#and it exposes a lot of the classism of these writers too

[gldnstrngs]

i will never not be angry with the way morgana’s character was developed

there are so many layers to her character that could’ve been utilized but was instead boiled down to her “losing her mind” and only wanting power

it starts with merlin poisoning morgana in s2. this may be a very unpopular opinion, but i dont think that being the trigger of morgana actually turning evil was enough…

merlin was wrong to poison her, but he was also put in an impossible position and his only guidance in that moment was a dragon who was desperate for freedom. he didn’t do it because he wanted to, but because he felt like he didn’t have a choice

and, yes, he could’ve talked to morgana, but they were in a high stakes situation where im not sure merlin could actually rationalize with her

people love to solely put the blame on merlin, but its not like morgana was completely innocent either. she may not known at first how morgause was using her as a tool to make all of camelot unconscious, but we could literally see her piecing things together the way merlin was

also, she was working with morgause and i know it was because she wanted uther dead (literally who doesn’t?), but it came with the risk of hurting camelot’s people and also betraying arthur’s trust

in s3 when morgana returns, merlin feels a lot of remorse and that is something that morgana can see. she confronts him and pretends she didn’t become evil, and literally says “you were just trying to protect your friends. i would’ve done the same” which she WOULDVE. morgana was known to be passionate and kindhearted and would’ve done anything to protect her friends (and actively did so), and maybe she wouldn’t have went about it the same way merlin did, but she would’ve eventually come to understand his actions, especially because she allied with darker forces

with that being said, if the writers wanted to make morgana mad at merlin then that’s fine because she has the right to (to an extent), but why take it out on arthur and gwen, who hadn’t done her any harm (before she found out she’s arthur’s half-sister and that arwen was a thing)?

she was raised with arthur and literally said in s1 that he’s a better man than his father. she had faith in him, which was shown when he helped the people of ealdor and when he went to get the mortaeus flower so he could save merlin

and we know that gwen was her maid for several years at that point, and they were literally best friends! so why turn on her, especially when she didn’t do anything to morgana? it can be argued that morgana was frustrated with arthur’s complacency, but there wasn’t any actual reason for her to turn on gwen, especially knowing how she lost her father not too long ago because of uther’s actions

another thing that really upsets me is how morgana uses her class against merlin, so he won’t expose her??? she was literally opposed to classism and did her best to help camelot’s people, but now she was using her standing against merlin

and she uses it when she exposes arthur and gwen for dating. morgana was completely aware that uther wouldnt be happy to find out that arthur was with a maid of all people, so she used that against them

these are all things that were exceptionally out of character for morgana. i know she was under the influence of morgause for roughly a year, but she went from being on the fence about which side to take to immediately going against the people who knew and loved her for years

it’s not like they had to keep morgana’s character completely good the whole time, but she is very nuanced. instead of making her outright evil, the writers should’ve done more to have her juggle with what side she wants to be on. realistically, she wouldn’t just pick morgause, who she really barely knows, over arthur and gwen, who have been her friends for years, without hesitation

and maybe morgana could’ve still ended up being an antagonist, but instead of making her completely bloodthirsty, she could’ve continued to struggle with her feelings towards arthur and gwen and even merlin. in the end, her anger was towards uther because he was the one to persecute magical people, not the others. we could’ve seen her deal with the guilt of inherently going against arthur because she wanted to kill uther (and, no matter how much she hated uther, she was raised by him and clearly showed love for him)

morgana wasn’t just some absolutely unhinged villain. its not like it would be impossible for her to lose sight of what she wanted, but there was no actual transition to get to that point. by the end of the show, she still wanted arthur dead, but i dont think that would’ve actually been the case if she didn’t deal with character assassination

even in the legend (based on which interpretation), morgana is the one to send off arthur’s dead body. i don’t think she wouldve actually wanted arthur to die, especially because arthur didn’t want to see her dead, but it wouldve inevitably happened and that would be when she fully realized everything she did wrong

idk i just have so many thoughts about morgana’s character like she actually deserved so much better 😭 if they were going to make her a villain then they should’ve written that storyline better

[boyfridged]

You may have already mentioned this in some of your other metas, and I just missed it, so please ignore this if it's redundant.

Do you think Bruce is projecting onto Jason by pushing him as a Robin? Obviously, Jason wanted to be Robin and was excited about it, and Bruce let Jason do other things, but (if I'm not mistaken) before Tim came into play, solidifying the whole Batman needs a Robin/support to keep him upright, Bruce and Dick becoming Batman and Robin, in the beginning, was also sort of a coping mechanism.

I think there are a few examples of Bruce enabling this kind of mindset. Like in Gotham Knights #43–44 (sorry), every time Barbara brings up Jason's inner turmoil, Bruce refocuses on his ability as a Robin; similarly, when Jason finds out about Two-Face and his dad, he is hurt, and Bruce acknowledges that but then does the same thing, zeroing in on reassuring Jason that he made a mistake but is still a good Robin.

Like, Jason got it from Bruce, but he unintentionally encouraged that kind of thinking.

oh, i definitely think that bruce is projecting on jason and that it profoundly affected jay. and, while every single one of your observations is apt, i would add that what truly made it so tragic is that he projected his own worst traits on jason while being blind to the fact that jay already shared his best qualities.

tldr: bruce projects himself on jason in terms of grief (saying that jason needs vigilantism to work his grief through) and sees his own worst traits in jason (anger) but doesn't see his own best traits in jay (compassion, love, and sensitivity). ironically, jason does end up developing all of the (projected) worst characteristics of bruce (obsessiveness, and relentlessness in pursuit of the respective perceived idea of justice). this happens even though they were barely present in his early storylines, and only ever manifested when jason was scared or lost. later, they truly came to be because of his trauma relating to vigilantism.

and the long, long version, coming with panels and quotes: under the cut.

first i want to say that the following analysis focuses very specifically on bruce's mistakes, but i don't view the overall of jay's upbringing by bruce solely in these terms. from text it is also clear that bruce deeply loves and cares about jay, and that jay enjoys being robin. now that this is clear, let's get to particularities, and start with jay's origin story.

i truly never stop thinking about the significance of bruce meeting jay in the crime alley, the place of his parents' death. there's a lot to be said about it, but here the focus is, of course, on the fact that he sees a little boy, very much similar to himself, angry and hurt, in the same scenery that brought him so much grief. and jay in some ways does appear to be a mirror of bruce's own agonies, as well as a mirror of his own inclination for seeking justice; and somehow, bruce fixates on the first one, while almost completely dismissing the latter.

bruce looks at him and assumes that the remedy to jason's pain and anger is being robin; and he doesn't stop to think about it. (it has to be noted that there's also classism at play, classism that is mostly a result of writers' own beliefs – collins did state in a couple of interviews that that the motivation behind jason's background was to make his introduction into vigilantism seem less offensive, as jason has already been exposed to crime...)

i think, in this context, it's interesting to look at the two-face storyline even closer, and from the start too. in the beginning, bruce talks of jason's 'street' roots and assumes jay would go "down the same criminal road that took his father [willis] to an early death." he also talks of jason making a lot of progress. later, in batman #411, after jason learns that willis has been killed by two-face, bruce comments that jay "has never been like this...listless...almost pouting--"

this all, along with jay's cheerful and diligent behaviour from the previous issue builds an interesting picture for us: because we essentially learn that jay has been overall an unproblematic child. bruce, of course, attributes this "progress" to the training. however, for anyone else, the logical conclusion would be that jay's quick adjustment was simply a matter of finding himself in a safe and stable environment and receiving continuous support and attention from a parental figure. i find it rather questionable that jason's personality softened down because he had something to punch in the cave–– the more intuitive explanation is of course that he was angry and quick to fight when they first met because he couldn't afford anything else and because he was scared. but months later, in a loving home, he can allow himself to drop his guard; and his cocky attitude disappears until much later.

so the rather unsettling picture that we derive is that bruce is training jay to become a vigilante in order to "channel" his (nonvisible at this point) anger into something useful and just. and he clearly links this to his own trauma in batman #416 (that’s already starlin btw), in his conversation with dick, explaining why he took jay in: “he’s so full of anger and frustration… he reminds me of myself, just after my parents were killed.” bruce also mentions that soon after their first meeting, jason helped him and "handled himself well" in the fight, but he doesn't mention that jay has ran away from a crime "school" and intended to stop injustice on his own only because he was ignored.

the theme of bruce comparing jay to himself appears again in detective comics #574 (barr), where it is approached with a much more... critical look, thanks to leslie's presence and her skepticism of bruce's actions. after jason has suffered nearly fatal injuries at the hand of the mad hatter, bruce reminisces on his own trauma and motives. he tells leslie: "i didn't choose jason for my work. he was chosen by it...as i was chosen." leslie replies: "stop that! (...) you do this for yourself... you're still that little boy (...)" then, the conversation steers to the familiar ground and the topic of anger. in bruce's words, again: “i wanted to give jason an outlet for his rage…wanted him to expunge his anger and get on with his life…” and finishes "and instead, i may have killed him."

the recognition that bruce's projection on jason and involving him with his work might have fatal consequences is, as always, fast forgotten once jay wakes up and proclaims that he wants to continue his work as robin.

but to circle back, i think there's something else worth our attention, something deeply ironic, that is showcased in that issue: that bruce has no evidence for jay's "rage." when leslie talks of bruce's past, she recalls his tendencies to get into brutal fights at perceived injustice as early as in school; when bruce talks of jason, two pictures that are juxtaposed, are that of jason fighting as robin and jason... smiling, playing baseball.

so, in the early days of jason's training and work in the field, we see bruce talking of jason's anger a lot; but we barely see it.

that being said, jay is angry sometimes– and i think your observation about how bruce deals with it is incredibly interesting and accurate.

we first see jay truly and devastatingly angry in the two-face storyline. bruce focuses on jay's reaction as robin, which is, in fact, aggressive. but something that he barely addresses is that jason's first reaction is sleeping all day, and not beating anyone to a pulp; in fact, this vengeful instinct seems to arise only when he is put right in front of two-face. and his third instinct, once the rage (very quickly) dies down after the altercation with two-face, is crying, because bruce hid the truth about willis' death from him. jay, while crying, asks bruce: "you have taken me out into combat-- but you spare me this?" in response, bruce lectures jason about how grief inspires revenge, which is, again, deeply ironic, given that jay seeking out revenge seemed to be prompted and enabled solely by the role of robin. moreover, his question suggests that at this point he saw grief ("you spare me this") and fighting as two different things.

the final is, as you said, bruce focusing on making it into a lesson on vigilantism, or, in his own words, "tempering revenge into justice." personally, i think in this way bruce directs jason to bring his grief into the field as a powering force, something that he didn't necessarily have an own incentive to do. the flash of compartmentalisation between his ordinary life and being a sidekick that jay has shown by questioning bruce's decision is lost. emotions are now a robin thing, and they have an (informal) protocol, a moral code. and when jay is confronted with an emotionally exhausting case next – the garzonas case, i believe that the focus on "tempering revenge into justice" is exactly the problem– we don't see jay crying, we see him frantic about finding the solution. this, right there, is bruce's obsessiveness, that in my opinion, was developed in jay specifically as a result of how his engagement with vigilantism combines with his deep sensitivity.

and, needless to say, his sensitivity is all the same as that of bruce – they both can't stand looking at other people hurting, they both wear their hearts on their sleeve, caring way too much – the thing is, bruce never quite acknowledges how they are similar in this matter. instead, he focuses on his sparse bursts of anger, wanting to bring jason closure in his grief the only way he knows it – in a fight for a better world. so, as you said, he focuses on jason's ability as robin.

which just doesn't work for jason. at all. we know it from how his robin run comes to an end: in the first issue of a death in the family (batman #426) alfred informs: “i’ve come upon him, several times, looking at that battered old photograph of his mother and father, crying.”  to that, bruce contends: “in other words, i may have started jason as robin before he had a chance to come to grips with his parents deaths.” he also tells jay that the field is not a place for someone who is hurting; a message that is the opposite of what he's been saying for years now, and something that i imagine was difficult for bruce to conceptualise, because then he would have to question his own unhealthy tendencies. it's a bit late to come to this realisation; bruce's self-projection that caused him to worry so much about jay's anger has already turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy that will fully manifest itself in utrh, when jason does the only thing he was taught to do with grief: try to channel it into justice.

[roobylavender]

Everytime i see someone talking about how Jason should leave the vigilante life behind and be a doctor, im cheering on my seat because you're so right!! Idk is it a cultural difference or what since I'm not american, but if there's one thing that would help you during hard time, community is the answer. How they show Jason being alone after his mother death feel wrong to me, because the lack of community in crime alley despite it being one of Gotham bad side doesn't fit at all. Having a community is how you survive in poverty. I know today people make it that everything is a competition in society, that you have to do everything alone to survive but as someone whose family come from that rough place i could tell you that having people is important.

That's why the idea of Jason as a doctor is always appealing to me. Because it shows you a man who want to go back to his roots. This is the man who remember his youth struggle, who is it in other and want to help fix it. I would've love to read it.

