#and shes a writer by progession too i was like | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

red-queen-on-the-heathen-throne · 2 years ago

Text

We do have a direct reference to the time since the Collapse - Failsafe. She explicitly states it's been 500 years since her crew died.

Besides that, 2400 years is just too long. For reference, 2400 years ago we had a Roman empire. Ancient Egypt was still around. We only just figured out how to make sugar from sugarcane. Neither Christianity nor Islam would even exist for another couple centuries.

2400 years is LONG. There is no plausible way it has been that long since the Collapse and people are still living in ONE city, never spreading out, never expanding. 2400 years ago, we had 150 million humans on the entire planet. Today, that's like... two European countries and change. Now imagine 2400 years of population growth. That would not stay in one city.

That's a thing that bugs me so much about fiction, when writers throw big numbers around without any sort of reference as to just how fucking long that is. Progress happens. Progess is inevitable. A society will not be stagnant, or even near-stagnant, for that long. That's not how people work. We invent stuff. We make things. We grow and learn and we spread out. This world of space magic and futuretech would not spend a century or two rebuilding and then sit on its bum for two millennia doing nothing. If it had been that long, the setting would be very different.

500 years? That's a workable time frame. You can account for most of that in reasonable terms of "time it takes for society to crumble", "time spent living in the following chaos", "time spent rebuilding", and "time spent moving forward again". But the more you move away from this very reasonable time frame, the less sense anything makes in this universe. Once you reach terms like "a thousand years ago" without bothering to think for a minute about what we did and did not have in the year 1023, and how far humanity has come since then, you construct a world that simply doesn't work.

So for the Destiny universe to have any sort of internal logic, 2400 years can't be the timeline. And since this will always be a discussion of design vs logic, in this case the Occam's Razor answer is probably "the Hall of Heroes needed to look cool, so they made it very big and impressive". Visuals like that in a game are notoriously hard to use as a scale for anything, because games rarely operate on a 1:1 scale. That's why Whiterun is fucking tiny - because you don't want to navigate a real-life sized video game city. And that's why the Hall of Heroes is so unreasonably huge - making it realistically small would take away the impression that it makes, and turn it into a pathetic backdrop for what are supposed to be grand, sweeping scenes taking place there.

...also Nimbus would look ridiculous inside a normal-sized hall, so that's a scale the artists had to work with, too.

And honestly, if Word of God eventually states that it really has been that long? That it's been more than two-thousand years since the Collapse? That's unimaginably bad worldbuilding and I would rather follow a much more reasonable headcanon than pretend that nobody built another deep-space ship in all that time, and we have like a billion humans crammed into one medium-sized city in South America.

Cloudstrider Monuments

Okay, i was gonna write this a while ago but never did. So, my boyfriend and I were hanging out in the Hall of Heroes after we finished the Strider exotic quest. My bf realized it there seemed to be way too many monuments around the room, considering the few things we knew off hand:

The collapse was 1600 years ago. We know this tidbit from Petra Venj. In the lore entry "Refusal" from Forsaken, there is this line: "She [Petra] bites back the rest: how she wishes that back in two-thousand-and-whatever, when the Darkness hurled mankind off the height of its Golden Age to plummet sixteen centuries into barbarism, it had done just a slightly better job." So we know that Neomuna have been around for approximately 1600 years.

Cloudstriders live 10 years, due to the augmentations they go through.

There are only ever two cloudstriders at once.

Alright, with this knowledge, we decided to count up all the monuments in the room and around it, which gave us 480 monuments. This number might not be entirely accurate, but it gives us a good estimate. Now let's divide this by two (since there are two cloudstriders at once) and we are down to 240. If this is multiplied by 10 (for the max amount of years a cloudstrider could live) we get 2400 years.

2400 years of Cloudstriders. Now, obviously this doesn't take into account that cloudstriders can die on duty (like Rohan), but it seems that the Neomuni live in relative peace besides occasionally dealing with the Vex. This also doesn't take into account the early days of Neomuna. We don't know how many cloudstriders there are at once originally, but it seems like there have never been many. We also don't really know how new/old of a concept cloudstriders are. Was Strider, the first cloudstrider, around 1600 years ago or more recently? So yeah, if we think cloudstriders have been around for 1600 years and you minus 1600 from 2400, that's still a good 800 years. It seems weird that there would be that many Cloudstriders. But who knows.

Honestly, my bf and I probably just over analyzed the Hall of Heroes after we got done roasting Quinn for being a bad archivist and having none of this important archival material to Neomuna's history backed up. So take this all with a grain of salt. Except for the 1600 years detail. I think a lot of people don't realize that D2 takes place in at least 3600 CE (and it's probably a lot later than that cause of we don't know how long the golden age was).

#destiny #destiny 2 #long post

286 notes · View notes

tweedfrog · 4 years ago

Note

In general I think a lot of fic writers sometimes make their sympathetic characters way too progressive. Like the most feminist, progressive etc etc character in ASOIAF is 1. still going to be behind what I, a 21st century college student would consider progressive and 2. they're going to come at it from a different angle and use different words and have a different frame of reference. (Obviously there are also people who let their ugly bigotry shine the fuck through)

oh yeah I think lots of characters get made “differently progressive” if thats the right way to phrase it? Women in the middle ages could and did engage in undermining partiarchial systems but in a different way that made sense to how they understood the world. In ye olden days a progressive woman wouldnt see abandoning knitting as the height of feminist resistance because 1. how the hell else are you supposed to make clothes to wear and 2. knitting professionally was controlled by often male-only guilds for years until the 17th century or thereabouts so if anything trying to knit professionally probably would be more feminist!

To go back to my Catherine of Aragon example - she lead armies in combat against the Scottish, educated her daughter personally in Latin, and vigorously and publicly defied her husband and defended her rights in a legatine court that was almost certainly stacked against her! In the 1500s! But somehow because Catherine didnt defy conventions in a way we in the 21st century would see as “progessive” (eg by divorcing Henry and telling him to go to hell) she gets stereotyped as this clingy neurotic woman who held on to a man who despised her.

I think sometimes people see “dont pit women against each other” and take it to mean that none of the heroines of your fics can have bad thoughts about other girls at all which is just not the case. We let Ned and Jaime openly despise each other while liking them both because male characters get to be three-dimensional human beings with conflicts with other characters we may like but female characters have to apparently be evil witches or virtuous good morality tales.

#or as you said they take it to the other extreme and use it to 'humble' female characters they hate #to all those fic writers who write poor jon getting bullied by catelyn and elia and eventually overcoming them #literally your stories just make me want jon to get bullied more #Anonymous #asks

13 notes · View notes

surgelesshunter · 4 years ago

Text

Honestly I have a lot of anger on behalf of the writers. The stories helped me so much and impacted a lot of my young adult years. But I can't support lovestruck if they fire them. So Depending on Voltage's response going forward I believe I will be changing my username at some point. I don't know to what but I will make a post letting everyone know when I do.

I started this blog because I loved this app and wanted to share that with the world. I will not stand with lovestruck if they don't stand with the people who make it happen - the writers! Going forward if lovestruck does not fix itself I will use this blog to promote other otome games, especially from indie wiriters. This past month or two i have been getting really into @whenthenightcomesgame and its company @lunarisgames. They have great LGBT routes and poly options in them and are PC games. They are working on releasing When the Night Comes for later this year and might be on mobile app and the switch too. Errant kingdom is still a work in progess but still so amazing and a new one called Call Me Under that's in its beginning stages. I will also probably try spreading the word of @rinmarugames who is a writer I have followed for many years ever since her game Ascension came out. (Oh gods I was young like 12ish) and she is working on remaking that amazing series along with her new work Oathbreaker! Which is seriously badass RPG feeling visual novel. And involves two female LI in the first season. She's working the second season now added a third woman LI and I've heard rumours of her adding a poly route too. And maybe covering other games I adore like Mr. Love Queen's Choice and Obey me.

I want lovestruck to be better but if not I also want people to know they aren't the only people out there who create LGBT+ otome games. There are so many indie companies we can find and love just as much as lovestruck. Don't boycott them just yet but know they are not the be all end all of inclusive visual novels. We can and will find others. And who knows maybe the writers and artists might band together and create their own app and write their own stories were we get to enjoy them without them being paid horrible wages.

And know that lovestruck will have a special place in a lot of people's hearts, mine included, but that does not mean they have any excuse to treat their writers like shit. Stay strong everyone and know we can create our own future 💖.

#lovestruck voltage #lovestruck #personal #writers strike

28 notes · View notes

mydoorin · 4 years ago

Text

this is long and made for no one but myself

I like certain aspects of C1, and a lot of Vox Machina is endearing and wonderful, but I find all of the first campaign really hard to watch

From a player and a DM perspective I just cannot watch a 5 1/2 long episode with half the cast yelling over each other and the other half doing world-breaking shit. I know there was a sort of loosey-goosey transition between their Pathfinder homegames and 5e, and Matt and Taliesin are used to editions older than 4th even, but there were a lot of times when I felt basic rules got swept under the rug for Vax and Percy but were unfairly or even sometimes incorrectly applied to Keyleth and Vex. Vax literally broke the game multiple times, and I know a lot of the campaign was like Matt’s gift to Liam, but it’s a campaign with 8 of your friends that you’re now producing as a show so it can’t just be about the one guy anymore. No one likes playing D&D where one character is literally touched by fate and can move 120 feet and doing 5 attacks a round. even if the rest of the team are like, high level barbarians fighters and spellcasters it feels unbalanced and it isn’t fun to watch.

a lot of the combat mechanics in C1 feel sloppy too, in terms that PCs didnt know their own character abilities or had a misunderstanding of how Action-Bonus Action-Reaction 5e combat works. It’s not really anyone’s fault, that happens when you change game systems, but to the point that I actually skip combat scenes, which unfortunately can be like a majority of the episode (and have really important character moments, like death). the Kraken fight comes to mind (there aren’t 40 feet fast eels Keyleth I’m sorry), it felt like Grog had the best grasp on his character’s mechanics and goals, and I was yelling at the screen for the other PCs to look at their character sheets. i dont know why Keyleth wasnt a water elemental to start or why Vax didn’t spend all his time stealth-investigating for the lodestones or why Percy didnt think to try luring the beast or talking to it or why Vex didn’t- actually Vex did everything she could Rangers have massive drawbacks. But!! These are issues I have with VM in most fights, theyve gotten better in their level 20 one shots, but still there I want them to please read their character sheets, bc Keyleth is an archdruid who doesnt use spell components anymore and can cast from Wild Shape and that’s tight as hell. Vex’s character mechanics still suck at level 20 but that is not her fault at all 5e literally just hates Rangers. And can we talk about that? Why do Rangers not get half the shit other classes get? How come Rangers have to wait until level 17 to use hide as a bonus action? Rogues get that at 2nd level. Anyway.

