between working-class Black, white, and Latino or Hispanic voters without college degrees. While diversifying their base was clearly an objective, Republicans also turned “equity” into a dirty word—criticizing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and “woke-ism” to undermine tools Democrats have used to address racial disparities and the inequitable distribution of government resources. 

Meanwhile, racially coded language was utilized along the campaign trial, shocking some voters but rallying others who either appreciated racial tropes or were willing to ignore them in the face of economic plight. Public debates platformed racist tropes such as whether Haitian immigrants ate pets, if immigrants were taking Black jobs, and the dangers rather than the assets of majority-Black cities.

In defeat, Democrats struggled to convince working-class voters of all races that the party’s platform addresses their concerns, likely due to their very targeted focus on the issues of Black and Latino or Hispanic voters. For instance, in the weeks leading up to the election, Vice President Kamala Harris introduced an “Opportunity Agenda” specifically for Black men, including a proposal to provide “1 million loans that are fully forgivable to Black entrepreneurs and others to start a business.” This was in the face of a litany of lawsuits against racially explicit remedies for discrimination. 

Sticking to this brand of identity politics—in which individuals from specific religions, ethnicities, or social backgrounds form exclusive political alliances—may be a reason Democrats lost the race so thoroughly. 

In a social media post, writer Thomas Chatterton Williams wrote, “The fact that so many Americans of all ethnicities, geographies and colors wanted to see Democrats pay a resounding price not just for policy decisions but for a larger circa-2020 indulgence paid to so many deeply unpopular activist perspectives simply has to be taken seriously.” And a pre-election New York Times piece stated that identity politics has lost its influence since the aftermath of George Floyd.  

However, it’s evident that both political parties leveraged identity politics and racism in the 2024 election, particularly with nonracial identities such as educational level. Identity politics is central to our understanding of constituency, so its practice in many forms is not going to go away. So, rather than avoid the topic, reckoning with the racial politics of the 2024 election will help the country move forward.  

What should both parties consider moving forward? 

Through their votes, working-class voters expressed that they’re feeling pain, contradicting economists’ assertions of a supposedly strong economy. Trump already had a commanding hold of white voters at 55% in 2024, and gained significant ground with Latino or Hispanic voters (increasing from 35% in 2020 to 42% in 2024) and Black voters (from 8% in 2020 to 16% in 2024). Much of that gain came from people without a college degree. For voters who never attended college, support for Trump increased from the past election from 54% in 2020 to 62% in 2024.  

People without a college degree are a constituency; they have an identity. People of different races without a college degree—whom we loosely refer to as the “working class”—are ostensibly feeling pain. Factories that left for other countries didn’t just employ middle America white workers—they employed Black, Latino or Hispanic, Native American, and Asian American workers as well. These multiracial workers have been impacted by policies such as North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and they share another identity: underemployed, unemployed, and broke. Not treating them as a unified voting bloc is to miss the mark. Trump’s rhetoric tapped into this multiracial community.  

Discrimination is another source of pain, particularly for Black and Latino or Hispanic voters. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that Black and Latino or Hispanic people face higher unemployment rates compared to white people. This is especially true for women: As of fall 2024, white women’s unemployment rate was 4%, compared to 6.2% for Black women and 5.9% for Latino or Hispanic women. Studies also show discrimination in the justice system, with Black, Latino or Hispanic, and Native American men facing higher arrest and incarceration rates for similar offenses compared to white men. And when they are arrested, they are incarcerated for longer periods: Black men are given sentences 13.4% longer than white men, and Latino or Hispanic men are given sentences 11.2% longer than white men.

Democrats’ rhetoric often treats these policy issues only as a moral ones. But one of the most difficult challenges that we face as a country is understanding how discrimination not only robs specific groups of attaining well-being, but also throttles economic and societal growth for us all. Equity is not a zero-sum game, yet Democratic and Republican rhetoric treats it as such. The proverbial pie can grow by addressing inequity across race and place. 

The quality of our social, economic, and political futures is inextricably linked to how inclusive our neighborhoods, local economies, and schools are and will become. The country can easily slip back into a recession if we’re not careful to maximize the talents of all Americans. Reckoning with discrimination isn’t divisive—it gives us an opportunity to grow as a society. 