Show me Jason who remember what he want to be before all this and choose to accept what happen and pick up what he left. Show me Jason who take his ged and apply to medical school because he remember his mom and see inspiration in Leslie. Show me Jason who look at Gotham situation and try to tackle it from the root because he use to be there too instead of throwing money at it or using fear to control it. Show me Jason who want to connect back with his community, who approach prostitutes, struggling single moms, and victims and listen to them in how to help. Show me Jason who do things for himself and not Bruce or other people.

I love Jason's tragedy. I do. I love his relationship with the narrative and how it becomes one of the appeal when it comes to his character. But it would be nice to see that even a character like him can have a hopeful ending. That against what people thought or said, he's not doomed from the start and refuse to be one.

THESIS STATEMENT!

[mostly-mundane-atla]

Got it. What about Inuit, Yup’ik and Inupiaq stereotypes? Are there a lot of harmful ones to avoid? I do know you shouldn’t make eating meat their entire personality, but what else?

Okay, this is going to get dark, so if you need to blacklist any content warnings (mine are tagged as "[insert content here] mention", do that before reading and if you need me to tag anything specific, please tell me and avoid this post until I get to it.

And again: Disclaimer that simply having an eskimo coded character fall into these stereotypes is not inherently racist or wrong. Keep this in mind as writers of color, and thereby Native writers, often get a lot of shit for writing our experiences as we feel them. Not to mention, yelling at someone trying to do justice to a dark topic, even if they don't succeed, is a shitty thing to do. Some of these have subtextual backing in canon. Remember that although we are looked down on for crimes, wrongs, or unpleasantness we're assumed to have commited, it's the members of our community who suffer most for it. There is value in understanding the pain that comes from the community that's supposed to protect you, and I don't believe the writers of the series had any malicious intentions toward us for writing characters that fall into any of these stereotypes. Recognize the nuance or get off my blog and find someone else to back up your discourse.

I'm going to use the term Native in this context. Natives come from many different cultures and cannot be assumed to be the same, but many of these stereotypes are used against more than just Inuit, Inupiat, and Yup'ik peoples. This is why I find it to be the most appropriate term in this context. I will add my understanding of where these stereotypes came from and why they're harmful, but I am only one person and a full understanding of the topic requires more than one point of view.

"Natives are drunks." The United States used alcohol on Natives the same way Britain used opium on China. They introduced it to us and blamed addiction on our own "weakness of character." This assumption of alcoholism carries with it assumptions of untrustworthiness. For a real life example: I was on a grand jury (a jury that decides whether a case is worth taking to court) years ago and one case was an older Native man accusing his brother of physically assaulting him. For some reason, a nearly all-white jury was deemed to be a jury of this man's peers, and two or three white men violently insisted that it shouldn't be brought to court because it happened at a party and therefore it was just some alcoholics from the village wasting a judge's time. Eventually, after some discussion about how no alcohol was mentioned, it was decided the case should be presented to a judge. I would also like to point out that the Native man in question was entirely sober, well put-together, spoke more cohesively than other cases that day, and had a bad limp.

"Natives are child abusers/molesters." This one actually links to the first stereotype mentioned, and a lot of what I've said on this blog about how abuse perpetuates. There was a lot of physical, mental, and, yes, sexual abuse in the US run schools, especially the Christian ones and boarding schools. (I've heard people mentioning that the priests would more often target the boys because they couldn't get pregnant.) When one gets regularly exposed to this sort of thing, they come to accept it as normal. This normalizing of abuse is bad enough for the one person, but it also affects the way they interact with others when put in similar situations as the abuser. They're hurt and traumatized and weren't effectively told that it was wrong and they shouldn't have been put through that, so they perpetuate it on people as vulnerable as they were when it happened. Movements have started in hopes of bringing awareness and getting help for these people before they can carry out the cycle further. Abuse between adults is also a tricky issue because the ways people are taught to give or not give consent are counterintuitive to cultural norms around verbal and nonverbal communication. See: the "they didn't say no" argument.

"The Stoic Native." There are a number of reasons one culture might emote less than another, especially around people they don't know. This doesn't mean that we don't feel or are too strong or brave to feel. Our emotions are our business and we don't owe anyone an explanation.

"Natives are part of the land." For some reason, a lot of non-Natives have trouble grasping that Indigenous Peoples are human beings in our own right. A lot of media portrays us not as people in the same sense that the outsiders are, but as extensions of the land or the spirits of the land. It's true that generations upon generations of living somewhere means the land will change to reflect the people, but that is due to the influence of people living there and how their culture says to interact with it. This trope reduces us to symbols of "a simpler time" or just as often white people's ideas of nature conservation. It's dehumanizing and infantalizing, ignoring our cultures and civilizations, treating us as either innocent martyrs for someone else's cause, or pests that are done away with once the land is developed.

"The Native Princess." Sometimes the only way non-Natives can see us as people is by pushing cultural norms and forms of government they're more familiar with onto us. Naturally, this means assuming that our civilizations were as successful as they were because they were like the non-Native author's. This is especially gratuitous in the case of Inuit, Inupiat, and Yup'ik peoples because we don't have anything resembling a monarchy. Yeah, this one is explicitly in the text so I can't expect much to be done with it

"Native women are always available to men." I don't know what it is about cultures that consider themselves more "advanced" seeing ones they consider "primative" where women have more autonomy in the relationships they have with men and fewer restritions on their bodies. I don't know how they misinterpret "she can do that here" as "she's there for the taking" but it's so gross and I would like it to stop. Sexuality being more open and not inherently sinful doesn't mean the women don't have standards or won't turn anyone down.

"Natives are broke and/or homeless." This is just the typical racism mixing with classism to make something even uglier situatation. The result is a lot of treatment you see non-Native POC get, such as being followed at the store because they expect you to steal something.

There are more, I'm sure, but these are the ones I get the most. Note that again, it's not inherently bad to write a Native or Native-coded character who drinks or has a lot of partners or is particularly connected to their homeland or poor, but take care to handle it with some sensitivity. Understand that there are implications to these things and real harm can be done by legitimizing racist stereotypes.

[warwickroyals]

I don’t know if this par for the course but I guess I should introduce mys . . .

I really suck at introductions so I will try to keep this brief. My name is Ayanna, I am a Canadian political science student and I have been play The Sims since 2014. 

I also royal watch and I have a Tumblr blog called @heir-heads​ which you should avoid at all costs unless you want to be exposed to the miasma of racism and sexism and classism that is Tumblr’s royal fandom.

Where was I?

I am also a pretty good (at least, in my opinion) writer. So I decided to take the three things that I love the most and combine them into one Tumblr blog. I really enjoy reading a lot of the royal legacies on here  (@royalfamilyofgrimalldi​ and @batsfromwesteros​ are two of my very favourite creators) and I think I’d like to give it a shot. I really hope I can make some new friends while I’m here, my DMs and inbox will always be open, and I can’t wait to share my story with you all. I don’t use much CC but I will be WCIF friendly too.

I expect my first post about the Warwick legacy to be up on the December 15 💖🥺

[jadelotusflower]

November Roundup

Some writing success this month - I finished and posted a new chapter for Against the Dying of the Light, and made progress on The Lady of the Lake and Turn Your Face to the Sun. I didn’t work much on my novel, but I did do some editing on the first third so that’s progress.

Words written this month: 6647

Total this year: 67,514

November books

Girl, Woman, Other by Bernadine Evaristo - joint winner of the 2019 Booker Prize (with The Testaments by Margaret Atwood) this was an engrossing and interesting read. Stylistically unusual formatting and scant use of punctuation that is a bit jarring at first, but you quickly adapt as you read. There’s no plot as such - instead the story is formed by vignettes of twelve black women and their disparate yet interconnected lives. We have mothers and daughters, close friends, teachers and students, although the connections aren’t always obvious at first - we can be exposed to a character briefly in the story of another with no idea that she will be a focus later on. It’s very skillfully done, to the point whereupon finishing I wanted immediately to re-read (but alas, it was already overdue back to the library). There is so much ground covered that we are really only given a glimpse into the characters lives, but there is a diversity of intergenerational perspectives of the African diaspora in the UK, and I highly recommend.

The Evening and the Morning by Ken Follett - after finishing The Pillars of the Earth I had intended to read the sequel, but this was available on the library shelf and I had to place a hold on World Without End, so the prequel came first. Set sixty years before the Conquest (150 before Pillars) it primarily addresses the growth of the hamlet of Dreng’s Ferry into the town of Kingsbridge, through the lives of a monk with a strong moral code, a clever and beautiful noblewoman, and a skilled builder, working against the machinations of an evil bishop. Sound familiar? This is Follet’s most recent work, and I do wonder if he’s running out of ideas as this covers very similar thematic ground.

Ragna is a compelling female character, but once again the romance-that-cannot-be with Edgar is tepid, Aldred is a very watered down version of Prior Philip, and there’s no grand framing device such as building the cathedral to really tie to all together (although things do Get Built, and it’s interesting but not on the level of Pillars). This is the tail end of the Dark Ages and it shows - Viking raids, slavery, infanticide - and while it seems Follett’s style is to put his characters through much tragedy and tribulation before their happy ending, I wish writers would stop going to the rape well so readily. But at least the sexual violence isn’t as...lasciviously written as in Pillars? Scant praise, I know. But Follett’s strength in drawing the reader into the world and time period is on display, made even more interesting in this era about which we know very little.

Women and Leadership by Julia Gillard and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala - I have a great deal of respect for Julia Gillard, Australia’s first female Prime Minister who was treated utterly shamefully during her tenure and never got the credit she deserved, perhaps excepting the reaction to her iconic “misogny speech” whichyou can enjoy in full here:

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala was the first woman to be Minister of Finance and Foreign Affairs in Nigeria, was also the former Managing Director of the World Bank, and currently a candidate for Director-General of the WTO.

This is an interesting examination of women in leadership roles, comparing and contrasting the lives and experiences of a select few including (those I found the most interesting) Ellen Sirleaf, the first female President of Liberia, Joyce Banda, the first female President of Malawi, New Zealand’s current Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and of course, Gillard and Okonjo-Iweala themselves.

November shows/movies

The Vow and Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult - I’ve been following the NXIVM case for a while now, when the news broke in 2017 I was surprised and intrigued that it involved actresses from some of my fandom interests - Alison Mack (Smallville), Grace Park and Nikki Clyne (Battlestar Galactica), and Bonnie Piasse (Star Wars). Uncovered: Escaping NXIVM is an excellent podcast from that point in time that’s well worth a listen. There’s been a lot of discussion comparing these two documentaries and which one is better, but I feel they’re both worthwhile.

The Vow gives a primer of NXIVM as a predatory “self improvement” pyramid scheme/cult run by human garbage Keith Reniere, from the perspective of former members turned whistleblowers Bonnie Piasse, who first suspected things were wrong, her husband Mark Vicente who was high up in the organisation, and Sarah Edmondson who was a member of DOS, the secret group within NXIVM that involved branding and sex trafficking. Seduced gives more insight into the depravity and criminality of DOS from the pov of India Oxenburg, just 19 when she joined the group and who became Alison Mack’s “slave” in DOS - she was required to give monthly “collateral” in the form of explicit photographs or incriminating information about herself or her family, had to ask Mack’s permission before eating anything (only 500 calories allowed per day), was ordered to have sex with Reniere, and other horrific treatment - Mack herself was slave to Reniere (as was Nikki Clyne) and there were even more horrific crimes including rape and imprisonments of underage girls.

Of course each show has an interest in portraying its subjects as less culpable than perhaps they were (there were people above and below them all in the pyramid after all) - Vicente and Edmondson in The Vow and Oxenburg in Seduced, but what I did appreciate about Seduced was the multiple experts to explain how and why people were indoctrinated into this cult, and why it was so difficult to break free from it. This is a story of victims who were also victimisers and all the complications that come along with that, although I’m not sure any of these people are in the place yet to really reckon with what happened and all need a lot of therapy.

Focusing on individual journeys also narrows the scope - there are other NXIVM members interviewed I would have liked to have heard a lot more from. There is also a lot of jumping back and forth in time in both docos so the timeline is never quite clear unless you do further research. I would actually like to see another documentary one day a bit further removed from events dealing with the whole thing from start to finish from a neutral perspective. The good news is that Reniere was recently sentenced to 120 years in prison so he can rot.

I saw value in both, but you’re only going to watch one of these, I would say go for Seduced - if you’re interested in as much information as possible, watch The Vow first to get a primer on all the main players and then Seduced for the full(er) story.

The Crown (season 4) - While I love absolutely everything Olivia Coleman does, I thought it took a while for her to settle in as the Queen last season and it’s almost sad that she really nailed it this season, just in time for the next cast changeover (but I also love everything Imelda Staunton does so...) This may be an unpopular opinion, but I wasn’t completely sold on Gillian Anderson as Thatcher - yes I know she sounded somewhat Like That, but for me the performance was a little too...affected? (and someone get her a cough drop, please!) 