I think another part of it comes from player experience, and what kind of PCs are and are not fun to have at the table. Personally I dont like the fate touched concept, I don’t have fun as a player when one character is designed from the start to be more special and important, esp when that character talks about hating it so much all the time. TBH I don’t know why Vax is such a shit about the Raven Queen deal it seems like you got something no one else has ever gotten (she let you have your sister back bro) and you literally signed up for this. A God is giving you Special Awesome God Powers that make you more of a terrifying game breaking monster and you’re gonna keep calling the Raven Queen a bitch? for what? because you didn’t check for traps? because you didnt have a spellcaster that could use telekinesis? what about that situation wasnt entirely character choices lmao

betwen Vax and Percy (dont get me started on Mr. I Know Better Than Everyone, i really fucking hate PCs like that and i will fight about my distaste for percival von frankenstein monsterenergydrink the third) there are a lot of moments in C1 that aren’t fun to watch bc I know they arent fun for everyone at the table to play. it can be really cool to watch someone else’s backstory unfold, but if that’s all you’re doing it’s super easy to check out (I dont think it’s an RP decision when Grog has no idea what’s happening, I too haven’t been listening to Percy argue about this inconsequential thing to no one in particular) think of all the early C2 Caleb-Beau moments when it was clear half the tabl wasn’t paying attention, and how quickly that was resolved after people voiced their opinions on it (Matt for sure talked to them about dominating RP and making too many smaller moments that leave out the rest of the table, I wish a certain wizard would take it to heart), but that didnt feel like a conversation anyone had during the first campaign.

maybe it’s because i didnt watch C1 live or because I watched C2 first, but I have- not even a preference really a deference to the Mighty Nein. I think they’re more fun, more entertaining to watch, more emotionally involved and driven, better developed and created, better in all aspects, smarter and funnier and sexier than Vox Machina. I dont care about high fantasy stories with legendary heroes that are basically gods that is such a boring way to play D&D, I want the dumbass characters to use and magic to play pranks on local shopkeepers and i want the lesbians to have a slow burn romance.

I dont even wanna touch on C1 romance bc like, gag me with a spoon I don’t like the way Kashaw or Vax interact with Keyleth theyre both so fucking annoying. Idk why men cant be normal and talk to the fantasy girl they have a fantasy crush on, but Fjord managed just fucking fine.

i need to go back to sleep but in essence my opinions are that C1 was a classic 1980s D&D campaign that would have made Gary Gygax proud. And now that D&D is a lot better than it was in the 80s, more accessible and a lot less shitty, we can have cool modern fantasy stories that expect more from PCs, DMs, and the audience. We can do cooler, better things than we used to, and the structure of 5e actually helps facilitate more roleplaying between characters. The 5e PHB has whole sections devoted to roleplaying your character, and now Tasha’s gives everyone a way to get rid of stupid racist features and make your characters cooler. I’m really happy to see the progession of both WOTC and Critical Role into better, cooler, more awesome and less shitty versions of themselves (this isnt a WOTC defense post im not a shill they should pay the Dragonlance writers)

1 note · View note

ayoalex · 5 years ago

Text

Has anyone write about how since the beginning J.K Rowling put Harry, Ron and Hermione as equals but with progression of the books all that got lost until the last one?

If they have please give me the link i would love to read it, if it they haven't then I'm gonna explain you this.

Our favourite trio started as first years in Hogwarts not really knowing how all of this work, we meet Harry, a halfblood that recently discovered he is a wizard, and important one. Later we met Ron, a pureblood wizard with 5 older brothers and a little sister, he comes from an old lineage but people see his family bad because of his dad liking of Muggles. And then we met Hermione, a muggle born from; for what we can see; a kinda wealthy family, her parent being two muggle doctors.

Now you gonna point out "they are not equals, look at the status" and you are right but even with all that they started with nothing and with the progession of the story they all share the same experiences aka finding Fluffy, the Troll and the entire Philosopher stone plot. What makes them equal is their experiences in Hogwarts, with Voldemort and all of that.

In second year this is broken because meanwhile Hermione figured the whole "There is a basilisk at the school and Tom Riddle is the one opening the chamber of secrets by the helping of another student and his diary" she still gets petrified and is Ron and Harry that end up going to the chambers. Then in third year they all figure the whole Sirius issue but again one of them is left behind meanwhile the other two do the action.

In fourth year is Harry turn to face Voldemort alone and that result in him being curcio and seeing Cedric death. Hermione and Ron can't relate no more and there is a break in their bridge. They stop being equals.

Now is at the end of fifth year that both Hermione and Ron experience a close death situation. It's really interesting how the youngest in the group don't get that many bruises and share of curses. Neville got a broken nose, Ginny a broken ankle and Luna got stupefy, Harry don't get that big of a wound but end up seeing Sirius death and Voldemort tries to control him.

Now, Hermione get hits with an unknown curse that later Harry gets it with and it seems really awful. She gets knocked out and Neville almost couldn't feel her pulse, and we know is bad because later we found out Hermione needs to drink 10 different potions and she can't breath that well.

Ron gets hex with something that makes him rather happy and high (?) And because of that he grab one of the brains and this starts hurting him really badly. We figure out is bad because not only it leaves scars but he stay the same amount of time as Hermione in the Hospital wing. Both of them stay the same amount of time, Ginny, Luna and Neville already left at this point, so we can assume that Ron and Hermione got the worst of the experience.

The thing here is, they finally experience a "we almost died" thing like Harry did in 4th year but the bridge is too big now, Harry not almost died, he got tortured and have seen two people die in front of him.

In sixth year this bridge do not change in fact it gets bigger. Harry again experience something that neither the other do and see other person die again.

But then the seven book happens and here this bridge start getting smaller. They fight side by side but then Harry and Ron have a fight (like in 4th year) and the latter leave. Ron has his fair of shenanigans, hiding, try to get away of snatchers and finally ending up in Bill and Fleur house. In all this time Harry and Hermione end up alone doing their stuff just like in third year but all of this is quickly change with Ron coming back because now is all second year, where Ron and Harry had to do something to save Hermione because now she is being tortured by Bellatrix. (The parallels wow *chef kiss*).

And i want y'all to know that fifth year repeat itself in the beginning when Voldemort killed Moody because the three of them had to fight death eather again and separate but Harry and Hermione are the one seeing Voldemort flying meanwhile Ron need to think in a strategy to help Tonks (if you don't see the parallel then i would tell you, H&H got to see the centaurs dragging Umbridge down and they are even covered in blood by the end of it because of Gawp, Hagrid brother; Ron meanwhile has to do something quick to neutralise the Inquisitor squad so he can go where H&H are).

And now we get to the Battle of Hogwarts where they are finally equal again. This doesn't break because the three of them have finish a Horcrux and fight someone more powerfull than them, and finally they all see they same deaths. Colin, Fred, etc. Hermione fights Bellatrix, Ron fights Fenrir and finally Harry fight Voldemort.

No matter their status they end up as equal because no one could ever understand what they have been through.

Not Ginny, no Neville, no Luna, etc.

Ginny got the diary stuff and that help her understand Harry at one point, Neville is basically almost orphan as well as Harry and finally you have Luna that saw her mom dying as well as Harry did.

But, is Ron and Hermione that understand what he being through because they always been there and have experience similar things. So why do fics writers forget that?

Why do you make Harry moving with Ginny so fast when they need to heal. The trio need to heal together because they only trust each other.

I can see them, weeks after everything sitting in a sofa together looking at the ceiling not knowing how to fell, what to do, etc. Ginny wouldn't know what to do to help them, she would be so lost. Neville and Luna there trying to help her but she wants to help them too, she can see them but she doesn't know how.

I can see Molly broken because she lost one son and she is slowly losing others too. She can see how they are, like they can't believe it.

Fleur would be the one helping Hermione, she already took care of her in Shell Cottage so she knows how the girl operate, and it isn't until they are alone that Hermione finally break down.

Hermione always put a façade to her boys, always. I can see her being vulnerable with Fleur.

It's in Fred funeral that Ron finally breaks down and Harry turns it's when he see Teddy.

Ronmione wouldn't happen after a while, Harry would struggle to maintain a stable relationship. These kids went through hell, please deal with all that first before putting them in healthy relationship. As someone that is really depressed i just couldn't be in a relationship right now, im not emotionally neither mentally stable for that. The three of them would be so fucked up to be in a relationship. You can do whatever you want in your fics but we need to deal with them better. They are too fucked up to be fine after a week.

