#do i tag this as shakespeare now????

[a-dux]

I love how much Fitz withholds information (mostly about the Fool lol). I'm not even talking about the tent scene, I'm thinking about times where immediately I've been like "wow I'm so curious to see what Fitz thinks about this!"

1. The kiss in Assassin's Quest. He just mentions he's surprised and that's IT. Fitz voice wow sure wasn't expecting that anyways will not be elaborating (insane that this is in the same book that we get like extremely detailed travel prep details and a bunch of stuff like that but Fitz REFUSES to describe an emotion)

2. He never says how he feels about the GIANT ALIVE (????? I've not read Rainwilds idk how liveships work too well) WOOD CARVING OF HIM??? He only talks about how he wished the Fool had asked him (fair) but he never actually says anything else direct about it. I waited multiple paragraphs or even pages for that info and we just never get it

3. It makes sense that the kiss in Fool's Fate is really not a priority in the scene, but I still think about how Fitz describes kissing the homie so easily. Okay man.

[batsycline69]

I'm trying to figure out how to formulate my thoughts on this but Jane Austin is great, I'm sure as you said Jason would like her works but he was originally a Shakespeare kid and I do think it follows him as a character thematically. The comic where he holds his helmet the same way hamlet holds Yorick's skull has always stuck with me. (1/?)

continued:

And as much as I love Jane Austin's works and romances its never struck me as how I personally perceived Jason's way of expression (everyone is entitled to their interpretations however). I think the type of tension, devotion and tragic undertones of Shakespeare fit Jason very well. But back to what you were actually saying, I think you nailed it with Jane Austen and Bruce. (2/3)

As you said I the repression specifically suits him So well. Its one of Bruce's core characteristics to me. And again the traits you pointed out just suit him so well. I think part of it that works so well for me is that I think on a level it hurts Bruce to love like that (after such loss) and I think that is something that Austen writes very well. If any of this makes sense I'm not great at being articulate dshbjdsk. (3/3)

ALRIGHT GANG BUCKLE UP HERE WE GO

So okay. Original post was all about how Bruce is kind of fits the build of an Austonian character; there's a lot of reservation and control. There are themes of the roles one is expected to play. Themes of society and influence and all of that.

Jason is defined by his passion and how incredibly thought out his plans are. And that's not to say that Bruce isn't passionate, nor is it to say Jason doesn't have control or hasn't played into certain roles or expectations, because that's the thing. Bruce and Jason are so similar in some ways, yet incredibly different in the ways that the other one values the most.

I LOVE that you brought up the panel from The Lost Days because GOD what a panel. I had to dig in my Jason tag because I HAD to add it in (spoiler alert: it took a long time; turns out I post about that guy a lot).

And yeah, let's talk about Hamlet. Because god. GOD. All events in Hamlet take place because his father's ghost asks him to AVENGE HIM. Hamlet DIES because he wants to avenge the king, his father!!!

You referenced the Lost Days panel (and GOD WHAT A PANEL. I've got it just down a little bit for anyone who hasn't seen it), so we've gotta go over the Yorick speech:

...a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times--and now how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rises at    it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one now, to mock your own grinning? Quite chop-fallen?

(for anyone who has not spent several hours a week in Shakespeare lectures, the gist of this is 'aw man, he used to be so funny and now I'm disgusted by him')

LIKE.

Yorick was THE KING'S CLOWN. In this context, looking exclusively at the speech, this can so easily be about Jaybin! He was a kid and full of life and loved learning and laughing. And now anything that reminds him of that time makes him feel disgusted with himself. And that manifests as his resentment towards Bruce.

EXCEPT. When you look at the panel that's so clearly referencing the scene with Hamlet and Yorick's skull, Jason has assigned himself as the role of the clown; he is going to always be a tragedy of his own making. It's foreshadowing for Jason's continuing need for Bruce's approval, for him wanting something that Bruce is incapable of giving him in the way he wants.

And like. When I first made the addition, I was thinking really in terms of tone. The context most of us have for Shakespeare (sitting in a classroom reading out loud) is NOT how the plays were meant to be enjoyed. Even in the tragedies, there are dirty jokes; there's very clever wordplay, and a lot of that is lost when you just toss a book onto a high school kid's desk and tell them to read out loud (but that's an entirely different post).

Point being, literacy was very low around 1602 when Hamlet was published. A play was going to be the most accessible form of entertainment. By design, uneducated people were meant to enjoy these plays. And then we think of Austen being published works, and how there's an inherent barrier between the two. In order to enjoy Austen, someone would have to be literate. You see what I'm getting at here? I'm not saying Jason's own personal training adventures are something just anyone could have done (shout out to Talia), but coming into his Robin-hood (pun intended) was. Jason was literally taken off the streets to become Robin, whereas Bruce used his financial resources to build himself up to being Batman.