The voting public and both parties must demand concrete policy solutions that will make all Americans economically secure. Discrimination isn’t just about hatred. It also commonly comes in the form of abandonment and neglect. Americans need and want a policy agenda that uplifts people of all races who have been denied opportunities to gain economic security to advance their well-being. The voting behavior of working-class Latino or Hispanic and Black men shows they understand this. 

Equity isn’t a dirty word to be avoided. Quite the contrary, it’s a quintessential American concept. Equity is behind the assumed level playing field that is central to the American dream. Our tax system’s ability-to-pay principle—which holds that the tax burden an individual carries should be proportionate to their wealth—is based on equity grounds. Pragmatically, that means researchers and government officials must continue to collect data that examines the distributive impacts of policy to make necessary adjustments. Researchers are often guilty of rolling their eyes at equity matters, opting for macro measures of performance and growth. This is partly why many economists downplay the role prices play in a country’s economic performance, as they often overlook how prices impact various groups differently.  

The branding of equity as divisive or even anti-democratic is clearly a political tactic to distract us from the policies the public wants and needs. Not addressing it is a form of neglect. 

Democrats and Republicans must learn how to use equity as a unifying force. This year’s presidential election is a referendum to ensure that white people in rural Pennsylvania as well as Black and Latino or Hispanic people in inner city Philadelphia have an economy that improves the quality of all their lives.   

The Republican Party may have swept the election, but if they fail to deliver on the referendum for economic security laid down by working-class voters of all stripes, they too will find themselves on the outs. Republicans will learn that avoiding the word “equity” won’t make the pain of not delivering it go away. Just ask the Democrats. 

[bookwhimses]

some notes on my Hideously Extensive, Really Overcomplicated Doctor Who AU i've been working on for ten years

The series as a whole functions on the premise of "what if this ONE thing changed in the reboot era of Doctor Who and it resulted in the creation of these OCs that are constantly trying to fight their way out of the canon compliant narrative they're doomed to be trapped in without affecting meaningful change?"

Because it's so OC-focused and extremely complicated due to timey-wimey-ness, I've not thought anyone would be interested in it and have basically just entertained myself writing little scenes set in that AU for the last ten years. Late last year I got SUPER into the stuff covering the events of Season 10 and my partner, who has been reading bits and pieces over the years, has been demanding I start publically acknowledging its existence, as if this Hideously Extensive Really Overcomplicated Doctor Who AU is a secret child I keep in our cellar and never bring up in front of the press.

I've written stuff for the AU set all over the reboot era up until a certain point (for plot reasons), and my vague idea was always just that I'd ... keep doing that until it was all filled in. While writing Season 10 stuff, though, I realised that because Season 10 functioned as a soft reboot in canon, I could actually start the fic series in Season 10, and one day go back and write the earlier stuff.

So the first fic in the series is going to be called The First Question and yeah, will cover the events of Season 10 but set in a world where That One Thing Changed. Functionally at surface level this means: there is an OC around instead of Nardole (sorry Nardole RIP the narrative no longer had room for you) and it increasingly fucks things up, especially because Bill "Questions are kind of my thing" Potts becomes fixated on working out what this weird guy's deal is. It's a very plotty fic with themes of identity, memory, found family, and intense friendship. Tags I've jotted down to add when it's eventually published include "is Paradise Lost in the room with us?" and "ego death but for gender and also....some ego death probably".

Here is the drafted prologue (details may change) if you've read this far and want to keep reading:

PROLOGUE: IN MINUTES St Luke’s University Faculty Heads Meeting January 30, 1947 Location: Hugo Greenfield Building, Room 707 Attending: Mr Farren Blackburn, Mr Walter Young, Mr James Price, Professor Herbert Greenfield, Professor Reginald Thornton, Professor Albert Curtley, Professor Arif Jaradat, Dr John Smith, Mr Nathaniel-Arthur Rdole, Miss Elena Waites Minutes taken: Mr Farren Blackburn. Apologies: N.A. Dr Smith formally welcomed to first faculty meeting along with assistant researchers. Mr Rdole supplied biscuits. Dr Smith’s syllabus for first upcoming February term discussed; Professor Thornton requested removal of specific literatures. Other material cleared. Reconstruction of and possible names for the Front Lawns discussed. Professor Thornton suggested benefactor Harold Greenfield; Professors Greenfield, Curtley, Mr Young in agreement. Dr Smith put forth Fate Marable, recently deceased; Professors Greenfield, Thornton, and Curtley strongly opposed. Dr Smith requested defence of opposition; Professor Greenfield objected to an American being honoured on the lawn. Dr Smith enquired as to where an American should be honoured if not on the lawn and made remark that perhaps the objection lay with Marable’s  which Professor Greenfield has requested be excluded from the minutes. Miss Waites suggested Thomas Chatterton, locally born writer; supported by Mr Price. Professor Greenfield requested that Miss Waites abstain from commenting further in meeting. Harold Greenfield Lawn carried. Budget cuts and subsequent impact on upcoming teacher hiring discussed.  Dr Smith’s request for office in front wing discussed; denied. Next meeting scheduled: March 1, 1947