Anyway, stan the golden trio for clear skin 🤪

#hermione granger #harry potter #ron weasley #ginny weasley #luna lovegood #neville longbottom #fleur delacour #molly weasley #golden trio #the golden trio

70 notes · View notes

piracytheorist · 5 years ago

Note

How do you think they assassinated Emma’s character in s6? I thought Emma was very true to character in s6. She fought for the people she loved and to protect innocents. She fought for Killian, Belle, and even was willing to sacrifice her own life rather than kill Gideon, because she knew the Black Fairy had his heart and was controlling him. I thought Emma was very heroic in s6.

Oh well, I guess you’re one of those who think that just because she was a good person, she was also well written. I mean okay, if you love her and felt inclined to see all the good in her, great, but since you asked me, and I don’t think I’ve made a complete post with all my problems with Emma’s writing in s6, here goes.

Note that it’s not my intention to hate on Emma here. But because up until the end of s5, I loved what Emma had grown into, I was so, so disappointed by the writing choices. So remember, I’m criticizing the writing choices, not the character. (though I’m sure I’ll get nervous nellies coming at me and calling me a hater either way)

1. Her whole (and I mean, whole) development from s5 was completely ignored. Seriously, even from the first episodes from s6, it felt as if the writers had completely forgotten everything they wrote in s5.

Season 5 Emma started scared, insecure, with the Darkness pushing her buttons and making her not trust in her family. By the end of 5A, she learned to trust them to help her - hence, she let them follow her in the Underworld. She did feel guilty, at times, but her growth was shown by her accepting that help.

S6? The first thing she does is hide from her family the fact that she has high chances of dying soon. She’s brought to re-learn the lesson of trusting her family, all over again, and play again the “you’re right I should’ve trusted you yadda yadda”.

Now, yes, in real life, people don’t drop such bad habits that easily. But OUAT wasn’t real life. And when you fucking trust your family to protect themselves and your underage child from whatever the Underworld may bring, I don’t know, hiding a potential death threat from them later sounds kinda illogical.

Point is, Emma had already gone through the process of learning to trust her family. S6 was just a complete re-do of s5. Hence, the writing “killed” the progess she did in s5.

2. The Captain Swan stuff. Oh boy, where do I fucking begin?

- She outright ignored Killian’s very obvious turmoil in 6x13 because she was oh so excited to get engaged. That was selfish, not a nice development.

- In s4, when she suspected Killian had a past with Ursula he wasn’t being truthful about, she confronted him in a very mature way, telling him what upset her and what she expected of him as her boyfriend without rocking their relationship at all.She trusted him to deal with the issue and let her in when/if he needed her. And that was awesome. But the moment Killian is having an issue in s6? She shouts at him, demands that he trust her, and breaks off (even if it was shown as a temporary break-off) their engagement. Which she had pretty much forced, btw. Certainly not a good development, especially since we saw her handle the relationship stuff very positively and carefully in s4, long before they had even exchanged “I love you”s, let alone get engaged.

- Talking about the trust stuff… she shouted at Killian about how he should have trusted her, when not ten episodes ago she’d done the exact same thing to him. Instead of looking inward and realizing that he only did what he did out of fear, like she had done before, the writers had her blame him. No support, no understanding, barely even a chance for him to explain himself. The scene where they fight about the dreamcatcher looks like it’s straight out of a cheesy soap opera and I simply cannot describe how much I hate it. And you know what’s even more ridiculous? When in 6x06 he comes clear to her about not throwing away the shears, she’s immediately understanding. Yes, she looks shaken by him having lied to her, but she does look inward and says “I would have done the exact same thing” - which, though it was beautiful, was another proof the writers had forgotten about s5, where she did that exact same thing by turning him into the Dark One, ignoring his wishes not to. So truly, the line should have been “I have done the exact same thing”. But anyway. Yet, when the same thing happens with the dreamcatcher, she shouts at him. What’s the logic there?

- Her first reaction in whateverthefuckepisodeitwasIdon’tcare, when Killian doesn’t come back after she broke off the engagement, is to assume he’d straight up abandoned her. Sure, abandonment issues yadda yadda. We’re talking about the guy who gave up his home for her happiness, endagered his life and even lost it twice for her, opened up to her in a way he hadn’t opened up to anyone in centuries, yet her first reaction is to think the most dedicated guy in the world gave up on her. That’s, again, a negative development from the woman who went to the fucking Underworld because she knew Killian would want to be back with her. Like, what else should Killian have done to prove to her that he won’t give up on her like that? I mean, even when he was shaken and wanted to leave with Nemo, it was with the aim to come back once he’d found himself. Instead Emma was written to immediately think he’d dumped her forever - so no understanding of her almost fiancee’s character and devotion to her. And it wasn’t even that she felt guilty over forcing the engagement on him and then abruptly breaking it off. She literally packed up his stuff and was about to go put them away. If she had felt guilty she would’ve kept them, but no, guess he’s gone forever now bye.

This was not the development Emma Swan deserved. Sure, she did heroic stuff. But the writing owed to her (and other characters too) to stay true to her.

3. General stuff

- Getting rid of the shears was stupid and illogical from the get-go. There were two (or more? I don’t remember) openly evil magic users out there. She had a magical object that could change her life and have an impact on virtually everyone. Her solution? Throw it away and hope the expert magic users won’t find it. Though mentioning that feels like cheating because it was a collectively stupid idea. Hide them outside the town border, perhaps? Were all their brain cells burnt while in the Underworld?

- The wedding. Look, I’m not gonna go into detail here. Whether you liked it or not, her dress was 100% not Emma. It was nothing that represented her. The whole wedding was not about her and Killian, it was about the whole town - and if you like Adam’s quotes as much as my other anon did, even he said that the wedding was about the town (or was it Eddie who said that?), and what the fuck, marriage should be about the ones involved. Marriages for the communities usually signify some lack of consent (I’m thinking of matchmaking where the couple doesn’t even know each other before getting married, because they live in a regressive community or something). The super conservative dressthat we never found out why she would even like wearing doesn’t help, either.

- Saying that she was happy she grew up unloved because that made her strong. If you don’t realize how problematic that is just by itself, I don’t think any arguments I may present will convince you.

All those things cheapened her character. Combined, they outright destroyed her. I didn’t watch six seasons of the show, to see the woman who blew on a lonely cupcake on her birthday find people she loves and go through all kinds of turmoil for them and to be with them, only to a) continue to not trust her family, b) be a bad girlfriend c) doubt the devotion of the guy who literally died for her, d) be stupid, e) get married “for the community” in a super conservative dress and worst of all, f) pretty much become an abuse apologist.

Yes, Emma Swan still did good things and “savior stuff”. But that was pretty much the only good thing left in her character by the end. Everything else, considering her positive development, flew out the window. And all for the sake of drama.

And that’s how Emma’s character was assassinated.

#tell me again why s7 sucked #ouat criticism #Anonymous #ask and ye shall receive

64 notes · View notes

kinnsporsche · 5 years ago

Note

SHOW eastenders SHIP ballum CHARACTER callum

EASTENDERS

Favorite character:

callum highway baby

Least Favorite character:

ian beale die already

5 Favorite ships (canon or non-canon):

ben and callum

jay and lola

ash and iqra

kush and martin

chantelle and whitney

Character I find most attractive:

you really expect me to pick just one when ben, callum, whitney, chantelle, mick, ash, iqra, all the panesar brothers, and jay all exist???? i refuse

Character I would marry:

marriages dont tend to work out on this show damn, but whitney im love her

Character I would be best friends with:

callum highway

A random thought:

i want keanu to shoot callum so we get some gorgeous ben x callum angst and an angsty i love you and i want lexi to draw him pictures whilst he’s in the hospital ee get on this thanks

An unpopular opinion:

i really enjoyed ben’s “you make me want to be better” line, i know a lot of people disliked it but with it being a direct parallel to how he was talking to phil about how paul made him better and want to be better i really loved it

My canon OTP:

ben and callum baby!!!!!

Non-canon OTP:

chantelle and whitney deserve to be together let them kiss

Most badass character:

callum highway no doubt about it boyyyyyyyyyy

Pairing I am not a fan of:

mick and linda

Character I feel the writers screwed up (in one way or another):

linda. i used to really like her but especially with how she reacted with johnny first came out i grew to hate her so quickly, and i really don’t think they’re handling her alcoholism sl well

Favourite friendship:

jay, lola, ben, callum, and lexi!!!! give me more of this family right the fuck now!!!!!

BALLUM

when or if I started shipping it.

i was so vehemently against shipping it at first because i didn’t want to get sucked back into the ee-verse, but seeing gifs of ben when he came back convinced me. he’s a character i’ve always wanted to see on screen, he’s unapologetically gay and always makes gay jokes about it like me and so many other queer people do and i finally got him and had to let myself get sucked back into it and then shipping ben and callum was almost like a natural progession from there. their dynamic is so chefs kiss and i love them sm

my thoughts:

i have so many thoughts about them all the time lauren can attest to that we literally send each other paragraphs and paragraphs about them. the main thing about them that i love so much is their eye contact. it’s something thats so important and vital in their dynamic, they’re always looking at each other or looking for each other and even before they were a thing they were always making eye contact. it all comes right back to ben saying that he see’s callum but callum see’s him too and its something both of them haven’t had in so long?? nobody’s been able to just look at them and really SEE for so long and now they cant seem to ever look away from each other and they dont want to look away. the other thing thats so important in their dynamic is physical contact. they’re always touching each other like holding hands in the street or ben has his hand on callum’s thigh or callum is touching ben’s arm and shoulders because it’s such a reassuring gesture to both of them and they know they both need it. like, they both must be so touch starved?? ben has had physical touch, he’s super open about his sex life so we know that, but we know its canon that before callum he hadn’t just touched and been held in non-sexual ways since paul and callum has been pretending to be straight for 28 years and yeah he’s been touched too, but never in the way he really needed. when they meet in the park for the first time callum’s almost drawn to ben like a magnet and cant help but lean into him when he reaches out to touch him and the dam just BREAKS because he’s so starved of touch. and then when they get together its like constant touching because they both know that and its such a physical reassurance for the both of them and they’re not ashamed to admit that they both need it. ben isn’t tactile with many people, but he really is with people he cares about like lexi, jay, kathy, and now callum and i think that’s really important for their dynamic. anyway this got long and i could talk about this all day but i wont

What makes me happy about them:

we love representation baby!!!! and i love how devoted they are to each other, even if they show it in wildly different ways. callum is there for ben no matter what and chooses to defend him even when everybody else is against him, he sees all the good in ben where people would only ever see bad and chooses to stand by him through it all. and ben shows it so obviously whenever he tries to protect callum, like when he broke up with him because he thought he would ruin him and when he asked him if he wanted him to take care of leo. they both are so open and honest with each other and they really come into their own skin around each other. callum has become more confident and assured since they started dating and ben has become a lot softer and he isn’t afraid to be vulnerable now and everybody can see it. they both are two sides of the same coin and they bring out the best in each other!!

