#as opposed to a 'books to read'

[terrainofheartfelt]

If you’re still adding to your 2023 watchlist may I suggest the following: Are You There God It’s Me Margaret, Asteroid City, Maestro, Polite Society, All of Us Strangers, and Passages 🫡

Oh for sure! thank you love!!!!!

[bogkeep]

ok so i think that my favourite fantasy subgenre is The Inherent Tragedy Of Being Born Into Royalty. which mostly means that i like to read about gay princes but with some nuance

[notbecauseofvictories]

I'm re-reading the Discworld series for reasons, and honestly the most relatable part of reading these as an adult is how many of the protagonists start out being tired, used to their little routine and vaguely disgruntled by the interruption of the Plot. Sam Vimes wants to lie drunk in a gutter and absolutely doesn't want to be arresting dragons. Rincewind is yanked into every situation he's ever encountered, though he'd much rather be lying in a gutter too. (Minus the alcohol. Plus regretting everything he's ever done said witnessed or even heard about fourth-hand in his whole life.) Granny Weatherwax is deeply suspicious of foreign parts and that includes the next town over; Nanny has leaned into the armor of "nothing ever happens to jolly grannies who terrorize their daughters-in-law and make Saucy Jokes"

Only the young people don't seem to have picked up on this---and that's fortunate, because someone has to run around making things happen, if only so Vimes and Granny and Rincewind have a reason to get up (complaining bitterly the whole time) and put it all to rights. Without Carrot, Margrat, Eric, etc. these characters don't have that reason; they're likely to stay in the metaphorical gutter and keep wondering where it all went wrong or why anything has to change.

............well, that's not quite true. You get the sense that Vetinari knows how much certain people hate the Plot. And as the person sitting behind the metaphorical lighting board of Ankh-Morpork, he takes no small pleasure in forcing the Plot-haters specifically to stand up, and say some lines.

[kooldewd123]

Tobias had thought the Ellimist would return him to normal. Instead he merely gave Tobias back his morphing powers. But that had not been a lie or trick. Not really. He'd promised to give Tobias what he wanted. He had. It was Rachel who couldn't accept that Tobias had chosen, and still chose, to remain a hawk. - Jake, #26: The Attack

how on earth was the trans allegory not intentional when we get lines like this

[townofcrosshollow]

If somebody actually told me "yeah I read X amount of books a day because I have this app that summarizes them in 10 minutes" I think I would punch them in the face over and over until they were unrecognizable

[drakyns]

I saw that youre writing hiccup+jack but you also claim you want to take a more """historical""" interpretation with your rps? so which one is it?? you have to pick one or the other :/

hello, happy new year! yes, you’re right; i ship and write one of our beloved 2010s dreamworks nostalgic ship hijack with my wonderful best friend and creative soul-mate, @frystsnow. i’ve been having such a fun time! and yes, you’re right again; i am taking a more historical approach and interpretation with my portrayal of hiccup. but no, you’re wrong; i don’t have to choose one or another. my hiccup (håkan) has a more historical take and is queer (demiromantic and bisexual). one does not interfere with another whatsoever.

first of all, thank you for your question! though i don’t know if it stems from genuine ignorance or a hint of homophobia or hypernationalism. either way, i want to extend the benefit of the doubt and commend you for taking the time and energy to send in your inquiry, even as an anon. as someone who specialises in medieval queerness in my current master’s degree and as a licensed history teacher, it’s incredibly heartwarming to see people questioning things (even when it comes to literal fictional ships). i shall not, therefore, take your question as an attempt at an insult. instead, i will respond to you as i would to one of my students and/or the public at a conference. please let me know if you’d like any clarifications, and i’d be more than happy to oblige. should you need such access, i’m excited to send you pdfs of the following scientific articles, too.