-

St Luke’s University: Faculty  Heads Meeting Date: July 23, 1950 Location: Jude Hayworth Building, Room 308 Attending: The Doctor, Mr Nathaniel-Arthur Rdole, Mr Paul Cornell, Mr James Price, Professor Herbert Greenfield, Professor Reginald Thornton, Miss E. Waites. Minutes taken: Miss E. Apologies: None except that Mr Rdole has neglected to bring biscuits, the bitch

Prof. Thornton opened with passing on information on upcoming cleaning of belltower. Wasn’t terribly interesting. Basically it’s going to be cleaned.

Prof. Greenfield talked utter wank about something to do with an updated history syllabus for about one billion years. Estimate it amounted to engaging in a delicious little bit of revisionist history in light of rising political tensions with the Soviet Union, but what do I know? I’m just a ‘jumped up tart’, as the honourable Prof. Greenfield so charitably described me this March.

Mr Rdole refused to play I, Spy with me.

Mr Price unbelievably bad at I, Spy.

Prof. Greenfield still, unbelievably, talking.

Mr Rdole making irritating faces at me for fiddling with my watch, which, according to Mr Rdole Law, I am not allowed to fiddle with, touch, or look at. It’s a wonder I’m allowed to carry it on my person. Really, it’s a wonder, he’s tried to steal it from me seven times. Let the minutes note I’ve told him to get his own, and also he’s got better chances of stealing from an octopus with eyes in the back of its head.

Prof. Thornton dribbling on me again. May need wet-weather gear next meeting.

Prof. Thornton being Prof. Thornton. If someone doesn’t do something about him, I will, Mrs Palmer. I know you’re the only one who bothers reading these. If the Doctor punches him again he’ll get suspended.

Doctor asked for office in front wing, again. Denied, again. Threw massive wobbly.

Next meeting scheduled: Probably.

-

St Luke’s University: Faculty Heads Meeting Date: March 30, 1952 Location: Jude Hayworth Building, Room 905 Attending: Professor Herbert Greenfield, Professor Reginald Thornton, Mr James Price, Dr John Smith, Mr Uriah Parson, Mr Alexander Walsh, Mr Jamie Mathieson Minutes taken: Mr Jamie Mathieson Apologies: Dr Smith late due to funeral

Professor Greenfield delineated allocation of lecture halls for the upcoming term. 

Dr Smith arrived and made apologies, see ‘apologies above’.

Professor Greenfield informed all present that the cellars below the front wing are currently under repair after a partial collapse and that faculty are requested to make this clear to their students. Dr Smith seconded and was particularly emphatic on this matter. Mr Parson complained that the collapse ought to have been prevented, considering that the cellars have been under construction since he was hired in 1949. Dr Smith reported that there was a lot to construct.

Mr Price requested that the following be recorded in the minutes:

“Miss Waites was an enchanting presence that brightened even the dullest of our faculty meetings and I for one shall sorely miss her company. I will think fondly of her for many years to come, as I am sure my fellow staff members will too. I am saddened that her career at St Luke’s has come to such a regrettable end. And Mr Rdole too, of course. Yes, I am very sad also about him. That’s all, thank you, Jamie.”

Professor Thornton also made comments.

Dr Smith was too moved to verbally acknowledge these sentiments, as evidenced by his striking Professor Thornton good-naturedly across the face and leaving the room shortly afterwards.

Dr Smith’s request for an office in the front wing was struck from the meeting agenda.

Next meeting scheduled: December 18, 1952.