What makes me sad about them

oh don’t even get me started, ben is so fucking self-sacrificial. he pushed callum away to protect him even if it meant breaking his heart and callum pushed back and really challenged him even if it meant getting hurt more in the process. they both have had real difficult pasts and they’re so riddled with trauma and they could have so easily become closed off and cold but they didn’t, they both choose to love each other so deeply and fiercly

Things done in fanfic that annoys me

it’s not so much of an annoyance but people making them sound super slangy or cockney makes me squirm

Things I look for in fanfic

the characterisation baby!!!! @sunsetsover has the best ben and callum characterisations in fics everything she writes is so flawless.

My kinks:

i’ll never get over the fact that as soon as callum got back they stared at each other for a solid 30 seconds and then had desk sex in an unlocked office in the middle of the day on jay’s desk. also i would very much love to see one or both of them (particularly callum!!!!) get flustered over someone on the square noticing a hickey on their neck thank u very much

Who I’d be comfortable them ending up with, if not each other:

dont ask me this question the answer is nobody. they’ve set them up so deeply and their relationship is something thats so important and vital for each other that its hard for me to picture them with anybody else so seriously because of the established connection.

My happily ever after for them:

ben, lola, jay, callum, and lexi all move away from the square together and live somewhere else as a happy little familly because its what they deserve. literally any ending where they end up together alive and happy

CALLUM HIGHWAY

How I feel about this character:

i love him with my whole ass heart i would die for him!!! i really want him to get his own sl soon, particularly the ptsd sl.

All the people I ship romantically with this character:

ben mitchell

My non-romantic OTP for this character:

i love his friendship with lola and jay!!!!!

My unpopular opinion about this character:

let him be dark already, mans is dating a mitchell and actively keeping a murder a secret and the writers still expect me to believe that he’s a cookie-cutter butter wouldn’t melt guy?? no. give me more of the callum who beat the shit out of leo and knows how to defend himself. let him overhear someone on the square threatening ben or lexi and just decking them in the face.

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon:

with the kidnapping sl i really want him to get shot, it would be an amazing parallel to ben getting shot in the vic and we’d get an angsty i love you from ben and some soft hospital scenes. BUT!!!!! i also want him to kick the shit out of keanu beforehand. he’s strong as fuck theres no way keanu would get the drop on him. maybe keanu threatens lexi or ben and callum threatens him and says if he even tries he won’t have to outsource his murder because he’ll kill him himself. i want ben, stuart, and jay to turn up and keanu’s got bruises and blood on him and callum’s just like “i wondered how long it would take for you to show up” just let him be the badass morally grey character that he’s growing into

My OTP:

ben and callum baby!!!!!!!

My OT3:

i don’t have an ot3 for them but i think the dynamic between ben x callum x tubbs could have been super interesting if they’d gone there

ask me things

#this got so long but i love them and i love talking about them!!!!#ballum #gemma tag #cylonbarnes

8 notes · View notes

nanyallen13 · 6 years ago

Text

Why the Dark Dany theory isn’t misogynist (+ a little reflexion on female villains)

Misogyny. It’s an argument I see a lot. It seems you can’t criticize Dany’s character, not even one of her action, without be called a misogynist. It’s particularly the case with the Dark Dany theory.

I invite all of you to read it, if you kindly accept to take some of your time for it, because I think it’s an important subject, not just for the GoT fandom.

Also, I’m open to dialogue, that’s why I wrote this. Feel free to share your opinion on this topic.

Disclaimer: I apologize for my English. It’s not my first language, and I’m still learning. So, if some grammatical errors remain, I apologize in advance and hope it won’t bother your reading.

The following post is just my point of view on Dany and the Dark Dany theory, and I know it isn’t universal. But for you to understand my point, here some context:

As a woman, I consider myself a feminist, and I always have been vocal against books, show, movies, tropes or ships I find misogynist.

As a writer, I’m more interested in storytelling and characters’ growth. The Dark Dany theory is very appealing to me because it’s interesting storywise, for Dany’s arc and female characters in general.

I’m not a shipper. In fact, I don’t ship anyone in GoT except Jaime and Brienne. I’m more interested in politics, so my views on ships are more biased by politics interests and potential alliance. I feel the need to specify it because a lot of people believes that if you don’t like Dany, it because of ship war. Yes, I didn’t hide my conflicted feelings about Jone/rys in the past, but it’s about the ship itself, and it just concerns its two characters, Jon and Dany, and their relationship. To be honest, I don’t really ship them with anyone, so… 🤷‍♀️

Dany is one of my favourite character, alongside Sansa and Cersei, and she’s been since the beginning of the show (whereas Sansa has taken Tyrion’s place in the trio since season 6). I like them because they represent different forms of strength, and have this regal presence I love so much. I consider these 3 women as some of the strongest character in the show. But if Dany stayed one of my favourite, my vision of her changed along the way.

This post is mainly about the Dark Dany theory, but like its name says, it’s just a theory. I like it, because it’s interesting storywise, and unlike some people claims, it based of clues and parallels from the show itself. (I won’t list them because the post is long enough, and it’s not the main subject). GoT is a show which has a lot of theories, and I like to discover them. The Dark Dany theory is one of them, and like all these other theories, I’m not convinced at 100% it will happen. I’m just open to a lot of possibilities.

And again, it’s just my opinion and I understand that people will disagree. Honestly, it’s fine. I just hope you’re stay respectful. It took time to write this with constructive arguments, so I expect at least arguments from you in return, and not the usual “you’re a cunt” and “you’re stupid” replies I saw too many times from some Dany fans. Because, frankly, thinking a character isn’t perfect doesn’t make you a cunt.

So, shall we begin ?

Why the Dark Dany theory isn’t misogynist ?

Maybe the term “dark” is misleading, a little bit extreme. When I think of Dark Dany, I don’t see her as an evil villain, a female Joffrey or a Ramsay with dragons. I know this theory has different levels: for some people, it can lead to Mad Queen Dany (in some way, I can understand why, but it’s another topic. Personally, I don’t think the show will go full madness.). For others, she’ll be the final boss of the series (I don’t know. We shall see).

No, when I think Dark Dany, I see her as a potential antagonist. What’s the difference? If antagonists are indeed villains for most of the time, in reality Antagonist ≠ Villain. I recommend you this article, which explains far better than me why an antagonist isn’t always a villain: The Difference between Villains and Antagonists

To summarize it, a villain have bad intentions, is considered as evil (hello Joffrey, you little pi*** of sh**). But not every antagonist is a villain, not every antagonist is evil.

No, an antagonist is simply a character whose actions and motivations go against the protagonist’s. In Dany case, her story arc could lead her against Jon(and maybe the Stark) story arc. So, from the Stark point of view, Dany would be the antagonist. But from Dany’s point of view, the Stark would be the antagonists. (I hope I’m clear lol).

And you know what ? This happens a lot in GoT. This show has a lot of characters, who we learned to love during these past seasons. But during 7 seasons, we saw some character be enemies. The Lannister vs the Stark, anyone? Stannis was a fan favourite (before burning her daughter), but he was against Robb Stark, another fan favourite. But the most interesting example come from s7, during episode 4. The battle was Dany vs. the Lannister, mostly Jaimie. For him, Dany was the enemy, the antagonist. For her, Jaimie was the enemy, the antagonist. They both tried to killed each other! But I think for the majority of the viewer, it wasn’t good vs evil. It was just one character against the other.

So yeah, characters can be on opposite sides, but it doesn’t make them evil villain. The same goes for Dany.

That’s the case for all characters in GoT. They’re not angels, neither are they demons (except for the NK, Joffrey and Ramsay, even Euron ?). They all have some good and some bad in them, they’re not perfect, but that makes them humans. Also, the majority of them have the potential to go to a path of darkness. All of them, except characters whose main trait is innocence (like Hodor, Shireen, even Tommen in some way.).

Dany isn’t an innocent character. She’s not a saint. I don’t see her as the perfect saviour; no she’s more complex than that. She has doubts, she has flaws, and she makes mistakes. As the story progess, we see her get more and more blood on her hands. Like the others, Dany has a dark side. Some may disagree, but we already saw the roots in season 1. But for me, season 5 was the season where she started to make questionable decisions, and some of them are difficult to justify. Season 5 made me realize she wasn’t the Mhysa everyone (including herself) thought she was.

I won’t list all this clues here, but I recommend you this amazing meta by @trinuviel : A Hero in her own mind... On Daenerys Targaryen

I don’t see Dany as a hero, but as an antihero, who has the potential to become an antagonist (some people even see a villain). Again, personal opinion, but that’s why I find her more complex and more interesting than Jon, who falls more in the archetype of the traditional “hero”. From a writer point of view, she’s a better character than Jon.