i am assuming, by the tone and content of your comment, that you take vikings to be these white-centric, heteronormative, misogynistic and savage-like people, correct? the good old supreme white and straight men propaganda. they were barbarians, blindly bloodthirsty, and god knows how virile they were! they wanted to conquer the world, behead their enemies, muscles and brawl everywhere, grrrrr grrrr! etc etc. the whole spiel of supreme predators/conquerors. this mythical belief has roots in the hyper-nationalism and romanticism ingrained in 18th century northern europe: to prove themselves as worthy, old societies, germany, sweden, denmark, england, scotland and many others utilised their ties with these old tribes and reshaped (rewrote) narratives to fit into their then-current ideals of power, masculinity and politics. an excellent book on historical representation and its rewritings across geographies and due to political influences was written by f. r. ankersmit and a 38-page preview can be found at this link.

it isn’t far off to claim, then, that the use of symbols, narratives and imagery from old norse cultures have been continuously used to represent politics of hate in various countries with the rise of patriotism and alt-right extremism. just look at how john toll’s braveheart (1995) is a hymn to white supremacists in the usa or how european incels love robert zemeckis’ beowulf (2007). i highly recommend reading verena höfig’s article about old norse myths being used as tools for radical nationalist groups and andrew b. r. elliott’s book on medievalism, politics and mass media. “viking men are straight, hyper-masculine and obey this white fantasy of pure dominance.” this way of thinking, shouted and supported by reactionaries, reinforces whiteness, androcentricity, and authoritarianism. medieval scandinavian societies were highly intelligent: being a viking was a profession, not an identity in itself. diplomacy was important for commerce and cultural trade. battle-crazed lunatics were frowned upon, if not straight up removed from tribal settings, as they represented danger to the whole society. a conscious and perfected balance of violence, peace-keeping, trade, conscious pillaging and sea-voyaging made vikings who they were. how else do you think that they kept in contact with asian and african societies? even indigenous ones in americas, too! they were not interested in expanding and conquering more than they could keep and they valued communal efforts. so when contemporary media (tv, books, comics, games) represent our oh-so-beloved macho vikings as being queer or even not all that violent or intolerant, people tend to frown upon such a notion, thinking they’re ludicrous. this, as i’ve continuously expressed up until now, is political propaganda—an old, outdated and incorrect one.

you might here be thinking: “okay balu, i get it, vikings weren’t all that masculine, nor that savage, nor anything, but were there really queer vikings?” and the answer to that is: YES! first of all, queer people didn’t suddenly sprout from the ground all of a sudden. we’ve always existed from the very beginning of times—queerness is humanity itself. have you ever wondered why loki, a literal mythological norse god, is genderfluid and pansexual? he’s also described as one of the oldest of the bunch, alongside odin himself. if a deity exists in mythology, it’s because they represent societal beliefs and practices. or do you think people made up whatever they thought was cool, and everyone just agreed on their ideas, canonising said things in their literal tribal history just because, hey, it sounds neat? it’s more logical to deduce that, since loki existed, people like him existed, too, no? and not only loki—jess nevins has a superb paper on how most of the old norse pantheon are queer gods and goddesses, from gender to sexuality (it’s the first one of the list, though the others are super interesting, too). contemporary religious practitioners of heathenism and ásatrú also heavily embrace and welcome these queer readings. this is further endorsed by critical analysis of old poems such as the poetic edda, lokasenna and others, which contain concepts such as hvatr and blauðr, which are used interchangeably between men and women and their partners, not to refer to their binary genders per se, but about their role as either more submissive or dominating in a relationship.

if you need more “concrete” evidence other than theological, linguistics and culture studies, do not fret—archaeologists and anthropologists also agree that the “viking” (read: medieval pre-christian scandinavian) societies were more queer than most people think. for example, marianne moen studied graves in norway and, with the little samples she had, she concluded something fascinating: the biological sex of individuals (read by the use of double x chromosomes detections or the absence thereof) did not always correlate with their masculine/feminine social roles, i.e by their clothes and materials they were buried! a woman could be dressed highly masculine, and a man completely feminine. unlike our modern societies (that claim to be o so progressive and freeing), they were not bound by fixed societal norms. they were fluid. moen’s study is also a further contribution to hedenstierna‐jonson’s research team findings: in 2017, they found the body of an elite viking-age warrior in sweden, which many historians and anthropologists hyped. at first, they thought the individual was sexed male due to the “maleness” of the objects found in the grave site. however, upon further investigation, they were biologically sexed female (two x chromosomes, bone structures, as well as ritualistic objects for young womanhood). a lot of people wanted to contest such a finding because the belief that women can be powerful rulers and warriors just like men are is something detested by traditionalists, as we all know. however, what was more interesting is that said warrior individual seemed to socially fluctuate between masculine and feminine roles throughout their life (being accepted and honoured by their tribe, by the way), and had a partner that also fluctuated between masculinity and femininity. they were, therefore, both queer in gender and sexuality. as well, ever since the start of the 2000s, studies have shown that queer expressions of sexuality and gender can be found being supported by religious practices and objects—a book called “queering norway”, edited by pal bjorby and anka ryall is fairly popular on that front. it has the contribution of many historians, anthropologists and more on old norse traditions.