-

St Luke’s University: Faculty Heads Meeting Date: 14 February, 1956 Location: Science Wing, Room 709 Attending: Professor Herbert Greenfield, Professor Reginald Thornton, Professor James Price, Dr John Smith, Mr Alexander Walsh, Mr Uriah Parson, Mr Nicholas Miller, Miss Lucy Finney, Mr Neill Cross Minutes taken: Mr Neill Cross Apologies: See second point.

Mr Parson gave presentation on most recent statistics from Oxford University regarding impact of mixed gender classes on student learning. Dr Smith objected to  conclusions drawn from the study and to applying them at St Luke’s. Debate was sparked between Professors Greenfield and Thornton and Dr Smith on this matter. Dr Smith to present own presentation at next faculty meeting with counterpoint argument. Professor Thornton welcomed this. Professor Price cautioned Dr Smith to vacate the room for ten minutes and regain his temper. Dr Smith refused but acquiesced to move further down the table from Professor Thornton. 

Professor Thornton moved discussion to Dr Smith’s research assistant’s continued absence from faculty meetings, a subject which has been a matter of contention at previous meetings. Professor Greenfield reminded the faculty and Dr Smith that when he was hired in 1947 he petitioned to be permitted to bring his research assistants to faculty meetings to act as secretaries and perform “vital duties”. Dr Smith explained that his assistant suffers from frequent illness and is rarely able to withstand the social requirements of faculty meetings. Professor Thornton corrected Dr Smith that it is not a matter of “rarely” – the girl has not been seen once in the four years since she was hired. Dr Smith objected to what he perceived as another request for the girl’s existence to be proved, arguing that multiple other lower level staff are familiar with her. He questioned Professor Thornton’s insistence that the girl be brought to meetings while ill. At this accusation Professor Thornton indicated Miss Finney and recommended that Dr Smith hire himself a more obedient secretary. Professor Greenfield agreed that he himself would never hire a woman who was given to fits of hysteria. Dr Smith was requested to leave the meeting after attempting to assault Professor Thornton. 

After Dr Smith’s removal, Professor Greenfield voiced long-standing concerns about his suitability as a teacher, given his violent nature. Professor Price defended Dr Smith as being – while possessed of a Gaelic temper – ultimately noble, and praised him as an upstanding member of the university. Mr Miller supported these claims and related his own perspective as an alumnus who had been taught by Dr Smith during his studies, saying that ��there isn’t a student who passed through the Doctor’s lecture hall without being transcended to the stars”. Professor Greenfield resolved to bring the discussion to the attention of the board next month and stated that regardless, Dr Smith would not be granted an office in the front wing while he himself still worked at St Luke’s. 

Next meeting scheduled: 20 March.

-

St Luke’s University Faculty Heads Meeting Date: November 26, 1963 Location: Science Wing, Room 910 Attending: Doctor John Smith, Mr Alexander Walsh, Professor Nicholas Miller, Miss Lucy Finney, Mr Otto Anker, Miss Sarah Dollard Minutes taken: Miss Sarah Dollard Apologies: None. 

Mr Walsh called the meeting to order by honouring first, with a few words, the partial retirement of Professor Herbert Greenfield, formerly Head of History. He expressed his wishes that Professor Greenfield find relief in a reduced workload and that his health may improve.

The Doctor requested that his research assistant, lately arrived three days ago, be allowed to attend future faculty meetings in order to provide secretarial assistance and perform vital duties related to the Doctor’s work. Much of the faculty was unaware the Doctor had hired a new assistant and elaboration was requested. Miss Finney related she had encountered a queer girl in the Hayworth Building and remembered her on account of a certain physical feature. The Doctor confirmed that this was his new assistant, Frederick Markiv. This caused some confusion as Miss Finney remembered a girl in men’s clothing and Frederick Markiv is apparently a young man of twenty-five. Mr O’Keefe confirmed he had also seen a young person with unusual eyes near the entrance to the old front wing cellars and remembered her as a female. The Doctor remained adamant that Mr Markiv is a boy and requested that focus be returned to the subject of his being permitted entry to meetings. Attendance was permitted. 

The theft of the Reginald Thornton memorial statue was discussed. Mr Emerson expressed some admiration that the thieves were able to saw through the statue at the ankles so cleanly. Police investigation has been fruitless. Mr Walsh suggested petitioning the board for a replacement. Miss Finney countered that there are more pressing uses for the University’s limited funding. The Doctor pointed out that any students willing to cart away a six-foot statue and leave only a set of bronze feet and stone plinth behind likely have the determination to do it a second time. Miss Finney agreed that similar acts of vandalism elsewhere set a precedent and that surely Mr Walsh wouldn’t wish for Professor Thornton’s memory to be disgraced. Mr Walsh set the matter to an official close. 