So I guess back to the thesis of Jason fitting Shakespearean themes vs. Bruce fitting Austonian themes. There's so much blood in Shakespeare. There's ruthless plotting. Shakespeare's characters are willing to do what they have to to achieve their goal. And it's sort of comparing apples and oranges in terms of Red Hood vs. Batman. And that's kind of the point, right? Batman isn't going to kill Claudius; he's going to very quietly make sure Mr. Wickham doesn't yet again abandon a young woman. Like, no, Batman isn't going to kill anyone because that's just not the role he plays. That doesn't fit into his story.

And that is not Jason. The whole ordeal of putting on a play to get the new King to confess to the murder of the old king? That's absolutely the sort of psychological bullshit Jason would do. That is a statement. He is quite literally putting on a show, and is that not what all of Under the Red Hood is? Jason making statements, blowing things up, just to get Bruce's attention?

anyway thank you very much for this ask i am vibrating with excitement over this. i broke out my shakespeare anthology and everything

[odakota-rose]

leaving this on my tumblr where i can actually find it bc i posted it on twitter last week and it's already evaporated into the void lmao

[rg11]

whats your fav aspect(s) of jadekat?

anon im sorry but i had like 40+ notes prepaired for my thoughts on jadekat but i lost all of them proof-reading it and this is all i got

they are the ultimate yuri to me

[spizgany-lipejs]

For some it might be just a red t-shirt but for me this is peak 00s european gay club fashion and you can't take it away from me.

[astronomicalunit32]

In my motivic analysis phase. When did we decide to stop listening to the hamilton soundtrack.

[cytryndor]

Also, today I began watching two new TV shows, Sister Boniface Mysteries, which is a spinoff to Father Brown and I can tell you I am utterly in love, and Beyond Paradise, which is a spinoff to Death in Paradise that's focused on my favorite Humphrey Goodman, and I also love it my god I'm so happy my shows are successful and having multiple season imma cry

[consult-sherlockholmes]

Do you want to kill yourself?

What the hell kind of question is that? Are you asking because I said "to be, or not to be, that is the question"? Just for your information, that is a Shakespeare quote from Hamlet, not some kind of edgy depressed catchphrase. Now I can't even quote Shakespeare anymore without people assuming whatever, and no one gets my reference. The educational system is doomed when people don't even recognise the most famous Shakespeare quote. Go read something instead of making idiotic assumptions.

[mishkakagehishka]

Idc anymore i think i'm a good enough writer that i can say that when i noticed the pattern in what exactly makes a book "good" on booktok (and, bc of that, what makes it popular and top bestseller lists), it feels almost demeaning and denigrating to the entire craft. Idk if i should blame the way tiktok-esque social media has utterly rotted everyone's ability to concentrate and read more than three sentences, but literally none of those books are objectively good.

(Yes, yes, art is subjective. HOWEVER. Art is subjective when you look at style, at themes, at motifs, at plots and characters. Art is still a craft, it still requires skill. I've seen beyond the tiktok quotes of these books. Not even their editors are good given the amount of typos/spelling mistakes. That is not something that you should find in a traditionally published book.)

You look at these books, and you know the only reason for their existence is to make money. I cannot and will not accept that as art.

(I'm on Tumblr, of course I have to explain every point. Artists who make money off their art =/= people who only create art meant to be profitable. There is a difference between an artist who hopes to monetise doing what they love, who creates what they wish to see more of and who happens to then create something that other people wish to see more of, and a person who looks at what's trending and decides that making an unholy frankenstein's monster of a book that mashes all those trending tropes and motifs together would get them rich quick. The fact that a lot of these booktok books become popular because of nepotism is just the cherry on top. It's soulless.)

And to finally say what I wanted to say, it's because none of these books have any deeper message or even artistic value to them. You will find a few out of context quotes or paragraphs, ones written specifically so they'd look deep and beautiful when taken out of context, so that people would post them, so that people would buy the books. Entire books written just so those few lines could become viral and make cash. It cannot even be compared to a hook line writers would post to get people interested in their works, because in booktok's case, those are the only lines of quality and in the context itself, they are often out of place and forced.

I just hate booktok, i hate what modern social media has done to art. It's all created to be quickly consumed, for the few ☆aesthetic☆ glances, and then discarded. Just to make more money for those who are already nepo babies. As if artists needed more obstacles to jump over.

[americanrecord]

i think i might end up needing like one more beta reader ... if anybody is interested ...message meeee or reply to this or secret third option idk

[galacticlamps]

'to thine own self be true (and thou canst not then be false to any man)' Polonius tells his son Laertes in Act 1 - and it's so trite a saying that we quote it on everything from greeting cards to jewelry and almost laugh to stumble upon it in its original context

and then Laertes goes and spends the rest of the play - and let's face it, what little of it came before that as well - playing the foil to its tragic hero until it kills them both in Act 5 (and through the means of his own deception too)

[duckyfann9871]

After a long day this was nice to read :’) love my fictional boyfriends

[ivorypool]