lastly, in case you wonder if we can read dreamwork’s “how to train your dragon”’s characters as being queer, the answer is, of course, yes. i will not enter into art studies discussions or literature queerness appropriation theories because otherwise this post would be much longer than it already is, but i will say these points: hiccup is literally described, from the first movie alone, as not being like the other kids. this could be read as him being autistic, as him having adhd, as him being queer. as well, the presence of monsters (especially dragons) in media tends to represent queerness/clash with heteronormative ideals (i recommend checking out jeffrey cohen’s seven theses chapter). it’s a queer series by its very theoretical premises and execution.

[nostalgia-tblr]

there's something incredibly revealing about fandom's assigning of alternate jobs in AUs and how rarely this leads to Blue Collar Loki as opposed to Blue Collar Thor.

[greenerteacups]

Hi GT,

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I absolutely love the recs you've given (you've introduced me to tomione, and I love it!) and I was wondering if it's possible to give you some recs in return? There are some books and fics that definitely have dramione / got vibes, and I was wondering if I could share them with you!

So glad you've enjoyed them! Feel free to rec me anything you want. I've read most of the classic recs in terms of fic and adjacent content (Cruel Prince et al), but I'll try anything that's well-written. My tastes run towards weird and/or audaciously creative stuff, and I can forgive a lot of weaknesses in plot on the grounds of (1) ambition or (2) character work. My turnoffs are instalove, protagonists who can't fail, and most Y/A (I'm not a hater, I swear, I just need characters who can say "fuck" when their leg gets chopped off.)

I'm also a fan of weird and fucked-up dynamics.(Wuthering Heights was my favorite book for a while, and as a teenager I wrote an AU in which the book ends on a long sex scene where Heathcliff fucks Cathy's ghost and then immediately gets murdered by Catherine 2.) Obviously, I am very normal.

[platoapproved]

[organised-disaster]

I BOUGHT THE BOOK!!!

[homosexualslug]

this poll will end after the episode airs and for all I know could already be answered by the show by then, but just in case. I gotta know what the general public of iwtv fans think.

[lala-blahblah]

I will never make this because it would be for an audience of one (me) but ever since reading "If we Were Villains" (story about serious drama kids in college who perform shakespeare and deal with a murder) I have been entertaining the thought of a crack fic crossover with High School Musical The Musical The Series where the staff decides they will no longer put on shakespeare after the tragic accident that happened at Thanksgiving, because Shakespeare plays would only increase the tension and drama. So they hire Ms. Jen who decides their spring play will actually be High School Musical (which exists in the 90s in this universe) and it ruins the vibe so much that everyone gives up on being dark and mysterious because they're universally pissed at Ms Jen for making them learn choreoraphed basketball dancing.

[daisywords]

finally got around to reading Mexican Gothic. It had me hooked and actually followed through (the buildup was good but I was worried the ending/revelation was going to fall flat. it held up though.) Anyway my take is that it felt like if a really good movie was a book. Like the story operated more on movie logic than book logic if that makes any sense. (not a criticism, just an observation.) Overall well done and well paced. Predictable enough to be coherent but mysterious enough to be compelling. There were a couple of elements that seemed a little clumsy to me, but forgivable in service of the whole. Would recommend if you want to read a book that feels like watching Crimson Peak or something

[thesweetnessofspring]

What are some prominent book-to-movie changes made in TBOSAS, especially ones that fans don't like?