Mr Anker reported that three of his students had complained of having items stolen or going missing and cautioned other faculty members to be wary of theft on campus. 

The Doctor’s request for an office situated in the front wing was considered at length. Mr Walsh reported with regret that there was no vacant office at this current time. 

Next meeting scheduled: 2nd January, 1964.

-

St Luke’s University Faculty Heads Meeting Date: 1st February, 1965 Location: Front Wing, Room 231 Attending: Doctor John Smith, Mr Alexander Walsh, Professor Nicholas Miller, Mrs Lucy Humphries, Miss Freddie Markiv, Dr Arif Jaradat, Mr Saul Metzstein Minutes taken: Mr Saul Metzstein Apologies: None

Dr Jaradat, former staff member of St Luke’s currently delivering a series of guest lectures, was welcomed to the meeting. Dr Jaradat said he was glad to see at least one familiar face still at the meetings and congratulated the Doctor on how kind time had been to him in the intervening time, nearly two decades. He also took a moment to shake hands with Miss Markiv, asking if she was associated with the Markivs of St Petersburg, a family he had known. Miss Markiv replied that she was not. Dr Jaradat pressed her with some other questions on her possible relations until the Doctor suggested that the conversation wait until the scheduled tea break.

Professor Miller related some instructions from the board concerning the fenced off area at the end of the front wing. It is being investigated for radioactive material at the moment. Nobody is to go anywhere near it and we must all observe the fence lines erected around it. The Doctor added that under no circumstances is anyone to go into the basement, which is the chief area of concern in the investigation. Miss Markiv gave greater emphasis to these instructions until the Doctor told her to stop talking.

Mrs Humphries detailed at some length the plans around the upcoming memorial service for Sir Winston Churchill, and asked the faculty to submit any ideas for hymns. At this point Miss Markiv made a remark which much of the board considered extremely disrespectful and was asked to leave the meeting. The Doctor made apologies. Mr Walsh has instructed me not to record it, although I will record that it is, unfortunately, true. Dr Jaradat left with Miss Markiv but agreed to come back after the tea break. Conversation returned to planning the memorial service.

Planning ended earlier than expected prior to tea break and Mr Walsh questioned whether it would be prudent to ban Miss Markiv from attending the memorial service. It is apparently not the first time she has expressed disapproval towards Sir Winston Churchill. Mr Walsh asked the Doctor to ‘rein in’ Miss Markiv’s political opinions at faculty meetings, which are not the place for debate. The Doctor asked why it was his job to rein Miss Markiv in. Mr Walsh reminded the Doctor that he was the one who hired Miss Markiv. 

Tea break.

[Handwritten]: Rest of meeting couldn’t be recorded in real time. Returned from tea break to find that my typewriter had been stolen and only minutes already recorded left behind. Damned if I can remember any of the rest. All they did was talk about Churchill. I told Mrs Humphries I would be hopeless at this. I’m already going to have to re-type what I have, IF I can get another typewriter. Nick says Freddie isn’t a girl. Dr James Barry, he says. Now I look a damn fool in front of everyone too, calling him a tomboy and a brunette. Dr James Barry! Walsh smirking like a cat with cream all round its whiskers, I should have known. Damn Walsh. And them all looking at me when Freddie said the thing about Zionism, as if I’m supposed to have an opinion on it. I do, but that’s no matter! And Dr Jaradat there too. No wonder he left the room. I would have gone with him if I hadn’t been strapped to the damn typewriter. Damn, damn, damn! My mother was natural-born Scot! I’m a natural-born Scot! My grandfather came here before the damn war! Don’t damn well look at me!

All I remember is Mrs Humphries talking about the suitability of calla lily wreaths and the Doctor not being allowed to have some office he wants. And now I have to remember to type this all up and file the right version. Mrs Humphries will have my head.