It is also an almost sympathetic portrayal of Thatcher - even though it does demonstrate her classism and internalised misogyny, it doesn’t really explore the full impact of Thatcherism, why she was such a polarising figure to the extent that some would react like this to her death:

But I suppose it’s called The Crown, not The PM.

Emma Corrin is wonderful as Diana, and boy do they take no prisoners with Charles (or the other male spawn). I was actually surprised at how terrible they made Charles seem rather than both sidesing it as I had expected (but perhaps that’s being saved for season 5). It does hammer home just how young Diana was when they were married (19 to Charles’ 32), how incompatible they were and the toxicity of their marriage (standard disclaimer yes it’s all fictionalised blah blah). The performances are exceptional across the board - Tobias Menzies and Josh O’Conner were also standouts and it’s a shame to see them go.

I was however disappointed to see that the episode covering Charles and Di’s tour of Australia was not only called “Terra Nullius” but the term was used as a very tone deaf metephor that modern Australia was no longer “nobody’s land/country”. For those who aren’t aware, terra nullius was the disgraceful legal justification for British invasion/colonisation of Australia despite the fact that the Indigenous people had inhabited the continent for 50,000 years or more. While the tour was pre-Mabo (the decision that overturned the doctrine of terra nullius and acknowledged native title), there was no need to use this to make the point, especially when there was no mention at all of the true meaning/implication of the term.

The Spanish Princess (season 2, episodes 4-8)- Sigh. I guess I’m more annoyed at the squandered potential of this show, since the purpose ostensibly was to focus on the time before The Great Matter and give Katherine “her due” - and instead they went and made her the most unsympathetic, unlikeable character in the whole damn show. (Spoilers) She literally rips Bessie Blount’s baby from her body and, heedless to a mother’s pleas to hold her child, runs off to Henry so she can present him with “a son”. I mean, what the actual fuck?

I’m not a stickler for historical accuracy so long as it’s accurate to the spirit of history (The Tudors had its flaws, but it threaded this needle most of the time), but this Katherine isn’t even a shadow of her historical figure - she’s not a troubled heroine, she’s cruel and vindictive, Margaret Pole is a sanctimonious prig, and Margaret Tudor does little but sneer and shout - the only one who comes out unscathed is Mary Tudor (the elder), and it’s only because she’s barely in it at all. It’s a shame because I like all of these actresses (especially Georgie Henley and Laura Carmichael) but they are just given dreck to work with.

This is not an issue with flawed characters, it’s the bizarre presentation of these characters that seems to want to be girl power rah rah, and yet at the same time feels utterly misogynistic by pitting the women against each other or making them spiteful, stupid, or crazy for The Drama. I realise this is based on Gregory so par for the course, but it feels particularly egregious here. (Spoilers) At one point Margaret Pole is banished from court by Henry, and because Katherine won’t help her (because she cant!) she decides to spill the beans about Katherine’s non-virginity. Yes, her revenge against the hated Tudors is...to give Henry exactly what he wants? Even though it will result in young Mary, who she loves and cares for, being disinherited? Girlboss!

This season also missed the opportunity to build on its predecessors The White Queen/Princess and show why it was so important to Henry to have a male heir - the Tudor reign wasn’t built on the firmest foundations and so needed uncontested transfer of power, at the time there was historic precedent that passing the throne to a daughter led to Anarchy, and wars of succession were very recent in everyone’s memory. At least no one was bleating about The Curse this time, which is actually kind of surprising, because the point of the stupid curse is the Tudor dynasty drama.

But it’s not all terrible. Lina and Oviedo are the best part of the show, and (spoilers) thankfully make it out alive. Both are a delight to watch and I wish the show had been just about them.

Oh well. One day maybe we’ll get the Katherine of Aragon show we deserve - at least I can say that the costumes were pretty, small consolation though it is.

[erenaeoth]

Writing Original Characters in Fanfiction

There can be a tendency for some writers to get very attached to their original characters (OCs), and with good reason – they often take a lot of time and effort to flesh out, and we feel like we know them because we’ve crafted them from nothing. Maybe we feel more comfortable writing them, because we are freer to show our own experiences through them, or maybe it feels less intimidating to write them than a canon character because no one will call us out for ‘doing it wrong’. Whatever the reason, OCs often become the darling of a writer, and that’s fine, but we rarely want that favouritism to come through in our fiction. We’ve all read that over-powered original character, or the original character who keeps taking centre stage for no apparent reason when we came to read about our faves from a fandom, or the original character who somehow seems to constantly be the object of a canon character’s interest.

I want to talk about what makes a good OC in fanfiction.

Now, there are great fanfics out there who have OC protagonists, and really make this work, but usually as a reader and a writer, we’ve clicked on Ao3 or fanfic.net or wherever, because we want to read about canon characters. But every good story needs a supporting cast. I think one of the places we can sometimes go wrong in creating an ‘OC’ for a story, is that really what we ought to be doing is making an NPC.

NPCs (non-playable characters) in video games are the backbone of the story. They’re the people who prop up our protagonists and help them out. They serve as hated bosses or loyal underlings or witty friends or conniving enemies. They are there for a purpose. They arise because the plot called for them to be there. This is excellent advice to take back to our fic writing. The non-canon characters we write don’t have to be 2D and boring, but they do need to serve a purpose and to arise naturally out of the setting.

You can have the most well thought through OC backstory in the world, but often the character will still feel like it’s stealing the show, or too in-your-face. Actually, sometimes having the well-thought through backstory is part of the problem. Sometimes to write a good OC, they just need a few identifiable features that make them memorable and to do one job and that’s it.

Here’s an example:

Yesterday I was watching the Columbo episode Any Old Port in a Storm. Towards the end of the episode we’re introduced to a new character. We don’t know his name. He’s a waiter. He takes one look at our protagonist and seats him by the kitchen – the worst place in the restaurant. We find out about this fact later, but we can already tell by the waiter’s expression that he looks down on our protagonist. We have a picture of a character who’s snobby, and quick to judge. This waiter is mortified by his error when Columbo turns out to be meeting a man of ‘high breeding’ and the waiter hurries to correct his error. This waiter returns at the end of the scene to be apologetic and clueless as Columbo plays out a key part of his strategy to exposing the criminal of the case at the restaurant table itself.

In this scene, we don’t know the waiter’s name and we don’t know his backstory. But we remember him because he’s initially snobby and spurns our protagonist and later we laugh at him for his mistakes and classism. He’s a good character. He was actually needed for a key part of the narrative (allowing our detective to set up the net to catch his killer) but we didn’t know it initially, since he arose so naturally from his setting (of course a waiter is needed in a restaurant). He didn’t feel forced and annoying even though he entered so late in the story, and he was memorable, amusing, and held our interest in the scenes he was in.

Incidentally, lots of detective noir shows are great at doing this – they have a short time to tell you who’s who and get the facts down, so are often very good at quickly introducing a character and telling you everything you need to know in order to understand the story and feel involved.

Often being a little detached from characters can help give them the space they need to breathe and come alive. Let them be a part of the little world they occupy (our waiter can take the stage in the restaurant, but we don’t expect him to roll up to the mansion 5 miles away). Let them have friends and banter, but let them keep their private life. Do I, the writer, or you, the reader, or our protagonist need to know what they do when they go home? What glimpses can we have into their character that hint that there is a home they go back to, without having to physically take us there or over-labour it?

Sometimes our protagonists need to form more permanent bonds with an OC, but again, to feel natural, this needs to come out of the story. A good way to approach this is not – how do I fit my beloved OC, XXX, into this story, but rather, okay, protagonist is going to have to be working undercover in a gang for this many months – who is going to be close to them? Who is going to cause a problem for them and hinder their advancement? Who do they work for? Do they like them? Is their boss someone who others are happy to give loyalty to? Now I have the shape of a whole cast of OCs. They relate to each other and to a specific location, they’re integral to the plot and they help create the story around my protagonist, rather than stealing the show.

So what makes a good OC in fanfiction?

they’re needed for the plot

they fit with their setting

their relationship with the protagonist is natural and believable

they’re memorable in some way – err on the side of a character quirk rather than unusual appearance or abilities.

they’re connected to other characters around them/ don’t exist in a vacuum

A nice test to see if your character fits the above is, could they fit in another story, in another genre, in another time and place? If the answer is yes, maybe the character is not too well embedded in the story you’re writing.

Another thing to bear in mind is, often the fandoms we’re writing for have been been made to sell a particular product, and bear the marks of a particular kind of mass-marketing on them. This can mean they’ve cut down on real world diversity in order to make some extra cash based on their perceived audience. OCs can be a great opportunity for writers to put diversity back into a world. The real world is hugely diverse, and your characters can be too. Try to put some thought into how you want to portray diversity in your OCs and, as with any character, make sure you do some research into how to portray backgrounds that you’re unfamiliar with in order to avoid stereotyping or misrepresenting what you’re depicting.

There are some good tricks for trying to get rid of internal bias that we might not even notice exists when we’re making our OCs. Something I do to try and get rid of any hidden sexism for example, is whenever I think of the occupation of the OC I’m making and have a thought about what gender I want that character to be, I try to then always choose a different gender from the one I initially thought of.

Try to think of OCs as less ‘original characters’ and more an integral part of the setting, necessary for bringing the story to life. We don’t talk of ‘original places’ or ‘original plots’ when we write fanfiction. Of course a story featuring canon characters will be peopled with places and characters that we’ve invented. If we see these as part of the creation of environment and storytelling, then the tendency to favour one particular ‘original character’ will likely be removed from the work. When our characters act within their prescribed territory, feel believable, and not jarring or as thinly veiled author-inserts, they move from being ‘OCs’ in the reader’s mind to being a loved part of the story. Readers can fall in love with side-characters, all the more because there is some mystery about them, and they don’t take away from the primary narrative about the canon character.

Obviously there are lots of different ways to write fanfiction and to approach writing non-canon characters, but if you’ve had trouble with readers accusing your original characters of being the darling of the story, this advice might help solve some of the problem.

[aboriginalnewswire]