[prettyboysdontlookatexplosions]

a lot of people carry around an assumption that a work of art which is “good” in certain ways is going to be received pleasurably (i’m using an extremely broad definition of pleasure here that encompasses things like art-induced moral discomfort or sadness don’t @ me) by, like, people at large. this comes up in two different areas of interest for me: on the one hand, People Having Takes On The Internet; on the other hand, discussions about pedagogy, particularly around writing. i have, i mean, a lot of different thoughts about this - still marveling over the interview with a book critic and harvard philosophy doctoral student i read where she casually espoused the belief that if people were simply taught better what makes art good they would like bad art less, which continues to strike me as one of the stupidest things i’ve ever seen a person i temporarily had a positive opinion of say - but like in pedagogical considerations for example something i had started to wonder about when i left the classroom was like… our writing instruction relied a lot on modeling. like, “notice how this published author does this thing; see how i try to do it also; now you try.” and i think that an unarticulated/unrecognized problem in that sort of modeling is that it kind of assumes the student finds pleasure in say a thorough visual description - that the student agrees “yes this part of what makes the book good.” (an adult can probably choose to learn craft lessons from a book they dislike - but i think that’s a tall order for a seven year old.) but not all of them do, and i picked description specifically because it’s something plenty of adult readers dislike as well - “too much description” is a common goodreads complaint! to me this is viscerally sort of insane because what are you even reading for then? but the answer is that they’re reading for different reasons than i am and i’ve never heard an argument i found compelling in favor of the idea that there are objectively better or worse things to seek from art (an area of life that quite literally doesn’t matter, which is precisely what gives it meaning, IMO). and also a surprising number of people very deep into art generally or of a particular kind seem ignorant of or opposed to the idea that, for example, someone who cares about a medium as an art form is probably going to have different criteria than a person who doesn’t care and just sometimes wants to go to the movies or see a book, and this is actually normal and not a problem to be solved. which i find strange. no real conclusion here except maybe an argument for spending more writing time in elementary school on things like learning what a complete sentence is and how to write one, which is a skill that will prove valuable regardless of personal tastes.

[johaerys-writes]

Can I ask you about the scene with Priam?

Before this Achilles is not “sleeping,” bathing, eating, or drinking as part of his mourning process. We see him holding Patroclus’ body, a no-no as the body is “unclean.” (Also, he shaves his head, rolls in dirt, passes out in dirt, etc.) I have seen some takes about how this is part of Achilles’ mourning process for both Pat and himself and how this is him sort of losing the rest of his humanity. Then just-just prior to the Priam scene, Thetis goes to Achilles to tell him to give Priam Hector’s body. Achilles just gives in without any resistance. This is around line 130. She’s like, ‘baby you got to move on from this. Go have something to eat and fuck a woman’ (some of the phrasing here is curious, but it’s not exactly the focus of my question). I always thought this quick acceptance to see Priam was a sign of his deep depression and resignation to his fate.

But then in the scene with Priam he plays proper host. He’s eating and drinking. Then he (debatable imo) goes off to fuck Briseis. It’s like he is literally doing what his mother told him to do. So why the switch from rejecting human customs and needs to engaging in “normal” behavior? As you mentioned, these old stories function differently and don’t exactly have characters arcs with lessons learned. So like wtf is going on? What are we supposed to do with this information?

No disrespect here, but sometimes I think these reversal scenes (which happen multiple times) are just one of Homer’s co-authors/editors going off and doing their own thing and there’s really no hidden meaning at all.

Okay so first of all, I think the notion of Homer's "editors" tampering with the text is a fairly popular one in some circles, I have heard a few different versions of it and I'm not sure I agree or disagree. Most classicists whose work I've read so far, and who work predominantly with Homer, tend to take the Iliad and Odyssey at face value and to automatically assume that the works are the way Homer/whoever wrote them intended them to be. And this is the way I myself engage with the Homeric works, because I think once you go "oh that part here is nonsense, it has probably been changed by those nebulous editors" then you're so much more likely to pick and choose what you like and draw your own conclusions and I don’t think that's fair to the work and the extensive body of work dealing with that work. Ykwim? So let's just say that the Iliad as a whole, and the part you highlighted in particular, are in the fact the way the original epic is meant to be.