And you know what ? If she becomes an antagonist, I would love her even more. Because I find antagonist to be so fascinating. That’s why I love Cersei! To me, having a “dark side” ≠ bad character. It would be more original and surprising than Hero Dany, because everyone already expect that, and that a common trope.

But again, it’s my personal opinion, and I understand that Dany’s fans can’t bear the idea of her not being the hero of the story.

But I’m not misogynist when I say Dany could become an antagonist. She won’t be an antagonist because she’s a woman. No, she would be an antagonist because of her actions. If she was a man, it would be the same.

Because being a woman doesn’t excuse your actions. Being a woman doesn’t mean you can’t commit bad things. But that’s a thing you see in our culture. In movies, tv shows, books, etc. There are more male villain than female villain. Because in our culture, women are portrayed as gentle and soft. Most of the time, they can’t exist without maternal love or romantic love. If they aren’t the main character, women will often be the love interest. But the villain? It’s rare.

In a way, saying woman can’t be villain is a form of misogyny. Because female characters don’t need to be written as female first. No, they are, first of all, characters. If a man can be a villain/antagonist, so can a woman.

A woman can be an antagonist against a male protagonist. A woman is not obliged to always be on the man’s side. She can have different opinions, because it’s her right. Her needs, her hopes and dreams, her ambitions are as legitimate as a man’s.

Now, I can explain you why Dany could become an antagonist, and why I’m not a fan of Jone/rys. If some of you ship them together, it’s not against you. You have every right to ship them. But please, respect my opinion.

In some way, Dany’s storyline could lead her to become an antagonist. Again, I’m not even talking about becoming mad, or becoming a villain. But I could see her storyline go against Jon’s.

What’s Dany’s main goal since season 1? For what did she fight during all these seasons? That’s right: the Iron Throne. And what obstacles does she have to defeat? Cersei, the Night King. But in some way, at least in a political way, Jon is an obstacle too. Because he’s the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne. It’s not her anymore.

Actually, Jon’s true identity is the big reveal which bring on the Dark Dany theory. It would be to fulfil her dream of becoming Queen that Dany would go against Jon. Because he’s in her way. From her point of view, she won’t be in the wrong. She would just be fighting for her throne, like she did during all 7 seasons.

And storywise, that would be so clever. Jon against Dany. Two of the most beloved characters against each other. Imagine the heartbreak for the viewers! That’s why, long before their meeting, I liked the idea of them fighting instead of being in love. As a writer, it’s the perfect idea.

I know, some of you will say : “but she’s in love with him”. That’s true. Maybe you’re right. Maybe her love would be more powerful than her ambition. Maybe she won’t care that Jon have a better claim, and she’ll accept that.

But that’s this idea of Jone/rys that I don’t like. After all this time, after all she endured to arrive where she is today, I don’t want her to abandon that just because she loves a man. Her main goal wasn’t to become Jon’s girlfriend. No, Dany’s quest is to become the Queen of the Seven Kingdom. I want her to fight for it to the very end.

I know some of you believe a marriage would be the solution. But even as Jon’s wife, Dany would be the second, not the true heir. I fear she’ll be in Jon’s shadow, just his wife. After all, like Daario said in s6, she’s a conqueror. If she takes the throne, it has to be by conquering it, not be marrying Jon.

Even if this is for love, I don’t like the idea of her giving up her dream for a man.

That why I don’t ship Dany with anyone. She doesn’t need a love interest. Since Drogo’s death, she’s on her own, she fight for her and what belongs to her. Her actions should be for her, and her only. That’s why I like the fact that she doesn’t reciprocate Jorah’s feelings. Other shows would picture Jorah as a victim (“poor guy. How dare she not reciprocate his feeling?” Trust me, it’s a common trope). But just because he loves Dany, it doesn’t many she owes him anything. And it could be the same with Jon.

I want Dany to fight for what she believes, not for her love interest. I think it’s a more feminist message.

That’s why I don’t like the s8 promo so far. She’s depicted as Jon’s girlfriend. In almost every photo, she’s glued to him, like every female love interest. Without the Iron Throne promo where she sits on it, we could almost forget that her main goal is to become queen!

I want Dany to fight for her throne, even if it breaks her relationship with Jon, even she becomes an antagonist. Because she won’t give up her dreams for a man.

And I don’t think it’s misogynist to think that. It’s quite the contrary, actually.

Now, I know that for some people, the Dark Dany theory is bad, because it would mean : a woman who have power = a bad thing, a villain.

I can understand the feeling, but I don’t agree with it. Like I said earlier, I don’t judge Dany as a woman, but as a character.

What many seem to forget, is that Dany ≠ all women. If Dany is an antagonist/villain, it doesn’t mean every woman in power is an antagonist/villain. Dany is a unique character, with a unique backstory, a unique character’s growth, a unique personality. Her unique story would make her an antagonist.

Here, I need your opinion. Compared to Cersei, what do you think? I know Cersei herself is quite a misogynist (she hates her conditions as a woman and envied Jaime’s) but do you think Cersei’s storyline is a misogynist one? Because after all she’s also a woman of power and a villain. Did you saw someone said it was misogynistic? Or it just when people criticize the Dark Dany Theory?

But I know that in every fandom, it’ll always exist some misogynistic a**holes who will be against women in position of power (just look at the recent Captain Marvel controversy). It’s something I already witnessed in the GoT fandom, mainly on Facebook pages, against Sansa. It was stupid arguments, like “she’s a power hungry bitch” just because she dreamed of becoming queen when she was a little girl. (Also, what she first wanted was to be the King’s wife and have his children, not to rule). When she dared to objet one of Jon’s decisions, some fans wanted her to shut up, like she had no right at all. In general, their main problem against Sansa was she dared have ambition. They don’t want her to have anything to say about Winterfell and the North, even if she has the right to. I mean, she’s the trueborn daughter of Ned Stark, she’s his legitimate heir. If someone has the right to say something, it’s her! And you know why these fans don’t want her to have ambition? I’m pretty sure it’s because she’s a girl. At least, it’s one of the main reasons.

So yeah, I’m sure there are people who think the same way about Dany. It wouldn’t surprize me.

But I don’t blame her for wanting/having power. No, I blame her for the way she uses this power.

And actually, having Dany as a villain wouldn’t be a bad thing for female representation. Like I said earlier, there are less female villains than males. And the ones we have, well… it’s bad, guys.

The female villains are often femme-fatale, who are ultra-sexualized and by that reduce to their sexuality. And these female villains are often side-kicks to a man, who’s the main villain. They obey him (sometimes for love), they depend on him. They’re not their own character.

To make an example, I often think of the James Bond girls. For the majority of the saga, we have the good James Bond girls who are like a trophy for the hero (thanks god, they have more agencies in the more recent movies, but still), and the evil James Bond girls. For the evil ones, we have two types: the ultra-sexualized ones (like Xenia Onatopp, Miranda Frost or Electra King) or the masculine ones, like Rosa Klebb or Irma Bunt, who are portrayed as cold, heartless, older, and “ugly”. In both case, they work for a man. (The only good exception was Judi Dench as M. Damn, I miss her).

And back to the topic of powerful women = villains, I think of a more misogynistic way to portray female villain. In Sarah J. Maas’ series (no offense to her fans), A Court of Thornes and Roses, two of the female villains, Ianthe and Amarantha are portrayed as evil witches who use their sexuality to gain power. The narrative villainizing them because they use their sexuality freely. It’s almost slutshaming. The villains are the women who use their body like they want, who are not submissive to the men, who take action against men, who have more power than them. This portrayal is more misogynist because a woman with an active sex life + ambition = an evil slut. In mean, wtf ???? (And it not just these character, it’s the same with all her female villains. That’s why I find this problematic).

But it’s not a same with Dany. Yes, she has her own sex life and does what she wants with her body, but it’s never use to villainize her. She’s her own character, she’s powerful, but it not used against her. Yes, a villain can be a pretty woman on her own, without being a sexual fantasy.

The only good female villain I can think of is Hela from Thor Ragnarok. She isn’t too sexualized, she’s not ugly, she’s her own woman, and she’s powerful. And what’s her goal? That’s right, taking the throne which she believes belongs to her. In a way, Dany as an antagonist could be like Hela, in a less evil way.

(Btw, if you know other female villains like Hela, please tell me. I’m dying to have more characters like her! I’m also curious about the villain played by Jessica Chastain in the upcoming Dark Phoenix movie, she seems to be interesting).

Well, I think I said all I wanted to share on this topic. To summarize: the Dark Dany Theory isn’t simple hate. It’s simply seeing her character from a different point of view. It’s being open to a different storyline.

I understand, and I accept, that some of you don’t like the idea of Dark Dany. But please try to understand, or at least accept, that some of us like this theory. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Feel free to share your views on the topic!

#anti daenerys #anti jonerys #dark dany #anti daenerys targaryen

27 notes · View notes

jamesdazell · 5 years ago

Text

Un Monstre Sacré

ART AND REPRESENTATION

(2019)

Enamorado de ti, de tu vida y de lo que quieres.

- Frida Kahlo

I’m tired of reconsiderig my story in the mind of the idealism of present fashionable criticism.

Concentrate on what you have to say and the images which manifest themselves to you. Stories are more than their features, their meaning runs much deeper than its costume. Consider the representation and diveristy only if it tells your story better, makes your characters explore their themes better, adds to their own story. You can make whatever art you want to make. No matter if it goes against the idealisms of the day. Idealisms come and go, the whole of art history shows us, but no one has the right to shut down your own stories and interpretation of life that you need to express. We’re running close to a prescribed imagination, not a free one, where the manifesto is a total and political movement, not an arts movement. Full of ideals but not ideas. Right now its like the Puritanical movement, if not a bonfire of vanities, against those who transgress the ideals of the day. Make whatever art that has been revealed to you to make. Make art with whatever great inspiration you had to make it and do not apologise for how it is manifested.