Trigger warning for sexual abuse, stalking, rape, domestic violence and large-scale attacks by hate groups. Last Thursday, I criticized the Linux community for continuing to support and center a leader with a years-long, documented history of unrepentant abusive behavior, someone who has actively and systematically nurtured a hostile, homogeneous technical community, and someone who has long actively chased people from marginalized groups out of open source. The retaliation has been terrifying. On Friday night, the home addresses of every member of my immediate family were posted online. I have received literally thousands of harassing, abusive, threatening and violent messages across at least half a dozen separate sites. People speaking up in support of me had their home addresses posted online as well, sometimes within minutes, creating a climate of fear that has functionally isolated me from most community support. I have received slurs of every variety, death and rape threats, and violent and threatening images. They have gone after my business and my family's livelihoods with slander, intimidation and attempts to cut off financial support, and tried to hack into various of my accounts and systems. They have left pages and pages of stomach-turning comments on the front of every internet community I am a part of and that influences my professional community and peers. As I was reeling from my family being doxxed and taking steps to ensure everyone’s safety, the tech press was giving a massive platform to an ex-partner - someone I dated for four months more than 3 years ago - who has, after I dumped him, terrorized, threatened and abused me for years, and continues to do so. This is a person who is a known liar, abuser and manipulator, with a long history of stalking, hacking and terrorizing women, who is now being treated as an authoritative character witness on one of his long-term victims - for the sole purpose of destroying my company, discrediting my work, and terrorizing me into silence. This is a person who has hacked nude photos of me and sent them to my employers - yes, bosses, executive team and investors. (I barely left my house for two weeks after and to this day cannot recall a time being more scared, depressed and humiliated). Details of my private sex life - provided by my ex - are now all over the internet and have been used to justify my abuse, incite more of it, and slut and kink-shame me. Valleywag -- less than a day after stealing stories from me, plagiarizing content from my Twitter, publishing my comments without permission or compensation, and refusing to properly acknowledge my work and job title -- has used its platform to replicate this terrorism and domestic violence to an even larger audience. Nevermind that their original articles had already incited harassment against me (they were posted over and over to the anonymous hate boards that attacked my family); their most recent article on me is an act of pure and spiteful violence following my critiques of their behavior. The past few days have been terrifying, and my heart is broken. This is abuse. This is domestic violence. This is harassment. This is terrorism. While many are eager to claim that I am actually being abused because I'm crazy, a liar, a fraud, a troll, a hypocrite, a neo-Nazi, a whore, because I've had kinky sex, because I dated an abuser, because I'm mean to men on Twitter, because I swear a lot, because I'm a "blogger" that contributes nothing to the field: I am being targeted because of my work speaking up against tech culture. My work is what has made me a target, but it is nonetheless ironically (or maybe predictably) being erased in a frothing media-frenzy to portray me as a useless, insane "PR girl", a hysterical slut with a social media account, and to generate page views from my pain. (I'm posting this on Pastebin because unlike most of the tech press, I refuse to use this abuse as a machine for eyeballs and ad dollars.) In case you’re not familiar with my work, let me tell you about it. A few years ago, I started blogging independently about tech culture, giving talks about it, and organizing resistance efforts on social media. In that period, I produced several books-worth of essays that deconstructed in detail harmful elements of tech culture, discussed useful modes of intervention and resistance, and called out collective complicity in oppression across the industry... including my own complicity. I also began using my Twitter account to talk about my experiences with misogyny in tech, call out inequality and advocate for change - and yes, I use swear words on Twitter dot com, and you will handle it because you’re not a fucking three year old. (I might take your cookies and smash your fucking Xbox anyway, though.) I did this in my spare time until late in 2013, when I started working full-time on Model View Culture, which launched in January '14. In the past year, Model View Culture has produced a body of tech and cultural criticism the size of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. We have published over 150 authors. Our publication consistently stands against discrimination, abuse and oppression in the tech industry. We have covered sexual abuse and assault, social media activism and abuse, the surveillance complex, engineering mythology, open source community, accessibility, hiring discrimination, mental illness and disability, consent in product design, workplace abuse, the VC industrial complex, suicide, white liberalism, police violence, codes of conduct, team dysfunctions, and systemic discrimination, violence and inequality at every stage of the technology pipeline. We publish and pay a large and diverse groups of writers speaking to their experiences, to their beliefs and to their sense of justice, to their demands for a better tech industry. We challenge racism & white supremacy, sexism and misogyny, transphobia, ableism, classism and other forms of institutionalized oppression rampant in tech. I believe we have produced more critical content from diverse voices than any other tech media. Model View Culture is not perfect. It is not a panacea. It is not done, or complete. It is one year old, just getting started, and there is so much more for us to do. But we have been an influential, if small, part of the growing attempts to call out and dismantle fundamental problems in the tech community. This work is what people are desperate to stop, by any means including trying to get my family killed by SWATing, trying to convince me to kill myself, terrorizing my supporters, stalking me (I have had multiple men stalk me for 6-14 months at a time), hacking my computers and accounts, "exposing" my sex life, cutting off my funding, belittling and erasing my writing, plagiarizing my content, sending constant rape and death threats, and ceaselessly holding me up for abuse to hate groups. This has been my life for almost two years. I'm sad to say that part of you starts to get used to it. But I also want to tell you about what it does to me and other victims of these attacks. Because of my work, I can no longer make public appearances, speak at events or have anyone know where I am or what I'm doing. I can't have friends over to my house because no one can know where I live. My social life consists only of a few close friends who I feel I can trust. Many of them also undergo the same shit I do - other people don’t understand and find it too stressful to be around. I am traumatized by what is now years of active stalking and abuse; abuse committed by tech workers and unaffiliated individuals, by anonymous harassers and influential figures in tech, and by media both in tech and mainstream. My sex life is fodder for 8chan and corrupt journalists trying to destroy my company because it is competition and it poses a threat to their press-release factories, funded by startups and venture capitalists and uncritically reproducing their propaganda. I receive anywhere between dozens and thousands of harassing messages each week. Anything bad that happens to me is considered “normal” and “expected”, and any reason to expose me to abuse is sufficient. People say I am a "professional victim", suggesting I am somehow profiting off my work, but I am now unemployable in the field I once loved and make a fraction of what I used to make as a tech worker. I spend an enormous amount of money and time securing my safety. It is no longer safe for me to do media appearances as media abuses me, demeans me, violates my boundaries, steals my content and holds me up for abuse, offering no support or protection: every article has resulted in more stalkers and harassment. I am frequently cut off from support because people who support me are afraid to be targeted as well. That's just my everyday. Then there's these recent attacks. Frankly, I am devastated, depressed, vulnerable, non-functional, anxious, paranoid and isolated. I’ve visibly lost weight since last Thursday. My heart hurts and my body aches. I feel humiliated, exploited, and am in physical pain. I'm frightened for myself, my family, my friends, and people in my community who have supported me. I am trying to keep working but honestly, it is incredibly difficult. I had a lot of plans for Model View Culture in the beginning of this year, and unfortunately most of them are going to be delayed by at least weeks as I try to put my self-esteem and sense of safety back together, take the needed steps to protect myself, family and community, and process these feelings of fear, anxiety, trauma and anger. It's devastating to admit the toll this has taken on me, to accept that it is having such a significant impact on my work. I fear that people won’t want to write for Model View Culture anymore because doing this work is actually dangerous. As is, we have to publish far too many articles anonymously, because people fear losing their jobs and their safety for speaking out and telling their stories. I am asking myself how I can actually continue like this and run a company under these conditions. No other tech press is operating under this level of violence and terrorism, and we don’t have corporate money or VC funding to help us defend against it. It’s intimidating. I ask Model View Culture readers and community to be patient during this time. The truth of the matter is that as much as people want abuse victims to be fearless, to come out on top, to not be stopped: at some point, this is simply not realistic. That said, I'm not stopping, I am not going away, and I will continue, even if it happens a little slower or a little later than I planned. Changing tech is my life's work. I'm only 28, so you'll probably have to deal with it for at least the next few decades. This is a set-back for my health and my ability to work, but I'm here for the long-term. I am sad that my new normal is, well, this. But so be it. To everyone who has supported me in this time: Thank you so much. I haven't been able to respond to so many of you because it hasn't been safe to, but I appreciate and value your belief and faith in me. To everyone else: Go fuck yourself. Some specific “fucks yous” go out to: The Linux community, I hope you realize how fucking toxic and broken your “community” is after standing by silently as me and my entire family were terrorized after I criticized Linus Torvalds. I think you are cowardly and spineless and I stand behind everything I said. I also think you need to seriously look at the clear ties the Linux community has to 8chan and GamerGate which led many of the attacks on me. Andrew Auernheimer aka a blast of trash from my past: you started whining and crying the day I dumped your ass and you haven’t stopped since. May the ouroboros eat YOU, easily mistaken for a snake, and may you spend the rest of your days as you have to date - pathetic, prospectless, alone and heartbroken, ever-pining over women who hate your guts and clinging to any last scrap of fast-fading relevance. Milo Yiannopoulos, a failure of a human being but tremendous success as an opportunistic sell-out scumbag who has spent months digging up details on my sex life and leading harassment campaigns against me. Valleywag, particularly Valleywag editor Dan Lyons -- a white man who is 26 years older then me and uses my sex life for clickbait while citing Yiannopolous and Weev as a credible source in order to take me down. Also Jason Calacanis, who has supported my long term stalker Loren Feldman and is basically a shitstain of a human being who we should kick out of tech forever. Vivek Wadhwa, who is building his career off women in tech yet is transparently a misogynistic asshole who has used this opportunity to get back at me for criticizing his profiteering and patriarchal brand of "allyship." Also Elizabeth Spiers who continues to refuse to get the FUCK away from me after MONTHS of me asking to be left in peace. Get the fuck over me and move on with your life as a has-been. You are literally 10 years older than me, yet are relentlessly picking on a young woman with an up-and-coming media career like you once had. You look jealous and petty, and your ongoing obsession with me is creepy as fuck. In the remainder of this post, I am addressing my community. I realize that following my tweets can be difficult and not very coherent, especially as I have navigated the emotional roller coaster of the weekend. My anxiety is through the roof and I haven’t gotten much sleep. While I don't think I should have to explain and rehash my sex life, analyze terrorism against me at length, and somehow summon words out of a fog of anxiety, fear and depression, I want to get my views on the record. They have been dismissed, erased, deemed irrelevant, misconstrued, twisted and deployed against me. So here they are, FROM ME. They have made it too scary to defend me, so I defend myself: I, unequivocally, support ourselves and stand behind us. Lol. OK for real. I wanted to start by discussing my past sexual history. Since we are already so deep into my sex life - released non-consensually and with the sole aim of terrorizing me - let's talk about it. Over three years ago, a friend of mine introduced me to Andrew Auernheimer aka Weev. I had no idea who he was prior to this friend telling me about him and introducing me. I was not involved in the infosec community (still aren’t), was fairly new to tech, and arrived in Silicon Valley years after his most high-profile attacks on other women in tech. As many of you have conveniently forgotten, (even those of you who wrote them!), articles about him painted him as a charismatic, counter-culture hacker taking on powerful and corrupt systems - someone who expressed a number of "controversial" (i.e. sexist, racist and homophobic) views, but these were glossed over as satire and mischief. I was happy to do the same, something which I deeply regret and deeply apologize for. The industry was, as it always has been and remains, enamored and worshipping of the "edgy" young white male hacker who ostensibly reflects a challenge to the status-quo, but in actuality just re-creates those systems under the guise of liberalism, satire and "mischief" aka misogynistic and racist terrorism. Frankly, I was also enamored. At the time, I was really early in my career, didn't give much of a shit about social justice, didn't particularly understand how fucked up the industry was, and was laboring under the profound delusion that my career success meant some kind of feminism. I think I was starting to undergo some type of political realization or awakening and was in some clumsy and inept way reaching out for an alternative framework, a tech “counter culture”. Of course, the "alternative" framework I discovered was some abusive piece of shit who would crawl into my life, use me for money and housing, and then spend years after punishing me for it. Typical. I am also not the only victim of his predatory and exploitative behavior towards his partners and ex-partners. At the time, I was in a bad place (which he gleefully exploited) and frankly looking for some strings-free fun and (unhealthy) emotional support. A good time seemed like having a completely doomed relationship with a notorious, emotionally co-dependent bad boy that I could fuck for a few hours and call daddy in a hotel room, then leave after giving him $40 out of the ATM because he had no money (stemming from a blanket refusal to work, preferring to just take money from women who feel sorry for his miserable existence). It worked for me at the time, it satisfied something I was looking for, and it made my life feel edgy and exciting, even though I know recognize it as a a huge mistake and deeply regret it. But, it happened. To all the people berating me for making poor dating choices in my mid-20s, many who haven't seen their mid-twenties in ten to twenty years: Guess what, assholes. Mistakes. Were. Made. Can you really tell me that you haven't fucked the wrong people? Maybe ones of the dudes I fucked was worse than your partners, but I've always been an overachiever. Like I have previously stated: At least I fucked weev in shame and private unlike the EFF, TechCrunch, the NY Times and all the rest of your favs. To be honest, dating men who are emotionally and physically abusive has been something of a pattern for me, due to the fact that I have disproportionately fallen into these relationships as a former abuse victim AND due to the fact that so many men are abusive, predatory, manipulative and lying scum. Fuck them, and misandry forever. In response to Andrew's allegations that I am a racist, hate-filled neo-Nazi who shared his views, that I am simply a troll or performance artist: I do not, and have never shared Andrew's views, and he didn't teach me shit. Most of our relationship consisted of fucking in potentially disturbing and unhealthy ways, talking about his upcoming trial, sharing photos of red pandas, me bitching about work, watching My Little Pony (i know, i know) and him trying to get as much money out of me as he could. I smoked a bunch of weed, he drank and we ate lots of takeout. As far as his trolling techniques, they seem to consist primarily of convincing people who can actually code to do things for him, then taking the credit for them, so I wasn't really interested in acquiring these “skills” even if I did have a naive fascination with what I then saw as his "innocent" pranks and how they functioned. While it wasn't a big part of our brief-lived (four month) relationship, he often made comments that were racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, misogynist and transphobic. I alternated between being like "hahahaha", “satiring” back to him (including making similar comments), and telling him to knock it the fuck off. In private conversations he assured me that he was just a performance artist, that it was satire and trolling, and that he was actually a feminist (lol). He was always laughing when he said really horrible things. Like the anti-intellectual, self-centered, callous, cavalier and "edgy" white liberal that I fancied myself (And was) at the time, I laughed too and played along. As much as there is lots of feigned outrage from white people about it, this discourse was frankly not much different than that I saw and still see constantly in the tech workplace and at events, online and in the community. Tech prides itself on being "not overtly -ist" when it actually is, despite almost everyone’s vehement protestations. For those who attempt to distance themselves from the racism, sexism, and transphobia of the industry by congratulating themselves that we don’t "say those things": you are full of shit. The tech industry is chock full NOT ONLY of "subtle" issues that let us continue to feel like good people because we don't use slurs, but actual constant and overt abuse, discrimination, and violence - often under the guises of "irony" and "satire”. And I have absolutely participated in it. People demand to know why I won't "defend" myself from the "charges" made by my ex. Yes, they contain a number of outright lies and inventions as well as self-serving exaggerations, distortions and manipulations. Frankly, I’m not going to indulge this circus by refuting and responding point-by-point to the details of an abusive relationship I had years ago. As to the overall tone of the allegations, basically that I used to be an oppressive asshole who held much different values than I do now... well I don't feel a need to "defend" or "deny" that because the truth is, I had for years and years of my past been whole-heartedly complicit in the systems of inequality and discrimination that plague our field. I thought that if I made six figures and did well in my career, acted like "one of the boys” aka white male patriarchs, or played along with them, and was as vulgar, violent, self-centered and cut-throat as the "successful" white men around me, that was "feminism." I gave a shit about my own advancement but for many years didn't really give a shit about anyone else's advancement. I didn't recognize my role in the tech industry as a privileged white woman, and didn't do much of the internal and external work required to divest from those systems. As I started my political awakening, I was primarily concerned with the advancement of white women like myself and didn't give much thought to broader systemic issues, or how I was complicit in the oppression of other groups. My attitudes, beliefs and behavior were 100% born of my alignment with white capitalist patriarchy, and I benefitted enormously (And still do) from it even as it has abused me. Here are two categories of things that are both true. 1. I am queer, mentally ill and a woman. I have been through a lot of hard stuff because of those things. I went through some Carrie-style shit when I came out in middle school. I have had an anxiety disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder since I was a kid. Some of my first "real" sexual experiences included being molested and a victim of statutory rape. Later in my life, I've been raped at knife point and dragged across the floor thinking I would die that night. I've been punched in the face by my "lovers". I showed up to my first real job interview with a barely concealed black eye and bruised ribs. I've finished school while I screamed bloody murder into an apartment complex at night pleading for help from anyone who heard. As a working professional I've been sexually harassed, verbally and physically intimidated by managers, underpaid, overworked, denied promotions, humiliated, and subjected to hostile work environment after hostile work environment. I've been threatened with revenge porn by multiple exes, and coerced into doing things I think are unethical by people in positions of power over me. I've had hacked nude photos sent to my bosses and investors. I've been stalked over the course of months and years, been slandered and abused by media, and disowned by my industry for being a woman who spoke up. I am one of the most visible women in tech - not as a respected and valued member of our industry, but as a target. I live in constant fear of the tech community and am terrorized on a regular basis. I am held up for all to see, a public example of what they will do to you if you speak out - and it seems “anything goes” more and more each day as organized hate groups grow in numbers and strength while the tech community grows in apathy. 2. I am a cis white woman who has uncritically profited from white supremacy, cissexism, ableism, classism and other forms of oppression. My success, visibility, and achievements are fundamentally built on the oppression of others, and I spent years not giving a fuck, lending any semblance of a hand, acknowledging my role, or working to dismantle the systems I've been part of. Most of my privileges in life happen as a direct result of a white supremacist capitalist system, and I too long stayed silent and comfortable. From an essay I published in autumn 2013 on my personal blog, called "Finding Out You’re a Sexist, Misogynistic, Homophobic, Classist, Racist Asshole and Hypocrite": "I can only cringe and hate myself when I think of all the times I have totally fucked up and became part of the very problems I hate. Yes, I have slut-shamed, body-policed, name-called, bad-joked, appropriated, derailed, co-opted, silenced, objectified, stereotyped, trivialized, slurred, punished, isolated, insulted, benefited, and stayed silent with the worst of them. A highlight reel of my life profiting uncritically and even participating in the systems of misogyny, classism, racism, cis-normativity and homophobia that oppress my friends, my family, my fellow humans would not endear anyone to me, least of all myself. It fees horrible to talk about. But I am because we all must realize how complete, how intersecting, how deeply fucked up the system is, and the role we play in it. It’s easy to become invested in an image of ourselves as good human beings, without blame or participation in the oppression of other people. Sometimes we even imagine ourselves as a helper to them, a healer, an ally, without even thinking it through." I have made many sexist, racist, transphobic and homophobic comments that were abusive and violent in my life. I have consistently failed to stand against discrimination that affected other people. I've often prioritized my own needs and success above that of more marginalized people. For years, I made no effort to use my privilege and power to help others. I have *literally fucked a neo-Nazi and harbored him with money, emotional support and yeah, kinky sex.* My internalized misogyny and the racism I have reproduced affected real relationships and hurt real people. Because I have had access to white, cis, class and educational privilege, I have been able to protect myself, get amazing health and mental health care, and attain economic security that many suffering the same and much, much worse do not have access to. In the workplace, I got the perks of diversity in tech efforts while more marginalized people were left behind, and I didn't say shit. I benefited and continue to benefit enormously from white supremacy in the tech industry, able to amass financial resources to start my own company and escape the day-to-day grind of the abusive tech workforce, which is not an option for so many. All of the above things are true. As a cis white woman I have both abused and been abused, been a victim of violence and someone who commits violence, been punished by the system and also benefited extensively from it. I refuse to run around insisting that I'm not an oppressive asshole instead of actually doing the work of dismantling the system - inside me and outside me. I heal myself, and I also work to ease, destroy and amend for the pain and oppression I have inflicted on others, that I participate in, benefit from, and bear responsibility for taking down. I also want readers to note that the "redemption" narrative that people are looking for me to manifest here is hugely problematic, centering white people's feelings and experiences, our personal growth over dismantling oppressive systems, and our need to feel like we are "good people." As I've written in the past, I don't believe that "good person" as a framework to approaching systemic inequalities is useful. I don’t think I am a good or bad person. I am a person who has done good things and bad things, and I try to do more good things as I grow. I don't wish to offer excuses for my past. I cannot undo it, nor change it. I remain complicit in and benefit from many systems of oppression, I still have an enormous amount of work to do to divest of my own investment in the system and how I enable it to continue, and I have a life-time of work to do against it, work that I try to do each day. This is work that the tech industry needs to partake in. I invite you to get out of my sex life and to join me doing it.