-

St Luke’s University: Faculty Heads Meeting Date: June 1 1967 Location: Front Wing, Room 607 Attending: Doctor John Smith, Professor Nicholas Miller, Mrs Lucy Humphries, Frederick Markiv, Mr Raymond Dickinson, Mr Gene Brent, Mr Sam Williams, Mr Christopher March, Professor Alex Yardley, Miss Annie Fairfield, Miss Shay Jones, Mr Peter Hoar Minutes taken: Mr Peter Hoar Apologies: Mr Walsh has strep throat. 

Today’s meeting was mostly occupied with a long presentation from the student council regarding their request for funding to be allocated towards commissioning a computer. They argued for its usefulness to research graduates in particular and made reference to precedents set by other universities. The university board is due to hear the same presentation in a month’s time but the student representatives, Mr Simon Jones and Mr David Dixon, are eager to seek support from any willing members of the faculty. The Doctor, Mr Williams, Miss Fairfield, and Professor Yardley agreed to support Jones and Dixon at the board meeting. Markiv also offered his help in building the computer, but Jones and Dixon mistook him for the Doctor’s son and were confused by how a high schooler knew anything about building computers. They were under the impression he was just doing his homework in the room while the Doctor attended the meeting. 

This misunderstanding caused rather a kerfuffle. Once Miller made it clear that Markiv is a grown man and not, in fact, a very tall thirteen-year-old boy, Jones and Dixon said they would definitely let Markiv know if they needed his help with the computer. Markiv offered his address for contact and Jones and Dixon said they would definitely let him know if they needed it. The Doctor was no help, as usual. He feigned a total lack of comprehension of the entire thing, except for loudly protesting the suggestion that he and Markiv were father and son until Markiv told him to stop talking.

The only other item on the agenda was the Doctor’s monthly request for a front-wing office. Miller confirmed that he would be allowed to move into Professor Greenfield’s old rooms on the third floor. Note: Professor Greenfield fully retired three weeks ago for the sake of his health after an incident in which he claimed to see a green lizard woman in his office. He will be sorely missed, etc.

Happy summer, all!

Next meeting: August 30 1967.

-

St Luke’s University: Faculty Heads Meeting Date: February 13, 1972 Location: Humanities Wing, Room 413 Attending: Doctor John Smith, Professor Nicholas Miller, Mrs Lucy Humphries, Mr Walsh, Mr Graeme Harper Minutes taken: Graeme Apologies: Freddie Markiv, see below

Mrs Humphries called the meeting to order and started by making a speech for Nick, who is leaving for Cambridge at the end of the week. She wished him the very best of success in his future career and said she knew he would continue to make St Luke’s proud. This was seconded by Mr Walsh. More words of support and well-wishing followed from Person and Person. The Doctor shook Nick’s hand. After Nick recovered from that he thanked everyone.

Sam gave the findings from some surveys conducted among the student body regarding overall student satisfaction with courses, staff, and facilities. Mostly positive with at least a seventy perfect swing, with higher rates of satisfaction with some of the younger tutors and the Doctor. More negative feedback was on campus facilities. Dorms in need of renovation due to damp (we know this, funding is still being sought from benefactors), and there were complaints about the odd smells sometimes emanating from the old cellars down the end of the front wing. Walsh said he would ask at the next board meeting whether the plumbing and pipes could be checked. 

Alex asked the Doctor why for several weeks Freddie Markiv has not been showing up to meetings to track the progress of his PhD thesis, which Alex is supervising. Alex has attempted to contact Freddie multiple times in vain.  He reminded the Doctor that Freddie’s suitability as a PhD candidate has already come into question a number of times due to his inconsistency and lack of proper work ethic, which was also a problem for his undergraduate degree. Or, as Alex puts it, Freddie is “brilliant at some things and excruciatingly bad at many, many others”. The Doctor took offence to this but was reluctant to admit that it fell to him to admonish Freddie. Alex reminded him that Freddie was his research assistant and that therefore he ought to take some interest in him, especially if he couldn’t handle a dual workload. It was at this point that Mrs Humphries noticed that Freddie was not actually at the meeting.

Walsh requested that the meeting minutes be checked as he may have simply left the room when no one was looking, which he is in the habit of doing. As Freddie is not listed amongst the attendants it’s assumed he never arrived. The Doctor was evasive when questioned but eventually said that Freddie is in Cardiff visiting family. Mrs Humphries was displeased that the Doctor didn’t notify of this at the start of the meeting. Previous meeting minutes were consulted and it was found that, actually, Freddie has been absent from the last three monthly meetings. The Doctor has been instructed to take him in hand better, though admittedly, no one else noticed he was gone either. Meeting adjourned.