Andrew Davies, Othello (2001) // Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Manon, Ballerina // Richard Siken, The Torn-Up Road // Sue Zhao, I Still Loved You // Nerdy Girl, Hate Me // sadoeuphemist, The Scorpion and the Frog // Madeline Miller, Song of Achilles // The Mountain Goats, How to Love a Swamp Creature // New Order, Bizarre Love Triangle // Jane Heller Levi, Waiting for this Story to End Before I Begin Another // Lavalove, Luck in Love // Sea Ghosts, Cowboy Hat // Aka Akasaka, Kaguya-sama Love is War Ch 231

[chiropteracupola]

*quotes bisclavret or something*

[brigdh]

I was talking with some people about a role-reversal AU, where Stede is the famous vicious pirate legend, and that is all well and good and fun to think about, but I was having trouble conceiving of Ed’s life in this world. Because what would he choose, if not piracy (I mean, if piracy is an option, not like in a modern AU)? I couldn’t think of anything that felt right.

One of the people I was talking to suggested that, well, he’s charismatic, he’s good at playing a part, maybe he runs away from home to join a traveling theater troupe who performs Shakespeare for Caribbean nobility. And years later, after he’s become disenchanted with this life, there just so happens to be a famous pirate who wants a performance of Titus Andronicus on his ship....

I LOVE THIS IDEA. I love it so much. Let me copy-and-paste my thoughts on it, because I really want someone to write the 100k words it deserves but I don’t want to do it myself:

This would be FASCINATING! Because yes, evil pirate king-Stede would totally still want Shakespeare performances on his ship. But this Ed – he would have gotten to be around fancy things and rich people plenty. He wears gorgeous clothes (as costumes), he gets invited to upper class parties (as entertainment), people send him gifts of marmalade and pearls (as payment), maybe he even has the occasional affair with a bored noblewoman – but none of it's really for him, is it? It's all hollow, just part of the performance, and if he ever deviated or acted different, they'd turn on him and he'd be nothing again. It'd be such an interesting reversal of what parts of himself Ed shows too, because a famous actor would probably be expected to be a little bit effeminate, prone to flights of imagination and silly games, unsurprising if he lazes around in dressing gowns and mopes in blanket forts and sings bad songs. But never legitimately angry, never smarter than his audience, and especially never, ever, ever considering violence against the people who use him. And Titus Andronicus specifically! <3 It's perfect! Because who does Ed normally play? Titus, as the lead? Lucius, as the handsome hero who comes in at the end to restore justice? I know it's way too late to have male actors doing female roles, but you could also do such interesting things with this Ed as Lavinia (used, voiceless) or Tamora (the outsider who assimilates until her own desires betray her)? But! This Ed, specifically, as Aaron! (Who I love, love, love.) "Let fools do good, and fair men call for grace, / Aaron will have his soul black like his face." It could be such a moment.

[britneyshakespeare]

A few weeks ago at Savers I bought secondhand Signet Classics editions of Henry IV, Part I and Henry V.

I own all of Shakespeare's plays in my 1972 Riverside Shakespeare that I inherited from my aunt who used it as a text in college for her Shakespeare class; I've had that for five years. I usually read Shakespeare plays in there but since it's a big ass tome it has its drawbacks, and also sometimes I'm just curious about the supplementary material that come in other editions of Shakespeare. Last year I read The Winter's Tale from Modern Library Classics (made in collaboration with the Royal Shakespeare Company) and I really loved their presentation of the text, so I wanted to branch out more to other editions as I continue on reading the plays. They were only 2 bucks each so like, fuck it why not, right?

It was also kind of a perfect coincidence because I had just finished reading Richard II, the first play in the Henriad tetralogy, so the next play I was going to read was gonna be 1 Henry IV anyway. And then I could read part two in the Riverside, and then Signet Henry V which concludes that historical series. Kind of serendipitous too because my Savers has heavily, heavily downsized its book section (the selection is just pitiful now) and these were two of the only plays they had at all, let alone by Shakespeare.

I finished the book I was reading that I was waiting on before starting 1 Henry IV, and until now I hadn't even really opened the new Signets. But the first thing I noticed when I flipped to the script was that there was writing; someone had annotated the pages. That's cool; I like finding that in secondhand books. I feel connected to the previous owners that way. That happens a lot w Savers books too. So then I opened Henry V, to see if it might have something. There's not much writing on the pages themselves from my brief skim but there is one small pink sticky note, with not much writing on it but just enough to the point where I think I can identify it belonged to, and must've been donated by, the same person who annotated 1 Henry IV.

But I do find it odd then, that 2 Henry IV wasn't there. I *doubt* someone would've bought that separately from part one or that the owner would've kept that, but donated its prequel and sequel. I guess I don't know for certain, but it seems unlikely. Oh well, I won't be able to verify that.

Idk. It makes me just wonder about the secondhand book market. I know most used booksellers don't rely solely on donations directly from their communities; there are tons of ways that people in the business buy up lots of used books. But I'm not in the business and I don't know about the logistics of how things are separated and organized, and why some things end up where.

Where is Henriad Donor's copy of Henry IV, Part II??? Who is this enigmatic Henriad Donor??? How did their books end up separated in a Greater Boston Savers???

I don't know.