Your imagination is a cerebral reflex. Don’t apologise or criticise it for not representing the ideals of the movements of the day. I’m not bothered about representation in art as I think it goes against the whole job of art.

Artists and writers are representations of the cultural history of their time (they're not the only that, but even that is informative about the time). Not everything about them is going to be golden, maybe everything will be bad taste and bad intelligence. But in any case, it is far far more important think with them as if in conversation and disucssion. Their purpose is to stimulate thought not to emboss on it on the minds who receive it. To be honest it seems clear why the Bibles were so effective. Most people want to be told what to think and to have their own thoughts amplified back at them, they want to have something celebrate them, and to rise up in significance by celebration.

No matter where or who the work comes from, I wouldn't favour anyone for their cultural representation but for the talent and ideas their work carries. Great work is recognisible immediately. It affects on a cross-cultural level. I'm always looking to become foreign to myself, both in culture and time. The act of de-culturising seem more to the task than to represent it. Foreignness might illuminate and ignite dormant aspects within me that my own culture may not. So it is better to be in conversation than to outright reject, because it mattered, and if it mattered enough to be remembered and preserved, and to be copied (often by hand) through the centuries or ever just the last hundred years, then it probably meant something on a deeper level that is beyond their cultural representations, into a deeper part of humanity, whether the good or bad side. So through them we can understand ourselves.

The purpose of representative writers is more needed by institutions and publishers etc but in artist's work the aim ought to be to dissolve those differences and to find the human being in experiences and the stories we tell. Like Susan Sontag said in conversation with John Berger about story-telling, she doesnt need to be a Russian man in Russia, or even feel like one, to read Tolstoy. And any reading of it in that way would be a superficial reading. That's not what’s on offer in a work of that magnitude. Likewise to quesiton whether the lead in a story is a man or a woman. It doesn't matter in itself. It only matters to the dramatic nature of the story. There are so many possible ways to unravel a narrative, that the lead doesn't signify anything but a focus. The lead could be positive or negative traits, the purpose of a lead could be celebratory or negation. The point is the same as ever. To tell great stories.

It annoys me when people say how sexist Japan is (and it always comes from the Anglosphere who have a terrible time of seeing themselves as they are). When Japan has such a great history of female lead characters (and female charaters in general) who are both heroic and admirable, that Japan should rather be an inspiration for telling female lead stories more than the west's tradition. What representative writing is doing (though is not saying) is suggesting that certain ideas and arts belong to different races, genders, sexualities. There are certainly particular experiences only certain people will be able to tell, but then you run in the problem that certain races, genders, sexualities, are supposed to tell stories in a certain stereotyped way because it represents them. Take class for instance; that a working class writer is supposed to write about working class life and in a stereotypical way. It makes no sense but to write with and read it with your own humanity. That is the point of reading and writing, to reengage with our humanity. Hemmingway innovated, but that style doesn't belong to his race and sexuality. At the end of the day, no matter how representative, all you're doing is telling a story and or making an artistic choice, and it needs to be coming from your deeper humanity, that dissovles boundaries and shows there isn't a difference between us. I don't believe there is necesarily homosexual art anymore than homosexual science. The purpose isn't to write autobiography. I would never begin to think of Lorca's poetry as a homosexual perspective. His poetry is universal, he transgressed those social, political, cultural representations. He dissolved as he defied them: as a human being. He humiliated them as he transgressed representation. He became everyone, on everyone's essential journey, a primordial everyone. That rather seems the ambition and the proper task. So, I can never see the seduction in representational writing. Art’s very purpose is to liberate ourselves from the privilege of an authorial stance of representation. To dissolve differential representation back into a unity of a human being. To reveal, from the cultural political delusion, the communalness and universals of our being human.

Characters exist to embody a theme to tell a story, they define their character by decisions and actions they make. Without that they would be autonomous, independant from the story, representing exactly what they are for the sake of being. We have a name for that: reality TV. Reality TV as the fulfillment of modern dramatic theory; the most naturalistic, identifiable, devised, post dramatic, audience participation, theatrical entertainment one can imagine, unfolding in real time along the lines of life without the logic of narratives.

Turn on the TV and Reality TV is there either as the news, people eating, people dating, people’s jobs, people’s cultural aspirations, or people selling things on the market. A frieze of national life as an interactive game show. We even now demand that fictional characters are played by their representative real life identity. Reality TV is all people really want. Real life stories about real life people, played by real life people for real life people. There is no question who the ideal character is. Theres no point in having idealistic characters, because they have nothing to learn. They are in themsevles a fulfilment. What journey do they have to go through. What themes are they able to explore. Reality is more conplex than there being good people whose attitudes we like and bad people whose attitudes we don't.

Characters are representations of themes, they help explore themes. If the themes and meaning of the story is good, then the characters will be good. Then the representation will be justified. What matters is from how a deep an instinct, an interpretation, if for lack of a better word a soul the story sprung from.

Progressives in art: I always find progressives in arts, especially those who outright reject the past, to be a continuation of that same spirit, which they are sadly too ignorant to have perceived. It was rather that they have found a different expression, maybe a more honest expression of the same spirit. And the very idea that it was able to seem progressive was because the culture had changed underneath. That it was this time and not another. In in the final analysis of their progressiveness you see they were bondaged to the time their lived in that it hardly seems a progressive act at all but one that was merely an expressive of prevailing conscience of the time that had erupted in a few people. But there is no such thing as progess in the arts. Every activity in art is the art of a human or a group of humans. Their life is its own condition within a certain set of condiitons. They are representative only of the condition it was made. Their lifespan cannot be compared to the life of another in terms of progress. Neither has art a goal to measure progress upon. And if it did, are we further towards a goal now than in any earlier time? And any possible yes, then an earlier time must have had the same goal as the progressors in art to.... I give up. There is no progress in art. Everything is a representation merely of a human being, the community, or the age that it was made it, each with its own values and ideas that belong to being a human being, not the progress of human beings. For in fact nothing in humanity progresses, because the measurement of progress itself depends on parameters of leaning towards or away from our values, which can only be a subjective axiom.

Anything "progressive" means an old aspiration conducted more openly and honestly; which appeals to all subterranean risings; perhaps a crisis which for a long time has been in conflict with a masterful way which, to the subterranean, now seems simply an old fashioned idealism. But it is only a re-expression. Even the masterful way was really their way but unfaithful to its condition. Whatever becomes progressive is merely a more honest approach, a step towards being more faithful to its impetus condition. Progress is a condition striving to express itself more honetly and value itself more openly. "Improvement" is arbitrary to the matter.

Popular culture is often more conservative than so-called elite culture because it reflects a caricature of the general public, and so isn't intellectual curious or demanding enough to be ahead of the curve by the ideas it embodies. It perpetuates old ideals in flashy new colours.

Now we're surrounded by ordinariness masking itself as extraordinary. The ordinary is no longer embarrassed before itself. It has even become critical of the extraordinary. Instead of being humbled by the great achievements of the past we are arrogant even before the future.

People now have so little historical minds. All those who want to break from the past are always the most ignorant of it. Art right now lacks an intellectual energy that has soaked up the intellectual thought of humanity and can say "this is an intelligent thought in 2020 that on its own merit could be in conversation with the thoughts past and knows where it would be placed in the lineage.” However, people are having anti-intellectual ahistorical attiudes. People are attacking history for not being diverse in cultural representation, are attacking the best minds for not being their Jesus figure of imitation, and have great disbelief in things which they cannot do themselves. There is no genius that belonged to this race or that, or this religion but not that, or this gender or that. We talk of them because of what they had done, and what that meant to the time, and to us, and that we dont talk about some of the people worth talking about is an historical expression of the time. There are many clever people, many talents, but the genius is the humanity within it, that they transgressed their “character” into something more fundamental either about ourselves or the world around us. That they dissolved their cultural and political position, and became a human being.

However, people are now saying the literature canon needs revision. Kafka said on how to choose a book that literature should be the axe that smashes the frozen ice within you. Discover your books that mean the wrold to you. Read whatever you want, but don’t read a canon. Read whatever makes your heart beat, your breathing clearly, what positively changes your brain, and makes you feel at home in their words. Any really great writer will ascend beyond what they are. Discovering art should not be deprived to us. And we should not expect children to admire the artists and writers they were taught about at school, no matter if it is revised. These schooled artists will always be those artists they had to study and do homework on. On rarely will they become the artists they love.

I dont think we should revise anything. An education is not being taught what to learn, its discovering your own thoughts. And real educatioin isn’t like stacking knowledge up in a warehouse but mixing wine in to water, it alters the whole composition. Being knowledgable is knowing more things - there are game shows for that - a real eduation requires much forgetting. We should be far more encouraging of independent guided learning. School should help develop general characteristics of the brain. The Greeks had their nine canonical of poets, the japanese had 36 inmortals of poetry (one for men and women). They dont have to be our favourites. No one has robbed you of that choice. But these canons tell us about the way people thought at a time. And no time, no matter how blind by its idealism can be, no time is the truth and end of a conversation. It is easy to look back and dismiss it, to avoid the harder choice of measuring up to its cultural affect.

Every artistic decision has a psychologically relative world view. Artistic choices are reflexes. In art (rather in everything) nothing is purely theoretical. Everything is fully representational of your conditional perspective, and feeling of existence. You always have to wind it back to that. Everything else is a secondary effect. Ideas and attitudes are just reflexes. An art cannot be a definition of its form, but only of the condition of the artist who made it, which subsequently gives us some impression of the age it was made in depending on its context. No painting defines painting, no music can define music, no poem poetry, nor dance dance.