Next meeting: March 20 1972.

-

St Luke’s University: Faculty Heads Meeting PARTIAL RECORDING TRANSCRIPT Notes: Please strike highlighted excerpt from record before filing. Mr Greenfield and his family are long-standing benefactors of St Luke’s and his father, uncle, and great-uncle all had teaching legacies here. Mr Markiv’s comments are impertinent and Mr Greenfield’s depiction may be taken out of context. As this is the only time Mr Markiv spoke during the entirety of the meeting, it may be simplest to remove mention of his attendance from the transcript entirely. – Walsh Date: 22 November, 1989

H. GREENFIELD: I don’t recall that being mentioned in the building survey. THE DOCTOR: Well, I read the survey, and it was. H. GREENFIELD: You’re saying you want more money? F. MARKIV: Oh, for – he’s saying the uni will need more money to make the dorms actually sanitary. This bloody renovation has been overdue for twenty – H. GREENFIELD: What do your lot know about sanitary? Laughter from H. Greenfield. A. WALSH: Doctor, please sit down. F. MARKIV: My lot? H. GREENFIELD: Oh, you know. Men like you. F. MARKIV: Men like me? H. GREENFIELD: Yeah, you know. F. MARKIV: No, go on. Say it. Pick a word. H. GREENFIELD: Why so angry? I mean redheads, of course. Laughter from H. Greenfield. F. MARKIV: Being a little prick because you want someone to name a lawn after you, aren’t you? WALSH: Markiv, outside, now! Laughter from the Doctor.

—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

I found these. Sorry, can only access as far back as 2005, the first one is literally the earliest entry in the database. He doesn’t say anything, really, ever. Again, literally, this is it, I pulled out the bits where he talks or is addressed at all. Three pages out of twelve years of meetings. I don’t think it’s that exciting. Good luck anyway. – N

St Luke’s University Faculty Heads Meeting RECORDING TRANSCRIPT, PAGE 1. No: 5 March, 2005

L. HUMPHRIES: Faculty Heads Meeting, fifth of March, 2005, called to start at seven-thirty AM in Humanities Room 101. In attendance, Rachael Brade, Oliver Yaxley, Simon Bugle, Emerson Jiminez, Freddie Markiv, Jialin Xióng, Catherine Murton, Elizabeth Tran, Patrick Hughes, Lucy Humphries. Absent, the Doctor. First item on the agenda: The cellars under the front wing have now been permanently closed. C. MURTON: Were those ever open? L. HUMPHRIES: Well, they’re closed now. They found asbestos down there. Indistinct general chatter. L. HUMPHRIES: The other buildings are fine, it’s just the old cellars. As Cathy said, it’s not as if they were ever in use. St Luke’s can’t afford to have it removed at the moment, so … permanent closure, officially. Second item on the agenda: one of the board members will be retiring at the end of the month. Gerard – er, Gerard … F. MARKIV: Wilson? L. HUMPHRIES: Yes, thank you, Freddie, I’m not completely senile just yet.

-

St Luke’s University: Faculty Heads Meeting RECORDING TRANSCRIPT, PAGE 5. No: April 3, 2010

A. MYERS: That’s basically all I’ve got at the moment. Unless anyone else has any ideas for raising funds? THE DOCTOR: What about a crepe sale? Extended silence. THE DOCTOR: You know, a crepe sale. People love crepes. F. MARKIV: Dear Santa. Please can we have one million dollars. THE DOCTOR: Freddie. F. MARKIV: Yes? THE DOCTOR: Stop talking. I’m pitching.

-

St Luke’s University: Faculty Heads Meeting RECORDING TRANSCRIPT, PAGE 1. No: 23 November, 2013

J.V. HURT: Oh, and the Doctor and his assistant both send apologies. M. STEVEN: Hold on, neither of them are coming? That’s impossible. We’re not that lucky. D. RUSSELL: Are you sure the boy isn’t in here somewhere? He’s always… C. CHRIS: Did you just check under the table, Dave? D. RUSSELL: He’s always in rooms you think are empty. L. HUMPHRIES: Come along, now, please. Neither of them are here, and I haven’t been blessed like that since 1971. With the Doctor gone we can actually get some work done.