[unknown-de-mordor-blog]

Plot Bunny: Steampunk + Reverse!Pride&Prejudice SNS

Summary: Once the Industrial Revolution hits, the old aristocratic families are reeling from the shift in financial power going from them to the moguls of the steam age, middle-class and upper-middle class families who are now running the economy of the country with their companies and their factories. 

The Uzumaki, old as they are, becomes an exception as their heiress Kushina is married to one of the greatest inventor of the era, Namikaze Minato. Their investment in what becomes a technological empire means they’re destined to thrive in the new age. And so, it’s not a surprise that the return of their son Uzumaki Naruto from his three-year-long grand tour causes a riot in the high society. Now at the marriageable age, he’s the hottest catch in their social circle, not that Sasuke cares. The Uchiha has only male children, so it’s not like they can enter the race as a gambit to secure the family’s financial status and prestige.

That is until they clap eyes on each other on the dance floor. Sasuke certainly isn’t prepared for having Naruto interfering with his life.

Detail:

The background for this story is more fantasy than actual England, Industrial Revolution or otherwise, so you can go a little crazy with the world-buildings. The clan politics, classism, and social conventions, however, is heavily inspired by Edwardian England (or at least as much as I understand it), except for Minato marrying into the Uzumaki. That’s more a Japanese thing. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a big European family doing it this way, but I might be wrong.

The reason I said it’s reversed Pride and Prejudice is because I’ve always seen Naruto as Elizabeth Bennet and Sasuke as Mr. Darcy, but Mr. Darcy here is not the desirable one in the social circle or the one with a lot of money. Just a guy with a bad personality.

Minato is the Elon Musk + Thomas Edison of the story. Kakashi handles the business side of things for him. Kushina is the mastermind behind the PR and organizes all the social events, fundraising or otherwise, as she’s more aware than her husband how all these things work. (Let’s be honest, Minato would be a dork.)

Although Minato and Kushina’s marriage is beneficial for the Uzumaki family, it’s actually a love-match, which inevitably influences Naruto’s perspective about love and marriage as well.

Naruto went on a grand tour with Jiraiya, who’s kind of an Oscar Wilde figure -- smart, scandalous, and a sharp-tongue writer satirizing the upper-class. They hate him but can’t do anything about it because of Lady Tsunade’s patronage. He is even rumoured to be her lover.

Senju is one of the oldest and previously most influential clan, but they’re very close to dying out. Tsunade’s still held in high-regard in the high society, though. She’s also Naruto’s godmother.

A grand tour is traditionally about exposing the young heirs to sophistication. Naruto’s, though, also involves slumming it with the middle and working class since Minato is from a middle-class family and doesn’t want his son to get too used to the affluent people. He also wants Naruto to understand the responsibility he has towards people working for their family.

Minato and Fugaku are good friends despite their socially disparate standing. He might not look like it, but Fugaku is actually quite progressive and is more open to the ‘new-money’ families. But he’s terrible when it comes to understanding how business are run and what markets are, so he’s a bit of a fish out of water with them.

Itachi is actually the first in the Uchiha family to break tradition and work outside in a company. This is a very controversial move for an old-blood, and the high society gives him so much shit for it. Itachi basically isn’t welcome in their gathering. Fugaku is understanding, although he doesn’t fully approve of the decision since it means his son, who’s a person of high blood, is being bossed around by technically a nobody.

As a result of Itachi turning radical, Fugaku tries to train Sasuke up to lead the family instead. Mikoto even tries to set her son up with Karin, who is Kushina’s niece. Karin is open to the match, but Sasuke isn’t really interested. He’s considering it for the family, though.

So they are kind of ‘dating,’ as in meeting each other in social events and are dancing partners (Edwardian-style, not a lot of touching -- waltz is waaaay too scandalous here). Sasuke can’t really quite keep up with her energy, so she’s also dancing with other people, most notably Houzuki Suigetsu, who’s from a new-money family.

Suigetsu gets quite a bit of shit from the upper-class, but he’s a ruthless psychopath, so he doesn’t give a fuck. Sasuke doesn’t know if he likes him or not, since Suigetsu never tries to kiss his ass because of his family name. If anything, the guy’s pretty open to Sasuke including his interest in Karin.

Which means, Sasuke’s been pressured to make it official with Karin and propose.

But then Naruto saunters into the ballroom, and everything changes.

Naruto and Sasuke were actually childhood friends since both their families are friends, but Naruto was sent to a boarding school for further education when he was thirteen while Sasuke studied under his tutor Orochimaru at home. So they lost contact and became estranged.

They actually hate each other at first sight in that ballroom. Naruto thinks Sasuke is arrogant. Sasuke thinks Naruto is frivolous. They have a little public spat that becomes the hottest gossip of the social circle.

They also keep meeting each other because of their families, their social commitments, and because of Sasuke’s supposed courtship with Karin, which Naruto disapproves of because he can see that Sasuke doesn’t love her and is only considering the marriage out of duty. He even confronts Sasuke about it.

Sasuke counters that marrying for love is a naive and irresponsible idea. Kushina and Minato’s marriage wouldn’t have been approved of if it hasn’t benefit both families. Naruto takes offense to that comment. Sasuke is firm in his belief and won’t apologize for it.

In his worry for his cousin’s happiness, Naruto keeps crashing Sasuke and Karin’s meetings, picking a fight with Sasuke whenever he could. And because of all the verbal sparring, they become close again, and Karin turns more and more into the third-wheel.

Putting Karin first is also an excuse for Naruto to ignore his own onslaught of suitors. He hates being the prize of the social rat-race and having to make civil conversations with girls who are set up by their families to meet him and try to seduce him. He knows some of them finds him underwhelming and annoying in person but are putting up with him because they need to.

Sasuke mocks him for having a first-class problem, and Naruto lets him because it is.

Naruto and Sasuke get so wrapped up in each other that they have no idea Suigetsu is now making aggressive moves, until Karin actually elopes with him.

This is devastating to everyone, and especially so to the Uzumaki family. Naruto blames it on himself for interfering while Sasuke tries to talk him out of it. They become each other’s emotional support and only realize then how they really, really, really, really like each other.

Sasuke stays with the Uzumaki family and basically lead the search for Karin and Suigetsu, which Naruto is very grateful for.

But at this point Karin’s reputation is in tatter and any chance of saving it lies in her marrying Suigetsu, but everyone knows that is what Suigetsu wants to begin with. Naruto is very frustrated by this since Karin’s reputation is clearly used as a leverage for Suigetsu to gain ally for himself and his family, and Naruto hates that.

Sasuke is actually the one going in to talk to Suigetsu and Karin and find some compromise. It becomes clear to him then that the two have fallen in love while Sasuke isn’t looking, and Karin chooses to elope because she thinks the family is going to pressure her to break up with Suigetsu to marry Sasuke.

Sasuke admits to her then that she’s more a sister to him and he has no romantic interest in her. He fully supports her choice, but the three of them have to come up with a plan to lessen the damage somehow.

Naruto is actually surprised that Sasuke is willing to help Karin marry for love. He’s even willing to shoulder some blames and lies if it means the Uzumaki will officially accept the marriage and give it a blessing. Karin and Suigetsu, though, do have to skip town afterwards so that they won’t get caught up in the scandal in person. It’s also a way of clearing up the rumour that Suigetsu is only marrying Karin for the Uzumaki connection and money. Suigetsu is honestly not that desperate. And he is going to have his own thing, Uzumaki’s help or not.

Naruto and Sasuke have a chat afterwards about the whole thing where Naruto tries to ask what changes Sasuke’s mind about the marrying-for-love thing. Sasuke ends up confessing that the reason he can’t bring himself to believe he can marry for love is because he’s gay, and so he can never fulfill his duty for his family and have his love at the same time. But he doesn’t wish that kind of choice on other people, so he’s happy that Karin and Suigetsu turn out okay.

Naruto mentions then that there are places in the world that people don’t have to make that choice and can just be with whomever they love, and from that line of conversation trying to hint really hard that he really, really, really, really likes Sasuke and really, really, really wants to go visit those places with him.

Sasuke kind of says yes.