People go to the theatre not to think but to see a caricature of their own views, executed with the technique of a children's toy commercial. Showing them everything they love. Now people read books this way too. In valuing books, people only want to see themselves reflected in them. Even when great books are in vogue, they choose to read them because they already know what they are about and going to say and they finish with the same mind as they had begun reading them. People read 1984 because they already know what it is about, and what it is going to say. Most people simply want to amplify their own point of view.

Right now stories are like a dramatised op-ed article, featurig their token selling point of diversity, with critics acting as the puritanical bonfire of transgressions of the ideals of the day. But the game is the same as always: to make incredible stories. To interpret life artistically. You have to research in order to find the right symbols for your work. Like going through layers and layers and doors and doors but you keep running into the same symbols. For a visual culture were actually really bad a symbols.

So you have an idea, fine, but thats not enough, you have to be able to pull it off in the form of a great story. Its not enough just to say youre against something and that you made your work from an ideal. You have to tell great stories, or make great performances. Our story telling is becoming conceptual where the idea behind it is supposed to mean more than the actual merit of the work of art. Which shows our minds are becoming conceptual, less artistic, and more scientific. The concentration on the technique of great arts, of all great arts and great artists, is an insight and experience of reality much higher than that of science.

There has been an increase in melodrama this century. All American television and film (that wasn’t but somewhat including the Marvel / DC films) seems to have been melodrama (of course French cinema, and independant, has been for longer - its their penchant). Melodrama is sadistic. Its full of pathetic characters who if they werent so pathetic they wouldn't be in this mess. If not of their own fault then they deal with it in a pathetic way. The effect on me is not pity but frustration, like watching a sympathetic horror movie. Sympathy is a sin in art. It makes your characters pathetic and all i can think whilst watching them is if they werent so patheric they wouldnt be in this mess and this wouldnt be a story. If a solution is befitting and negates its whole existence, the idea of the story is bad. Its not their circumstance, its the sympathy that is requested. Melodrama is sadistic - and this is coming from a guy obsessed with Greek tragedy. Euripides wrote melodrama, he wrote romanticism, satyr play, and tragi-comedy, but Euripides did not write tragedy. Character drama/study is always melodrama because it depends on the investigation of the 'soul' the innermost of them. Tragedy is concerned with overarching events that reveal the religious (Dionysian - most closely today related to Shiva that they’re almost the same) nature of the universe, people as agents of action, but not people as characters.

Art can be whatever. Yes. But don't just go with your instincts like an amateur. You have to understand the meaning of choices, in order to change your instincts. To make your instincts artistic. Otherwise there's no difference between you and your audience. And you don't take them anywhere than they arrived.

Then there is the insistance on “accessibility” which can be unhealthy because it rejects the high bar and creates stereotypes of styles. It creates new idealism in the character of the work. And it gives marit of accomplishment just for showing up. Make accessibility wide but on the same basis of making great art In respect and recognition of where the high bar is set.

The worth of a book, music, film today is merely judged by how much it is needed at the time it arrives. The public and the critic have the judgement of the tradesman weighing cattle at the market, as they estimate everything merely for value of supply and demand.

Frida Kahlo "I dont give a shit what the world thinks"

Critics and social media seem to be having their own insular conversation and they go to movies or listen to music or whatever and judge it on how much they can continue to have that conversation whilst experiencing the work of art, which cannot exist on the merits of its own.

Majoritism is to anoit bad taste and bad talent over good. To put amateurs in charge. I think less educated and amateur care much more about it.

"There is one good opinion which must always be of consequence to you, namely, your own." R. W. Emerson

Social media has created the method audience. Instead of the method actor disagreeing with the director over the way a character is portrayed its the audience. Or maybe they feel themselves executive producers. But certainly anything but an audience. They complain as if theyve been forced to pay at gun point.

The idealism our age has just put a chip on people's shoulder and given all a licence to have an attitude about everything. The opinions of the public dont matter, thats why they feel their deep rights to have them. I'm not an audience first type of artist. The public come to market, and the market sways, but it has no reigns on the artistic activity that has travelled further in its pursuit of ideas than they may have ever been. To make a work of art involves obliterating and exhausting oneself, in pursuit of techniques and ideas that inform the works direction and merit, and reassembling oneself. To dicard that for the public who come to market and place it on the weighing scale of ideals is a joke.

Plesse be rude, derogatory, offensive, insensitive. Its a cruelest humanity that sacrifices its cruelty. It's against our nature. The 21st century is the conservative 40s and 50s, with the yuppies of the 80s, that overturned the free spiritedness of the 20s and 30s, 60s and 70s.

Make whatever goddamn work you want to make, and that will be the work you made. Just be proud to have manifested what you had envisioned in whatever form you wanted to tell it and be proud it has your name attached to it. And dont take criticism from those who do not inspire you.. Being an artist is to be your own beast. Un monstre sacré.

#represenation #representative #writer #poet #poetry #writing #literature #literaryblog #writerblog #writertumblr #littumblr #literarytumblr #socialmedia #social media #frida kahlo #fridakahlo #jamesdazell #james dazell

1 note · View note

eliamatrell · 6 years ago

Note

hi i came from Narkik and I would love!!! some tomione/gin’n’tonic fic recs hahaha

hi anon!!!!!! gosh, i don’t get to talk about t/h very often, so i got really excited when i saw your ask. but firstly - i am afraid that i don’t really know of any t/g fics i could recommend, since i read about them very seldom. i am just too attached to t/h i guess? i try to be a multishipper, but alas, i am a little bit too biased ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ however, i’m pretty sure that amanda @narkik has some quality t/g recs, so i’m calling for her aid!

***

but! back to tomione. as i mentioned under amanda’s post, i have a very specific vision of tom and hermione as a couple. this is a ship with almost no canon basis, so many fics tend to be very ooc (which i despise and avoid at all cost). granted, it is hard to write them in-character (& since we don’t know almost anything about young tom riddle, we have to work with absolute scraps) but not impossible. and they have a lot of potential if you’re into villain/heroine ships. i could write my entire doctoral thesis about them, but i don’t want this post to be too long and overwhelming, so i’ll just link my favourite tomione manifestos (which provide a quite complex answer as to why and how):

one, two, three, four + bonus (which is basically 4k words of me rambling why i love t/h, both generally and specifically in this one perfect fic. so, spoilers if you haven’t read nothing like the sun!)

***

and as for fics:

ad infinitum by speechwriter

As he forges inexorably toward the end of time, he may come to wonder if this is a world worth ruling. Science fantasy.

gosh, even thinking about ad infinitum makes me emotional - it was the very fic that made me fall for tomione. and believe me, i fell hard. it is very broad in scope and fantastic in execution. also, riley is one of the legends of t/h fandom and an incredible writer. very slow burn, believable character development, great prose, high stakes danger, two brilliant and stubborn people forced by the fate to work together and actually negotiate and discuss their messed up relationship…. god i love. please, do read ad infinitum, you won’t regret it. oh, also, magic in space.

nothing like the sun by [redacted, since it’s orphaned now and as much it saddens me (and it REALLY saddens me, good god), i respect the author’s decision]

Hermione had never had much patience for Tom Riddle.

Riddle was a model student, ostensibly, and most everyone could vouch for him being the nicest Slytherin that they knew, but Hermione had always felt that his polite demeanor was rather insincere. How nice could he be, really, if he cornered his friends in dodgy alleys and caused them inexplicable pain?

(Or, Hermione follows the Muggle admonition that she keep her enemies closer a little too strictly to the letter.)

oh my god oh my god oh my god. i adore this fic with all my heart and i really mean it. it got everything right. every single thing about them. it’s one of the most well-written fics i have ever read (and ao3 has been my most frequently visited site for years now), the characterization is incredible and just. very caring? they’re all so human, complicated and passionate, and tangled up in something messy and terrible (hermione is so hermionish that i just want to hug her. and never let go, honestly. also - ron and harry aren’t sidelined, which happens in so many tomione and/or dramione fics. also, lavender and parvati! they are the most amusing supporting characters.), it’s clever, and heartwarming, and complex, and everything i had hoped for, and then some. and sadly - unfinished. please don’t let it discourage you, it’s still worth it. really really worth it. and i still have hope that the author will write another tomione story one day. oh, dear anon, that would be the most wonderful.

unsinkable by speechwriter

He: a young man long since raised from poverty, now on the verge of inheriting a magnate’s business in the 1910s. She: an impoverished young woman on her way to start a new life in America. In short: Tom Marvolo Riddle, Hermione Jean Granger, and one voyage on the RMS Titanic - and how it would change their lives forever.

do i usually like no magic aus? not really, no. do i love this fic? more than you can imagine. but then again, as i mentioned above - riley just /gets/ tom and hermione.

blood and gold by obsidianpen

The true time-turner was slammed savagely into Hermione’s throat. It shattered against her neck, bits of glass and gold piercing into her skin. The last thing she saw before blackness consumed her was a plume of metallic dust and vitreous fragments, tiny prisms dancing behind her eyelids.

(In which Hermione accidentally ends up in 1950, pitted against an ascending Dark Lord in his prime, caught in the entanglement of pureblood politics, dark magic, and Tom Riddle’s interest)

the last chapter emotionally destroyed me lmao. they are! so much! also, i love world-building in this one and how carefully and slowly their story unfolds. it will definitely keep you on the edge of your seat. also, the prose is simply splendid.

the night watchman by unrefinedtales

#i had a dream about this#house of labyrinths and mirrors and illusions#that you can only escape if you cease all deception forever#and are 100% honest#but the house has been sitting dormant for centuries#and it’s hungry#it doesn’t want you to get out#and i was thinking what sort of place this would be#for two people to fall in love

it it still a work in progess - there are four published chapters in the moment i’m writing this reply. house of leaves-esque afterlife, haunting visuals, lingering creepiness, tom and hermione trying to figure out what this place wants from them and learning to trust each other - goodness, i love it so far.

i still haven’t started unsphere the stars by cocoartist (i have little to no free time these days), but it looks very promising!