The last few books of the Iliad, in my opinion, are the breakdown of Achilles' character. In the beginning, despite his anger and resentment towards Agamemnon, we still see him put together and civil with everyone during the embassy scene, and then again when he speaks with Patroclus, arms him and sends him forth to fight. Then, after Patroclus dies, he loses the plot and goes on his rampage, where his grace, respect and courtesy even towards his enemies fly right out the window. Even after he kills Hector and drags him around, he finds no peace. He refuses to eat, drink or bathe and still yearns and cries for Patroclus. But then, after he sees Patroclus' shade at the beach, is where the second most important change comes about if you ask me; this is when Achilles seems to wholeheartedly accept his death. We have Patroclus' funeral, then the funeral games, where Achilles seems to once again find his nobility and grace, as well as showcase how adept he is at diplomacy and handling the other warchiefs' pettiness and arrogance. Even with Agamemnon he is generous and polite, not exhibiting any resentment towards him.

But there's something different about that scene compared to all the others imo: there is not much of the energy, fire and determination we would see earlier, even when he was grieving. He gives away so much of his treasure too; my friend Baejax and I have often talked about this scene and how it feels like Achilles is giving away his wealth because he has no need for it, since he'll be dying soon anyway. This is a man that has fully accepted that hard behind glory rides death, and that it will be coming swiftly for him.

And this is how I've always seen the meeting with Priam, tbh. For me personally, that scene has always been about grief, mortality and the cost of glory (which is the most important commodity in the Iliad universe) and a meditation on the suffering which unites mankind. Achilles talks about his homeland and the father he has left behind whom he will never again see, about the pain he has caused Priam and his people, about the gods and the ultimate lack of choice that humans have. Men must suffer, he says, and must make others suffer in a world without justice.

So for me it isn’t so much Achilles embracing again the human customs he had rejected, but instead fully acknowledging the reality of his position and resigning himself to it. I don't think that Achilles "plays" the host, so much as he extends his hospitality to Priam (which, again, very important ideal in the Iliad, it's where the Trojan war started in a way. With Paris violating the Achaean's hospitality and stealing Helen), acknowledges Priam's suffering, and acknowledges how instrumental he has been in said suffering. In that scene, killer and victim become one, and with the insight into each other’s condition comes compassion. And I think that's a powerful statement, and perhaps the most enduring in the Iliad. Soon after that, the Trojans bury Hector, which foreshadows and mirrors' Achilles' funeral as well. This "double funeral" completes the Iliad, and its overarching tragedy.

Now. The thing is that Achilles is a really divisive personality to begin with, and the scene with Priam even more so. He isn’t easy to categorise or analyse, and depending on the lens through which one sees his actions and behaviours, the interpretation could change greatly. Rachel Bespaloff in her commentary On the Iliad (which I absolutely loathe and want to tear in little pieces and burn LOL) says that "to rid himself of troublesome responsibility Achilles ducks behind fatality" during the Priam scene, and that his words to the old king are "scandalous behaviour". If you ask me, this take completely ignores Achilles' own suffering and rejects his role in the Iliad as the idealistic, honourable and rigid in his honour and beliefs young hero who almost completely loses his humanity BECAUSE of the ugliness and pettiness of war, because of that suffering, because of his own grief, because of injustice, because of bad leadership, because violence simply begets violence. And it also completely ignores the larger and overarching idea in the Iliad that death and glory, suffering and good fortune go hand in hand. And that this doesn't only apply to good and noble Priam and Hector, but also (you guessed it) to Achilles, in this final scene which is a moment of shared humanity between "enemies" and one of the most poignant in the epic.

Anyway. To conclude this tangent, no, I do not believe that Achilles simply does what his momma tells him to do, nor does he wine and dine Priam for the hell of it. I believe that this is the most depressed, resigned and desolate we see Achilles in the entire poem, a man simply awaiting his death with nothing really to look forward to in life, but who still retains his humanity and treats the people around him with the dignity and respect they deserve.

I hope this answered your question!