[him-e]

Cersei, the prophecy, the walk of shame & redemption

Under the cut: a criminally late reply to some Lannistercentric questions @pips69​ sent me weeks months ago (sorry, I was taken hostage by the show, and then real life issues)

May I ask how different you think Cersei might be if she never visited Maggy the frog? I know it's a pretty big "what if" but it really bothers me when some people down play just what a large effect the prophecy had on her, especially during discussions about her mental state of mind and if she deserves sympathy. I'm wondering because I loved your thoughts on what Cersei might have been like as a man but I noticed the prophecy wasn't mentioned.

I completely agree with what Lauren says in this post about Maggy’s prophecy being a late addition to Cersei’s story (if not a complete retcon). If you’re looking for a Cersei who never visited Maggy the Frog, look no further than AGOT-ASOS Cersei. That is, a Cersei who clearly has no time to worry about little valonqars jumping at her throat; a Cersei who is rational enough to understand that Bran was not a direct threat to her or her children (and isn’t happy that Jaime defenestrated him, though not because she feels compassion for Bran, but because that created a whole other set of problems); who thinks Sansa is obnoxious and pathetic and stupid but never acts like she feels threatened by her potentially being the YMBQ; who wants Arya’s hand in punishment for hurting Joffrey even though she has no real reason to suspect her either as the YMBQ or the valonqar; who doesn’t seem one iota worried that Tyrion might wrap his hands around her pale neck, but still profoundly detests and treats him like shit; who orders Robert’s bastards to be massacred simply because she won’t risk people to compare *their* looks to Robert’s *legitimate* children and do the maths, and so on.  

From a meta perspective, it’s hard to incorporate Maggy’s prophecy into Cersei’s character since the beginning, because it’s painfully evident that GRRM came up with it only later (or it would have been built up/foreshadowed better). 

This is why a lot of meta writers (including me) won’t necessarily bring it up to discuss her personality. Because Cersei’s character doesn’t need a prophecy to be explained. Note that GRRM makes sure that some of Cersei’s worst traits, like her abusive behavior towards Tyrion or her classism, arrogance and contempt for "lesser” beings, manifested well before she met the witch. So I don’t think the prophecy is meant to excuse Cersei’s crimes or even inspire sympathy in the reader. I think the narrative purpose of the prophecy is:

give Cersei a secret trauma to be tortured over in her internal monologue (similar to Jaime re: Aerys’ murder); 

facilitate/accelerate her descent into paranoia (that in the original five years gap plan was probably meant to happen more gradually and, in any case, off page); 

boost the Evil Queen vibes in her narrative, making them more explicit to the reader (because a big part of why Cersei’s narrative is tragic is that the reader KNOWS how it will all end, so it’s important to wrap her story up in a familiar fairytale envelope); 

introduce both a “mystery box” and a magical element in Cersei’s narrative, which so far has always been primarily political.

Having read the rest of your reply, I certainly agree with you! Especially with how GRRM writes Cersei, just the way he does so really gets under my skin. Compared to how he writes his male villains. And then you have the walk of shame. Some people have said that GRRM wrote Cersei in her most sympathetic light during her walk (with her feeling guilt and such) but I don't know, it's just...lets say Cersei dies in the end anyway (which we know she will) can you see any of the male villains being put through something so humiliating first? Roose, Ramsay, Walder? No they will likely all meet death and I would have been just fine had Cersei been tried and executed with the respect & dignity fitting a queen. But no she had to be horribly humiliated and shamed first, have every bit of power removed, and to top it all off her death will likely be horrid as well! I just hope Jaime is the one to kill her rather than Tyrion, with what he's said he wants to do to her... I don't know it just seems like GRRM really, truly hates Cersei and that really bothers me. Much like the huge amount of hate she gets in the fandom. Does it bother you too?

This ties in with the redemption discourse, and how Cersei is denied it by the author.

The WoS thing is one of those instances in which GRRM gives the readers what they THINK they want, showing them how HORRIBLE it actually is. Like with Ramsay’s abuse of Theon, with Joffrey’s choking to death, with the complete character annihilation that Lancel undergoes, with Jaime’s maiming, with Vargo Hoat’s terrible death... the reader wanted Cersei to suffer for her crimes, and the author turns that expectation against them, making it so UNCOMFORTABLE to read that you go “nope, this isn’t what I asked for, please, STOP”. This is GRRM forcing us to exercise our empathy muscles the hard way (it’s easy to inspire empathy for good characters; the real challenge - from a writing standpoint - is inspiring empathy for bad characters, because they’re human too. And the fact that even “bad” characters are human is such an integral theme to asoiaf, because newsflash, our heroes will defend THEM too from the Others. All of humanity, the good and the bad). 

So the first thing to remember is that, while the WoS doesn’t represent the beginning of an upward arc for Cersei, GRRM is certainly NOT endorsing the sexual humiliation directed against her. Rather, he’s exposing the High Sparrow’s (superficially pro-smallfolk and pro-human rights) ideology as violent, misogynistic, reactionary and populist, in short, as a villainous one.

Do I think GRRM went a little over the top with the WoS, and does it have some uncomfortably voyeuristic implications? Yes, just as I think he should have toned down the sexual violence / abuse perpetrated on women in general in the books.

That’s why, while I would generally appreciate GRRM pulling a redeeming twist on Cersei in any other circumstance, I’m actually happy it didn’t happen with the WoS as a catalyst, because the profoundly sexual (and sexually punitive) nature of it would be a TERRIBLE way to start off a female redemption arc. In fact, although Cersei hallucinates at some point the faces of Ned, Sansa etc. judging her, this doesn’t really inspire any real soul searching or self-examination in her, and the humiliation she suffers does NOT extinguish her arrogance, but rather fuels it. Once she’s safe from the crowd, Cersei is even more determined than before to unleash hell on her enemies, which now include the population of King’s Landing as a whole.

I think this is a good counterpoint to other narratives in asoiaf (particularly Theon’s, but not only) that do have a problematic subtext of abuse being depicted as a hard lesson, a necessary step to atonement, or a chance for growth. In Cersei’s narrative, enduring this sort of savage and humiliating abuse does not produce any positive change in the character, in fact it makes the situation worse.

Sorry if I've asked this before but when it comes to our main Lannisters personalities (Tywin, Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion) do you think pride lions or mountian lions suit them better? Personaly I'd choose mountain lions for Tywin & Cersei while Jaime & Tyrion are more of a mix but lean a bit closer to pride lions. What do you think?

I’ve never thought of any of the Lannisters as mountain lions, tbh. The Lannister sigil is pretty straightforward, and if I’m not mistaken the asoiaf equivalent to mountain lions/cougars would be shadowcats (though they’re not exactly the same). In terms of personality… idk, the only thing that comes to my mind is that cougars, unlike pride lions, are solitary animals, which means the one who I MIGHT associate to them is Tyrion, because he’s always been isolated even in his own family (then again, he craves for love and sincere relationships, so…). Tywin and Cersei? they’re totally gregarious animals, like the rest of their kin. They want to take control of their pack and rule it, but they absolutely need a pack to thrive. The kind of power they seek is inherently social, so I don’t see them doing great on their own.

[toongrrl-blog]

The Mommy Myth: Attack of the Celebrity Moms

Gonna try and structure it a lil’ bit different, hit it!

Debby Boone

January 1981, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president and Debby Boone, 1978 Grammy winner, poses with her three month old child for the cover of Good Housekeeping. Like her father who has oozed his brand of sanitized rock ‘n’ roll (as not to freak out white parents and grandparents), Debby has become a pioneer: the celebrity mom profile. Inside the issue we learned that baby Jordan eats very well and sleeps 8 hours a night (good) and he is healthy because Debby took SUPER GOOD CARE OF HER BODY during her pregnancy as she ate health food and weighed only a pound less than before she was pregnant (okay Deb), mostly due to healthy food and prayer (news to the church ladies my Mom knows), this was a surprise (okay), and baby Jordan loves music because his grandfather Pat Boone and great-grandfather Red Foley were musicians (well most babies like music and noise). The celebrity mom profile where she reminds the female reader that she is a poised, trim, stylish, perfect mother unlike you the mom who stresses over tax season, is a household drudge, and eats junk food when the kids are asleep.

Kirstie Alley

February 1994, Kirstie Alley (remember Cheers, Fat Actress, It Takes Two, and Look Who’s Talking?) invites In Style magazine into her fourth house in Bangor, Maine that she paid in with cash, a house that is like her: “at once down-to-earth and whimsical”. She’s a mom now with a “playful sense of style” that is evident by the decoupage grapes on her son’s highchair and was made to look antique and worn. One year old True (that’s his name!) has his highchair facing a ceramic pig holding a blackboard on which a new word appears to encourage his reading proficiency (never too early to start teaching kids to read!) We see Kirstie’s life is made easy with decorators, nanny, a cook, and personal assistants and True having two hour nap times (I will check with relatives of young babies and toddlers to see if possible) where Kirstie works out with a personal trainer and eats a fat-free lunch (well we know what happens when you diet for so long). Kirstie gushes about how “being a mother has given me a whole new purpose. Every day when I wake up it’s like Christmas morning to me, and seeing life through True’s eyes gives me a whole new way of looking at the world” (yeah I don’t know anyone who actually feels that way and what about those who found a purpose without having kids? Sorry charity volunteers and recovering alcoholics!) 

Flash forward to 1997 where Kirstie is star of the then-new Veronica’s Closet where she has a new man, new show, and a new baby. We learn her Maine home has fifteen bedrooms and she loves decorating this huge place, which includes a nursery-rhyme garden for True and baby Lillie. Kirstie talks about this facial treatment she has every morning where she blasts her face with oxygen and enzymes with a plastic hose hooked up to two pressurized tanks (guess Joan Crawford’s beauty regimen wasn’t hardcore enough?). 

Annie Potts

I admit there could be some bias here, I grew up on Annie Potts (Ghostbusters, Designing Women, Any Day Now, Pretty In Pink, GCB, Toy Story) so that might color my commentary (though I try to keep a bit of Susan J. and Meredith here). In California, we enter Annie Potts’s “Casa de Mayhem” (actually really cute, nice to see she nice great decorating sense outside of Iona’s fabulous digs) where her nanny corrals Potts’s 16 month old where a wing was built in the anticipation of the baby Jake’s birth (how?), where there is a darkroom for her husband, a bedroom for the assistant (late night slumbers?), and an office for Potts and also a pool. Somehow her white furniture remains immaculate (just like Megan Draper’s white carpet). Annie Potts believes that her son may be the reincarnation of her cat Gus and covers her chairs with cow-print vinyl.

Cheryl Ladd (Or a more Honest Time that was soon to be past)

During a different time Ladies Home Journal in March 1979 reported on Cheryl Ladd (Charlies Angels star and singer for Melody) as a mother where she admitted even with her household staff and her four year old with a nine year old’s vocabulary (by 1979 standards!) , it can be stressful which Goldie Hawn admitted to in smaller profile. Back then the celebrity moms were glamorous and embraced intensive mothering but they admitted it had it’s ups and downs, sentiments that were gone by the late 1980s where “motherhood was sexy” or “blessed”. Also the houses and toys became more lavish and the moms were always gushing with Whitney Houston stating she “never found anything more fulfilling than being a mother” (okay that makes me sad in hindsight, RIP Whitney and Bobbi Christina) and celeb moms saying they have transformed as people since having babies (babies are not reform school people nor life coaches). And was so awkward when Christie Brinkley said she got it right with her 3rd kid (no shade really, she was neat as Gayle Gergich). 

In Celebrity Momma land there was no such thing as postpartum depression, saggy tits, leaky nipples, extra fat or economic, political, and social barriers or sexism, racism, and classism or even bratty kids or lazy or tired partners. They were (in the words of Michaels and Douglas) “June Cleaver with cleavage and a successful career”. They were allowed to bring the kid to work and they were always in love with their husbands....until not (these gushing profiles were the equivalent of that couple on Facebook with the perfect photos but argued a lot in real life). And while most of us bounce between the hip cynic and the corny romantic, we can see through it but still feel insecure by it. 

Princess Diana (and the Rules of Celebrity Motherhood)

She was one of the most watched celebrity moms ever since her engagement to Prince Charles and even after the Royal Gyno certified her as a virgin and fertile in 1881...no I mean 1981 when she married him. Then in June 1982, William was born while she was around 20 years old. This girl clearly was picked by the Royal Family because she was young, pretty, not very assertive, fertile, and a virgin. He was her sister Lady Sarah’s ex-boyfriend and she thought he was hot since she was 16....keep in mind there is like a fourteen year age difference and she was a late teenager when they got engaged and married. The Press talked about his adoration for her and they had for a while the image of the picture-perfect family where nothing was wrong, she was naturally very thin and he thought she was the only woman in the world for him and wouldn’t want to be another woman’s tampon. Of course the cracks were obvi, early on, the Royal Family was all about projecting that image and Diana played along, being and playing devoted mom and she was, just she couldn’t be tired or want a lil space from the kids while the cameras were rolling. She even looked slim during her second (!) pregnancy! Which she timed perfectly. We now know that was a eating disorder. She had a ton of tasks on her schedule (charity) and often turned the kids over to a nanny but tried to give a normal life to her kids and expose them to people less privileged than they. Diana was a child of divorce, close to her younger brother, was depressed and bulimic, happened to marry a guy from a tradition bound family when she was starting to find herself, why does our culture encourage women to bound themselves to motherhood and marriage before they figured themselves out as people? And we know stuff about the Windsors as a family from The Crown. 