When you can’t change time, but you can’t go forward, what is left? Hermione learns how to be the protagonist of her own story. [EWE] [Tomione*] [*mostly]

***

that’d be all for now! and dear anon, if you finish any of these fics and want to talk about them, write to me again - i love discussing tomione but alas, i don’t get an opportunity to do it very often. enjoy! ♡♡♡

#replies #trhg #tomione #jaga's recs

37 notes · View notes

ultradoux · 4 years ago

Text

2020 Reading List

Because in the end it was a great year for reading! Just a list of the books I read this year, with comments that (maybe) get progessively more boozy as I go on

1. The Historian - Elizabeth Kostova: A really irritating read to start out this year (feels prescient?). Only worth it for the travel log features of places like Istanbul, Amsterdam, and most of Eastern Europe. Even Dracula was completely boring and useless.

2. Howard’s End - E.M. Forster: Love, love, I will forever whore myself out for bright women acting mildly rebellious in Edwardian England, love

3. Les liaisons dangereuses - Choderlos de Laclos : Pas un seul personnage aimable, c’est magnifique, 10/10

4. The Brothers Karamazov - Feodor Dostoevsky: Did I read this as a flex in early confinement mode? Absolutely. Did I enjoy it? Christ no. If I have to read one more Christ allegory I’m climbing up on that cross myself. 4/5.

5. Chéri - Colette : C’était mignon et trop sucré, comme de la pâte aux amandes. Moins de 100 pages, du coup à avaler dans une gorgée.

6. Pride and Prejudice (for maybe the 8th time?) - Jane Austen: Substitute “Regency” for “Edwardian” in the comment for Howard’s End and I’ll literally start vibrating. I want to be buried with this book, preferably with 90s Colin Firth, too

7. The Sorrows of Young Werther - Goethe: I go through more sorrows in seven hours of existing than Werther did in his whole life. Pass.

8. The Epic of Gilgamesh: Ok, fine, I skimmed. You ever try reading a religious text out of respect and interest, not being very religious yourself, only half the text is missing and it’s been written so long ago that most of it is gibberish until you stumble upon a few lines that reach across millennia and sucker punch you? Similar experience. Hard to find a good translation.

9. Mémoires d’Hadrien - Marguerite Yourcenar : Il m’a fallu une putain de pandémie, mais j’ai en fin (en fin!!!!!!!) fini ce bouquin et qu’est-ce que c’est beau. Yourcenar était un génie, ce livre est son chef-d’oeuvre, je suis tellement content que je n’ai plus à le lire. 100/10.

10. Dune - Frank Herbert: Ok, don’t come at me because it will only frustrate all of us (much like this book did me), but SNOOZE. A+ world building, but God, at what cost? Timothée Chalamet could respectfully get it, though.

11. Going After Cacciato - Tim O’Brien: This was good? Like in the territory between okay and good? Just like a fine little book, albeit stuck in the middle of the Vietnam War.

12. The Good Earth - Pearl S. Buck: Is a white American woman from the 30s necessarily the best person to write about rural China? Probably not, even if she was raised in rural China. Honestly, though? Still pretty good.

13. Tender is the Night - F. Scott Fitzgerald: Do you ever get so desperately bored of pretty, rich 1920s people having pretty, rich 1920s people problems, like being tragically unfaithful or having too much money and not enough problems? No? You might by the end of this book -- but it’ll sound pretty while you’re reading. More engaging than Gatsby, in any case.

14. Jamaica Inn - Daphne du Maurier: Reading a du Maurier novel is always trippy because the tone is like “I’m a plucky heroine and I’ll give them a piece of my mind!” and then the stakes are literally “I’ll bash your head in and strangle you on the moors and you can’t stop me.” Reading this book is like swigging moonshine in a soft, lace- and chintz-covered tea room. Gotta love it.

15. L’éducation sentimentale - Gustave Flaubert : C’est bizarre, car mon beau-frère s’appèle Arnoux aussi, mais c’est une belle histoire qui perd un peu de son élan vers la moitié du roman. Je préfère Madame Bovary quand-même.

16. Wishful Thinking - Carrie Fisher: Who doesn’t love Carrie Fisher?

17. Shogun - James Clavell: Is a white Australian man from the 80s necessarily the best person to write about feudal Japan? Probably not (he was not raised in feudal Japan). But it’s well researched and very good. This unfortunate theme in authors did not continue this year, luckily.

18. Chanson douce - Leïla Slimani : J’adore, j’adore, j’adore. Louise m’a donné des frissons tellement elle faisait peur. Impossible de ne pas se mettre à la place de Miriam; à lire, 100%.

19. A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian - Marina Lewycka: A cute, light read that I stumbled upon in a bookshop (support local businesses, kids! Jeff Bezos will harvest your dreams like one of those shitty vampires from Charmed where they couldn’t afford good special effects!) Some of the writing felt a little more caricatural than anything else, but I liked the main character. Sometimes things can just be fun.

20. L’ombre du vent - Carlos Ruiz Zafón : !!!!!!!!! Le livre de l’année, l’étoile de l’été, un gout de miel qui a laissé des traces sur mon âme. Que d’amour pour ce livre (et ce n’est pas que le champagne qui parle!)

21. L’étincelle - Tahar Ben Jelloun : Etant l’époux d’un Tunisien, je suis plutôt obligé de tout connaître sur le printemps arabe, et j’ai bien aimé ce livre. Par contre, d’après ce fameux époux tunisien (bisous baby!) ce n’est pas forcément la meilleure ressource pour en parler.

22. Barbe bleue - Amélie Nothomb : J’aime bien Amélie Nothomb, mais c’est clairement pas son meilleur. Ça donne envie de boire du champagne, par contre.

23. Les contes de Perrault - Charles Perrault : Ecoutez, je me faisais chier en août, et c’est quand-même pas mal. Merci à Barbe-bleue d’avoir inspiré tous les cauchemars de mon enfance.

24. La princesse Palatine - Christian Bouyer : BOF. Elle aurait été plus intéressante si elle avait eu des vrais problèmes. Profite bien de tes châteaux, betch.

25. Things Fall Apart - Chinua Achebe: For some reason I started this one years ago and didn’t get past the first few pages, but it was totally compelling this time around? It truly is a wonderful (and tragic) story, completely worth a read.

26. Rules of Civility - Amos Towles: Katy is the type of person I wish I was, I would look so good in 30s clothes, I just wish I hated NYC a little less (it’s not your fault, NYC [I mean it is but I at least feel bad about it])

27. A Room of One’s Own - Viriginia Woolf: Quintessential! Still a transcript of a lecture though. Prosecco is amazing!

28. Le horla - Guy de Maupassant : Soyons honnêtes c’est plutôt une nouvelle.

29. Alcools - Guillaume Apollinaire : J’aime pas la poésie, même quand elle est belle. Meh.

30. Consider the Lobster - David Foster Wallace: I’m so tired of this man being the standard for everything. I mean I know I ended up reading this but what the hell. He was just bored. He read a few edgy novels and he was bored. Come on. That being said, this was an enjoyable read.

31. Doctor Zhivago - Boris Pasternak: Ok, to be fair this was a PAIN in the beginning, but by the end I had tears?? In my eyes. That very rarely happens. Love it.

32. Censoring an Iranian Love Story - Shahriar Mandanipour: It would have been better if he was so convinced of what a great writer he was?? What was the point of the weird dead little goblin?? Must we read from countless men every day of our lives?? Must we????

33. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrel - Susanna Clarke: So my Fenian grandmother loved this book, which is why I feel I have no right to go too hard on it, but at the same time if English exceptionalism had a literary form it would be this book (but like that insidious kind of English exceptionalism where it’s all tongue-in-cheek, so if you call them out on it they just mock you for being a rube. I see you, English exceptionalists. You’re only special because you’re on an island)

34. Go Tell It on the Mountain - James Baldwin: Christ I loved this book. Anyone who reads or writes hopes one day to be as lucid as James Baldwin.

35. The Maltese Falcon - Dashiell Hammett: I was left largely unmoved.

36. Alexis - Marguerite Yourcenar : Pendant six mois j’ai cherché ce bouquin, et une fois trouvé il m’a déçu. Alexis est gay, voilà le grand choc.

37. Kafka sur le rivage - Haruki Murakami : Je ne suis toujours pas sûr d’avoir bien compris ce livre ; il faudrait peut-être le relire encore une fois. Mais ça vaut le coup d’être relu encore une fois.

38. Le mec de la tombe d’à côté - Katarina Mazetti : Super cute comme roman!! Inattendu, mais ça a super bien démontré le conflit de cultures même à l’intérieur d’un pays.

39. Brave New World - Aldous Huxley: I should have totally read this in high school, but didn’t. I’d waste your time with a bunch of faux-deep statements about how prescient this was, but I’m about a bottle of prosecco deep and no one really wants that, right?

40. Ninth House - Leigh Bardugo: I am basic for reading this and I am so glad I did; very good stuff, I’m all in, I’m sure UChicago had the same type of shit, love it!!

41. The Alchemist - Paulo Coelho: I read light on Christmas break, ok?

42. Watership Down - Richard Adams: I’m not big on anthropomorphic, animal-based stories, but this really went off? These are some hard-ass rabbits, respect.

43. Sharp Objects - Gillian Flynn: Intense!! Great!! Sharp!!!!!!!!!!

#books 2020 #reading list #franglais #I really love prosecco #Happy New Year!!!!#livres #ce que j'ai lu #bouquins

0 notes