1. “The mom is gorgeous, in clear control of her destiny, and her husband loves her even more once she becomes pregnant and the baby is born.”

2. “They are always radiantly happy when they are with their kids.” And the kids are always happy too, as it reflects well on the moms...

3. “They always look and feel fabulous--better than ever--while pregnant, because they are nutrition experts and eat exactly what they should and have the discipline to exercise regularly. No varicose veins, no dreaded ‘mask of pregnancy’, no total exhaustion, no unflattering comparisons to Weber barbecue kettles or Chris Farley. And they time their babies perfectly. Control, control, control. 

4. “Whatever your schedule, whatever institutional constraints you confront that keep you away from or less involved with your kids, it must be clear that they are your number-one priority, not mater what.” Big thing when working moms were dealing with workplace rules making it hard to be there for their children and be on top at work.

5. “There must be some human frailties, some family tragedies, some struggles or foibles that bring the celeb down a peg, make her seem a bit more like us and allow some of us to identify with her.” 

6. “The celebrity mom is fun-loving, eager to jump up and play with the kids at a moment’s notice. She’s always in the mood. She never says, ‘Not now honey. I don’t feel like it. Mummy’s tired. Mummy’s too lazy. Roller-coasters make Mummy barf.”

7. “...truly good, devoted mothering requires lavishing as many material goods on your kids as possible.” You even have to be lavish with the nursery. 

Moms of Color

When the genre found it’s boom, Celebrity Moms were mostly white and straight (except for Rosie O’Donnell and the then-closeted Jodie Foster) and many writers and editors at women’s magazine said that white women don’t want to read about black women (crushing a soda can in my hand). Then women like Whitney Houston and Gloria Estefan started having kids and magazines like Ebony have done profiles like “The New Motherhood” and “The Joys of Being A Stay At Home Mom” where educated and employable black women became housewives (no statistics offered) and yes Ebony has always done that and spotlighted activists and their families. I also want to point out that the magazine has always been socially conscious, because Police Brutality and racism are still alive, with recently black celebrities posing with their sons as a statement against the police killings of young black people.

Now Susan J. Douglas and Meredith Michaels ask: should moms of color be glad to be celebrated with this lofty pedestal or be concerned about how fragile this pedestal is? I think Jodie Landon says it all.

Why all this matters

The Celebrity Mom profile presented a narrow view of motherhood not afforded to many ordinary mothers (whether you are of color or white, working class or middle class, have many kids or just one, are religious or spiritual or atheist, stay at home or part-time or salaried) cannot live up to. Celebrity Moms have existed for a long time but when the 1980s came, that is when motherhood practically became even more of a sport or a performance about how one can be the perfect supermom and make those who feel ambivalence feel like they are terrible mothers who ate too many junk food and were always tired, and had photos with no photoshop or personal trainers or stylists. In the Reagan era, being wealthy was chic: “trickle-down” economics, Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, dramas about wealthy people, ads from Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren that breathed new life into the preppy look, Merchant Ivory films focusing on wealthy people in the old days and Mommie Dearest was a bestseller on the bookshelves and the theaters that made publicists very busy. 

Also let’s talk about the beginnings of People magazine. In 1974, after market researchers for Time magazine noted that readers read the “People” section first before reading other parts of the magazine, Time-Life launched People magazine. Following was Us Weekly in 1977 and then the tabloids started doing more celebrity journalism, even local TV news magazines like Evening which gave way to Entertainment Tonight and then we heard the more serious news shows talking about celebs. Also while we were turning away from “experts” who were never moms or did diapers, we looked for role models as we needed to be role models and Celebrity moms were women who had lucrative and high-paying jobs and motherhood; they were also attractive role models as they suggested an alternative to being a frumpy or presentable-but-in-the-background or sexless has-been after having kids. Then women’s magazines started featuring more celebrities and they have before but now more so than ever. Redbook magazine, according to an anonymous employee who reported to Douglas and Michaels, said that the magazine conducted focus groups to see which celeb would sell the best: one year it was Kathie Lee Gifford, a few years later it was Meg Ryan, also headlines with words like “a tragedy” “triump” or “a secret” or a combo sold like hotcakes. This is not to suggest people working the magazines or the celebs keeping their brand were calculating cynics, just take things with a grain of salt...

What about Regular Moms?

Let’s give up for the Joan Holloways, Trudy Campbells, Betty Drapers, Karen Wheelers, Rochelle Rocks, Debbie Eagans, Tamme Dawsons, Peggy Olsons, Megan Drapers, and Joyce Byers of the world. Who while reading this piece of treacle, are dealing with unhelpful or tired or abusive husbands or having no husband, struggle with feedings and diaper changes, with loving their babies and missing their old lives, and with having a bit of weight after baby or had to fight it off and still find that things are very different. Who had their sleep disrupted after baby and spent a good chunk of their day in curlers. The Moms who felt sick, swollen, fat, gross, un-sexy during their pregnancies or even sans pregnancy, and never had that “glow”. Basically the moms doing all they can for their kids and have their own demons to exercise and are made to feel bad by their role models; some of them didn’t have role models (like their Moms don’t understand the context of their lives). 

Celebrity Mom profiles bring up the same stereotypes that plagued women like Betty Draper and Karen Wheeler: that women are all nurturing and maternal, love all children, and prefer motherhood to anything even work and are the main responsible figures. Also add the competition from consumer culture of pitting moms against moms and encouraged self-loathing in women. 

To ordinary mothers of America, those of us lacking the staff of a French chateau, and the joyful outlook that goes with it, these ceaseless profiles of celebrity moms with their perfect children and perfect lives are a rebuke, a snub, and a warning. Fail to get with the program and your kids will not make the grade, your husband won’t look at you the way he used to, and, worst of all, other mothers will see you for what you are: an unworthy loser, a bad mother. 

To all the Women stuck with the Second Shift, homeschooling, keeping the home afloat along with their careers during this Pandemic, thank you. Shout out to the Lois Foutleys working the front lines while they deal with their families and to the Helen Morgendorffers who wish they were at work (really, don’t let any “having a child is more important than a career” people make you feel bad). And to the essential workers like Joyce. 

[maddie-grove]

The Top Twenty Books I Read in 2016

Oh, 2016. The year that gave me a promising new life with one hand and ripped up what peace of mind I had left with the other. What better way to deal with such a confusing emotional state than to read a bunch of wonderful books, many about incredibly tough subjects? Arguably, there are many better ways, but I like reading.

20. Forgive Me, Leonard Peacock by Matthew Quick (2013)

Traumatized seventeen-year-old Leonard Peacock makes a plan to kill his former abuser and then himself, but first he needs to visit four people who are important to him and say goodbye (without, of course, letting them know he’s saying goodbye). Throughout the day, he’s caught between trying to talk himself out of his horrible goal and feeling he has no other option. This is an affecting, compulsively readable novel with experimental bits that really pay off (especially Leonard’s letters to himself from a semi-dystopian future).

19. Swamplandia! by Karen Russell (2011)

After her mother’s untimely death, thirteen-year-old Ava Bigtree’s family falls apart, along with their Floridian gator-wrestling theme park. Her senile grandfather is sent to a nursing home, her brother runs away to another theme park, and her father departs for the mainland for an indefinite time, leaving Ava alone with her séance-obsessed older sister Osceola. Then Osceola elopes with a ghost, driving Ava to take a perilous journey into the swamp.  At turns fanciful and brutal, this is a fascinating and spooky story about grief and how scary nature is.

18. Sweetest Scoundrel by Elizabeth Hoyt (2015)

In 1740s London, withdrawn Eve Dinwoody is appointed by her half-brother to sort out the accounts of his investment, a pleasure garden owned by the boisterous middle-class Asa Makepeace. Eve and Asa are complete opposites who disagree about all matters financial, but they also have chemistry and actually turn out to care about each other’s problems. The family relationships in this romance are particularly strong, plus I liked that the aristocratic characters were so tangential to the story; it’s mostly a story about theatre people.

17. Duke of Pleasure by Elizabeth Hoyt (2016)

Alf is a messenger/informant by day, a masked vigilante by night, and, unbeknownst to everyone she’s met since early childhood, a woman. Hugh Fitzroy, the Duke of Kyle, is a widowed father of two bent on bringing down a ridiculously depraved secret society. When Alf gets beaten up while in his employ, Hugh persuades her to stay in his home for protection…which leads to some complicated feelings for Alf (and Hugh, once he realizes she’s not a teenage boy). Like Sweetest Scoundrel, this is a part of the Maiden Lane series, and it’s a fine installment: tightly plotted and prettily written, with a delightfully unusual heroine and a protective hero of the best type.

16. Silver Deceptions by Sabrina Jeffries (1994, revised for 2016 reissue)

During the height of the English Restoration, Annabelle Taylor takes to the London stage and purposefully cultivates a bad reputation with the goal of finding out and shaming the aristocratic father who abandoned her.  Unfortunately, her discreet inquiries about his identity lead the king’s spies to think she has an anti-Royalist agenda. Colin Jeffreys, Lord Hampden, is sent to find out what her deal is, only to get caught up in something way more risky than a Roundhead plot (to his heart, anyway). This is easily the best Restoration romance I’ve read, with a beautifully realized setting, a fast-moving plot, and multilayered protagonists.

15. Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier (1938)

An unnamed narrator, young and awkward and alone in the world, marries the handsome, haunted Maxime de Winter after a whirlwind courtship in Monte Carlo. The problem is that she has trouble adjusting to being lady of the manor, plus he seems just shattered over the death of his beautiful, accomplished late wife…but is that what’s really going on? Kind of! I loved the weird, funny narrator, and the initial romance between her and Maxime is so sweet that its devolution once they get to Manderley hit me hard.

14. Sylvester, or the Wicked Uncle by Georgette Heyer (1957)

Sylvester Rayne, the Duke of Salford, does not want to marry Phoebe Marlow, the mousy granddaughter of his godmother…but he’s still miffed when she flees her father’s house in order to avoid marrying him. Then he finds out that she wrote a popular gothic novel whose hero bears a striking resemblance to him, and he’s really annoyed. This is a terrific comedy—the two unplanned road trips are particularly delightful. I also liked the heroine and how she comes into her own after years of being cowed by her stepmother.

13. Duke of Sin by Elizabeth Hoyt (2016)

Valentine Napier, the Duke of Montgomery (and half-brother to Eve Dinwoody), is a bad, bad man. He blackmails his peers, tries to abduct heiresses (he’s not that great at it), and pretends that he’s done even worse. Bridget Crumb, his housekeeper, is working in his household in hopes of helping her mother. She has every reason to hate and fear him…but instead she thinks he’s full of shit but kind of likes him anyway. In turn, he’s intrigued by the fact that she has morals and wears a huge mobcap to hide her hair. This is a balls-out ludicrous romance novel in the best possible sense, with enough emotional pathos to keep me seriously invested.

12. Rose Under Fire by Elizabeth Wein (2013)

Rose Justice, a young American flying planes for the British Air Transport Auxiliary during WWII, is captured by the Germans during a mission in France. Sent to Ravensbrück, she barely manages to survive the experience with the help of her fellow political prisoners and poetry. This book is less twist-driven than its companion Code Name Verity—the reader isn’t kept in much suspense about Rose’s eventual escape, let alone surprised with any revelation—but it has every good thing in common with the other novel: a complex and human narrator, a focus on women’s contributions to WWII, and a message of steely hope in the face of evil.

11. Crispin: The End of Time by Avi (2010)

In the third and final installment of the starkly beautiful medieval-set Crispin trilogy, thirteen-year-old Crispin finds himself bereft and unable to speak the language in war-torn France. He tries to get to Iceland, where everyone is free according to his late mentor, but he falls into bad company and has existential crises along the way. If you enjoy the most heart-shattering parts of A Song of Ice and Fire but wish the series had a smidge less violence and a lot less sex, this series might be for you! The ending is satisfying and holds the hope of hope, but good lord does it put you through the wringer.

10. The Study of Seduction by Sabrina Jeffries (2016)

When Lady Clarissa Lindsey finds herself being stalked by a sleazy French diplomat, family friend Lord Blakesborough agrees to help her out. They tend to clash—she’s gregarious and fun-loving, while he’s reserved to the point of stuffiness—but she wants the best for him, too, and tries to teach him how to talk to ladies so he can find a wife. Of course, everything goes wrong and they end up marrying each other for convenience…only it’s not so convenient, because they want to bang each other something fierce, plus they both have sad pasts they can’t talk about easily. A beautiful, hopeful romance with two extremely endearing protagonists.

9. A Scandalous Countess by Jo Beverley (2009)

Georgia, Lady Maybury, was the toast of society…until her beloved young husband was killed in a duel and everyone (wrongly) thought it was with her lover. Now she’s coming out of mourning, but someone has resurrected the most vicious rumors about her. She finds an unexpected ally in Lord Dracy, an awkward, badly scarred ex-naval officer who secretly wants to marry her for her money (at first). This novel is a glorious melodrama with an intriguing mystery and a wonderfully complex heroine.

8. Once Upon a Marquess by Courtney Milan (2015)

Lady Judith Worth used to have everything, but then her father was exposed as a traitor and committed suicide. Now she can barely pay rent on her shabby London home and all her siblings are either missing or in distress, but she’s still loathe to accept help from Lord Ashford, an old friend whose investigations helped bring about her family’s ruin. His charm, willingness to assist her, and ready acknowledgment that she has a right to be angry make it a bit easier, though. Courtney Milan is a National Treasure, and this complex series debut, alternately hilarious and heartrending, is among her best.

7. Emma by Jane Austen (1815)

Emma Woodhouse, rich and pretty and beloved by most, tries to be a good person, but that turns out to be a confusing business. I was frequently irritated by this novel, but honestly that made me love it more. On several occasions, Emma actually shocked me with her bad judgment, callousness, and even malice. At the same time, I saw that she was genuinely trying to do the right thing, even though she was severely hampered by classism and a lack of self-awareness. The contrast and the questions it raises are fascinating.

6. The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher by Hilary Mantel (2014)

This gorgeously written, endlessly unnerving anthology includes “The School of English” (the heartbreaking, infuriating tale of a London housekeeper starting a new job), “How Shall I Know You?” (the story of a pitying, pitiable writer on a miserable book tour), and the title story (a snapshot of an alternate history). Every story has excellent style and atmosphere; Mantel has a particular talent for making the reader feel queasy and excited at the same time.

5. Fortune Favors the Wicked by Theresa Romain (2016)

World-weary courtesan Charlotte Perry returns to her hometown in search of a stolen hoard, hoping that the reward will allow her to build a new life for herself and her “niece.” Lieutenant Benedict Frost, recently blinded and restless, travels to the same location in hopes of establishing a household where he can live with his younger sister. They should be adversaries…but perhaps they will not be? This was a nearly perfect romance; the central relationship was delicious, all the side characters were great, and the plot was very well-constructed.

4. The Way I Used to Be by Amber Smith (2016)

After her brother’s best friend rapes her in her own bedroom, high school freshman Eden’s primary reaction is rage—not only at her rapist, but at the parents who overlook her, at the brother she’s sure wouldn’t believe her, and at herself for being quiet and trusting. Over the next few years, she builds a new identity for herself; unfortunately, it comes with self-destructive behavior and a tendency to push everyone away. This story is ultimately a hopeful one, but it’s a damn hard read. I cried like a tiny baby girl, and I often felt incredibly angry. Eden is a wonderful narrator, clear-eyed but still unable to extract herself from a morass of silence and self-punishment without help.

3. Room by Emma Donoghue (2010)

Five-year-old Jack has never left the room where he was born to his captive mother, or even learned that the outside world they see on television is real. All he knows is Room and Ma…until she tells him there’s a whole universe outside and shares her desperate escape plan. Room is an absolutely beautiful story, and it’s all the more wonderful because the characters are so individualized. Jack is a sweetheart, but he also does weird kid stuff, from the adorable (declaring broccoli his “enemy food”) to the dangerously inconvenient (getting angry at his mom when she tries to explain the outside world). Ma is even more complex, and it’s truly impressive how Donoghue can convey her anger, compassion, youthfulness, maturity, and everything else when she’s filtered entirely through her five-year-old son’s perspective. I also appreciated how much the novel is about recovery, with all its attendant joys and difficulties.

2. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou (1969)

In her classic first memoir, Angelou shares the story of her childhood in Arkansas and then California. I loved this book almost as much as its sequel Gather Together in My Name; it’s just as funny, heartbreaking, and sharply insightful. It can also be a much tougher read, due to the trauma she experiences in her childhood and the near-constant racism she faces, but her exploration of these issues just makes the book more powerful.

1. Gather Together in My Name by Maya Angelou (1974)

In this memoir, Angelou relates her experiences as a young woman in post-WWII California. She tries to care for her new baby, find a purpose in life, and look for someone to love, but she runs into many obstacles: bad boyfriends, racism, anti-Communist paranoia, an unfaithful dance partner, and an unplanned foray into running a brothel, just to name a few. Angelou’s second memoir is glorious, funny and poignant and righteously angry at turns. Even though my experiences are very different from hers, I related hard to her loneliness, lack of direction, and premature regret. The best book I read all year.

[inabottlelikelightning]

What's your favorite thing to criticize about other people's fanfic writing? Of course, I mean "criticize" academically, as in to look at/look for critically.

this is a great question!!! long ass answer ahead

so i actually like to evaluate a lot of things when i read.

pacing is one of the big things that i implicitly read for, especially in stories where relationships are supposed to develop. it’s difficult to develop a relationship well in a short amount fo words but i’m always impressed when people manage to do it!! enemies to friends to lovers is DIFFICULT but some people do it really well!! and the thing is, this is somehow COMPLETELY independent from technical competence. i have seen awfully written fics have phenomenal pacing and develop a really natural enemies -> lovers, and well-written fics with poorly planned pacing.

i look for depth of characterization! if these characters are actual 3 dimensional individuals with thoughts and feelings and logical motives. if their actions and dialogue make sense and are distinct. or if they’re just stock characters making Wildly ooc decisions.

i sometimes (often) try to profile authors based on the points they bring up. sometimes they’re trying to make a statement about how the world works, sometimes they’re exposing their own implicit and explicit biases. the amount of internalized misogyny, homophobia ( + a LOT of biphobia) and racism and classism is RAMPANT and i like to do a critical analysis of it.

i do the same thing with style too. you can usually tell who a person is by how they write. inexperienced writers always try to overexplain things that should be implied, probably because they don’t trust their ability to convey ideas. i see the phrase “referring to” a Lot in fic. their characterizations are usually superficial. the only way we know the characters are in love is because they act super sappy. on the other end of the spectrum, experienced writers trust their readers to pick up what they’re putting down. some things are ambiguous. they usually show a Lot of restraint in terms of relationships, they take their time to get the characters together, they don’t move too fast or too clumsily. characterizations are are well-developed, probably pretty close to canon, they act like real people do.

obviously there are exceptions to all of these things lmfao. inexperienced vs experienced is just a sliding scale and the criteria are more of Vague Concepts than set-in-stone measurements. plenty of phenomenal writers write tooth-rotting fluff, and that’s absolutely valid of them.

[bookandcover]

George Saunders! He is, in my opinion, one of the most innovative and unapologetic contemporary fiction writers. Tenth of December had a significant impact on me emotionally, as well as on my understanding of the capacity of short stories to capture complex thematic content. Saunders portrays moral and ethical dilemmas with ever-expanding intricacy and nuance. He innovates with form and structure in a way that seems distinctly “poetic” to me, as he plays with pacing, syntax, and fragmentation on the page—to get at something more true to meaning, character identity, and realism of expression.

I followed up Tenth of December with CivilWarLand in Bad Decline, which fell flat for me in comparison. There is a lot more unity of style and content across CivilWarLand in Bad Decline, which could be a perceived strength, but I was engaged by the versatility and diversity of Tenth of December.

 I read Tenth of December after my sister met George Saunders when he came to speak at her college class. She recommended this book from the list of contemporary reading assigned. Then I raved about it. My mom read it. She raved about. Most of our friends and family members read it. I remember by grandma crying when she called to tell us she’d finished the book. She seemed unable to explain why and how it had moved her so deeply, but it had.

 To a certain extent, I think the emotions and glamour of Tenth of December (of particular stories) set my expectations overwhelmingly high for this novel. I felt repeatedly surprised by this novel. It wasn’t what I was expecting. After expressing that I expected Saunders to apply his insightful mind to the ongoing role of classism, racism, and sexism in the 21st century (which is what compelled me most about Tenth of December) I laughed at myself for saying “Why a historical novel? Why the Civil War?” because, of course, I’d also read CivilWarLand in Bad Decline (the time period and its “trappings” seem to fascinate Saunders).

 Parts of the novel do feel like what I think of as “distinctly Saunders.” The narratives of the ghosts of slaves and their role within the bardo, their physical position within an unmarked mass grave, the contempt (and blatant racism) of many of the white ghosts—this section of the book felt familiar to me.

 The structure of the book is surprising and Saunders embraces the concept fully—pulling us into the world of disjointed narrative without explanation (would I have been deeply confused if I hadn’t read the front flap first and understood the bardo, the death of Willie Lincoln, and the historical framework of the novel? This full embrace of concept is, I think, one of the strengths of the novel. Saunders is going for it. We stay within the bardo. We dig deep with these characters. We care about Hans Vollman and Roger Bevins III, in all their perfections and imperfections (I loved Roger Bevins waxing poetical on the sensations of the world, the ineffable beauty of the world). We see their growth and transformation. This strange chorus of ghostly voices isn’t a literary exercise. The world of the bardo and its conventions aren’t broken. We’re asked to accept as ordinary that such figures would be our literary protagonists. I respect that. There’s no philosophical hemming-and-hawing. There’s very little judgment. That’s something Saunders does well—exposing the broken and the decaying, the weak and the sympathetic, the struggling and the selfish. Without judgment.

 I think his vision of the bardo, in which the thing from the mortal world that the ghosts cannot let go of physically overwhelms them, is very telling. These spirits remain in transition because of their obsession and persistence, not because of the judgment of a greater God. Here is a subjective morality. One of the most mysterious parts of the book, for me, is the Reverend Everly Thomas’s experience of moving beyond the bardo in which he sees the two other men with him examined—then one is rewarded and one punished. He sees that his fate is punishment, but he cannot understand why. Is this the future that awaits each ghost who, with the matterlightblooming phenomenon, moves past the bardo? Or is it the subjective future that awaits only the Reverend, shaped by his understanding of the universe and morality in life? It seems unlike Saunders to be so objective as to give everyone a final judgment. He doesn’t show Reverend Everly Thomas as he moves beyond the bardo for his second, and final, time.

 One thing I’m always on the lookout for with Saunders is creative language. Saunders wildly manipulates the conventions of language in a way that I love for its lack of artistry. All of these moments seem to me to be genuine attempts to have language better approximate the world and experiences. The term “matterlightblooming phenomenon” is an excellent example. This phenomenon seems so far beyond the capacity of the characters to articulate and explain that the blurring together of the descriptive phrase into a single word denotes this as a clear, distinct, always the same event, but one that cannot be described. The term charges the reader with the sensation of experiencing the phenomenon in the moment, more so than a long, more detailed description could.

 These moments, however, were limited in Lincoln in the Bardo, something I missed from = Saunders’s short fiction. The novel seemed to rely more on the larger creative structure—the fragmentation of the narrative between multiple voices, the examination of fiction and historical fact—than on smaller scale language creativity. In one moment, Elise Traynor says “I want ed so much to hold a dear Babe” and the “ed” is placed separate from the “want,” capturing a more complex sensation with a single verb: that her wanting was in the past (in her lifetime), but that her wanting is simultaneously ongoing and sustained in her present, which is timeless (the moment of her death being, to some extent, the end of time for her). I love this kind of move and wanted more of this.

 The creative structural play between fiction and historical fact seems to be one of the most critical aspects of this book. I wondered repeatedly as I read whether the historical sources (and the text from them) was real or invented, until I ran across a text citation (Team of Rivals) that I was sure was real in the world. The historical words exhibit a certain “stranger than fiction” phenomenon in this book, as they convey with overwhelming specificity the intensity and humanism of Abraham Lincoln, a figure who seems too towering to be human. I kept marveling—How do we know so much? How do we know so much about Lincoln? This is almost horrifying—as if I’ve turned over a stone that should have been left unturned. How could all this information be real? Turns out, it’s not, quite. Ultimately, I had to Google this and discovered that many of the quotes are real, some invented, further blurring the line between truth and fiction. There is misinformation, poor memory, and limited observation in every human account. Saunders plays with this, showing where the historical narratives contradict each other. But he also shows the power of evidential agreement—as the narratives align, we see how much we know to be true about the Lincolns, about Abe and Willie.

 Saunders gives his clearly invented narratives—the voices of Hans Vollman, Roger Bevins III, Reverend Everly Thomas, and company—the same weight as the narratives of real people, as the analysis of historians. Is this intentionally subversive? Is this an examination of the blending of life into narrative and narrative into real life? This story repeatedly shows how these ghosts hold onto the bardo because of the narratives they tell about their lives. They have to repeat why they’ll go back, what they need to do differently. Hans Vollman maintains self-deception through language choices—the unspeakable word “coffin” becomes “sick-box” and the unspeakable “corpse” becomes “sick-form.” Language and narrative operate as both tools of disguise and deception, and as tools of truth and fact, in the novel.

 As a whole, Lincoln in the Bardo is haunting, emotional, compelling, memorable, and strange—difficult to digest and compartmentalize.